Normative telecommuting: the effects of group composition and task interdependence on telecommuter and non-telecommuter performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study examines whether group-level homogeneity in telecommuting status is associated with performance differences between teleworkers and non-teleworkers at the individual level. The authors further investigate the impact of group-level task interdependence on this relationship. Design/methodology/approach A group of 225 employees in 41 work groups were surveyed, and employee performance data from the organization was used. A multilevel perspective was used to examine the influence of normative telecommuting on individual performance. Findings It was found that while performance differences between telecommuters and non-telecommuters in mixed groups favor non-telecommuters, those differences become non-significant as the proportion of telecommuters increases. Results further show that when group task interdependence is low, there are no performance differences between telecommuters and non-telecommuters. When group task interdependence is high, telecommuters perform better as the proportion of telecommuters in the group increases. Research limitations/implications Future studies should examine the group norms that are formed in predominantly telecommuting groups that support successful telecommuting outcomes. Practical implications Telecommuters perform better in groups with proportionally more telecommuters, even when task interdependence is high. Originality/value This study furthers our understanding around how telecommuting can be managed at the group level to maximize performance potential.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".