Is there a price telecommuters pay? Examining the relationship between telecommuting and objective career success

Journal Pre-proof Is there a price telecommuters pay? Examining the relationship between telecommuting and objective career success

Timothy D. Golden, Kimberly A. Eddleston PII:

S0001-8791(19)30126-5

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103348

Reference:

YJVBE 103348

To appear in:

Journal of Vocational Behavior

Received date:

18 November 2018

Revised date:

2 October 2019

Accepted date:

15 October 2019

Please cite this article as: T.D. Golden and K.A. Eddleston, Is there a price telecommuters pay? Examining the relationship between telecommuting and objective career success, Journal of Vocational Behavior(2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103348

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2018 Published by Elsevier.

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 1 Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? Examining the Relationship Between Telecommuting and Objective Career Success

-p

ro

of

Timothy D. Golden Lally School of Management Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 110 8th Street, Pittsburgh Building Troy, NY 12180 USA Phone: (518) 276-2669 Email: [email protected]

Jo

ur

na

lP

re

Kimberly A. Eddleston D’Amore-McKim School of Business Northeastern University 209 Hayden Hall Boston, MA 02115-5000 USA Phone: 617-373-4014 Email: [email protected]

Second Revision and Resubmission to the Journal of Vocational Behavior October 2, 2019

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 2 Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? Examining the Relationship Between Telecommuting and Objective Career Success Abstract Telecommuting has long been noted for its ability to foster work-family balance and job satisfaction. However, for employees seeking to advance in their careers, it is commonly advised to exercise caution, since telecommuting is often viewed as signaling a lack of dedication to

of

one’s career. Despite the prevalence of such advice, almost no research has investigated if

ro

telecommuting actually impacts career success in objective terms. Integrating research on the

-p

flexibility stigma and signaling theory, we first compared the career success of telecommuters

re

and non-telecommuters using a sample of 405 employees matched with corporate data on promotion and salary growth. Then, we examined the relationship between extent of

lP

telecommuting and career success as well as the moderating influence of contextual factors.

na

Results indicated telecommuters and non-telecommuters did not differ in number of promotions, but telecommuters experienced lower salary growth. Additionally, extent of telecommuting was

ur

negatively related to promotions and salary growth, indicating it is not simply telecommuting per

Jo

se that effects career success, but rather the extent of telecommuting. Moreover, work context played a highly influential role. A greater number of promotions were received by extensive telecommuters when they worked where telecommuting was highly normative, and when they engaged in higher supplemental work. Extensive telecommuters with higher supplemental work and higher face-to-face contact with their supervisor also received greater salary growth. Together, results challenge previous research that has tended to portray telecommuting as harmful to one’s career success by providing a more informed understanding of how to harness its benefits.

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 3

Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? Examining the Relationship Between Telecommuting and Objective Career Success Ever since the advent of telecommuting in the 1970s (Nilles, 1994), scholars have sought to understand its consequences for employees’ lives in and out of work (e.g., Allen, Golden, & Shockley, 2015). Telecommuting is defined as “a work practice that involves members of an

of

organization substituting a portion of their typical work hours… to work away from a central

ro

workplace—typically from home—using technology to interact with others as needed to conduct

-p

work tasks” (Allen et al., 2015, p. 44). Its usage is rapidly expanding, with estimates of over 25

re

million in the U.S. (Gallup, 2017; Global Workplace Analytics, 2015) and growth rates estimated to be 11-30% in many areas of the world (Lister & Harnish, 2011; Tugend, 2014).

lP

However, despite this growth, there exists a widespread fear that telecommuting will hurt the

na

ability to advance in one’s career (e.g., Green, 2014; Fallon, 2016; Lucas, 2013). Supporting such fears, scholars have speculated that the career prospects of telecommuters will be adversely

ur

affected (e.g., Baruch, 2000; Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Elsbach & Cable, 2012; McCloskey &

Jo

Igbaria, 2003) due to the stigma associated with using flexible work practices (Bourdeau, OllierMalaterre, & Houlfort, 2019; Williams, Blair-Loy, & Berdahl, 2013). But are these fears and speculations warranted, or are they based more on “urban legend”? Rather than examine the effect of telecommuting on employees’ objective career success, existing research has tended to focus on telecommuting’s self-reported benefits such as employees’ increased work-family balance and job satisfaction, decreased turnover intentions and stress, saved commute time, and increased autonomy (Allen et al., 2015; Bailey & Kurland, 2002). Studies of telecommuters’ objective career success have been rare, with the few

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 4 exceptions shedding little light. A meta-analysis of studies on consequences of telecommuting (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007) did not include any dependent variables pertaining to employees’ actual career success but rather utilized self-reported perceived career prospects. Moreover, the few studies investigating the effect of flexible work practices like telecommuting on objective career success such as salary have yielded mixed findings (e.g., Glass, 2004; Leslie, Manchester, Park, & Mehng, 2012; Weeden, 2005).

of

Notably, in these existing studies scholars have conceptualized and measured

ro

telecommuting with a binary ‘yes or no’ variable that categorizes employees as telecommuters

-p

and non-telecommuters. While this approach is conducive to broad comparisons, it ignores how

re

telecommuters vary in the extent to which they work away from the office and thus, does not capture the heterogeneity among telecommuters (Breaugh & Farabee, 2012; Golden et al., 2008;

lP

Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008). Given that individuals’ telecommuting experiences are likely to

na

differ significantly if they telecommute occasionally compared to multiple days per week (Golden & Veiga, 2005), the potential impact on their career success is likely to also vary. In this

ur

study, we therefore respond to calls in the telecommuting literature (Allen, et al., 2015; Golden

Jo

et al., 2008) to examine if the extent of telecommuting impacts career success. Prior telecommuting studies have also failed to investigate how the work context may buffer against the stigma associated with using flexible work practices (Allen et al., 2015; Bourdeau et al., 2019; Perrigino, Dunford, & Wilson, 2018). Telecommuting studies have also failed to identify how the work context contributes to the career success of employees who vary in the extent to which they telecommute (Breaugh & Farabee, 2012; Golden et al., 2008; Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008). Yet, careers researchers have long noted the important role that the work context plays in salary and promotion decisions (Goodman, 1975; Wayne, Liden, Graf, & Ferris,

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 5 1997). Given that telecommuters must compete for limited promotions and salary increases while navigating the stigma associated with working away from the office, the work context may be key in understanding why some telecommuters achieve career success similar to nontelecommuters while other are hampered due to the flexibility stigma (Kaplan, Engelsted, Lei, & Lockwood, 2018; Williams, et al., 2013). Further, because promotions and salary increases are largely determined in comparison to peers (Ostroff & Atwater, 2003), understanding how factors

of

in the work context can help or hinder the career success of telecommuters is important to

ro

employees looking to progress in their careers while also telecommuting, and to organizations

-p

that are aiming to eliminate the stigma associated with using flexible work practices (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Perrigino et al., 2018).

re

The present study therefore begins to fill these gaps in our knowledge of telecommuting’s

lP

career impact using two widely accepted outcomes of objective career success: promotions and

na

salary growth (Heslin, 2005). First, building upon research on flexible work practices that integrates signaling theory and the flexibility stigma (e.g. Bourdeau et al., 2019; Leslie et al.,

ur

2012; Williams et al., 2013), we compare actual corporate-provided promotions and salary

Jo

growth of telecommuters and non-telecommuters (N=405). Second, we answer calls from researchers to expand our understanding of telecommuting’s career consequences by not simply comparing telecommuters monolithically, but rather as a function of the extent of telecommuting carried out by individual telecommuters (Golden & Veiga, 2005). In so doing, we offer a more refined exposition of signaling theory (Spence, 1973) and the flexibility stigma’s applicability to telecommuting’s career outcomes by investigating the extent of telecommuting and the concomitant variation in the intensity of the flexibility stigma. Third, we contribute to research on telecommuting, career success, and the flexibility stigma by examining factors inherent in the

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 6 work context that influence the degree to which the extent of telecommuting effects promotions and salary growth. In this way we not only address the need to refine our understanding of telecommuting’s career consequences within the more realistic complexities of the organizational context (Allen et al., 2015), but also answer calls from scholars to study the socially-embedded nature of factors which may activate or suppress signals associated with the flexibility stigma (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2013).

of

Theory and Hypotheses

ro

Although telecommuting has been the subject of a growing body of research, whether

-p

telecommuting affects objective career success remains elusive (e.g. Gajendran & Harrison,

re

2007; Glass & Noonan, 2016). Objective career success refers to observable indicators of career progression that can be evaluated objectively by others (Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005).

lP

In this study we focus on promotions and salary growth (Heslin, 2005), since these are

na

commonly viewed as advancements within an organizational hierarchy and signify an individual’s achievement and stature.

ur

More specifically, research investigating telecommuters’ career success has provided

Jo

conflicting evidence. On the one hand, the telecommuting literature widely notes the potential for telecommuting to hurt career progress (e.g., Coltrane, Miller, DeHaan, & Stewart, 2013; Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Elsbach & Cable, 2012; McCloskey & Igbaria, 2003). It also notes how employees are often reluctant to telecommute because they fear negative career consequences (e.g., Green, 2014; Fallon, 2016; Lucas, 2013). On the other hand, research also suggests that telecommuting is associated with outcomes such as increased organizational commitment, job performance, and satisfaction (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Golden, 2006b; Golden & Gajendran, 2019; Martin & MacDonnell, 2012), which suggests that career rewards

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 7 could accrue if these outcomes are recognized and rewarded by managers. Further, the few existing studies that examined the career success of telecommuters and other flexible workers add little clarity, as this research has shown lower wage growth (Glass, 2004), higher wages (Leslie, et al., 2012; Weeden, 2005) or substantial variation indicating little or no effect on wages (Glass & Noonan, 2016). Notably, this research tends to consider telecommuters as a homogeneous group; that is, it does not consider how telecommuters vary in the extent to which

of

they work away from the office. The research also tends to ignore contextual factors in the work

ro

environment that might influence managerial decisions regarding promotions and salary

-p

increases. Given the lack of clarity and precision in the literature, our objective is to look more

re

deeply into the effect of telecommuting on promotions and salary increases by developing a framework that considers the intensity of the stigma associated with occasional versus extensive

lP

telecommuting and how the work context can buffer the stigma associated with telecommuting.

na

How the Flexibility Stigma Affects Telecommuters’ Objective Career Success Although some research supports the ‘happy worker story’ (Weeden, 2005: 478) by

ur

demonstrating that telecommuters experience less work-family conflict, greater job satisfaction

Jo

(e.g. Gajendran & Harrison, 2007) and earn wages at least equal to, or higher, than nontelecommuters (e.g. Gariety & Shaffer, 2001; 2007; Weeden, 2005), researchers are increasingly recognizing how telecommuting can lead to career penalties because of the flexibility stigma (Bourdeau, et al, 2019; Chung & van der Horst, 2018; Perrigino, Dunford & Wilson, 2018). Stigmas are not about a particular behavior per se, but rather inferences and attributions about the underlying characteristics of the behavior that lead to negative sanctions (Goffman, 1963). The flexibility stigma refers to the devaluation of employees who use flexible work practices, such as telecommuting, because they are seen as deviating from the work

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 8 devotion schema that places work at the center of one’s life (Williams et al., 2013; Dumas & Sanchez-Burks, 2015) and construes the ideal worker as always being available and dedicated to work (Williams et al., 2013; 2016). The work devotion schema reflects deep cultural assumptions about work that call for intensive allegiance and undivided attention to work and the expectation that employees will minimize time spent on personal and family demands or else risk career penalties (Williams et al., 2013; Williams, Berdahl, & Vandello, 2016).

of

Drawing from signaling theory and attributional theories, scholars argue that

ro

telecommuters experience career penalties because of the incongruence between using flexible

-p

work practices and the work devotion schema (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Glass & Noonan, 2016;

re

Leslie et al., 2012). Signaling theory (Spence, 1973) explains how supervisors use employees’ observable behaviors, such as their physical presence in the workplace, to make attributions

lP

about characteristics that are hard to observe, such as devotion to work and dedication to their

na

job (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Glass & Noonan, 2016; Leslie et al., 2012). In turn, these attributions are related to employees’ career success above and beyond the employees’ actual job

ur

performance (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Leslie et al., 2012; Perrigino et al., 2018). The

Jo

categorization of employees as more or less devoted to work biases supervisors’ subsequent search for information about the employees and their job performance (Bourdeau et al., 2019). Employees with higher work devotion attributions are expected to receive positive career consequences whereas those with lower work devotion attributions receive career penalties. Research suggests that telecommuting signals questionable dedication to work and even the possible shirking of responsibilities (Casper & Harris, 2008) because their absence from the workplace is associated with a lack of devotion to work (Blair-Loy, 2003; Kossek, Thompson & Lautsch, 2015). Indeed, experimental research demonstrates that telecommuters face a

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 9 significant flexibility stigma that hurts the evaluation of their competence and commitment (Munsch, Ridgeway & Williams, 2014). In line with research on work-family backlash, which explores the stigma associated with using flexible work practices, supervisors’ support for the work devotion schema may lead to implicit biases against telecommuters (Perrigino et al., 2018). In other words, the inferences and attributions supervisors make about telecommuters are often made spontaneously, without their

of

intent or knowledge of doing so (Elsbach, Cable & Sherman, 2010). For example,

ro

telecommuting tends to signal an employee’s prioritization of personal and family concerns

-p

above work, regardless of the employee’s actual motive for telecommuting (Golden et al., 2006a; Kossek, Lautsch & Eaton, 2006). Because being classified as ‘family-primary’ or ‘career-

re

primary’ affects employees’ objective career success (Veiga, Baldridge & Eddleston, 2004),

lP

telecommuters should experience a career penalty vis-à-vis nontelecommuters. In support of the

na

flexibility stigma, we therefore hypothesize that telecommuters will receive less promotions and salary growth than nontelecommuters.

Jo

ur

Hypothesis 1: Telecommuting is negatively related to (a) promotions and (b) salary growth, such that telecommuters receive fewer promotions and less salary growth than those who do not telecommute. While the above hypothesis compares telecommuters and nontelecommuters, scholars are increasingly calling for research to consider the extent to which an individual telecommutes (Allen et al., 2015), recognizing that the flexibility stigma is likely to be more severe for those who extensively telecommute versus those who only occasionally telecommute (Breaugh & Farabee, 2012; Golden & Veiga, 2005; Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008). Because telecommuting enables employees to spend time and energy outside of the workplace to care for themselves and their family (Golden et al., 2006), supervisors are likely to interpret extensive telecommuters’

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 10 motives as self-helping and a sign of low devotion to work (Bourdeau et al., 2019). With time in the office being a common proxy for work devotion, those who telework more extensively are likely to suffer a greater career penalty than those who telecommute occasionally (Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008; Williams, et al., 2013). Further, their reduced presence at work may make collaboration and coordination more difficult, which could lead supervisors to infer a lack of concern for their job (Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008). Indeed, Bourdeau et al. (2019) argued that

of

supervisors attribute lower work devotion to employees who telework extensively as their

ro

frequent absence from the workplace signals a violation of the work devotion schema.

-p

In contrast, because their work is primarily conducted in the workplace, occasional

re

telecommuters are better able to demonstrate their accomplishments and devotion to work (Marshall, Michaels & Mulki, 2007). Those who telecommute less extensively also appear able

lP

to participate in informal office networks and learning opportunities, and receive mentoring and

na

career guidance similar to those who do not telecommute (Golden et al., 2008). Therefore, we argue that the intensity of the flexibility stigma varies with the extent to which employees

Jo

growth will be attained.

ur

telecommute such that as the extent of telecommuting increases, less promotions and salary

Hypothesis 2: For telecommuters, the extent of telecommuting is negatively related to (a) promotions and (b) salary growth, such that those who telecommute more extensively receive fewer promotions and less salary growth than those who telecommute less extensively. Moderating Effects of Work Context For Telecommuters For telecommuters, while a greater extent of telecommuting is predicted to negatively affect promotions and salary growth due to the flexibility stigma, the work context may serve to buffer that negative effect. This is because the social context is often key to understanding stigma since what is stigmatizing in one context may not be stigmatizing in another context (Crocker,

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 11 Major & Steele, 1998; Bos, Pryor, Reeder & Stutterheim, 2013). Indeed, scholars have called for research to identify organizational factors that can buffer the flexibility stigma (Bourdeau et al., 2019) and normalize the use of telecommuting (Kossek & Lautsch, 2018; Masuda, Holtschlag & Nicklin, 2017). Accordingly, we propose moderating effects due to three contextual factors– telecommuting normativeness in the work unit, supplemental work conducted outside of standard work hours, and face-to-face contact with one’s supervisor. First, because the work devotion

of

schema is institutionalized in a work unit’s practices (Williams et al., 2013), and a work unit’s

ro

endorsement for telecommuting should buffer telecommuters from lower work devotion

-p

attributions (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Lewis & Smithson, 2001), we consider the normativeness of telecommuting in a work unit. Second, because research suggests that telecommuters are subject

re

to the flexibility stigma unless they send a signal that shows they are an ‘exception’ and their

lP

telecommuting is boosting their productivity (Glass & Noonan, 2016; Leslie et al., 2012), we

na

consider supplemental work conducted by telecommuters. Finally, because it has been suggested that face-to-face contact can offset the negative effects of telecommuting (Coenen & Kok, 2014;

ur

Golden, et al., 2008) by signaling one’s devotion to work and dependability (Elsbach et al., 2010;

Jo

Elsbach & Cable, 2012), we consider face-to-face contact with one’s supervisor. Telecommuting Normativeness. Telecommuting normativeness refers to the percentage of a work unit that telecommutes, such that when telecommuting is highly normative, working in this way is accepted and commonplace (Bartel, Wrzesniewski, & Wiesenfeld, 2012). Work units that offer employees the opportunity to telecommute provide a signal that they support employees’ efforts to balance work and family (Casper & Harris, 2008; Masuda et al., 2017). In work units where telecommuting is highly normative, colleagues are more accepting of telecommuting and there

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 12 are likely to be support mechanisms that include telecommuters in information channels and social networks that minimize isolation (Mulki et al., 2009). Further, because supervisors’ attributions about the use of telecommuting are embedded in the social context of their work unit, those work units where telecommuting is a more common behavior may serve to buffer the negative effects of extensive telecommuting (Bourdeau et al., 2019). As such, in work units where telecommuting is the norm, more extensive telecommuting should be socially acceptable,

of

the flexibility stigma less salient, and thus, promotions and salary growth less penalized as

ro

telecommuting increases.

-p

In contrast, in work units where telecommuting is less normative, the flexibility stigma

re

associated with telecommuting is likely to be exacerbated. A fundamental aspect of stigmas concerns the degree to which they are noticed or concealed, whereby a greater recognition of

lP

differences leads to perceptions of norm violations (Bos et al., 2013). Signaling theory explains

na

how characteristics that distinguish one individual from their cohort serve to activate signals, making those signals pronounced (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011). For example, if

ur

only a few (or no) coworkers telecommute, extensive telecommuting becomes more obvious to

Jo

nontelecommuters and their supervisors (Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008; Perrigino et al., 2018). Given that careers are often viewed as a tournament for career rewards (Rosenbaum, 1979), any potential negative connotations associated with telecommuting are likely to be especially salient when telecommuting is less normative, especially for those who telecommute more extensively. Moreover, individuals who telecommute extensively may have a particularly difficult time remaining fully integrated within informal office information channels when telecommuting is less normative (Golden et al., 2006). In these situations extensive telecommuters are less likely to become central actors in social networks or considered for developmental opportunities that

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 13 require a physical presence in the workplace (Marshall et al., 2007; Mulki et al., 2009), thus hindering their career success relative to peers who telecommute less. Accordingly, telecommuting normativeness is expected to buffer the negative relationship between the extent of telecommuting and promotions and salary growth.

of

Hypothesis 3: Telecommuting normativeness moderates the relationship between the extent of telecommuting and (a) promotions and (b) salary growth, such that when telecommuting normativeness is high, individuals who telecommute more extensively will receive greater promotions and salary growth in comparison to when telecommuting normativeness is low.

ro

Supplemental Work.

Supplemental work represents the additional time individuals spend on work-related

-p

activities outside of normal working hours, such as during evenings and weekends (Fenner &

re

Renn, 2004; Venkatesh & Vitalari, 1992). Higher supplemental work is likely to signal a

lP

telecommuter’s devotion to their work and organization, thereby countering the negative signal that telecommuting is being carried out to further personal and family considerations at the

na

expense of work (Ryan & Kossek, 2008; Stevens & Szajna, 1998). This is in line with research

ur

that has suggested that telecommuters are subject to bias unless they signal that their telecommuting is enhancing their productivity (Glass & Noonan, 2016; Leslie et al., 2012). By

Jo

offering an accompanying signal that indicates dedication and devotion to their job, higher supplemental work is likely to off-set the intense flexibility stigma associated with extensive telecommuting. In these situations, higher supplemental work provides assurances to managers that those who extensively telecommute are none-the-less hardworking and fully devoted (Golden, 2012), and that they are determined to succeed irrespective of their physical absence from the office (Piskurich, 1998). In turn, supervisors who perceive employees as devoted to work tend to reciprocate and reward them with career premiums above and beyond the career

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 14 advancement that would have resulted solely from the employees’ job performance (Bourdeau et al., 2019). However, for extensive telecommuters who perform little or no supplemental work, the flexibility stigma is likely to be reinforced and intensified as their telecommuting is seen as motivated by personal and family concerns rather than their devotion to work (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Leslie et al., 2012). That is, by not performing much supplemental work, extensive

of

telecommuters may inadvertently signal that they have chosen telecommuting to benefit personal

ro

or family considerations, even if this is not true (DuBrin, 1991; Riley & McCloskey, 1997),

-p

thereby further signaling their deviation from the work devotion schema. As a result, extensive

re

telecommuters who perform little or no supplemental work should be further penalized in their careers because of their reinforcement of the flexibility stigma associated with telecommuting.

lP

Therefore, we propose that high supplemental work will buffer the negative relationship between

na

the extent of telecommuting and promotions and salary growth.

Jo

ur

Hypothesis 4: Supplemental work moderates the relationship between the extent of telecommuting and (a) promotions and (b) salary growth, such that when supplemental work is high, individuals who telecommute more extensively will receive greater promotions and salary growth in comparison to when supplemental work is low. Face-to-Face Contact.

In addition to the flexibility stigma associated with telecommuting, researchers acknowledge how telecommuters who are extensively ‘out-of-sight’ are likely to be ‘out-ofmind’ when supervisors are allocating career rewards (Kossek et al., 2015; Mulki, Bardhi, Lassk & Nanavaty-Dahl, 2009). Because many supervisors tend to use the ‘line of sight’ management style, whereby visibility signals dedication and effort, face-time can have important implications for telecommuters (Elsbach et al., 2010; Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008). For example, research suggests that a lack of face-time with one’s supervisor contributes to career stagnation for

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 15 telecommuters (Hill, Ferris & Martinson, 2003). Although routine face-to-face contact with one’s supervisor may not necessarily equate to work effort and productivity, supervisors often use face-time as a proxy for work devotion (Bourdeau et al., 2019). Greater face-to-face contact with one’s supervisor therefore portrays a higher level of involvement and interest in one’s work, and furthers the development of trust and interpersonal cooperation (Coenen & Kok, 2014). Such contact builds trust and rapport building opportunities, fosters mutual cooperation, and enables

of

the easy sharing of work progress (Drolet & Morris, 2000). As such, higher face-to-face contact

ro

with one’s supervisor can serve as an impression management technique for telecommuters that

-p

helps them to avoid negative judgements of their work devotion stemming from their absence

re

from the office (Perrigino et al., 2018).

Therefore, in line with research that has shown that face-to-face contact can offset the

lP

negative effects of telecommuting (Coenen & Kok, 2014; Golden et al., 2008), we propose that

na

higher face-to-face contact with one’s supervisor can attenuate the negative effect of extensive telecommuting on promotions and salary growth. Indeed, research on face-time suggests that

ur

being seen at work is associated with managers’ inferences about one’s dependability,

Jo

responsibility, and dedication (Elsbach & Cable, 2012; Elsbach et al., 2010). Although such inferences tend to be unintentional or unconscious, managers often make decisions about promotions and special assignments based on employees’ presence in the workplace and their face-to-face contact with them (Elsbach & Cable, 2012). For extensive telecommuters, higher face-to-face contact with one’s supervisor may be particularly important in establishing the trust and familiarity necessary to gain the supervisor’s support (Coenen & Kok, 2014) and managing the supervisor’s impression of one’s productivity and devotion to work (Mulki et al., 2009). In contrast, extensive telecommuters who lack face-to-face contact with their supervisor may

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 16 unintentionally signal that they prioritize personal and family concerns over work (Kossek et al., 2015), thereby lessening their promotions and salary growth. These arguments lead to the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 5: Face-to-face contact with one’s supervisor moderates the relationship between the extent of telecommuting and (a) promotions and (b) salary growth, such that when faceto-face contact is high, individuals who telecommute more extensively will receive greater promotions and salary growth in comparison to when face-to-face contact is low.

of

Method

ro

Sample and Procedure

The hypotheses were tested using data from two sources: individual responses from both

-p

telecommuters and non-telecommuters, and corporate-provided promotion and salary growth

re

data. Respondents were professional employees in a company providing technology services

lP

with locations throughout the U.S. The company had well-established and stable work-life programs, and senior managers were interested in understanding the effectiveness of these work-

na

life offerings on employees. A senior manager sent an email to 1,000 employees requesting their

ur

participation in an online survey and assuring them all responses would be kept confidential. Complete responses were received from 461 employees, representing a 46% response rate.

Jo

Identification numbers were used to match individual responses with data from corporate records on measures of objective career success. A period of six years was adopted because this was the longest period for which employees had been telecommuting and for which consistent records were available. While an even longer period of time would have been preferred, similar periods have been used in other research (e.g., Reitman & Schneer, 2005; Stumpf & Tymon, 2012) and this period offered the advantage of great stability at the company in terms of leadership, policies, and employee retention, and in so doing helped alleviate other environmental influences. A final sample of 405 employees met the criteria for continuous employment at the

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 17 company for a minimum of the six-year period. Telecommuters were 52% male and 48% female. Due to the sensitivity of the salary and promotion data and to help preserve anonymity, age was recorded in ranges (1 = less than 20 years; 2 = 20-29 years; 3 = 30-39 years; 4 = 40-49 years; 5 = 50-59 years; 6 = 60-69 years). Measures Extent of telecommuting. The extent of telecommuting was assessed using the measure

of

developed by Golden and Veiga (2005) and used in a number of studies (e.g., Golden et al.,

ro

2006; Golden et al., 2008). Respondents were asked to report the percentage of an average work

-p

week they spent telecommuting away from the office during regular work hours, and this number

re

was reported in percentage of hours per week (%).

Promotions. The number of promotions over a six-year period for each respondent was

lP

obtained from corporate records. Measuring objective career success in terms of the number of

na

promotions is a longstanding practice in the careers literature (Arthur, Khapova, & Wilderom, 2005; Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001; Turban & Dougherty, 1994). As is common with career

ur

success variables, because the data was not normally distributed we performed a log

2012).

Jo

transformation on this variable (e.g., Boudreau, Boswell, & Judge, 2001; Lam, Ng, & Feldman,

Salary growth. Growth in salary was assessed using the total annual percentage of pay raises received over a six-year period for each respondent, obtained from corporate records. This approach has been commonly used and represents a widely accepted technique for assessing actual salary growth (Ferris, Witt, & Hochwarter, 2001; Ng et al., 2005). Pay raises for each year were summed to calculate the salary growth for each respondent. For example, if a respondent earned a 3% (or .03) salary increase each of the 6 years, the total salary growth was .18.

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 18 Telecommuting normativeness. Telecommuting normativeness was assessed by asking respondents to report the percentage of their work unit that telecommuted (0 – 100%). Based on earlier research (Bartel et al., 2012; Gajendran et al., 2015), this approach captures the normativeness of telecommuting within the participant’s work unit. Supplemental work. The degree of supplemental work was assessed by asking respondents to report the number of hours they spent during an average week working additional

of

time outside of standard work hours. Grounded in existing theory (Fenner & Renn, 2004), this

ro

approach captures the number of supplemental hours worked per week (Duxbury et al., 1996;

-p

Venkatesh & Vitalari, 1992).

re

Face-to-Face Contact. On the basis of prior work (e.g. Duncan & Fiske, 2015; Golden et al., 2008; Tillema, Dijst, & Schwanen, 2010) the amount of face-to-face contact with the

lP

supervisor was assessed by asking telecommuters to report “How frequently are you in contact

na

with your supervisor interacting face-to-face?” (1 = very infrequently; 5 = very frequently). Control variables. Based on prior research, we controlled for age, gender (0 = male; 1 =

ur

female), organizational tenure (years), and hours worked (Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz,

Jo

1995; Leslie et al., 2012; Ng et al., 2005). Results

The means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables are presented in Table 1. We performed hierarchical regression analyses to test the hypotheses, the results of which are reported in Table 2 and Table 3. Hypothesis 1a proposed that telecommuting (0 = no, 1 = yes) would be negatively related to promotions, which was not supported (Table 2, β = -.09, ns). Hypothesis 1b proposed that telecommuting would be negatively related to salary growth. In support of the hypothesis, telecommuting as a dichotomous predictor was negatively and

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 19 significantly related to salary growth (Table 3, β = -.12, p<.05; ∆R2 = .01, p<.05). ----------------------------------------------------------------------Insert Tables 1-3 and Figures 1-4 about here ----------------------------------------------------------------------Hypothesis 2a proposed that, for telecommuters, the extent of telecommuting would be negatively related to promotions, and this was supported (Table 2, β = -.23, p< .001; ∆R2 = .04,

of

p<.001). Similarly, Hypothesis 2b, which proposed that the extent of telecommuting would be

ro

negatively related to salary growth, was also supported (Table 3, β = -.18; p< .01; ∆R2 = .03,

-p

p<.01).

re

To assess the moderating hypotheses for telecommuters, variables were centered prior to constructing the interaction terms. Hypothesis 3 proposed that the relationship between the

lP

extent of telecommuting and (a) promotions and (b) salary growth would be moderated by

na

telecommuting normativeness, such that when telecommuting normativeness is high, individuals who telecommute more extensively will receive greater promotions and salary growth in

ur

comparison to when telecommuting normativeness is low. In support of Hypothesis 3a,

Jo

telecommuting normativeness moderated the relationship between the extent of telecommuting and promotions (Table 2, β = -.15, p<.05; ∆R2 = .03, p<.05). However, Hypothesis 3b was not supported (Table 3, β = -.04, ns). To aid in interpreting the interaction for Hypothesis 3a, we followed the procedures of Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003). As shown in Figure 1, telecommuters in work units in which telecommuting was more normative received a greater number of promotions than those in units where telecommuting was less normative. In comparison, those in work units in which telecommuting was less normative received fewer promotions at each level of telecommuting. Moreover, while higher telecommuting

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 20 normativeness appeared to enhance promotions for those who telecommuted occasionally, the benefits diminished somewhat for those who telecommuted more extensively. Simple slope tests were supportive, with the slope negative at high levels of normativeness (-.38, p<.001) and not significant at low levels (-.09, n.s.). Hypothesis 4 proposed that the relationship between the extent of telecommuting and (a) promotions and (b) salary growth would be moderated by supplemental work such that when

of

supplemental work is high, individuals who telecommute more extensively would receive greater

ro

promotions and salary growth in comparison to when supplemental work was low. Results were

-p

supported for both Hypothesis 4a, promotions (Table 2, β = -.14, p<.05), and Hypothesis 4b,

re

salary growth (Table 3, β = -.21, p<.01). As shown in Figure 2, telecommuters with higher supplemental work received more promotions at each level of telecommuting than

lP

telecommuters with less supplemental work, and the benefits were more apparent at less

na

extensive levels of telecommuting. In comparison, those with less supplemental work received fewer promotions with promotions decreasing less sharply as the extent of telecommuting

ur

increased. Simple slope tests revealed the slope was significant at higher levels of supplemental

Jo

work (-.37, p<.001) but not at lower levels (-.08, ns). Similarly, as shown in Figure 3, telecommuters with higher supplemental work experienced more salary growth relative to those who engaged in less supplemental work, with salary growth highest among those who engaged in high supplemental work and telecommuted less extensively. Simple slopes were significant at high (-.32, p<.001) but not low levels (.02, ns). Thus, while higher supplemental work appeared to enhance the promotions and salary growth for those who telecommuted more extensively, the benefits were greatest for those who telecommuted less extensively. Finally, Hypothesis 5 proposed that the relationship between the extent of telecommuting

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 21 and (a) promotions and (b) salary growth would be moderated by face-to-face contact with the supervisor, which was not supported for promotions (Table 2, β = .08, ns) but was supported for salary growth (Table 3, β = .18, p<.05). As shown in Figure 4, extensive telecommuters with high face-to-face contact with their supervisor had higher salary growth compared to those with less face-to-face contact. Further, it appears that telecommuters with high face-to-face contact do not experience lower salary growth regardless of the extent of telecommuting. Simple slope tests

of

were significant at low (-.22, p<.001) but not high levels (-.05, n.s.). Thus, Hypothesis 5b was

-p

Discussion

ro

supported.

To investigate the widespread fear that telecommuting hurts the ability to advance in

re

one’s career, this study examines telecommuters’ objective career success using survey data

lP

from 405 employees matched with corporate-provided promotions and salary growth data.

na

Drawing from research on the flexibility stigma which integrates signaling theory with attribution theories, we first compared telecommuters to non-telecommuters and found that they

ur

did not differ in the number of promotions received, although telecommuters had lower salary

Jo

growth. We then extended insight on the flexibility stigma by arguing that the stigma associated with telecommuting will be more intense as an employee telecommutes more extensively, thus leading to career penalties. Our results provide support for this prediction thus demonstrating that the extent of telecommuting, rather than simply telecommuting ‘use’ per se, negatively affects promotions and salary growth. In extending previous research and offering a more refined exposition of the flexibility stigma, our study therefore highlights the need to consider the extent of telecommuting in studies of telecommuter career success, so that more realistic assessments of telecommuting’s impact on careers can be understood. It also suggests that future research

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 22 should compare the career penalties and stigmas associated with various types of flexible work practices, as well as the extent of use of different flexible work practices, rather than treating them holistically as previous research has tended to do (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Leslie et al., 2012). Furthermore, our results highlight the influential role played by the work context that ultimately shapes telecommuters’ career success. As such, our study answers calls in the

of

literature to identify work factors that can buffer the stigma associated with using flexible work

ro

practices (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Kossek & Lautsch, 2018) and work-family backlash (Perrigino

-p

et al., 2018). Specifically, our study found that extensive telecommuters received more

re

promotions when they worked in units where telecommuting was highly normative or they performed higher levels of supplemental work. Extensive telecommuters who performed higher

lP

levels of supplemental work or had high face-to-face contact with their supervisor also

na

experienced higher salary growth compared to those who performed little supplemental work or lacked face-to-face interactions with their supervisor. These results not only provide insight on

ur

how the work context can buffer the stigma associated with telecommuting, but also demonstrate

Jo

the importance of the work context in understanding the flexibility stigma since what is stigmatizing in one context may not be stigmatizing in another. Indeed, while work context factors examined in our study tended to decrease career penalties for telecommuters including those who telecommuted extensively, the greatest career benefits were attained by those who only occasionally telecommuted. Thus, our study suggests comparative career premiums for occasional telecommuters who work in units where telecommuting is highly normative or who perform high levels of supplemental work. In this way, occasional telecommuters may experience the best of both worlds; they have the flexibility to better balance work and family

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 23 (Golden et al., 2006), and when they work in units where telecommuting is highly normative or they perform high levels of supplemental work, they may also benefit from greater promotions and salary growth. Interestingly, our study revealed that high face-to-face contact with one’s supervisor was not associated with higher salary growth among occasional telecommuters, yet for those who telecommuted extensively, higher face-to-face contact yielded greater salary growth. Moreover,

of

as shown in Figure 4, in comparison to those with low face-to-face contact, high face-to-face

ro

contact with the supervisor appeared to off-set the negative changes to salary growth across the

-p

full range of extent of telecommuting. Said differently, with high face-to-face contact with one’s supervisor, the extent of telecommuting was associated with neither a career premium nor a

re

penalty. Thus, higher face-to-face contact with one’s supervisor appears to be an effective

lP

impression management strategy that buffers the effects of telecommuting, and this appears to

na

benefit extensive telecommuters more than occasional telecommuters. Building on our study, future research might seek to identify additional features of face-to-face interactions and

ur

additional contextual factors that could further help extensive telecommuters minimize the

Jo

intensity of the flexibility stigma and signal their devotion to work. As pointed out by other scholars, more research is needed to identify organizational factors that can normalize the use of telecommuting (Kossek & Lautsch, 2018; Masuda et al., 2017) and help buffer negative attributions associated with the flexibility stigma (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2013). Taken together, our results suggest that telecommuting’s effect on career success is more complex than previously thought, and that unpacking the interplay between the extent of telecommuting and additional factors in the work context may be especially informative in future research. Unlike previous studies which portray adverse consequences for telecommuter’s

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 24 careers success (e.g. Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Elsbach & Cable, 2012), this study finds that combinations of the extent of telecommuting and factors in the work context may benefit some telecommuters over others, and that telecommuting is not necessarily detrimental to one’s career success compared to non-telecommuters. Moreover, in-line with meta-analytic research which found factors that predict promotions and salary tend to vary (Ng et al., 2005), our study revealed that telecommuters’ promotions may not be accompanied by salary increases. From a flexibility

of

stigma perspective, our results therefore suggest that the intensity of the negative attributions

ro

associated with telecommuting which signal a lack of devotion to work tend to vary with the

-p

extent of telecommuting. Our results also demonstrate the importance of the work context in

re

understanding the career penalties and premiums experienced by occasional versus more extensive telecommuters. Clearly more research is needed into the career consequences of

lP

telecommuting and how the flexibility stigma appears to vary within different work contexts.

na

Limitations

Although this study minimized common method bias by collecting data from two

ur

sources, there are some limitations that prevent us from asserting more definitive conclusions.

Jo

First, although results suggested that the extent of telecommuting was negatively related to promotions and salary growth, we cannot categorically conclude that the extent of telecommuting caused fewer promotions or lower salary growth. Any causal conclusions would require a longitudinal design that could isolate the effects of telecommuting over time from factors that have been found to influence career success (Judge et al., 1995; Ng et al., 2005). Second, the company did not provide data on respondents’ specific salary because it believed that providing such data would risk violating confidentiality. Having access to individual-level data on salary would have allowed a more robust examination of our hypotheses. Third, in this

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 25 study we analyzed data for employees who remained in the organization over the study period. As such, future research should investigate telecommuting’s impact on turnover. It would also be useful to investigate subjective career success in addition to objective career success, so that the full range of career outcomes associated with the extent of telecommuting can be more completely understood. Fourth, assertions were made about the possible effects of attributions and signals related to the flexibility stigma without actually measuring such attributional

of

processes or signals. In particular, we extended previous research that has linked the use of

ro

flexible work practices to signals indicating a prioritization of family over work (Leslie et al.,

-p

2012; Veiga et al., 2004) and a lack of devotion to work (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Williams et al.,

re

2013) by suggesting that this signal was stronger with more extensive telecommuting. Although our approach reflects previous research on signaling theory that uses observable characteristics

lP

as proxies for attitudes and traits (Connelly et al., 2011) as well as research that demonstrates

na

how attributions and trait inferences about the use of flexible work practices tend to be unintentional and unconscious (Elsbach et al., 2010; Leslie et al., 2012), future research should

ur

seek to gather information on the specific signals and attributions associated with occasional

Jo

versus extensive telecommuters across work contexts. Additionally, although we examined a large sample of employees in a company with an active telecommuting program, we cannot conclude that our findings are generalizable to all individuals or organizations. For example, extrapolating from our findings regarding telecommuting normativeness suggests that in organizations where telecommuting is uncommon or discouraged, even occasional telecommuters may be penalized. Future research should therefore explore how an organization’s support for work-family balance and telecommuting practices affects the career success of occasional versus extensive telecommuters, and analyze

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 26 data from multiple companies to ensure the applicability of our results. Moreover, given that the sample in our study is drawn from professional-level employees in a company providing technology services, these employees were comfortable using technology and had significant autonomy in conducting their work. As such, it appears our results would apply to similar professional-level employees in other industries who have discretion in where and how they work. For non-professional level employees who lack autonomy, however, our results are less

of

applicable, regardless of industry. Similarly, our results would likely not apply to organizations

ro

and industries where telecommuting is rarely possible, for example, when the majority of jobs

-p

require employees to perform their job at the workplace (i.e. hotels, restaurants, hospitals).

re

Future research should therefore include a broad range of employees in other organizations and industries with different career development policies and practices in order to ensure our results

lP

are widely generalizable.

na

Implications for Practice

Although the potential for telecommuting to negatively impact one’s career success has

ur

often been asserted (e.g. Elsbach & Cable, 2012; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007), research to date

Jo

has been equivocal and has ignored the heterogeneity among telecommuters. Contrary to ‘urban legend’, findings from our study suggest telecommuters do not differ from non-telecommuters in terms of promotions although they do differ in salary growth. However, individuals who telecommute occasionally fare better in promotions and salary growth than those who telecommute extensively. Thus, our results suggest that the inconsistent findings from previous research regarding the impact of telecommuting on career success is likely due to variance in the extent to which telecommuters work away from the office. We also discovered that factors in the work context can buffer the negative impact that extensive telecommuting has on promotions

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 27 and salary growth. Specifically, extensive telecommuters received more promotions in work contexts where telecommuting was highly normative, or when they performed a higher amount of supplemental work. Additionally, extensive telecommuters received higher salary growth when they performed a higher amount of supplemental work or had high face-to-face contact with their supervisor. In contrast, the careers of extensive telecommuters appear to be penalized when they work in units where telecommuting is less normative, when they perform little

of

supplemental work, or when they lack face-to-face contact with their supervisor. Further, our

ro

results revealed that occasional telecommuters receive the greatest career benefits from working

-p

in a unit where telecommuting was highly normative, or when they performed higher levels of

re

supplemental work. Thus, it is not simply telecommuting per se that may hurt one’s career, but rather extensive telecommuting coupled with contextual factors, which may most determine

lP

career success.

na

Given the widely acknowledged work-family benefits of telecommuting, telecommuters may therefore be able to experience the ‘best of both worlds’ if they harness factors in the work

ur

context to boost their standing in competitively awarded promotion and salary decisions. Our

Jo

study also suggests that telecommuters may be able to lessen the intensity of the flexibility stigma associated with extensive telecommuting, thereby buffering the negative effect that extensive telecommuting has on career success. In turn, employers are likely to benefit from dedicated and content employees. In this way, telecommuters and their organizations should be better able to benefit from this increasingly popular work mode.

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 28 References Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How Effective Is Telecommuting? Assessing the Status of Our Scientific Findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(2), 40-68. Arthur, M. B., Khapova, S. N., & Wilderom, C. P. (2005). Career success in a boundaryless career world. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(2), 177-202.

of

Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new directions,

ro

and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4),

-p

383-400.

re

Bartel, C. A., Wrzesniewski, A., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (2012). Knowing where you stand: Physical isolation, perceived respect, and organizational identification among virtual

lP

employees. Organization Science, 23(3), 743-757.

na

Baruch, Y. (2000). Teleworking: Benefits and pitfalls as perceived by professionals and managers. New Technology, Work and Employment, 15(1), 34-49.

ur

Bos, A. E., Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Stutterheim, S. E. (2013). Stigma: Advances in theory

Jo

and research. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(1), 1-9. Boudreau, J. W., Boswell, W. R., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Effects of personality on executive career success in the United States and Europe. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(1), 53-81. Bourdeau, S., Ollier-Malaterre, A., & Houlfort, N. (2019). Not all work-life policies are created equal: Career consequences of using enabling versus enclosing work-life policies. Academy of Management Review, 44(1), 172-193. Breaugh, J. A., & Farabee, A. M. (2012). Telecommuting and flexible work hours: Alternative

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 29 work arrangements that can improve the quality of work life. In Work and Quality of Life (pp. 251-274). Springer, Dordrecht. Casper, W. J., & Harris, C. M. (2008). Work-life benefits and organizational attachment: Selfinterest utility and signaling theory models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(1), 95109. Chung, H., & Van der Horst, M. (2018). Women’s employment patterns after childbirth and the

of

perceived access to and use of flexitime and teleworking. Human Relations, 71(1), 47-72.

ro

Coenen, M., & Kok, R. A. (2014). Workplace flexibility and new product development

-p

performance: The role of telework and flexible work schedules. European Management

re

Journal, 32(4), 564-576.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation

lP

analysis for the behavioral sciences, 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

na

Coltrane, S., Miller, E. C., DeHaan, T., & Stewart, L. (2013). Fathers and the flexibility stigma. Journal of Social Issues, 69(2), 279-302.

ur

Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review

Jo

and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39-67. Cooper, C. D., & Kurland, N.B. (2002). Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee development in public and private organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23 (4), 511-532. Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 504–553). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Drolet, A. L., & Morris, M. W. (2000). Rapport in conflict resolution: Accounting for how faceto-face contact fosters mutual cooperation in mixed-motive conflicts. Journal of

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 30 Experimental Social Psychology, 36(1), 26-50. DuBrin, A. J. (1991). Comparison of the job satisfaction and productivity of telecommuters versus in-house employees: A research note on work in progress. Psychological Reports, 68(3c), 1223-1234. Dumas, T. L., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2015). The professional, the personal, and the ideal worker: Pressures and objectives shaping the boundary between life domains. The Academy of

of

Management Annals, 9(1), 803-843.

ro

Duncan, S., & Fiske, D. W. (2015). Face-to-face interaction: Research, methods, and theory.

-p

Routledge.

re

Duxbury, L. E., Higgins, C. A., & Thomas, D. R. (1996). Work and family environments and the adoption of computer-supported supplemental work-at-home. Journal of Vocational

lP

Behavior, 49(1), 1-23.

na

Elsbach, K. D., Cable, D. M., & Sherman, J. W. (2010). How passive ‘face time’affects

63(6), 735-760.

ur

perceptions of employees: Evidence of spontaneous trait inference. Human Relations,

Jo

Elsbach, K., & Cable, D. (2012). Why showing your face at work matters. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(4), 10. Fallon, N. (2016). What remote workers need to know about career development. Business News Daily, August 3. Retrieved on March 29, 2019 from https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/9293-remote-worker-career-development.html Fenner, G. H., & Renn, R. W. (2004). Technology‐assisted supplemental work: Construct definition and a research framework. Human Resource Management, 43(2‐3), 179-200. Ferris, G. R., Witt, L. A., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2001). Interaction of social skill and general

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 31 mental ability on job performance and salary. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1075. Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524. Gallup, L. L. C. (2017). State of the American workplace: Employee engagement insights for US

of

business leaders. Washington, DC. Retrieved on March 16, 2019 from http://www.

ro

gallup. com.

-p

Gariety, B. S., & Shaffer, S. (2001). Wage differentials associated with flextime. Monthly Lab.

re

Rev., 124, 68.

Monthly Lab. Rev., 130, 61.

lP

Gariety, B. S., & Shaffer, S. (2007). Wage differentials associated with working at home.

na

Glass, J. (2004). Blessing or curse? Work-family policies and mother’s wage growth over time. Work and Occupations, 31(3), 367-394.

ur

Glass, J. L., & Noonan, M. C. (2016). Telecommuting and earnings trajectories among American

Jo

women and men 1989–2008. Social Forces, 95(1), 217-250. Global Workplace Analytics (2015, February 23). Latest Telecommuting Statistics. Retrieved on February 9, 2019 from http://globalworkplaceanalytics.com/telecommuting-statistics. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Spectrum. Golden, T.D. (2006a). Avoiding Depletion in Virtual Work: Telework and the Intervening Impact of Work Exhaustion on Commitment and Turnover Intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 176-187. Golden, T. D. (2006b). The role of relationships in understanding telecommuter satisfaction.

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 32 Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(3), 319-340. Golden, T.D. (2012). Altering the Effects of Work and Family Conflict on Exhaustion: Telework During Traditional and Nontraditional Work Hours. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(3), 255-269. Golden, T. D., & Gajendran, R. S. (2019). Unpacking the role of a telecommuter’s job in their performance: examining job complexity, problem solving, interdependence, and social

of

support. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(1), 55-69.

ro

Golden, T. D., & Veiga, J. F. (2005). The impact of extent of telecommuting on job satisfaction:

-p

Resolving inconsistent findings. Journal of Management, 31(2), 301-318.

re

Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Dino, R. N. (2008). The impact of professional isolation on teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent teleworking,

lP

interacting face-to-face, or having access to communication-enhancing technology

na

matter?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1412. Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Simsek, Z. (2006). Telecommuting's differential impact on work-

ur

family conflict: Is there no place like home?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1340.

Jo

Goodman, P. S. (1975). Effect of perceived inequity on salary allocation decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(3), 372. Green, L. (2014). The dark side of telecommuting: Does working from home hurt your career? The Future of Business Collaboration, PGI. June 3. Retrieved on September 15, 2018 from http://blog.pgi.com/2013/06/the-dark-side-of-telecommuting-does-working-fromhome-hurt-your-career/. Heslin, P. A. (2005). Conceptualizing and evaluating career success. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 113-136.

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 33 Hill, E. J., Ferris, M., & Märtinson, V. (2003). Does it matter where you work? A comparison of how three work venues (traditional office, virtual office, and home office) influence aspects of work and personal/family life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(2), 220241. Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D. (1995). An empirical investigation of the predictors of executive career success. Personnel Psychology, 48(3), 485-519.

of

Kaplan, S., Engelsted, L., Lei, X., & Lockwood, K. (2018). Unpackaging manager mistrust in

-p

Business and Psychology, 33(3), 365-382.

ro

allowing telework: comparing and integrating theoretical perspectives. Journal of

re

Kossek, E. E., & Lautsch, B. A. (2018). Work–life flexibility for whom? Occupational status and work–life inequality in upper, middle, and lower level jobs. Academy of Management

lP

Annals, 12(1), 5-36.

na

Kossek, E. E., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Face-time matters: A cross-level model of how work-life flexibility influences work performance of individuals and groups. In Handbook of work-

ur

family integration (pp. 305-330). Academic Press.

Jo

Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work–family effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(2), 347-367. Kossek, E. E., Thompson, R. J., & Lautsch, B. A. (2015). Balanced workplace flexibility. California Management Review, 57(4), 2015. Lam, S. S., Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). The relationship between external job mobility and salary attainment across career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 129136.

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 34 Leslie, L. M., Manchester, C. F., Park, T. Y., & Mehng, S. A. (2012). Flexible work practices: A source of career premiums or penalties?. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 14071428. Lewis, S., & Smithson, J. (2001). Sense of entitlement to support for the reconciliation of employment and family life. Human Relations, 54(11), 1455-1481. Lister, K., & Harnish, T. (2011). The State of Telework in the US. Telework Research Network,

of

June.

ro

Lucas, S. (2013). Does Telecommuting Hurt Your Career? CBS Moneywatch, Febrary 27.

-p

Retrieved on January 15, 2019 from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-telecommuting-

re

hurt-your-career/

Marshall, G. W., Michaels, C. E., & Mulki, J. P. (2007). Workplace isolation: Exploring the

lP

construct and its measurement. Psychology and Marketing, 24(3), 195-223.

na

Martin, B., & MacDonnell, R. (2012). Is telework effective for organizations? A meta-analysis of empirical research on perceptions of telework and organizational outcomes.

ur

Management Research Review, 35(7), 602-616.

Jo

Masuda, A. D., Holtschlag, C., & Nicklin, J. M. (2017). Why the availability of telecommuting matters: The effects of telecommuting on engagement via goal pursuit. Career Development International, 22(2), 200-219. McCloskey, D. W., & Igbaria, M. (2003). Does" out of sight" mean" out of mind"? An empirical investigation of the career advancement prospects of telecommuters. Information Resources Management Journal, 16(2), 19-34. Mulki, J. P., Bardhi, F., Lassk, F. G., & Nanavaty-Dahl, J. (2009). Set up remote workers to thrive. MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(1), 63.

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 35 Munsch, C. L., Ridgeway, C. L., & Williams, J. C. (2014). Pluralistic ignorance and the flexibility bias: Understanding and mitigating flextime and flexplace bias at work. Work and Occupations, 41(1), 40-62. Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 367-408.

telecommuters. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

of

Nilles, J. M. (1994). Making telecommuting happen: A guide for telemanagers and

ro

Ostroff, C., & Atwater, L. E. (2003). Does whom you work with matter? Effects of referent

-p

group gender and age composition on managers' compensation. Journal of Applied

re

Psychology, 88(4), 725.

Perrigino, M. B., Dunford, B. B., & Wilson, K. S. (2018). Work–Family Backlash: The “Dark

lP

Side” of Work–Life Balance (WLB) Policies. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2),

na

600-630.

Piskurich, G. M. (1998). An organizational guide to telecommuting. Setting Up and Running a

Jo

Development.

ur

Successful Telecommuter Program. Alexandria, VA. American Society for Training and

Reitman, F., & Schneer, J. A. (2005). The long-term negative impacts of managerial career interruptions: A longitudinal study of men and women MBAs. Group & Organization Management, 30(3), 243-262. Riley, F. & McCloskey, D. W. (1997). Telecommuting as a response to helping people balance work and family. In S. Parasuraman, and J. H. Greenhaus (Eds.), Integrating work and family: Challenges and choices for a changing world (pp. 133-142). Westport, CT: Quorum/Greenwood.

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 36 Rosenbaum, J. E. (1979). Tournament mobility: Career patterns in a corporation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 220-241. Ryan, A. M., & Kossek, E. E. (2008). Work‐life policy implementation: Breaking down or creating barriers to inclusiveness?. Human Resource Management, 47(2), 295-310. Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219-237.

of

Sewell, G. (2012). Organization, employees and surveillance. Routledge handbook of

ro

surveillance studies, 303.

-p

Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355-374.

re

Stevens, G., & Szajna, B. (1998). Perceptions and expectations: Why people choose a telecommuting lifestyle. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 3, 70-85.

lP

Stumpf, S. A., & Tymon Jr., W. G. (2012). The effects of objective career success on subsequent

na

subjective career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, 345-353. Tillema, T., Dijst, M., & Schwanen, T. (2010). Face-to-face and electronic communications in

ur

maintaining social networks: the influence of geographical and relational distance and of

Jo

information content. New Media & Society, 12(6), 965-983. Tugend, A. (2014, March 8). It’s unclearly defined, but telecommuting is fast on the rise. New York Times, p. B6. Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. (1994). Role of protégé personality in receipt of mentoring and career success. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 688-702. Veiga, J. F., Baldridge, D. C., & Eddleston, K. A. (2004). Toward understanding employee reluctance to participate in family-friendly programs. Human Resource Management Review, 14(3), 337-351.

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 37 Venkatesh, A., & Vitalari, N. P. (1992). An emerging distributed work arrangement: An investigation of computer-based supplemental work at home. Management Science, 38(12), 1687-1706. Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Graf, I. K., & Ferris, G. R. (1997). The role of upward influence tactics in human resource decisions. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 979-1006. Weeden, K. A. (2005). Is there a flexiglass ceiling? Flexible work arrangements and wages in the

of

United States. Social Science Research, 34, 454-482.

ro

Williams, J. C., Berdahl, J. L., & Vandello, J. A. (2016). Beyond work-life “integration”. Annual

-p

Review of Psychology, 67, 515-539.

re

Williams, J. C., Blair‐Loy, M., & Berdahl, J. L. (2013). Cultural schemas, social class, and the flexibility stigma. Journal of Social Issues, 69(2), 209-234.

lP

Young, Mary B. "Work-family backlash: begging the question, what's fair?." The ANNALS of the

Jo

ur

na

American Academy of Political and Social Science 562.1 (1999): 32-46.

Journal Pre-proof

Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 38

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Variables for Telecommuters Variables 1. Gender 2. Age 3. Organizational Tenure 4. Hours Worked 5. Extent of Telecommuting 6. Promotions 7. Salary Growth 8. Telecommuting Normativeness 9. Supplemental Work 10.Face-to-Face Contact

Mean .48 4.10 11.01 48.03 .43 .54 .19 .32 4.94 2.60

SD .50 .95 3.62 6.29 .24 .11 .18 .15 5.47 1.42

1

2

3

4

-.14* .08 -.09 -.22** .12 .02 .00 -.01 .11

.18** .19** .28** -.02 -.08 -.11 -.06 -.25**

.01 -.07 .19** .19** .04 -.06 .04

.23** .07 -.07 -.01 .39** -.11

l a

6

7

.61** .12 .28** .06

.16* .32** .02

f o

o r p

e

r P

5

-.23** -.21** .01 -.15* -.39**

Note. * p<.05; ** p<.01 Promotions are log transformed. Coding of variables: gender: 0 = male, 1 = female.

Jo

n r u

8

9

-.01 .07

.00

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 39 Table 2 Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Promotions Model:

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 5

Step 1: Controls Age Gender Organizational Tenure Hours Worked

-.05 .10 .20** .09

-.02 .02 .22*** .04

.00 .06 .17* .13*

.02 .07 .18** .01

.02 .06 .18** .02

-.23***

-.19**

-.15

.11 .27*** -.04

.14* .21** -.01

Step 2: Telecommuting (yes/no) Extent of telecommuting

of

-.09

ro

Step 3: Telecommuting normativeness Supplemental work Face-to-Face Contact

re

∆R2 R2 Adjusted R2 F

-.15* -.14* .08

-p

Step 4: Telecommuting normativeness x extent of telecommuting Supplemental work x extent of telecommuting Face-to-Face Contact x extent of telecommuting

lP

.06** .06 .04 3.50**

.01 .05 .04 4.30**

.04*** .10 .08 5.14***

.07*** .17 .14 5.81***

.03* .21 .17 5.14***

Jo

ur

na

Note: * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001 Respondents for models 1, 3, 4, 5 include telecommuters (N = 239); Respondents for model 2 includes telecommuters and non-telecommuters (N = 405). Standardized regression coefficients are reported. Calculations are based on logarithmic values for promotions. Coding of variables: gender: 0 = male, 1 = female; telecommuting: 0 = no, 1 = yes.

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 40

Table 3 Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Salary Growth Model:

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 5

Step 1: Controls Age Gender Organizational Tenure Hours Worked

-.12 -.02 .22** -.05

-.21*** -.02 .12* -.08

-.07 -05 .20** -.02

-.04 -.04 .22*** -.20**

-.05 -.04 .22*** -.20**

-.12

-.03

.14 .39*** -.08

.12 .33*** .00

Step 2: Telecommuting (yes/no) Extent of telecommuting

of

-.12*

-.18**

-p

ro

Step 3: Telecommuting normativeness Supplemental work Face-to-Face Contact

re

Step 4: Telecommuting normativeness x extent of telecommuting Supplemental work x extent of telecommuting Face-to-Face Contact x extent of telecommuting ∆R2 R2 Adjusted R2 F

na

lP

.06** .06 .04 3.37*

.01* .07 .06 6.20***

-.04 -.21** .18* .03** .08 .06 4.11**

.14*** .23 .20 8.27***

.04** .27 .23 7.41***

Jo

ur

Note: * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001 Respondents for models 1, 3, 4, 5 include telecommuters (N = 239); Respondents for model 2 includes telecommuters and non-telecommuters (N = 405). Standardized regression coefficients are reported. Coding of variables: gender: 0 = male, 1 = female; telecommuting: 0 = no, 1 = yes.

Jo

ur

na

lP

re

-p

ro

of

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 41

Jo

ur

na

lP

re

-p

ro

of

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 42

Jo

ur

na

lP

re

-p

ro

of

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 43

Jo

ur

na

lP

re

-p

ro

of

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 44

Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 45 Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? Examining the Relationship Between Telecommuting and Objective Career Success

Highlights ● Telecommuters and non-telecommuters did not differ in number of promotions ● Extent of telecommuting was key to understanding promotions and salary growth

of

● Telecommuters received more promotions when telecommuting was highly normative

ro

● Greater promotions were received when supplemental work was higher

Jo

ur

na

lP

re

-p

● Higher salary growth received by extensive telecommuters with greater face-to-face contact