Transportation Research Part A 45 (2011) 269–282

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part A

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tra

Why do you care what other people think? A qualitative investigation

of social influence and telecommuting
Robert D. Wilton a, Antonio Páez b, Darren M. Scott c,⇑
a
School of Geography and Earth Sciences, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4K1
b
Center for Spatial Analysis, School of Geography and Earth Sciences, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4K1
c
TransLAB (Transportation Research Lab), School of Geography and Earth Sciences, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West,
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4K1

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The effect of social interactions on decision-making is a topic of current interest in the
Received 2 October 2008 travel behavior literature. These interactions have been investigated primarily from an
Received in revised form 2 May 2010 intra-household perspective, but increasingly too in other types of social settings. In
Accepted 17 July 2010
the case of interactions within a workplace, it has been suggested that the decision
to telecommute may have some important social components. Previous research has
concentrated on social isolation, and the effect on job satisfaction of qualitatively differ-
Keywords:
ent (i.e., telecommunications-mediated) relationships with managers and colleagues. A
Ontario
Qualitative methods
topic that remains unexplored is the way social norms, in effect the influence of other
Social influence people’s behavior, may influence the decision to adopt telecommuting. In this paper we
Telecommuting set to investigate, within a qualitative framework, the role of social contact in the pro-
University cess of acquiring information on, and making decisions about, telecommuting. The
results indicate that social contact does play a subtle but non-trivial role in the adoption
and continuation process, and offer some insights about the importance of the social
dimension, institutional set-up, and how they interact to influence the decision to
telecommute.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Background and objectives

The effect of social interactions and influence in individual decision-making, a topic long neglected in the literature
on travel behavior, has in recent years attracted attention for its potential to improve current understanding of travel
and locational decisions (Dugundji et al., 2008; Páez and Scott, 2007). Social interactions have been studied primarily
from an intra-household perspective, to explore issues such as activity-episode generation (Scott and Kanaroglou,
2002), daily activity-travel patterns (Vovsha et al., 2004), and time allocation behavior (Zhang and Fujiwara, 2006).
Increasingly, it is recognized that these interactions may be relevant in other settings, such as for example in modal
choice decisions (Dugundji and Walker, 2005; Goetzke, 2008), to help understand the increase in leisure travel (Axhausen,
2005), participation in social activities (Carrasco and Miller, 2006), and even illicit parking behavior (Fukuda and Morichi,
2007).
Previous research has hypothesized that social interactions may also play a role in influencing the decision to telecom-
mute, among other travel behavior processes (Páez and Scott, 2007). The term ‘‘telecommuting’’ was coined by Jack Nilles
when he was apparently ‘‘stuck in traffic in Los Angeles’’ (Kurland and Bailey, 1999, p. 53). Nilles defined the concept of

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 905 525 9140x24953; fax: +1 905 546 0463.
E-mail addresses: wiltonr@mcmaster.ca (R.D. Wilton), paezha@mcmaster.ca (A. Páez), scottdm@mcmaster.ca (D.M. Scott).

0965-8564/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tra.2011.01.002
270 R.D. Wilton et al. / Transportation Research Part A 45 (2011) 269–282

telecommuting as ‘‘all work-related substitutions of telecommunications and related information technologies for travel’’
(Nilles, 1988, p. 301). Today, telecommuting is seen as a flexible form of workplace arrangement where employees work
one or more days off site, usually at their home or some location close to their home (e.g., a telecommuting center).
Telecommuting is thought to have several potential benefits for the individual (e.g., better work-family balance), the
organization (e.g., reduced infrastructure costs), and society (e.g., reduced traffic congestion and emissions), as reviewed
in Kurland and Bailey (1999).
Among the challenges posed by telecommuting, there is the relative inability of telecommunication-mediated social
interaction to replace face-to-face interaction (Mann et al., 2000). In this respect, a salient concern is the possibility that
an imperfect substitute for co-located, synchronous interaction (q.v. Miller, 2005) could lead to social and/or professional
isolation. Mehlmann (1988), for example, cites a number of challenges that telecommuters could potentially face, includ-
ing reduced opportunities for social contact that could eventually result in fewer career development and promotion
opportunities, and loss of influence in the office. The relevance of these issues is questioned by Bailey and Kurland
(2002), who reason that if telecommuters telecommute only infrequently, isolation should not be problematic. Several
other studies, however, find that isolation is a common reason why individuals say they do not want to telecommute fre-
quently or at all. At a quasi-anecdotal level, for instance, people are mindful of the advantages of staying in the office for
promotion purposes (e.g., EKOS, 1998). A second example is research conducted in Minneapolis-St. Paul in the US by Wells
et al. (2001), who find that ‘‘[missing] out on important work-related information’’ and ‘‘[feeling] lonely/isolated’’ were
two of the top three reasons for not adopting telecommuting in a private firm (topped only by job unsuitability in a public
agency setting).
Indeed, given the preponderance of the evidence, Cooper and Kurland (2002) revise the stance of Bailey and Kurland
(2002) and concede that ‘‘[at] second glance, it appears that a fear of isolation may limit telecommuting frequency rather
than telecommuting infrequency limiting isolation’’ (p. 512). The concept of telecommuter isolation has since been men-
tioned in numerous papers, and explored in some greater depth in the work of Golden (2006), Marshall et al. (2007), and
Golden et al. (2008), among others.
From a decision-making perspective, it seems reasonable to expect that, when presented with a choice, an employee’s
decision to telecommute will not be based on uniquely individual considerations, but will become instead a decision that
could be influenced by the behavior of peers. There are a number of ways in which the decision to become, remain, or stop
being a telecommuter can have consequences for other potential adopters. It appears clear that fear of isolation may prevent
potential adopters from actually becoming telecommuters. However, this would be particularly true for the ‘‘trailblazers’’ or
early adopters for whom the experience is new and potentially fraught with risk. A natural reaction on the part of many po-
tential adopters would be to wait and see, in the expectation that someone else will ‘‘test the waters’’ and show them to be
safe. For later adopters, the risk of isolation would presumably be diminished, because at that point numerous telecommut-
ers would be losing out on at least some of the social experience at the workplace, and the experience itself would become
less important. In other words, the risk would be more widely distributed, in contrast to a situation with low adoption levels
where risk would remain concentrated on a few individuals.
A different way in which the decision may have a social dimension is if subsequent potential adopters learn vicari-
ously from other people’s experiences (see Bandura, 1977). This learning could happen from verbal communication, or
from observing revealed preferences, the implication being that if telecommuters continue telecommuting the overall
experience must be satisfactory, and conversely if they stop, it must not be. In other words, looking to others may
arm (potential) telecommuters with a valuable ‘‘social barometer’’ (Mann et al., 2000, p. 678) that can help them to in-
form individual decisions. Alternatively, practicing telecommuters may seek validation of their experience, and their
decision to continue telecommuting could be partially made based on comparison with others who may or may not have
experience telecommuting.
The objective of this paper is to investigate the social dimension of the decision to telecommute. Previous research has
focused on the professional development effects of telecommuting and isolation (Cooper and Kurland, 2002), the social
determinants of productivity (Neufeld and Fang, 2005), social contact and telecommuter satisfaction (Golden, 2006), the def-
inition and measurement of isolation (Marshall et al., 2007), and the job performance and turnover intention effects of iso-
lation (Golden et al., 2008). In contrast, in this paper we focus on the acquisition of information on, and individual decisions
about, telecommuting. In particular, we investigate the ways (if any) in which individuals use information obtained from co-
workers (verbally or as revealed from observed behaviors) as a ‘‘social barometer’’ to guide their own decisions on whether
to negotiate, initiate, continue, or discontinue the practice of telecommuting. This paper complements previous, simulation-
based research (Páez and Scott, 2007), and provides: (1) an empirical basis to the ideas expounded there; and (2) connections
with a planned behavior model of telecommute adoption.
In terms of methods, our investigation adopts a qualitative approach. Qualitative approaches provide powerful, if still
underutilized tools to increase our understanding of the complexities of travel behavior processes, since they can help to
provide insights that have eluded quantitative inquiry (Clifton and Handy, 2001). In our case, the tool of choice is semi-struc-
tured interviews conducted with employees from a case study (a technologically-enabled, public sector organization). Semi-
structured interviews allow us to acquire information about individuals’ decision-making with respect to this flexible work-
place arrangement. Our findings indicate that social contact does indeed play a subtle but non-trivial role in the adoption
process, and offer some insights that can help to refine future efforts to understand the social dimension of the decision
to telecommute, and its implications.
 R.D. Wilton et al. / Transportation Research Part A 45 (2011) 269–282 271

2. Conceptual model

It has been noted that early research on telecommuting tended to be atheoretical (Bailey and Kurland, 2002, p. 394). This
situation has dramatically changed over the past few years, with the development of theoretical frameworks to understand
adoption by individual employees (based on the theory of planned behavior; Mokhtarian and Salomon, 1994), telecommut-
ing patterns and their consequences (based on contingent employment, job design, and social isolation; Feldman and Gainey,
1997), adoption by firms and organizations (based on neo-institutional theory; Daniels et al., 2001), the use of grounded the-
ory (Cooper and Kurland, 2002), and the development of linkages to economic externalities and social network analysis (Páez
and Scott, 2007; also see Bailey and Kurland, 2002, p. 395).
From the perspective of travel behavior and the decision to telecommute, a conceptual model for analysis is provided by
Mokhtarian and Salomon (1994). This model, based on the social–psychological theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985),
posits a set of constraints, facilitators, and drives or motivators, as contextual elements indispensable to understand the deci-
sion to become a telecommuter. In the terminology of the theory, a constraint is a factor that prevents or hinders change; a
facilitator is a factor that makes change (e.g., adoption) easier or more effective; and a drive or motivator is a factor that
moves the person to actually consider a change. Constraints and facilitators are classified as external (awareness-, organiza-
tion-, and job-related factors) or internal (mainly psychosocial factors such as personal interaction needs, household inter-
actions, lack of discipline, risk aversion, and perceived beneficial commute). Drives, on the other, hand are work-, family-,
leisure-, ideology-, and travel-related.
The theory of planned behavior provides a natural vehicle to study social influence, and has indeed been applied to the
study of intention to smoke (Vitoria et al., 2009) and physical activity participation (Hamilton and White, 2008), among other
topics. In the case of Mokhtarian and Salomon’s (1994) conceptual model, several factors with a social dimension appear as
key facilitators or constraints of the decision to telecommute, including risk aversion, personal interaction needs, and per-
ceived benefits or costs of the practice. For example, in terms of facilitators and constraints, awareness relates at least par-
tially to the way information disseminates in the workplace, which of course includes misunderstanding as a possible
constraint, in particular in situations where clear policies or programs are not in effect. Organization-related constraints
may involve the stress and energy incurred when approaching a manager with the proposal to telecommute – or, alterna-
tively, the ease to become an adopter if a manager is supportive. Personal interaction needs include the desire to ‘‘see and be
seen’’ (Mokhtarian and Salomon, 1994, p. 754). These needs may interact with the contextual situation at the household.
Finally, risk aversion relates to the desire to maintain the status quo, in turn a function of what are considered to be socially
accepted practices within particular work environments. In terms of the drives or motivators, work-related drives may be
linked to the desire to be more productive, for example by reducing distractions and/or personal stress due to group dynam-
ics in the office (Mokhtarian and Salomon, 1994, p. 755). Travel-related drives may include the ability to spend time by one-
self or with others if the commute is seen as a social experience. These factors are also related to the perceived benefits of the
commute (Mokhtarian and Salomon, 1994, p. 754).
Keeping in mind the above points, the focus of our investigation is on the ways in which social contact can influence or
shape decisions regarding telecommuting. The analysis is organized according to themes related to drivers and constraints
identified in Mokhtarian and Salomon’s conceptual model (see Table 1). First, we consider why people choose to telecom-
mute. Second, we look at how the arrangement to telecommute is negotiated, with particular attention to the workplace
context. Third, we look specifically at the extent to which respondents actively seek input from friends and colleagues at
work. Fourth, we examine respondents’ knowledge of others’ experience with telecommuting. Finally, we look at the per-
ceived costs and benefits of telecommuting. In the analysis to follow, we attempt to draw out the importance of social influ-
ence in each of these themes.

3. Methods and data

3.1. Setting

The setting for this research is a large, post-secondary educational institution in Southern Ontario, which employs
approximately 6500 people, including 1400 full-time faculty members. The institution does not have a formal telecommut-

Table 1
Themes investigated.

Theme Type of driver/constraint

Why telecommute? Drives to choose telecommuting
Negotiating the arrangement
Immediate employer’s attitude Organization-related constraint
Workplace culture Awareness-related constraint
Other telecommuters Personal interaction needs/risk aversion
Asking for advice Awareness-related/risk aversion
Knowledge of others’ experience Awareness-related/risk aversion
Pros and cons of telecommuting Various (open theme)
272 R.D. Wilton et al. / Transportation Research Part A 45 (2011) 269–282

ing program. Anecdotal evidence initially suggests that telecommuting is negotiated informally within specific departments.
The institution is located in one of Canada’s largest census metropolitan areas (CMAs). In 2006, approximately 6% of the
workforce in this CMA worked at home. Of those who worked at locations outside the home, approximately 85% used a pri-
vate vehicle to get to work, while only 9% used public transit. The institution is well-served by municipal public transit as
well as GO Transit, Canada’s first and Ontario’s only interregional transit system, which links Toronto to the surrounding re-
gions of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA).

3.2. Approach

The methodological approach of the research is qualitative. Scholars have different conceptions about the product of qual-
itative research. For some, particularly those adopting a pure ‘grounded theory’ approach, qualitative research should give
rise to a formal theory about the phenomenon under investigation. Yet as Bryman and Teevan (2005, p. 5) note, this concep-
tion of qualitative research captures only one type of contribution. In many cases, for example, ‘‘the relevant background
literature relating to a topic acts as the equivalent of theory [and] . . . as the spur to an inquiry’’. In such cases, data collection
and analysis can produce empirical findings and conceptual connections geared to the illumination or resolution of a re-
search issue without generating formal theory. In this paper, our intent is to derive a combination of empirical findings
and conceptual linkages that relate to and inform existing research on telecommuting. The research does not aim to test
hypotheses in a statistical sense, but rather makes a contribution by ‘‘[filling] the gaps left by quantitative techniques’’
(Clifton and Handy, 2001, p. 3),1 and by informing the formulation of hypotheses for subsequent quantitative data collection
and analysis. We return to this point in the concluding discussion.

3.3. Data collection

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews. These interviews involve a sustained encounter between a re-
searcher and typically a single participant. As Hoggart et al. (2002, p. 205) note, this type of interviewing is appropriate when
researchers require an ‘‘in-depth understanding that is best communicated through detailed examples and rich narratives’’.
This methodological approach is well-suited to the current research for two reasons. First, qualitative methods facilitate the
elucidation of subjective meanings attached to social circumstances (Patton, 1990). Here, we are interested in people’s expe-
rience of telecommuting, their reasoning for choosing to telecommute, and their perceptions of the costs and benefits in-
volved. Second, through in-depth consideration of experience, interviews elucidate complex relationships and the ways in
which multiple factors intersect to produce specific outcomes (Hoggart et al., 2002). In this project, we focus attention on
the employee’s social interactions and social networks as they relate to transportation choices.

3.4. Interview guide

An interview guide was developed for the project, drawing in part from existing literature on employee’s perceptions,
attitudes and experiences of telecommuting. The guide comprised six sections, dealing with (1) the respondent’s job title
and work environment, (2) current practice and decision-making with regard to telecommuting, (3) perceptions and expe-
riences of telecommuting, (4) social relationships and daily interactions at work, (5) knowledge of others’ telecommuting
practice, and (6) perceived and/or experienced costs and benefits of telecommuting.

3.5. Procedure and participants

We used e-mail postings and flyers to contact potential respondents. The research was identified as a project on ‘trans-
portation to work choices’ and was open to any non-faculty employee who had the opportunity to telecommute, even if not
currently doing so.2 Potential respondents were offered a $20 honorarium for participation. This purposive recruitment strategy
was not intended to provide a statistically representative sample – qualitative techniques rarely attain statistically significant
results (Clifton and Handy, 2001, p. 4), or even aim to attain them. Rather, the objective was to recruit ‘information-rich’ cases –
individuals from a particular stratum of employees who had the option to work from home.
Our initial target was 40 interviews, with roughly equal numbers of women and men. Several techniques for recruitment
were used over a period of 2 months, after which time no further participants were identified. Recruitment was halted at that
point, yielding a total of 32 interviews. The number of interviews is in line with previous related work, including Baruch and
Nicholson (1997; 62 interviews), Mann et al. (2000; 14 interviews), Cooper and Kurland (2002; 53 interviews), and Neufeld
and Fang (2005; 32 interviews). Of the 32 respondents, 25 were women and seven were men. The gender imbalance may
simply reflect the proportion of females in this particular segment of the workforce, although more speculatively, it may also
indicate differences in career trajectory and the gendered division of labor with regard to childcare and domestic work. As

1
It bears noting here that many of the variables used to capture social effects were not found to be significant in Mokhtarian and Salomon (1996). An issue is:
are we asking the right questions in surveys?
2
A decision was made to exclude faculty members and current graduate students from the study as they enjoy a degree of flexibility in the structure and
scheduling of their work tasks that differentiate them from non-academic employees at the organization.
 R.D. Wilton et al. / Transportation Research Part A 45 (2011) 269–282 273

Table 2
Why telecommute?

Theme Content – examples N

Work: productivity Working from home will enable me to get more done 23
Home: childcare, family time I will be able to collect the kids from daycare more easily 18
Commute: saving energy, time Reduced commuting will save me time and is less tiring 18
Work: nature of the work Aspects of my job can easily be done at home 17
Work: environment I don’t have my own office at work so I can’t shut myself away from colleagues 15
Individual: convenience/flexibility I will have more control over how and when work gets done 12
Commute: saving money I will save money on gas, car maintenance and parking 11
Individual: less stress No commute and/or time away from the office will be more relaxing 7
Individual: informality I won’t have to get dressed up to go to work 6
Home: maintenance, chores I will be able to get other things done around the house 5
Commute: weather In winter I can avoid difficult driving conditions 2
Commute: environment One less car will mean lower emissions 2
Work: job satisfaction I will feel better about my job working from home 1

Gurstein (2001, p. 4) notes, because dual earner and female-headed families have substantially increased while women re-
main primarily responsible for unpaid domestic labor, they have had to find ‘flexible ways to work’ including part-time work,
self-employment and telework.
Although we had intended to complete interviews outside of the workplace, respondents expressed a desire to meet at
work during the lunch-hour. Interviews were completed in an office at the researchers’ department, which provided respon-
dents with a setting away from their own department. In accordance with ethical guidelines, we explained that participation
was voluntary and that the research was confidential. Interviews were tape-recorded in full.

3.6. Participants

Participants ranged in age from 25 to 64 years, with an average age of 43. They came from 20 different departments
across the institution. Specific job titles varied widely, but a majority of respondents were employed as clerical and admin-
istrative workers, information technology staff, managerial staff or (non-faculty) research coordinators and associates. Their
incomes ranged from C$25,000 to C$88,000 per annum, with an average of C$59,000. Length of employment varied from 1 to
28 years, with an average term of just over 8 years. Twenty-one of the women respondents had children, as did six of the
seven male respondents. In terms of marital status, 26 of the respondents were married or had common-law partners,
two were single and three were divorced. Twenty-four respondents were telecommuting regularly (11) or occasionally
(13) at the time of the interview, while six had previously telecommuted, either at the institution or with a previous employ-
er, and two had no experience but expressed interest in telecommuting. Among the regular telecommuters, seven worked 1
day a week from home on an ongoing basis. The remaining four worked, on average, between 2 and 4 days a week at home.
Among the occasional telecommuters, most respondents said that they worked from ‘‘once or twice a month’’ and/or as
required by the demands of their job.

3.7. Analytical procedures

Following data collection, interviews were transcribed in full for analysis. First, transcripts were read repeatedly to devel-
op a broad understanding of themes within the data. Next, transcripts were entered into NUD_IST coding software for coding
and management (see Bryman, 2004; Kitchin and Tate, 2000). Themes developed for the interview guide were used as the
basis for the principal categories for data coding. More detailed coding and analysis within each of these categories was then
pursued with a primary focus on individuals’ experiences of telecommuting, and the social influences on individuals’
decision-making process with regard to telecommuting. This approach is akin to the ‘selective coding’ approach (Strauss
and Corbin, 1990), where inductive and deductive thinking is used to identify conceptual relationships in the data.

4. Analysis: exploring social influence

4.1. Why telecommute?

In interviews, respondents were asked why they were interested in telecommuting.3 Recognizing the complexity of the
decision, respondents were not restricted to a single response, and many did indeed give multiple reasons. Analysis indicated
that these responses could be grouped into four broad themes, relating to work life, home life, the individual, and the commute
itself (see Table 2). Concerns about productivity at the office (and a belief that working from home would allow for greater
concentration) was the most frequently cited reason for telecommuting. Thinking about social influence, it is remarkable that

3
In this instance, the two respondents who were not currently telecommuting and had not in the past were asked to explain why they were interested in the
practice.
274 R.D. Wilton et al. / Transportation Research Part A 45 (2011) 269–282

productivity concerns were often linked to an inability to prevent interruptions and unwanted interpersonal interaction at
work. Kath, who works as a business administrator, explained why she wanted to telecommute:
I think [working from home] would also in some cases allow me to be more productive – not that I have a lot of drop-ins
to do with my work specifically but when you’re on campus, you do get people stopping by, not that I’m you know anti-
social but sometimes, you just, it breaks your focus and so I think that kind of thing would be beneficial.

Tellingly, almost half of the respondents also cited the organization of their work environment as a factor contributing to
their desire to telecommute. For example, Ian, who works as a technology administrator, spoke about concerns with his pre-
vious workspace that influenced his views on working from home:
Where I used to be over in the [name] building, I was right in an area where everybody walked by so every time some-
body walked by they would stop and it got to a point where I said, ‘‘Leave me alone. I don’t mean to be rude but leave me
alone’’.

The frequency with which concerns over unwanted interaction and its impact on productivity are cited suggest that these
might be understood, at least in part, as social influences on the decision to telecommute, especially considering that a key
perceived cost of telecommuting is the loss of interaction (see Section 4.5). This is suggestive of the respondents’ search for a
balance between the benefits of social contact afforded by the workplace and the ability to concentrate on work tasks when
necessary (evident for instance in the extent of telecommuting and job satisfaction results of Golden, 2006). In addition, the
work environment theme suggests that the organization and availability of office space may mediate or mitigate the effect of
social contact on the decision to telecommute, by facilitating (e.g., increasing visibility) or limiting (e.g., more control over
unwanted interaction and interruption) interaction.
Six respondents in the research had telecommuted in the past but had stopped. These respondents were asked why they
had discontinued the arrangement. Three said they had stopped when a change of job (moving to the case study employer)
substantially reduced the commute time between home and workplace. Interestingly, all three respondents had enjoyed
their previous telecommuting experience but felt that working from home was harder to justify when ‘the office’ was close
by. Helen, a research officer, commented that while she could technically work from home she only did in the case of family
emergencies ‘‘mostly because I live fairly close to the office so it would be kind of odd to do it all the time’’.
Two other respondents said changes in their current jobs had meant that telecommuting was no longer an option. In one
instance, a worker who had previously worked in a small team was now working alone and needed to be onsite all week. In
another instance, a new supervisor made it clear that telecommuting was no longer an option for Emma, a development offi-
cer, who was on maternity leave at the time:
‘‘She called me at home about six months before I was supposed to go back and said ‘just to let you know that your job
isn’t going to be telecommuting anymore. I don’t like it.’ She was very honest. She wanted her team around her. She just
didn’t buy into the concept. . .’’

Finally, one respondent indicated that she had stopped telecommuting because of a lack of social contact. Tina com-
mented: ‘‘I am a social beast. I got the work done but I much prefer having something to get up and get dressed and get
out the door, socialize a little bit with other people.’’ These findings are noteworthy in that five of the six people ceased
telecommuting because of changes to the employment context rather than as a result of individual choice. Moreover, the
sentiments expressed by Helen suggests that telecommuters may feel the need to justify themselves to others in terms of
distance to work even though other reasons such as work productivity and flexible schedule were deemed as or more impor-
tant than reduced commuting.

4.2. Negotiating the arrangement: contextual factors

Respondents were also asked about the way in which they negotiated their telecommuting arrangements. Given the ab-
sence of a formal telecommuting program at the organization, it is not surprising that the vast majority of people (26 of 30)
had negotiated arrangements informally with immediate supervisors, and a majority of these (20) were arranged on the job.4
As we suggest below, the presence/absence of a formal program may itself act to shape social influence, not least because its
existence legitimizes the practice and fosters open discussion.
In addition to recording the type of arrangement, we were also interested in any contextual factors that may have influ-
enced respondents’ actions or responses to requests to telecommute. Table 3 illustrates those factors identified in the anal-
ysis. For the purpose of this paper, we draw attention to three factors that speak to social influence.

4.2.1. Immediate employer’s attitude

Not surprisingly, the attitude of an immediate supervisor can make an important difference to a worker’s willingness to
request to telecommute and/or the subsequent response. The following three examples illustrate this.

4
The 30 reported negotiations relate to both current and past telecommuting arrangements. Three of the four formal negotiations reported by respondents
had occurred in the past with other employers who had formal telecommuting programs.
 R.D. Wilton et al. / Transportation Research Part A 45 (2011) 269–282 275

Table 3
Negotiating the arrangement.

Theme Content – examples N

Nature of the job
Employer attitude
Workplace culture
Other teleworkers?
Technology issues
Already working at home
Space constraints
Time on the job
The extent to which some or all work tasks can be performed at home 28
Whether immediate superiors saw telecommuting in a positive light or not 18
Was there a collective sense in the department that telework was a valued work practice? 16
Did other people work from home and what impact did this have on the department? 16
How feasible was it to set up a home office and to access essential material? 11
People who took work home in the evenings saw telework as a natural extension of this 11
A shortage of space in a department could prompt an openness to teleworking 10
A proven track-record might make permission to telecommute easier to obtain 2

[Int: How was your telecommuting arrangement negotiated?] It was quite informal. It was actually early on – my boss sug-
gested it. To be honest it wouldn’t have occurred to me to suggest it. I would have known like in terms of her comfort
level. . . I know my previous boss was not very comfortable with the whole telecommuting. (Kim, project manager)

It’s been raised at team meetings... a lot of people would like to telecommute and actually the work that they do is very
much computer based so it would be feasible for them to work from home... but my boss has said, ‘‘we’re not going to go
that route at this time’’. (Tania, research coordinator)
It became less frequent with the second boss. He’s the guy that thought you had to be in your chair all the time to show
that you were working [Int: And your previous boss?] More flexible in the sense that he had to travel, lots of business, and
have a strong family relationship so for him, he felt that if he could do it, then other people certainly were capable of
doing it. (Helen, research officer)
In the first instance, telecommuting is facilitated by a suggestion from Kim’s immediate supervisor that counters a less
positive attitude evinced by a previous employer. By contrast, interest in telecommuting expressed by Tania and her col-
leagues is effectively ‘shut down’ by the supervisor’s decision. Last, Helen’s experience illustrates the dynamic nature of
contextual influences. Helen’s experience is particularly poignant as it illustrates how the practice can become accepted
due to experience (in this case of the previous boss) and normalized as part of a vertical manager–employee relationship.
The comment also shows that in a compartmentalized environment, where telecommuting is negotiated within a
specific departmental setting, the arrival and departure of different managers may create or remove opportunities for
potential telecommuters: in other words, in this context norms can be easily reversed with changes in managerial
personal.

4.2.2. Other telecommuters

A second contextual factor is the presence/absence of other telecommuters within the respondent’s immediate depart-
ment. Initially, we wondered whether the presence of several people telecommuting would signal general acceptance of
the practice within a specific departmental setting, with implications for the local workplace culture. There were a number
of examples where this appeared to be the case. For example, Simon worked as one of a number of research associates within
a department where everyone had the option to telecommute. He talked about how this worked:
‘‘There’s no real problem when I’m working from home and this is basically the way our group is set up, that’s it’s an
established group and we all understand what everybody does. We recognize because we do similar jobs, that there
are times when you have to have a different work environment so there’s flexibility. . .’’

This comment also touches on the normalization of behavior, except that the social effect here is horizontal instead of
vertical: Simon can work from home, but not only that, he feels comfortable doing so at least in part because the practice
is understood and also accepted by his peers (who also can telecommute if they so desire).
At the same time, other experiences suggested that several people telecommuting within a specific department did not
necessarily foster acceptance. For example, more interest in the practice could cause a supervisor to worry he/she was losing
control of workers. Maggie talked about a previous experience with telecommuting:
‘‘I think that because it was extended to me that some of the other managers started taking advantage of it and then there
were a couple of times where three of us wouldn’t be in the office. I think that kind of made [my boss] go, ‘no more.’ If it
was just me I don’t think that it would be an issue.’’

The type of consensus described by Simon indicates the importance of normalization of behavior. However, normalization
(amongst peers) may have the precise opposite effect when it comes to the response of the manager, who may in fact not
wish the practice to become normal, and may thus decide to curtail telecommute ‘privileges’ to all. Normalization, in con-
trast, may be much easier to achieve in a setting where all those present have the option to telecommute as an institutional
arrangement.
Lack of clear institutional guidance can also induce other perverse dynamics in the workplace. Several respondents
pointed to experiences where tensions had arisen in departmental contexts where only some members were permitted
276 R.D. Wilton et al. / Transportation Research Part A 45 (2011) 269–282

Table 4
Asking for advice.

Theme N
Discussion with others 17
‘‘Should I?’’ 8
‘‘How to. . .’’ 5
‘‘How’s it going?’’ 4
‘‘Wishful thinking’’ 1
No discussion with others 15

to work from home. Whether the reasons for not extending the opportunity to other members were legitimate or not, the
resulting tensions could have an important impact on the climate at work. Kath confronted this issue when she was hired as
a senior administrator in a department where one worker appeared to have been given the ‘special privilege’ of
telecommuting:
‘‘I think when I first began in the position in March it really surfaced because people thought, ‘Okay well there’s somebody
that I can voice this to’. . . The other staff members who were doing similar jobs could see, you know, what her hours were
and work habits and what not.’’

In addition to the dynamics, Kath’s comment illustrates a form of vicarious learning: other staff members see Kath tele-
commuting, learn from her experience, and become jealous if the opportunity to telecommute is not extended to them. To-
gether, the attitudes of employer and co-workers and the presence/absence of other telecommuters shape – in complex and
interrelated ways – the context in which individuals make decisions about telecommuting.

4.2.3. Workplace culture

Related to, but distinct from, employer attitude is the role of workplace culture. We can think of culture in this context as
being made up of shared beliefs and expectations with regard to how (and where) work is appropriately performed, with
these shared beliefs being written into and reproduced by a variety of ‘rules’ (both formal and informal) that shape behavior.
Insight into the role of workplace culture was provided by a number of respondents who were recent arrivals at the orga-
nization, and who noted a rather ‘traditional’ worldview. For example:
‘‘I haven’t been here that long so what I’ve seen may not be representative of the [organization] at large... but some of the
things I have seen are just that we do need to think differently and beyond that really traditional employer-employee
relationship.’’ (Bev, research coordinator)

‘‘If I’m working from home. . . and they can’t see me and they don’t know what I’m doing, how do they not know I’m sit-
ting my backyard having a Mai Tai? I think they are genuinely fearful of the fact that their staff are not being productive
and taking advantage of them.’’ (Emma, development officer)
‘‘It’s perception and I think it will take a while before [telecommuting] truly becomes accepted. . . not by just the employer
but the other employees because if they create problems by complaining to the employer who thinks, ‘Oh this isn’t work-
ing.’’’ (Helen, research officer)
Collectively, these statements point to ways in which current workplace culture might work against telecommuting.
Assumptions about effective supervision and/or anxieties expressed by supervisors and co-workers about the potential
for abuse of a work-from-home arrangement reflect shared beliefs about how work should be done – a fact not lost on recent
hires at the organization. Workplace culture is also dynamic – some respondents talked about the impact of a generational
shift occurring at the organization, with newcomers displaying more interest in, and tolerance, for ideas such as flex-time
and telecommuting.

4.3. Asking for advice

Since one medium for vicarious learning is verbal communication, we asked respondents about the extent to which they
had explicitly sought others’ opinions at work about telecommuting as an activity before making their own decision to tele-
commute.5 Almost half of respondents (15) said that they had not sought advice or opinions from others. Cynthia, for example,
said simply: ‘‘No, I just kind of came up with it on my mat[ernity] leave. I was on my own at home.’’ Conversely, more than half of
respondents (17) did discuss telecommuting with others. An examination of their responses helps to identify several types of
conversation that were held (Table 4).6 Eight respondents reported seeking advice on whether they should telecommute. For
example, Naomi who worked as an administrator in the health science faculty explained:

5
As noted earlier, two of the respondents were not telecommuting and had no prior experience. These respondents were asked whether they had discussed
the topic with others, without specific reference to their own decision.
6
The sub-themes under ‘‘Discussion with others’’ add up to more than 17 because of multiple discussions cited by a single respondent.
 R.D. Wilton et al. / Transportation Research Part A 45 (2011) 269–282 277

Table 5
Knowledge of others’ experiences.

a: Friends at work b: Colleagues at work c: Acquaintances at work

Theme N Theme N Theme N
Discussion with telecommuters 11 Discussion with telecommuters 9 Discussion with telecommuters 4
‘‘They do it too’’ 3 ‘‘They do it too’’ 3 ‘‘They do it too’’ 3
‘‘How’s it going?’’ 8 ‘‘How’s it going?’’ 5 ‘‘How’s it going?’’ 1
‘‘How to. . .’’ 2 ‘‘How to. . .’’ 2 ‘‘How to. . .’’ 0
Knowledge of telecommuters 3 Knowledge of telecommuters 12 Knowledge of telecommuters 4
No friends who telecommute 8 No colleagues who telecommute 10 No knowledge or no response 23
No friends at work 9

‘‘The person that I was working for, the manager, I spoke to her about it and her experience and she said it worked out
great and she was able to do that and she was somebody that I had really respected and her opinion meant a lot to me.’’

In other words, Naomi reports having learned vicariously from her manager’s experience. Vicarious learning can operate
in a different way, even if it does not take the explicit form of advice, by letting potential adopters identify challenges or risks.
Kim, a project manager, commented that:
‘‘One of my colleagues told me that he enjoyed, like he’s able to work a longer time at home but he enjoys being able to
take two seconds to walk out and look at his garden and that kind of motivates him to get going. I don’t do that because I
can’t get back.’’

A different type of conversation, reported by five people, relates to the topic of how to engage in telecommuting. These
conversations covered a variety of topics including e-mail etiquette, access to data, home technology and self-discipline
at home. Gloria, a project development officer, said:
‘‘I asked you know, how they, it was just sort of over coffee, it was casual conversation about, ‘well how do you manage to
be sure that you have all of your files. How do you discipline yourself? Do you take breaks?’ Different things like that.’’

Finally, four people reported asking other people in passing how their telecommuting was going, although these conver-
sations often took place after their own decision had been made. While not directly seeking an opinion or specific informa-
tion, this type of interaction may help to validate the experience for the individual, and can also contribute to developing a
sense of collective experience.

4.4. Knowledge of others’ experiences

A second approach to exploring direct social influence involved asking people about their friends, colleagues and acquain-
tances at work. Respondents were asked to (1) think about people with whom they had day-to-day interactions at work, and
(2) the extent to which they considered these people to be friends, colleagues or acquaintances.7 They were then asked about
(3) their knowledge of each group’s telecommuting practice (observed behavior), and (4) whether they had talked with anyone
about their experiences (communicating). We give less attention here to the number of friends, colleagues and acquaintances,
focusing instead on respondents’ knowledge of others’ telecommuting practice and the nature of interactions that occurred.
Table 5a contains information on respondents’ knowledge of, and interactions with, friends at work. As seen there, a
majority of respondents said either that they had no friends at work (9) or that their friends did not telecommute (8). Of
the fourteen who knew of friends who were telecommuting, eleven respondents had engaged in conversation. Many of these
conversations occurred after respondents’ decision to telecommute had been made, and took one of three forms. Three peo-
ple reported conversations where they learned that a friend at work also worked from home. Reflecting overlap with the
previous section, other conversations focused on sharing experiences (8) and discussing strategies for how to telecommute
effectively (2). Examples of each of these types of interactions are presented below:
‘‘I guess occasionally it will come up. Like when I first started she was like, ‘Oh I don’t come in. . . I work from home
because sometimes I like to work at night. So it is easier to stay at home’ but it’s not really a formal discussion.’’ (Olive,
research assistant)

‘‘We both love it. We both love a lot of aspects of it; not having to drive; not having to park; not having to. . . being able to
work in your slippers sort of thing.’’ (Anne, research coordinator)
‘‘We talked, yes, you’d say, ‘Can you make it better and do I need to get that connection?’ or whatever. . . Quite often we
don’t work at home on the same days so we won’t necessarily see each other every day at work so if one knows that the
other one is there can help by covering stuff.’’ (Nicky, research coordinator)

7
These categories were mutually exclusive and were defined for respondents in the context of the interview. The strategy of asking respondents to think
about their interactions at work was used as an alternate way of approaching the question of social influence on telecommuting practice.
278 R.D. Wilton et al. / Transportation Research Part A 45 (2011) 269–282

Table 6
Pros and cons of telecommuting.

Pros Cons
Theme N Theme N
Productivity and less interruption 27 Work-related interaction 20
Convenience and flexibility 19 ‘‘Out of the loop’’ 7
Reduced stress 19 ‘‘Problem solving’’ 11
Family life 14 ‘‘Effective communication’’ 7
Better work/life balance 13 Social interaction and isolation 13
Saving time 8 Over-working 12
More independence (trust) 6 Data and technology issues 11
Saving money 5 Others’ reactions 10
Distractions 10
Lack of structure 8

With regard to colleagues at work, respondents were more likely to know someone who was telecommuting but less likely
to have had a conversation with them about the experience (Table 5b). Nine of the 21 people who said they had at least one
colleague who worked from home had engaged in conversation about telecommuting, with these conversations falling into
one of the three categories outlined above. Again, a majority of these conversations took place after respondents had made a
decision about their own telecommuting practice.
Questions about acquaintances’ practice met with less success, both because people found it difficult to quantify the num-
ber of acquaintances they had at work, and because they were unsure whether those individuals were telecommuting or not.
As Table 5c illustrates, a majority of people did not respond and/or had no knowledge of acquaintances’ practice. Of those
who did respond (8), half had had conversations about telecommuting with most limited to establishing a shared experience.
The preceding section suggested that explicit efforts to seek advice about the decision to telecommute are relatively rare.
This section suggests that most respondents with telecommuting friends at work have spoken about the practice, with con-
versations most likely to involve the sharing of experiences. While more respondents know other colleagues who telecom-
mute, they report fewer conversations about the practice. Again, those conversations that do occur are most likely to focus
on shared experience. Respondents were much less likely to know whether workplace acquaintances were telecommuters.
Although the vast majority of conversations with friends and colleagues took place after respondents had made their
decisions to telecommute, the exchanges are clearly relevant in that they contribute to the normalization of the practice
of working from home in the minds of respondents and perhaps signal a growing acceptance of the practice within the
broader work environment. Conversations about working in one’s slippers, greater productivity and running errands at
lunchtime, for example, help to build a shared understanding about telecommuting as an effective work practice. By con-
trast, the absence of such conversations or, worse still, interactions with others who do not see telecommuting as an appro-
priate work practice (see below) may prevent normalization.8 This, in turn, has implications for workplace culture.
Finally, it is important to note that knowledge of/conversations with other telecommuters may be limited by the absence
of a formal program at the institution, not least because the visibility and legitimacy afforded by a program might facilitate
open discussion. Related to this are tensions concerning the opportunities provided to unionized workers. For example, Shar-
on had negotiated informally with her boss to work from home 1 day a week. When her job in the faculty of health sciences
was unionized, concerns about the implications of her practice for other workers covered under the collective agreement
meant that:
I can’t say to my manager, is it okay if I work at home tomorrow because then she would basically have to say no, because
of the union... so we kind of have a quiet understanding that, you know, if I have to I can work from home but it’s, we don’t
talk about it too much. (Sharon, administrator, emphasis added).

In this and other instances, discussion about telecommuting is stifled by concerns about labor politics and departmental
tensions.

4.5. The pros and cons of telecommuting

Respondents were also asked to identify costs and benefits associated with their telecommuting practice (Table 6). We
focus our attention here on the question of social influence. Specifically, several of the costs of telecommuting have social
implications. The two most frequently cited costs concern the loss of (face-to-face) contact with others, both for work pur-
poses and for social interaction.

8
The same might be said about whether people know others who telecommute, even if they have not spoken with them directly about it. This knowledge
also provides a sense of shared experience. Something to keep in mind is the overall significance of work demands as a driving force in the decision to
telecommute. A significant number of respondents were principally motivated by a need to increase productivity by working away from the interruptions that
characterized the workplace – for some, literally a strategy to ‘keep their heads above water’. Perhaps the necessity of telecommuting as a work strategy means
that concerns about social consequences are downplayed?
 R.D. Wilton et al. / Transportation Research Part A 45 (2011) 269–282 279

With regard to work-related interaction, analysis of the responses suggested three distinct concerns. First, some respon-
dents felt that a lack of physical co-location made it harder to problem-solve. Jane, for example, had worked at home on a
full-time basis in a previous position. She explained:
‘‘I didn’t see anybody. It was terrible. You don’t, you never have time in a day where, you know, it’s really good to go and get
feedback from somebody else. When you’re by yourself you’re not going to pick up the phone for something simple, but if
somebody is walking by my door, or if I’m heading down to the ladies’ room, I’ll say, ‘Hey, I was going to ask you about. . .’’’
Second, other respondents expressed concerns about the potential to miss out on opportunities or the sharing of ‘insider
information’ by working from home. Gloria, a project development officer, commented:
‘‘I don’t want to say committed because I think the commitment still exists, but you just feel sort of – yuck – it’s a terrible
cliché – ‘Out of the loop.’ You know what I mean?’’
Last, some people expressed concern about the shortcomings of electronic communication for work purposes when com-
pared with the nuances and visible cues of face-to-face interaction (q.v. Mann et al., 2000). Nicky, a research coordinator,
commented:
‘‘I have been caught sometimes when I’ve said something in an email that, well I might mean as a joke but if I haven’t done the
laugh out loud or a face or something then sometimes you can create, you know. . . sometimes it’s just not appropriate.’’
Recognizing the potential costs associated with diminished face-to-face contact, some respondents talked about making
an additional effort to reduce the risk by interacting with as many people as possible on the days that they were in the work-
place. This was particularly the case for people in supervisory positions, but others also recognized the value of touching base
with colleagues in person to facilitate later contact and/or requests for assistance. Anne, a project manager, explained:
‘‘I just make a point of when I come onto campus, making sure I touch base with the people and let them see my face so
they know who I am when I phone or email.’’
Alongside work-related interaction, 13 respondents expressed concern about diminished social interaction. Their com-
ments were broadly similar in nature, reflecting concerns about missed opportunities for contact – bumping into friends,
going for lunch or just being around other people – and the corresponding risk of isolation and overwork at home.9 For exam-
ple, Bev and Nicky made the following comments:
‘‘When I get working, your work is satisfying but you don’t have that environment. I do miss the social aspect of working
in an office. . . I have a hard time finding any other inconveniences to total working except for not being able to pick peo-
ple’s brains, just laugh [or] go out to lunch.’’ (Bev)

‘‘Even if you’re not interacting with people, like you do see other people and you know get out or whatever. Whereas
there [at home] I’m just like four walls.’’ (Nicky)
As was noted above, concerns about diminished work-related and social contact were not associated with the desire/in-
tent to stop telecommuting.10 Concerns were more likely to be linked to statements about not wanting to work from home on
additional days or a full-time basis (q.v. Golden, 2006). This is in line with Cooper and Kurland’s (2002, p. 512) thesis ‘‘that a fear
of isolation may limit telecommuting frequency rather than telecommuting infrequency limiting isolation’’. Given the access to
more focused work time (as well as the flexibility to address childcare and other family needs) afforded by telecommuting,
some loss of contact may be an acceptable cost of working from home providing people feel able to build and/or sustain ties
on the days they are present. At the same time, one third and two thirds of respondents respectively did not cite the loss of
work-related or social interaction as a cost of telecommuting.
A third cost identified by respondents with obvious implications for social influence was the possibility of negative reac-
tions from others. Ten respondents noted adverse reactions as a problem, in situations where co-workers signaled that tele-
commuting was not accepted as a norm. Toni, a program coordinator, talked about repeated remarks she had heard during
meetings with workers from other departments:
‘‘People make comments, not the people in our department because people know the amount of work that I did did not
change because I am very motivated. . . but a few people we work with in other areas were kind of, made snide comments
at meetings... ‘Well, you are lucky that you get to do that. You should be grateful. . .’’’
Again, there was only one instance where negative reactions led directly to a change in practice (one respondent re-
counted an experience in which a colleague had stopped telecommuting due to concerns about others’ perceptions of her
contributions to the office). Others may be aware of the negative reactions but learn to deal with them as a necessary cost
of working from home. However, at least one respondent had not asked for more time at home because of a concern with
others’ perceptions. Kim, who worked at home once a week, thought her immediate supervisor:

9
Over-working was another cost associated with telecommuting, although there is a clear relationship between overwork and the absence of social contact
and associated workplace ‘distractions’.
10
As noted in Section 4.1, only one respondent said she had stopped telecommuting because of a lack of social contact.
280 R.D. Wilton et al. / Transportation Research Part A 45 (2011) 269–282

‘‘. . .might be concerned that I’m home watching Oprah or something, you know, when I’m not. I’m sitting in front of my
little tiny computer at home. I think that’s what held me back in terms of asking for more [days].’’

Kim and several other respondents also used strategies to make their contributions from home more visible.11 Kim,
for example, saved e-mail communications for the day she worked from home so that people would ‘see’ her work in
their inboxes.
Finally, and perhaps not surprisingly, a person’s position within a departmental hierarchy had considerable bearing on
whether they encountered negative reactions and, if they did, the extent to which they felt it necessary to respond. Cynthia,
for example, was the overall manager of a department. She commented on her staff’s reactions to her telecommuting:
‘‘They’re great that way too. They walk in and say, ‘How are you and what’s going on with the plan for tomorrow?’’’

While workers may really be ‘great’ about the telecommuting arrangement, it is also possible that they feel unable to ex-
press any dissatisfaction to their boss. Maggie talked about reactions from her staff when they realized that her decision to
telecommute did not mean that they would also have the option to work from home:
‘‘You could tell that there were one or two people that weren’t that thrilled with the fact that they wouldn’t get it, because
they immediately asked ‘oh, can we do it to’ [Int: did that cause any tension?] Just with one individual, but I think that as
time has gone by it has gotten better and [they] have come to terms with it.’’

These examples point to the ways in which an understanding of social influence is intimately linked to an appreciation of
power relations within the context of the workplace.

5. Summary and conclusions

In this paper, we report the results of a small-scale, qualitative investigation into the social aspects of the decision to tele-
commute. Using as a case study a technologically-enabled, public sector organization in Canada, interviews were conducted
with employees to learn about the different drives, facilitators, and constraints, associated with the decision to telecommute.
The analysis suggests that the nature of social influence varies substantially. At one extreme, some individuals may actively
seek advice from colleagues before making a decision to telecommute. At the other, elements of workplace interaction and
culture may have more subtle, but no less important, influence on whether an individual seeks permission to telecommute
and/or how they make sense of their experience once telecommuting has begun.
Keeping in mind that the format used to collect information allowed multiple answers to interview questions, it is
interesting to note that the findings mostly validate the motivators to telecommute listed by Mokhtarian and Salomon
(1994). More interestingly, the results indicate that some of these drives have a clear social component, and there are
clear indications that they may even work in opposite directions. For example, the desire to be productive may be
negatively affected by frequent interruptions at the workplace (e.g., people stopping by to say hello), or positively af-
fected by interactions that may lead to more efficient work (e.g., problem-solving), new collaborations, and other infor-
mation exchanges.
As noted above, workplace culture is found to have a subtle but important effect on perceptions (i.e., mis/understanding)
of telecommuting. In particular, in a previous paper (Páez and Scott, 2007), it was hypothesized that as the number of tele-
commuters increases, so would the ease for new adopters to make the change. The results of this qualitative investigation
suggest that interactions with other factors may be equally relevant – for example, as when the number of adopters in-
creases to the point that managers’ perceptions change in potentially negative ways, thus increasing the relevance of other
work-related constraints. In addition to actively seeking advice about telecommute arrangements, an interesting finding of
this research is that many of the verbal social interactions tend to take place after the fact – that is, once an individual has
made a decision to telecommute. The role of social interactions in such cases appears to be to validate the decision, as op-
posed to influence it. This complements previously hypothesized influence mechanisms (Páez and Scott, 2007) that called for
a time lag to let ‘‘revealed preferences’’ function as the communications channel. Our findings here suggest that contempo-
raneous effects may be important as well in the analysis of decision-making in social influence situations.
It is important to note that the contextual situation of the case study (lack of an officially-sanctioned, organization-wide
telecommute program) was key in influencing some responses in this research. Some barriers to adoption seem to stem di-
rectly from the fact that telecommuting was not official, but rather happened in more informal ways. For instance, this was
evident in the lack of a forum to formally discuss telecommuting practice, as well as the relative ease with which a new man-
ager could reverse previous arrangements, and even an established manager could have a change of mind. A direction for
future work is to extend the project to other organizations with well-established telecommute programs to investigate
the effect of contextual organizational situations.
Clearly, the findings from the case study suggest that social influence is multifaceted and cannot be ignored when formu-
lating policies promoting telecommuting. Traditional concerns such as loss of face-to-face interaction and missing out on
‘insider information’ must be addressed – perhaps through a program where workers telecommute part time. Policies should

11
There is a connection here with respondents’ concerns about over-working at home. Some linked a concern with demonstrating their productivity to
working longer hours in the evenings and on weekends.
 R.D. Wilton et al. / Transportation Research Part A 45 (2011) 269–282 281

also be developed that leverage the role of social influence in normalizing practice. For instance, the case study identifies
horizontal (peer-to-peer) and vertical (manager–employee) relationships as channels of influence. The extent to which a
telecommuting program is successful will depend on the information flowing through these channels. If the information
is positive, then the practice will be normalized over time. For employees, this means transparency, which can be achieved
by establishing specific guidelines for telecommuting practice. At the same time, normalization must proceed in ways that
reduce the threat to managers.
The findings reported in this paper suggest some potential improvements to future data collection efforts, in particular
those aimed at obtaining data useful for modeling purposes. In ongoing research, we have used the findings reported here
to inform a large web-based data collection effort, which has resulted in a sample of 731 respondents from approximately
4000 employees. This online survey asked respondents to list their work colleagues, and for those respondents who currently
telecommute, to state whether they spoke to their colleagues about telecommuting before adoption, after adoption, or not at
all. We would not have included this question as part of our online survey had we not been informed by our qualitative re-
search. An area of interest and a challenge as well will be to develop and use measures of workplace culture, and interactions
between the different drivers and constraints identified in this and previous work.

References

Ajzen, I., 1985. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl, J., Beckman, J. (Eds.), Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Springer,
Heidelberg, pp. 11–39.
Axhausen, K., 2005. Social networks and travel: some hypotheses. In: Donaghy, K., Poppelreuter, S., Rudinger, G. (Eds.), Social Aspects of Sustainable
Transport: Transatlantic Perspectives. Aldershot, Ashgate, pp. 90–108.
Bailey, D.E., Kurland, N.B., 2002. A review of telework research: findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational
Behavior 23, 383–400.
Bandura, A., 1977. Social Learning Theory. General Learning Press, New York.
Baruch, Y., Nicholson, N., 1997. Home, sweet work: requirements for effective home working. Journal of General Management 23, 15–30.
Bryman, A., 2004. Social Research Methods, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bryman, A., Teevan, J.J., 2005. Social Research Methods: Canadian Edition. Oxford, Don Mills, ON.
Carrasco, J.A., Miller, E.J., 2006. Exploring the propensity to perform social activities: a social network approach. Transportation 33, 463–480.
Clifton, K.J., Handy, S.L., 2001. Qualitative Methods in Travel Behaviour Research. Paper presented at the International Conference on Transport Survey
Quality and Innovation, Kruger National Park, South Africa.
Cooper, C.D., Kurland, N.B., 2002. Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee development in public and private organizations. Journal of
Organizational Behavior 23, 511–532.
Daniels, K., Lamond, D., Standen, P., 2001. Teleworking: frameworks for organizational research. Journal of Management Studies 38, 1151–1185.
Dugundji, E., Páez, A., Arentze, T., 2008. Social networks, choices, mobility, and travel. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 35, 956–960.
Dugundji, E.R., Walker, J.L., 2005. Discrete choice with social and spatial network interdependencies: an empirical example using mixed generalized
extreme value models with field and panel effects. Transportation Research Record 1921, 70–78.
EKOS, 1998. Canadians and Telework: The Information Highway and Canadian Communications Household Study. <http://www.ekos.ca/admin/
press_releases/nov98.pdf>.
Feldman, D.C., Gainey, T.W., 1997. Patterns of telecommuting and their consequences: framing the research agenda. Human Resource Management Review
7, 369–388.
Fukuda, D., Morichi, S., 2007. Incorporating aggregate behavior in an individual’s discrete choice. an application to analyzing illegal bicycle parking behavior.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 41, 313–325.
Goetzke, F., 2008. Network effects in public transit use: evidence from a spatially autoregressive mode choice model. Urban Studies 45, 407–417.
Golden, T.D., 2006. The role of relationships in understanding telecommuter satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27, 319–340.
Golden, T.D., Veiga, J.F., Dino, R.N., 2008. The impact of professional isolation on teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: does time
spent teleworking, interacting face-to-face, or having access to communication-enhancing technology matter? Journal of Applied Psychology 93,
1412–1421.
Gurstein, P., 2001. Wired to the World, Chained to the Home. UBC Press, Vancouver.
Hamilton, K., White, K.M., 2008. Extending the theory of planned behavior: the role of self and social influences in predicting adolescent regular moderate
to-vigorous physical activity. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 30, 56–74.
Hoggart, K., Lees, L., Davies, A., 2002. Researching Human Geography. Arnold, London.
Kitchin, R., Tate, N., 2000. Conducting Research in Human Geography: Theory, Methodology and Practice. Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Kurland, N.B., Bailey, D.E., 1999. Telework: the advantages and challenges of working here, there, anywhere, and anytime. Organizational Dynamics 28, 53–
68.
Mann, S., Vary, R., Button, W., 2000. An exploration of the emotional impact of tele-working via computer-mediated communication. Journal of Managerial
Psychology 15, 668–690.
Marshall, G.W., Michaels, C.E., Mulki, J.P., 2007. Workplace isolation: exploring the construct and its measurement. Psychology & Marketing 24, 195–223.
Mehlmann, M., 1988. Social aspects of telework: facts, hopes, fears, ideas. In: Korte, W.B., Robinson, S., Steinle, W.J. (Eds.), Telework: Present Situation and
Future Developments of a New Form of Work Organization. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 101–110.
Miller, H.J., 2005. Necessary space-time conditions for human interaction. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 32, 381–401.
Mokhtarian, P.L., Salomon, I., 1994. Modeling the choice of telecommuting – setting the context. Environment and Planning A 26, 749–766.
Mokhtarian, P.L., Salomon, I., 1996. Modeling the choice of telecommuting: 3: identifying the choice set and estimating binary choice models for
technology-based alternatives. Environment and Planning A 28, 1877–1894.
Neufeld, D.J., Fang, Y.L., 2005. Individual, social and situational determinants of telecommuter productivity. Information & Management 42, 1037–1049.
Nilles, J.M., 1988. Traffic reduction by telecommuting – a status review and selected bibliography. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 22,
301–317.
Páez, A., Scott, D.M., 2007. Social influence on travel behavior: a simulation example of the decision to telecommute. Environment and Planning A 39, 647–
665.
Patton, M., 1990. Qualitative Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks CA.
Scott, D.M., Kanaroglou, P.S., 2002. An activity-episode generation model that captures interactions between household heads: development and empirical
analysis. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 36, 875–896.
Strauss, A., Corbin, J., 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Vitoria, P.D., Salgueiro, M.F., Silva, S.A., De Vries, H., 2009. The impact of social influence on adolescent intention to smoke: combining types and referents of
influence. British Journal of Health Psychology 14, 681–699.
282 R.D. Wilton et al. / Transportation Research Part A 45 (2011) 269–282

Vovsha, P., Petersen, E., Donnelly, R., 2004. Impact of intra household interactions on individual daily activity-travel patterns. Transportation Research
Record 1898, 87–97.
Wells, K., Douma, F., Loimer, H., Olson, L., Pansing, C., 2001. Telecommuting implications for travel behavior – case studies from Minnesota. Transportation
Research Record 1752, 148–156.
Zhang, J.Y., Fujiwara, A., 2006. Representing household time allocation behavior by endogenously incorporating diverse intra-household interactions: a case
study in the context of elderly couples. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 40, 54–74.