1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
  4. Volume 11, 2024
  5. Article

Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior

Volume 11, 2024

How Remote Work Changes the World of Work

Abstract

Remote work is typically characterized as work that is done at some physical distance from the office. Existing research has shown that the main elements of this characterization—physical distance and the office—are far more complex than most people realize. This review develops a framework that refracts the concept of remote work into four types of distance—psychological, temporal, technological, and structural—and three objects from which one can be distant—material resources, social resources, and symbolic resources. We then use this refraction framework to answer five questions about the way remote work is changing the future of work: () Who will work remotely? () Where will people work remotely? () When will people work remotely? () Why will people work remotely? and () How will people work remotely? After demonstrating how existing research can help us answer these questions, we discuss important avenues for future investigation.

Keyword(s): distance, organizations, social networks, teams, technology, trust
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-091922-015852
2024-01-22
2024-05-05
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/organ/11/1/annurev-orgpsych-091922-015852.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-091922-015852&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abrams LC, Cross R, Lesser E, Levin DZ. 2003. Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks. Acad. Manag. Exec. 17:464–77 https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2003.11851845
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aczel B, Kovacs M, van der Lippe T, Szaszi B. 2021. Researchers working from home: benefits and challenges. PLOS ONE 16:3e0249127 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249127
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ajzen M, Taskin L. 2021. The re-regulation of working communities and relationships in the context of flexwork: a spacing identity approach. Inform. Organ. 31:4100364 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2021.100364
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Allen TD, Merlo K, Lawrence RC, Slutsky J, Gray CE. 2021. Boundary management and work-nonwork balance while working from home. Appl. Psychol. 70:160–84 https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12300
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Anderson AJ, Kaplan SA, Vega RP. 2015. The impact of telework on emotional experience: When, and for whom, does telework improve daily affective well-being?. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 24:6882–97 https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.966086
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Arena MJ, Carroll GR, O'Reilly C, Golden J, Hines S 2022. The adaptive hybrid: innovation with virtual work. Connect. Commons 2:12–10
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Argote L, McEvily B, Reagans R. 2003. Managing knowledge in organizations: an integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Manag. Sci. 49:4571–82 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.4.571.14424
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Avgoustaki A, Bessa I. 2019. Examining the link between flexible working arrangement bundles and employee work effort. Hum. Resour. Manag. 58:4431–49 https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21969
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Ayoko OB, Konrad AM, Boyle MV. 2012. Online work: managing conflict and emotions for performance in virtual teams. Eur. Manag. J. 30:2156–74 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2011.10.001
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bailey DE, Kurland NB. 2002. A review of telework research: findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. J. Organ. Behav. 23:4383–400 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.144
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bailey ER, Horton CB, Galinsky AD. 2022. Enclothed harmony or enclothed dissonance? The effect of attire on the authenticity, power, and engagement of remote workers. Acad. Manag. Discov. 8:3341–56 https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2021.0081
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Barsness ZI, Diekmann KA, Seidel M-DL. 2005. Motivation and opportunity: the role of remote work, demographic dissimilarity, and social network centrality in impression management. Acad. Manag. J. 48:3401–19
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bartel CA, Wrzesniewski A, Wiesenfeld BM. 2012. Knowing where you stand: physical isolation, perceived respect, and organizational identification among virtual employees. Organ. Sci. 23:3743–57 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0661
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Baruch Y. 2000. Teleworking: benefits and pitfalls as perceived by professionals and managers. New Technol. Work Employ. 15:134–49 https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-005X.00063
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bloom N, Liang J, Roberts J, Ying ZJ. 2015. Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. Q. J. Econ. 130:1165–218 https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju032
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Blumer H. 1986. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method Berkeley: Univ. California Press
  17. Boell SK, Cecez-Kecmanovic D, Campbell J. 2016. Telework paradoxes and practices: the importance of the nature of work. New Technol. Work Employ. 31:2114–31 https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12063
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bonacini L, Gallo G, Scicchitano S. 2021. Working from home and income inequality: risks of a ‘new normal’ with COVID-19. J. Popul. Econ. 34:1303–60 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-020-00800-7
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Borgatti SP, Cross R. 2003. A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Manag. Sci. 49:4432–45 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.4.432.14428
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Bosch-Sijtsema PM, Sivunen A. 2013. Professional virtual worlds supporting computer-mediated communication, collaboration, and learning in geographically distributed contexts. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 56:2160–75 https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2012.2237256
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Brown B, O'Hara K. 2003. Place as a practical concern of mobile workers. Environ. Plan. Econ. Space 35:91565–87 https://doi.org/10.1068/a34231
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Burbano VC, Chiles B. 2021. Mitigating gig and remote worker misconduct: evidence from a real effort experiment. Organ. Sci. 33:41273–99 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1488
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Burke K, Aytes K, Chidambaram L, Johnson JJ. 1999. A study of partially distributed work groups: the impact of media, location, and time on perceptions and performance. Small Group Res. 30:4453–90 https://doi.org/10.1177/104649649903000404
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Cabrera A, Cabrera EF. 2002. Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organ. Stud. 23:687–710 https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840602235001
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Carillo K, Cachat-Rosset G, Marsan J, Saba T, Klarsfeld A. 2021. Adjusting to epidemic-induced telework: empirical insights from teleworkers in France. Eur. J. Inform. Syst. 30:169–88 https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1829512
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Chong S, Huang Y, Chang C-H (D). 2020. Supporting interdependent telework employees: a moderated-mediation model linking daily COVID-19 task setbacks to next-day work withdrawal. J. Appl. Psychol. 105:121408–22 https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000843
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Choudhury P (R), Foroughi C, Larson B. 2021. Work-from-anywhere: the productivity effects of geographic flexibility. Strateg. Manag. J. 42:4655–83 https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3251
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Collins AM, Hislop D, Cartwright S. 2016. Social support in the workplace between teleworkers, office-based colleagues and supervisors. New Technol. Work Employ. 31:2161–75 https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12065
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Cooper CD, Kurland NB. 2002. Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee development in public and private organizations. J. Organ. Behav. 23:4511–32 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.145
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Cramton CD. 2001. The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organ. Sci. 12:3346–71 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.3.346.10098
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Cramton CD, Webber SS. 2005. Relationships among geographic dispersion, team processes, and effectiveness in software development work teams. J. Bus. Res. 58:6758–65 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.10.006
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Cristea IC, Leonardi PM. 2019. Get noticed and die trying: signals, sacrifice, and the production of face time in distributed work. Organ. Sci. 30:3552–72 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1265
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Daft RL, Lengel RH. 1986. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Manag. Sci. 32:5554–71 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Delanoeije J, Verbruggen M, Germeys L. 2019. Boundary role transitions: a day-to-day approach to explain the effects of home-based telework on work-to-home conflict and home-to-work conflict. Hum. Relat. 72:121843–68 https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718823071
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Dodgson M, Gann DM, Phillips N. 2013. Organizational learning and the technology of foolishness: the case of virtual worlds at IBM. Organ. Sci. 24:51358–76 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0807
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Endrissat N, Leclercq-Vandelannoitte A. 2021. From sites to vibes: technology and the spatial production of coworking spaces. Inform. Organ. 31:4100353 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2021.100353
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Erhardt N, Gibbs J, Martin-Rios C, Sherblom J. 2016. Exploring affordances of email for team learning over time. Small Group Res 47:3243–78 https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496416635823
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Felstead A, Henseke G. 2017. Assessing the growth of remote working and its consequences for effort, well-being and work-life balance. New Technol. Work Employ. 32:3195–212 https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12097
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Feng Z, Savani K. 2020. Covid-19 created a gender gap in perceived work productivity and job satisfaction: implications for dual-career parents working from home. Gender Manag. 35:7/8719–36 https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-07-2020-0202
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Fiol CM, O'Connor EJ 2005. Identification in face-to-face, hybrid, and pure virtual teams: untangling the contradictions. Organ. Sci. 16:119–32 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0101
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Flavián C, Guinalíu M, Jordán P. 2022. Virtual teams are here to stay: how personality traits, virtuality and leader gender impact trust in the leader and team commitment. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 28:2100193 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2021.100193
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Fonner KL, Roloff ME. 2010. Why teleworkers are more satisfied with their jobs than are office-based workers: when less contact is beneficial. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 38:4336–61 https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2010.513998
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Gajendran RS, Harrison DA. 2007. The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:1524–41 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Gajendran RS, Harrison DA, Delaney-Klinger K. 2015. Are telecommuters remotely good citizens? Unpacking telecommuting's effects on performance via i-deals and job resources. Pers. Psychol. 68:2353–93 https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12082
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Galanti T, Guidetti G, Mazzei E, Zappalà S, Toscano F. 2021. Work from home during the COVID-19 outbreak. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 63:7e426–32 https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002236
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Garrett RK, Danziger JN. 2007. Which telework? Defining and testing a taxonomy of technology-mediated work at a distance. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 25:127–47 https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439306293819
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Gibbs J. 2009. Dialectics in a global software team: negotiating tensions across time, space, and culture. Hum. Relat. 62:6905–35 https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709104547
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Gibson CB, Gibbs JL. 2006. Unpacking the concept of virtuality: the effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 51:3451–95 https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.51.3.451
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Gibson CB, Gibbs JL, Stanko TL, Tesluk P, Cohen SG. 2011. Including the “I” in virtuality and modern job design: extending the job characteristics model to include the moderating effect of individual experiences of electronic dependence and copresence. Organ. Sci. 22:61481–99 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0586
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Golden T. 2007. Co-workers who telework and the impact on those in the office: understanding the implications of virtual work for co-worker satisfaction and turnover intentions. Hum. Relat. 60:111641–67 https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707084303
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Golden TD, Eddleston KA. 2020. Is there a price telecommuters pay? Examining the relationship between telecommuting and objective career success. J. Vocat. Behav. 116:103348 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103348
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Golden TD, Gajendran RS. 2019. Unpacking the role of a telecommuter's job in their performance: examining job complexity, problem solving, interdependence, and social support. J. Bus. Psychol. 34:155–69 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9530-4
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Golden TD, Raghuram S. 2010. Teleworker knowledge sharing and the role of altered relational and technological interactions. J. Organ. Behav. 31:81061–85 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.652
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Golden TD, Veiga JF. 2005. The impact of extent of telecommuting on job satisfaction: resolving inconsistent findings. J. Manag. 31:2301–18 https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304271768
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Halford S. 2005. Hybrid workspace: re-spatialisations of work, organisation and management. New Technol. Work Employ. 20:119–33 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2005.00141.x
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Harris L. 2003. Home-based teleworking and the employment relationship: managerial challenges and dilemmas. Pers. Rev. 32:4422–37 https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480310477515
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Hartig T, Kylin C, Johansson G. 2007. The telework tradeoff: stress mitigation versus constrained restoration. Appl. Psychol. 56:2231–53 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00252.x
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Hilbrecht M, Shaw SM, Johnson LC, Andrey J 2008. ‘I'm home for the kids’: contradictory implications for work–life balance of teleworking mothers. Gender Work Organ 15:5454–76 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00413.x
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Hill R, Betts LR, Gardner SE. 2015. Older adults’ experiences and perceptions of digital technology: (dis)empowerment, wellbeing, and inclusion. Comput. Hum. Behav. 48:415–23 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.062
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Hinds PJ, Bailey DE. 2003. Out of sight, out of sync: understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organ. Sci. 14:6615–32 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.6.615.24872
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Hinds PJ, Cramton CD. 2014. Situated coworker familiarity: how site visits transform relationships among distributed workers. Organ. Sci. 25:3794–814 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0869
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Hinds PJ, Mortensen M. 2005. Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: the moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organ. Sci. 16:3290–307 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0122
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Ipsen C, van Veldhoven M, Kirchner K, Hansen JP. 2021. Six key advantages and disadvantages of working from home in Europe during COVID-19. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18:41826 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041826
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Jarvenpaa SL, Leidner DE. 1999. Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organ. Sci. 10:6791–815 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.6.791
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Kaplan S, Engelsted L, Lei X, Lockwood K. 2018. Unpackaging manager mistrust in allowing telework: comparing and integrating theoretical perspectives. J. Bus. Psychol. 33:3365–82 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9498-5
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Karl KA, Peluchette JV, Aghakhani N. 2022. Virtual work meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic: the good, bad, and ugly. Small Group Res 53:3343–65 https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964211015286
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Keppler SM, Leonardi PM. 2023. Building relational confidence in remote and hybrid work arrangements: novel ways to use digital technologies to foster knowledge sharing. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 28:4zmad020 https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmad020
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Kossek EE, Lautsch BA, Eaton SC. 2006. Telecommuting, control, and boundary management: correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work–family effectiveness. J. Vocat. Behav. 68:2347–67 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.07.002
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Kuruzovich J, Paczkowski W “P Golden TD, Goodarzi S, Venkatesh V. 2021. Telecommuting and job outcomes: a moderated mediation model of system use, software quality, and social exchange. Inform. Manag. 58:3103431 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2021.103431
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Lapierre LM, van Steenbergen EF, Peeters MCW, Kluwer ES. 2016. Juggling work and family responsibilities when involuntarily working more from home: a multiwave study of financial sales professionals. J. Organ. Behav. 37:6804–22 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2075
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Lawrence TB, Phillips N. 2019. Constructing Organizational Life: How Social-Symbolic Work Shapes Selves, Organizations, and Institutions Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press, 1st ed.
  72. Leonardi PM. 2013. Theoretical foundations for the study of sociomateriality. Inform. Organ. 23:259–76 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2013.02.002
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Leonardi PM, Neeley T. 2022. The Digital Mindset: What It Really Takes to Thrive in the Age of Data, Algorithms, and AI. Boston: Harvard Bus. Rev.
  74. Leonardi PM, Rodriguez-Lluesma C. 2013. Occupational stereotypes, perceived status differences, and intercultural communication in global organizations. Commun. Monogr. 80:4478–502 https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2013.828155
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Leonardi PM, Treem JW. 2020. Behavioral visibility: a new paradigm for organization studies in the age of digitization, digitalization, and datafication. Organ. Stud. 41:121601–25 https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620970728
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Leonardi PM, Treem JW, Jackson MH. 2010. The connectivity paradox: using technology to both decrease and increase perceptions of distance in distributed work arrangements. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 38:185–105 https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880903483599
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Martins LL, Shalley CE. 2011. Creativity in virtual work: effects of demographic differences. Small Group Res 42:5536–61 https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496410397382
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Maynard MT, Gilson LL. 2014. The role of shared mental model development in understanding virtual team effectiveness. Group Organ. Manag. 39:13–32 https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601113475361
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Mayo M, Pastor J-C, Gomez-Mejia L, Cruz C. 2009. Why some firms adopt telecommuting while others do not: a contingency perspective. Hum. Resour. Manag. 48:6917–39 https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20322
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Mazmanian M, Orlikowski WJ, Yates J. 2013. The autonomy paradox: the implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organ. Sci. 24:51337–57 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0806
    [Google Scholar]
  81. McLarnon MJW, O'Neill TA, Taras V, Law D, Donia MBL, Steel P 2019. Global virtual team communication, coordination, and performance across three peer feedback strategies. Can. J. Behav. Sci./Rev. Can. Sci. Comport. 51:4207–18 https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000135
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Millward LJ, Haslam SA, Postmes T. 2007. Putting employees in their place: the impact of hot desking on organizational and team identification. Organ. Sci. 18:4547–59 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0265
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Morganson VJ, Major DA, Oborn KL, Verive JM, Heelan MP. 2010. Comparing telework locations and traditional work arrangements: differences in work-life balance support, job satisfaction, and inclusion. J. Manag. Psychol. 25:6578–95 https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941011056941
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Nash C, Jarrahi MH, Sutherland W, Phillips G 2018. Digital nomads beyond the buzzword: defining digital nomadic work and use of digital technologies. Transforming Digital Worlds G Chowdhury, J McLeod, V Gillet, P Willett 207–17 Cham, Switz: Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78105-1_25
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Neeley T. 2013. Language matters: status loss and achieved status distinctions in global organizations. Organ. Sci. 24:2476–97 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0739
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Neeley T. 2021. Remote Work Revolution: Succeeding from Anywhere New York: Harper Bus
  87. Nurmi N, Hinds PJ. 2016. Job complexity and learning opportunities: a silver lining in the design of global virtual work. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 47:6631–54 https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2016.11
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Oakman J, Kinsman N, Stuckey R, Graham M, Weale V. 2020. A rapid review of mental and physical health effects of working at home: How do we optimise health?. BMC Public Health 20:11825 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09875-z
    [Google Scholar]
  89. O'Neill TA, Hambley LA, Chatellier GS. 2014. Cyberslacking, engagement, and personality in distributed work environments. Comput. Hum. Behav. 40:152–60 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.08.005
    [Google Scholar]
  90. O'Neill TA, Hambley LA, Greidanus NS, MacDonnell R, Kline TJB. 2009. Predicting teleworker success: an exploration of personality, motivational, situational, and job characteristics. New Technol. Work Employ. 24:2144–62 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2009.00225.x
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Palumbo R. 2020. Let me go to the office! An investigation into the side effects of working from home on work-life balance. Int. J. Public Sector Manag. 33:6/7771–90 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-06-2020-0150
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Raghuram S, Wiesenfeld B. 2004. Work-nonwork conflict and job stress among virtual workers. Hum. Resour. Manag. 43:2–3259–77 https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20019
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Raisiene A, Rapuano V, Varkulevičiūtė K, Stachová K. 2020. Working from home—Who is happy? A survey of Lithuania's employees during the COVID-19 quarantine period. Sustainability 12:5332 https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135332
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Rauch M, Ansari S (S). 2022. Waging war from remote cubicles: how workers cope with technologies that disrupt the meaning and morality of their work. Organ. Sci. 33:183–104 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1555
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Reagans R, McEvily B. 2003. Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Adm. Sci. Q. 48:2240–67 https://doi.org/10.2307/3556658
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Richter A. 2020. Locked-down digital work. Int. J. Inform. Manag. 55:102157 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102157
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Rico R, Cohen SG. 2005. Effects of task interdependence and type of communication on performance in virtual teams. J. Manag. Psychol. 20:3/4261–74 https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940510589046
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Rockmann KW, Pratt MG. 2015. Contagious offsite work and the lonely office: the unintended consequences of distributed work. Acad. Manag. Discov. 1:2150–64 https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2014.0016
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Sardeshmukh SR, Sharma D, Golden TD. 2012. Impact of telework on exhaustion and job engagement: a job demands and job resources model. New Technol. Work Employ. 27:3193–207 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2012.00284.x
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Schur LA, Ameri M, Kruse D. 2020. Telework after COVID: a “silver lining” for workers with disabilities?. J. Occup. Rehabil. 30:4521–36 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09936-5
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Sewell G, Taskin L. 2015. Out of sight, out of mind in a new world of work? Autonomy, control, and spatiotemporal scaling in telework. Organ. Stud. 36:111507–29 https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615593587
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Shimura A, Yokoi K, Ishibashi Y, Akatsuka Y, Inoue T. 2021. Remote work decreases psychological and physical stress responses, but full-remote work increases presenteeism. Front. Psychol. 12:730969 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.730969
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Song Y, Gao J. 2020. Does telework stress employees out? A study on working at home and subjective well-being for wage/salary workers. J. Happiness Stud. 21:72649–68 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00196-6
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Spinuzzi C. 2012. Working alone together: coworking as emergent collaborative activity. J. Bus. Tech. Commun. 26:4399–441 https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651912444070
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Thompson BY. 2019. The digital nomad lifestyle: (remote) work/leisure balance, privilege, and constructed community. Int. J. Sociol. Leisure 2:127–42 https://doi.org/10.1007/s41978-018-00030-y
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Trope Y, Liberman N. 2010. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 117:2440–63 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963
    [Google Scholar]
  107. van Zoonen W, Sivunen A, Blomqvist K, Olsson T, Ropponen A et al. 2021. Factors influencing adjustment to remote work: employees’ initial responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18:136966 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136966
    [Google Scholar]
  108. van Zoonen W, Sivunen AE. 2022. The impact of remote work and mediated communication frequency on isolation and psychological distress. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 31:4610–21 https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2021.2002299
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Vega RP, Anderson AJ, Kaplan SA. 2015. A within-person examination of the effects of telework. J. Bus. Psychol. 30:2313–23 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9359-4
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Venkatesh A, Vitalari NP. 1992. An emerging distributed work arrangement: an investigation of computer-based supplemental work at home. Manag. Sci. 38:121687–706 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.38.12.1687
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Waizenegger L, McKenna B, Cai W, Bendz T. 2020. An affordance perspective of team collaboration and enforced working from home during COVID-19. Eur. J. Inform. Syst. 29:4429–42 https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1800417
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Wang B, Liu Y, Qian J, Parker SK. 2021. Achieving effective remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic: a work design perspective. Appl. Psychol. 70:116–59 https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12290
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Wheatley D. 2012. Good to be home? Time-use and satisfaction levels among home-based teleworkers. New Technol. Work Employ. 27:3224–41 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2012.00289.x
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Whillans A, Perlow L, Turek A. 2021. Experimenting during the shift to virtual team work: learnings from how teams adapted their activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inform. Organ. 31:1100343 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2021.100343
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Windeler JB, Chudoba KM, Sundrup RZ. 2017. Getting away from them all: managing exhaustion from social interaction with telework. J. Organ. Behav. 38:7977–95 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2176
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Woo D, Endacott CG, Myers KK. 2022. Navigating water cooler talks without the water cooler: uncertainty and information seeking during remote socialization. Manag. Commun. Q. 37:2251–80 https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189221105916
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Workman M, Kahnweiler W, Bommer W. 2003. The effects of cognitive style and media richness on commitment to telework and virtual teams. J. Vocat. Behav. 63:2199–219 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00041-1
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Wu Y, Antone B, Srinivas A, DeChurch L, Contractor N 2021. Teamwork in the time of COVID-19: creating, dissolving, and reactivating network ties in response to a crisis. J. Appl. Psychol. 106:101483–92 https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000969
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Yang L, Holtz D, Jaffe S, Suri S, Sinha S et al. 2022. The effects of remote work on collaboration among information workers. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6:143–54 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01196-4
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Zuzul T, Pahnke EC, Larson J, Bourke P, Caurvina N et al. 2021. Dynamic silos: increased modularity in intra-organizational communication networks during the Covid-19 pandemic. arXiv:2104.00641 [stat.ML]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-091922-015852
Loading
How Remote Work Changes the World of Work
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 11, 193 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-091922-015852
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-091922-015852
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-091922-015852
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplemental Material

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error