Journal Pre-proof

Is there a price telecommuters pay? Examining the relationship

between telecommuting and objective career success

Timothy D. Golden, Kimberly A. Eddleston

PII: S0001-8791(19)30126-5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103348
Reference: YJVBE 103348

To appear in: Journal of Vocational Behavior

Received date: 18 November 2018

Revised date: 2 October 2019
Accepted date: 15 October 2019

Please cite this article as: T.D. Golden and K.A. Eddleston, Is there a price telecommuters
pay? Examining the relationship between telecommuting and objective career success,
Journal of Vocational Behavior(2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103348

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such
as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is
not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting,
typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this
version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production
process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers
that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2018 Published by Elsevier.

 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 1

Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? Examining the Relationship Between Telecommuting

and Objective Career Success

Timothy D. Golden
Lally School of Management
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
110 8th Street, Pittsburgh Building
Troy, NY 12180 USA

of
Phone: (518) 276-2669
Email: [email protected]

ro
-p
Kimberly A. Eddleston
D’Amore-McKim School of Business
Northeastern University
re
209 Hayden Hall
Boston, MA 02115-5000 USA
lP

Phone: 617-373-4014
Email: [email protected]
na
ur
Jo

Second Revision and Resubmission to the

Journal of Vocational Behavior

October 2, 2019
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 2

Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay?

Examining the Relationship Between Telecommuting and Objective Career Success

Abstract

Telecommuting has long been noted for its ability to foster work-family balance and job

satisfaction. However, for employees seeking to advance in their careers, it is commonly advised

to exercise caution, since telecommuting is often viewed as signaling a lack of dedication to

one’s career. Despite the prevalence of such advice, almost no research has investigated if

of
telecommuting actually impacts career success in objective terms. Integrating research on the

ro
flexibility stigma and signaling theory, we first compared the career success of telecommuters

-p
and non-telecommuters using a sample of 405 employees matched with corporate data on
re
promotion and salary growth. Then, we examined the relationship between extent of

telecommuting and career success as well as the moderating influence of contextual factors.
lP

Results indicated telecommuters and non-telecommuters did not differ in number of promotions,
na

but telecommuters experienced lower salary growth. Additionally, extent of telecommuting was

negatively related to promotions and salary growth, indicating it is not simply telecommuting per
ur

se that effects career success, but rather the extent of telecommuting. Moreover, work context
Jo

played a highly influential role. A greater number of promotions were received by extensive

telecommuters when they worked where telecommuting was highly normative, and when they

engaged in higher supplemental work. Extensive telecommuters with higher supplemental work

and higher face-to-face contact with their supervisor also received greater salary growth.

Together, results challenge previous research that has tended to portray telecommuting as

harmful to one’s career success by providing a more informed understanding of how to harness

its benefits.
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 3

Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay?

Examining the Relationship Between Telecommuting and Objective Career Success

Ever since the advent of telecommuting in the 1970s (Nilles, 1994), scholars have sought

to understand its consequences for employees’ lives in and out of work (e.g., Allen, Golden, &

Shockley, 2015). Telecommuting is defined as “a work practice that involves members of an

organization substituting a portion of their typical work hours… to work away from a central

of
workplace—typically from home—using technology to interact with others as needed to conduct

ro
work tasks” (Allen et al., 2015, p. 44). Its usage is rapidly expanding, with estimates of over 25

-p
million in the U.S. (Gallup, 2017; Global Workplace Analytics, 2015) and growth rates
re
estimated to be 11-30% in many areas of the world (Lister & Harnish, 2011; Tugend, 2014).

However, despite this growth, there exists a widespread fear that telecommuting will hurt the
lP

ability to advance in one’s career (e.g., Green, 2014; Fallon, 2016; Lucas, 2013). Supporting
na

such fears, scholars have speculated that the career prospects of telecommuters will be adversely

affected (e.g., Baruch, 2000; Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Elsbach & Cable, 2012; McCloskey &
ur

Igbaria, 2003) due to the stigma associated with using flexible work practices (Bourdeau, Ollier-
Jo

Malaterre, & Houlfort, 2019; Williams, Blair-Loy, & Berdahl, 2013). But are these fears and

speculations warranted, or are they based more on “urban legend”?

Rather than examine the effect of telecommuting on employees’ objective career success,

existing research has tended to focus on telecommuting’s self-reported benefits such as

employees’ increased work-family balance and job satisfaction, decreased turnover intentions

and stress, saved commute time, and increased autonomy (Allen et al., 2015; Bailey & Kurland,

2002). Studies of telecommuters’ objective career success have been rare, with the few
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 4

exceptions shedding little light. A meta-analysis of studies on consequences of telecommuting

(Gajendran & Harrison, 2007) did not include any dependent variables pertaining to employees’

actual career success but rather utilized self-reported perceived career prospects. Moreover, the

few studies investigating the effect of flexible work practices like telecommuting on objective

career success such as salary have yielded mixed findings (e.g., Glass, 2004; Leslie, Manchester,

Park, & Mehng, 2012; Weeden, 2005).

Notably, in these existing studies scholars have conceptualized and measured

of
telecommuting with a binary ‘yes or no’ variable that categorizes employees as telecommuters

ro
and non-telecommuters. While this approach is conducive to broad comparisons, it ignores how

-p
telecommuters vary in the extent to which they work away from the office and thus, does not
re
capture the heterogeneity among telecommuters (Breaugh & Farabee, 2012; Golden et al., 2008;

Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008). Given that individuals’ telecommuting experiences are likely to
lP

differ significantly if they telecommute occasionally compared to multiple days per week
na

(Golden & Veiga, 2005), the potential impact on their career success is likely to also vary. In this

study, we therefore respond to calls in the telecommuting literature (Allen, et al., 2015; Golden
ur

et al., 2008) to examine if the extent of telecommuting impacts career success.

Jo

Prior telecommuting studies have also failed to investigate how the work context may

buffer against the stigma associated with using flexible work practices (Allen et al., 2015;

Bourdeau et al., 2019; Perrigino, Dunford, & Wilson, 2018). Telecommuting studies have also

failed to identify how the work context contributes to the career success of employees who vary

in the extent to which they telecommute (Breaugh & Farabee, 2012; Golden et al., 2008; Kossek

& Van Dyne, 2008). Yet, careers researchers have long noted the important role that the work

context plays in salary and promotion decisions (Goodman, 1975; Wayne, Liden, Graf, & Ferris,
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 5

1997). Given that telecommuters must compete for limited promotions and salary increases

while navigating the stigma associated with working away from the office, the work context may

be key in understanding why some telecommuters achieve career success similar to non-

telecommuters while other are hampered due to the flexibility stigma (Kaplan, Engelsted, Lei, &

Lockwood, 2018; Williams, et al., 2013). Further, because promotions and salary increases are

largely determined in comparison to peers (Ostroff & Atwater, 2003), understanding how factors

in the work context can help or hinder the career success of telecommuters is important to

of
employees looking to progress in their careers while also telecommuting, and to organizations

ro
that are aiming to eliminate the stigma associated with using flexible work practices (Bourdeau

et al., 2019; Perrigino et al., 2018).

-p
The present study therefore begins to fill these gaps in our knowledge of telecommuting’s
re
career impact using two widely accepted outcomes of objective career success: promotions and
lP

salary growth (Heslin, 2005). First, building upon research on flexible work practices that
na

integrates signaling theory and the flexibility stigma (e.g. Bourdeau et al., 2019; Leslie et al.,

2012; Williams et al., 2013), we compare actual corporate-provided promotions and salary
ur

growth of telecommuters and non-telecommuters (N=405). Second, we answer calls from

Jo

researchers to expand our understanding of telecommuting’s career consequences by not simply

comparing telecommuters monolithically, but rather as a function of the extent of telecommuting

carried out by individual telecommuters (Golden & Veiga, 2005). In so doing, we offer a more

refined exposition of signaling theory (Spence, 1973) and the flexibility stigma’s applicability to

telecommuting’s career outcomes by investigating the extent of telecommuting and the

concomitant variation in the intensity of the flexibility stigma. Third, we contribute to research

on telecommuting, career success, and the flexibility stigma by examining factors inherent in the
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 6

work context that influence the degree to which the extent of telecommuting effects promotions

and salary growth. In this way we not only address the need to refine our understanding of

telecommuting’s career consequences within the more realistic complexities of the

organizational context (Allen et al., 2015), but also answer calls from scholars to study the

socially-embedded nature of factors which may activate or suppress signals associated with the

flexibility stigma (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2013).

Theory and Hypotheses

of
Although telecommuting has been the subject of a growing body of research, whether

ro
telecommuting affects objective career success remains elusive (e.g. Gajendran & Harrison,

-p
2007; Glass & Noonan, 2016). Objective career success refers to observable indicators of career
re
progression that can be evaluated objectively by others (Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005).

In this study we focus on promotions and salary growth (Heslin, 2005), since these are
lP

commonly viewed as advancements within an organizational hierarchy and signify an

na

individual’s achievement and stature.

More specifically, research investigating telecommuters’ career success has provided

ur

conflicting evidence. On the one hand, the telecommuting literature widely notes the potential
Jo

for telecommuting to hurt career progress (e.g., Coltrane, Miller, DeHaan, & Stewart, 2013;

Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Elsbach & Cable, 2012; McCloskey & Igbaria, 2003). It also notes

how employees are often reluctant to telecommute because they fear negative career

consequences (e.g., Green, 2014; Fallon, 2016; Lucas, 2013). On the other hand, research also

suggests that telecommuting is associated with outcomes such as increased organizational

commitment, job performance, and satisfaction (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Golden, 2006b;

Golden & Gajendran, 2019; Martin & MacDonnell, 2012), which suggests that career rewards
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 7

could accrue if these outcomes are recognized and rewarded by managers. Further, the few

existing studies that examined the career success of telecommuters and other flexible workers

add little clarity, as this research has shown lower wage growth (Glass, 2004), higher wages

(Leslie, et al., 2012; Weeden, 2005) or substantial variation indicating little or no effect on wages

(Glass & Noonan, 2016). Notably, this research tends to consider telecommuters as a

homogeneous group; that is, it does not consider how telecommuters vary in the extent to which

they work away from the office. The research also tends to ignore contextual factors in the work

of
environment that might influence managerial decisions regarding promotions and salary

ro
increases. Given the lack of clarity and precision in the literature, our objective is to look more

-p
deeply into the effect of telecommuting on promotions and salary increases by developing a
re
framework that considers the intensity of the stigma associated with occasional versus extensive

telecommuting and how the work context can buffer the stigma associated with telecommuting.
lP

How the Flexibility Stigma Affects Telecommuters’ Objective Career Success

na

Although some research supports the ‘happy worker story’ (Weeden, 2005: 478) by

demonstrating that telecommuters experience less work-family conflict, greater job satisfaction
ur

(e.g. Gajendran & Harrison, 2007) and earn wages at least equal to, or higher, than
Jo

nontelecommuters (e.g. Gariety & Shaffer, 2001; 2007; Weeden, 2005), researchers are

increasingly recognizing how telecommuting can lead to career penalties because of the

flexibility stigma (Bourdeau, et al, 2019; Chung & van der Horst, 2018; Perrigino, Dunford &

Wilson, 2018). Stigmas are not about a particular behavior per se, but rather inferences and

attributions about the underlying characteristics of the behavior that lead to negative sanctions

(Goffman, 1963). The flexibility stigma refers to the devaluation of employees who use flexible

work practices, such as telecommuting, because they are seen as deviating from the work
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 8

devotion schema that places work at the center of one’s life (Williams et al., 2013; Dumas &

Sanchez-Burks, 2015) and construes the ideal worker as always being available and dedicated to

work (Williams et al., 2013; 2016). The work devotion schema reflects deep cultural

assumptions about work that call for intensive allegiance and undivided attention to work and the

expectation that employees will minimize time spent on personal and family demands or else risk

career penalties (Williams et al., 2013; Williams, Berdahl, & Vandello, 2016).

Drawing from signaling theory and attributional theories, scholars argue that

of
telecommuters experience career penalties because of the incongruence between using flexible

ro
work practices and the work devotion schema (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Glass & Noonan, 2016;

-p
Leslie et al., 2012). Signaling theory (Spence, 1973) explains how supervisors use employees’
re
observable behaviors, such as their physical presence in the workplace, to make attributions

about characteristics that are hard to observe, such as devotion to work and dedication to their
lP

job (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Glass & Noonan, 2016; Leslie et al., 2012). In turn, these attributions
na

are related to employees’ career success above and beyond the employees’ actual job

performance (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Leslie et al., 2012; Perrigino et al., 2018). The
ur

categorization of employees as more or less devoted to work biases supervisors’ subsequent

Jo

search for information about the employees and their job performance (Bourdeau et al., 2019).

Employees with higher work devotion attributions are expected to receive positive career

consequences whereas those with lower work devotion attributions receive career penalties.

Research suggests that telecommuting signals questionable dedication to work and even the

possible shirking of responsibilities (Casper & Harris, 2008) because their absence from the

workplace is associated with a lack of devotion to work (Blair-Loy, 2003; Kossek, Thompson &

Lautsch, 2015). Indeed, experimental research demonstrates that telecommuters face a

 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 9

significant flexibility stigma that hurts the evaluation of their competence and commitment

(Munsch, Ridgeway & Williams, 2014).

In line with research on work-family backlash, which explores the stigma associated with

using flexible work practices, supervisors’ support for the work devotion schema may lead to

implicit biases against telecommuters (Perrigino et al., 2018). In other words, the inferences and

attributions supervisors make about telecommuters are often made spontaneously, without their

intent or knowledge of doing so (Elsbach, Cable & Sherman, 2010). For example,

of
telecommuting tends to signal an employee’s prioritization of personal and family concerns

ro
above work, regardless of the employee’s actual motive for telecommuting (Golden et al., 2006a;

-p
Kossek, Lautsch & Eaton, 2006). Because being classified as ‘family-primary’ or ‘career-

primary’ affects employees’ objective career success (Veiga, Baldridge & Eddleston, 2004),
re
telecommuters should experience a career penalty vis-à-vis nontelecommuters. In support of the
lP

flexibility stigma, we therefore hypothesize that telecommuters will receive less promotions and
na

salary growth than nontelecommuters.

Hypothesis 1: Telecommuting is negatively related to (a) promotions and (b) salary growth,
ur

such that telecommuters receive fewer promotions and less salary growth than those who do
not telecommute.
Jo

While the above hypothesis compares telecommuters and nontelecommuters, scholars are

increasingly calling for research to consider the extent to which an individual telecommutes

(Allen et al., 2015), recognizing that the flexibility stigma is likely to be more severe for those

who extensively telecommute versus those who only occasionally telecommute (Breaugh &

Farabee, 2012; Golden & Veiga, 2005; Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008). Because telecommuting

enables employees to spend time and energy outside of the workplace to care for themselves and

their family (Golden et al., 2006), supervisors are likely to interpret extensive telecommuters’
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 10

motives as self-helping and a sign of low devotion to work (Bourdeau et al., 2019). With time in

the office being a common proxy for work devotion, those who telework more extensively are

likely to suffer a greater career penalty than those who telecommute occasionally (Kossek & Van

Dyne, 2008; Williams, et al., 2013). Further, their reduced presence at work may make

collaboration and coordination more difficult, which could lead supervisors to infer a lack of

concern for their job (Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008). Indeed, Bourdeau et al. (2019) argued that

supervisors attribute lower work devotion to employees who telework extensively as their

of
frequent absence from the workplace signals a violation of the work devotion schema.

ro
In contrast, because their work is primarily conducted in the workplace, occasional

-p
telecommuters are better able to demonstrate their accomplishments and devotion to work
re
(Marshall, Michaels & Mulki, 2007). Those who telecommute less extensively also appear able

to participate in informal office networks and learning opportunities, and receive mentoring and
lP

career guidance similar to those who do not telecommute (Golden et al., 2008). Therefore, we
na

argue that the intensity of the flexibility stigma varies with the extent to which employees

telecommute such that as the extent of telecommuting increases, less promotions and salary
ur

growth will be attained.

Jo

Hypothesis 2: For telecommuters, the extent of telecommuting is negatively related to (a)

promotions and (b) salary growth, such that those who telecommute more extensively receive
fewer promotions and less salary growth than those who telecommute less extensively.

Moderating Effects of Work Context For Telecommuters

For telecommuters, while a greater extent of telecommuting is predicted to negatively

affect promotions and salary growth due to the flexibility stigma, the work context may serve to

buffer that negative effect. This is because the social context is often key to understanding stigma

since what is stigmatizing in one context may not be stigmatizing in another context (Crocker,
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 11

Major & Steele, 1998; Bos, Pryor, Reeder & Stutterheim, 2013). Indeed, scholars have called for

research to identify organizational factors that can buffer the flexibility stigma (Bourdeau et al.,

2019) and normalize the use of telecommuting (Kossek & Lautsch, 2018; Masuda, Holtschlag &

Nicklin, 2017). Accordingly, we propose moderating effects due to three contextual factors–

telecommuting normativeness in the work unit, supplemental work conducted outside of standard

work hours, and face-to-face contact with one’s supervisor. First, because the work devotion

schema is institutionalized in a work unit’s practices (Williams et al., 2013), and a work unit’s

of
endorsement for telecommuting should buffer telecommuters from lower work devotion

ro
attributions (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Lewis & Smithson, 2001), we consider the normativeness of

-p
telecommuting in a work unit. Second, because research suggests that telecommuters are subject

to the flexibility stigma unless they send a signal that shows they are an ‘exception’ and their
re
telecommuting is boosting their productivity (Glass & Noonan, 2016; Leslie et al., 2012), we
lP

consider supplemental work conducted by telecommuters. Finally, because it has been suggested
na

that face-to-face contact can offset the negative effects of telecommuting (Coenen & Kok, 2014;

Golden, et al., 2008) by signaling one’s devotion to work and dependability (Elsbach et al., 2010;
ur

Elsbach & Cable, 2012), we consider face-to-face contact with one’s supervisor.
Jo

Telecommuting Normativeness.

Telecommuting normativeness refers to the percentage of a work unit that telecommutes,

such that when telecommuting is highly normative, working in this way is accepted and

commonplace (Bartel, Wrzesniewski, & Wiesenfeld, 2012). Work units that offer employees the

opportunity to telecommute provide a signal that they support employees’ efforts to balance

work and family (Casper & Harris, 2008; Masuda et al., 2017). In work units where

telecommuting is highly normative, colleagues are more accepting of telecommuting and there
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 12

are likely to be support mechanisms that include telecommuters in information channels and

social networks that minimize isolation (Mulki et al., 2009). Further, because supervisors’

attributions about the use of telecommuting are embedded in the social context of their work

unit, those work units where telecommuting is a more common behavior may serve to buffer the

negative effects of extensive telecommuting (Bourdeau et al., 2019). As such, in work units

where telecommuting is the norm, more extensive telecommuting should be socially acceptable,

the flexibility stigma less salient, and thus, promotions and salary growth less penalized as

of
telecommuting increases.

ro
In contrast, in work units where telecommuting is less normative, the flexibility stigma

-p
associated with telecommuting is likely to be exacerbated. A fundamental aspect of stigmas
re
concerns the degree to which they are noticed or concealed, whereby a greater recognition of

differences leads to perceptions of norm violations (Bos et al., 2013). Signaling theory explains
lP

how characteristics that distinguish one individual from their cohort serve to activate signals,
na

making those signals pronounced (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011). For example, if

only a few (or no) coworkers telecommute, extensive telecommuting becomes more obvious to
ur

nontelecommuters and their supervisors (Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008; Perrigino et al., 2018).
Jo

Given that careers are often viewed as a tournament for career rewards (Rosenbaum, 1979), any

potential negative connotations associated with telecommuting are likely to be especially salient

when telecommuting is less normative, especially for those who telecommute more extensively.

Moreover, individuals who telecommute extensively may have a particularly difficult time

remaining fully integrated within informal office information channels when telecommuting is

less normative (Golden et al., 2006). In these situations extensive telecommuters are less likely

to become central actors in social networks or considered for developmental opportunities that
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 13

require a physical presence in the workplace (Marshall et al., 2007; Mulki et al., 2009), thus

hindering their career success relative to peers who telecommute less. Accordingly,

telecommuting normativeness is expected to buffer the negative relationship between the extent

of telecommuting and promotions and salary growth.

Hypothesis 3: Telecommuting normativeness moderates the relationship between the extent of

telecommuting and (a) promotions and (b) salary growth, such that when telecommuting
normativeness is high, individuals who telecommute more extensively will receive greater
promotions and salary growth in comparison to when telecommuting normativeness is low.

of
Supplemental Work.

ro
Supplemental work represents the additional time individuals spend on work-related

activities outside of normal working hours, such as during evenings and weekends (Fenner &

-p
Renn, 2004; Venkatesh & Vitalari, 1992). Higher supplemental work is likely to signal a
re
telecommuter’s devotion to their work and organization, thereby countering the negative signal
lP

that telecommuting is being carried out to further personal and family considerations at the

expense of work (Ryan & Kossek, 2008; Stevens & Szajna, 1998). This is in line with research
na

that has suggested that telecommuters are subject to bias unless they signal that their
ur

telecommuting is enhancing their productivity (Glass & Noonan, 2016; Leslie et al., 2012). By

offering an accompanying signal that indicates dedication and devotion to their job, higher
Jo

supplemental work is likely to off-set the intense flexibility stigma associated with extensive

telecommuting. In these situations, higher supplemental work provides assurances to managers

that those who extensively telecommute are none-the-less hardworking and fully devoted

(Golden, 2012), and that they are determined to succeed irrespective of their physical absence

from the office (Piskurich, 1998). In turn, supervisors who perceive employees as devoted to

work tend to reciprocate and reward them with career premiums above and beyond the career
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 14

advancement that would have resulted solely from the employees’ job performance (Bourdeau et

al., 2019).

However, for extensive telecommuters who perform little or no supplemental work, the

flexibility stigma is likely to be reinforced and intensified as their telecommuting is seen as

motivated by personal and family concerns rather than their devotion to work (Bourdeau et al.,

2019; Leslie et al., 2012). That is, by not performing much supplemental work, extensive

telecommuters may inadvertently signal that they have chosen telecommuting to benefit personal

of
or family considerations, even if this is not true (DuBrin, 1991; Riley & McCloskey, 1997),

ro
thereby further signaling their deviation from the work devotion schema. As a result, extensive

-p
telecommuters who perform little or no supplemental work should be further penalized in their
re
careers because of their reinforcement of the flexibility stigma associated with telecommuting.

Therefore, we propose that high supplemental work will buffer the negative relationship between
lP

the extent of telecommuting and promotions and salary growth.

na

Hypothesis 4: Supplemental work moderates the relationship between the extent of

telecommuting and (a) promotions and (b) salary growth, such that when supplemental work
is high, individuals who telecommute more extensively will receive greater promotions and
ur

salary growth in comparison to when supplemental work is low.

Jo

Face-to-Face Contact.

In addition to the flexibility stigma associated with telecommuting, researchers

acknowledge how telecommuters who are extensively ‘out-of-sight’ are likely to be ‘out-of-

mind’ when supervisors are allocating career rewards (Kossek et al., 2015; Mulki, Bardhi, Lassk

& Nanavaty-Dahl, 2009). Because many supervisors tend to use the ‘line of sight’ management

style, whereby visibility signals dedication and effort, face-time can have important implications

for telecommuters (Elsbach et al., 2010; Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008). For example, research

suggests that a lack of face-time with one’s supervisor contributes to career stagnation for
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 15

telecommuters (Hill, Ferris & Martinson, 2003). Although routine face-to-face contact with

one’s supervisor may not necessarily equate to work effort and productivity, supervisors often

use face-time as a proxy for work devotion (Bourdeau et al., 2019). Greater face-to-face contact

with one’s supervisor therefore portrays a higher level of involvement and interest in one’s work,

and furthers the development of trust and interpersonal cooperation (Coenen & Kok, 2014). Such

contact builds trust and rapport building opportunities, fosters mutual cooperation, and enables

the easy sharing of work progress (Drolet & Morris, 2000). As such, higher face-to-face contact

of
with one’s supervisor can serve as an impression management technique for telecommuters that

ro
helps them to avoid negative judgements of their work devotion stemming from their absence

from the office (Perrigino et al., 2018).

-p
re
Therefore, in line with research that has shown that face-to-face contact can offset the

negative effects of telecommuting (Coenen & Kok, 2014; Golden et al., 2008), we propose that
lP

higher face-to-face contact with one’s supervisor can attenuate the negative effect of extensive
na

telecommuting on promotions and salary growth. Indeed, research on face-time suggests that

being seen at work is associated with managers’ inferences about one’s dependability,
ur

responsibility, and dedication (Elsbach & Cable, 2012; Elsbach et al., 2010). Although such
Jo

inferences tend to be unintentional or unconscious, managers often make decisions about

promotions and special assignments based on employees’ presence in the workplace and their

face-to-face contact with them (Elsbach & Cable, 2012). For extensive telecommuters, higher

face-to-face contact with one’s supervisor may be particularly important in establishing the trust

and familiarity necessary to gain the supervisor’s support (Coenen & Kok, 2014) and managing

the supervisor’s impression of one’s productivity and devotion to work (Mulki et al., 2009). In

contrast, extensive telecommuters who lack face-to-face contact with their supervisor may
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 16

unintentionally signal that they prioritize personal and family concerns over work (Kossek et al.,

2015), thereby lessening their promotions and salary growth. These arguments lead to the

following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5: Face-to-face contact with one’s supervisor moderates the relationship between
the extent of telecommuting and (a) promotions and (b) salary growth, such that when face-
to-face contact is high, individuals who telecommute more extensively will receive greater
promotions and salary growth in comparison to when face-to-face contact is low.

Method

of
Sample and Procedure

ro
The hypotheses were tested using data from two sources: individual responses from both

telecommuters and non-telecommuters, and corporate-provided promotion and salary growth

-p
data. Respondents were professional employees in a company providing technology services
re
with locations throughout the U.S. The company had well-established and stable work-life
lP

programs, and senior managers were interested in understanding the effectiveness of these work-

life offerings on employees. A senior manager sent an email to 1,000 employees requesting their
na

participation in an online survey and assuring them all responses would be kept confidential.
ur

Complete responses were received from 461 employees, representing a 46% response rate.

Identification numbers were used to match individual responses with data from corporate records
Jo

on measures of objective career success. A period of six years was adopted because this was the

longest period for which employees had been telecommuting and for which consistent records

were available. While an even longer period of time would have been preferred, similar periods

have been used in other research (e.g., Reitman & Schneer, 2005; Stumpf & Tymon, 2012) and

this period offered the advantage of great stability at the company in terms of leadership,

policies, and employee retention, and in so doing helped alleviate other environmental

influences. A final sample of 405 employees met the criteria for continuous employment at the
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 17

company for a minimum of the six-year period. Telecommuters were 52% male and 48% female.

Due to the sensitivity of the salary and promotion data and to help preserve anonymity, age was

recorded in ranges (1 = less than 20 years; 2 = 20-29 years; 3 = 30-39 years; 4 = 40-49 years; 5 =

50-59 years; 6 = 60-69 years).

Measures

Extent of telecommuting. The extent of telecommuting was assessed using the measure

developed by Golden and Veiga (2005) and used in a number of studies (e.g., Golden et al.,

of
2006; Golden et al., 2008). Respondents were asked to report the percentage of an average work

ro
week they spent telecommuting away from the office during regular work hours, and this number

was reported in percentage of hours per week (%).

-p
re
Promotions. The number of promotions over a six-year period for each respondent was

obtained from corporate records. Measuring objective career success in terms of the number of
lP

promotions is a longstanding practice in the careers literature (Arthur, Khapova, & Wilderom,
na

2005; Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001; Turban & Dougherty, 1994). As is common with career

success variables, because the data was not normally distributed we performed a log
ur

transformation on this variable (e.g., Boudreau, Boswell, & Judge, 2001; Lam, Ng, & Feldman,
Jo

2012).

Salary growth. Growth in salary was assessed using the total annual percentage of pay

raises received over a six-year period for each respondent, obtained from corporate records. This

approach has been commonly used and represents a widely accepted technique for assessing

actual salary growth (Ferris, Witt, & Hochwarter, 2001; Ng et al., 2005). Pay raises for each year

were summed to calculate the salary growth for each respondent. For example, if a respondent

earned a 3% (or .03) salary increase each of the 6 years, the total salary growth was .18.
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 18

Telecommuting normativeness. Telecommuting normativeness was assessed by asking

respondents to report the percentage of their work unit that telecommuted (0 – 100%). Based on

earlier research (Bartel et al., 2012; Gajendran et al., 2015), this approach captures the

normativeness of telecommuting within the participant’s work unit.

Supplemental work. The degree of supplemental work was assessed by asking

respondents to report the number of hours they spent during an average week working additional

time outside of standard work hours. Grounded in existing theory (Fenner & Renn, 2004), this

of
approach captures the number of supplemental hours worked per week (Duxbury et al., 1996;

ro
Venkatesh & Vitalari, 1992).

-p
Face-to-Face Contact. On the basis of prior work (e.g. Duncan & Fiske, 2015; Golden et
re
al., 2008; Tillema, Dijst, & Schwanen, 2010) the amount of face-to-face contact with the

supervisor was assessed by asking telecommuters to report “How frequently are you in contact
lP

with your supervisor interacting face-to-face?” (1 = very infrequently; 5 = very frequently).

na

Control variables. Based on prior research, we controlled for age, gender (0 = male; 1 =

female), organizational tenure (years), and hours worked (Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz,
ur

1995; Leslie et al., 2012; Ng et al., 2005).

Jo

Results

The means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables are presented in

Table 1. We performed hierarchical regression analyses to test the hypotheses, the results of

which are reported in Table 2 and Table 3. Hypothesis 1a proposed that telecommuting (0 = no,

1 = yes) would be negatively related to promotions, which was not supported (Table 2, β = -.09,

ns). Hypothesis 1b proposed that telecommuting would be negatively related to salary growth. In

support of the hypothesis, telecommuting as a dichotomous predictor was negatively and

 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 19

significantly related to salary growth (Table 3, β = -.12, p<.05; ∆R2 = .01, p<.05).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Insert Tables 1-3 and Figures 1-4 about here

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hypothesis 2a proposed that, for telecommuters, the extent of telecommuting would be

negatively related to promotions, and this was supported (Table 2, β = -.23, p< .001; ∆R2 = .04,

p<.001). Similarly, Hypothesis 2b, which proposed that the extent of telecommuting would be

of
negatively related to salary growth, was also supported (Table 3, β = -.18; p< .01; ∆R2 = .03,

ro
p<.01).

-p
To assess the moderating hypotheses for telecommuters, variables were centered prior to
re
constructing the interaction terms. Hypothesis 3 proposed that the relationship between the

extent of telecommuting and (a) promotions and (b) salary growth would be moderated by
lP

telecommuting normativeness, such that when telecommuting normativeness is high, individuals

na

who telecommute more extensively will receive greater promotions and salary growth in

comparison to when telecommuting normativeness is low. In support of Hypothesis 3a,

ur

telecommuting normativeness moderated the relationship between the extent of telecommuting

Jo

and promotions (Table 2, β = -.15, p<.05; ∆R2 = .03, p<.05). However, Hypothesis 3b was not

supported (Table 3, β = -.04, ns). To aid in interpreting the interaction for Hypothesis 3a, we

followed the procedures of Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003). As shown in Figure 1,

telecommuters in work units in which telecommuting was more normative received a greater

number of promotions than those in units where telecommuting was less normative. In

comparison, those in work units in which telecommuting was less normative received fewer

promotions at each level of telecommuting. Moreover, while higher telecommuting

 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 20

normativeness appeared to enhance promotions for those who telecommuted occasionally, the

benefits diminished somewhat for those who telecommuted more extensively. Simple slope tests

were supportive, with the slope negative at high levels of normativeness (-.38, p<.001) and not

significant at low levels (-.09, n.s.).

Hypothesis 4 proposed that the relationship between the extent of telecommuting and (a)

promotions and (b) salary growth would be moderated by supplemental work such that when

supplemental work is high, individuals who telecommute more extensively would receive greater

of
promotions and salary growth in comparison to when supplemental work was low. Results were

ro
supported for both Hypothesis 4a, promotions (Table 2, β = -.14, p<.05), and Hypothesis 4b,

-p
salary growth (Table 3, β = -.21, p<.01). As shown in Figure 2, telecommuters with higher
re
supplemental work received more promotions at each level of telecommuting than

telecommuters with less supplemental work, and the benefits were more apparent at less
lP

extensive levels of telecommuting. In comparison, those with less supplemental work received
na

fewer promotions with promotions decreasing less sharply as the extent of telecommuting

increased. Simple slope tests revealed the slope was significant at higher levels of supplemental
ur

work (-.37, p<.001) but not at lower levels (-.08, ns). Similarly, as shown in Figure 3,
Jo

telecommuters with higher supplemental work experienced more salary growth relative to those

who engaged in less supplemental work, with salary growth highest among those who engaged

in high supplemental work and telecommuted less extensively. Simple slopes were significant at

high (-.32, p<.001) but not low levels (.02, ns). Thus, while higher supplemental work appeared

to enhance the promotions and salary growth for those who telecommuted more extensively, the

benefits were greatest for those who telecommuted less extensively.

Finally, Hypothesis 5 proposed that the relationship between the extent of telecommuting
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 21

and (a) promotions and (b) salary growth would be moderated by face-to-face contact with the

supervisor, which was not supported for promotions (Table 2, β = .08, ns) but was supported for

salary growth (Table 3, β = .18, p<.05). As shown in Figure 4, extensive telecommuters with

high face-to-face contact with their supervisor had higher salary growth compared to those with

less face-to-face contact. Further, it appears that telecommuters with high face-to-face contact do

not experience lower salary growth regardless of the extent of telecommuting. Simple slope tests

were significant at low (-.22, p<.001) but not high levels (-.05, n.s.). Thus, Hypothesis 5b was

of
supported.

ro
Discussion

-p
To investigate the widespread fear that telecommuting hurts the ability to advance in

one’s career, this study examines telecommuters’ objective career success using survey data
re
from 405 employees matched with corporate-provided promotions and salary growth data.
lP

Drawing from research on the flexibility stigma which integrates signaling theory with
na

attribution theories, we first compared telecommuters to non-telecommuters and found that they

did not differ in the number of promotions received, although telecommuters had lower salary
ur

growth. We then extended insight on the flexibility stigma by arguing that the stigma associated
Jo

with telecommuting will be more intense as an employee telecommutes more extensively, thus

leading to career penalties. Our results provide support for this prediction thus demonstrating that

the extent of telecommuting, rather than simply telecommuting ‘use’ per se, negatively affects

promotions and salary growth. In extending previous research and offering a more refined

exposition of the flexibility stigma, our study therefore highlights the need to consider the extent

of telecommuting in studies of telecommuter career success, so that more realistic assessments of

telecommuting’s impact on careers can be understood. It also suggests that future research
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 22

should compare the career penalties and stigmas associated with various types of flexible work

practices, as well as the extent of use of different flexible work practices, rather than treating

them holistically as previous research has tended to do (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Leslie et al.,

2012).

Furthermore, our results highlight the influential role played by the work context that

ultimately shapes telecommuters’ career success. As such, our study answers calls in the

literature to identify work factors that can buffer the stigma associated with using flexible work

of
practices (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Kossek & Lautsch, 2018) and work-family backlash (Perrigino

ro
et al., 2018). Specifically, our study found that extensive telecommuters received more

-p
promotions when they worked in units where telecommuting was highly normative or they
re
performed higher levels of supplemental work. Extensive telecommuters who performed higher

levels of supplemental work or had high face-to-face contact with their supervisor also
lP

experienced higher salary growth compared to those who performed little supplemental work or
na

lacked face-to-face interactions with their supervisor. These results not only provide insight on

how the work context can buffer the stigma associated with telecommuting, but also demonstrate
ur

the importance of the work context in understanding the flexibility stigma since what is
Jo

stigmatizing in one context may not be stigmatizing in another. Indeed, while work context

factors examined in our study tended to decrease career penalties for telecommuters including

those who telecommuted extensively, the greatest career benefits were attained by those who

only occasionally telecommuted. Thus, our study suggests comparative career premiums for

occasional telecommuters who work in units where telecommuting is highly normative or who

perform high levels of supplemental work. In this way, occasional telecommuters may

experience the best of both worlds; they have the flexibility to better balance work and family
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 23

(Golden et al., 2006), and when they work in units where telecommuting is highly normative or

they perform high levels of supplemental work, they may also benefit from greater promotions

and salary growth.

Interestingly, our study revealed that high face-to-face contact with one’s supervisor was

not associated with higher salary growth among occasional telecommuters, yet for those who

telecommuted extensively, higher face-to-face contact yielded greater salary growth. Moreover,

as shown in Figure 4, in comparison to those with low face-to-face contact, high face-to-face

of
contact with the supervisor appeared to off-set the negative changes to salary growth across the

ro
full range of extent of telecommuting. Said differently, with high face-to-face contact with one’s

-p
supervisor, the extent of telecommuting was associated with neither a career premium nor a

penalty. Thus, higher face-to-face contact with one’s supervisor appears to be an effective
re
impression management strategy that buffers the effects of telecommuting, and this appears to
lP

benefit extensive telecommuters more than occasional telecommuters. Building on our study,
na

future research might seek to identify additional features of face-to-face interactions and

additional contextual factors that could further help extensive telecommuters minimize the
ur

intensity of the flexibility stigma and signal their devotion to work. As pointed out by other
Jo

scholars, more research is needed to identify organizational factors that can normalize the use of

telecommuting (Kossek & Lautsch, 2018; Masuda et al., 2017) and help buffer negative

attributions associated with the flexibility stigma (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2013).

Taken together, our results suggest that telecommuting’s effect on career success is more

complex than previously thought, and that unpacking the interplay between the extent of

telecommuting and additional factors in the work context may be especially informative in future

research. Unlike previous studies which portray adverse consequences for telecommuter’s
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 24

careers success (e.g. Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Elsbach & Cable, 2012), this study finds that

combinations of the extent of telecommuting and factors in the work context may benefit some

telecommuters over others, and that telecommuting is not necessarily detrimental to one’s career

success compared to non-telecommuters. Moreover, in-line with meta-analytic research which

found factors that predict promotions and salary tend to vary (Ng et al., 2005), our study revealed

that telecommuters’ promotions may not be accompanied by salary increases. From a flexibility

stigma perspective, our results therefore suggest that the intensity of the negative attributions

of
associated with telecommuting which signal a lack of devotion to work tend to vary with the

ro
extent of telecommuting. Our results also demonstrate the importance of the work context in

-p
understanding the career penalties and premiums experienced by occasional versus more
re
extensive telecommuters. Clearly more research is needed into the career consequences of

telecommuting and how the flexibility stigma appears to vary within different work contexts.
lP

Limitations
na

Although this study minimized common method bias by collecting data from two

sources, there are some limitations that prevent us from asserting more definitive conclusions.
ur

First, although results suggested that the extent of telecommuting was negatively related to
Jo

promotions and salary growth, we cannot categorically conclude that the extent of

telecommuting caused fewer promotions or lower salary growth. Any causal conclusions would

require a longitudinal design that could isolate the effects of telecommuting over time from

factors that have been found to influence career success (Judge et al., 1995; Ng et al., 2005).

Second, the company did not provide data on respondents’ specific salary because it believed

that providing such data would risk violating confidentiality. Having access to individual-level

data on salary would have allowed a more robust examination of our hypotheses. Third, in this
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 25

study we analyzed data for employees who remained in the organization over the study period.

As such, future research should investigate telecommuting’s impact on turnover. It would also be

useful to investigate subjective career success in addition to objective career success, so that the

full range of career outcomes associated with the extent of telecommuting can be more

completely understood. Fourth, assertions were made about the possible effects of attributions

and signals related to the flexibility stigma without actually measuring such attributional

processes or signals. In particular, we extended previous research that has linked the use of

of
flexible work practices to signals indicating a prioritization of family over work (Leslie et al.,

ro
2012; Veiga et al., 2004) and a lack of devotion to work (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Williams et al.,

-p
2013) by suggesting that this signal was stronger with more extensive telecommuting. Although
re
our approach reflects previous research on signaling theory that uses observable characteristics

as proxies for attitudes and traits (Connelly et al., 2011) as well as research that demonstrates
lP

how attributions and trait inferences about the use of flexible work practices tend to be
na

unintentional and unconscious (Elsbach et al., 2010; Leslie et al., 2012), future research should

seek to gather information on the specific signals and attributions associated with occasional
ur

versus extensive telecommuters across work contexts.

Jo

Additionally, although we examined a large sample of employees in a company with an

active telecommuting program, we cannot conclude that our findings are generalizable to all

individuals or organizations. For example, extrapolating from our findings regarding

telecommuting normativeness suggests that in organizations where telecommuting is uncommon

or discouraged, even occasional telecommuters may be penalized. Future research should

therefore explore how an organization’s support for work-family balance and telecommuting

practices affects the career success of occasional versus extensive telecommuters, and analyze
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 26

data from multiple companies to ensure the applicability of our results. Moreover, given that the

sample in our study is drawn from professional-level employees in a company providing

technology services, these employees were comfortable using technology and had significant

autonomy in conducting their work. As such, it appears our results would apply to similar

professional-level employees in other industries who have discretion in where and how they

work. For non-professional level employees who lack autonomy, however, our results are less

applicable, regardless of industry. Similarly, our results would likely not apply to organizations

of
and industries where telecommuting is rarely possible, for example, when the majority of jobs

ro
require employees to perform their job at the workplace (i.e. hotels, restaurants, hospitals).

-p
Future research should therefore include a broad range of employees in other organizations and
re
industries with different career development policies and practices in order to ensure our results

are widely generalizable.

lP

Implications for Practice

na

Although the potential for telecommuting to negatively impact one’s career success has

often been asserted (e.g. Elsbach & Cable, 2012; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007), research to date
ur

has been equivocal and has ignored the heterogeneity among telecommuters. Contrary to ‘urban
Jo

legend’, findings from our study suggest telecommuters do not differ from non-telecommuters in

terms of promotions although they do differ in salary growth. However, individuals who

telecommute occasionally fare better in promotions and salary growth than those who

telecommute extensively. Thus, our results suggest that the inconsistent findings from previous

research regarding the impact of telecommuting on career success is likely due to variance in the

extent to which telecommuters work away from the office. We also discovered that factors in the

work context can buffer the negative impact that extensive telecommuting has on promotions
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 27

and salary growth. Specifically, extensive telecommuters received more promotions in work

contexts where telecommuting was highly normative, or when they performed a higher amount

of supplemental work. Additionally, extensive telecommuters received higher salary growth

when they performed a higher amount of supplemental work or had high face-to-face contact

with their supervisor. In contrast, the careers of extensive telecommuters appear to be penalized

when they work in units where telecommuting is less normative, when they perform little

supplemental work, or when they lack face-to-face contact with their supervisor. Further, our

of
results revealed that occasional telecommuters receive the greatest career benefits from working

ro
in a unit where telecommuting was highly normative, or when they performed higher levels of

-p
supplemental work. Thus, it is not simply telecommuting per se that may hurt one’s career, but
re
rather extensive telecommuting coupled with contextual factors, which may most determine

career success.
lP

Given the widely acknowledged work-family benefits of telecommuting, telecommuters

na

may therefore be able to experience the ‘best of both worlds’ if they harness factors in the work

context to boost their standing in competitively awarded promotion and salary decisions. Our
ur

study also suggests that telecommuters may be able to lessen the intensity of the flexibility
Jo

stigma associated with extensive telecommuting, thereby buffering the negative effect that

extensive telecommuting has on career success. In turn, employers are likely to benefit from

dedicated and content employees. In this way, telecommuters and their organizations should be

better able to benefit from this increasingly popular work mode.

 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 28

References

Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How Effective Is Telecommuting?

Assessing the Status of Our Scientific Findings. Psychological Science in the Public

Interest, 16(2), 40-68.

Arthur, M. B., Khapova, S. N., & Wilderom, C. P. (2005). Career success in a boundaryless

career world. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(2), 177-202.

Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new directions,

of
and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4),

ro
383-400.

-p
Bartel, C. A., Wrzesniewski, A., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (2012). Knowing where you stand:
re
Physical isolation, perceived respect, and organizational identification among virtual

employees. Organization Science, 23(3), 743-757.

lP

Baruch, Y. (2000). Teleworking: Benefits and pitfalls as perceived by professionals and

na

managers. New Technology, Work and Employment, 15(1), 34-49.

Bos, A. E., Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Stutterheim, S. E. (2013). Stigma: Advances in theory
ur

and research. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(1), 1-9.

Jo

Boudreau, J. W., Boswell, W. R., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Effects of personality on executive

career success in the United States and Europe. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(1),

53-81.

Bourdeau, S., Ollier-Malaterre, A., & Houlfort, N. (2019). Not all work-life policies are created

equal: Career consequences of using enabling versus enclosing work-life policies.

Academy of Management Review, 44(1), 172-193.

Breaugh, J. A., & Farabee, A. M. (2012). Telecommuting and flexible work hours: Alternative
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 29

work arrangements that can improve the quality of work life. In Work and Quality of Life

(pp. 251-274). Springer, Dordrecht.

Casper, W. J., & Harris, C. M. (2008). Work-life benefits and organizational attachment: Self-

interest utility and signaling theory models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(1), 95-

109.

Chung, H., & Van der Horst, M. (2018). Women’s employment patterns after childbirth and the

perceived access to and use of flexitime and teleworking. Human Relations, 71(1), 47-72.

of
Coenen, M., & Kok, R. A. (2014). Workplace flexibility and new product development

ro
performance: The role of telework and flexible work schedules. European Management

Journal, 32(4), 564-576.

-p
re
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation

analysis for the behavioral sciences, 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
lP

Coltrane, S., Miller, E. C., DeHaan, T., & Stewart, L. (2013). Fathers and the flexibility stigma.
na

Journal of Social Issues, 69(2), 279-302.

Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review
ur

and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39-67.

Jo

Cooper, C. D., & Kurland, N.B. (2002). Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee

development in public and private organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23

(4), 511-532.

Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey

(Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 504–553). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Drolet, A. L., & Morris, M. W. (2000). Rapport in conflict resolution: Accounting for how face-

to-face contact fosters mutual cooperation in mixed-motive conflicts. Journal of

 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 30

Experimental Social Psychology, 36(1), 26-50.

DuBrin, A. J. (1991). Comparison of the job satisfaction and productivity of telecommuters

versus in-house employees: A research note on work in progress. Psychological Reports,

68(3c), 1223-1234.

Dumas, T. L., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2015). The professional, the personal, and the ideal worker:

Pressures and objectives shaping the boundary between life domains. The Academy of

Management Annals, 9(1), 803-843.

of
Duncan, S., & Fiske, D. W. (2015). Face-to-face interaction: Research, methods, and theory.

ro
Routledge.

-p
Duxbury, L. E., Higgins, C. A., & Thomas, D. R. (1996). Work and family environments and the
re
adoption of computer-supported supplemental work-at-home. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 49(1), 1-23.

lP

Elsbach, K. D., Cable, D. M., & Sherman, J. W. (2010). How passive ‘face time’affects
na

perceptions of employees: Evidence of spontaneous trait inference. Human Relations,

63(6), 735-760.
ur

Elsbach, K., & Cable, D. (2012). Why showing your face at work matters. MIT Sloan
Jo

Management Review, 53(4), 10.

Fallon, N. (2016). What remote workers need to know about career development. Business News

Daily, August 3. Retrieved on March 29, 2019 from

https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/9293-remote-worker-career-development.html

Fenner, G. H., & Renn, R. W. (2004). Technology‐assisted supplemental work: Construct

definition and a research framework. Human Resource Management, 43(2‐3), 179-200.

Ferris, G. R., Witt, L. A., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2001). Interaction of social skill and general
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 31

mental ability on job performance and salary. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6),

1075.

Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about

telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524.

Gallup, L. L. C. (2017). State of the American workplace: Employee engagement insights for US

business leaders. Washington, DC. Retrieved on March 16, 2019 from http://www.

of
gallup. com.

ro
Gariety, B. S., & Shaffer, S. (2001). Wage differentials associated with flextime. Monthly Lab.

Rev., 124, 68.

-p
re
Gariety, B. S., & Shaffer, S. (2007). Wage differentials associated with working at home.

Monthly Lab. Rev., 130, 61.

lP

Glass, J. (2004). Blessing or curse? Work-family policies and mother’s wage growth over time.
na

Work and Occupations, 31(3), 367-394.

Glass, J. L., & Noonan, M. C. (2016). Telecommuting and earnings trajectories among American
ur

women and men 1989–2008. Social Forces, 95(1), 217-250.

Jo

Global Workplace Analytics (2015, February 23). Latest Telecommuting Statistics. Retrieved on

February 9, 2019 from http://globalworkplaceanalytics.com/telecommuting-statistics.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Spectrum.

Golden, T.D. (2006a). Avoiding Depletion in Virtual Work: Telework and the Intervening

Impact of Work Exhaustion on Commitment and Turnover Intentions. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 69, 176-187.

Golden, T. D. (2006b). The role of relationships in understanding telecommuter satisfaction.

 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 32

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(3), 319-340.

Golden, T.D. (2012). Altering the Effects of Work and Family Conflict on Exhaustion: Telework

During Traditional and Nontraditional Work Hours. Journal of Business and Psychology,

27(3), 255-269.

Golden, T. D., & Gajendran, R. S. (2019). Unpacking the role of a telecommuter’s job in their

performance: examining job complexity, problem solving, interdependence, and social

support. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(1), 55-69.

of
Golden, T. D., & Veiga, J. F. (2005). The impact of extent of telecommuting on job satisfaction:

ro
Resolving inconsistent findings. Journal of Management, 31(2), 301-318.

-p
Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Dino, R. N. (2008). The impact of professional isolation on
re
teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent teleworking,

interacting face-to-face, or having access to communication-enhancing technology

lP

matter?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1412.

na

Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Simsek, Z. (2006). Telecommuting's differential impact on work-

family conflict: Is there no place like home?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1340.
ur

Goodman, P. S. (1975). Effect of perceived inequity on salary allocation decisions. Journal of

Jo

Applied Psychology, 60(3), 372.

Green, L. (2014). The dark side of telecommuting: Does working from home hurt your career?

The Future of Business Collaboration, PGI. June 3. Retrieved on September 15, 2018

from http://blog.pgi.com/2013/06/the-dark-side-of-telecommuting-does-working-from-

home-hurt-your-career/.

Heslin, P. A. (2005). Conceptualizing and evaluating career success. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 26, 113-136.

 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 33

Hill, E. J., Ferris, M., & Märtinson, V. (2003). Does it matter where you work? A comparison of

how three work venues (traditional office, virtual office, and home office) influence

aspects of work and personal/family life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(2), 220-

241.

Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D. (1995). An empirical investigation

of the predictors of executive career success. Personnel Psychology, 48(3), 485-519.

Kaplan, S., Engelsted, L., Lei, X., & Lockwood, K. (2018). Unpackaging manager mistrust in

of
allowing telework: comparing and integrating theoretical perspectives. Journal of

ro
Business and Psychology, 33(3), 365-382.

-p
Kossek, E. E., & Lautsch, B. A. (2018). Work–life flexibility for whom? Occupational status and
re
work–life inequality in upper, middle, and lower level jobs. Academy of Management

Annals, 12(1), 5-36.

lP

Kossek, E. E., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Face-time matters: A cross-level model of how work-life
na

flexibility influences work performance of individuals and groups. In Handbook of work-

family integration (pp. 305-330). Academic Press.

ur

Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundary
Jo

management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work–family

effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(2), 347-367.

Kossek, E. E., Thompson, R. J., & Lautsch, B. A. (2015). Balanced workplace flexibility.

California Management Review, 57(4), 2015.

Lam, S. S., Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). The relationship between external job mobility

and salary attainment across career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 129-

136.
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 34

Leslie, L. M., Manchester, C. F., Park, T. Y., & Mehng, S. A. (2012). Flexible work practices: A

source of career premiums or penalties?. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1407-

1428.

Lewis, S., & Smithson, J. (2001). Sense of entitlement to support for the reconciliation of

employment and family life. Human Relations, 54(11), 1455-1481.

Lister, K., & Harnish, T. (2011). The State of Telework in the US. Telework Research Network,

June.

of
Lucas, S. (2013). Does Telecommuting Hurt Your Career? CBS Moneywatch, Febrary 27.

ro
Retrieved on January 15, 2019 from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-telecommuting-

hurt-your-career/
-p
re
Marshall, G. W., Michaels, C. E., & Mulki, J. P. (2007). Workplace isolation: Exploring the

construct and its measurement. Psychology and Marketing, 24(3), 195-223.

lP

Martin, B., & MacDonnell, R. (2012). Is telework effective for organizations? A meta-analysis
na

of empirical research on perceptions of telework and organizational outcomes.

Management Research Review, 35(7), 602-616.

ur

Masuda, A. D., Holtschlag, C., & Nicklin, J. M. (2017). Why the availability of telecommuting
Jo

matters: The effects of telecommuting on engagement via goal pursuit. Career

Development International, 22(2), 200-219.

McCloskey, D. W., & Igbaria, M. (2003). Does" out of sight" mean" out of mind"? An empirical

investigation of the career advancement prospects of telecommuters. Information

Resources Management Journal, 16(2), 19-34.

Mulki, J. P., Bardhi, F., Lassk, F. G., & Nanavaty-Dahl, J. (2009). Set up remote workers to

thrive. MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(1), 63.

 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 35

Munsch, C. L., Ridgeway, C. L., & Williams, J. C. (2014). Pluralistic ignorance and the

flexibility bias: Understanding and mitigating flextime and flexplace bias at work. Work

and Occupations, 41(1), 40-62.

Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and

subjective career success: A meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 367-408.

Nilles, J. M. (1994). Making telecommuting happen: A guide for telemanagers and

telecommuters. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

of
Ostroff, C., & Atwater, L. E. (2003). Does whom you work with matter? Effects of referent

ro
group gender and age composition on managers' compensation. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88(4), 725.

-p
re
Perrigino, M. B., Dunford, B. B., & Wilson, K. S. (2018). Work–Family Backlash: The “Dark

Side” of Work–Life Balance (WLB) Policies. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2),

lP

600-630.
na

Piskurich, G. M. (1998). An organizational guide to telecommuting. Setting Up and Running a

Successful Telecommuter Program. Alexandria, VA. American Society for Training and
ur

Development.
Jo

Reitman, F., & Schneer, J. A. (2005). The long-term negative impacts of managerial career

interruptions: A longitudinal study of men and women MBAs. Group & Organization

Management, 30(3), 243-262.

Riley, F. & McCloskey, D. W. (1997). Telecommuting as a response to helping people balance

work and family. In S. Parasuraman, and J. H. Greenhaus (Eds.), Integrating work and

family: Challenges and choices for a changing world (pp. 133-142). Westport, CT:

Quorum/Greenwood.
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 36

Rosenbaum, J. E. (1979). Tournament mobility: Career patterns in a corporation. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 220-241.

Ryan, A. M., & Kossek, E. E. (2008). Work‐life policy implementation: Breaking down or

creating barriers to inclusiveness?. Human Resource Management, 47(2), 295-310.

Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success.

Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219-237.

Sewell, G. (2012). Organization, employees and surveillance. Routledge handbook of

of
surveillance studies, 303.

ro
Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355-374.

-p
Stevens, G., & Szajna, B. (1998). Perceptions and expectations: Why people choose a
re
telecommuting lifestyle. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 3, 70-85.

Stumpf, S. A., & Tymon Jr., W. G. (2012). The effects of objective career success on subsequent
lP

subjective career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, 345-353.

na

Tillema, T., Dijst, M., & Schwanen, T. (2010). Face-to-face and electronic communications in

maintaining social networks: the influence of geographical and relational distance and of
ur

information content. New Media & Society, 12(6), 965-983.

Jo

Tugend, A. (2014, March 8). It’s unclearly defined, but telecommuting is fast on the rise. New

York Times, p. B6.

Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. (1994). Role of protégé personality in receipt of mentoring

and career success. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 688-702.

Veiga, J. F., Baldridge, D. C., & Eddleston, K. A. (2004). Toward understanding employee

reluctance to participate in family-friendly programs. Human Resource Management

Review, 14(3), 337-351.

 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 37

Venkatesh, A., & Vitalari, N. P. (1992). An emerging distributed work arrangement: An

investigation of computer-based supplemental work at home. Management Science,

38(12), 1687-1706.

Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Graf, I. K., & Ferris, G. R. (1997). The role of upward influence

tactics in human resource decisions. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 979-1006.

Weeden, K. A. (2005). Is there a flexiglass ceiling? Flexible work arrangements and wages in the

United States. Social Science Research, 34, 454-482.

of
Williams, J. C., Berdahl, J. L., & Vandello, J. A. (2016). Beyond work-life “integration”. Annual

ro
Review of Psychology, 67, 515-539.

-p
Williams, J. C., Blair‐Loy, M., & Berdahl, J. L. (2013). Cultural schemas, social class, and the
re
flexibility stigma. Journal of Social Issues, 69(2), 209-234.

Young, Mary B. "Work-family backlash: begging the question, what's fair?." The ANNALS of the
lP

American Academy of Political and Social Science 562.1 (1999): 32-46.

na
ur
Jo
 Journal Pre-proof Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 38

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Variables for Telecommuters

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Gender
2. Age
.48
4.10
.50
.95 -.14*

o f
o
3. Organizational Tenure 11.01 3.62 .08 .18**
4. Hours Worked
5. Extent of Telecommuting
48.03
.43
6.29
.24
-.09
-.22**
.19**
.28**
.01
-.07
r
.23**

p
-
6. Promotions .54 .11 .12 -.02 .19** .07 -.23**
7. Salary Growth .19 .18 .02 -.08 .19** -.07 -.21** .61**
8. Telecommuting Normativeness
9. Supplemental Work
.32
4.94
.15
5.47
.00
-.01
-.11
-.06
r
.04
-.06
e-.01
.39**
.01
-.15*
.12
.28**
.16*
.32** -.01

P
10.Face-to-Face Contact 2.60 1.42 .11 -.25** .04 -.11 -.39** .06 .02 .07 .00

l
Note. * p<.05; ** p<.01 Promotions are log transformed. Coding of variables: gender: 0 = male, 1 = female.

a
r n
u
Jo
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 39

Table 2

Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Promotions

Model: Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Step 1: Controls
Age -.05 -.02 .00 .02 .02
Gender .10 .02 .06 .07 .06
Organizational Tenure .20** .22*** .17* .18** .18**
Hours Worked .09 .04 .13* .01 .02

Step 2:
Telecommuting (yes/no) -.09
Extent of telecommuting -.23*** -.19** -.15

of
Step 3:
Telecommuting normativeness .11 .14*
Supplemental work .27*** .21**
Face-to-Face Contact -.04 -.01

ro
Step 4:
Telecommuting normativeness x extent of telecommuting -.15*
Supplemental work x extent of telecommuting
Face-to-Face Contact x extent of telecommuting -p -.14*
.08
re
∆R2 .06** .01 .04*** .07*** .03*
R2 .06 .05 .10 .17 .21
Adjusted R2 .04 .04 .08 .14 .17
lP

F 3.50** 4.30** 5.14*** 5.81*** 5.14***

Note: * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001 Respondents for models 1, 3, 4, 5 include telecommuters (N = 239);
Respondents for model 2 includes telecommuters and non-telecommuters (N = 405). Standardized
na

regression coefficients are reported. Calculations are based on logarithmic values for promotions. Coding
of variables: gender: 0 = male, 1 = female; telecommuting: 0 = no, 1 = yes.
ur
Jo
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 40

Table 3

Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Salary Growth

Model: Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Step 1: Controls
Age -.12 -.21*** -.07 -.04 -.05
Gender -.02 -.02 -05 -.04 -.04
Organizational Tenure .22** .12* .20** .22*** .22***
Hours Worked -.05 -.08 -.02 -.20** -.20**

Step 2:
Telecommuting (yes/no) -.12*

of
Extent of telecommuting -.18** -.12 -.03

Step 3:

ro
Telecommuting normativeness .14 .12
Supplemental work .39*** .33***
Face-to-Face Contact -.08 .00

Step 4:
Telecommuting normativeness x extent of telecommuting
Supplemental work x extent of telecommuting
-p -.04
-.21**
re
Face-to-Face Contact x extent of telecommuting .18*

∆R2 .06** .01* .03** .14*** .04**

lP

R2 .06 .07 .08 .23 .27

Adjusted R2 .04 .06 .06 .20 .23
F 3.37* 6.20*** 4.11** 8.27*** 7.41***
na

Note: * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001 Respondents for models 1, 3, 4, 5 include telecommuters (N = 239);
Respondents for model 2 includes telecommuters and non-telecommuters (N = 405). Standardized
regression coefficients are reported. Coding of variables: gender: 0 = male, 1 = female; telecommuting: 0 =
ur

no, 1 = yes.
Jo
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 41

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 42

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 43

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 44

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
 Journal Pre-proof
Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay? 45

Is There a Price Telecommuters Pay?

Examining the Relationship Between Telecommuting and Objective Career Success

Highlights

● Telecommuters and non-telecommuters did not differ in number of promotions

● Extent of telecommuting was key to understanding promotions and salary growth

● Telecommuters received more promotions when telecommuting was highly normative

of
● Greater promotions were received when supplemental work was higher

ro
● Higher salary growth received by extensive telecommuters with greater face-to-face contact

-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo