The Prevalence and Consequences

of Distributed Work in Europe

IS1202 Training School on Virtual Work , 16–20 September, University of Malta

Satu Ojala & Pasi Pyöriä

Spatial Dispersion of Work - SPACE

0 The Aim of the Project:• To analyze the prevalence and consequences of mobile work

arrangements, e.g. working at home• Funded by the Academy Finland (2010–2013)

0 The data:• Statistics (European Working Conditions Survey EWCS and

representative stats from Finland: Finnish Quality of Working Life Survey & Use of Time Survey)

• Case study material (20 interviews collected from two Finnish public sector organizations)

Distributed Work – An Alternative to Working at the Traditional Office

• Satellite & neighborhood work centers• Flexible work arrangements (e.g. flexi-time) • Generic offices (hoteling)• Telework (usually home) and mobile work (vehicles, customers’

premises, cafes etc.)

0 25 % of European employees and entrepreneurs are “e-nomads”, working sometimes on the road, at their homes or at customers’ premises, using information technology. In Finland, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands the proportion of e-nomads is over 40 %. (Eurofound 2012).

The Main Dimensions of Telework

1.Time2.Space3.Technology4. Agreement

European Framework Agreement on Telework:

Telework is a form of organizing and / or performing work, using information technology, in the context of an employment contract / relationship, where work, which could also be performed at the employer’s premises, is carried out away from those premises on a regular basis.

European Working Conditions Survey 2010

0 44 countries0 At about 1000 respondents per country0 90–95 % employees0 5–10 % self-employed / entrepreneurs per country0 Collected by the European Foundation for the Improvement of

Living and Working Conditions, www.eurofound.europa.eu

0 Our selection of respondents:0 27 countries: EU + Norway0 All employed wage-earners0 Small entrepreneurs: all self-employed without employees + self-

employed with 1–3 employees

European Working Conditions Survey 2010

0 Measures for distributed work:1. Where is your main place of work?

1. My employers / My own business premises2. Clients’ premises3. A car or another vehicle4. An outside site5. My own home6. Other

2. Have you worked in any other location in the past 3 months1.-6. Equal alternatives respondent can choose several locations

HIGHLY EDUCATED

EMPLOYEES

MAIN PLACE OF WORK

OTHER THAN EMPLOYERS’

PREMISES

SpainMalta

NetherlandsLatvia

BulgariaNorway

LithuaniaFranceEstoniaGreece

BelgiumIreland

RomaniaUnited Kingdom

GermanyAustria

DenmarkPoland

SwedenFinland

ItalyLuxembourg

CyprusCzech Republic

PortugalSloveniaHungarySlovakia

Total: EU+NO

2,00

isce

d 4-

6 H

igh

-5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Clients premises Vehicle Outside Own home Other

LESS EDUCATED

EMPLOYEES

MAIN PLACE OF WORK

OTHER THAN EMPLOYERS’

PREMISES

Greece

Romania

France

Belgium

Estonia

Slovakia

Netherlands

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

Cyprus

Poland

Slovenia

Malta

Isce

d 0

-3 B

asic

/In

term

edia

te

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Clients premises Vehicle Outside Own home Other

HIGHLY EDUCATED

SMALL ENTRE-

PRENEURS

MAIN PLACE OF WORK

OTHER THAN OWN

BUSINESS PREMISES

United KingdomLatvia

EstoniaSlovakia

NetherlandsRomania

IrelandItaly

DenmarkFinland

MaltaPortugalSweden

Czech RepublicHungary

LithuaniaAustriaPolandFrance

NorwaySloveniaBelgium

GermanySpain

LuxembourgBulgaria

GreeceCyprus

Total: EU+NO

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Clients premises Vehicle Outside Home Other

LESS EDUCATED

SMALL ENTRE-

PRENEURS

MAIN PLACE OF WORK

OTHER THAN OWN

BUSINESS PREMISES

RomaniaUnited Kingdom

LatviaPoland

LithuaniaPortugal

CyprusBulgaria

EstoniaIrelandFinland

DenmarkAustria

HungarySwedenSlovakia

MaltaGreece

NorwaySpain

BelgiumCzech Republic

GermanyNetherlands

ItalySlovenia

FranceLuxembourgTotal: EU+NO

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Clients premises Vehicle Outside Home Other

HIGHLY EDUCATED

EMPLOYEES

AMOUNT OF SECONDARY PLACES IN WORK IN 3 MONTHS

Finland

Sweden

Slovenia

Luxembourg

Czech Republic

Norway

Estonia

Slovakia

Greece

Latvia

Poland

Hungary

Lithuania

Italy

Ed

ucat

ion

: Isc

ed 4

-6: H

igh,

Sec

ond

aryL

ocat

ion

s in

3 m

onth

s

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0 1 2 to 6 secondary locations

LESS EDUCATED

EMPLOYEES

AMOUNT OF SECONDARY PLACES IN WORK IN 3 MONTHS

DenmarkFinlandSwedenAustria

GermanyPortugalSloveniaSlovakiaEstoniaFranceCyprus

Czech RepublicLatvia

NetherlandsBelgium

GreeceNorway

LuxembourgLithuania

IrelandRomania

ItalySpainMalta

United KingdomPoland

HungaryBulgaria

Total: EU+NO

Educ

atio

n: Is

ced

0-3

Bas

ic/I

nter

med

iate

: Sec

onda

ryLo

catio

ns in

3 m

onth

s

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0 1 2 to 6 secondary locations

SMALL ENTRE-

PRENEURS (ALL

EDUCATIONAL LEVELS DUE TO

LOW FREQUENCIES)

AMOUNT OF SECONDARY PLACES IN WORK IN 3 MONTHS

DenmarkGermanySloveniaSweden

NetherlandsFinlandEstoniaAustria

SlovakiaFrance

Czech RepublicRomania

LuxembourgIreland

BelgiumUnited Kingdom

HungaryPoland

PortugalNorway

LatviaLithuania

CyprusItaly

MaltaGreece

SpainBulgaria

Total: EU+NO

Smal

l ent

repr

eneu

r (a

ll ed

ucat

ion

leve

ls)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0 1 2 to 6 secondary locations in 3 months

When does this work take place?

0 Finnish Use of Time Survey 2010 by Statistics Finland0 Time diaries:

0 10 minute-episodes throughout 24 hours0 2 days / each respondent0 Contains details on:

0 What is the respondent doing 0 Both mainly & secondarily

0 With whom0 Where is she/he

0 Next: when and where do employees and small entrepreneurs work in a work day?0 Work days with a minimum of 10 minutes work per that day

All employees, a regular weekday(% of employees working at a certain 10-minute

episode)

4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- 21- 22- 23- 00- 01- 02- 03-0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Work at home

Work at other loca-tions

Work at private ve-hicle

Work at a vehicle (public transport)

4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- 21- 22- 23- 00- 01- 02- 03-0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Work at employers premises

Work at home

Work at other loca-tions

Work at private ve-hicle

Work at a vehicle (public transport)

White-collars, a weekday

4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- 21- 22- 23- 00- 01- 02- 03-0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Work at home

Work at other locations

Work at private ve-hicleWork at a vehicle (pub-lic transport)

4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- 21- 22- 23- 00- 01- 02- 03-0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Work at employers premises

Work at home

Work at other loca-tions

Work at private vehicle

Work at a vehicle (public transport)

Nature of work at home(Quality of Work Life Survey 2003 & 2008, Finland)

“Do you sometimes do work connected with your main job at home?”

All “Is this work mainly:” Home-working

employees

Works occasionally or partially at home

32 “Overtime work without compensation” (informal overtime)

56

Works at home only 2 “It is agreed that some of the normal working hours are done at home (telework)

33

Does not work at home at all

66 “Both” / does not know 11

Total 100 % Total 100 %

N 8496 N 2748

Entrepreneurs are the most distributed(all work days)

4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- 21- 22- 23- 00- 01- 02- 03-0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Work at busi-ness premises

Work at home

Work at other locations

Work at private ve-hicle

Work at a vehicle (pub-lic transport)

Agricultural entrepreneurs work the most

4- 6- 8- 10- 12- 14- 16- 18- 20- 22- 00- 02-0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90Work at business premises

Work at home

Work at other loca-tionsWork at private vehicle

Work at a vehicle (public transport)

How work at multiple locations (1 or 2–6 secondary locations) is related with certain

consequences? (EWCS 2010)0 Speed of work:

0 Work at very high speed AND to tight deadlines0 1 Never …. 7 All of the time

0 Work in free time to meet work demands:0 1 Never … 5 Nearly every day

0 Work fit with family:0 Working hours fit family and/or social commitments 0 1 Very well ... 4 Not at all well

0 Multivariate GLM-model that controls for gender, age, country, education, being an employee & being a small entrepreneur0 Interaction terms between working at secondary locations & gender; education; small

entrepreneurs (; country)0 N=36.457 (28 countries)

Work fit with family1 Very well ... 4 Not at all well

0 Means:0 0 secondary

locations: 1.85

0 1: 1.850 2+: 1.93

0 Means for highly educated:0 0: 1.810 1: 1.810 2+: 1.94

Work in free time to meet work demands:

0 1 Never … 5 Nearly every day

0 0: 2.20 1: 2.60 2+:2.9

0 For highly educated with 2+: 3.1

Work at very high speed and to tight deadlines0 1 Never …. 7 All of the time

0 Work at several locations strongly increases sense of haste

0 Means:0 0: 3.20 1 : 3.30 2+: 3.6

Take Home Lessons• Although distributed work is on the increase, the majority of employees

still carry out most of their work at their employers’ premises during “normal” working hours

• Homeworking is often informal overtime without extra compensation: • There is no consensus on how to measure distributed work arrangements

BUT the aspect of agreement should be taken into account (telework vs. overtime at home)

• An agreement would benefit both employer and employee• Work combining main work place + 1 additional location may increase

sense of control / balance for work and family (e.g.)• More distribution of work increases negative outcomes for employee & family

• In virtual environments, work process may become fragmented and information overload may increase – increased work in free time

• Distributed work only at reasonable levels!• E.g. 1–3 days per week outside of an office appears to be optimal for most

teleworkers

THANK YOU!

Follow our work on

www.researchgate.net

References0 Eurofound (2012) Fifth European Working Conditions Survey.

0 Nätti, Jouko & Tammelin, Mia & Anttila, Timo & Ojala, Satu (2011) Work at Home and Time Use in Finland. New Technology, Work and Employment 26(1): 68–77.

0 Ojala, Satu (2011) Supplemental Work at Home among Finnish Wage Earners: Involuntary Overtime or Taking the Advantage of Flexibility? Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies 1(2): 77–97.

0 Ojala, Satu & Nätti, Jouko & Anttila, Timo (2014) Informal Overtime at Home instead of Telework: Increase in Negative Work-Family Interface, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, (3) 2014.

0 Pyöriä, Pasi (2003) Knowledge Work in Distributed Environments: Issues and Illusions. New Technology, Work and Employment 18(3): 166–180.

0 Pyöriä, Pasi (2009) Virtual Collaboration in Knowledge Work: From Vision to Reality. Team Performance Management: An International Journal 15(7–8): 366–381.

0 Pyöriä, Pasi (2011) Managing Telework: Risks, Fears and Rules. Management Research Review 34(4): 386–399.

0 Vartiainen, M. & Hakonen, M., Koivisto, S. & Mannonen, P. & Nieminen, M.P. & Ruohomäki, V. & Vartola, A. (2007) Distributed and Mobile Work. Places, People and Technology. Helsinki: Otatieto.