Work and Family Environments and the Adoption of Computer-Supported Supplemental Work-at-Home

JOURNAL OF VOCATIONAL BEHAVIOR ARTICLE NO.

49, 1–23 (1996)

0030

Work and Family Environments and the Adoption of Computer-Supported Supplemental Work-at-Home LINDA ELIZABETH DUXBURY School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

CHRISTOPHER ALAN HIGGINS Western Business School, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada AND

D. ROLAND THOMAS School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada This research compares the work, family, and work–family environments of adopters and nonadopters of computer-supported supplementary work-at-home (e.g., work done at home, after regular office hours, using computer technology). Subjects consisted of 307 men and 147 women. These individuals were married, in managerial or professional positions, used a computer in their job, and had a spouse who had a fulltime managerial or professional job. The results show that adopters of computersupported work-at-home have higher task variety, role overload, interference, and stress than nonadopters. Interestingly, there were no significant differences in marital or family satisfaction despite concerns that computer technology would create computer widows and be perceived as a major intrusion of the office into the home. Our results indicate that computer-supported supplemental work-at-home may provide benefits for organizations who facilitate their employees’ acquisition of home technology. q 1996 Academic Press, Inc.

INTRODUCTION

Computer and telecommunications technologies are enabling flexibility in work arrangements that was previously unavailable (Fritz, Higa, & NarasimThis research was supported by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, National Health and Welfare, Canada, and The National Centre for Management Research, Western Business School. Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Christopher Alan Higgins, Western Business School, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 3K7. 1 0001-8791/96 $18.00 Copyright q 1996 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

AID

JVB 1511

/

6305$$$161

07-09-96 13:02:13

jvba

AP: JVB

2

DUXBURY, HIGGINS, AND THOMAS

han, 1994; Olson, 1983; Schiff, 1983; Toffler, 1980; Venkatesh & Vitalari, 1992). In particular, these technologies are allowing individuals to telecommute (Nilles et al., 1976; Toffler, 1980), perform ‘‘mobile’’ work (Di Martina & Wirth, 1990; Fritz, Higa, & Narasimhan, 1994), or perform computer-supported supplemental work-at-home (SWAH) (Venkatesh & Vitalari, 1992). Work-at-home is ‘‘a general term which refers to any employment-related work performed at home’’ (Venkatesh & Vitalari, 1992, pp. 1688). Telework, remote work, or telecommuting is the use of computers and telecommunications equipment to do office work away from a central, conventional office during regular office hours (Kraut, 1987). SWAH is defined as ‘‘a distributed work arrangement where the home is used as a setting for job-related work (i.e., work tasks performed on behalf of the primary employer) by individuals employed full time outside, after normal work hours or on weekends’’ (Venkatesh & Vitalari, 1992, p. 1688). The term supplemental signifies that the work done at home augments time spent at the office, and distinguishes it from telecommuting or telework, where time spent working at home replaces that done at a central office location. Computer-supported SWAH is a subset of SWAH where the computer is used to facilitate work from home (Venkatesh & Vitalari, 1992). To date, little empirical research has examined computer-based supplemental work at home (Di Martina & Wirth, 1990; Fritz et al., 1994; Venkatesh & Vitalari, 1992). This has occurred despite the rapid increase in computersupported SWAH (Kraut, 1987, 1988, 1989; Olson, 1985; Vitalari & Venkatesh, 1989), and the fact that results from telecommuting and work-athome studies may not be generalizable to populations who perform computersupported SWAH. It is also likely that results based on SWAH are not generalizable to computer-supported SWAH. Numerous studies support this contention. For example, work by Rogers (1985) and Vitalari, Venkatesh, and Gronhaug (1985) suggests that computers will only be acquired for work-related use outside the office by individuals who perceive that there is a match between their work needs, their family needs, and the capabilities of the technology. This implies that employees with computers at home may differ in a number of ways from their colleagues without computers. Research in the area of sociotechnical systems (Rousseau, 1983; Woodward, 1958) suggests that technology cannot be regarded as a purely passive phenomenon because it ‘‘contains certain inherent possibilities that unfold with continuous use’’ (Venkatesh & Vitalari, 1992, p. 1690). In other words, having a computer at home will change how an employee experiences both work and family environments (Dutton, Kovaric, & Steinfield, 1985; Dutton, Rogers, & Jun, 1987; Kraut, 1987). The purpose of this research is to conduct an exploratory study of computersupported SWAH. The research will focus on differences between adopters

AID

JVB 1511

/

6305$$$161

07-09-96 13:02:13

jvba

AP: JVB

COMPUTER-SUPPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL WORK-AT-HOME

3

and nonadopters of this work arrangement. Various characteristics of the work, family, and work–family environments will be investigated. Gender and parental status differences between adopters and nonadopters will also be explored. This research is important for several reasons. First, as noted above, computer-supported SWAH is a large and rapidly growing phenonemon. With rapid increases in the capabilities of technology, and investments by organizations that allow remote work, more and more individuals are using technology after hours to complete work tasks. The recent trend of organizations to downsize and to do more work with less employees further highlights why individuals are performing computer-supported SWAH. From an individual and organizational perspective, the topic is also interesting. Important questions relate to why some individuals adopt computersupported SWAH and others do not. When adoption occurs, important questions surround the impact of adoption. Individuals are interested in knowing the impact computer-supported SWAH might have on their work and family lives. For example, will technology be perceived as a intrusion of the organization in the home, or will it be seen as a way of allowing individuals to balance the dual demands of work and family. Organizations are interested in knowing if it affects, for example, productivity or job satisfaction. Answers to these questions would allow organizations to determine if they should invest in technology that would facilitate computer-supported SWAH. LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review is divided into four sections. The first three sections review literature related to the work, family, and work–family environment variables considered in this analysis. Within each of these sections, variables that may lead to the adoption of computer-supported SWAH are presented first, followed by variables that measure possible impacts of computer-supported SWAH. As this is an exploratory study, and not a test of a causal model, we believe that mixing the antecedents and consequences is appropriate. This division is consistent with Gutek’s questions (1983, p. 163): ‘‘What can technology do for you?’’ (antecedents of SWAH) and ‘‘What can technology do to you?’’ (consequences). The last section explores the role of gender and parental status. These independent variables were added to allow us to examine whether the antecedents and consequences of computer-supported SWAH differ for men and women, and for parents and nonparents. The Work Environment

Four possible work antecedents of SWAH are considered in this analysis: work expectations, job involvement, task variety, and role clarity. A number of studies (e.g., Huws, Korte, & Robinson, 1990; Kraut, 1987; Olson, 1985) suggest that employees who perceive that they have higher work expectations or are more involved in their work, select SWAH because it

AID

JVB 1511

/

6305$$$161

07-09-96 13:02:13

jvba

AP: JVB

4

DUXBURY, HIGGINS, AND THOMAS

enables them to increase their output in an environment freer from distraction and interruption than the conventional office (Kraut, 1989). Because home computers facilitate work from home (Pfeffer & Baron, 1988; Venkatesh & Vitalari, 1992) and are perceived to increase output, individuals with higher job involvement and expectations may be more likely to adopt computersupported SWAH than those with lower involvement and expectations. Managers and professionals work in positions with high task variety and low role clarity. Such positions typically require individuals to spend time in tasks that require high levels of concentration and a quiet, distraction-free environment. It is possible that individuals with high task variety and low role clarity would adopt computer-supported SWAH to make it easier for them to accomplish the many different tasks required in their jobs (Kraut, 1989). Three possible work consequences of SWAH are considered in this analysis: autonomy, work conflict, and job satisfaction. Home computers have been linked to an increase in autonomy and control. For example, Venkatesh and Vitalari (1992) suggest that ‘‘self-determination’’ (i.e., a sense of choice in initiating and regulating one’s actions) is an important underlying motivation for a computer owner’s decision to work at home. They argue that computer owners have more autonomy and control over their work than their counterparts without computers. Beach (1989) links SWAH to a decrease in work conflict due to the increased autonomy and control that accompanied SWAH. As noted previously, home computers are positively associated with the perception of control (Venkatesh & Vitalari, 1992). Thus, home computer users would be expected to display lower levels of work conflict than those who do not use computers for after-hours work. Hackman and Oldham (1980) report a positive association between flexibility and control and job satisfaction. If home computers do indeed increase an employee’s flexibility and control, as suggested by Kraut (1989) and Venkatesh and Vitalari (1992), then they should also be associated with greater job satisfaction. As noted earlier, this is an exploratory study. There is very little theory available on which to base directional hypotheses. Therefore research questions, rather than hypotheses are formulated. The first research question is: Q1. Do any work environment factors (task variety, autonomy, role clarity, job involvement, work expectations, job satisfaction, and work conflict) discriminate between adopters of computer-supported SWAH and those who perform SWAH without computers?

The Family Environment

Two possible family-related antecedents of SWAH are considered in this analysis: family involvement and family expectations.

AID

JVB 1511

/

6305$$$161

07-09-96 13:02:13

jvba

AP: JVB

COMPUTER-SUPPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL WORK-AT-HOME

5

Although data linking family involvement to computer-supported SWAH are limited, that which is available suggests that employees who perform computer-supported SWAH will have higher family involvement than those who perform SWAH. Dickerson and Gentry (1983) found that home computer adopters were more involved with their families and more oriented to their home and to everyday home activities than were nonadopters. The literature suggests that career individuals with high family expectations (i.e., greater responsibility for child care and home chores) will be attracted to SWAH as the work style makes it easier for them to satisfy high work and family demands simultaneously by performing job-related work in the family domain (Leider, 1988). If individuals perceive that the acquisition of a home computer increases their ability to meet their family expectations, then family expectations should be positively associated with computer-supported work at home. Three possible family-related consequences of SWAH are considered in this analysis: interaction with family, marital satisfaction, and family conflict. There is little consensus in the literature regarding the relationship between a home computer and interactions within the family. In a key research study, Vitalari et al. (1985) found that the amount of time spent doing work at home increased, whereas the amount of time devoted to family activities and leisure decreased with acquisition of a home computer. Bird, Goss, and Bird (1990) reported that fathers who used the home computer 11 hours or more per week were less available to their wives and spent less time performing household chores. Studies by Gottlieb and Dede (1984) and Bird et al. (1990), however, concluded that patterns of interaction with family members were largely unchanged after the purchase of a home computer as computer users substituted computing (a solitary activity) for other generally solitary activities such as watching TV, reading, and doing the same work without the computer. Computer-supported SWAH has been linked to decreased marital satisfaction. Increasingly, couples find themselves tangled in domestic conflicts involving the computer and its effects as it becomes a part of everyday life (Rossman, 1983). Marriage counselors are now addressing difficulties in developing and maintaining relationships among those who are using computers in the home. Some complaints that have surfaced include an obsessiveness with work, the emergence of the ‘‘computer widow,’’ and a reduced time commitment to spouse and parent roles (Rossman, 1983). The home use of a computer for work-related purposes has been linked to an increase in family conflict (Gottlieb & Dede, 1984; Tinnell, 1985). Bird et al. (1990) found family conflict to be especially high in households where fathers traded off time with their spouse and time in home chores to spend time with their children on the computer. Bird et al. (1990) also blamed the fact that computer-supported SWAH is often done in a room separate from the rest of the family, for an increase in family conflict. The home computer has also been found to generate conflict when it is per-

AID

JVB 1511

/

6305$$$161

07-09-96 13:02:13

jvba

AP: JVB

6

DUXBURY, HIGGINS, AND THOMAS

ceived by an employee’s spouse as an intrusion of the organization into the family domain (Rogers, 1985). The study’s second research question is as follows: Q2. Do any family environment factors (family involvement, family interaction, marital satisfaction, family expectations, and family conflict) discriminate between adopters of computer-supported SWAH and those who perform SWAH without computers?

The Work–Family Environment

Three work–family environment variables, namely overload, interference, and stress, are both antecedents and consequences of computer-supported SWAH. Overload exists when the total demands on time and energy associated with the prescribed activities of multiple roles are too great to perform the roles adequately or comfortably. Interference occurs when conflicting demands make it difficult to fulfill the requirements of multiple roles. Stress occurs when the cumulative work and family demands placed on an individual become greater than their ability to cope to with these demands. Although these variables can be considered both antecedents (i.e., overload leads to the adoption of computer-supported SWAH to help reduce work demands) and consequences, the literature treats them primarily as consequences. One body of literature suggests several ways in which computer-supported SWAH may reduce overload, interference, and stress. Mechanisms noted include: (a) increased work-time and work-location flexibility (Venkatesh & Vitalari, 1992); (b) increased control over the pacing and scheduling of work (Jarratt & Coates, 1990; Venkatesh & Vitalari, 1992); and (c) an increased opportunity to spend more time with one’s family (Antanoff, 1985). A second body of literature suggests that overload, interference, and stress will increase as a consequence of computer-supported SWAH. For example, the computer may encourage SWAH, which will, in turn, make it more difficult for employees to separate work and family roles and keep conflicting roles at bay (Olson, 1985; Shamir & Salomon, 1985; Venkatesh & Vitalari, 1992). Computer-supported SWAH might also increase overload and stress by acting as an agent that promotes or reinforces, and over time legitimizes, after-hours work at home (Vitalari & Venkatesh, 1989). The third research question is as follows: Q3. Do any work–family environment factors (overload, interference, stress) discriminate between adopters of computer-supported SWAH and those who perform SWAH without computers?

Impact of Gender and Parental Status

This research is concerned with differences between adopters and nonadopters of computer-supported SWAH. Three classes of variables, the work envi-

AID

JVB 1511

/

6305$$$161

07-09-96 13:02:13

jvba

AP: JVB

COMPUTER-SUPPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL WORK-AT-HOME

7

ronment, the family environment, and the work–family environment, are considered in the analysis. Additionally, we are interested in whether there are differences related to gender and parental status. Although research suggests that when it comes to technology, gender matters, few studies have examined gender as a major determinant of home use of personal computers (Dutton, Rogers, & Jun, 1987). A number of studies have, however, examined the impact of gender on SWAH and work at home. Although all of these studies agree that the home work experience will be very different for women than men, there is little consensus as to the actual impact of gender. This study may be the first to explicitly look at gender and its relationship to the adopters and non-adopters of computersupported SWAH. It is possible that the greatest impact of computer-supported SWAH may be seen in households with children. Vitalari et al. (1985), for example, reported that time allocation patterns associated with computer-supported SWAH changed more dramatically in household with children than those without. Consequently, we have included parental status in this research. In summary, we have three basic research questions. Because gender and parental status may impact on the adoption of computer-supported SWAH, all interactions between gender, parental status, and the adoption of computersupported SWAH will be considered when testing this study’s three research questions. METHODOLOGY Instrument

The constructs examined in this study were operationalized using scales found in the literature. All items were scored on a five-point Likert scale. Each of constructs is described below. Work Environment Variables Task variety. Task variety is defined as the number of exceptions encountered in the characteristics of work (Quinn & Staines, 1979). This was operationalized using a three-item scale obtained from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Flesh, 1979). Respondents were asked the extent to which they disagreed or agreed with questions such as, ‘‘My job requires that I keep learning new things.’’ Task autonomy. Task autonomy is the ability to perform one’s job independently and control one’s work (Quinn & Staines, 1979). As with task variety, it was operationalized using a three-item scale from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Respondents were asked the extent to which they disagreed or agreed with questions such as, ‘‘It is basically my own responsibility to decide how my job gets done.’’ Role clarity. Role clarity refers to an individual’s level of understanding

AID

JVB 1511

/

6305$$$161

07-09-96 13:02:13

jvba

AP: JVB

8

DUXBURY, HIGGINS, AND THOMAS

about job roles and the criteria of adequate performance (Quinn & Staines, 1979). Two items measuring this were obtained from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Respondents were asked the extent to which they disagreed or agreed with questions such as, ‘‘On my job, I know exactly what is expected of me.’’ Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is the degree to which employees have a positive, affective orientation toward employment by the organization. The measure of job satisfaction developed by Quinn and Shepard (1974) for use in the Quality of Employment survey was used in this study to measure job satisfaction. Employees were asked to indicate how satisfied they were with their job in general, their pay, their work hours, their work schedule, and their work tasks. Work expectations. Work expectations are defined as perceived pressures on an individual to work more hours and assume increased work responsibilities (Quinn & Staines, 1979). This was operationalized using a four-item scale from Cooke and Rousseau (1984). A sample question asked respondents the extent to which they disagreed or agreed that people they work with expected them to ‘‘View work as the most important part of their life.’’ Job involvement. Job involvement is a psychological response to one’s current work role or job, the degree to which a person is identified psychologically with the job, and the importance of the job to the person’s self-image and self-concept (Lodahl & Kehner, 1965). The short form of Lodahl and Kehner’s (1965) scale (three items) is used in this survey. Respondents were asked the extent to which they disagreed or agreed with statements such as, ‘‘What I do at work is more important to me than the money I earn.’’ Work conflict. Work-role conflict is viewed in terms of the incompatibility of work demands. This may be in the form of conflict between organizational demands and one’s own values, problems of personal resource allocation, conflict between obligations to other people, and conflict between excessively numerous or difficult tasks. The eight-item work-role conflict scale used in this study was developed by Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970) and has been widely used. Respondents were asked, for example, how often (1 Å never; 5 Å always) ‘‘I have to do things that should be done differently.’’ Family Environment Variables Family involvement. Family involvement is defined as the degree to which a person is identified psychologically with family roles (i.e., spouse and parent), the importance of the family to the person’s self-image and selfconcept, and the individual’s commitment to family roles (Yogev & Brett, 1985). The short form of Yogev and Brett’s (1985) scale (six items) is used in this survey to measure family involvement. A sample question would be, ‘‘I am very much involved personally with my family members’ lives.’’ Family interaction. The extent to which a person socializes with their spouse and/or their children is defined as family interaction. The measure of

AID

JVB 1511

/

6305$$$161

07-09-96 13:02:13

jvba

AP: JVB

COMPUTER-SUPPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL WORK-AT-HOME

9

family interaction used in this study was taken from Palisi’s (1984) Marriage Companionship and Marriage Well-being Scale. Respondents were asked how often in the past month they had been involved with their spouse and/or their children in twelve different family activities. Family expectations. Family expectations are perceived pressures on an individual to spend more time on family roles (Cooke & Rousseau, 1984). Expectations were measured with five questions that asked respondents who in their household has the main responsibility for (a) taking children to day care, (b) taking children to health-care appointments, (c) chauffeuring children, (d) attending functions with children, and (e) daily care of children. Marital satisfaction. Marital satisfaction is an affective feeling by an individual on how happy or satisfied he or she is with his or her spouse (Quinn & Staines, 1979). The Quality of Significant Relationship Scale from the Health and Daily Living Form (Moos, Cronkite, Billings, & Finney, 1988) was used in this survey. Respondents are asked how often (1 Å never; 5 Å always) certain events occur between them and their spouse. Example events are (a) have a stimulating exchange of ideas, (b) laugh together, and (c) calmly discuss something. Family conflict. Five questions from Nye and MacDougall (1959) which evaluated how frequently (1 Å never; 5 Å always) a couple argued about money, children, recreation, work, and in total were used to measure family conflict. Work–Family Environment Variables Role overload was operationalized using the work–family role strain instrument developed by Bohen and Viveros-Long (1981). This scale asks respondents to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with a number of statements. Five questions were used to measure role overload. A sample question is, ‘‘I feel I have more to do than I can comfortably handle.’’ Interference. Eight questions from the Bohen and Viveros-Long (1981) scale were used to assess the extent to which the respondent perceived that work and family interfered with each other. A sample question is, ‘‘I wish I had more time to do things for the family.’’ Stress. The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983) was used to assess stress. This is a 14-item instrument designed to assess appraisals of the degree to which one’s current life situation is unpredictable, uncontrollable, and burdensome. A sample question is, ‘‘How often in the last month have you felt confident about your ability to handle your personal problems.’’ Computer-supported SWAH: Computer-supported SWAH was measured by asking, ‘‘On a typical work day, how many minutes per day do you use a personal computer (i.e., notebook, laptop, or regular personal computer) to perform job-related work outside the office?’’ A nonzero response was used to define adopters of computer-supported SWAH. The nonadopter group in-

AID

JVB 1511

/

6305$$$161

07-09-96 13:02:13

jvba

AP: JVB

10

DUXBURY, HIGGINS, AND THOMAS

cluded all respondents who indicated that they did overtime work at home but did not use a computer to do this work. For both adopters and nonadopters we eliminated those individuals who were teleworking (i.e., working at home full-time). To do this, we examined responses to two questions. The first question asked what work arrangement they used (i.e., regular 9-to-5, compressed work week, part-time work, telework, job sharing, atypical shift). We accepted only those individuals with a regular work arrangement. The second question asked, ‘‘How often do you do job-related work at home during regular work hours?’’ Respondents were eliminated from the study if they worked from home during regular hours about once a week or more frequently. Other time data relating to the amount of overtime worked at home and the amount of time spent at the office were also collected. To calculate SWAH time (i.e., time working at home not on the computer), we subtracted the average amount of time spent working on a computer at home from the average amount of overtime at home. Table 1 shows the internal consistencies (i.e., Cronbach’s alphas) for the scales as well as an intercorrelation matrix. Several scales exhibited poor internal consistency. These were autonomy (.58), role clarity (.46), and job involvement (.58). Several other scales were marginal including job satisfaction (.65) and task variety (.67). We are unsure as to why the alphas were low given that all scales were selected from the literature and had achieved high reliabilities in previous studies. Respondents

Many individual, organizational, and social factors have an impact on the decision to perform SWAH. To minimize the influence of nonmeasured confounds and to make the population as homogeneous as possible, the sample was limited to males and females who met the following criteria. They had to be married, managers and/or professionals who worked full-time, used a computer in their job, and had a spouse who had a full-time managerial or professional job outside the home. Research by Venkatesh and Vitalari (1992) and Kraut (1987, 1989) can be used to justify this decision. First, it would appear that managers and professionals are more likely than those in nonprofessional positions to perform tasks that can be done at home. Second, these employees are more likely than others to engage in SWAH for career advancement and job productivity. Third, career employees may have more discretionary time for SWAH because they can purchase time-saving goods and services. A sample of individuals who met the selection criteria was obtained from two government organizations that participated in our national work and family study (Higgins, Duxbury, & Lee, 1992). Approximately 6,400 (exact numbers are not known as liaison persons within the department did the distribution, and employee lists were not exact due to transfers, terminations, retirements, etc.) surveys were distributed in these government departments.

AID

JVB 1511

/

6305$$$161

07-09-96 13:02:13

jvba

AP: JVB

AID

JVB 1511

/

6305$$1511

07-09-96 13:02:13

Work expectations Job satisfaction Work conflict Autonomy Role clarity Task variety Job involvement Family involvement Family conflict Marital satisfaction Family expectations Family interaction Overload Interference Stress

*p õ .05.

12. 13. 14. 15.

11.

9. 10.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

.81 .79 .88 .71 .88

.10 0.27* .19* .17* .25*

.01 .17* 0.06 0.12* 0.35*

.02 0.24* .16* .19* .38*

0.11*

.09

0.11*

.85

.01 .21*

0.06 0.16*

.02 .11*

.83 .79

3

— 0.09 0.32* 0.07 0.05

2

— 0.37* .21* .32* .27* .16*

— 0.13* .27* .05 0.23 .07 .04

1

.84 .65 .83 .58 .46 .67 .58

Alpha

0.11 .07 0.07 0.02 0.10*

.12*

.05 0.13*

— .12* .41* .19*

4

0.07 .12* 0.16* 0.05 0.26*

.14*

.06 0.12*

— .13* .00

5

.07 0.01 .04 .03 0.15*

.10*

.03 0.13*

— .16*

6

.00 .08 .03 .00 0.12*

.01

0.03 0.04

—

7

.06 .04 .07 .04 .01

.23*

— 0.11*

8

TABLE 1 Cronbach’s Alpha and Intercorrelations

.10 .22* .15* 0.15* .35*

0.60*

—

9

0.15* .33* 0.15* 0.16* 0.37*

—

10

— 0.07 .17* .08 .08

11

— 0.18* 0.15* 0.32*

12

— .50* .27*

13

— .18*

14

—

15

COMPUTER-SUPPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL WORK-AT-HOME

jvba

11

AP: JVB

12

DUXBURY, HIGGINS, AND THOMAS

The response rate was slightly more than 50%, with 3,361 respondants. Of these 3,361 questionnaires, 454 respondents met our selection criteria. The final sample consisted of 307 dual-career males (DCM) and 147 dualcareer females (DCW) broken down as follows: 108 DCM parents who adopted computer-supported SWAH and 141 DCM parents who did not; 17 DCM nonparents who adopted computer-supported SWAH and 41 DCM nonparents who did not; 46 DCW parents who adopted computer-supported SWAH and 50 DCW parents who did not; 24 DCW nonparents who adopted computer-supported SWAH, and 27 DCW nonparents who did not. Because the focus of the research was on differences between adopters and nonadopters of computer-based SWAH, we compared the demographics of these two groups. Average age of adopters was 41.4 years, compared to 40.6 years for nonadopters. Adopters averaged 1.7 children compared to 1.5 for nonadopters. Average age of children was 10.2 years for adopters and 9.0 years for nonadopters. Over 87% of adopters and 74% of nonadopters had some university training. Slightly more than 50% of the adopters made more than $60,000 (Canadian) per year, compared to 43.5% of nonadopters. Adopters had been with their company an average of 12.1 years with 6 years in their current job. Nonadopters had been with their company 11.9 years and also had 6 years, on average, in their current job. Adopters supervised an average of 4.4 employees compared to 3.1 employees for nonadopters. Overall, the results indicate that the groups are reasonably similar on the demographic variables. Table 2 provides a summary for each of the eight groups of the mean number of hours per day: (1) working at the office, (2) performing SWAH, and (3) performing computer-based SWAH. The total time working (i.e., sum of the three categories) is also provided. In general computer-based SWAH adopters worked longer hours than nonadopters. The only exception was dual-career male nonparents, where nonadopters worked longer hours than adopters. Data Analysis

Multiple analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was used to examine the research questions. In this context a 2 1 2 1 2 MANCOVA was used with computer-supported SWAH (adopter vs. nonadopters), gender (dual-career men vs. dual-career women), and parental status (parents vs. nonparents) as factors. The covariate was the number of hours worked at home, not on a computer. This covariate eliminated differences between adopters and nonadopters that were related to a propensity to work from home, rather than differences associated with computer use at home. MANCOVA analysis has two distinct phases. In the first phase, the effect of the covariate is assessed. If the covariate is significant, it is left in the subsequent analyses. If the covariate is not significant, it is removed from the analysis and a regular multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) is run.

AID

JVB 1511

/

6305$$$161

07-09-96 13:02:13

jvba

AP: JVB

AID

JVB 1511

/

6305$$1511 a

8.59 .62 1.15 10.36

9.55 1.45 0.98 11.98

CS-SWAH Nonparents (n Å 17)

9.80

0.0

.99

8.81

SWAH Parents (n Å 141)

CS-SWAH, computer-supported supplemental work-at-home.

Hours at office Hours worked at home—no computer Hours worked at home—computer Total hours worked per day

CS-SWAHa Parents (n Å 108)

Dual-career men

10.59

0.0

1.47

9.12

SWAH Nonparents (n Å 41)

TABLE 2 Time Data

10.45

1.55

.92

7.98

CS-SWAH Parents (n Å 46)

11.17

0.88

1.29

9.00

CS-SWAH Nonparents (n Å 24)

8.85

0.0

.61

8.24

SWAH Parents (n Å 50)

Dual-career women

9.28

0.0

.91

8.37

SWAH Nonparents (n Å 27)

COMPUTER-SUPPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL WORK-AT-HOME

07-09-96 13:02:13

jvba

13

AP: JVB

14

DUXBURY, HIGGINS, AND THOMAS

Following significant MANOVAs, two follow-up techniques were used. The first is the usual univariate F-test. As recommended by Stevens (1992, pp. 196), we employed a protected F-test. The second is Thomas’s descriptive discriminant analysis (DDA). DDA is a method that examines parallel ‘‘discriminant ratio coefficients’’ (DRCs). These are simply the product of the standardized discriminant coefficient (SDF) and the structure coefficient (i.e., the correlation between a discriminant variable and the discriminant function) for each individual variable. By selecting the set of variables having large, positive, parallel DRCs, one is able to determine a subset of variables that act together as good discriminators. Because it can be shown that the parallel DRCs sum to one for each discriminant function and that individual parallel DRCs can be interpreted as the proportion of the ‘‘length of the discriminant function in the appropriate data space’’ represented by each independent variable in the variable set (Thomas, 1992), parallel DRCs provide a natural measure of a variable’s ‘‘importance’’ in discrimination. We labeled the discriminating variables as having ‘‘primary’’ or ‘‘secondary’’ importance. RESULTS

The results are presented in three stages: (a) multivariate tests of the research questions, (b) univariate follow-up of the significant multivariate findings, and (c) descriptive discriminant analysis of the research questions. Multivariate and univariate follow-up analyses are shown for only those multivariate comparisons declared significant at the 5% level. The means and standard deviations for the 16 variables included in the analysis are given in Table 3 for each of the eight groups. The research questions are answered by looking at the interaction effects first. The main effects are only tested if the interaction effects involving them are not significant. Because the focus of this article is the adoption of SWAH, only those interactions and main effects involving SWAH are considered. The Work Environment

The results of the multivariate tests of the work environment factors are provided in Table 4. For the three-way interaction, the covariate is significant. The analysis also indicates that the three-way interaction effect is significant (p õ .05). The effect size of this interaction is relatively small, so that one possible analysis strategy is to ignore the interaction and proceed directly to interpret the SWAH main effect (given the absence of a significant parental status by SWAH interaction). However, a full justification of this strategy would require that the three-way interaction be plotted using the covariateadjusted discriminant function means. Thus, a simpler approach was taken, in which the gender and SWAH effects were explored separately for the parent and nonparent groups. This approach is essentially a multivariate adaptation of

AID

JVB 1511

/

6305$$$161

07-09-96 13:02:13

jvba

AP: JVB

15

COMPUTER-SUPPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL WORK-AT-HOME TABLE 3 Means and Standard Deviations for Women and Men CS-SWAH Parents Mean

SD

SWAH

Nonparents Mean

Parents

Nonparents

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

.75 .64 .65 .81 .77 .53 .84 .84 .79 .50 — — .76 .53 .67

2.86 3.83 2.32 3.67 3.17 4.28 3.35 4.31 2.48 3.37 3.56 2.83 3.87 2.96 2.68

.96 .63 .67 .62 .88 .74 1.01 .74 .71 .65 .66 .59 .88 .81 .74

2.86 3.79 2.60 3.66 2.74 4.19 3.43 3.99 2.18 3.97 — — 3.16 2.66 2.38

.88 .60 .84 .71 .89 .72 .86 .52 .68 .41 — — .73 .76 .53

.87 .47 .55 .62 .65 .51 .83 .59 .66 .43 — — .69 .57 .71

2.95 3.76 2.84 3.80 3.08 4.26 3.34 4.14 2.33 3.46 2.83 2.91 3.22 2.81 2.51

.90 .65 .72 .58 .86 .54 .911 .64 .64 .54 .55 .76 1.00 .84 .64

2.80 3.98 2.77 3.65 3.23 4.17 3.25 3.99 2.17 3.75 — — 3.30 3.03 2.25

.97 .48 .71 .73 .97 .73 .99 .74 .62 .48 — — .96 .89 .59

Women Work expectations Job satisfaction Work conflict Autonomy Role clarity Task variety Job involvement Family involvement Family conflict Marital satisfaction Family expectations Family interaction Overload Interference Stress

3.36 3.65 2.94 3.79 2.74 4.47 3.82 4.22 2.51 3.38 3.49 2.79 4.07 3.10 2.73

1.01 .71 .63 .67 .98 .59 .67 .69 .73 .65 .59 .68 .58 .63 .72

3.10 3.59 3.29 3.57 2.52 4.46 3.18 4.06 2.31 3.92 — — 3.71 2.92 2.83 Men

Work expectations Job satisfaction Work conflict Autonomy Role clarity Task variety Job involvement Family involvement Family conflict Marital satisfaction Family expectations Family interaction Overload Interference Stress a

3.16 3.71 3.03 3.91 2.29 4.39 3.66 4.11 2.35 3.47 2.95 2.80 3.52 3.10 2.63

.821 .63 .58 .64 .77 .63 .77 .59 .59 .48 .64 .76 .86 .73 .69

3.09 3.52 2.85 3.78 2.97 4.43 3.59 4.01 2.28 3.71 — — 3.72 3.13 2.66

CS-SWAH, computer-supported supplemental work-at-home.

the ‘‘simple effects’’ strategy described by Kirk (1968, pp. 179–182, and pp. 222–223). For both parents and nonparents, the gender by SWAH interaction effects were not significant. The absence of two-way interactions allows us to exam-

AID

JVB 1511

/

6305$$$161

07-09-96 13:02:13

jvba

AP: JVB

16

DUXBURY, HIGGINS, AND THOMAS TABLE 4 Multivariate (MANCOVA) Tests of Work Environment Questions with Time Spent at Home on Noncomputer Work as a Covariate

Effect 1. Three-way MANCOVA: Gender by SWAH by parental status Gender by SWAH by parental status 2. Two-way MANCOVA: Gender by SWAH for parents Gender by SWAH SWAH Gender 3. Two-way MANOVA: Gender by SWAH for nonparents (covariate not significant) Gender by SWAH SWAH Gender

Hotelling– Lawley Trace

F

(df )

p value

Effect size

.037

2.32

(7,436)

.025*

0.23

0.18 .113 .036

0.87 5.32 1.70

(7,331) (7,331) (7,331)

.53 .001* .11

0.09 0.55 0.18

.122 .184 .086

1.68 2.60 1.22

(7,99) (7,99) (7,99)

.12 .02* .30

.51 .78 .36

* p õ .05.

ine the main effects of SWAH for each subsample. Because the covariate was not significant for the nonparent subsample, it was excluded from the analysis of this subgroup. The SWAH main effects are significant for both subsamples with medium effect sizes. It can be concluded, therefore, that the work environments of individuals who adopt computer-supported SWAH are different from the work environments of individuals who do not adopt this work arrangement. Follow-up analyses are shown in Table 5. Using protected F-tests, the results indicate that employed parents who adopt computer-supported SWAH have significantly greater task variety, job involvement, and work expectations, and significantly lower role clarity than nonadopters. Nonparents who adopt computer-based SWAH have higher task variety, lower job satisfaction, and higher work conflict than their counterparts who do not use computers at home for work-related purposes. Interestingly, except for task variety, the work environment variables differ for the parent and nonparent subsamples. The follow-up descriptive discriminant analysis supports and amplifies the

AID

JVB 1511

/

6305$$$161

07-09-96 13:02:13

jvba

AP: JVB

COMPUTER-SUPPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL WORK-AT-HOME

17

TABLE 5 Univariate and Multivariate Follow-up of Significant Multivariate Supplemental Work-at-Home Effects for Work Environment Variables Univariate analysis

Variable

F (1,337)

p value

Multivariate analysisa

SDF

CORR

DRC

Multivariate discriminator

Rank

SWAH main effect for parents (MANCOVA) Task variety Control Role clarity Job involvement Work expectations Job satisfaction Work conflict

4.04 0.38 7.72 15.70 9.69 1.23 2.66

.05* .54 .006* .001* .002* .27 .10

.422 .010 0.361 .672 .400 0.290 .044

.327 .100 0.451 .643 .505 0.180 .265

.138 .001 .163 .432 .202 .052 .012

Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No

2 2 1 2

SWAH main effect for nonparents (MANOVA) Task variety Control Role clarity Job involvement Work expectations Job satisfaction Work conflict

4.02 0.02 1.92 0.05 2.17 9.00 6.05

.05* .90 .17 .82 .14 .003* .02*

.697 0.173 0.155 .077 0.078 0.709 .316

.456 .029 0.315 .053 .335 0.682 .559

.318 0.005 .049 .004 0.026 .485 .177

Yes No No No No Yes Yes

1

1 2

a

SDF, Standardized (within-group) Discriminant Function coefficient; CORR, within-group correlation between dependent and canonical variables; DRC, Discriminant Ratio Coefficient (parallel). * p õ .05.

univariate results. For parents, four of the seven individual work characteristics were identified as being contributors to the multivariate discrimination between adopters and nonadopters. These were task variety, role clarity, work expectations, and job involvement. Thomas’s parallel DRCs can be used as measures of variable importance. Of the seven work characteristics included in the analysis, job involvement was the overall most important discriminator. Task variety, role clarity and work expectations were of secondary importance. For nonparents, three variables (task variety, job satisfaction, work conflict) were contributors to the multivariate discrimination. Task variety and job satisfaction were primary discriminators, whereas work conflict was of secondary importance. The Family Environment There were five constructs in the family environment analyses. Two of these constructs (family interaction, family expectations) could not be answered by

AID

JVB 1511

/

6305$$$161

07-09-96 13:02:13

jvba

AP: JVB

18

DUXBURY, HIGGINS, AND THOMAS TABLE 6 Multivariate (MANOVA) Tests of Work–Family Environment Variables Three-way MANOVA: Gender by SWAH by parental status

Effects Gender by SWAH by parental status SWAH by parental status Gender by parental status Gender by SWAH SWAH Gender Parental status

Hotelling–Lawley Trace

F

(df )

.002

0.24

(3,440)

.87

.01

.014

2.02

(3,440)

.11

.09

.025 .001 .041 .037 .011

3.72 0.01 6.05 5.42 1.67

(3,440) (3,440) (3,440) (3,440) (3,440)

.01* .99 .001* .001* .17

.15 .001 .25 .23 .07

p value

Effect size

* p õ .05.

nonparents as they involved children. Consequently, two-way MANOVAS were run for the parent and nonparent subsamples. One MANOVA (for nonparents) involved three constructs, whereas the other MANOVA (for parents) included all five constructs. MANOVAS were run because the covariate was not significant. For both the parent and nonparents subsamples, the interaction of SWAH and gender was not significant. The SWAH main effects were also not significant. Consequently, no further analyses on the family environment variables were done. The Work–Family Environment The results of the multivariate tests of the work–family environment questions are provided in Table 6. The MANOVA analysis revealed a nonsignificant three way interaction. Furthermore, none of the two-way interactions involving SWAH were significant. However, the main effect of SWAH was significant (p õ .001) with a medium effect size. The univariate and multivariate DDA follow-up analysis of the SWAH main effect are shown in Table 7. Individuals who adopt computer-supported SWAH are significantly more likely to perceive higher levels of role overload, higher levels of interference, and more stress. The follow-up DDA supports the univariate results. Inspection of the parallel DRCs reveals that two variables, overload and stress, are responsible for discrimination between adopters and nonadopters of SWAH. DISCUSSION Prior to discussing the findings of this research, it is important to recognize the limitations of the current study. First, several scales had low internal

AID

JVB 1511

/

6305$$$161

07-09-96 13:02:13

jvba

AP: JVB

COMPUTER-SUPPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL WORK-AT-HOME

19

TABLE 7 Univariate and Multivariate Follow-up of Significant Multivariate SWAH Effects for Work–Family Environment Variables SWAH main effect (MANOVA) Univariate analysis

Multivariate analysis

Variables

F (1,442)

p value

SDF

CORR

DRC

Multivariate discriminator

Overload Interference Stress

12.59 5.02 9.76

.001* .03* .002*

.642 .110 .559

.831 .524 .731

.534 .058 .408

Yes No Yes

Rank 1 1

* p õ .05.

consistencies. This is unfortunate as these scales were selected carefully from the literature and had shown high alphas in previous studies. Second, several cells had relatively small sample sizes. This is due to the fact that our study used relatively strict selection criteria. For example, we required all individuals to be in dual-career marriages, to use a computer, and to work overtime. From over 3,000 respondents, only 454 qualified for inclusion in the study. Third, we used a simple measure of computer-supported SWAH. The number of minutes a day spent performing work-related tasks at home on a computer outside of regular office hours does not give a complete picture. Finally, findings from this study are limited to a sample of public-sector, dual-career employees. The results of our analysis indicate that career employees who perform computer-supported SWAH differ in a number of fundamental ways from their counterparts who perform SWAH without computers: they report higher task variety, role overload, interference, and stress. They also spend more hours in work per day. The fact that these differences can be observed for both men and women and for parents and nonparents emphasizes the importance of these constructs with respect to our understanding of computer-supported SWAH. It is interesting to speculate whether it is the presence of the computer that contributes to these characteristics. For some individuals, the computer may have encouraged the employee to perform more work at home which, in turn, increased role overload, interference, and stress. On the other hand, the differences in time spent in work may reflect an increased need to work longer hours, an increased ability to work longer hours, or both. Employees with high levels of conflict between work and family and high levels of stress may have acquired a computer for after-hours work at home to help them cope with their dual set of demands. The performance of computer-supported SWAH was not associated with

AID

JVB 1511

/

6305$$$161

07-09-96 13:02:13

jvba

AP: JVB

20

DUXBURY, HIGGINS, AND THOMAS

any of the family environment variables considered in this analysis. Despite the opinions bandied about in the popular press (i.e., computer at home will produce ‘‘computer widows’’ and ‘‘computer workaholics’’), people who perform computer-supported SWAH do not report more family conflict. Nor does this work arrangement affect marital satisfaction or the levels of family interaction. The lack of a difference with respect to the family environment is especially striking in light of the fact that those using computer-supported SWAH spent significantly more time in work activities than noncomputer-supported SWAH users. This contradicts previous research that has consistently shown that time in work is negatively associated with marital and family satisfaction and positively associated with conflict at home (Gutek et al., 1988; Pleck, Staines, & Lang, 1980). One feasible explanation is that only those individuals whose spouses accept computer-supported SWAH will use this option. That individuals who adopt computer-supported SWAH experience higher rather than lower role overload, interference, and stress suggests that, hopes and expectations to the contrary, having a computer at home for after-hours work does not make it easier for individuals to balance heavy expectations from both work and family roles. The data indicate that the picture is not totally bleak however, as parents who perform computer-supported SWAH are able to devote more time to work with no concomitant increase in family conflict or decrease in marital satisfaction or family interaction. Our results indicate that computer-supported SWAH may provide benefits for organizations who facilitate their employees’ acquisition of home technology. If, in fact, hours at work are a good measure of greater productivity (an assumption that may not necessarily be true), organizations who make it possible for employees to perform computer-supported SWAH by providing computer equipment should profit from a more productive workforce. Employees with high task variety in particular should gain from the availability of computer technology in the home. Employees who adopt this work style should, however, recognize that it is not without risk. Computer-supported SWAH is associated with greater interference between work and family, higher levels of role overload, and increased stress. It may be that employees who adopt computer-supported SWAH and bring more work home are more likely than those who do not to feel conflict and guilt because work is interfering with time that should be given to the family. The higher levels of role overload support the idea often put forward in the media that computers at home will increase ‘‘workaholism.’’ Computer-supported SWAH is a work arrangement that is growing in popularity. The results from this study should help researchers lay the foundation for a more comprehensive study of the issue. However, more research is needed on both individuals who adopt computer-supported SWAH and those who do not, before valid conclusions can be drawn about its adoption

AID

JVB 1511

/

6305$$$161

07-09-96 13:02:13

jvba

AP: JVB

COMPUTER-SUPPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL WORK-AT-HOME

21

in the general population. Classification of people who perform computersupported SWAH by the use they make of this work arrangement (i.e., light, medium, and heavy users) and consideration of job and organizational differences is also required to fully understand how and why people use their computers at home. REFERENCES Antanoff, M. (1985, July). The push for telecommuting, Personal Computing, 83–92. Beach, B. (1989). Integrating work and family life: The home-working family. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Bird, G., Goss, R., & Bird, G. (1990). Effects of home computer use on fathers’ lives. Family Relations, 39, 438–442. Bohen, H., & Viveros-Long, A. (1981). Balancing jobs and family life. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Flesh, H. (1979). The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385–396. Cooke, R., & Rousseau, D. (1984). Stress and strain from family roles and work role expectations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 252–260. Dickerson, M., & Gentry, J. (1983). Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home computers. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 225–235. Di Martina, V., & Wirth, L. (1990). Telework: A new way of working and living. International Labor Organization, 9, 529–554. Dutton, W., Kovaric, P., & Steinfield, C. (1985). Computing in the home: A research paradigm. Computing and the Social Sciences, 1, 5–18. Dutton, W., Rogers, E., & Jun, S. (1987, April). Diffusion and social impacts of personal computers. Communications Research, 14, 219–250. Duxbury, L., Higgins, C., & Mills, S. (1992). Supplemental work at home and work-family conflict: A comparative analysis. Information Systems Research, 3, 173–189. Fritz, W., Higa, K., & Narasimhan, S. (1994). Telework: exploring the borderless office. In J. F. Nunamaker, Jr. and R. H. Sprague, Jr. (Eds.), The Proceedings of the 27th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science, 4, 149–158. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Comp. Soc. Gottlieb, D., & Dede, C. (1984). The social role of the personal computer: Implication for familial mental health, Houston, TX: University of Houston-University Park, Center for Public Policy. Gutek, B. (1983). Women’s work in the office of the future. In J. Zimmerman (Ed.), The technological women (pp. 159–1688). New York: Praeger. Gutek, B., Repetti, R., & Silver, D. (1988). Nonwork Roles and Stress at Work. In C. Cooper & R. Pavne (Eds.), Causes, Coping and Consequences of Stress at Work. (pp. 41–174). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. (1980). Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Higgins, C., Duxbury, L., & Lee, C. (1992). Balancing work and family: A study of the Canadian private sector. London, ON. National Centre for Management Research and Development. Huws, U., Korte, W., & Robinson, S. (1990). Telework: Towards the elusive office. New York: Wiley. Jarratt, J., & Coates, J. (1990, February). Future use of cellular technology. Telecommunications Policy, 78–84. Kirk, R. E. (1968). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

AID

JVB 1511

/

6305$$$161

07-09-96 13:02:13

jvba

AP: JVB

22

DUXBURY, HIGGINS, AND THOMAS

Kraut, R. (1987). Telework as a work style innovation. In R. E. Kraut (Ed.), Technology and the transformation of white collar work (pp. 49–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kraut, R. (1988). Homework: What is it and who does it? In K. Christianson (Ed.), The new era Of home-based work (pp. 30–48). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Kraut, R. (1989). Telecommuting: The trade-offs of home work. Journal of Communication, 39, 19–47. Leider, R. (1988). Home work: A study in the interaction of work and family organizations. Research in the Sociology of Work, 4, 69–94. Lodahl, R., & Kehner, N. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 24–33. Moos, R. H., Cronkite, R. C., Billings, A. G., & Finney, J. W. (1988). Health and daily living form manual. Unpublished manuscripts. Social Ecology Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry, Stanford University. Nilles, J., Carlson, F., Gray, P., & Hanneman, G. (1976). The telecommunications-transportation trade-off, New York: Wiley. Nye, F., & MacDougall, E. (1959). The dependant variable in marital research. Pacific Sociological Review, 2, 67–70. Olson, M. (1983). Remote Office Work: Changing Patterns in Space and Time, Communications of the ACM, 26, 182–187. Olson, M. (1985). Do you telecommute? Datamation, 31, 129–132. Palisi, B. (1984). Marriage companionship and marriage well-being: A comparison of metropolitan areas in three countries. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 15, 43–57. Pfeffer, J., & Baron, J. (1988). Taking the workers back out: Recent trends in the structure of employment. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 257–303. Pleck, J., Staines, G., & Lang, L. (1980). Conflicts between work and family life. Monthly Labour Review, 29–32. Quinn, R., & Shepard, L. (1974). The 1972–73 quality of employment survey. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Quinn, R., & Staines, G. (1979). The 1977 quality of employment survey. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Research Center, University of Michigan. Rizzo, J, House, R., & Lirtzman, S. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 15, 150–163. Rogers, E. (1985). The diffusion of home computers among households in Silicon Valley. Marriage and Family Review, 8, 89–100. Rossman, M. (1983, August). Of marriage in the computer age. Creative Computing, 132–137. Rousseau, D. (1983). Technology in organizations: A constructive review and analytic framework. In S. Seashore, E. Lawler, P. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change, 229–255. New York: Wiley. Schiff, F. (1983). Flexplace: An idea whose time has come. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 30, 26–30. Shamir, B., & Salomon, M. (1985). Work at home and the quality of working life. Academy of Management Review, 10, 455–464. Stevens, J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Thomas, D. (1992). Interpreting discriminant functions: A data analytic approach. Multivariate Behavior Research, 27, 3, 335–362. Tinnell, C. (1985). An ethnographic look at personal computers in the family setting. In M. Sussman (Ed.), Personal computers and the family (pp. 89–101). New York: Hayword Press. Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: Morrow. Venkatesh, A., & Vitalari, N. (1992). An emerging distributed work arrangement: An investigation of computer-based supplemental work at home. Management Sciences, 12, 1687–1706.

AID

JVB 1511

/

6305$$$161

07-09-96 13:02:13

jvba

AP: JVB

COMPUTER-SUPPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL WORK-AT-HOME

23

Vitalari, N., & Venkatesh, A. (1989). An emerging distribution work arrangement: A theoretical and empirical examination of supplemental work at home. (GSM Working Paper #IS89013). Irvine, CA: Graduate School of Management, University of California. Vitalari, N., Venkatesh, A., & Gronhaug, K. (1985). Computing in the home: Shifts in the time allocation patterns of organizations. Communications of the ACM, 28, 512–522. Woodward, J. (1958). Management and technology. London: Her Majesty’s Service Office. Yogev, S., & Brett, J. (1985). Patterns of work and family involvement among single and dualearner couples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 754–786. Received December 8, 1993

AID

JVB 1511

/

6305$$$161

07-09-96 13:02:13

jvba

AP: JVB