Is telework effective for organizations?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose Telework is an alternative work relationship with demonstrated positive benefits for individuals and society, yet it has not been implemented with enthusiasm by most organizations. This could be due to the lacking, consolidated evidence for management regarding whether or not telework is a good thing for the firm. The purpose of this paper is to integrate multidisciplinary literature that reports effects of telework on organizational outcomes with the aim of providing a clearer answer to the question: is telework effective for organizations? Design/methodology/approach Meta‐analytical methods were used, beginning with an interdisciplinary search for effect sizes in eight databases. Limited to scholarly journals and dissertations, results included 991 articles scanned for inclusion criteria. The independent variable is telework, measured as a dichotomous variable. Dependent variables are outcomes of interest to organizations: productivity, retention, turnover intention, commitment, and performance. In total, 22 studies were double coded and meta‐analyzed using Hunter and Schmidt's approach, followed by five exploratory moderator analyses: level of analysis, level of the employee, response rate, proportion of females, and country of the study. Significant results are discussed. Findings Review and meta analysis of 32 correlations from empirical studies find that there is a small but positive relationship between telework and organizational outcomes. Telework is perceived to increase productivity, secure retention, strengthen organizational commitment, and to improve performance within the organization. In other words, it is indeed beneficial for organizations. All five hypotheses are supported. H 1 (productivity), rc=0.23 (k=5, n =620), (95% CI=0.13−0.33). H 2 (retention), r =0.10 (k=6, n =1652), (95% CI=0.04−0.16). H 3 (commitment), r =0.11 (k=8, n =3144), (95% CI=0.03−0.18); moderator analysis shows sample age is significant (F(1,4)=4.715, p <0.05, R2=0.80). H 4 (performance), r =0.16 (k=10, n =2522). H 5 (organizational outcomes), r =0.17 (k=19, n =5502), (95% CI=0.1−0.20). Originality/value To the authors' knowledge, this is the first meta‐analysis of telework research at the organizational level, providing a unique contribution to the field in filling the gap between research on effects to the individual and society. Additional contributions resulted from the moderator analyses: first, in finding that the relationship between telework and performance is moderated by whether or not the sample was one individual per firm, or many individuals from one; and second, in finding that the relationship between telework and organizational commitment is moderated by age. Thus, the paper provides unique contributions with both scholarly and practical implications.
Conservé avec la notice de tri, où il sert de preuve aux étiquettes ci-dessus.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Le tri à trois modèles
les 5 600 travaux triés →Les trois modèles l'ont jugé hors champ.
Meta-analysis using synthesis to answer whether telework benefits organizations; a management question, not a study of synthesis methods.
This uses meta-analysis to answer a substantive question about telework and organizations.
Uses meta-analysis to answer whether telework helps organizations; method-vs-object trap, domain management question.
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,025 | 0,094 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».