Workplace flexibility and communication flows: a structurational view

References

• Ballard, D. I., & Seibold, D. R. (2003). Communicating and organizing in time: A meso-level model of organizational temporality. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(3), 380–415. doi: 10.1177/0893318902238896
   Google Scholar
• Breaugh, J. A., & Frye, N. K. (2008). Work-family conflict: The importance of family-friendly employment practices and family-supportive supervisors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22, 345–353. doi: 10.1007/s10869-008-9081-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burud, S., & Tumolo, M. (2004). Leveraging the new human capital: Adaptive strategies, results achieved, and stories of transformation. Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black.
   Google Scholar
• Buzzanell, P., & Liu, M. (2007). It’s ‘give and take’: Maternity leave as a conflict management process. Human Relations, 60(3), 463–95. doi: 10.1177/0018726707076688
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciulla, J. B. (2000). The working life: The promise and betrayal of modern work. New York, NY: Times Books.
   Google Scholar
• Contractor, N. S., & Seibold, D. S. (1993). Theoretical frameworks for the study of structuring processes in group decision support systems: Adaptive structuration theory and self-organizing systems theory. Human Communication Research, 19, 528–563. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00312.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eräranta, K. (2015). A new social risk? Social-scientific knowledge and work-life balance in twentieth-century Finland. Social Science History, 39(1), 63–83. doi: 10.1017/ssh.2015.42
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fonner, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (2010). Why teleworkers are more satisfied with their jobs than are office-based workers: When less contact is beneficial. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(4), 336–361. doi: 10.1080/00909882.2010.513998
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franken, L., & Seibold, D. R. (2010). Business process modeling at the internal funding office: Structuring group interaction processes to structure business processes. In L. W. Black (Ed.), Group communication: Cases for analysis, appreciation, and application (pp. 17–24). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
   Google Scholar
• Harrington, S. J., & Ruppel, C. P. (1999). Telecommuting: A test of trust, competing values, and relative advantage. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42(4), 223–239. doi: 10.1109/47.807960
   Google Scholar
• Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (2002). The qualitative research companion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hyman, J., Scholarios, D., & Baldry, C. (2005). Getting on or getting by: Employee flexibility and coping strategies for home and work. Work, Employment and Society, 19(4), 705–725. doi:10.1109/47.807960
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelliher, C., & Anderson, D. (2010). Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and the intensification of work. Human Relations, 63(1), 83–106. doi: 10.1177/0018726709349199
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirby, E., & Krone, K. (2002). ‘The policy exists but you can’t really use it’: Communication and the structuration of work-family policies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 50–77. doi: 10.1080/00909880216577
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lammers, J. C., & Barbour, J. B. (2006). An institutional theory of organizational communication. Communication Theory, 16, 356–377. doi:10.1111/j.14682885.2006.00274.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2011). Sensemaking: Qualitative data analysis and interpretation. Qualitative Communication Research Methods, 3, 241–281.
   Google Scholar
• McPhee, R. D., & Iverson, J. (2009). Agents of constitution in communidad: Constitutive processes of communication in organizations. In L. L. Putnam & A. M. Nicotera (Eds.), Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication (pp. 49–88). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• McPhee, R. D., Poole, M. S., & Iverson, J. (2014). Structuration theory. The Sage handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods. In L. L. Putnam & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational communication (3rd ed., pp. 75–100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• McPhee, R. D., & Zaug, P. (2000). The communicative constitution of organizations: A framework for explanation. Electronic Journal of Communication, 10(1/2), 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, K. K., Gailliard, B. M., & Putnam, L. L. (2012). Reconsidering the concept of workplace flexibility: Is adaptability a better solution? In C. T. Salmon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 36 (pp. 195–230). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. doi: 10.4324/9780203113653
   Google Scholar
• Peters, P., & Wildenbeest, M. (2012). Telecommuters: Creative or exhausted workers? A study into the conditions under which telecommuters experience flow and exhaustion. In C Kelliher & J Richardson (Eds.), New ways of organizing work: Developments, perspectives and experiences (pp. 122–139). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Poole, M. S., & McPhee, R. D. (2005). Structuration theory. In S. May & D. Mumby (Eds.), Engaging organizational communication theory and research: Multiple perspectives (pp. 171–196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Pyöriä, P. (2011). Managing telework: Risks, fears and rules. Management Research Review, 34(4), 386–399. doi: 10.1108/01409171111117843
   Google Scholar
• Schoeneborn, D., Blaschke, S., Cooren, F., McPhee, R. D., Seidl, D., & Taylor, J. R. (2014). The three schools of CCO thinking interactive dialogue and systematic comparison. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(2), 285–316. doi: 10.1177/0893318914527000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, C. W., & Myers, K. K. (2010). Toward an integrative theoretical perspective of membership negotiations: Socialization, assimilation, and the duality of structure. Communication Theory, 20, 79–105. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2009.01355.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seibold, D. R. (2016). Facilitating team development in embedded organizational work groups. In J. A. Waldeck & D. R. Seibold (Eds.), Consulting that matters: A handbook for scholars and practitioners (pp. 197–216). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Seibold, D. R., & Meyers, R. A. (2007). Group argument: A structuration perspective and research program. Small Group Research, 38(3), 312–336. doi: 10.1177/1046496407301966
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson, J. L., & Seibold, D. R. (2008). Practical engagements and co-created research. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(3), 266–280. doi: 10.1080/00909880802172285
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trefalt, S. (2013). Between you and me: Setting work-nonwork boundaries in the context of workplace relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1802–1829. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0298
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zackrison, E., Seibold, D. R., & Rice, R. (2015). Organizational coordination and communication: A critical review and integrative model. In E. Cohen (Ed.), Communication yearbook 39 (pp. 195–233). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar