The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Supervisory approaches and paradoxes in managing telecommuting implementation
Abstract
Voluntary telecommuting is an increasingly prevalent flexible work practice, typically offered to assist employees with managing work— family demands. Most organizations with telecommuting policies rely on supervisor discretion regarding policy access and implementation in their department. Although supervisors' approaches have implications for telecommuters and their non-telecommuting co-workers, few studies integrate these stakeholder perspectives. Drawing on surveys and interviews with 90 dyads of supervisors and subordinates, some of whom were telecommuters and some of whom were not, we examine effective managerial approaches regarding telecommuting implementation. First, supervisors should stay in close contact with telecommuters, but this contact should emphasize sharing information rather than close monitoring of work schedules. Telecommuters supervised with an information-sharing approach were more likely to report lower work—family conflict, increased performance, and were more likely to help co-workers. Second, supervisors should encourage telecommuting employees to separate work and family boundaries, which is related to lower work—family conflict. However, supervisors face a paradox as a separation approach can negatively affect workgroup relations: telecommuters who are encouraged to create boundaries between work and family were less likely to extend themselves in crunch times or after hours to help their colleagues. Non-telecommuters' workload and work—family conflict may increase as a result.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Adams, J. S. (1965) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60108-2 · Cited by 10,818
THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A META‐ANALYSIS
BARRICK, M. R., & MOUNT, M. K. (1991) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x · Cited by 8,689
Sturman, M. C. (2003) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1016/s0149-2063_03_00028-x · Cited by 578
Cited by
How Effective Is Telecommuting? Assessing the Status of Our Scientific Findings
Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100615593273 · Cited by 1,788
Achieving Effective Remote Working During the COVID‐19 Pandemic: A Work Design Perspective
Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J., & Parker, S. K. (2021) · Applied Psychology · doi:10.1111/apps.12290 · Cited by 1,722
“In addition, previous research suggested that extra monitoring would be harmful for remote workers (Lautsch et al., 2009).”
BackgroundInfluentialContradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations: A Constitutive Approach
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1162421 · Cited by 1,116
Teleworking in the Context of the Covid-19 Crisis
Belzunegui-Eraso, A., & Erro-Garcés, A. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12093662 · Cited by 774
Systematically reviewing remote e-workers’ well-being at work: a multidimensional approach
Charalampous, M., Grant, C. A., Tramontano, C., & Michailidis, E. (2019) · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1080/1359432x.2018.1541886 · Cited by 743
Metadata
- Authors
- Lautsch, B. A., Kossek, E. E., & Eaton, S. C.
- Venue
- Human Relations
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-05-15
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 795-827
- ISSN
- 0018-7267 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-282X
- OpenAlex
- W2158928204
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 24.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Supervisory approaches and paradoxes in managing telecommuting implementation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0018726709104543
- The paper
- Lautsch, B. A., Kossek, E. E., & Eaton, S. C. (2009). Supervisory approaches and paradoxes in managing telecommuting implementation. Human Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709104543
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.