‘Fit’ for telework’? Cross-cultural variance and task-control explanations in organizations’ formal telework practices

Figures & data

Table 1. Schwartz’ cultural individualism and collectivism values (within-subject standardized) by nation.

Country	Individualism	Collectivism	N obs (a)
United Kingdom	−0.03	−0.20	44
France	−0.16	−0.11	53
Germany	−0.07	−0.11	261
The Netherlands	0.04	−0.15	27
Italy	−0.33	0.03	113
Switzerland	−0.09	−0.16	47
Finland	−0.27	0	63
Czech Republic	−0.18	−0.17	41
Austria	−0.21	−0.16	129
Bulgaria	−0.08	−0.15	65
Hungary	−0.21	−0.18	44
Australia	0.05	−0.17	40
USA	−0.09	−0.01	162
South Africa	−0.21	0	93
Taiwan	−0.16	−0.05	166
Estonia	−0.13	−0.21	28
Slovenia	−0.09	−0.25	140
Lithuania	−0.16	−0.17	61
Total	−0.14	−0.10	1577

Notes: Source values scores: Ralston et al. (2011, Table 13)

(a) N obs: number of organizations in CRANET 2008/2009 survey.

Table 2. Scale analyses (KR20) for training, 360º appraisal (actors appraisal, coverage appraisal) and meta control.

	Loevinger	Item-rest		Reliability
Scale\items	scalability H^a	difficulty	Correlation	(KR20)
Training
Any days training offered to manuals (01)	0.586	0.287	0.544
Any days training offered to clerks (01)	0.594	0.363	0.640
Any days training offered to professionals (01)	0.607	0.544	0.648
Any days training offered to managers (01)	0.557	0.595	0.536
Any payroll costs spent on training (01)	0.233	0.428	0.229
Scale	0.510			0.747
Actors in appraisal
Appraisal input by customer (01)	0.555	0.131	0.405
Appraisal input by peers (01)	0.657	0.152	0.518
Appraisal input by subordinates (01)	0.664	0.173	0.528
Appraisal input by employee himself/ herself (01)	0.633	0.526	0.528
Appraisal input by immediate supervisor (01)	0.571	0.543	0.463
Appraisal input by others (01)	0.950	0.817	0.481
Scale	0.652			0.743
Coverage of appraisal
Any appraisal system for manuals (01)	0.733	0.476	0.482
Any appraisal system for clerks (01)	0.786	0.698	0.781
Any appraisal system for professionals (01)	0.785	0.720	0.784
Any appraisal system for managers (01)	0.694	0.759	0.620
Scale	0.752			0.831
Meta Control
Communications policy (written) (01)	0.359	0.492	0.424
Personnel/HRM strategy (written) (01)	0.362	0.542	0.447
Corporate Social Responsibility statement  (written) (01)	0.467	0.393	0.478
Code of ethics (written) (01)	0.396	0.544	0.495
Corporate values statement (written) (01)	0.462	0.586	0.566
Mission statement (written) (01)	0.498	0.757	0.427
Scale	0.417			0.737

Notes:

^a Following Molenaar and Sijtsma (2000) considered a set of items as a ‘weak’ scale if the Loevinger’s H-coefficient of scalability (H) ranges between 0.3 and 0.4, whereas ‘reasonable’ scalability is reached if 0.4 <= H < 0.5, and ‘strong’ scalability is considered if 0.5 <= H < 1.0. A set of items with H < 0.3 is considered to be unscalable.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics.

Compounds	Variables	Mean/ Proportions	SD	Min	Max
Dependent variable
Level of telework practices	No adoption of telework (0%, baseline comparison group)	67.3%
	Low-level telework practices (1–5%)	23.8%
	High-level telework practices (>5%)	8.8%
Control variables
Size	log (Number of employees)	6.48	1.28	4.61	13.05
	Median number of employees	557		100	464,000
Industry	Construction	3.8%		0	1
	Transport\Communication	5.9%		0	1
	Banking and Finance	10.8%		0	1
	Chemicals	7.2%		0	1
	Other Industries	38.0%		0	1
	Manufacturing (Ref. category)	34.2%
Foreign headquarters		61.5%		0	1
Private enterprise		70.5%		0	1
Unionization	0% Unionization (Ref. category)	24.9%
	Unionization 1–10%	16.9%		0	1
	Unionization 10–25%	10.1%		0	1
	Unionization 26–50%	13.4%		0	1
	Unionization 51–75%	13.1%		0	1
	Unionization 76–100%	10.8%		0	1
	Unionization missing	10.8%		0	1
Joint works council	No JWC (Ref. category)	1.1%
	JWC present	65.8%		0	1
	JWC (missings)	3.2%		0	1
Task control mechanisms
Ex-ante control	Training (spending, days)	.81	.59	0	5
	Selection method (ability tests)	3.1%		0	1
	Selection method (psychometric test)	0.1%		0	1
	Proportion professionals (in decimals)	.42	.16	0	9.9
	Proportion highly educated (in decimals)	.68	.93	0	10.0
Concurrent control	Proportion managers	.36	.30	0	0.98
	Registration time and attendance	1.6%		0	1
Peer control	Teamwork projects	.36	.09	0	4
Ex-post control	Individual performance-related pay	.09	.50	0	4
	# Activities involved 360 evaluation	.65	.50	0	4
	# Actors involved 360 evaluation	.34	.65	0	6
Meta control	# Written CSR/HRM policies	.20	.95	0	6
Schwartz’ cultural values	(Ralston et al., 2011, Table 13)
	‘Individualism’	−0.14	.09	−0.33	0.05
	‘Collectivism’	−.10	.08	−0.25	0.03

Table 4. Coefficients of two models predicting low-level and high-level telework practices (TLW).

		Coefficient		Coefficient
		low TLW	s.e.	high TLW	s.e.
Control variables
Size	log (Number of employees)	0.257**	[0.057]	0.164*	[0.081]
Industry	Construction	−0.046	[0.403]	0.201	[0.628]
Ref. cat: Manufacturing	Transport\Communication	0.175	[0.306]	0.776+	[0.465]
	Banking and finance	−0.399	[0.267]	0.042	[0.398]
	Chemicals	0	[0.279]	0.517	[0.434]
	Other industries	−0.332	[0.206]	0.419	[0.307]
Foreign headquarters		0.096	[0.167]	0.265	[0.245]
Private enterprise		−0.2	[0.190]	−0.156	[0.264]
Unionization
Ref. cat: 0% Unionization	Unionization 1–10%	−0.006	[0.236]	0.256	[0.321]
	Unionization 10–25%	−0.288	[0.296]	0.467	[0.397]
	Unionization 26–50%	−0.333	[0.275]	0.141	[0.383]
	Unionization 51–75%	−0.229	[0.280]	−0.3	[0.437]
	Unionization 76–100%	−1.024**	[0.328]	−1.471*	[0.604]
	Unionization missing	−0.04	[0.263]	−0.131	[0.396]
Joint works council	JWC present	0.177	[0.182]	0.145	[0.254]
Ref. cat: No JWC	JWC missings	0.069	[0.437]	0.579	[0.529]
SVS Nation-level values	‘Individualism’ values	1.474	[2.008]	4.719*	[2.238]
	‘Collectivism’ values	1.367	[2.477]	5.565*	[2.764]
Task control mechanism
Ex-ante control	Training (spending, days)	−0.056	[0.044]	0.088	[0.064]
	Selection Method (ability tests)	−0.073	[0.160]	0.216	[0.236]
	Selection Method (psychometric test)	0.121	[0.156]	0.036	[0.229]
	Proportion Professionals	0.037	[0.041]	−0.180**	[0.060]
	Proportion High Education	0.135**	[0.035]	0.076	[0.047]
Concurrent control	Proportion managers	−0.587	[0.373]	−2.339**	[0.537]
	Registration Time and Attendance	0.215	[0.191]	−0.045	[0.251]
Ex-post control	Individual performance related pay	0.018	[0.049]	0.166*	[0.074]
	# Activities involved in 360 evaluation	0.067	[0.062]	−0.160+	[0.097]
	# Actors involved in 360 evaluation	0.072	[0.054]	0.162*	[0.077]
Peer control	Teamwork projects	0.209**	[0.073]	0.1	[0.103]
Meta Control	# Written CSR/HRM policies	0.088*	[0.044]	0.057	[0.065]
Firm level constant		−3.896**	[0.798]	−2.728**	[0.997]
Variance L2 SV_Individualism				1.832	[5.451]
Variance L2 SV_Collectivism				16.703	[17.593]
Model statistics	Observations			1577
	ll			−1087
	chi2			258.9
	df			65
	p-value			0.000
	Cragg & Uhler’s pseudo R-square			0.289

Notes: Standard error (s.e.) between brackets.

** p < 0.01

* p < 0.05

+ p < 0.1

VIF-range 1.07 – 2.40.

Table 5. Overview of hypotheses tested.

Component	Constructs	Predicted	Findings telework level (TWL) (No = Ref. Cat.) (Low, High)	Hypothesis
Schwartz’ value dimension	‘Individualism’	+	+ for high TWL only	1a
	‘Collectivism’	+	+ for high TWL only	1b
Task control mechanisms	Concurrent control	−	− for high TWL only: Proportion managers	2a
	Peer control	+	+ for low TWL only: Teamwork	2b
	Ex ante control	+	+ for low TWL only: Proportion of high education	2c
	Ex ante control	+	− for high TWL only: Proportion of professionals	2c
	Ex post control	+	+ for high TWL only: Individual performance-related pay, # actors involved in 360 evaluation	2d
	Meta control	+	+ for low TWL only # Written CSR/HRM policies	2e

Figure 1. Effect size of the main components measured by Cragg-Uhler pseudo R-square changed.

Ralston, D. A., Egri, C. P., Reynaud, E., Srinivasan, N., Furrer, O., Brock, D., … Alas, R. (2011). A twenty-first century assessment of values across the global workforce. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 1–31.10.1007/s10551-011-0835-8

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Molenaar, I. W., & Sijtsma, K. (2000). User’s manual MSP5 for windows. Groningen: iec ProGAMMA.

 Google Scholar