I)V1ESI.J ' RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from Ailing-III. ' your record. flflgg wi11 be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. f,- \) h ,_ ,___. 1.. . FE3 0' 7-1994 AN EXPLORATION OF VARIABLES RELATING TO HOME-BASEDVWORK BY Brian T. Loher A DISSERTATION azbmitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR.OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1987 ABSTRACT AN EXPIORATION’OF VARIABLES RELATING TO HOME-BASED‘WORK By Brian T. Loher The increasing sophistication and availability of personal computers has accelerated popular and professional interest in ”telecommuting" and other forms of home—based work. Previous empirical and conceptual efforts have focused on the effect of the home work site on outcome measures. Preliminary results have indicated increased job performance and satisfaction. Little attention has been directed towards identifying antecedents of home-based work. The present study attempted to identify predictors of the relative amount of time spent at the home work site by university faculty. Previous research and faculty interviews were used to identify variables included as part of a survey. variables were organized into sets on the basis of a model adapted from expectancy theory. One hundred and eightybthree faculty participated in the survey. Regression analyses indicated that the outcomes associated by faculty with home-based work accounted for a significant amount of variance in a measure of the attractiveness of the home as a work site. Attractiveness, the extent to which faculty were required to monitor the work of others, and the perceived opportunity to work at home contributed to the prediction of relative time at the home work site. To the memory of William and Gladys Stone, who first sentme off to school. ACKNMEDQIENI‘S Many persons have contributed to the completion of this document. I would first like to thank J. Kevin Ford, the chairperson of my committee, for his useful feedback and occasional prodding. Kevin's willingness to initially critique sub-components of the proposal also helped tospeed completion of the project. I would like to thank Neal Schmitt for his early push to "go with something different." Input from Steve Kozlowski and Daniel Ilgen also helped to improve the quality of the study. I would like to thank my Mother and Father and the other members of my family for their support (moral and financial) during the difficult times. Each day I seem to more fully comprehend the many sacrifices that my parents made, so that I might have the opportunities that they were denied. I want to thank the "gentlemen" from Friday morning basketball and the Ramon's softball team. They were willing to let an trader-talented outsider play. last, but certainly not least, I want to thank Robbin, my very best friend. May we both grow old together. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . DNTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH . . . . . . . . Empirical Research. . . . . . Case Studies . . . . . . Survey Research . . . . . Summary of Empirical Research Problems With.Empirical Research Conceptual Efforts. . . . Effects on Quality of Wbrklife . Effects on Motivation . . . . Summary of Conceptual Efforts . A STUDY TO EXAMINE VARIABLES RELNTING TO HOE-BASED mm o c o o o o o o o o o 0 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . Development of a Model . . . . . . . Expectancy Theory Research on Behavioral Choice . . . . . . . . . . . Nonexpectancy Determinants . . . . . . . General Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . m C O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . Measures . . . . . . . . . Individual Differences: Personality . Perceived Outcome Effects. . . . . Attractiveness of Home for Wbrk. . . Opportunity to Wbrk at Heme . . . . Home/Office Situational Characteristics Relative Time at Heme . . . . . . Method of Analysis. . . . . . . . . ms I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Introduction. . . . . Representativeness of the Survey Sample. Recruitment of Survey Participants. Sample Characteristics. . . . . Page 20 20 20 20 25 32 36 36 38 39 41 41 42 44 46 46 48 48 48 48 49 Descriptive Results for Predictor variables Individual Differences variables Perceived Outcome Effects. Attractiveness of Heme for Wbrk. Opportunity to work at Heme . Heme/Office Situational Characteristics Relative Time at Home. . . . Correlations Between Predictors and Time at Heme. . . . . . . Individual Differences. . Perceived Outcome Effects Composites Attractiveness for Wbrk Activities. Opportunity to Wbrk at.Home . Home/Office Situational Characteristics Regression Analyses . . . . Introduction . . . . . Results of Regression Analyses Post Hoc Analyses . . . DISCUSSION . Introduction. General Objectives of the Study Results of Regression Analyses. Iimdtations of the Study. concerns With.Measures. Method of Data Collection. Implications of the Study Future Research. Clarification of Measures. Extension of Findings . CONCLUSION . APPENDIX A . APPENDIX B . APPENDIX C . APPENDIX D . APPENDIX E . APPENDIX F . APPENDIX Gr. REFERENCES . vi Page 53 53 57 65 66 70 75 77 77 78 78 80 82 82 84 93 98 98 98 99 104 104 105 106 108 108 109 111 112 121 129 130 137 138 139 145 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Illustration of Non-Expectancy Variables Wit-11.111 ktSo O O O O O O O I O O O O 27 2. Pilot Study: Parsonality Measures (Revised). . 40 3. Interview Results: Work Activities Performed byFacultyWhileatHome . . . . . . . . 43 4. Descriptive Information for the Survey Sample and for the Academic Faculty as a Whole . . . 51 5. Composition of the Survey Sample by College . . 51 6. Need for Achievement Scale: Means, Standard Deviations, and Inter-Item Correlations . . . 55 7. Need for Affiliation Scale: Means, Standard Deviations, and Inter-Item Correlations . . . 55 8. External Locus of Control Scale: Means, Standard Deviations, and Inter-Item Correlations . . . 56 9. Variable Intercorrelations: Individual Differ-was %t O O O O O I O O O O O 56 10 . Means and Standard Deviations for the Perceived Outcome Effect (POE) Ratings . . . . . . . 59 11. Factor Analysis of Perceived Oitccme Effect (POE) Ratmgs o o o o o o o o o o o o 62 12. Content of Perceived Outcome Effect (POE) WSiteS O O O I O O O O O O O O O 63 13. Descriptive Statistics and Inter-Correlations for the Perceived Outcome Effect (POE) Composites.............64 14 . Attractiveness of Home for Work Activities: Descriptive Results and Intercorrelations. . . 68 15. Descriptive Results for Single-Item Measures WithintheQaportunitySet. . . . . . . . 68 Table Page 16. Supportiveness of Reference Groups for Faculty Who Wbrk at HOme: Descriptive Results and Intercorrelations. . . . . . . . . . . 69 17. Intercorrelations Among variables in the mmnity $t O O O O O O O O O O O 69 18. Iocation.With.Access to a Private Wbrk Space. . 72 19. Location With Access to a Personal Computer . . 72 20. Descriptive Results for Other Persons in the HOusehold and Commuting Situation . . . . . 74 21. Intercorrelations Among variables in the Home/Office Situational Characteristics Set . . 74 22. Time Spent Working: Overall and Specific ActiVitieS O O O O O O O O O O O O O 76 23. correlations Between Predictors and Relative Time at HOme . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 24. Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Attract iverles S O O O O O O O O O O O O 8 5 25. Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Relative Tim at Hm O O O O O O O I O O O O 87 26. Stage 1 of Regression Analyses for Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 27. Stage 2 of Regression Analyses for Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 28. Regression Analyses for the ”Simplified" wel O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 95 29. Regression Analyses for the Outcomes Index . . 95 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 . A model predicting behavioral choice . . . . . 23 2. Adapted model to predict time spent working at m I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 24 3. Eigenvalues for POE factor analysis. . . . . . 60 4. A ”simplified" model to predict relative time atthehomeworksite . . . . . . . . . . 93 5. A "revised" model to predict relative time at thehomeworksite........... 103 AN EXPLORATION OF VARIABLES RELATIBE TO PINE-BASED WORK Introduction Recent articles in the popular press have suggested a renewed interest in an old idea: the performance of all or part of one's job from within the home (e.g., Antonoff, 1985: Brophy, 1985; Garr, 1984). Working at home is an idea that predates the Industrial Revolution (Shamir & Salomon, 1985) . Recent interest in the concept is largely the result of advances in computer and telecommunications technology. The resulting phenomenon of "telecommuting" involves the use of a computer terminal linked with a central computer through a telephone line to allow the performance of all or part of one's job from within the home (Nilles, 1985; Olson, 1985). The current number of ”telecommters" within the U.S. economy is relatively small (currently numbering around 100,000; Antonoff, 1985). However, the number of persons who will be working at home on an informal basis (not limited to telecommuting) is expected to grow in the future (Olson & Primps, 1984). The first section of the paper reviews the current research on home-based work. This section is divided into two subsections . One subsection examines the results from empirical studies. The second subsection presents conceptual attempts to examine home-based work. Empirical and conceptual efforts have focused on how working at home affects outcome variables (e.g., job performance). The second section of the paper introduces the current study. In contrast to the previous research involving the effects of working within the home environment, the present study examines the antecedents of home-based work. A.model adapted from Parker and Dyer (1976) is presented. The model illustrates several sets of variables that may predict the amount of time that an individual spends at the home work site. The section concludes with the presentation of the general hypotheses for the study. Review of Previous Research Empirical Research Case Studies A small number of organizations have conducted pilot studies involving home-based workers (Olson & Primps, 1984) . Several pilot programs were described in a recent publication by the National Research Council (NRC, 1985) . These studies provide one source for the current state of knowledge regarding the work-at-home phenomenon. American gcpress. Raney (1985) described "Project Homebound," a home-based office system designed to allow disabled persons to work for American Express without having to leave home . The pilot project began in 1982 with a sample of 10 disabled persons. These persons had previously received training in word processing. Work performed at home was fed through a telephone line into the company's central computer. Performance was operationalized as the number of lines of text entered and on-line system time. The homeworkers also kept daily logs of their activities. Raney (1985) did not report any of the performance data for the program. American Ecpress, however, was apparently satisfied with the homeworkers' level of performance. Following the pilot study, the employment status of the program's participants was changed from that of ”independent contractor" to ”ful l-time employee" (while continuing to work at home). Blue Cross/Blue Shield of South Carolina. Geisler (1985) discussed the "cottage keyer" program developed by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of South Carolina. The program began with a single individual (the wife of a ful l-time Blue Cross employee). Fourteen persons were involved in the program at the time of publication. "Most" of the homeworkers were female and had at least one child living in the home. The job required the homeworkers to either code or key-in physicians' Blue Shield claims. Homeworkers were required to lease the necessary equipment from the company at a cost to the employee of around $2,500 per year. The homeworkers were classified as part-time employees, were payed on a piece-rate basis, and received no company benefits other than a company contribution towards a pension fund. In corparison, office employees performing similar duties were classified as full-time workers, were payed on an hourly basis, and received a full benefits package. Despite these differences between the home and office-based employees , the cottage-keyer program had not suffered a single turnover within a five year period (Geisler, 1985) . Geisler reported that 65% of the Blue Shield claims were being keyed and 30% of the claims were being coded by the homeworkers. Thirty percent of the major medical claims were also being keyed and 40% of such claims were coded at home. Performance of home and office workers was compared using the organization‘s index of productivity. This index was based on the number of units produced per hours paid . Homeworkers ' average productivity was 102% of the company standard while office workers averaged only 76% of the standard. Office workers had a mean error rate of 3.0% compared with 0.5% for the homeworkers. Performance differences between the home and office workers may have been attributable to a number of factors. Because "cottage keyers" were not monitored as closely as office peers and had greater control over the scheduling of work, Geisler (1985) suggested that the observed differences in performance were due to a perceived increase in personal control on the part of the cottage keyers. Geisler (1985) also suggested that different schedules of reinforcement and different perceptions of investment may have affected performance . The "schedules of reinforcement" explanation was based on performance being directly linked to rewards within the piece-rate schedule of the cottage keyers . Piece-rate schedules have traditional ly resulted in higher rates of responding than non-contingent (e.g. , hourly) scredules of reinforcement (Muchinsky, 1983) . The "investment" explanation was based on the fact that the cottage keyers were required to lease their machines from the organization. This approach was chosen intentional 1y by the organization to "ensure employee commitment" to work performance (Geisler, 1985, p. 19-20). It was anticipated that there would be increased pressure on the homeworker to productively utilize the equipment if there was some cost associated with keeping the equipment in the home. The persons who were offered the opportunity to work at home were regarded by the company as its best workers (Geisler, 1985) . Working at home was also perceived to imply some degree of trust in the individual on the part of the organization. The step to working at home was apparently viewed as an advancement in position by the clerical workers in this corpany (Geisler, 1985) . I 0.8. A_r_my. McDavid (1985) described a small pilot project with homeworkers conducted in a unionized setting as part of the 0.8. Army's Automated logistics Management Systems Activity (AIMSA) . The project received the conditional endorsement of local 1763 of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) . local union support was notable given that the national AFL-CIO has called for an ”early ban" on the use of hole work-stations (Chamot & Zalusky, 1985) . AIMSA had contracted for twenty hours of computer time per day from an outside supplier. Data indicated that on average only 8 to 10 hours of the contracted time was being utilized. (be objective of the home-based work project was to increase the use of contracted coIputer time without violating the provisions of the union contract. The pilot program began in 1980 and was conducted using personnel from the Management Information Systems Division (MISD) . Voluntary participants included four computer specialists and their immediate supervisor. Participants designated an area within their homes as a ”work space." AIMSA provided all necessary equipment (e.g., telephone lines, office furniture, terminals, office supplies). Workers were asked to choose a second or third shift "tour of duty" in the period from 3 PM to 6 AM. The "tour" did not have to consist of eight consecutive hours. The homeworkers were required to work "on-site" (i.e., at the central office) at least every other Friday. A control system allowed the supervisor to closely monitor the activities of the home-based employees. Comrands included in the system allowed the supervisor to observe the on-line activities of the homeworker at any given time (McDavid, 1985) . Data was collected concerning the number of hours logged onto the computer (most work was completed "on-line”: McDavid, 1985), the mmber of "resource units" used, and the names of accessed files. Management was apparently satisfied with the level of control over the home-based workers. Performance was measured in terms of CPU efficiency rate, computer connect time, and the type of tasks performed. "Efficiency rate" was operationalized as the number of resource units used divided by the number of hours logged onto the computer. Data for home workers and office workers performing similar job duties was compiled for a 12 month period prior to the start of the pilot study. The pilot project lasted for approximately 18 months. Baseline (i.e., "in-office”) CPU efficiency rate for the group of homeworkers was 40% greater than the CPU efficiency rate for the comparison group. mile working at home the efficiency rate for three programmers was 102% greater than the efficiency rate of the comparison group. Average computer connect time for the hole-based workers rose by 93%. AIMSA was able to substantially increase its use of available computer resources without paying for additional computer connect time. As a result of the homeworker project, ALMSA experienced a 64% increase in the mean nurber of computer resource units used per month (McDavid, 1985) . Expenses were also higher because of the need to install additional communications lines into the hate and for monthly communications costs (equipment provided for the homeworkers would have been required regardless of the individual's work location: McDavid, 1985) . At the conclusion of the pi lot project the participants reportedly preferred to work at home and had core to view the opportunity to do so as a special privilege. (McDavid, 1985) . Working at home was also reportedly associated with increased worker morale and received the endorsement of the union local . An external audit was conducted prior to the extension of the homeworker program. The external audit identified a number of methodological problems with the pilot study. The problems included: (1) a change in supervisors during the course of the study; (2) attrition of subjects during the course of the study (one of the four homeworkers returned to the on-site location): (3) invalid or “unacceptable" measures of worker productivity; (4) a control system that was still potentially vulnerable to the use of government equipment for personal tasks; and (5) the reported "morale improvements" were not quantified (McDavid, 1985) . In view of these problems, the auditor's report concluded that the pilot study could not prove that the increases in productivity were attributable to the work location of the employees and recomended against the continued use of home work-stations within a governmental setting (McDavid, 1985) . muntain Bell. Mountain Bell Telephone conducted a test program involving home-based workers that lasted from March to November of 1980 (Phelps, 1985) . The voluntary participants in the project were "managers” from a technical ly-oriented training group and had no supervisory responsibilities (Phelps, 1985) . The participants wrote instructional material for a training course for computer programmers. The initial sample for the study consisted of eight persons. Chly five managers were still working at home at the conclusion of the study. Each person was required to be accessible during a ”core period" of time (8 AM to 5 PM) and was required to work at the regular office site at least one day per week. Phelps (1985) reported that there was an initial decline in productivity (undefined) among the hole-based workers (excluding those who dropped out of the study). The decline in performance lasted until the fourth week of the project. However, by the end of the project there had been a 50% increase in the overall productivity of the group. Phelps (1985) made a number of observations on the basis of post-experimental interviews with the participants in the study. First, the homeworkers noted that it had taken a minimum of one to two weeks to adjust to the hove as a work site. Second, participants felt that the one visit per week to the office was "essential" to meet with supervisors and coworkers and to handle mail and inter-office communications. Third, while the managers felt that their work had benefitted from having fewer interruptions and distractions, they reported that working beyond "regular business hours" (8 AM to 5 PM) had also affected their productivity. Fourth, working at home was perceived to have resulted in a number of positive outcomes (e.g. , reduced automobile insurance rates, gasoline bills, and dry cleaning costs). Finally, the type and amount of communication between participants and their supervisors was seen as critical to the success of the employee in the hate work site. Slipervisors had a less positive reaction to the hove-based worker program. The supervisors were almost unanimous in reporting that supervising employees from a distance "... made their jobs more difficult" (Phelps, 1985, p. 37). Sirvey Research Control Data. Control Data Corporation developed an Alternative Work Site (AWS) program (Manning, 1985). Participants worked either within their homes or at "satellite office sites” near their homes. Managers nominated employees for voluntary participation (Manning, 1985) . mile participants came from a variety of occupational and tenure levels, most of the jobs were ”information-oriented" (e.g., programmer analyst, education analyst, senior consultant, general manager; Manning, 1985) . Job duties included course design, text and/ or software development, pre-sales marketing support, system design, and consulting. Twenty-seven participants responded to a survey conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the AWS program. Twenty of their managers were also interviewed. Time spent by participants at the alternative site ranged from one day per week to ful l-time. The group mean was three days per week at the alternative work site (Manning, 1985) . Working at an alternative site was perceived to have a positive impact on performance. The AWS participants estimated that on average their productivity increased by 35% (Manning, 1985) . The managers of the AWS employees stated that worker productivity had increased in 15 out of 25 cases and estimated that the productivity of the AWS workers increased an average of 20% (Manning, 1985) . AWS participants identified a number of advantages and disadvantages associated with working away from the central office. Perceived advantages included reduced commuting costs, an improved working environment, a reduction in interruptions/ distractions and an increase in work performance (Manning, 1985) . AWS participation was also perceived as resulting in increased satisfaction with the job and the organization (Manning, 1985). Managers of the AWS workers felt that an informal AWS option was useful because it had allowed them to retain some of their most valuable employees (Manning, 1985) . 10 Decreased interaction with coworkers and increased difficulty in separating home and work roles were perceived as the primary disadvantages of the alternative work site (Manning, 1985). The effect of working at home on future promotional opportunities was also an area of concern for the program participants. While nine AWS employees felt that their future career opportunities had been enhanced (due to increased productivity) and eleven anticipated no effect on their careers, seven of the 27 AWS workers felt that their career opportunities might have been damaged due to a loss of visibility within the organization (Manning, 1985). More importantly, a "majority" (no number provided) of the managers of the AWS workers felt that.working at an alternative site could negatively affect an employee's career because of reduced contact and visibility within the organization (Manning, 1985). Personal Computing. Antonoff (1985) presented results from a survey of the readers of Personal Computing Magazine on their experiences with home-based work. The majority of the survey participants were male (289 out of 373). Half of the sample (50.7%; N'= 189) reported that their time spent.working at home was in addition to time at another location. Only 11.8% (N = 44) of the respondents identified work done at home as a "regular substitute for work at another location.” When asked to state their preference for a given work location, 60.6% (N’= 226) of the respondents said that they would prefer an option that allowed them to work at home part of the time and at another location (usually an office) for the remainder of the time (Antonoff, 1985). This option has been labeled as ”flexiplace' (Shamir & Salomon, 1985). ll Twenty-two percent of the sample (N’= 82) would have preferred to work at home full-time while only 4% (N'= 15) preferred to work entirely outside of the home. The most frequently cited reasons for working at home (multiple responses were allowed) included: (1) to work at my own pace (50.9%): (2) to increase my productivity (45.6%); (3) to earn extra incore (35.1%): (4) to reduce overhead costs (20.4%): (5) to save comuting time (18.0%): (6) to gain tax benefits (18.0%); (7) to ease conflicts between work and family (13.1%): and (8) to take care of my family (10.5%; Antonoff, 1985). The most frequently cited disadvantage of working at home was a lack of interaction with coworkers (30.6%). Overall, 52.5% (N = 196) of those responding rated themselves as very satisfied with working at bore. Thirty-three percent (N = 123) were "somewhat satisfied" and only 5.4% of the respondents were either somewhat or very dissatified with working at home (Antonoff, 1985). Summary of Empirical Research Occupational Characteristics. While working at home does not appear to be a viable option for all types of jobs, Harkness (1977, cf. Olson, 1983) estimated that 50% of traditional office activities (e.g., writing, typing, data entry) could be performed by persons working from their homes. Most of the applications of home-based work have involved either lowblevel clerical employees performing word processing or data entry tasks (e.g., Geisler, 1985; Phelps, 1985) or occupations involving the creative use of information (e.g., McDavid, 1985; Phelps, 1985). Only the AWS program at Control Data (Manning, 12 1985) involved persons from several "information-oriented" job categories. For high-level occupations , working at home appears to have its greatest utility for tasks that require periods of uninterrupted concentration or effort. Home-based work appears to be less functional for jobs that require frequent face-to-face meetings or the supervision of others (Phelps, 1985) . Effects on Performance. Fol lowing an adjustment period , working at hote appears to have a positive effect on work performance. Results have generally been positive for both objective and subjective measures of performance. Using an objective measure of performance, Phelps (1985) reported a mean increase in productivity of 50% for three homeworkers who participated in a trial program. Three computer specialists in the AIMSA project (McDavid, 1985) had individual increases in CPU efficiency rate of 25%, 69%, and 80%. The productivity of the keyers in the Blue Cross/Blue Shield "cottage keyer" program was 102% of the organization's. standard compared to 76% of standard for in-office keyers (Geisler, 1985) . Subjective reports also tend to suggest an increase in performance when working at home. Self-estimated productivity of the Control Data telecomuters increased an average of 35% . Supervisors estimated an average productivity increase of 20% for the same sample (Manning, 1985). Almost half (46.5%) of Antonoff's (1985) survey respondents indicated that they worked at hove to increase their productivity. McClintock (1981, cf. Olson, 1983) reported increased productivity for a sample of twenty telecommuters when working on roitine tasks and increased effectiveness on complex tasks. l3 aibjective estimates of the performance of homeworkers have not been entirely positive. Olson interviewed 32 persons from five different organizations who worked at here at least part-time (cf. Olson, 1983) . Of those interviewed, 22% felt that they were more productive when working at here. However, 31% of the participants felt that they were less productive at bore . Effect on Job Satisfaction. In general, working at home seems to have a positive effect on job satisfaction. McDavid (1985) reported that the morale of employees was improved after working at home. Control Data managers perceived increased job satisfaction among their employees who were working at home (Manning, 1985) . Quantitative data to support these perceptions were not reported. Antonoff (1985) found that over three quarters (85.5%) of survey respondents were either somewhat or very satisfied with working at home. Olson (1983) contended that the effect of home-based work on job satisfaction might be moderated by the homeworker ' s perception of his/ her autonomy. In summary, the early empirical research has focused on the effects of working at hote. Generally, home-based work has had a positive effect on both job performance and job satisfaction. However, there are a number of problems in these erpirical studies that suggest caution in generalizing from the results. Problems With Empirical Research A number of problems are apparent in the empirical research on home-based work. These problers include the use of small samples, potential confounds through ”Hawthorne effects, " poor measurement of research variables, and lack of theory as a guide for the inclusion of research variables . 14 The first problem is that the majority of the current information on home-based work has been drawn from studies involving relatively small numbers of participants. Manning's (1985) survey had a sample size of 27. McDavid (1985) had a sample of three corputer programmers at the conclusion of the project period. Over half of the 14 work-at-home programs examined by Olson & Primps (1984) contained only three or four participants. Three programs had 10 to 15 participants and only one program involved as many as thirty persons working at home on at least a part-time basis. Meaningful comparisons between control and treatment groups are difficult with small samples. The power of statistical tests to detect differences between treatment and control groips decreases as sample size declines (Cohen & Cohen, 1983) . Statistical significance tests were noticeably absent from all of these studies. Future studies on home-based work should attempt to identify situations (e.g. , Antonoff, 1985) or organizations where larger samples might be available. A second problem with current empirical research involving home-based work is that observed changes in attitudes and performance among participants might be the result of a “Hawthorne effect" (Nil les, 1985) . Increases in production for hove-based workers may be due to their identification as members of a group receiving special treatment from the organization. The opportunity to work at hove was apparently a new program in many of these organizations (e.g., Geisler, 1985; Marming, 1985; McDavid, 1985: Phelps, 1985: Raney, 1985) . For example, Geisler (1985) noted that working at home had core to be perceived as a "prototion" by the office clerical staff. For research purposes, one solution to this problem would be to 15 flue-Higgi- inlJ , p.544. identify a sample where the concept of working at here was not new or counter to the prevailing culture within the organization (Olson & Primps, 1984) . A third problem pertains to the measuretent and reporting of results for performance and attitudinal variables. For example, the external auditor evaluating the 0.8. Army horeworker program criticized the measure of productivity and noted that purported improvetents in employee morale had not been quantified (cf. McDavid, 1985) . A mmber of studies did not report critical empirical data. For example, Raney (1985) did not present the performance data for participants in Project Homebound. Phelps (1985) reported a "50% increase” in productivity for homeworkers within the Mountain Bell program but did not describe how performance was operational ized or how the "50%” value was derived. Manning (1985) suggested that the Control Data AWS program was successful in increasing job satisfaction even trough satisfaction items were not apparent as part of the survey. Increased attention is needed to the measurerent and reporting of variables in research on bore-based work. The use of standardized measures from other areas of organizational reseach would help to reduce this problem. In addition, the development and use of multiple-item scales would increase the reliability and validity of attitudinal measures (Nunnally, 1978). The elpirical research on home-based work has been generally atheoretical in nature. A lack of theory might be expected within exploratory research involving an emerging technology. However, a conceptual model might be used to guide the selection of variables for 16 inclusion within an empirical study. In addition, such models might allow one to develop hypotheses based on previous research findings. while presenting no empirical data, two recent articles illustrated the application of a conceptual approach to the area of hove-based work. These articles dealt with the quality-of-worklife of hove-based etployees (Shamir & Saloton, 1985) and their expected level of motivation (Brief, 1985) . Conceptual Efforts Effects on Qiality of Worklife Shamir and Saloron (1985) conceptually examined the impact of working within the hole on an employee's quality of worklife (04L) . (MI. was defined as the extent to which an employee's work experiences were personally rewarding and/ or devoid of such negative consequences as stress (Shamir & Saloron, 1985). Shamir and Salomon (1985) developed a series of hypotheses regarding the impact of here work on five dimensions of (MI. including task characteristics, social relations, job-related stress, work - nonwork relationships, and power/status/equity. Working at home was hypothesized to increase or decrease perceptions of autonomy depending upon the worker's job level, sex, and childcare responsibilities (Shamir s. Salomon, 1985) . Working at home was also hypothesized to result in a reduction in the significance of tasks, decreased feedback from others (quantity and/or quality), increased social isolation and decreased quality of social relations. A reduction in consideration behaviors from supervisors, increased role ambiguity, increased work-nonwork conflict, an overall decrease in power, and a decline in 17 status and opportunities for advancement were also conceptually linked with home-based work (Shamir & Salomon, 1985). Based on their conceptual analysis, Shamir and Salomon (1985) concluded that a ”fixed" work-at-hoIe program (i.e. , a program where the erployee was required to work at home on a full-time basis) should be treated “with suspicion” from a GIL perspective. However, Shamir and Saan (1985) distinguished between "fixed" programs and a 'flexiplace" option (where the employee could move between the home and the office at his or her discretion). Flexiplace and "neighborhood work centers" (e.g., see Manning, 1985) were suggested as a means of reducing the negative effects of hove-based work on the (fit. of employees. Starting from a conceptual basis enabled Shamir and Salomon (1985) to identify a number of potentially important variables for inclusion in future empirical studies. It also allowed for the development of hypotheses on the effects of home-based work based on the results of previous (EL research. Brief (1985) provided a second example of a conceptual approach to research involving home-based work. Brief utilized expectancy theory to examine the effect of working at home on the motivational level of erployees. Effects on Motivation Brief (1985) used an expectancy theory framework to examine the question of whether performance differences between hoe and office workers might be attributable to differences in effort levels. Brief (1985) made three explicit assumptions within his conceptual analysis. He first assumed that bore and office workers were performing similar 18 tasks. The second assumption was that similar personnel policies were applied to both groups. Finally, although describing such differences as "plausible," Brief assumed that the hone-based and office workers did not differ in the extent to which they desired certain outcores. Based on these three assumptions, Brief (1985) concluded that there was little reason within an expectancy framework to anticipate differences in the effort levels of hole and office workers. SmmarLof Conceptual Efforts Shamir and Salomon (1985) and Brief (1985) have provided examples of conceptual approaches to the examination of the outcomes associated with hone-based work. Shamir and Salomon (1985) concluded that a fixed work-at-hote program would be likely to have negative effects on an employee's quality of worklife. Brief (1985) used an expectancy approach to argue against differences in motivation between home and office workers. The case studies, survey research and conceptual efforts provide an overview of the current state of knowledge regarding home-based work. The empirical studies suffer from a number of methodological problems (e.g., small samples, perceptions of special treatment, poor measurelent, atheoretical nature of research) while the conceptual efforts have yet to be linked with data. Previous research shares a comon focus on the effects of working at hove. The antemdents of home-based work have not yet been examined (although the importance of such research was discussed by Olson, 1983) . The following section presents the development of a conceptual model to serve as the basis for a study investigating the prediction of hove-based work activity . 19 A Study to Examine variables Relating to Heme-Based Wbrk Introduction The option to work at home appears to be desirable for persons in high-level , information-oriented occupations. However, there seers to be a large amount of variability in the amount of time that individuals choose to spend working at home when given control over their work location (e.g., see Manning, 1985). It may be possible to predict the amount of time that an individual will choose to spend working at home when given the freedom to do so. The next section introduces the basic elements of an expectancy approach to the topic of behavioral choice. An adaptation of a model outlined by Parker and Dyer (1976) is presented. Three hypotheses for an exploratory study based on this adapted model are presented at the conclusion of the section. Development of a Model Expectancerheo y Research on Behavioral Choice Basic Terminology. EXpectancies, instrumentalities, and valences form the basis for most expectancy theories. EXpectancy is defined as an individual's perception of the relationship between a given level of effOrt and a given outcome or level of performance (Landy & Trumbo, 1980; Lawier, 1973). Expectancy is usually operationalized as a subjective probability (campbell & Pritchard, 1976). Instrumentality involves the extent to which the individual perceives the behavior or outcome in question as being "instrumental to” (i.e., "leading to”) the attainment of other outcomes (Mitchell & 20 Beach, 1976). According to Mitchell and Beach (1976, p. 235), the instrumentality of one outcome for another may vary from positive (e.g., ”always leading to a given outcome") to negative (e.g., "never leading to a given outcome"). Instrumentality has been measured as either a conditional probability or a subjective correlation (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976). The valence of an outcome involves the strength of a person's positive or negative affective orientation towards that outcome (Mitchell & Beach, 1976, p. 234). According to Lawler (1973), the valence of an outcome can range from very desirable to very undesirable. valence has also been operationalized as outcome attractiveness or importance (campbell & Pritchard, 1976: Landy & Trumbo, 1980; Lawler, 1973; Mitchell, 1974; Parker & Dyer, 1976; Schmitt & Son, 1981). Previous Researdh. Expectancy research on.behavioral choice has generally focused on ”valence models" (Mitchell, 1974) involving perceived instrumentalities and the valence of a given number of outcomes for an individual (Schmitt & Son, 1981). The inclusion of outcome valences has not always been found to enhance predictive accuracy (MuChinsky & Taylor, 1976; Schmitt & Son, 1981). Hewever, the continued inclusion of outcome valences within research involving behavioral choice appears warranted on empirical (Rynes & Lawler, 1983) as well as conceptual grounds (Muchinsky & Taylor, 1976). A number of studies have supported the use of expectancy theory components to predict either behavioral preference or behavioral Choice (e.g., see Mitchell & Beach, 1976; Mudhinsky & Taylor, 1976; Rynes & LawTer, 1983; Schmitt & Son, 1981). A distinction has been 21 made between an individual's preference for a given course of action and his or her agtgal_behavior (Mitchell & Beach, 1976; Schmitt & Son, 1981). valence models tend to be more accurate when predicting preferences than actual behavior (Parker & Dyer, 1976). Parker and Dyer (1976) used an expectancy approach to examine the retiretent decisions of a sample of Navy career officers. The choice examined in the study was whether the officer would choose to retire after a 20 year period in the Navy or would remain on active duty. Parker and Dyer developed a list of the positive and negative outcomes that might be associated*with either choice on the basis of interviews with.both.active and retired Navy officers. Using the list of 25 possible outcomes, Parker and Dyer (1976) made correct predictions (retire/remain on active duty) in 62.2% of the 697 cases that they retrospectively examined. Reducing the list to the eight most important outcomes for each individual increased prediction accuracy to 68%, suggesting that it is not necessary to identify all possible outcomes when using an expectancy approach to examine behavioral choice. Parker and Dyer (1976) suggested the inclusion of ”nonrexpectancy" variables to increase prediction accuracy for actual behavior. Inclusion of an index of wife-family influence increased prediction accuracy in the Parker and Dyer (1976) study to approximately 80%. In addition to an individual's preference for a behavioral choice, Parker and Dyer recommended the measurement of ”individual differences", ”externally - oriented predictors”, and "opportunity" when attempting to predict actual behavior. An 22 illustration of the Parker and Dyer (1976) model is presented as Figure 1. Present Study. When given a choice, a valence approach would predict that an individual would prefer the work site (e.g., home or office) that is perceived as being most likely to result in the attainment of valued outcomes (Brief, 1985). In the words of Brief (1985): Individuals vary considerably in their preferences for work-related outcomes. Thus certain people with certain preferences may choose to work at home because they expect different levels of various outcomes from those working at more conventional sites. Likelihood of Outcomes 1.....-) ----> valence of Outcomes (p. 68) Individual Differences Opportunity Preference for > Actual Behavior > Behavior Externally Oriented Predictors Figgge 1. A model predicting behavioral choice. (Based on Parker & Dyer, 1976) 23 An individual's preference for the home work site would not be likely to perfectly predict the amount of time that he or she spends in working at home. Using tl'e Parker and Dyer (1976) model as a guide, additional variables can be identified that may be related to the amount of time that an individual actually spends working at home. The three ”additional" predictors (individual differences , externally oriented predictors , and opportunity) proposed by Parker and Dyer (1976) are similar to three "antecedents" of home-based work suggested by Olson (1983): (1) individual characteristics, (2) situational characteristics and (3) job characteristics. Individual Differences - derographic Opportunity to - personality Work at Home L--—> Attractiveness - > Amount of of Here for > Time Spent -r—-> Work Activities Working at > Home Perceived Hole/ Of fice Outcome Situational Effects Characteristics Figge 2. Adapted model to predict time spent working at hoxe. (Adapted from Olson, 1983: Parker & Dyer, 1976) 24 A model adapted from the work of Parker and Dyer (1976) and Olson (1983) to predict the amount of time that an individual chooses to spend working at hore is presented as Figure 2. For simplicity, the model assumes similar job characteristics within a given occupation (Olson's third "antecedent"; see above). In addition, the two expectancy cotponents (outcore likelihood & outcoxe valence) have been combined within a single measure (perceived outcore effects). The model presented in Figure 2 is used to organize a discussion of some of the ”non-expectancy” variables that might be indirectly or directly related to the amount of time that an individual spends working at hove. A list of these variables is presented as Table 1. Nonexpectancy Determinants Individual Differences . The model presented in Figure 2 suggests that individual differences variables are directly related to the perceived attractiveness of the home as a work site and indirectly related to the amount of time that a person spends working at here. Sex, age, and level of seniority are examples of demographic variables that might be related to the perceived attractiveness of the home as a work site. The attractiveness of the home work environment might also be related to an individual's needs for achieverent, affiliation, autonomy, and locus of control. Sex is an example of a derographic variable that may be related to the attractiveness of the home for work activity. Olson (1983) found that males were more likely to work at home because of personal preference. Ferales were more likely to work at home for family reasons (e.g., childcare). Olson and Primps (1984) reported that, among persons interviewed in their study, all who had chosen to work 25 at here for childcare reasons were female. As yet, it is not known whether sex is directly related to the perceived attractiveness of the bore as a work site or if it is indirectly related to the amount of time that an individual spends working at hove. Previous research has not examined the relationship between age and the attractivness of the home as a location for work. Older workers may have more self-discipline and therefore might be more attracted to the autonomy of the bore than younger workers . However , younger workers might feel more constrained in an office environment and therefore might find the bore to be a more attractive work site. Organizational seniority might be positively related to the perceived attractiveness of the home as a work site. New employees could feel pressure to be ”seen" while working (e.g., to create a good impression with coworkers) and therefore might find the hove to be a less attractive work site. In contrast, senior employees might find the home environment to be an attractive alternative if it enabled them to avoid the conflicts and interruptions of the office. There are a number of personality variables that may be directly related to the perceived attractiveness of the home as a work site and indirectly related to the amount of time spent working at home. These personality variables include an individual's needs for achievement, affiliation, and autonomy. Need for achievement has been defined as the extent to which one has goals, tries to complete his or her tasks as quickly as possible, and attempts to give one's best efforts (Friis & Knox, 1972) . Persons high on need for achieverent prefer situations where they can take personal responsibility for finding problem solutions (Hampton, Summer, & Webber, 1982, p. 15). The 26 Table 1 Illustration of Noanxpectancy variables Within Sets variables Individual Differences Demographic Sex Age Seniority Personality Need for Achievement Need for Affiliation Need for Autonomy locus of Control Opportunity Perceived opportunity NUmber of meetings/commitments Reference group supportiveness Heme/Office Situational Characteristics NUmber of children Ages of children Number of persons in home Private office at home Private office at central work site Personal computer in home Personal computer at central work site (Immmmjng time Number of vehicles in household 27 successful homeworker has been described as a "high achiever" (Nilles, 1985) and as a ”well-organized self-starter" (Manning, 1985). Although not everyone who attempts to work at home is successful, the statements by Nilles (1985) and banning (1985) suggest the possibility that need for achievement may be related to the the perceived attractiveness of the home as a work site. The office environment has been described as the primary location at.which people fulfill their needs for affiliation (Albertson, 1977; Brief, 1985). Need for affiliation involves the extent to which one desires to be with, socialize with, and seeks the company of others (Friis & Knox, 1972; Hampton, et al., 1982). Those working at home are likely to have less direct contact with their coworkers (Antonoff, 1985; Brief, 1985). While it is possible that a homeébased worker could fulfill affiliation needs through interactions with friends, neighbors, or family members, Brophy (1985) characterized the successful homeworker as someone who is not affected by some amount of solitude or social isolation. This suggests that the possibility of an association between an individual's need for affiliation and the perceived attractiveness of the home as a work environment. Persons*with a high need for autonomy/independence prefer to be left alone to do their work and tend to seek out situations in which they have a greaterperception of autonomy (wexley & Yukl, 1984). One frequently cited advantage of working at home is that it tends to remove one from close monitoring by a supervisor (Antonoff, 1985: Brophy, 1985; Carr, 1984). Persons with a high need for autonomy therefore might perceive the home to be an attractive work site. 28 Description of homeebased workers as "self-motivated" (Brophy, 1985; Manning, 1985: Nilles, 1985) suggests a possible link between locus of control and the attractiveness of the home as a work environment (Olson, 1983). Locus of control pertains to an individual's general perceptions regarding the source or cause of events (Rotter, 1966; Spector, 1982). Persons who generally tend to attribute control of events to themselves are characterized as having an "internal” locus of control. Those who tend to attribute control of events to luck, destiny, chance or others are said to have an "external" locus of control (Spector, 1982). A person with an internal locus of control may seek out situations where increased personal control is more likely, if the increased control is perceived to lead to desired outcomes (Kimmons & Greenhaus, 1976; Spector, 1982). ”Internals" seek to increase influence over events by: (1) altering working conditions; (2) changing the nature of their relationships with supervisors and coworkers; or (3) altering work schedules (Spector, 1982). Better working conditions, a perceived decrease in the closeness of supervision, and increased flexibility in the scheduling of work hours are three of the advantages that employees have cited for choosing to work at home (Antonoff, 1985: Garr, 1984: Manning, 1985; Raney, 1985). Therefore, persons with.an internal locus of control may be attracted to the home work site (Olson, 1983). conversely, individuals with an external locus of control might perceive the home work environment to be unattractive. Opportunity. certain factors may place constraints on one's opportunities to work at home. Opportunity could be affected by: (1) 29 the perceived opportunity to work at.home; (2) the number of meetings or other commitments; and (3) the perceived supportiveness of various reference groups towards persons who work away from the central office. Other things being equal, a positive relationship cwld be expected between one's perceived Opportunity to work at home and the amount of time spent at that location. Intuitively, an individual who perceives limited opportunities to work at home would be expected to spend less time at the home work site. The frequency of face-to—face meetings and otter time commitments may be inversely associated with the amount of time that one has available to work at home. In the pilot programs described by Manning (1985), McDavid (1985), and Phelps (1985), a "core" day was established on which all home-based workers were expected to be present at the office to attend meetings. Frequent meetings or other office commitments might therefore reduce the amount of time that the individual has available for working at home. The norms of the organization or work group might also relate to the amount of time spent working in the home environment (Olson & Primps, 1984). Norms regulate the behavior of group members (Feldman, 1984). Some pilot programs involving home-based workers have been hindered because the climate and norms of the organization did not support the concept of working away from the supervision and control of the office environment (Olson & Primps, 1984). In effect, the norms of the work group might place psychological limits on the amount of time that it.was "acceptable" to spend working at home. A perception that one's work group or organization was hostile to work 30 done away from the office might therefore be associated with less time at the home work site. Home/ Office Situational Characteristics. Certain characteristics of one's hove or office situation might be directly related to the amount of time spent at the home work site. The number and ages of children, the number of persons within the here, access to a private office, the amount of time required to travel to the primary work site, and the number of cars in the household are examples of situational characteristics that might be related to the amount of time that an individual spends working at hore. A decline in the number of interruptions has been reported as one of the major benefits of the home as a work site (e.g., Antonoff, 1985; Brophy, 1985) . If children and other persons in the hote serve to increase distractions and interruptions , then the amount of time that an individual spends working at home may decrease as the number of children (or other persons) in a household increases. Antonoff's (1985) survey found that a separate office space in the residence was the most common location for hove-based work. Volunteers in McDavid's (1985) study were required to specify some location in their holes as an office. Both findings suggest that access to a private space within the residence might be positively associated with the amount of time spent working at home. lack of a private space at the organizational work site might also be related to increased time at the home work site. The performance of certain tasks might require the use of special equipment. In sole cases, the physical location of the equiprent might determine the amount of time spent at a work location. For 31 example, a personal computer (PC) might be considered a vital tool for those in information-oriented occupations. Many individuals are apparently buying personal computers to increase their ability to work at home (C. F. Mitchell, 1986). The location of a personal computer might therefore be related to the amount of time spent working in the home environment. Antonoff (1985), Carr (1984), Manning (1985), and Nilles (1985) discussed the advantages of working at home in relation to commuting costs. Two factors pertaining to commuting might.be related to the amount of time spent at the home work site: (1) commuting time from the home to the office; and (2) the numbers of vehicles available within a household. Reports in the popular press have linked longer commuting time with increased time Spent.working at home (e.g., Antonoff, 1985). HOwever, it is also possible that individuals having a longer drive to a central office may be more inclined to stay at that location. Individuals residing only a short distance from a central office may find it easier to shift back and forth from the office to the home. The number of automobiles available in a household may also be related to the amount of time spent working at home. Staying at home during the work day might make the household car available for other uses. Therefore, fewer vehicles in a household may be associated with more time at the home work site. General Hypotheses Previous research has suggested a number of variables that may be directly or indirectly related to the amount of time that an individual chooses to spend at the home work site. Because of the 32 exploratory nature of the present study and the large number of variables potentially linked with.homeébased work, it.was felt that the development of formal hypotheses for specific individual variables would be inappropriate. Instead, individual variables were placed in ”predictor sets." A model (see Figure 2) utilizing the predictor sets to account for time spent at the home work site was adapted from the work of Parker and Dyer (1976) and Olson (1983). Based on the conceptual relationships among the predictor sets within this model, three general hypotheses were developed for the present study. In the adapted model, individual differences and the perceived outcomes associated with.working at home are directly related to the perceived attractiveness of the home for work. This is consistent with Parker and Dyer's (1976) contention that expectancy components (represented in the model by the "perceived outcome effects measure") primarily predict an individual's preference for a course of action (represented by the "attractiveness" component). The first general hypothesis for the present study focuses on this relationship between individual differences, the perceived outcomes associated with working at home, and the perceived attractiveness of the home for work activities: Hypothesis 1: The demographic and personality characteristics of the individual and the outcomes that the individual associates with homeébased work will each uniquely account for variance in the extent to which the individual perceives the home to be an attractive location for work activities. 33 Along with one ' s preference for a given behavior, Parker and Dyer (1976) concluded that “additional predictors” (e.g., situational characteristics, opportunity) were needed when attempting to predict actual behavior. Consistent with this notion, tl'e adapted model suggests that the perceived attractiveness of the bore for work activities, the opportunity to work at home, and the situational characteristics of the hole/office predict the amount of time that an individual spends working at home. Of interest in the present study is the extent to which these predictor sets uniquely contribute to the explanation of variance in the criterion (time at the home work site). Therefore, the second general hypothesis is that: Hypothesis 2: The attractiveness of the home for work activities, the opportunity to work at hove, and the situational characteristics of the home/office will each uniquely account for variance in the amount of time that an individual chooses to spend working at home. The adapted model is based, in part, on the notion that the perceived attractiveness of the home as a work site mediates the relationship between the ”indirect” predictor sets (individual differences & the outcotes associated with working at home) and the criterion measure (time at the home work site). This conceptualization fol lows from the distinction between behavioral preferences and actual behavior (Parker & Dyer, 1976) and the notion that expectancy corponents predict behavioral preferences , which in turn predict actual behavior. If such a ”mediating" relationship is 34 true, then the "attractiveness" measure should account for variance in the criterion measure beyond that explained by the "indirect” predictor sets. The third general hypothesis focuses on this relationship between the ”indirect" predictor sets, the perceived attractiveness of the home for work activities, and the amount of time spent working at home: gypothesis 3. In predicting the amount of time that an individual spends at the home work site, the perceived attractiveness of the home for work activities will uniquely account for variance in the criterion measure beyond that explained by individual differences and the outcomes that the person associates with working at home. 35 Method Subjects Hoe-based work has been applied to information-oriented higher- and lower-level occupations (Shamir & Salomon, 1985) . The present study used a survey questionnaire to col lect information from individuals in a higher-level occupation: university faculty. Olson (1983; Olson & Primps, 1984) presented a number of job characteristics for a "typical" higher-level , home-based worker. These characteristics included: ( 1) minimal requiretents in terms of equiprent and workspace; (2) individual control over the pace of the work; (3) a project orientation with relatively long-term completion dates; (4) well-defined outputs; (5) well defined ”milestones" for marking progress; (6) a requirement for periods of uninterrupted work time; (7) a low need for frequent direct communication with others; and (8) a work setting where traditional attendance was not relevant (Olson, 1983, p. 10; Olson & Primps, 1984). The advantages of using university faculty as the sample for the survey included: (1) access to a large population when coxpared with most previous research involving home-based work; (2) less difficulty in the identification of the sample; (3) an organization where working at hate on a part-time basis was accepted behavior within some work groups; and (4) the performance of tasks similar to those represented in previous rearch (e.g., course developent, writing). University 36 faculty also appeared to share a number of job characteristics (e.g., control over work pace; a requirement for periods of uninterrupted work time; a work setting where traditional attendance was not relevant) in common with other high-level hole-based workers (Olson, 1983; Olson & Primps, 1984). Finally, professors/researchers were the largest subgroup of respondents to Antonoff's (1985) magazine survey and therefore represent a known subgroup within the population of individuals currently working at here. A total of 183 faculty members at a large Midwestern university voluntarily participated in the study. Because demographic variables were part of the individual differences set, sample characteristics are presented as part of the Results section. The representativeness of the sample in relation to the faculty population of the university is also described as part of the Results section. 37 Procedure The purpose of the study was to identify predictors of the amount of time that a faculty member spent working at home. It was decided that a survey would be an efficient method to gather the information required in a reasonable period of time. Previous research on home-based work was reviewed to identify variables for inclusion on the survey. The adapted model presented in Figure 2 was used to organize the variables into sets. Following the developrent of a draft version of the survey, five faculty members were interviewed. The principal objectives of the interviews were to: (1) examine the corprehensiveness of the list of outcores associated with working at home; (2) identify the work activities that faculty members frequently performed at home; and (3) elicit suggestions for modifications of the draft version of the questionnaire. ainmaries of the faculty interviews are presented in Appendix A. After the faculty interviews, a pilot measure including the outcores and several personality scales was given to a sample of undergraduate students. The purpose of the pilot survey was to: (1) identify poorly worded iters/outcomes; (2) gather preliminary internal consistency information on the personality measures. Based on He results of the pilot survey, several personality scales were corbined, a number of items were revised, and several items were discarded. "Survey Recruitment" letters were mailed to all full- and part-time faculty at a large midwestern university. A copy of the recruitment letter is presented in Appendix C. The purpose of the recruitment letter was to identify faculty who were interested in 38 participating in the survey. Olly faculty who returned the recruitment letter were sent a copy of the questionnaire. A colplete copy of questionnaire and the accompanying cover letter are presented in Appendix D. A follow-up letter and a "back-up" copy of the questionnaire were sent to trose persons who had not returned the questionnaire within a prescribed period of time. A copy of the follow—up letter is presented in Appendix E. Measures Individual Differences : Personality A review of the literature identified four personality characteristics that had potential links with hore-based work. The four traits included: (1) need for achieverent; (2) need for affiliation; (3) need for autonomy/independence; and (4) locus of control (internal and external). A pilot questionnaire was constructed containing items designed to measure the four personality traits. Items from the Manifest Needs Questionnaire (WQ; Steers & Braunstein, 1976) were used to measure needs for achievement, affiliation, and autonomy. Because the internal consistency of these scales had been questioned (of. Cook, Heporth, Wall, & Warr, 1983; Dreher & Mai-Dalton, 1983) , three additional iters were added to each scale for the pilot questionnaire. Additional items for the achievetent scale were adapted from Friis and Knox (1972) and Mehrabian and Bank (1978) . Additional items measuring need for affiliation were adapted from the Friis and Knox (1972) scale. Three original items were written to supple1ent the MNQ need for autonomy scale. Items to measure internal and external locus of control were 39 adapted from the Internal Control Index (ICI; Duttweiler, 1984). Item content and factor loadings were used to reduce the original 14-iten ICI scales to seven itets per scale (internal and external). A coaplete list of the original personality scales is presented in Appendix B. The adapted items for the pilot questionnaire are also presented in Appendix B. Responses to all items were made using a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = Never; 4 = Soretimes; 7 = Always). Table 2 Pilot Study: Personality Measures (Revised) # of Scale Scale Items NI Intercorrelations Need for Achieverent 5 54 (65) Need for Affiliation 6 54 -02 (61) Need for Autonomy 7 53 31 -20 (65) Iocusof Control (Ext.) 6 54 00 27 -08 (68) Iocusof Control (Int.) 5 55 71 -10 55 -06 (57) Note: Decimals omitted to conserve space a = Coefficient alpha presented in diagonal A pilot shady using a sample of undergraduate shadents was conducted to examine the internal consistency and intercorrelations among the personality measures. Intercorrelations and internal consistency estimates for the personality measures fol lowing the pilot study are presented as Table 2. 40 Because of low internal consistency estimates and high intercorrelations among the "revised" (i.e. , "best-case") versions of the scales used in the pilot shady, the pilot measures of need for achievelent, need for autonomy, and internal locus of control were combined in a single scale for the faculty survey. Several items in the need for affiliation and exterIal locus of control scales were also revised or eliminated. The faculty questionnaire therefore contained scales designed to measure need for achieverent, need for affiliation, and external locus of control. The final versions of the personality measures are presented in Appendix B. Perceived Outcoae Effects Twenty-seven outcoaes associated with working at home were identified based on a review of previoas literature (e.g. , Antonoff, 1985; Brophy, 1985; Manning, 1985; Phelps, 1985; and Shamir & Salomon, 1985) and faculty interviews. The "Perceived Outcome Effect" (POE) rating scale corbined a rating of the perceived effect of working at home on an outcore (e.g., working at home as having a ”strong," or ”weak" effect on ”Time with Family") with a rating of the desirability of that effect for the outcote (e.g., a "strong effect" on "Time with Family" as desirable or undesirable). Respondents were asked to rate the perceived effect of working at hoae on each outcole using a seven-point scale (1 = Strong Effect, Undesirable; 4 = No Effect; 7 = Strong Effect, Desirable). Attractiveness of Home for Work Faculty merbers were interviewed to identify the work activities that they performed at hove. A list of the activities described by those interviewed is presented as Table 3. The list of activities was 41 shortened to reduce the difficulty of the rating task. Seven specific work activities (meeting with shadents, class preparation, talking on the telephone, grading papers and examinations, data analysis and statistical interpretation, writing, & reading) were included on the questionnaire in addition to a global item (attractiveness for work-total) . Faculty were asked to rate the attractiveness of the home environment for each activity using a 7—point Likert—type scale (1 = Very Unattractive; 4 = Neutral; 7 = Highly Attractive). (pportunity to Work at Time Five variables comprised the Opportunity set. The five variables were: (1) the perceived opportunity to work at home (OPPORTUNITY); (2) the extent to which a faculty member was required to monitor others (WITOR); (3) the amount of time spent per week in university-related meetings (MEIEI‘INBS); (4) the amount of time spent in the classroom (CLASS); and (5) the perceived supportiveness of reference groups for tome-based work ( SUPPORT) . Perceived opportunity and monitoring of others were each measured using a single item. The question, "In corparison with other faculty, how often do you perceive that you have the opportunity to work at home?" was used to measure OPPORTUNITY. A subject's response to the question, “What is the frequency with which your work requires you to monitor the work of others?" was used to operational ize monitoring of others . Responses to both iters were made using a seven-point rating scale (1 = Never; 4 = Sotetimes; 7 = Always). 42 Table 3 Interview Results: Work Activities Performed by Faculty While at Home Work Activity Writing manuscripts research proposals research presentations class lechares letters of recommendation meros correspondence with col leagues committee work shadent feedback Reading journal articles theses & dissertations draft papers manuscripts grant applications mail and other correspondence Data analysis reduction editting Statistical Interpretation Computer programming Word processing Manuscript reviews Grading shadent papers & exams Telephoning Research meetings with graduate students 43 Open-ended questions were used to measure time in meetings (MEETINGS) and the classroom (CLASS). Survey participants were asked, ”What is the approximate number of hours that you are required to spend in university meetings during an average week?" The second item asked, ”For the current term [Spring], how many hours per week do you typically spend in a classroom (e.g., lecturing)?" Five items were used to measure the individual's perceptions of the supportiveness of reference groups toward homeébased work by university faculty. The five reference groups included: (1) other faculty within one's program ("To what extent do you feel the other faculty members in your program support colleagues who work at home?”); (2) shadents ("To what extent do you perceive that the students in your program support the idea of faculty working at home?"); (3) one's department ("In general, how supportive do you feel members of your department/division are of faculty working at home?”); (4) the university administration ("To what.extent do you feel the CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION supports the idea of faculty working at home?"); and (5) others at one's residence (”Overall, to what extent do you feel the other persons living at your residence support your working at home?”). All ratings were made using a seven-point scale (1 = Strongly Oppose; 4 = Neutral; 7 = Strongly Support). Hbme/Office Situational Characteristics Survey participants were asked to provide information on number of variables related to their home and office work environments. The variables measured as part of the HOme/Office Situational Characteristics set included the location of a personal computer, 44 availability of separate office space, number of children and others in the home, length of commute, and number of available vehicles. The survey contained two items regarding personal computer (PC) location. The first question asked, "Do you have a personal computer within your home?" The second itemlasked, ”Do you have a personal computer at your office/lab?" Both items called for a ”Yes" or "NO" response. A.response of "Yes" was coded as a '1' while a "NO" response was coded as "0.“ For the "Home" item, persons indicating access to a terminal or word processor were coded as '1". For the ”Office" item, responses indicating only a shared departmental PC were coded as ”0”. Survey participants were asked to respond with a "Yes" or ”Nb" response to two items regarding the availability of a separate office. The first item asked, "Do you have a separate office space within your residence (e.g., a room with a door that can be closed)?" The second question asked, ”Do you have a private office space at your office/lab?" For both items a response of "No" was coded as "0"; a response of "Yes” was coded as "1". The questionnaire contained a number of items designed to gather infbrmation concerning others in the home. TWO items pertained to children. Subjects were first asked to report the number of children/adolescents currently living in the residence. Participants were also asked to provide the ages of the children/adolescents. Because parents or others might live in the residence, a third item asked, “Including yourself, what is the total number of persons who are currently living at your residence?" 45 Faculty were questioned about two aspects of their commuting sihaation. The first item concerned the average time to commute between home and office ("For a oneeway trip, what would be the average amount of time in minutes that it would take you to travel [by car] to your office?"). The second question asked, ”How many automobiles are available to persons living at your residence?" Relative Time at HOme A two step process was used to measure relative time spent working at home. First, participants were asked to provide an estimate of the total amount of time that they spent working during a typical week. Second, respondents were asked to estimate the total amount of time spent working at home during the same "typical" week. To provide some estimate of the reliability of the measure, a single item asking for a direct estimate of the relative amount of time worked at home by the faculty member was included as part of the initial survey recruitment letter. Method of Analysis Data analyses proceeded in three stages. Descriptive results for individual items and scale scores were computed in the first stage of the analysis process. Internal consistency of composites was also examined as part of the first stage. In the second stage, correlations between the predictor variables and the criterion measure were calculated. The final stage in the data analyses used hierarchical regression to examine the general hypotheses of the study. Cbhen and Cbhen (1983) advocated hierarChical regression as a useful statistical method for exploratory research involving a large 46 ii TE—‘A a H: number of variables. In this approach, predictors are entered as sets into a regression equation. The significance of the change in R identifies the relative contribution of a given predictor set towards explanation of criterion variance. 47 Results Introduction Survey results are presented in several sections. The first section addresses the issue of the representativeness of the survey sample. The sample and the academic faculty for the university are corpared on a number of variables. The second section presents descriptive results for the predictor variables. To increase clarity of presentation, results for predictors are presented within sets (e.g., "Individual Differences", "Perceived Oatcore Effects", etc.). Reliability results for cotposite variables are presented as part of this section. The third section presents descriptive statistics for the criterion measure. Correlatioral results for the predictor variables and the criterion are presented in the fourth section. The chapter concludes with sections describing the results of the regression analyses testing the general hypotheses and post-hoc analyses. R_epresentativeness of the Survey Sample Recruitment of Survey Participants A “aarvey Recruitment letter" (SRL) was mailed to all full and part-time faculty members at a large Midwestern university during the final regular class week of the spring term. Individuals with an off-campus office address or who were classified as administrators, 48 directors, deans, or Chairpersons were excluded from the potential sample. The "recruitment letter” approach was used to reduce survey printing costs and to obtain a convergent estimate of the criterion (percent time spent working at hole by tie participant during a typical week). A copy of the SRL is included in Appendix C. SRLs were mailed to 2276 faculty members. Two of the SRLs were returned by campus mail as undeliverable. The potential sample for the survey was therefore 2274. The response rate to the SRL was 9.6% (N = 219) . A cover letter explaining the nature of the shady and a copy of the Work-at-Hore Questionnaire were mailed to each participant following the return of his or her SRL. The cover letter requested the reharn of the questionnaire within a given time-frame. A follov-up letter and a back-up copy of the questionnaire were sent to those faculty members who had not returned their initial questionnaire within three weeks. Copies of the cover letter and the questionnaire are presented in Appendix D. The follow-up letter is presented in Appendix E. Four of those returning the SRL subsequently left the university (either permanently or on summer sabbatical) prior to completing the Work-at-Home Qaestionnaire. A total of 183 questionnaires were returned by the end of July. Based on a potential sample of 219, this was a response rate of 83.6% (85.1% excluding those who left on sabbatical). Sample Characteristics Table 4 presents descriptive information for the survey sample and for the academic faculty as a whole. Popalation data were calculated from academic personnel records for tie university for 49 April, 1986. Males (N = 137; 74.9%) were more prevalent in the sample than females (N 5 46; 25.1%). This was similar to the proportion of male faculty in academic units for the university (78.1%; N'= 1693). The mean age of the respondents was 45.4 years (5.0. = 10.73). The sampledweighted estimate of the mean age of the academic faculty was 46.11. Over four-fifths of the survey respondents (N = 157; 86%) held tenure-track positions, compared with 77.1% (N = 1672) for the university population. Almost two-thirds (62.5%; N = 1355) of faculty members in the university had been granted tenure. Similarly, two-thirds (N'= 124; 67.8%) of the sample were tenured. Persons holding the rank of full professor made up the largest group among those responding (44.8%; N'= 82) and in the university population (43.5%; N = 944). Associate professors represented 25.1% (N = 46) of the sample and 22.2% (N = 481) of the population. Assistant professors comprised 25.7% (N= 47) of the survey respondents and 24.9% (N'= 539) of the academic faculty. Finally, 4.4% (N = 8) of the respondents held the rank of instructor compared to 9.5% (N = 205) for the university as a whole. 50 Table 4 Descriptive Information for the Survey Sample and for the Academic Faculty as a Whole Survey Sample Academic Faculty variable N % N % Sex Male 137 74.9 1693 78.1 Female 46 25.1 476 21.9 Tenure Track Tenure track 157 87.7 1672 77.1 ‘Nontenure track 22 12.3 497 22.9 Tenure Status Tenured 124 67.8 1355 62.5 Untenured 59 32.2 814 37.5 Academic Rank Instructor 8 4.4 205 9.5 Assistant Professor 47 25.7 539 24.9 Associate Professor 46 25.1 481 22.2 Professor 82 44.8 944 43.5 Total Sample 183 - 2169 - Table 5 Cbmposition of the Survey Sample by College Sample University % of % of college N Sample | N Faculty Agric. & Nat. Res. 27 15.3 270 12.4 Arts & Letters 20 11.4 296 13.6 Business 10 5.7 128 5.9 Communications Arts 7 4.0 63 2.9 Education 15 8.5 160 7.4 Engineering 9 5.1 101 4.7 Human Ecology 5 2.8 52 2.4 Human Medicine 14 8.0 238 11.0 James Madison 3 1.7 22 1.0 Natural Sciences 16 9.1 330 15.2 Nursing 5 2.8 39 1.8 Osteopathic Medicine 7 4.0 118 5.4 Social Science 24 13.6 195 9.0 veterinary Medicine 10 5.7 133 6.1 Other 4 2.3 24 1.1 Tbtal N 176 2169 51 Table 5 presents information concerning the representativeness of the survey sample across colleges in the university. Seven respondents did not provide information identifying the col lege in which they worked . The largest number of survey respondents (15.3%; N = 27) were merbers of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. This was the third largest college in the university with 270 full and part-time faculty (12.4% of campus faculty). Visual comparison between the percentages indicates a close correspondence between the survey sample and the university population. The most under-represented college in the survey was the College of Natural Sciences (15.2% of university faculty compared with 9.1% of survey respondents). The College of Social Science was the most over-represented college in the sample (9.0% of university faculty corpared with 13.6% of survey respondents). While the number of faculty willing to participate in the survey was low (9.6%) , nearly 85% of those who expressed initial interest in the survey ultimately returned the questionnaire. In general, the survey sample did not appear to differ dramatically from the university faculty in terms of sex, age, tenure status, rank, or distribution among colleges. The sample therefore appeared to be adequate for the purposes of exploratory research. 52 Descriptive Results for Predictor variables Individual Differences variables A number of individual differences variables were included in the survey to examine their relationship*with.time spent.working at home. Demographic variables included respondents' sex, age, tenure/nontenure track, tenure status and rank. Personality scales included measures of participants' needs for achievement and affiliation, and external locus of control. Demographic variables. Demographic results were presented in the section describing the representativeness of the sample (see Tables 4 & 5). A brief synopsis of the results is provided in this section. Approximately three-quarters of those responding to the survey were male (74.9%; N = 137). The mean age of those surveyed was 45.4 years (S.D. = 10.73). One hundred and fiftybseven of those surveyed occupied tenure track positions. One hundred and twenty-four participants were tenured. Eight participants held the rank of instructor, 47 were classified as assistant professors, 46 were classified as associate professors, and 82 (44.8%) held the rank of full professor. Personality variables. The questionnaire contained scales designed to measure a respondent's need for achievement, need for affiliation, and external locus of control. The items comprising the personality scales are presented in Appendix B. Responses to personality items were made using a sevenepoint rating scale (1 = Never; 4 = Sometimes; 7 = Always). composite scores were created by summing across items and dividing by the number of items in the scale. 53 Item means, standard deviations, and inter—item correlations for the Need for Achievement scale (NAch) are presented in Table 6. As might be expected for a sample consisting of university faculty, the NAch scale mean.was above the midpoint of the rating scale (M = 4.87). The standard deviation for the composite was 0.59. The internal consistency of the NAch scale (cxi= .67) was similar to values reported for these items in previous research (e.g., Dreher & Mai-Dalton, 1983). Need for affiliation (NAff) scale information is presented in Table 7. One item was recoded prior to summation. The mean value for the NAff scale was 2.89 (S.D. = 0.77). coefficient alpha for the scale was 0.67. The average score for the External Locus of Cbntrol scale was 3.24 (S.D. = 0.83). Descriptive statistics for the scale are presented in Table 8. coefficient alpha for the scale was .76. 54 Table 6 Need for Achievement Scale: & Inter-Item Correlations Means, Standard Deviations, Inter-Item Correlations Item # M S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 5.37 1.18 - 2 5.95 0.91 19 - 3 4.19 1.32 13 10 - 4 4.70 1.40 13 01 30 - 5 5.08 1.15 14 04 17 30 - 6 5.72 1.17 20 26 19 14 14 - 7 3.70 1.62 19 00 22 17 10 04 - 8 5.01 1.05 13 37 28 05 -01 23 29 - 9 5.24 1.02 27 13 18 07 16 16 08 21 - 10 3.54 1.31 06 07 24 12 28 20 14 12 17 - 11 5.04 1.14 14 35 27 -08 06 12 15 36 21 10 - .Note: Decimals omitted to conserve space. N'= 166 Scale M: 4.87 Coefficient1>< = .67 Scale S.D.: 0.59 Table 7 Need for Affiliation Scale: & Inter-Item Correlations Means, Standard Deviations, Inter-Item Correlations Item 4 M S.D. 1’ 2 3 4 5 1 3.24 1.09 - 2 2.57 1.43 .31 - 3 2.82 1.21 .11 .25 - 4 3.45 1.11 .47 .18 .20 - 5 2.34 0.97 .41 .37 .32 .36 - N = 176 Scale M: 2.89 Coefficient 5“ = .67 Scale S.D.: 55 Table 8 External Locus of Control Scale: Means, Standard Deviations, & Inter-Item Correlations Inter-Item Correlations Item # M S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 3.82 1.10 - 2 2.80 1.21 .35 - 3 3.38 1.14 .30 .22 - 4 3.29 1.32 .40 .52 .33 - 5 2.99 1.14 .26 .44 .15 .45 - 6 3.11 1.38 .29 .32 .23 .58 .37 - N = 177 Scale M: 3.24 coefficientcxi= .76 Scale S.D.: 0.83 Table 9 variable Intercorrelations: Individual Differences Set Inter-Correlations variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 SEX '- 3. Academic Rank 43 72 - 4. Tenure Track 41 21 55 - 5. Tenure Status 38 65 84 53 - 7. Affiliation 05 -10 -05 -05 -09 -02 - 8. External Loc. -03 -15 -11 04 -15 -04 47 - Note: Decimals omitted to conserve space. 56 Intercorrelations Among Variables. Variables were placed within a given predictor set on conceptual basis. For informational purposes, Table 9 presents the intercorrelations among the variables within the Individual Differences set. Examination of Table 9 appears to support a distinction between demographic and personality variables. In general, the demographic variables were highly intercorrelated (f = .50) . The correlations betweea the deaographic and the personality variables were low and non-significant (absolute ‘f = .079) . Among the personality scales, Need for Affiliation and External locus of Control were significantly related (r = .47, p < .001) . mrceived Outcome Effects Based on a review of previous literature and interviews with faculty members, a list of 27 outcores associated with working at here was developed. Respondents were asked to rate the perceived effect of working at home on each outcome using a seven-point scale. The "Perceived Outcore Effect” (POE) rating scale combined a rating of the perceived effect of working at home on an outcore with a rating of the desirability of that effect for the outcome. An attempt was made to phrase the outcome in a neutral manner. Descriptive statistics for the outcoles are presented in Table 10. Depending on the outcore, working at home was perceived by faculty to have positive or negative effects. On average, the most positive perceived effect of working at note was for the outcome ”Amount of time available for working” (M = 5.39; S.D. = 1.29). High positive ratings were also given to the outcomes "Control over the 57 scheduling of work” (M = 5.34; S.D. = 1.39), "Physical comfort while working" (M = 5.32, S.D. = 1.25), "Overall work performance" (M = 5.30, S.D. = 1.44) and "working at my own pace" (M = 5.05; S.D. = 1.34). The most negative perceived effect of working at home was for the outcome "Access to resources (e.g., phone, copiers, secretaries)" with a mean rating of only 2.82 (S.D. = 1.12). The outcomes "Communication with peers" (M = 3.17; S.D. = 1.24), ”Access to materials" (M = 3.18; S.D. = 1.61), "Conflict between work and nonwork roles” (M = 3.46; S.D. = 1.17), and."loneliness" (M = 3.85; S.D. = 0.75) also received negative ratings. Rather than treat all 27 outcomes as individual variables, factor analysis was used to identify composites within the outcome ratings. A principal components analysis (SPSS; Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975) was used to conduct the factor analysis. Eigenvalues for factors prior to rotation are graphically presented in Figure 3. On the basis of the scree test (Cattell, 1966), a five factor solution was chosen. While not always resulting in an optimal solution, the scree test has been found to be a generally acceptable method for determining the number of factors to retain*within factor analysis (Zwick & velicer, 1986). Factor loadings following varimax rotation are presented in Table 11. Item 6 (Caring for Children) was eventually omitted to increase the internal consistency and sample size of the third composite. 58 Table 10 Means and Standard Deviations for the Perceived Outcore Effect (POE) Ratings POE Rating* Oatcole 1? Outcome N M S.D. 1. Interruptions while working 170 4.75 2.11 2. Distractions from working 169 4.32 2.00 3. Working at my own pace 167 5.05 1.34 4. Time spent comuting 168 4.57 1.18 5. Conflict between work and 163 3.46 1.17 nonwork roles 6. Caring for small children 92 3.97 1.12 7. Costs for day care 88 4.18 0.78 8. Work attire 152 4.58 0.90 9. Costs for gasoline 157 4.35 0.82 10. Costs for dry cleaning 151 4.11 0.54 11. Overall work performance 166 5.30 1.44 12. Cormunication with peers 165 3.17 1.24 13. Motivation to work 167 4.49 1.48 14. Reduction of work-related 163 4.93 1.16 stress/anxiety 15. Perceived safety 149 4.18 0.76 16. Amount of space available 164 4.52 1.30 for working 17. Control over the scheduling 167 5.34 1.39 of my work 18. Physical comfort while working 167 5.32 1.25 19. Access to materials 170 3.18 1.61 (e.g., joarnals, files) 20. loneliness 164 3.85 0.75 21. Access to resources (e.g., phone, 168 2.82 1.12 copiers, secretaries) 22. Access to food 163 4.19 1.22 23. Time with family ' 147 4.71 1.17 24. The amount of time spent alone 163 4.39 1.14 25. Time available for working 167 5.39 1.29 26. Career opportunities 158 4.27 0.98 27. Participation in office politics 163 3.99 1.29 * = Ratings made using scale where 1 =fisuOng Effect, Undesirable'T; 4 = ”No Effect”; and 7 = ”Strong Effect, Desirable" 59 memmdmce pounce woo woo mgegcooem . m ouldmem Goebbaom Houomm 60 - mggcogm The outcomes corprising the composites identified by the factor analysis are presented as Table 12. The outcomes "Interruptions while working” and ”Distractions from working" had the highest loadings on the first factor. Corposite 1 was therefore labeled "Effects on Number of Interruptions & Distractions." Additional outcomes in the factor included ”Work/nonwork role conflict,“ “Overall work per- formance,” "Amount of space available for work ," and "Control over ,_ :3 scheduling of work.” Coefficient alpha for ”Interruptions/Distractions“ composite was .80. Outcomes in Corposite 2 dealt with communication with peers, motivation to work, access to materials and resources, and career opportunities. Additional outcomes in this scale included time spent alone and participation in office politics. All of these outcores appeared to be related by the issue of access (to either persons or materials/resources) . Composite 2 was named ”Effects on Access" to reflect this common theme (0k = .70) . Composite 3 was titled ”Effects on Comfort” because all of the outcomes comprising the scale pertained to sore form of comfort. Outcomes in the third corposite included effects on work attire, safety, physical comfort,'and access to food. The internal consistency of the ”Comfort" corposite was marginal (OK: .51) . Time spent cormuting, costs for gasoline, and costs for dry cleaning were the outcores included in the fourth coaposite. Because IMO of the three outcoaes were associated with eletents of one's 61 Table 11 Factor Analysis of Perceived Oatcore Effect (POE) Ratings Principal Corponents Factor Matrix Fol lowing Varimax Rotation I tem Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor #7 1 2 3 4 5 1 .86 -.04 .06 .15 -.25 2 .84 .08 .05 .07 -.18 5 .46 .27 -.18 .06 .33 11 .68 .44 .17 .09 .12 16 .49 .10 .39 -.21 .11 17 .50 .15 .43 .06 .12 12 -.22 .64 .05 -.03 -.27 13 .36 .63 .24 .10 .14 19 .25 .60 .09 -.08 .04 21 .16 .59 -.26 .07 -.02 24 .14 .47 -.10 -.03 .28 25 .38 .48 .18 .09 .09 26 -.04 .56 .03 .14 -.05 27 -.01 .28 .10 -.19 -.06 6* -.46 .12 .63 -.01 -.25 8 .09 -.06 .38 .17 .28 15 .14 -.22 .69 .07 .09 18 .36 .42 .57 .07 .22 22 .04 .10 .45 .05 -.11 4 .08 .05 .08 .70 -.06 9 .08 -.03 .14 .83 -.04 10 .00 .09 .03 .76 .14 7 -.17 -.15 -.02 -.05 .63 14 .18 .21 .29 .31 .43 20 .00 .16 .17 -.23 .49 23 .00 -.04 -.06 .17 .70 3 $ .22 .30 .30 .18 .22 Eigen. 5.40 2.22 1.98 1.81 1.80 % var. 20.0 8.2 7.3 6.7 6.7 ‘ Oatcome numbers correspond to numbering in Table 10 * Item recoded; later excluded $ Excluded; ambiguoas loading Note: Factor analysis conducted using SPSS PAl program with unities in the diagonal. 62 Table 12 Content of Perceived Outcoae Effect (POE) Composites Corposite 1: Effects on Interruptions/Distractions 1.* Interruptions while working 2 . Distractions from working 5. Conflict between work and nomork roles 11. Overall work performance 16. Amount of space available for working 17. Control over the scheduling of my work Composite 2: Effects on Access 12. Communication with peers 13 . Motivation to work 19. Access to materials (e.g., journals, files) 21. Access to resources (phone, copiers, secretaries) 24. The amount of time spent alone 25. Time available for working 26. Career opportunities 27. Participation in office politics Corposite 3: Effects on Comfort 8. Work attire 15. Perceived safety 18. Physical comfort while working 22. Access to food Corposite 4: Effects on Comuting 4. Time spent commuting 9. Costs for gasoline 10. Costs for dry cleaning Composite 5: Effects on Family Sihaation 7. Costs for day care 14. Reduction of work-related stress/anxiety 20. loneliness 23. Time with family * Outcore numbers correspond to numbering in Table 10 63 comuting situation, the factor was labeled as "Effects on Commuting." Dressing up for the office (i.e., costs for dry cleaning) might also be perceived as a cost of ”going to work." Coefficient alpha for the corposite was 0.64. Finally, two of the outcomes in composite 5 related to family issues. The outcomes with the highest loadings for the factor were "Time with family” and ”costs for day care.” Additional outcomes dealt with loneliness and reduction of work-related stress/anxiety. The latter two outcomes added some ness of HOme ----> Time at Effects for' ‘Wbrk IkmeeWbrk Activities T--> Site Opportunity Figure 4. A "Simplified" model to predict relative time at the home work site 93 The results for the regression analyses examining the "simplified“ model are presented in Table 28. Beta weights and other information for the overall regression equation are presented in Appendix G. The amount of variance explained by the overall regression equation was significant (F = 6.01, p <.001). The "simplified" model accounted for over 38% of the variance in the measure of relative time at home. The unique contribution of the Outcome composites toward the explanation of variance in the criterion was not significant (Model A, F = 0.74, NS). However, when entered as the first step in the hierarchical regression equation, the Outcome composites accounted for 22.7% of the criterion variance (e.g., see Model B). The Opportunity and Attractiveness sets both accounted for significant amounts of unique variance in the measure of relative time at home. The Opportunity set accounted for 12% (F = 3.75, p < .004) of the unique variance in the criterion measure (Model B). The Attractiveness measure uniquely explained 5% of the criterion.varianoe (Model C, F = 7.78, p < .007). Additional Post HOc Analyses. The a priori regression analyses suggested that the Individual Differences (Demographic & Personality) sets did not predict significant amounts of additional variance in the measure of Attractiveness after controlling for the contribution of the Outcome composites. Similarly, the Hone/Office Situational Characteristics set did not account for additional variance in the measure of relative time at home after the Attractiveness measure and the Opportunity set had entered into the regression equation. Post hoc regression analyses were conducted to explore the utility of 94 Table 28 Regression Analyses for the "Simplified" Model Order Sign. of 2 jChange of Modeg Entry Set R R A R F Change A 1 Attractiveness .468 .219 .219 29.52 .001 2 Opportunity set .605 .366 .147 4.62 .001 3 Outcome composites .620 .385 .019 0.74 NS B 1 Outcome composites .476 .227 .227 7.49 .001 2 Attractiveness .515 .265 .038 5.20 .02 3 Opportunity set .620 .385 .120 3.75 .004 C 1 Outcome composites .476 .227 .227 7.49 .001 2 Opportunity set .579 .335 .108 3.16 .01 3 Attractiveness .620 .385 .050 7.78 .007 Dependent variable: the: Table 29 Relative time spent working at home. Regression Analyses for the Outcomes Index Beta weights for overall regression equation are presented in Appendix G Order Sign. of 2 EFhange of Model) Entry Set R R 1R F Chame A 1 1m. Diff. - mm. .294 .087 .087 5.55 .005 3 Home/Office Sit. .517 .268 .164 3.42 .003 B l Home/Office Sit. .460 .212 .212 4.29 .001 2 Ind. Diff. - Pers. .462 .214 .002 0.10 NS 3 Ind. Diff. - Demo. .517 .268 .054 3.95 .02 C 1 Home/Office Sit. .460 .212 .212 4.29 .001 2 1m. Diff. - mm. .514 .264 .052 3.90 .02 Dependent variable: NOte: 95 Cbmbined Outcome composites Beta.weights for overall regression equation are presented in Appendix G including these sets as predictors of the outcomes that faculty associated with working at home. Scale scores on the four remaining Outcome composites were sunned to form an ”Outcome Index", which served as the criterion for the regression analyses. The results of the analyses are presented in Table 29 (see also Appendix G). Results from the hierarchical regression analyses suggest that the Home/Office Situational Characteristics set (thZ = .164, F = 3.42, p < .003) and the Demographic characteristics set (AR2 = .054, F = 3.95, p < .02) both uniquely contributed to the explanation of variance in the Outcome index. Individual predictors with significant beta weights included sex (beta = -.255, F = 7.48, p < .007), access to a separate office space in the home (beta = .192, F = 4.55, p < .04), the number of persons residing in the household (beta = -.230, F = 5.85, p < .02), and the average amount of time required to travel to the university (beta = .232, F = 6.73, p < .01). The Individual Differences - Personality set did not significantly contribute to the prediction of scores on the Outcome index when entered as the last set in the regression analysis (AR2 = .004, F = 0.19, NS). The main regression analyses indicated that the Attractiveness measure and the Opportunity set both accounted for signficant amounts of unique variance in terms of the relative amount of time that faculty spent.working at home. The issue of whether the opportunity to work at home moderated the relationship»between Attractiveness and relative time at home was explored in a final set of post hoc regression analyses. 96 Moderated regression analysis (Ghiselli, Campbell, & Zedeck, 1981) was used to investigate the relationship between the Opportunity set, Attractiveness, and relative time at the home work site. Three variables (time in meetings, time in classroom & reference group supportiveness) were removed from the Opportunity set to reduce the mmber of predictors and interaction tents in the regression equation and to increase the amount of available statistical power. All three variables had previously been found to have non-significant beta weights (in this sample) for predicting relative time at home. The perceived opportunity to work at home (Oppormnity) and the extent to which one was required to monitor the work of others (Monitor) were retained for the analyses. The cross-products of the Opportunity measures and Attractiveness were computed and entered as the final step in a regression analysis with relative time at home as the criterion. Results of the regression analysis did not support the presence of a moderator variable. The interaction term between Attractiveness and Opportunity failed to meet minimal system tolerance standards for inclusion in the regression equation. The change in R from inclusion of the interaction term between Attractiveness and Monitor was not significant (4R2 = .00, F = 0.04, NS). 97 Discussion Introduction A number of topics pertaining to the present study and research on home-based work are discussed. The section begins with a review of the general objectives of the study. The objectives are followed by a brief summary of the primary and post hoc regression results and the presentation of a "revised" model. A discussion of the limitations of the study is followed by a section outlining its potential implications. The paper concludes with suggestions for future research. General Objectives of the Study Home-based work is expected to grow both within and outside of organizations in the future (Garr, 1984). Organizational interest in home-based work has focused on infonmationroriented clerical (e.g., Geisler, 1985) and professional jobs (e.g., McDavid, 1985). Organizations are expected to increase the informal use of a "flexiplace" option whereby those in higherblevel occupations are conditionally allowed to control their time at a given work site (Olson & Primps, 1984; Shamir & Salomon, 1985). Recent research on homeebased work has focused on the jOb-related outcomes (e.g., performance, satisfaction) associated with telecommuting (Manning, 98 1985; Phelps, 1985) . Many of these reports have been non-empirical (e.g., Brophy, 1985; Garr, 1984). The present study had three general objectives in relation to previous research. (he objective was to expand the study of home-based work beyond an exclusive focus on the effects of telecommting. It is not necessary to use a computer to work at home. Research involving hone-based work, therefore, should not be limited to those who must utilize computers in order to perform their work activities. A second general objective was to explore predictors (rather than outcomes) of some aspect of home-based work. Because an individual may have control over the amount of tine spent at a given work location as part of a "flexiplace" option, the present study focused on predictors of the relative overall amount of time that faculty spent working at hone . A third general objective of the study was to empirically (rather than anecdotal 1y) examine the relationship between the predictor variables and the criterion. mile the formation of causal conclusions from an exploratory study may not be appropriate (Cohen & Cohen, 1983) , it was hoped that empirical results would allow for the development of stronger hypotheses in future studies. Results of Regression Analyses The general hypotheses developed from the "adapted" model (Figure 2) guided the primary set of regression analyses. Post hoc regression analyses were conducted to explore alternative models for predicting relative time at the home work site. 99 The first series of regression analyses examined the extent to which three sets of predictors (Perceived Outcome Effects Composites, Individual Differences - Demographic, Individual Differences - Personality) were related to theperceived attractiveness of the home as a work site. The Outcome composites were found to uniquely account fOr significant amounts of variance in the Attractiveness measure. Within the Outcomes set, the perceived effects of working at home on Interruptions/Distractions, Access, and Comfort were found to be significant predictors of the attractiveness of the home for work activities. Prior to the entry of the Outcome composites set into the regression equation, the Individual Differences sets (Demographic & Personality) were found to account for significant or near significant amounts of variance in the Attractiveness measure. Three sets of predictors (Attractiveness, Opportunity, & Home/Office Situational Characteristics) that had been conceptualized as ”direct" predictors of relative time at the home work site were entered into the second series of regression analyses. In partial support of the second hypothesis, the Attractiveness scale and the Opportunity set.were found to account for significant amounts of unique variance in the criterion. In addition to the Attractiveness measure, the extent to which a faculty member was required to monitor the work of others and the perceived opportunity to work at.home appeared to be the most important ”direct” predictors of relative time at the home work site. The Heme/Office Situational Characteristic set did not account for a significant amount of unique variance in the relative time at home criterion. 100 The third hypothesis was based on the notion that the perceived attractiveness of the home as a work site mediated the relationship between the "indirect" predictors (Individual Differences - Demographic, Individual Differences - Personality, & the Outcome composites) and relative time at home. Among the "indirect" predictors, the Outcome composites and the Personality set were found to account for significant amounts of variance in the measure of relative time at home. ‘When the Attractiveness measure was introduced as the first step in the hierarchical regression, the unique contributions of the Personality and Outcome composite sets to the explanation of variance in the criterion were no longer significant. In contrast, the Attractiveness measure did account for a significant amount of unique variance in the measure of relative time at home when entered as the last step in the regression analysis. The results provided support for the hypothesis that the attractiveness of the home for work activities mediates the relationship between the "indirect" predictors and relative time at home. The results from the primary series of regression analyses failed to fully support the structure of the "adapted" model as presented in Figure 2. Based on the results fran the previous analyses, a "simplified" model (see Figure 4) was developed and tested. The model included the Outcome composites, Attractiveness, and the Opportunity set as predictors. The ”simplified" model accounted for over 38% of the variance in the measure of relative time at home. Attractiveness and the Opportunity set.were found to account for significant amounts of unique variance in the criterion. 101 Post hoc regression analyses were also used to examine the merits of alternative linkages for the "non-significant" predictor sets. The Heme/Office Situational Characteristics set and the Individual Differences sets had not been found to account for significant amounts of unique variance in terms of relative time at hone. These sets (along with the Individual Differences - Personality set) were examined as possible antecedents of the outcomes associated with home-based work. An “Outcomes Index" was created by summing the scores for the four Outcome composites. Using the Outcomes Index as the criterion, regression analyses tended to support the placement of the Heme/Office Situational Characteristics and Individual Differences - Demographic sets as predictors of the outcomes associated with home—based work. The Individual Differences - Personality set did not account for a significant amount of variance in the Outcomes Index. A final post hoc regression analysis attempted to investigate the possibility that the opportunity to work at home moderated the relationship between the attractiveness of the home for work activity and relative time at that site. Results did not support the use of ”Opportunity" as a moderator variable. The findings from the primary and post hoc regression analyses suggest the possibility of a ”revised" model to predict the relative amount of time that faculty spend working at home. Such a model is presented in Figure 5. Briefly, the model proposes that Characteristics of the individual and of the home/office environment(s) predict the outcomes that one is likely to associate with working at home (e.g., the presence of other persons in the household may result in a perception of being frequently interrupted 102 while trying to work at home). In turn, the outcomes associated with homeébased work may influence the overall perceived attractiveness of the home for work activity (e.g., frequent interruptions may be associated Individual Differences (Demgraphic) > Perceived Attractive- Relative Outcome -> ness for —--> Time at > Effects Wbrk > Hbme Activities Heme/Office Situational Opportunity Characteristics Figure 5. A."revised" model to predict relative time at the home work site with a perception of the home as a less attractive work site). Finally, the attractiveness of the home work site and the extent to which a faculty member has the opportunity to work at.home act as ”direct" predictors of the relative amount of time spent working at home. The placement of the Individual Differences - Personality set in the "revised" model is unclear. The Personality set did not account for a significant amount of variance in the Outcomes Index and accounted for only a marginal amount of variance in the Attractiveness 103 neasure. However , Attract iveness did appear to mediate the relationship between the Personality set and relative tine at the hone work site. Additional research may help to clarify the linkages between personality and relative tine at hone. Limitations of the Study There were a number of potential problems with the present study. Concern over the accuracy of the survey neasures and the nethods used to gather the data were two apparent limitations. Concerns with Measures Mere possible, previously validated scales were used to neasure the variables of interest (e.g. , Need for Achievenent, Need for Affiliation, & External Locus of Control). For several variables, lrawever, it was necessary to develop new neasures (e.g., Perceived Oatcone Effects , Attractiveness of the Home for Work Activities , & Relative Time at Hone). Because of the lack of prior research involving these scales, it is not certain that they were necessarily accurate or valid. The Perceived Outcone Effects (POE) items were based on concepts from expectancy treory. In expectancy research the perceived desirability and likelihood of outcones are usually measured separately (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976) . In contrast, the POE neasure combined two components (perceived effect and desirability) within a single rating scale. The POE scale was also dissimilar in that respondents were asked to rate tl'e perceived effect (strong, weak, or no effect) of an action (working at hone) on a given outcone (e.g., tine with family) rather than estimate the likelihood that a given outcone would or would not occur. Several participants commented that 104 they found the POE rating scale and its accompanying instructions to be unclear and confusing (though sone respondents used stronger language). This apparent confusion occurred despite several revisions of the scale anchors and the instructions. It is less likely that participants responded appropriately if they were unable to decipher the rating scale for the POE itene. Low internal consistency among several of the Outcone composites nay have served to attenuate the size of their relationship with other variables in the study. For exanple, the size of the correlation between the Effects on Comfort composite and relative tine at hone may air—r...“ ._.___ have been reduced because of low internal consistency in the composite (coefficient alpha = 0.51) . Questions about the criterion neasure cone from two sources: (1) potential instability in tie attribute being neasured: and (2) concern about the accuracy of self-estimates regarding tine. Several participants informally connented that the amount of tine they spent working at hone varied greatly during the course of an academic term. They described their responses regarding the amount of tine spent at hone during a "typical" week as rough estimates. In addition, while the survey and recruitment letter estimates of relative tine at hone were consistent (r = .71) , both values were based on self-estimates. It is not known to what degree these self-estimates reflected reality. Method of Data Collection It is likely that the findings of tie stmdy were distorted to smedegreebytlenethodsusedtocollecttl'edata. Manyofthe predictors and the criterion neasure were based on perceptions. In general, more "objective” variables (e.g., sex, number of children, 105 number of cars in the household) tended to have lower correlations with perceived time at home than did predictors that.were based on perceptions (e.g., Attractiveness scale, Interruptions/Distractions composite). The size of the observed predictor-criterion correlations may have been inflated as a result of this cannon nethod variance (i.e., the 'percept-percept' problem; Roberts & Glick, 1981). In addition, all of the data (excluding the estimate of relative time at hone neasured as part of the Survey Recruitnent Ietter) was collected concurrently as part of the same questionnaire and this too may have inflated the size of the observed correlations. Implications of the Study The results of the study have a number of implications for the area of home-based work. These implications should be treated with some degree of caution because they are based on the results of a single exploratory study and a model (Figure 5) that was partially developed from post hoc analyses. The HOme/Office Situational Characteristics set did not account for a significant amount of unique variance in the measure of relative time at home in the initial regression analyses. However, post.hoc analyses for the "revised" model suggest that the characteristics of the home environment may influence the outcomes that an individual associates with.homeebased.work. For example, the age of and number of children in the household (exluded from the reported regression analyses) may affect the number of anticipated interruptions and distractions at the home work site (e.g., younger children have been associated with more frequent interruptions: Christensen, 1985). Inclusion of situational characteristics as antecedents of the 106 outcones associated with hone-based work might allow researchers and others to "target" certain situational characteristics when attempting to predict given outcone categories . To i1 lustrate , one might specifically examine tine required to travel to a central office when attempting to predict the perceived effect of working at hone on connuter costs. Similarly, the nunber of children in the household might be expected to predict the perceived effect of working at hone on participation in family roles, but may not be expected to influence perceptions concerning access to professional resources . Post hoc analyses suggested that a worker's sex might also influence the outcones that are associated with hone-based work. This finding is consistent with previous research indicating that males and females tend to work at hone for different reasons (e.g., Olson, 1983: Olson & Primps, 1984) . For the current sample, male faculty members tended to perceive working at hone as having a less positive effect on the given outcones than did female faculty. The study supported the notion that the outcones an individual associates with hone-based work indirectly predict the anount of tine that he or she is likely to spend working at hone (Brief, 1985) . Results from the regression analyses suggest that the relationship between the outcones associated with hone-based work and tine at the hone work site is nediated by the perceived attractiveness of the hone for work activities . Taken as a whole, the ”revised" model suggests that: (1) changes in situational characteristics (e.g. , birth of a new child) and/or demographic characteristics may affect tl'e outcones that one associates with hone—based work and thereby influence the 107 attractiveness of the hone as a work site: and (2) even if given tie opportunity, a worker may not choose to work at hone if that site has cone to be associated with negative outcones (e.g. , increased interruptions , decreased performance, decreased pay, decreased opportunity for advancenent) . These findings, in turn, suggest that an organization interested in the developnent and maintenance of a long-term hone-based worker program should take care to ensure that hone-based work does not cone to be perceived as somehow ”penalizing" the employee. Future Research Clarification of the neasures used in the present study represents one direction for future research. Identification of additional predictors and replication of the findings in other populations represents another area for future study. Clarification of Measures On the predictor side, development of scales to more directly neasure the underlying constructs tapped by the Outcone composites may be warranted. At a minimum, revision of the anchors for the Outcones rating scale and clarification of the instructions is needed. Comparison of perceived and actual effects of working at hone on these outcones might help to validate the results from the Outcone ratings. For example, working at hone was perceived to generally have a positive impact on the number of experienced interruptions and distractions . Future research might explore the question of whether persons are actually interrupted less often at hone when compared with the office. 108 ()1 tie criterion side, research is needed to determine the accuracy of the self-estimates of the amount of tine spent working during a "typical" week. Having peers and subordinates report the nunber of hours that an individual was at the office during a given week might be one alternative nethod for estimating the extent of hone-based work. Secretaries or spouses might record the amount of tine at hone. Faculty might keep daily logs of the amount of tine at the hone work site and the activities perforned. While all of these nethods are potentially flawed, they do represent alternative methods for neasuring relative tine at hone. The results of the pilot interviews suggested that the characteristics of tie hone environment may influence the nature of the work activities perforned in the hone. For example, tie presence of small children may not affect the relative amount of tine spent at the hone work site, but may influence whetl'er one spends the tine at hone reading memos or writing manuscripts. A future study might examine prediction of tine spent on specific work activities rather than using a global estimate of work-related tine at hone. Finally, several survey participants suggested a possible distinction between those who work at hone ”in-place-of" tine at anotrer site and those who work at hone "in-addition-to" tine at another site. Future studies might investigate the implications of this distinction for prediction of work-related tine at hone. mtension of Findings The inplication of the present study is that it is possible to identify variables predicting the extent to which a university faculty nenber is likely to work at hone. Future expansion on these findings 109 might focus on: (1) identification and investigation of additional predictors of work-related tine at home; and (2) replication of findings using other populations. A nunber of additional variables may predict the amount of tine that an individual is likely to spend working at hone. Poor physical health might require that an employee work more frequently at hone. A desire to avoid the overt supervision and control of the office environnent might lead to greater time in the perceived autonomy of the hone environnent. Physical conditions in tie office (e.g., amount of cigarette smoke) or relations with coworkers might also affect the amount of tine that an employee spends working at hone. One might compare the outcomes associated with the central office site to those associated with hone-based work in predicting the decision to work at hone. Additional outcones (e.g., impact of working at hone on pay and benefits for clerical workers) might also be identified. In short, the variables included as part of the present study were not exhaustive . Future research might reveal additional predictors of the relative anount of tine that an individual chooses to spend working in the home environnent. The current study utilized a group of university faculty. The extent to which the predictors identified with a sample of faculty based at a ”rural" university will generalize to other samples or populations is an empirical question and needs to be tested. For example, future research might examine the impact of tie location of the university (e.g., urban or rural) on tie anount of time spent at the hone work site. Another study might compare tre outcones associated with hone-based work for clerical workers to higher-level 110 personnel to determine whether similar variables predict hone-based work. Clearly, additional studies involving different samples and populations are necessary to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the decision to work at hone. In addition, the "revised" model was developed on the basis of post hoc analyses. Despite its intuitive appeal, replication of support for the nodel in an independent study is necessary. While the present study focused on predictors, the organizational and individual consequences of hone-based work also need to be more closely examined. The impact of hone-based work on such outcones as performance, job satisfaction, organizational conmitnent, turnover, recruiting, and careers may be critical to future organizational acceptance of work-at—hone programs . Potential links between the antecedents and consequences of hone-based work also need to be explored . Conclusion Despite its antiquity, empirical research into hone-based work is relatively recent (Shamir & Salomon, 1985; Swartz, 1986) . Although future applications of hone-based work at the clerical level may be restricted by legal, union, safety, and conpensation issues (Elisburg, 1985) , informal use of flexiplace for salaried, higher-level enployees is expected to increase (Garr, 1984: Olson & Primps, 1984) . As hone-based work becones more wide-spread Within organizations, the relationship of the individual to the ”workplace” and the organization may be altered. The findings of the present study provide a small step towards increased understanding of sone of the variables associated with this altered relationship. 111 APPENDICES I . .‘i "w “lu l APPENDIX A Results from Faculty Interviews for... Appendix A Results from Faculty Interviews L. T. Interviewed: wednesday, 2/5/86, 3:00 PM 1. Wbuld you briefly describe for me both the positive and negative outcomes that you associate with the idea of working at home? Positive outcomes: A. th being alone in a dark (office) building after traditional work hours. B. Reduced ”flack" from fanuly members concerning amount of (work-related) time spent away from the home. C. .Expands the number of hours available for working. D. Reduced interruptions (e.g., people dropping by, phone) E. Provides a pleasant change in scenery F. Increased space and "freedom to move around" (e.g., pacing) while working G. Able to wear more confortable clothing Negative outcomes: A. "Flack" from family members about anount of work-related noise (e.g., printer noise) B. Increased delays because needed materials/resources are not available at the home C. Delay in talking with colleagues 112 2 . What types of work-related activities do you perform when working at hone? A. Writing manuscripts, research proposals, research , presentations , letters of reconnendation, connunications with col leagues, NOI' lectures B. Reading journals, tieses & dissertations, draft papers C. Statistical interpretation (NOT programming) D. Reading through computer printouts 3. Overall, what are the major factors that have affected your decision regarding working at hone? A. Realization of the lack of large blocks of uninterrupted tine while at the office B. Enjoy working, and working at hone allows ... extension of the time able to spend working 113 W. D. Interviewed: Thursday, 2/6/86, 3:30 PM 1. Would you briefly describe for ne both the positive and negative outcones that you associate with tie idea of working at hone? Positive outcones: A. Getting more work done B. Reduces tie number of interruptions while working C. More pleasant physical surroundings D. Provides a change in scenery from the regular office environnent E. Saves tine spent on comnuting F. Saves tine spent on lunches Negative outcones: A. Constant access to food results in an increase in "munching behavior” (e.g., snacking; weight gain) B. Miss both social and professional comnunication with col leagues C. Can be lonely D. Materials that are needed (e.g., files) are not always at hone B. You have to "haul stuff back and forth" between the office and the hone Positive or negative outcone: A. "People" (includes both col leagues and students) cannot find you 114 2. What types of work-related activities do you perform when working at hone? A. Writing/ editting/ printing B. Reading C. Word processing Data analysis Sone telephoning articles and chapters, nemos , correspondence manuscripts, reviews, grant applications , student papers/ proposals Research neetings with graduate students 3. Overall, what are the major factors that have affected your decision regarding working at hone? A. Type of work that needs to be done (e.g., reading or writing tasks) B. Deadlines and other tine pressures increase amount of tine spent working at hone C. Basically, I work at hone any chance I can get. 115 N. K. Interviewed: Thursday, 2/6/86, 3:30 PM 1. Wbuld you briefly describe for me both the positive and negative outcomes that you associate with the idea of working at home? Positive outcomes: A. Increased comfort B. On the average, fewer interruptions (with.the exception.being when children are present) C. More "amenities" (e.g., easier to get lunch, better food, listen to music) D. Quiet, less noise E. Home office is "nicely organized" (home office organized better than regular office) F. While a microcomputer is present at both locations, the word processing program on the computer at home is easier to use for writing Negative outcomes: A. Fewer resources available (e.g., secretary, mail box, copying machine, library) B. Easier to be distracted by such things as hunger, food, snacking C. Lack of phone for making long distance business-related calls (difficult to get reimbursed by university for long-distance calls made from the home) D. Easier to be drawn into nondwork conversations with spouse and/or children 116 2. What types of work-related activities do you perform when working at home? A. writing correspondence, manuscripts, memos, committee work, student feedback B. Reading journal reviewing, mail, journal articles, theses and dissertations, general correpondence C. Data analysis D. Programming (writing programs) E. Data Reduction F. Data editting G. Telephoning (pick up messages from answering‘machine at office) 3. Overall, what are the major factors that.have affected your decision regarding working at home? A. Time of day. Try to avoid times when children are present B. Kind of work that.needs to be done. Basically, for anything requiring writing or concentration the home office is better. C. If possible, would work 2 to 3 days per (work) week at home, but teaching and meetings require presence on campus. 117 T. C. Interviewed: Thursday, 2/6/86, 2:45 PM 1. Would you briefly describe for ne both the positive and negative outcomes that you associate with the idea of working at hone? Positive outcones: A. Able to spend increased tine working B. Increased quality of work for certain types of work (e.g., one tint can be done in ”fits and starts") and if the work is done at a certain tine of day (e.g., early morning) C. Increased tine in the presence of one's family Negative outcones: mum—7“ 1' v A. Increased interruptions while working at hone B. Easier to avoid work demands C. Decreased quality and efficiency for tasks that cannot be interrupted 2. What types of work-related activities do you perform when working at hone? A. Writing manuscripts, nemos, letters of reconnendation, composing docunents, grading papers , preparing lectures LESS Likely: reading journals and books 3. Overall, what are the major factors that have affected your decision regarding working at hone? A. If time pressure is great (e.g., deadlines), more likely to work at hone B. Ifthetask is one thatcanbeinterruptedor if it isatine of day when likely to be left alore C. Now have a computer at both locations 118 D. I. Interviewed: Thursday, 2/13/86, 3:00 PM 1. Would you briefly describe for me both the positive and negative outcomes that you associate with the idea of working at home? Positive outcomes: A. Fewer interruptions B. Quiet place for working C. Able to spread out work and leave it.wdthout concern for privacy D. More control over working time (when & how) and being able to work at odd hours B. Dress more casually (e.g., wear sweat suit & tennis shoes) F. Be more comfortable G. Freedom of choice of work environment (e.g., work on porch, in front of fireplace) Negative outcomes: A. More nonwork distractors (e.g., kids, television) B. Increased temptation from other activities that pull one away from work (e.g., checking mail immediately after delivery, lawn that needs to be mowed) C. More difficult to communicate with others (colleagues) D. Lack of necessary equipment, books, journals, etc. E. Necessary materials (e.g., journals) are in the wrong place F. Nearness to the refrigerator G. Difficult to make long-distance calls H. Miss telephone messages 119 Positive or Negative outcone: A. Extent to which good workspace is available in the hone Things that drive away from office: A. Number of interruptions B. Heat turned off in building on weekends 2 . What types of work-related activities do you perform when working at home? A. Writing nemos, letters a B. Reading journals, theses and dissertations F‘ C. Editting 0. Reviewing manuscripts * ' a E. Generally, any tasks that require only "second level" concentration 3. Overall, what are the major factors that have affected your decision regarding working at hone? A. Able to get big blocks of tine with no interruptions B. Allows one to ”coordinate" family and hone needs with work 120 APPENDIX B Developtent of Personality Measures Appendix B Developnent of Personality Measures Part 1: Original Wording of Need for Achievenent Affiliation, Autonomy, and Iocus of Control Scales I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Never Alnost Seldom Sonetines Usually Alnost Always Never Always Need For Achievenent 1. I do my best work when my job assignnents are fairly difficult. (MM?) 2. I try very hard to improve on my past performance at work. (mo) 3. I take moderate risks to get ahead at work. (MNQ; revised) 4. I try to avoid added responsibilities on my job. (MTQ) 5. I try to perform better than my coworkers. (FNQ) 6. I alnost always do my best whether I am alone or with soneone. (Friis & Knox, 1972) 7. I appreciate opportunities to discover my own strengths and weaknesses. (Mehrabian a. Bank, 1978) 8. EVeryday, I try to accomplish something worthwhile. (Friis & Knox, 1972) * MNQ = Manifest Needs Questionnaire (Steers & Braunstein, 1976) 121 Need for Affiliation 1. 2. 'When I have a choice, I try to work in a group instead of by myself. (MNQ) I pay a good deal of attention to the feelings of others at.work. (MNQ) I prefer to do my own work and let others do theirs. (MNQ; revised) I express my disagreenents with others openly. (mo; revised) I find myself talking to those around me about nonébusiness related matters. (MNQ) I consider myself a good mixer at.work. (Friis & Knox, 1972; revised) If at all possible, I avoid being alone (Friis & Knox, 1972) I often attend social gatherings just to be with others. (Friis & Knox, 1972) iNeed for Autonomy 1. In my work assignments, I try to be my own boss. (MNQ) 2. I go my own way at work, regardless of the opinions of others. (MNQ) 3. I disregard rules and regulations that hamper my personal freedom. (MNQ) 4. I consider myself a "team player" at work. (MNQ; revised) 5. I try my best to work alone on a job. (MNQ) 6. I prefer projects where I can decide what to do. (original) 7. I like to have other persons monitoring my work. (original) 8. I consider myself to be something of a maverick at.work. (original) * MNQ = Manifest.Needs Questionnaire (Steers & Braunstein, 1976) 122 Locus of Control Itens Source: Duttweiler, 1984 1 2 3 4 5 RARELY OCCASIONALLY SOMETIMES FREQUENTLY USUALLY less than About 30% About half About 70% More than 10% of of the of the of the 90% of the time time time time the time Autonomy 1. I need encouragement from others for me to keep working at a difficult task. (modified) 2. I prefer to learn the facts about sonething from soneone else rather than have to dig them out myself. 3. What other people think influences my behavior. (modified) 4. I need someone else to praise my work before I am satisfied with what I've done. 5. I get discouraged when doing something that takes a long time to achieve results. 6. I prefer situations where I can depend on someone else's ability rather than just my own. 7. Having someone important tell me I did a good job is more important to me than feeling I've done a good job. Self Confidence 1. I _____ like jobs where I can make decisions and be responsible for my own work. 2. I wdll _____ accept jobs that require me to supervise others. 3. I _____ like to have a say in any decisions made by a group I'm in. 4. I _____ enjoy being in a position of leadership. 5. I am _____ sure enough of my opinions to try and influence others. 6. I ______stick to my opinions when someone disagrees with me. 7. When I'm involved in something I _____ try to find out all I can about what is going on even when someone else is in charge. 123 Part II: Pilot Survey Personality Scales Need for Achievenent 1. I perform best when my job assignments are of average difficulty. 2. The frequency with which I try very hard to improve on my past performance at work. 3. The extent to which I take moderate risks in order to get ahead at work. 4. The extent to which I try to avoid added responsibilities on my job. 5. The frequency with which I try to out-perform my coworkers. 6. The extent to which I only do my best when I am with soneone else. 7. The extent to which I seek out opportunities to exhibit my strengths . 8. The frequency with which I feel that I am accomplishing sonething worthwhile while working. Need for Affiliation 1. The extent to which I would prefer to work in a group instead of by myself. 2. The frequency with which I pay attention to the feelings of otters at work. 3. The extent to which I prefer to do my own work and let others do theirs. 4. The extent to which I openly express my disagreenents with others. 5. The extent to which I find myself talking to those around ne about non-business related matters. 6. The extent to which I consider myself to be a good socializer at work. 7. The extent to which I avoid working alone. 8. The extent to which I attend social gatherings just to be around otter people. 124 Need for Autonany 1. Theextenttowhich I trytobemyownboss atwork. 2. The frequency with which I go my own way at work, regardless of the opinions of others . 3. The frequency with which I disregard rules and regulations that hamper my personal freedom. 4. The extent to which I consider myself to be a "team player" at work. 5. The extent to which I prefer to work alone on a job. 6. The frequency with which I prefer to work on projects where I decide what will be done. 7. The extent to which I enjoy having other persons check my work. 8. The extent to which I consider myself to be an independent spirit at work. Locus of Control (External) 1. The extent to which I need encouragenent from others for ne to keep working at a difficult task. 2. The frequency with which I prefer to learn the facts about sonething from soneore else rather than have to dig them out myself. 3. The extent to which what other people think influences my behavior. 4. The extent to which I need soneone else to praise my work before I am satisfied with what I've done. 5. The frequency with which I get discouraged when doing sonething that takes a long time to achieve results. 6. The frequency with which I prefer situations where I can depend on soneone else's ability rather than just my own. 7. The extent to which having an important colleague tell ne that I didagood jobismore importanttonethanmyownfeelings aboutmy performance. 125 Locus of Control (Internal) 1. The extent to which I enjoy jobs where I can make decisions and be responsible for my own work. 2. The frequency with which I will accept jobs that require ne to supervise others. 3. The frequency with which I like to have a say in any decisions made by a group I'm in. 4. The extent to which I enjoy being in a position of leadership. 5. The frequency with which I try to influence the opinions of others. 6. The extent to which I stick to my opinions when my peers disagree with ne. 7. The extent to which I try to find out all I can about what is going on even when soneone else is in charge. 126 -.._ 1....-- _ W l Part III: Faculty Questionnaire Personality Scales Need for Achievenent 1. The frequency with which I try very hard to improve on my past performance at work. 2. The extent to which I enjoy jobs where I can make decisions and be responsible for my own work. 3. The extent to which I take moderate risks in order to get ahead at work. 4. The frequency with which I will accept jobs that require ne to supervise others. 5.* The extent to which I try to avoid added responsibilities on my job. 6. The frequency with which I like to have a say in any decisions made by a work group in which I am a nember. 7. The frequency with which I try to out-perform my coworkers at the university. 8. The frequency with which I prefer to work on projects where I decide what will be done. 9. The frequency with which I feel that I am accomplishing sonething worthwhile while working. 10 . The extent to which I seek out opportunities at the university to exhibit my strengths . 11. The extent to which I consider myself to be an independent spirit at work. Need for Affiliation 1. The extent to which I would prefer to work in a group instead of by myself. 2. The extent to which I only do my best when I am with soneore else. 3. The frequency with which I prefer situations where I can depend on soneone else's ability rather than just my own. 4.* The extent to which I prefer to work alone on a job. 5. The extent to which I avoid working alone. * = Item recoded prior to sunmation 127 External Locus of Control 1. The extent to which the opinions of coworkers influences my behavior. 2. The extent to which I need encouragenent from others for ne to keep working at a difficult task. 3. The frequency with which I prefer to learn the facts about sonething from someone else ratier than have to dig them out myself. 4. The extent to which I need praise from col leagues of my work before I am satisfied with what I've done. I: 5. The frequency with which I get discouraged when doing sonething that takes a long tine to achieve results. 6. The extent to which having an important col league tell ne that I did a good job is more important to ne than my own feeling about my performance. 128 APPENDIX C Survey Recruitment Letter Appendix C Sirvey Recruitment Letter May 28, 1986 Dear Michigan State Faculty Member: The increasing sophistication and availability of personal conputers has stimulated popular and professional interest in 'teleconnuting" and other forms of work-at-home behavior. A recent survey found that university professors and researchers are a significant subgroup among those currently working at hone. A questionnaire has been developed to gather additional information regarding work-at-hone behavior among faculty nembers . My nane is Brian Loher and I am a doctoral student in the Michigan State University Industrial/Organizational psychology program. The survey is being conducted as part of my dissertation research. I would like to ask you to take 20 to 25 minutes to voluntarily conplete the survey. It is not necessary that you use a personal computer as part of your work activities to participate. Should you be interested in participating, simply complete the bottom portion of this letter and return it via campus mail to BRIAN LOHER C/o DEPARI‘MEINT OF PSYCI-Iom, 129 PSYCHOILISY RESEARCH BUILDII‘G, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY by June 4, 1986. A survey will be sent to your campus address. A copy of a report summarizing the results of the survey will be made available to survey participants upon written request. Results should be available by October, 1986. Thank-you for your interest in the survey. Sincerely , Brian T. Ioher Industrial/Organizational PSYCh0109Y Program Michigan State University (517) 353-9166 CAMPUS ADDRESS: on: of the total amount of tine that you devote to university-related work activities during an average week, approximately what percent of that tine do you spend working at hone rather than at your office/ lab? 129 APPENDIX D Cover Letter and Faculty Questionnaire Appendix D vaer Letter and Faculty Questionnaire JUne 3, 1986 Dear Michigan State Faculty Member: Thank you for your interest in participating in the survey on work-at-home behavior among university faculty members. A copy of the questionnaire is enclosed. The questionnaire should require 20 to 25 ninutes to complete. If you decide to continue your participation in the study, please complete the questionnaire and return it via CAMPUS MAIL to BRIAN LOHER, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOIIISY, 129 PSYCI-IOIUSY RESEARCH BUIIDIFG, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, by June 20, 1986. A.copy of a report sunnarizing the results of the study will be made available upon written request to survey participants. Results should be available by October, 1986. If you have any questions regarding the survey, I can be contacted at either 353-9166 (Office) or 351-5678 (Hcme). Ybur comments on the survey are welcome and appreciated. Sincerely, Brian T. Loher Industrial/Organizational Psychology Program Department of Psychology Michigan State University (517) 353-9166 130 WORK-AT-HOMEggUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS: Please answer the following items to the best of your ability. If a question is not applicable to your particular situation, write "NA" in the blank space provided. 1. Sex: M F 2. Age 3. What is your current university rank? instructor/lecturer professor assistant professor professor emeritus associate professor other 4. Tenure track Non-tenure track 5. Are you currently tenured? YES NO 6. University college 7. Department/division 8. Do you have a separate office Space within your residence (e.g., a room with a door that can be closed)? YES NO 9. Do you have a private office space at your office/lab? YES NO 10. Do you have a personal computer within your home? YES NO 11. Do you have a personal computer at your office/lab? YES NO 12. How many children/adolescents are currently living at your residence? What are their ages? 13. Including yourself, what is the total number of persons who are currently living at your residence? 14. What is the approximate number of hours that you are required to spend in university meetings during an average week? 15. For the current term, how'many hours per week do you typically spend in a classroom (e.g., lecturing)? 16. For a onedway trip, what would be the average amount of time in MINUTES that it.would take you to travel (by car) to your office? 17. HOw'many automdbiles are available to persons living at your residence? 131 18. In this section you are asked to make ratings of outcomes that may result from working at HOME. In the column to the LEFT of each outcome indicate the effect that you perceive WORKING AT HOME has on the outcome using the following scale: l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strong Weak No Effect Weak Strong Effect , Effect , Effect , Effect , Undesirable Undesirable Desirable Desirable To illustrate, for the outcone "Tine with Family" a response of "5" indicates a perception that working at hone has only a weak (yet desirable) effect on the amount of tine spent with ore's family. A response of "7" indicates that working at hone has a strong effect (that one finds desirable) on tine with family. Respond "NA" if an outcone is not applicable to your situation. Effect of Working at Outcome HOWE on: Outcones Inportance Interruptions while working Distractions from working Working at my own pace Tine spent cornmting Conflict between work and nonwork roles Caring for small children Costs for day care Work attire Costs for gasoline Costs for dry cleaning Overal 1 work performance Conmunication with peers Motivation to work Reduction of work-related stress/ anxiety Perceived safety Amount of space available for working Control over the scheduling of my work Physical comfort while working Access to materials (e.g., journals, files) Loneliness Access to resources (phone, cepiers, secretaries) Access to food Tine with family The amount of tine spent alone Tine available for working Career opportunities Participation in office politics "—T— In the column to the Rim—T of each outcone, rate the importance of t outcone using a scale from 1 (NO IMPORTANCE) to 7 (VERY IMPORTANT). Respond ”NA" if the outcone is not relevant. 132 J INSTRUCTIONS: Use the scale below to rate your PERCEPTION of the supportiveness of the given reference groups towards faculty who work at home DURIm TRADITICNAL VDRK HOURS (i.e., 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM). Respond ”NAP if a group is not applicable to your situation. I I l I l | | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Oppose Mildly Neutral Mildly Support Strongly Oppose Oppose Support Support RESPONSE 19. To what extent do you feel the other faculty members in your PROGRAM support colleagues who work at home? 20. To what extent do you perceive that the STUDENTS in your program support the idea of faculty working at home? 21. In general, how supportive do you feel members of your DEPARTMENT/DIVISION are of faculty working at home? 22. To what extent do you feel the CENTRAL AWINISTRATION supports the idea of faculty working at home? 23. Overall, to what extent do you feel the other persons living at your residence support your working at home? 24. In this section, please use the scale given below to rate the ATTRACTIVENESS of the HOME for performing certain work activities. Respond ”NA" if an activity is not relevant to your job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very Mildly Neutral Mildly Highly unattractive Unattractive Attractive Attractive Activity honking (total) Meeting with students (graduate/undergraduate) Class preparation Talking on the telephone Grading papers & examinations Data analysis & statistical interpretation Writing (e.g., manuscripts, research proposals, technical reports, memos, committee work, reviews) Reading (e.g., professional journals, manuscripts, grant applications, theses/dissertations) llllllllg 133 m )w - L INSTRUCTIONS: Use the following scale to respond to itens 25 - 52. Write your response in the space provided to the left of each item. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEVER RARELY CECASIONALLY WINES FREQUENTLY USUALLY ALWAYS Under @ 30% @ 50% @ 70% Over 10% of of the of tie of the 90% of the tine tine tine tine the tine RESPONSE 25. The frequency with which I try very hard to improve on my past performance at work. 26. The extent to which I would prefer to work in a group instead of by myself. 27. The extent to which I enjoy jobs where I can make decisions and be responsible for my own work. 28. The extent to which the opinions of coworkers influences my behavior. 29. The extent to which I take moderate risks in order to get ahead at work. 30. The frequency with which I go my own way at work, regardless of the opinions of others. 31. The extent to which I need encouragenent from others for ne to keep working at a difficult task. 32. The frequency with which I will accept jobs that require ne to supervise others . 33. The extent to which I only do my best when I am with soneone else. 34. The frequency with which I prefer to learn the facts about sonething from soneone else rather than have to dig tlem out myself. 35. The extent to which I try to avoid added responsibilities on my job. 36. The frequency with which I prefer situations where I can depend on soneone else's ability rather than just my own. 37. The frequency with which I like to have a say in any decisions made by a work group in which I am a nember. 38. The extent to which I need praise from colleagues of my work before I am satisfied with what I've done. 134 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEVER RARELY (XICASIONALLY mMETIMES FREQUENTLY USUALLY ALWAYS Under @ 30% @ 50% @ 70% Over 10% of of the of the of the 90% of the tine tine tine tine the tine RESPONSE 39 . The frequency with which I try to out-perform my coworkers at the university. 40. The extent to which I stick to my opinions when my peers disagree with ne. 41. The frequency with which I prefer to work on projects where I decide what will be done. 42. 43. 44. 45. what 46. that The extent to which I prefer to work alone on a job. The frequency with which I get discouraged when doing sonething that takes a long tine to achieve results. The frequency with which I feel that I am accomplishing something worthwhile while working. Theextenttowhich I trytofind outall I canabout is going on even when soneone else is in charge. The extent to which having an important col league tell ne Ididagood jobismore importanttonethanmyown feeling about my performance. 47. The extent to which I seek out opportunities at the university to exhibit my strengths. 48. 49. The extent to which I avoid working alone. The extent to which I attend social gatlerings just to be around otl'er people. 50. The extent to which I consider myself to be an independent spirit at work. 51. In comparison with other faculty, how often do you perceive tint you have the Opportunity to work at hone? 52. What is the frequency with which your work requires you to monitor the work of others? 135 53. In this section you are asked to respond to two questions. For the FIRST COLUMN ("Total Hours Spent"), you are asked to estimate the TOTAL number of hours that you spend on the given university- related work activity during an AVERAGE‘WEEK. In the SECOND'COLUMN ("Hours Wbrking at Home"), you are asked to estimate the number of hours (out of the total from column 1) that you spend on the given activity WHILE AT HOWE. V Total HOurs Hours working at Spent: HOme on: Activities working (total) Meeting'with.students (graduate/undergraduate) Class preparation Talking on the telephone Grading papers & examinations Data analysis & statistical interpretation writing (e.g., manuscripts, reviews, memos, research proposals, technical reports, committee work) Reading (e.g., professional journals, manuscripts, grant applications, theses/dissertations) Other (please describe) COMMENTS regarding the survey: Thank you for your time and effbrt in filling out this survey. Please place your completed questionnaire in a CAMPUS MAIL.envelope and send it to BRIAN IOHER, c/o DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHGLIEY, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY. Should you have any questions about the survey, the researcher can be contacted at 353-9166 (Office) or 351-5678 (Home). 136 APPENDIX E Fol low-up Letter Appendix E Follow—up Letter JUne 24, 1986 Dear Michigan State Faculty Member: During spring term you indicated your willingness to participate in a survey on work-at—home behavior among MSU faculty members. A copy of the survey was mailed to your campus address. Our records indicate that you have not, as yet, returned the survey. In order to facilitate the conpilation of study results within a reasonable time-frame, it is critical that all surveys be returned by JUne 30, 1986. I would like to ask you to take a few minutes sometime this week to complete and return your copy of the survey. If needed, a backup copy of the survey is enclosed. Please disregard this note if you have already returned the survey or have decided to discontinue your participation in the study. Once again, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in the study and for your efforts as a survey participant. Sincerely, Brian T. Loher Industrial/Organizational Psychology Program Department of Psychology Michigan State University (517) 353-9166 P.S. Please note that survey items regarding an "average" week refer to an average week during the regular academic year. Items relating to the ”current" term refer to spring term. EhC. 137 APPENDIXF Full Correlation Matrix Joan 253:8 3 coupe—.0 395qu "so: ONONhNONmNVNMNNNHNONOHOHhHonHVHMHNHHHOHmOhovaNH I pOI NOI VHI oo MHI vNI NN «HI MN ON Mo OOI HMI MM hv OH HH NM HM Mv wHI mNI OH NOI OHI oOI OO VHI 36:50 .ON I VH mM he ON OH OH mo OH NHI NHI OH Oo QNI HO MOI NOI HHI Mol HHI VOI OH OO OH NO OH OH mH as No .02 .ON I mOI OOI mOI HO HO OO OOI OHI MOI MO NOI HHI mo NOI oM mo MO vH MO moI vo VHI ONI MHI NOI HHI ”:3 Huang. .hN I bOI HO OH HH NO mHI oHI vHI mH NOI OHI OHI mo moI VMI OOI OMI QOI OO NO vo No No OHI NH gym .0: .ON I OOI vHI oo mH MH No HH mo Hol sol OO mHI mHI mo OM HN mHI ooI MOI hv OH mm no OH no: NO on). .mN I H mo MO ONI OHI vHI OH Nol HHI OHI mo MOI NMI NOI OMI Nol NH HOI Nol Nol NOI VNI NH no: no .02 .VN I OO MH Hol NOI OHI HO no NOI OHI OHI mo hHI HHI OHI OHI OH MO OH OH mo MOI QH On «to: .MN I OO HN mH NO 50 mH HH ON OO MO NOI VH VH vHI mOI OH NOI oo mOI NHI MO On 9.0: .NN I MOI mo mOI MO OH Hol MHI NHI MOI MHI OHI OOI MOI Hol vo NIH OH OH HH NH 8....qu 3.33 .HN I ON ho vo ho mo ON mo MO OH OH ON MHI hOI ON no so OH mo NO 00.38 Q5: .ON I SI SI 27 em mm a 8 R an em .RI «NI 1 SI 3 3 3 meI toned .3 I SI SI 3 SI SI SI 8 SI 8 8 SI 8 d 8 8 Z 8 3.8505 .3 I 8 SI SI 8 SI :7 SI 8 mo 8 8 ea 3 R 8 SI 58:95... .5 I SI meI SI «7 SI ...? S S - on 8 3 8 N? No nouns: .3 I8 NT 8 8 SN 8 e? o? 3 SI SI SI SI SI .3588 .3 I OM VH 3 Nv to NHI OHI OH VOI mHI moI vo OMI 9358.5“: ..H I no VN OH mo mH OOI ho mo OH NOI wOI MOI >333..— .MH I oH NH HH no Mol HOI OO Mol HHI NHI mHI mug-=00 .NH I HM OM No Mo so moi HHI col OO oNI flew—.50 .HH I Nv mHI OHI mHI «OI HOI ool mo mHI mug .OH I mOI oOI MH MHI ONI MHI NOI hNI mGOHanEBcH .O I hv vOI MHI vo HHI mHI MOI .0600 .§ E .o I NOI OOI mOI MOI OHI no umHHHuut 802 .h I vO oo HH NOI OO yaw—5:2 8oz .O I Mm vo mo OM madam v.55... .m I mm HN Hv xUmHH. 0.52 .v ONmNhNONvaNMNNNHNONOHOHOHOHmHVHMHNH HHOHO m s. o n v M N H voEmCm> “.0002 5.31.: 8323.30 :2. a fig 138 APPENDIX G Supplemental Tables for Regression Analyses Appendix G Supplenental Tables for Regression Analyses Supplenent to Table 24 WE: Beta Weights for Overall Regression Equation Table 24 analyses do NOT include POE Composite #5 (Effects on Family Situation) Variable Beta F Sign. POE Conposite #1 (Interr/Dist) .452 30.46 .001 POE Composite #2 (Access) .167 4.23 .04 POE Composite #3 (Comfort) .165 4.64 .03 POE Composite #4 (Connuting) .036 0.27 NS Need for Achievenent Scale .140 3.85 .052 Need for Affiliation Scale -.007 0.01 NS Dctemal Locus of Control -.069 0.77 NS Sex -.123 2.45 .12 Tenure/Nontenure Track . 010 0 . 02 NS Criterion: Attractiveness Sample size: 117 Overall equation: df= 9, 107: F = 12.31, p < .001 139 Supplement to Table 25 NOTE: Table 25 analyses do NOT include the variable "Average Age of Children" Beta Weights for Overall Regression Equation Variable Beta F Sign. Attractiveness .370 18.48 .001 Monitor Others -. 286 12.33 .001 . Perceived Opportunity .216 6.49 .012 “3 Time in Meetings .040 0.24 NS Time in Classroom —.011 0.02 NS a Reference Grp. Supportiveness —.048 0.30 NS ' I PC at University -.130 2.77 .10 PC at Home .157 3.70 .06 Private Space at University -.035 0.20 NS Separate Space in Home .087 1.11 NS NUmber of Persons in HOusehold -.044 0.25 NS Number of vehicles in Heusehold -.001 0.00 NS Time to Travel to University -.078 0.99 NS Criterion: Relative Time at Home Sample size: 117 Overall equation: df= 13, 103; F = 5.78, p < .001 140 Supplement to Table 26: Step 1 of Regression Analyses for Mediating Effect NOTE: Table 26 analyses do NOT include POE Composite #5 (Effects on Family Situation) Beta Weights for Overall Regression Equation ___f variable Beta F Sign. POE Compositefiil (Interr/Dist) .282 8.83 .004 POE composite #2 (Access) .099 1.10 NS POE Composite #3 (comfort) .178 4.01 .05 POE Composite #4 (commuting) .040 0.25 NS Need for Achievement .061 0.54 NS Need for Affiliation -.216 5.70 .02 External Locus of Control -.020 0.05 NS Sex .060 0.43 NS Tenure/NOntenure Track -.142 2.61 .11 Criterion: Relative Time at Heme Sample size: 125 Overall equation: df= 9, 115; F = 5.29, p < .001 141 Supplement to Table 27: Step 2 of Regression Analyses for Mediating Effect ME: Part II focuses on prediction of Relative tine at hone using the mtcone Composites, Individual Differences - Personality, and Attractiveness; Analyses do NOT include POE Composite #5 (Effects on Family Situation) Beta Weights for Overall Regression Equation Variable Beta F Sign. POE Composite #1 (Interr/Dist) .187 2.98 .09 POE Composite #2 (Access) .043 0.20 NS POE Conposite #3 (Comfort) .131 2.04 .16 POE Composite #4 (Commuting) .026 0.10 NS Need for Achievenent .022 0.07 NS Need for Affiliation -.196 4.57 .03 Ecternal Locus of Control -.022 0.06 NS Attractiveness . 242 4 . 60 . 03 Criterion: Relative Tine at Hone Sample size: 117 Overall equation: df= 8, 108: F = 5.96, p < .001 142 Supplement to Table 28: Regression Analyses for "Simplified" Model NOTE: Analyses do NOT include POE Composite #5 (Effects on Family Situation) Beta Weights for Overall Regression Equation variable Beta F Sign. POE Composite #1 (Interr/Dist) .151 1.83 NS POE Composite #2 (Access) .007 0.01 NS POE composite #3 (Cbmfort) .077 0.70 NS POE Conposite #4 (Conmuting) -.013 0.03 NS Attractiveness .321 7.78 .007 Monitor Others -.267 9.60 .003 Perceived Opportunity .216 5.59 .02 Time in Meetings .041 0.23 NS Time in Classroom .013 0.02 NS Reference Grp. Supportiveness -.029 0.10 NS Criterion: Relative Time at Hbme Sample size: 107 Overall equation: df= 10, 96; F = 143 6.01, p < .001 Supplenent to Table 29: Regression Analyses for Prediction of Outcones Index Beta Weights for Overall Regression Equation Variable Beta F Sign. Sex -.255 7.W .007 Tenure/Nontenure Track . 043 0 . 19 NS Need for Achievenent .058 0.46 NS Need for Affiliation .026 0.07 NS External Locus of Control -.031 0.10 NS PC at University —.017 0.04 NS PC at Hone .089 1.03 NS Private Space at University -.054 0.40 NS Separate Space in Hone .192 4.55 .04 umber of Persons in Household -.230 5.85 .02 Nunber of Vehicles in Household .027 0.08 NS Tine to Travel to University .232 6.73 .01 Criterion: Conbined Outcomes Index Sample size: 120 Overall equation: df= 12, 107; F = 3.26, p < .001 144 111 REFERENCES References Albertson, L. A. (1977). Teleconmmications as a travel substitute: Some psychological, organizational, and social aspects. Journal of Connunications, 2_7, 32-43. Antonoff, M. (1985, July). The push for telecomnuting. Personal E M: 2: pp- 82-92- - Brief, A. P. (1985) . Effect of work location on motivation. In National Research Council, Office workstations in the bone (PP. _- 66-75) . Washington DC: National Academy Press. I Brophy, B. (1985, March 20). Work at hone: Independent, isolated. USA Today, p. 4B. Campbell, J. P., & Pritchard, R. D. (1976). Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. mnnette (Fd.) , Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally. Cattell, R. B. (1966) . The scree test for tie number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, _1_, 245-276. Chanot, D., & Zalusky, J. L. (1985). Use and misuse of workstations at home. In National Research Council, Office workstations in the hone (PP. 76-84) . Washington DC: National Academy Press. Christensen, K. E. (1985) . Impacts of computer-nediated home-based work on wonen and their families. New York: The City University of New York , Center for Human Environnents . Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983) . Applied multiple regression/correlation for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. B., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The experience of work . London : Academic Press . Dreher, G. F., s. Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1983). A note on the internal consistency of the Manifest Needs Questionnaire. Journal of mttweiler, P. C. (1984). The internal control index: A newly developed neasure of locus of control . Educational and Psychological Measurenent, 4_4, 209-221. 14S Elisburg, (1985). Legalities. In National Research Council, Office workstations in the home (pp. 59-65). Washington DC: National Academy Press. Feldman, D. C. (1984) . The developnent and enforcenent of group norns. Acadeny of Managenent Review, 9, 47-53. Friis, R. H., & Knox, A. B. (1972). A validity study of scales to neasure need achievenent, need affiliation, impulsiveness, and intel lectuality. Educational and Psychological Measurenent, 32, Garr, D. (1984, Decenber). Hone is where the work is. mi, 1, pp. Geisler, G. (1985) . Blue Cross/Blue Shield of South Carolina: Program for clerical workers. In National Research Council, Office workstations in the hone (pp. 16-23). Washington DC: National Academy Press. Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurenent theory for the behavioral sciences. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company. Hampton, D. R., SuImer, C. E., & Webber, R. A. (1982). Organizational behavigr and the practice of managenent (4th ed.) . Glenview, IL.: Scott, Foresman. Harkness, R. C. (1977). Technology assessnent of telecomnunications/ transportation interactions. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International . Kinmons, G. & Greenhaus, J. H. (1976). Relationship between locus of control and reactions of employees to work characteristics. Psychological Reports, 3_9_,815-820. Landy, F. J., & Trumbo, D. A. (1980). Psyghology of work behavior (2nd ed.). Honewood, IL: Dorsey. Iawler, E. E. (1973) . Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole. Manning, R. A. (1985). Control Data Corporation: Alternate work site programs. In National Research Council , Office workstations in the hone (pp. 38-50). Washington DC: National Academy Press. McClintock, C. C. (1981, December). Working alone together: Managing telecomnuting. Paper presented at the National Teleconumnications Conference. McDavid, M. (1985). U. S. Army: Prototype program for professionals. In National Research Council, Office workstations in the home (PP. 24-32) . Washington DC: National Academy Press. 146 Mehrabian, A., & Bank, L. (1978) . A questionnaire neasure of individual differences in achieving tendency . Educational and Psychological Measurenent, fl, 475-478. Mitchell, C. F. (1986, February 19). Desire to work at home gains popularity as motive for buying a personal computer. Wall Street Journal, _6_6_, p. 33. Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Expectancy models of job satisfaction, occupational preference and effort: A theoretical , nethodological , and empirical appraisal. Psychological Bulletin, _8_l, 1053-1077. Mitchell, T. R., & Beach, L. R. (1976). A review of occupational preference and choice research using expectancy theory and decision theory. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 4_9_, 231-248. mchinsky, P. M. (1983). Psychology applied to work. Homewood, IL: Dorsey. Muchinsky, P. M., & Taylor, M. S. (1976). Intrasubject predictions of occupational preference: The effect of manipulating components of the valence model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, _8_, 185-195. National Research Council (1985) . Office workstations in the hone. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K., & Brent, B. H. (1975) . Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (2nd ed.) . New York: McGraw-Hil l . Nilles, J. M. (1985). Connentary. In National Research Council, Office workstations in the hone (PP. 133-144) . Washington DC: National Academy Press. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychonetric tl'eory (2nd ed.). New York: NbGraw-Hill. Olson, M. H. (1983). An investigation of the ' ctS of remote work environnents and supporting technology (Working Paper Series CRIS #77) . New York: New York University, Center for Research on Information Systems. Olson , M. H. (1985). The potential of remote work for professionals. In National Research Council, Office workstations in the hone (pp. 125-132) . Washington DC: National Academy Press. Olson, M. H., & Primps, S. B. (1984). Working at hone with conputers: Work and nonwork issues. Journal of Social Issues, 40, 97-112. Parker, D. F., & Dyer, L. (1976). Expectancy theory as a within-person behavioral choice model : An empirical test of sone conceptual and nethodological refinenents. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11, 97-117. 147 Phelps, N. (1985) . Mountain Bell: Program for managers. In National Research Council, Office workstations in the hone (pp. 33-37) . Washington DC: National Academy Press. Raney, J. G., Jr. (1985). Anerican Express Company: Project honebound. In National Research Council , Office workstations in the hone (pp. 8-15). Washington Dc: National Academy Press. Roberts, K. H., & Glick, W. (1981). The job characteristics approach to task design: A critical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, fl, 193-217. Rotter, J. B. (1966) . Generalized expectancies for internal versus R external control of reinforcenent. PsEhological Monographs, fl, . (1, Whole No. 609). Rynes, 8., & Iawler, J. (1983) . A policy-capturing investigation of the role of expectancies in decisions to pursue job alternatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, _6_8, 620-631. Schmitt, N., & Son, L. (1981). An evaluation of valence models of V motivation to pursue various post high school alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 2_7, 135-150. Shamir, B., & Salomon, I. (1985) . Work-at-hone and the quality of working life. Acadeny of Manggement Review, _1_0_, 455-464. Spector, R. E. (1982) . Behavior in organizations as a function of employee's locus of control. Psychological Bulletin, _91, 482-497. Steers, R. M., & Braunstein, D. N. (1976). A behaviorally based neasure of manifest needs in work settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9, 251-266. Swartz, J. (1986) . Computer comnuter busier and happier. The APA Monitor, 17, 8. Wexley, K. N., & Yukl, G. A. (1984). Organizational behavior and personneljsychology (2nd ed.). Honewood, IL: Irwin. Zwick, W. R., 8 Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological 148