Factors Influencing Adjustment to Remote Work: Employees’ Initial Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses
2.1. Structural Factors
2.1.1. Work Independence
2.1.2. Clarity of Job Criteria
2.2. Relational Factors
2.2.1. Interpersonal Trust
2.2.2. Social Isolation
2.3. Contextual Factors
2.3.1. Change in Work Location
2.3.2. Disruption of Work Routines
2.4. Moderating Factors
2.4.1. Organizational Communication Quality and Relational and Contextual Factors
2.4.2. Communication Technology Use and Relational and Contextual Factors
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Measures
3.1.1. Dependent Variable
3.1.2. Structural Factors
3.1.3. Relational Factors
3.1.4. Contextual Factors
3.1.5. Moderators
Measurement Items | Mean (SD) | R2 | St. Factor Loading | Unst. Factor Loading | Se |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adjustment to remote work [9] | |||||
All in all, I am satisfied with remote work | 5.66 (1.43) | 0.61 | 0.781 | 1.000 | |
Remote work allows me to perform my job better than I ever could when I worked in the office | 4.39 (1.62) | 0.76 | 0.871 | 1.261 | 0.02 |
If I were given the choice to return to a traditional office environment (i.e., no longer work remotely), I would be very unlikely to do so | 3.98 (2.02) | 0.43 | 0.657 | 1.184 | 0.02 |
Since I started working remotely, I have been able to balance my job and personal life | 4.87 (1.75) | 0.44 | 0.663 | 1.036 | 0.02 |
Since I started working remotely, my productivity (e.g., sales orders, output, support) has increased | 4.39 (1.66) | 0.70 | 0.835 | 1.076 | 0.02 |
Structural Factors | |||||
Independence [59] | |||||
I have to obtain information and advice from colleagues to complete my work (R) c | 4.15 (1.66) | 0.69 | 0.832 | 1.000 | |
I depend on colleagues for the completion of my work (R) | 3.85 (1.75) | 0.73 | 0.855 | 1.082 | 0.02 |
I rarely have to check in with other people to do my work | 4.72 (1.61) | 0.35 | 0.587 | 0.685 | 0.02 |
I have to work closely with other people to do my job properly (R) | 4.06 (1.82) | 0.43 | 0.659 | 0.869 | 0.02 |
Clarity of job criteria [60] | |||||
I frequently don’t know how to handle problems that occur in my job (R) | 2.28 (1.30) | 0.51 | 0.713 | 1.000 | |
I often find that I cannot figure out what should be done to accomplish my work (R) | 1.96 (1.15) | 0.76 | 0.869 | 1.073 | 0.02 |
I am frequently confused about what I have to do on my job (R) | 1.86 (1.15) | 0.80 | 0.894 | 1.100 | 0.02 |
I am frequently unsure about how to do my work (R) | 1.94 (1.19) | 0.77 | 0.875 | 1.115 | 0.02 |
Relational Factors | |||||
Interpersonal trust [9] | |||||
I trust my supervisors | 5.64 (1.35) | 0.60 | 0.773 | 1.000 | |
My supervisors trust me | 5.84 (1.03) | 0.48 | 0.694 | 0.690 | 0.02 |
I trust my peers | 6.00 (0.86) | 0.34 | 0.587 | 0.485 | 0.02 |
My peers trust me | 5.96 (0.82) | 0.29 | 0.541 | 0.422 | 0.02 |
Social isolation [35] | |||||
I am separated from my coworkers | 5.29 (1.67) | 0.61 | 0.712 | 1.000 | |
I often feel I am no longer close to anyone | 3.33 (1.71) | 0.35 | 0.592 | 0.849 | 0.03 |
I am isolated from others at work | 4.35 (1.82) | 0.71 | 0.841 | 1.281 | 0.03 |
Contextual Factors | |||||
Remote work location a | |||||
How often did you normally (before the COVID-19 pandemic) work remotely (e.g., from home)? | 2.77 (1.40) | - | - | - | - |
How often have you worked at home during the COVID-19 pandemic? | 5.70 (1.05) | - | - | - | - |
Disruptions [50] | |||||
During the COVID-19 crisis, the following aspects of my work changed: | |||||
Work procedures | 4.37 (1.74) | 0.39 | 0.624 | 1.000 | |
Project plans | 3.67 (1.51) | 0.41 | 0.643 | 0.895 | 0.02 |
Technologies used to complete work tasks | 3.80 (1.85) | 0.42 | 0.649 | 1.108 | 0.03 |
Decision-making processes | 3.35 (1.56) | 0.44 | 0.666 | 0.957 | 0.02 |
My work tasks | 2.97 (1.66) | 0.51 | 0.715 | 1.092 | 0.03 |
The coordination of my work | 3.56 (1.66) | 0.54 | 0.737 | 1.130 | 0.03 |
The deadlines of work projects | 3.41 (1.74) | 0.38 | 0.619 | 0.994 | 0.03 |
Moderators | |||||
Organizational communication quality [63] | |||||
The communication my organization provided has been useful | 5.65 (1.11) | 0.71 | 0.840 | 1.000 | |
The communication my organization provided has adequately answered my questions about the changes | 5.50 (1.28) | 0.73 | 0.854 | 1.167 | 0.02 |
The communication my organization provided has been positive | 5.25 (1.22) | 0.55 | 0.743 | 0.975 | 0.02 |
The communication by my organization has been appropriate | 5.63 (1.11) | 0.79 | 0.890 | 1.056 | 0.01 |
The communication my organization provided has been timely | 5.25 (1.36) | 0.69 | 0.829 | 1.206 | 0.02 |
The communication my organization provided has been accurate | 5.87 (1.02) | 0.58 | 0.760 | 0.826 | 0.01 |
Communication technology use b | |||||
Over the past two weeks, how often did you communicate about your work with colleagues using | |||||
Phone calls | 3.08 (1.37) | - | - | - | - |
E-mails | 4.79 (0.94) | - | - | - | - |
Online meetings (e.g., Skype, MS Teams, Zoom) | 4.27 (1.05) | - | - | - | - |
Text or instant messaging (e.g., WhatsApp, Messenger) | 3.06 (1.64) | - | - | - | - |
Collaboration tools (e.g., Office 365, Google Drive) | 2.81 (1.75) | - | - | - | - |
Enterprise social media (e.g., Yammer, Happeo) | 1.91 (1.45) | - | - | - | - |
Public social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) | 1.58 (1.15) | - | - | - | - |
4. Results
4.1. Measurement Model
4.2. Controls
4.3. Hypotheses Testing
4.4. Moderations
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical Implications
5.2. Practical and Managerial Implication
5.3. Limitations and Future Research
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Pouliakas, K.; Branka, J. EU Jobs at Highest Risk of Covid-19 Social Distancing: Will the Pandemic Exacerbate Labour Market Divide? IZA Discussion Paper No. 13281. 2020. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3608530 (accessed on 17 April 2021).
- Hodder, A. New Technology, Work and Employment in the era of COVID-19: Reflecting on legacies of research. New Technol. Work Employ. 2020, 35, 262–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carnevale, J.B.; Hatak, I. Employee Adjustment and Well-Being in the Era of COVID-19: Implications for Human Resource Management. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 116, 183–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, E. Examining boundaries to understand the impact of COVID-19 on vocational behaviors. J. Vocat. Behav. 2020, 119, 103437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Spurk, D.; Straub, C. Flexible employment relationships and careers in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Vocat. Behav. 2020, 119, 103435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carillo, K.; Cachat-Rosset, G.; Marsan, J.; Saba, T.; Klarsfeld, A. Adjusting to epidemic-induced telework: Empirical insights from teleworkers in France. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2021, 30, 69–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibson, C. Guidepost from “Social Distancing” to “Care in Connecting”: An Emerging Organizational Research Agenda for Turbulent Times. Acad. Manag. Discov. 2020, 6, 165–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rudolph, C.W.; Allan, B.; Clark, M.; Hertel, G.; Hirschi, A.; Kunze, F.; Shockley, K.; Schoss, M.; Sonnentag, S.; Zacher, H. Pandemics: Implications for research and practice in industrial and organizational psychology. Ind. Organ. Psychol. Perspect. Sci. Pract. 2020, 14, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raghuram, S.; Garud, R.; Wiesenfeld, B.; Gupta, V. Factors contributing to virtual work adjustment. J. Manag. 2001, 27, 383–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saks, A.M. Longitudinal field investigation of the moderating and mediating effects of self-efficacy on the relationship between training and newcomer adjustment. J. Appl. Psychol. 1995, 80, 211–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dawis, R.V.; Lofquist, L.H.; Weiss, D.J. A theory of work adjustment: A revision. University of Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation XXIII 1968, Bulletin 47. Available online: https://vpr.psych.umn.edu/sites/vpr.umn.edu/files/files/monograph_xxiii_-_a_theory_of_work_adjustment_a_revision.pdf (accessed on 8 March 2021).
- Dawis, R. The Minnesota theory of work adjustment. In Career Development and Counseling: Putting Theory and Research to Work; Brown, S.D., Lent, R.W., Eds.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005; pp. 3–23. [Google Scholar]
- Nelson, D.L. Individual Adjustment to Information-Driven Technologies: A Critical Review. MIS Q. 1990, 14, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Argenti, P.A. Communicating through the Coronavirus Crisis. Harvard Business Review. 2020. Available online: https://hbr.org/2020/03/communicating-through-the-coronavirus-crisis (accessed on 21 March 2021).
- Fonner, K.L.; Stache, L.C. All in a day’s work, at home: Teleworkers’ management of micro role transitions and the work–home boundary. New Technol. Work Employ. 2012, 27, 242–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilson, L.L.; Maynard, M.T.; Jones Young, N.C.; Vartiainen, M.; Hakonen, M. Virtual teams research: Ten years, ten themes, and ten opportunities. J. Manag. 2015, 41, 1313–1337. [Google Scholar]
- Järvenpää, S.; Leidner, D.E. Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams. Organ. Sci. 1999, 10, 791–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sullivan, C. What’s in a name? Definitions and conceptualisations of teleworking and homeworking. New Technol. Work Employ. 2003, 18, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azar, S.; Khan, A.; van Eerde, W. Modelling linkages between flexible work arrangements’ use and organizational outcomes. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 91, 134–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olson, M.H. Remote office work: Changing work patterns in space and time. Commun. ACM 1983, 26, 182–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raghuram, S.; Hill, N.S.; Gibbs, J.L.; Maruping, L.M. Virtual Work: Bridging Research Clusters. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2019, 13, 308–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Redman, T.; Snape, E.; Ashurst, C. Location, Location, Location: Does Place of Work Really Matter? Br. J. Manag. 2009, 20, S171–S181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- ter Hoeven, C.L.; van Zoonen, W. Flexible work designs and employee well-being: Examining the effects of resources and demands. New Technol. Work Employ. 2015, 30, 237–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mokhtarian, P.L. Defining Telecommuting; Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-91-04; Institute of Transportation Studies University of California: Davis Davis, CA, USA, 1991; pp. 273–281. [Google Scholar]
- Vartiainen, M.; Hyrkkänen, U. Changing requirements and mental workload factors in mobile multi-locational work. New Technol. Work Employ. 2010, 25, 117–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawis, R.V.; Lofquist, L.H. A Psychological Theory of Work Adjustment: An Individual-Differences Model and Its Applications; University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Garud, R.; Kotha, S. Using the brain as a metaphor to model flexible production systems. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1994, 19, 671–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cramton, C.D. The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration. Organ. Sci. 2001, 12, 346–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nemiro, J.E. The glue that binds creative virtual teams. In Knowledge Management and Virtual Organizations; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2000; pp. 101–123. [Google Scholar]
- Kurland, N.B.; Egan, T.D. Telecommuting: Justice and control in the virtual organization. Organ. Sci. 1999, 10, 500–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Langfred, C.W.; Rockmann, K.W. The push and pull of autonomy: The tension between individual autonomy and organizational control in knowledge work. Group Organ. Manag. 2016, 41, 629–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiesenfeld, B.M.; Brockner, J. Toward a Psychology of Contingent Work. Debating Rationality: Nonrational Aspects of Organizational Decision Making; Cornell Univeristy Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 1998; pp. 195–218. [Google Scholar]
- Eisenhardt, K.M. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 57–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marshall, G.W.; Michaels, C.E.; Mulki, J.P. Workplace isolation: Exploring the construct and its measurement. Psychol. Mark. 2007, 24, 195–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fay, M.J.; Kline, S.L. Coworker Relationships and Informal Communication in High-Intensity Telecommuting. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 2011, 39, 144–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiesenfeld, B.M.; Raghuram, S.; Garud, R. Organizational identification among virtual employees: The role of need for affiliation and perceived work-based social support. J. Manag. 2001, 27, 213–229. [Google Scholar]
- Rousseau, D.M.; Sitkin, S.B.; Burt, R.S.; Camerer, C. Not So Different after All: A Cross-Discipline View of Trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 393–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Cremer, D.; Tyler, T.R. The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 639–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Levin, D.Z.; Cross, R. The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer. Manag. Sci. 2004, 50, 1477–1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dirks, K.T.; Ferrin, D.L. Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 611–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eby, L.T.; Adams, D.M.; Russell, J.E.; Gaby, S.H. Perceptions of organizational readiness for change: Factors related to employees’ reactions to the implementation of team-based selling. Hum. Relat. 2000, 53, 419–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neves, P.; Caetano, A. Social Exchange Processes in Organizational Change: The Roles of Trust and Control. J. Chang. Manag. 2006, 6, 351–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Jong, B.A.; Dirks, K.T.; Gillespie, N. Trust and team performance: A meta analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. J. Appl. Psychol. 2016, 101, 1134–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Grant, C.A.; Wallace, L.M.; Spurgeon, P.C. An exploration of the psychological factors affecting remote e-worker’s job effectiveness, well-being and work-life balance. Empl. Relat. 2013, 35, 527–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Golden, T.D.; Veiga, J.F.; Dino, R.N. The impact of professional isolation on teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent teleworking, interacting face-to-face, or having access to communication-enhancing technology matter? J. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 93, 1412–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, C.D.; Kurland, N.B. Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee development in public and private organizations. J. Organ. Behav. 2002, 23, 511–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kramer, A.; Kramer, K.Z. The potential impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on occupational status, work from home, and occupational mobility. J. Vocat. Behav. 2020, 119, 103442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nonaka, I.; Toyoma, R.; Byosiere, P. A Theory of Organizational Knowledge. In Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge; Dierkes, M., Antal, A.B., Child, J., Nonaka, I., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 491–518. [Google Scholar]
- Akgun, A.E.; Lynn, G.S.; Byrne, J.C. Antecedents and Consequences of Unlearning in New Product Development Teams. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2006, 23, 73–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Vegt, G.S.; Emans, B.J.; Van De Vliert, E. Patterns of interdependence in work teams: A two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction. Pers. Psychol. 2001, 54, 51–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hinds, P.J.; Mortenson, M. Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organ. Sci. 2005, 16, 290–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, S.K.; Axtell, C.M.; Turner, N. Designing a safer workplace: Importance of job autonomy, communication quality, and supportive supervisors. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2001, 6, 211–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wallace, J.C.; Edwards, B.D.; Arnold, T.; Frazier, M.L.; Finch, D.M. Work stressors, role-based performance, and the moderating influence of organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 254–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nurmi, N.; Hinds, P.J. Work Design for Global Professionals: Connectivity demands, connectivity behaviors, and their effects on psychological and behavioral outcomes. Organ. Stud. 2020, 41, 1697–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Messenger, J.C. Telework in the 21st Century. An Evolutionary Perspective; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Coppola, N.W.; Hiltz, S.R.; Rotter, N.G. Building Trust in Virtual Teams. Professional Communication. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 2004, 47, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zakaria, N.; Yusof, S.A.M. Crossing Cultural Boundaries Using the Internet: Toward Building a Model of Swift Trust Formation in Global Virtual Teams. J. Int. Manag. 2020, 26, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ter Hoeven, C.L.; van Zoonen, W. Helping Others and Feeling Engaged in the Context of Workplace Flexibility: The Importance of Communication Control. Int. J. Bus. Commun. 2020, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Staples, D.S.; Hulland, J.S.; Higgins, C.A. A self-efficacy theory explanation for the management of remote employees in virtual organizations. Organ. Sci. 1999, 10, 758–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brockner, J.; Siegel, P.A.; Daly, J.P.; Tyler, T.; Martin, C. When trust matters: The moderating effect of outcome favorability. Adm. Sci. Q. 1997, 42, 558–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- House, R.J.; Schuler, R.S.; Levanoni, E. Role Conflict and Ambiguity Scales: Realities or Artifcats? J. Appl. Psychol. 1983, 68, 334–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moorman, C.; Miner, A.S. The impact of organizational memory on new product performance and creativity. J. Mark. Res. 1997, 34, 91–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bordia, P.; Hobman, E.; Jones, E.; Gallois, C.; Callan, V.J. Uncertainty during Organizational Change: Types, Consequences, and Management Strategies. J. Bus. Psychol. 2004, 18, 507–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.; Black, W.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Allen, T.D.; Golden, T.D.; Shockley, K.M. How Effective Is Telecommuting? Assessing the Status of Our Scientific Findings. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 2015, 16, 40–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Locke, E.; Bryan, J. Performance goals as determinants of level of performance and boredom. J. Appl. Psychol. 1967, 51, 120–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bandura, A.; Cervone, D. Self-Evaluative and Self-Efficacy Mechanisms Governing the Motivational Effects of Goal Systems. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1983, 45, 1017–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Latham, G.P.; Locke, E.A. Increasing productivity with decreasing time limits: A field replication of Parkinson’s law. J. Appl. Psychol. 1975, 60, 524–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wood, R.E.; Locke, E.A. Goal setting and strategy effects on complex tasks. In Research in Organizational Behavior; Staw, B., Cummings, L.L., Eds.; JAI Press: Greenwich, CT, USA, 1990; pp. 73–109. [Google Scholar]
- Wilson, J.M.; Straus, S.G.; McEvily, B. All in due time: The development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2006, 99, 16–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ng, Q.X.; Chee, K.T.; De Deyn, M.L.Z.Q.; Chua, Z. Staying connected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Soc. Psychiatry 2020, 66, 519–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hixon, T. Get Ready to Live with COVID-19. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/toddhixon/2020/03/12/get-ready-to-live-with-covid-19/#26f55d347824 (accessed on 23 April 2020).
- Desmond-Hellmann, S. Preparing for the Next Pandemic. Available online: https://www.wsj.com/articles/preparing-for-the-next-pandemic-11585936915 (accessed on 27 April 2020).
- Golden, T.D.; Raghuram, S. Teleworker knowledge sharing and the role of altered relational and technological interactions. J. Organ. Behav. 2010, 31, 1061–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beauregard, T.A. Direct and Indirect Links between Organizational Work-Home Culture and Employee Well-being. Br. J. Manag. 2011, 22, 218–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Beck, M.J.; Hensher, D.A.; Wei, E. Slowly coming out of COVID-19 restrictions in Australia: Implications for working from home and commuting trips by car and public transport. J. Transp. Geogr. 2020, 88, 102846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Variable | M (SD) | CR | AVE | MSV | MaxR(H) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Independence | 4.20 (1.40) | 0.83 | 0.55 | 0.07 | 0.86 | 0.74 | ||||||||
2. Clarity of job criteria | 5.99 (1.05) | 0.91 | 0.71 | 0.10 | 0.92 | −0.27 | 0.84 | |||||||
3. Interpersonal trust | 5.86 (0.82) | 0.75 | 0.43 | 0.37 | 0.77 | 0.06 | 0.32 | 0.66 | ||||||
4. Social isolation | 4.32 (1.41) | 0.76 | 0.52 | 0.09 | 0.80 | 0.03 | −0.25 | −0.10 | 0.72 | |||||
5. Disruption | 3.59 (1.21) | 0.85 | 0.44 | 0.08 | 0.85 | 0.13 | −0.28 | −0.12 | 0.15 | 0.67 | ||||
6. Change a | 3.92 (1.53) | − | − | − | − | 0.14 | −0.11 | 0.01 | 0.15 | 0.18 | – | |||
7. Communication quality | 5.53 (1.01) | 0.93 | 0.67 | 0.37 | 0.93 | 0.05 | 0.22 | 0.61 | −0.13 | −0.11 | −0.01 | 0.82 | ||
8. Technology use b | 3.07 (0.75) | − | − | − | − | 0.27 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.07 | 0.11 | − | |
9. Adjustment | 4.66 (1.34) | 0.88 | 0.59 | 0.10 | 0.90 | −0.25 | 0.32 | 0.06 | −0.30 | −0.26 | −0.32 | 0.15 | 0.06 | 0.77 |
Bootstrapping BC 95% CI | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | SE | Beta | Lower | Upper | p | ||
Hypotheses | |||||||
H1 | Independence → Adjustment | 0.168 | 0.012 | 0.175 | 0.143 | 0.192 | 0.001 |
H2 | Clarity of job criteria → Adjustment | 0.174 | 0.017 | 0.136 | 0.136 | 0.211 | 0.001 |
H3 | Interpersonal trust → Adjustment | −0.069 | 0.023 | −0.042 | −0.117 | −0.021 | 0.006 |
H4 | Social isolation → Adjustment | −0.178 | 0.012 | −0.188 | −0.202 | −0.152 | 0.001 |
H5 | Remote work transition → Adjustment | −0.209 | 0.011 | −0.239 | −0.234 | −0.186 | 0.001 |
H6 | Perceived disruption → Adjustment | −0.122 | 0.014 | −0.110 | −0.153 | −0.093 | 0.001 |
RQ1: Communication quality × Relational and contextual factors | |||||||
RQ1 | Communication quality × Trust → Adjustment | 0.002 | 0.015 | 0.002 | −0.039 | 0.041 | 0.995 |
Communication quality × Isolation → Adjustment | 0.019 | 0.010 | 0.023 | −0.007 | 0.043 | 0.149 | |
Communication quality × Change in location → Adjustment | −0.045 | 0.010 | −0.057 | −0.070 | −0.021 | 0.001 | |
Communication quality × Disruption → Adjustment | 0.007 | 0.130 | 0.007 | −0.025 | 0.036 | 0.722 | |
Communication quality × Independence → Adjustment | 0.016 | 0.011 | 0.014 | −0.012 | 0.039 | 0.263 | |
Communication quality × Clarity of job criteria → adjustment | −0.009 | 0.015 | −0.010 | −0.044 | 0.024 | 0.620 | |
RQ2: Communication technology use × Relational and contextual factors | |||||||
RQ2 | Technology use × Trust → Adjustment | −0.107 | 0.024 | −0.053 | −0.168 | −0.046 | 0.002 |
Technology use × Isolation → Adjustment | 0.009 | 0.015 | 0.007 | −0.007 | 0.043 | 0.149 | |
Technology use × Change in location → Adjustment | −0.031 | 0.014 | −0.028 | −0.065 | −0.001 | 0.045 | |
Technology use × Disruption → Adjustment | 0.050 | 0.017 | 0.035 | 0.013 | 0.085 | 0.006 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
van Zoonen, W.; Sivunen, A.; Blomqvist, K.; Olsson, T.; Ropponen, A.; Henttonen, K.; Vartiainen, M. Factors Influencing Adjustment to Remote Work: Employees’ Initial Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6966. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136966
van Zoonen W, Sivunen A, Blomqvist K, Olsson T, Ropponen A, Henttonen K, Vartiainen M. Factors Influencing Adjustment to Remote Work: Employees’ Initial Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(13):6966. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136966
Chicago/Turabian Stylevan Zoonen, Ward, Anu Sivunen, Kirsimarja Blomqvist, Thomas Olsson, Annina Ropponen, Kaisa Henttonen, and Matti Vartiainen. 2021. "Factors Influencing Adjustment to Remote Work: Employees’ Initial Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 13: 6966. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136966
APA Stylevan Zoonen, W., Sivunen, A., Blomqvist, K., Olsson, T., Ropponen, A., Henttonen, K., & Vartiainen, M. (2021). Factors Influencing Adjustment to Remote Work: Employees’ Initial Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(13), 6966. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136966