


































UAFS Advances in Business Research 2012 LOWREZ (2).pdf


Ruppel, Tworoger, and Tworoger                                                                                                                                 Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 12-24 

 12  

 

Telework: Identifying a Personal Dimension to Work-Related Socio-Technical Theory  
 

Cynthia Ruppel, Nova Southeastern University 

Leslie Tworoger, Nova Southeastern University 

Thomas Tworoger, Nova Southeastern University 
 

 

This qualitative study uses socio-technical theory, which posits the interdependence of the social and the technical 

subsystems of work to view both the work and lives of managers in a Fortune 100 multinational corporation. The 

managers in the study were leading global virtual teams from their homes with no dedicated corporate office. We 

found that balancing across both the work and personal socio and technical systems, as well as across the systems 

in their integrated personal and professional lives, is very complex. The managers appeared to tolerate these 

difficulties for the flexibility they perceive teleworking provided. 
 

 

The complexity and competitiveness of the global business environment has led organizations to look for every 

advantage and to expect “anytime, anywhere” work from their employees. Increasing this complexity is the fact that 

many organizations have relocated workers from offices located primarily in corporate edifices into home offices, 

thereby necessitating that the workers balance their life and work roles. Telecommuting in this study will be defined 

as using technology to allow employees to achieve their work-related tasks while located away from the confines of 

the organization (Cooper, 1996). Even though this type of “remote office work” (Olson, 1983: 182) has been studied 

since the mid-twentieth century it has been the confluence of the availability of sophisticated technology coupled 

with the global nature of the business environment that has led to an expansion of this trend.  

The pervasive nature of technology coupled with the demands of 24/7 work has led to many recent studies 

concerning the impact of this ubiquitous technology on individuals. When the worker lacks the defined boundary 

that is provided by an office setting and works from home, this impact may overflow into the personal life of the 

individual, causing family conflict and contributing to the feeling of impossible work demands (Turel, Serenko, & 

Bontis, 2011). Perlow (2012) states, “Although these ubiquitous devices put the world at our fingertips, and 

seemingly free us from the shackles of the office, they also invade our lives and psyches” (2012, para. 1). She 

continues, “Together, we perpetuate and amplify expectations of each other and ourselves, making our own and our 

colleagues' lives more intense, more overwhelming, more demanding, and less fulfilling than they need to be” 

(2012, para. 6). 

This qualitative study uses the lens of socio-technical theory, which posits the interdependence and balancing of 

the work social and the work technical subsystems within organizations (Trist, Higgin, Murray, & Pollock, 1963), to 

view the work and lives of managers in a Fortune 100 multinational corporation (MNC). These managers were 

leading a global virtual team from their “domestic workplace” and had no dedicated corporate office. The domestic 

workplace will be defined as “their home offices or any location made necessary by their work and life roles” 

(Tworoger, Ruppel, Gong, & Pohlman, 2012: 4). This study responds to a call for research on the long term effects 

of telework (Taskin & Bridoux, 2010). It also makes a contribution by proposing to expand the scope of socio-

technical theory called for by Pasmore, Francis, Haldeman and Shani, who state that as new work arrangements 

evolve because of technology “new methods of analysis will be called for” (1982: 1199). Pasmore and colleagues, 

further, call for researchers “to pay closer attention to the development of technology and to better understand its 

impact on behavior” (p.1200).  
 

Theory and Research Question 
 

The use of the socio-technical system theory (STS) originated with a study of coal-mining methods by the 

Tavistock Institute researchers in the 1950’s and 1960’s in Great Britain. STS addressed the introduction of 

technology into the enterprise and recognized that both the human and the technical aspects of the enterprise needed 

to operate as interacting systems (Trist et al., 1963). The enterprise is comprised of two subsystems; the technical 

subsystem is “concerned with the processes, tasks, and technology needed to transform inputs into outputs” 

(Bostrom & Heinen, 1977: 17) while the social system is “concerned with the attributes of people (e.g. attitudes, 

skills, values), the relationships among people, reward systems, and authority structures” (Bostrom & Heinen, 1977: 

17). Indeed, it is the interaction of these subsystems that results in the outcomes of the organization. A basic premise 

of STS thinking is that “organizations that ‘jointly optimize’ the two interdependent subsystems are more likely to 

obtain positive outcomes” (Patnayakuni & Ruppel, 2010: 220). Pasmore and colleagues (1982), stated that much of 



Ruppel, Tworoger, and Tworoger                                                                                                                                 Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 12-24 

 13  

 

the early work on the development of socio-technical systems theory was completed using “blue-collar industrial 

settings”; however, future evolution of the theory would reflect the “ever shifting demands of the environment” 

(1189), “white-collar populations” and “innovation in large systems” (1199).  

More than three decades ago, Alvin Toffler, discussed the relationship between technology and humans and 

proposed the home-based workplace or the “electronic cottage” (1980: 10). Feldman and Gainey (1997) expanded 

the concept by developing dimensions of telecommuting which encompassed those who work either full-time or part 

time, either flexible or set schedules, by themselves at home or with others in an off-site location, and finally those 

who are telecommuting at the behest of the organization or at their own request. 

Depending on which of these types of arrangements are implemented, telework has been heralded as 

advantageous both to the organization and to the employee. The organization frequently profits from an improved 

image, sees reduced costs for real estate, and benefits from a distributed workforce more able to respond to global 

demands. Correspondingly, the employee is frequently grateful for more control, autonomy and flexibility (Kurland 

& Bailey, 1999; Taskin & Bridoux, 2010; Pyoria, 2011).  

The effect on workers’ quality of life was explored by Shamir and Salomon, who viewed the “work-at-home 

arrangement with some suspicion” (1985: 462). They point to the possibility of certain issues arising that are related 

to task: increased hours, lack of feedback, and lack of the feeling of task significance. On the social relations side of 

the equation they proposed that “social isolation,” “impaired socialization,” “impaired social reference base” and 

“reduced consideration” from leadership could be problematic (1988: 456). A study by Morganson, Major, Oborn, 

Verive, and Heelan found that teleworkers faced increased “social isolation” (2010: 589).   

Taskin and Bridoux (2010) echoed the earlier concerns of Shamir and Salomon (1985) concerning telework 

stating that even though the benefits of flexibility and autonomy are heralded, they fear it will constrain knowledge 

sharing and transfer, social relationships, and shared values and goals within the organization. Similarly, De Sousa, 

Pellissier and Monteiro (2012, 47) defined business collaboration as a “…means [of] connecting people ideas and 

resources that would not bump into one another normally.” Thus, does a traditional office setting present more 

opportunities to interact and thus stimulate creativity and innovation through collaboration, knowledge sharing and 

transfer? 

Additionally, Jaakson and Kallaste noted that telework alters the psychological contract between workers and 

their employers by shifting “responsibilities from employer to employee” and this shift is “somewhat asymmetrical” 

(2010: 205). Bryant (2000) probed gender issues related to telework and found that while the workers studied were 

able to configure their telework tasks to their personal situations, there were indications that control over the tasks, 

feelings of isolation and fragmentation were all still problematic. Similarly, Whittle and Mueller’s research subjects 

acknowledged the benefits of telework such as flexibility, they also spoke of “isolation, disconnection, disaffection 

and cynicism” (2009: 131). Hill, Miller, Weiner, and Colihan (1998) conducted qualitative and quantitative analysis 

of IBM employees, both teleworkers and office workers, to examine productivity, flexibility and work-life balance. 

Even though the results were mixed, implications were that organizations should select technology carefully, that 

training should encompass both the social and technical aspects of telework, and that teleworkers should focus on 

shutting down their work activities. 

This inability of the teleworker to disengage from work was the subject of Turel et al.’s (2011) study. They 

found that the very technology that was to free workers from the confines of the organization, may now be leading 

to perceived work overload, addiction to technology and family conflict. Technology has facilitated this move to 

distributed work and by virtue of the remoteness of the workers renders technical tools vital, ever present, and 

ultimately ubiquitous. The popular press contains warnings of addiction (Richtel, 2012: B1), the blurring of work- 

life boundaries (Turkle & Coutu, 2003: 43), alienation (Turkle, 2007), stress (Perlow, 2012), and depression and 

anxiety (Dokoupil, 2012).  

Similarly, emerging academic research also carries a cautionary tale about workers who are succumbing to 

“technostress” (Gendreau, 2007: 191), “addiction-driven use of organizational pervasive technologies” (Turel et al., 

2011: 94), and “problematic” or “pathological” Internet use “associated with substantial distress and dysfunction” 

(Aboujaoude, Koran, Gamel, Large, & Serpe, 2006: 754).  

Socio-technical theory was originally designed to frame the introduction of technology into an organizational 

setting (Trist et al., 1963). The two interactive subsystems of STS, technical and social, will provide a useful 

framework to explore this increased level of complexity as workers have moved from the organizational setting into 

the personal setting of the domestic workplace. The following research question will guide this inquiry: 
 

Research Question: How do global virtual managers balance the social and technical systems while teleworking 

in the domestic workplace? 

 



Ruppel, Tworoger, and Tworoger                                                                                                                                 Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 12-24 

 14  

 

METHODOLOGY 
 

The managers that served as the focus of this study were part of a high performing team within a Fortune 100 

MNC. The managers were leading a global virtual team to initiate a project that subsequently led to a company-wide 

reorganization. Not only did the team receive recognition for this project, but the senior leader was recognized as 

one of the top managers in the organization. This team was comprised of one executive level manager who had led 

teams of as many as 16,000 employees, two senior level managers, one who had direct responsibility for the project 

and two mid-level managers. One of the managers suggested that we contact his spouse, who works for the same 

MNC, for a perspective of a dual teleworker home and we subsequently conducted that interview. All of the subjects 

had at least 10 years of experience with the company and three had been with the MNC for more than 20 years. All 

had previously worked in offices but had now made the transition solely to the “domestic workplace”. 
 

Data Collection and Analysis 
 

In compliance with the Human Subjects Review Board all notifications and protocols to protect the subjects and 

the organization were observed. The interviews were conducted using research procedures outlined by Miles and 

Huberman (1994) and using a discussion outline to guide the interviews. The recordings of the interviews with the 

managers were transcribed verbatim and reviewed by the researchers for accuracy. Subsequently the interviews were 

summarized and returned to each manager to verify our interpretation of their comments (Priest, 2002). Their 

positive feedback indicated that we had correctly interpreted their responses.  

The data was then analyzed by the researchers and two trained research assistants using techniques suggested by 

Creswell (2007) and Miles and Huberman (1994). Coding schemes were developed from the frequency of key words 

and themes. The researchers agreed on categories to which over 545 passages were assigned by the researchers for 

further review. Two trained research assistants independently reviewed the 545 passages and assigned them to 

categories which were then used to develop a frame for the data. 

In addition to the individual interviews with the managers, the research team observed the managers during 

meetings about their initiative at a regional headquarters office, attended an evening work-related dinner, and 

conducted subsequent follow-up emails regarding data and its analysis. Two additional validation steps were 

undertaken. First, the senior level manager in the study reviewed an early version of a paper and felt it accurately 

presented the situation. Second, two managers, one senior level and one executive level who worked for the MNC 

but external to this project, confirmed that our interpretation of the data accurately reflected their similar experiences 

working in the organization. Secondary data from multiple sources was collected including the MNC’s website and 

articles in the popular and academic press about this organization and used to validate the researcher’s 

interpretations of working in the MNC. 
 

Findings 
 

This MNC was among the early adopters of telecommuting at the corporate level. The organization decided to 

increase productivity by reducing real estate costs by over a period of time eliminating corporate offices and 

allowing workers to telework. We felt it was important to identify how these employees became global, virtual 

managers to contextualize their attitudes towards telework. They responded: 
 

I started working from home because I had a handicapped child, and it was too hard … it was just too stressful. 

So I asked them to allow me to move my office to my home. 
 

The others had a less defining moment but they told a story similar to this one: It morphed - it really wasn’t a 

decision - it just kind of happened.  
 

Workload 
 

To examine the work system it is important to understand what the components of the current work system are 

and how they interact. The first one we examined is workload. The respondents felt the workload seemed to be 

never ending. 
   

There have been periods in my life where it’s Thursday, and you’ve realized I haven’t even been outside since 

Monday, and it’s very unhealthy. I mean, you’ve got to really watch it, or you just work straight through. 



Ruppel, Tworoger, and Tworoger                                                                                                                                 Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 12-24 

 15  

 

I think everyone has much more work than can possibly get done, and demands on requesting more of our time, 

or demands, or requests coming in to help with something else - you know - constantly - so there’s always things 

that are going on - there’s the one where you have more work than you can possibly handle. 
 

When I get back in [from client site and meetings] at ten o’clock at night, I’ve got 200 emails sitting there from - 

they’ve collected all day. No way to get it done. So you just do what you can. You work for a couple hours (you 

may work from ten to one). You go to bed, and you start it all over again the next day. After a while - you know, it’s 

tough. And everybody works on the weekends, so - that is kind of tough. 
 

You can literally work from anywhere, and so the work’s always there at all the time. I could work 24 hours a 

day 7 days a week and I never would have caught up. 
 

The combination of an anytime, anywhere ability to work, when combined with endless tasks to accomplish, 

resulted in making balancing the socio system and the technical system difficult for the managers as well as making 

them susceptible to techno-stress. When interviewing the wife in the dual teleworking couple we inquired about the 

manager. She stated he had taken the day off.  However, what she said next was illustrative: 
 

No, actually he took off today - he went turkey hunting… but he called - he actually pinged me because he 

brought his computer and was working from the car because it was raining - so, he was checking mail. 
 

Even when taking a “day off” he took his computer with him making his technology ubiquitous. Another 

manager mentioned taking his computer on vacation with his family and getting up early to deal with email before 

the rest of the family awoke. 
  

This constant workload resulted in some manager’s exhibiting behavior similar to the manager identified by a 

respondent and described as follows: 
 

Jimmy’s online all the time. Jimmy never shuts down to say it’s think time. And you can tell by the way he 

manages. He manages in react mode. He doesn’t manage in a proactive way, and say, “Let’s put a plan together, and 

what are we doing?” It’s, “I’m always there to be called upon,” and if you’re always there, you’re going to be called 

upon. 
 

Clearly this makes it difficult if not impossible to maintain optimal systems balance. To avoid mimicking 

Jimmy’s behavior, a majority of our respondents mentioned the importance of a conscious effort to prioritize tasks 

to deal with the constant workload, and thus lead to optimal balance of the work-related socio-technical system. 
 

You need to know which balls you have that you’re juggling that are rubber and which ones are glass - which 

things you have to take care of now. You have to be really good at prioritization. 
 

I need to be able to be comfortable with what I’m getting done, and what’s not important to get done today. So 

my point is there’s always work to be done. When your office is 12 steps away from your kitchen, and I’m in the 

basement, it is extremely tempting and it took me a long time to get those boundaries defined that I’ll be done. You 

know, “Debbie - I’m going to run downstairs just to take care of something.” And then you get done (with) this, and 

while I’m here, I might as well do this, or I’ll do this. It really can lend itself to becoming a workaholic easily 

because it’s always there - your files are there - your computer is there. 
 

You make appointments with yourself … because you can work all the time from anywhere … There were times 

in my life where I just worked all the time. I would fill up every single hour of every single day because I could, and 

I still could, literally work from anywhere. And so the work’s always there all the time. 
 

One manager summed it up by asking: Where does work begin and end? 
 

The 24 hour nature of managing job tasks carried out by global team members, and their information-related 

needs also appeared to contribute to the difficulty of finding not only the optimal work socio-technical balance but 

also the optimal personal socio-technical balance. One respondent stated: 
 

…I’ve had jobs where part of my responsibility was managing India. I could start a call at 4 o’clock in the 

morning, and you just do it. There’s a tremendous amount of conference calls in this lifestyle.  

 



Ruppel, Tworoger, and Tworoger                                                                                                                                 Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 12-24 

 16  

 

Integration of Work/Life - the Need to Multitask 
 

We found that as part of balancing all the activities that take place simultaneously in their lives, often 24/7, the 

global virtual managers reported engaging in a significant amount of multitasking across both roles. They appear to 

be integrating both work and life tasks. 
  

Because people used to say, “There is no balance.” It’s infusion. So how do you essentially infuse work into    

life - life into work. 
 

…right now I can drop them off at school, and I can be on a call before I drop them off or as soon as I leave the 

parking lot, and depending on my schedule, I can pick them up and bring them home. 
 

You have to struggle about balance. I mean, you need to get outside, you need to get some fresh air, and you 

need to get to the gym. I mean, quite honestly, last year I bought an elliptical, and I have it in my basement so while 

I’m on these long, boring conference calls, I just jump on there and workout while I’m listening because that’s one 

of the ways I cope. 
   

My wife and I just finished putting an addition on our house - on any given day, she could find me in the closet 

or wherever it was quiet to do the call. So you do have those environmental things you have to take into 

consideration, as well as - you know, you have a storm - knocks down the telephone line. You’re disconnected - you 

know, electricity goes out. 
 

But, most people, when they leave the office, they leave the job - they come home - their family life is 

completely separate. But, it is different when you work from home. The two are much more integrated. 
 

When interviewing the manager’s spouse over the phone, we found that the interviewee was providing us with 

an example of the extreme multitasking that takes place. While we were conducting the interview she excused 

herself to answer a call, answer the door and she subsequently told us she was on a conference call at the time we 

were conducting the interview. During the other interviews, which were face-to-face, no multitasking took place so 

this was an illustration of what occurs in their daily lives. 
 

1) Hold on - I’ve got to tell - I’m (pause), just one second - I have to tell someone that I’m on a call. 
 

2) …home (doorbell - hold on just one second)… Okay, I’m sorry. 
 

3) I’m in a meeting right now with over 40 people at the daily chat that we have regarding some testing that’s 

going on and there are people on the chat room all around the world. 
 

Balancing Socio and Technical Systems 
 

Despite the fact that we asked little about their personal lives and focused on working virtually/teleworking, 

since the managers had integrated/infused the two together, their responses made clear that they appear to link them 

tightly together, perhaps even unconsciously. We saw references in their answers to not only balancing the socio 

system and the technical system in their work lives, but also in balancing the socio and technical systems in their 

personal lives (see Figure 1).   
 

Figure 1: Traditional Socio-Technical Systems 
 

 Socio-system Technical-system 

personal 

  

work 

  

Socio-technical theory 

Socio-technical theory 



Ruppel, Tworoger, and Tworoger                                                                                                                                 Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 12-24 

 17  

 

When analyzing the data we found it difficult to separate the personal systems from the technical systems due to 

the large amount of integration occurring. Traditionally, the boundary between the personal socio and technical 

systems, as well as the work socio and technical systems, has been relatively solid due to time (set work hours) and 

space boundaries (corporate offices). However, when working virtually these boundaries appeared to be becoming 

more permeable while moving towards nonexistence (Figure 2). Workers are now trying to balance the personal 

socio-technical system and the work socio-technical system as well as to balance across the two since the boundaries 

between work and personal has become permeable (indicated by broken dashed lines) due to integration/infusion.  

This shift is supported by a respondent’s use of the term “work/life infusion” rather than integration. 
 

Figure 2:  Socio-Technical Systems identified in Virtual Workers 
 

 Socio-system                                        Technical-system 

personal 

 

work 

 

 

Socio System - Work Issues 
 

…in person, not only do you speak words, but your body speaks language, your face shows expressions - you 

lose all that when you’re working virtually. 
 

Remotely, they can be in a terrible mood, and they can just say, “Hey, I’m sorry, but I’ve got too much going 

on,” or whatever, but it’s different in person. 
 

…yesterday I was in Atlanta teaching a group of people about what we do, and I met one gentleman for the first 

time face-to-face - he’s worked with me for five years. 
 

One of my best friends, we didn’t meet for the first five years of our friendship, and she lives a town away from 

me Yeah - we became best friends over instant messaging. You know, we worked together every day - we talked 

every day - and before you knew it, five years had gone by, and I still had never met her in person. 
 

You still form, umm, the relationship, but you’re just - I don’t think it takes you to the part where you’re friends 

outside of the office. You kind of don’t - at least I haven’t experienced that. You might say, hey, let’s get together 

sometime, or whatever - and I have this one guy that I work with too, and I’m like, you know, we keep saying, 

we’ve got to get together, you know - umm, he loves dogs, and I’m like, you’ve got to meet my Mudge - Mudge 

would love you - and it just never happens. But we still, you know, I mean, I still consider him a friend - just a work 

friend that we wouldn’t necessarily become personal friends. 
 

While patterns of interaction have changed, there is also a limiting effect on interactions resulting in a sense of 

isolation: 
 

CNBC, CNN, MSNBC - honestly, I think it’s my interaction now. It’s not so much with other [company 

employees] - with the media - what’s going on in the world. So, I may have a TV going on, you know, in the 

background at low levels, and I’m doing this, and if I’ve got some down town - I’m, well, what’s going on in the 

world type of socialization. 
 

Another agreed: I have a TV downstairs [where office is located], and I’ll just throw on CNN because it’s just 

another voice, or just some - because it can get really lonely. 
  

Working from home was very difficult for me for a lot of reasons. Number one it’s very lonely - I mean you feel 

very disconnected. 

Socio-technical theory 

Socio-technical theory 



Ruppel, Tworoger, and Tworoger                                                                                                                                 Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 12-24 

 18  

 

A sense of isolation is not the only reason for at least some amount of face-to-face contact. Short timelines, 

increased synergy, increased collaboration and increased efficiency are also reasons to replace at least some amount 

of teleworking with face-to-face meetings. 
 

…none of us are distracted because we are in the room together, and we are just much more efficient that way, 

and there are times, and last year in some of the task forces that I was running, we insisted - even if we had a travel 

freeze - we had special permission to get together and just get it done – because we had to continue and we had so 

much to do, it was very difficult to do virtually. But that’s a tough one because the people I work with are all over 

the world, so the odds of us being able to get into an office - we have to make it happen and travel to make it 

happen. 
 

If we were all in the same office with the group we’re working with, we could have just plugged through what 

we needed to get done. And now, we’re ending up scheduling additional calls and working more on it than I think 

we probably should - but it’s more about getting buy in from some of the pricing team that doesn’t agree with 

things. 
 

I enjoy being around people. I get very energized being around people; it’s fun - you know - the give and take - 

the brainstorming that can go on in a room and the energy - I loved all that. I enjoy being around people.  
 

I missed the people and the energy being around them. 
 

Technical System - Work Issues 
 

To sit on a conference call for five hours, it’s deadly. And especially - and then somebody invariably will start 

writing things on a board, and you’re going, “Hello - can’t see it - you know,” or the phone’s down at that end, and 

you can’t hear them - that’s  challenging. 
 

I think executives especially are reluctant to use that tool [instant messaging] just because you can get so much 

going at one time so you lose control of your ability to manage your time.  I know some people really like it. It’s just 

different styles. We all adapt to our different styles. I personally - you know, most people know if I get on the 

system then I’ll soon get a note, “Hey, surprised to see you on [instant messaging],” “Yeah, (laughs) you’re right, 

and I’m not going to be on here long. 
 

That’s a big problem for - with instant messaging and the phone right there and the cell phone, the land line, and 

instant messaging - all these vehicles with which they can interrupt, and that’s where I do on my calendar is go in 

and block sections of a day. I go and block two or three hours, and I shut down, you know, communication with the 

world so I have some think time. 
 

…there’s no need to explain and no need to see the emotions on each other’s faces. It’s just so much easier. It 

does take a lot of the stresses out of the equation. I rather enjoy it. 
 

Technical System - Life Issues 
 

And we use all of it - we even, you know, home numbers. 
 

Every time I walk by the kitchen table because that’s where my PC sits (remember), there’s email always 

available. You end up just knowing that you’re never going to keep up with it. 
 

When you’re in an office, no one thinks anything of you taking a break, or going to get a cup of coffee and 

sitting in the cafeteria and chit-chatting - those same things happen at home, and I don’t ever expect someone to be 

sitting at their desk every minute of every day. 
 

Socio System - life issues including family 
 

You know, an interesting point for me is my wife also works for [same company] and also works from home. So 

she’s in the kitchen - I’m in the office. And honest to god folks, we do instant messaging - Do you want to have 

lunch? Let’s meet in the kitchen for lunch type of thing (laughs). 
 
 



Ruppel, Tworoger, and Tworoger                                                                                                                                 Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 12-24 

 19  

 

Mommy’s on the phone - they don’t … recognize that I have a phone up to my ear and they just start talking to 

me, because it can be constant - so I have to work hard to separate it when they’re there. I can’t always do that, but I 

try to just focus and not be online at dinner time ... So I think they just view it as …a natural part of what I do - a 

natural part of their life. 
 

…the disadvantage I would say is, to be able to put the boundaries around and say, now I’m finished working, 

and now I’m going to go focus on my family. 
  

But that’s very important because I’ve seen what it’s [burnout] done to people. More importantly, I’ve seen what 

it’s done to families. 
 

For the people that can master it, they love it because - you know, my wife can go out, and I can be home while 

the baby’s sleeping, it gives her more independence. Or she can take a part-time job or whatever it is, I can be, and 

in fact, if you do it right, I can be more present. I can be more present to them in their life now. It also takes some 

guts because sometimes you have to say no to people who don’t want to hear it (like your manager), and say, “I 

can’t make that meeting.” 
  

If I get on a plane and go away for two or three days, you know, she gets some time alone - I get some time 

alone, and we come back together for the better, so - we had to do some adjustments in our marriage - in our 

personal lives - in our relationship - because we’re on top of each other all the time. He went on to say: [it] 

developed into a - these are my chores that are related to the personal life - these are her chores every day, and 

we’ve kind of matured into that kind of - evolved into that kind of relationship. 
 

I think first and foremost, having nothing to do with business, you need to know yourself.  You need to know 

what’s important to you. For me, umm, I am very devoted to my family. 
 

They’ve [agreements] just emerged. And it’s not something we’ve ever really sat down and talked about. I mean, 

we do ask each during the day, “What does your day look like,” - you know, if he’s got calls all day then I know 

he’s going to be in his office all day. But I don’t think of it that way. It’s really more of a question of, “What’s your 

day look like?” (pause) And then, there are times when I’m just swamped, and we will have to - sometimes he’s got 

to go get our son from school if I can’t - If I’ve got a call and I have to be at my desk, he’ll go get our son - and vice 

versa. It’s just across the street, so it’s not a big deal. 
 

Alternately a respondent, who is single, felt that while she did not have to balance family activities she had 

difficulties optimally balancing the systems by shifting activities to a partner. 
   

I’m single, and I don’t have another person that can go and do all that other stuff that still has to get done. 
 

When analyzing the data we found it difficult to separate the personal systems from the work systems due to the 

large degree of integration occurring. Traditionally the line between the personal socio and technical systems and the 

work socio and technical systems has been relatively solid due to time (set work hours) and space (corporate offices) 

boundaries. However when working virtually, these boundaries appeared to be highly permeable (Figure 2).   
 

Organizational Support  
 

Another issue which impacts a teleworker’s ability to balance the socio and technical systems of work is the lack 

of support received relative to what is available on-site in an organization. This issue was mentioned by a majority 

of the subjects without prompting.  It appears that the burdens of maintaining balance, including cost considerations, 

have been moved from the organization to the employee. A wide range of issues were mentioned: 
 

… there are some things in the office environment that – you know - you don’t have to clean the office. … It 

doesn’t happen at home that way. … I’ve got to empty my own trash. 
 

When I worked from the office, you can get up and turn the air-conditioner down or way up so it wasn’t running 

all day long while you weren’t there, and you can turn the lights off so part of that cost [the company] pushed away, 

landed in my lap. 

 



Ruppel, Tworoger, and Tworoger                                                                                                                                 Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 12-24 

 20  

 

They were laggards … it’s only been in the last year and a half that they actually - kind of, begrudgingly - had 

help desk support - you could call help desk numbers. 
 

… up until a year and a half, if you had wireless at home, we don’t support that … they were certainly organized 

to support the office -- not necessarily to support the home. 
 

So if I‘m home now, and I am working on my printer (and I am not technical at all) - and that printer breaks. For 

a lot of us that was tough. I mean, that was a real pain in the neck because like, where do you take it? … So even 

from the technical standpoint, it was a pain in the neck getting your phone line set up at home and making sure they 

go into a phone mailbox working with AT&T - it was all that “tactical” stuff I’ll call it. Umm, eventually you start to 

find different ways to cope or to deal with it. 
 

Optimized Outcomes? - Perceptions of Productivity   
 

Since socio-technical theory is concerned with jointly balancing the socio and technical systems to produce the 

optimized outcomes, we examined the outcome of productivity since it is the one mentioned most frequently 

regarding telework. Relative to an office setting, one respondent’s view of productivity was: I’m probably more 

productive because I’m much happier; while others suggested: 
 

I think that the company benefits greatly. I think they get more out of us than they would if we were sitting in an 

office because you know that time spent - when you need to go take a break and sit in the cafeteria and chit-chat - 

you know, either you stay late to make up that time or you leave, and most people would leave at the same time 

every day. So, you’ve lost that time. 
 

But there are still a handful of executives who still believe we lost a tremendous amount of productivity. I don’t 

think it’s a productivity issues as much as I think it’s a loyalty issue. I think it’s a connectivity - [Why do they think 

you’ve lost productivity?] Because they’re the old school, and they think if you’re not sitting next door to me, I 

don’t know what you’re doing. [They have no - no - no actual quantitative proof] It’s gut, it’s all gut. 
 

One source of increased productivity, which is not the result of joint optimization, surfaced when we inquired 

concerning how the commuting time employees saved was allocated. We were told: 
 

Yes, those three hours went back to [the company name]. 
 

Flexibility 
   

Despite the fact that the commuting time gained, the real estate cost savings and the cost of providing support 

services have all benefitted the organization rather than the teleworker, the managers do not wish to return to the 

office environment. 
   

If somebody said, “You can work from the office or you can work from home,” I wouldn’t go back to an office. 
  

  It’s so second hand to me - it’s just natural; it’s so natural for me now I can’t imagine doing anything else. 
 

I’m a big fan of working from home. 
 

Another when asked about returning to a corporate office stated clearly:  I would hate it. 
 

So, it would be very tough to have to go into an office, and that’s one of the things I think about - if I were ever 

offered a job in industry - to have to get up, get dressed and go to the office - the same office every day, without 

having a lot more flexibility or just different types of things that I do every day or places I need to be - it would be 

tough for me to do now. 
 

It appears that these teleworkers felt that working from home gives them greater flexibility both in balancing 

work life and personal life, as well as in balancing the work-related social and technical systems. We relate the 

flexibility described to the autonomy that Pasmore et al. (1982) found often occurs in sociotechnical systems 

experiments. 

 



Ruppel, Tworoger, and Tworoger                                                                                                                                 Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 12-24 

 21  

 

So, working from home is interesting because it does offer you flexibility - which is great, and I’m used to it 

now. Actually, I prefer it now.  
 

And so, just by the fact that I’m home, I can, you know, at 11 o’clock, if I’m like - oh my god, I’m running out 

of bread and milk - you know, I can do a quick run. 
 

I can block my calendar from 12 to 1 because I’m going to my daughter’s kindergarten class and read a book to 

her class. … I can go to soccer at 3 o’clock, and I can do my work at night. So, that flexibility is phenomenal in 

terms of - and that’s one of the best things about [working virtually]. 
 

But, I’m so used to the flexibility, and you know, you go wherever you need to go, but if you don’t need to go 

anywhere, I go five feet to my kitchen counter to work.   
 

DISCUSSION 

 

We found that the respondents were balancing their personal socio and technical systems as well as their work 

socio and technical systems from the same place and often at the same time. This integration of work life and 

personal life resulted in the managers also balancing across both the personal and work socio and technical systems 

results in a very complex set of interrelated systems to be balanced. The managers appeared to accept these 

difficulties in exchange for the perceived flexibility they believed teleworking provided. We propose that what is 

perceived as “flexibility” is actually the ability to balance across the personal socio technical systems and the work 

socio technical systems. This is achieved through the integration of activities in these systems by the managers.  

Thus, the research question, “How do global virtual managers balance the social and technical systems while 

teleworking in the domestic workplace?” has a complex and somewhat person-specific answer represented in Figure 

2. For each person there is a personal comfort level of what “balance” and “joint optimization” entails. 

Workers may now work along a continuum ranging from working only in an office setting, to rarely or never 

working in a traditional office, substituting other locations ranging from clients sites to homes. We have studied 

workers near the high endpoint of this virtuality continuum, those who work in the domestic workplace and have no 

formal corporate office. While some of our findings are common to other teleworkers depending upon their point 

along the continuum, these finding led us to develop a formal definition for the ‘domestic workplace” beyond 

simply a location that is not the organization’s formal office site. We can now define it as work locations where 

boundaries are permeable and work and personal activities are, or can, be integrated. This includes not only 

locations in their homes and client sites, but also locations such as a child’s school, sports fields, vacation locations, 

or hunting sites, all of which became ”work”  locations as described by our respondents. 

In addition, the global nature of the teams our respondents managed meant that the work flow continued and 

often required the attention of the manager 24/7. This is difficult to accomplish in a corporate office setting. Our 

results suggest that at this low endpoint of the virtuality continuum, attaining optimal balance is nearly impossible 

without integrating both personal and work activities.   

This integration of the systems, particularly when not balanced optimally, leads to the type of impacts cited in 

both the popular and academic literature previously discussed such as addiction. According to Turkle, we need to 

“separate from our technology” and this “means turning off our devices, disengaging from our always-on culture. 

However, this is not a simple proposition, since our devices have become more closely coupled to our sense of our 

bodies and increasingly feel like extensions of our minds” (2007, para.10). These managers felt the need to have 

work technology ever present, even on hunting trips. Given the respondents’ workloads, anything which encourages 

addictive behavior exacerbates the issue. 

Our respondents were educated, high performing managers who would appear to be equipped to cope. Yet, we 

wonder if these individuals, while appearing to cope, are achieving their full potential? Alternatively, will they 

“burnout” over time, making them ultimately less productive and contribute to an organizational loss of intellectual 

capital? Future research should attempt to predict whether these issues will be recognized and minimized.  

Organizations need to recognize the issues, raise awareness and take proactive steps to avoid these outcomes.  

Longitudinal studies of virtual workers and ways to support them should be a priority as this trend increases.  

At the time of data collection the majority of our respondents were positive inclined towards telework due to its 

perceived “flexibility”, without fully and consciously recognizing the impacts of teleworking from home. Thus, they 

were not willing to return to the office. We heard “You know, umm, and that’s interesting” and “You know, an 

interesting point for me”, “you know, it’s interesting because”, and “That’s an interesting point” in some form 61 

times across all respondents. This suggests that in their busy, integrated lives they had not reflected upon the reality 

of what was occurring as they juggled seemingly endless commitments. As researchers we had to ask ourselves  



Ruppel, Tworoger, and Tworoger                                                                                                                                 Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 12-24 

 22  

 

whether: when a manager has to be reminded that they should stop working while at the deathbed of a parent, when 

workers look up from work only to notice four days have gone by and they have not been outside, when they 

exercise while on conference calls, when they forget to shower because of work demands, and when they look to the 

TV for companionship, have their boundaries become too permeable and does the necessary socio-technical balance 

exist to facilitate optimum performance? 

It is time to revisit the assumptions that underlie socio-technical theory as suggested by Pasmore et al (1982). No 

longer are workers in coal mines (Trist et al., 1963) or office settings, where the organization can control the socio-

technical aspects of work. Now it falls to the individual with appropriate organizational support to shape his/her 

integrated personal life and work life.  

Our proposed model suggests that in highly virtual work the traditionally distinct dimensions of work and life are 

merging, yet both require their socio-technical systems be balanced to be optimized. Due to the level of integration 

of life and work these managers experienced, it made it difficult for us to separate the data cleanly as belonging to 

the personal socio and technical systems and the work socio and technical systems.   

Given the workload pressure and the comfort level the managers had developed for using technology, as well as 

multitasking constantly and not wanting others to know they are multitasking, several respondents indicated that 

using video conferencing was not desirable. They felt this would interfere with their ability to balance the systems to 

personally optimize them. Will being forced to use technology for working virtually, and then integrating life at the 

same time, suggest that these work habits will become indistinguishable from personal habits? We have some 

anecdotal evidence suggesting this possibility requires further study. Further, the impact of the reduced ability to 

easily collaborate on future creativity and innovation should be examined. 

We have identified socio-technical theory as an appropriate lens through which to view work/life balance, 

illustrating that when work and life are integrated the system as a whole becomes increasingly complex and more 

difficult to consciously balance and optimize. This new approach takes into account the reality of the increasing role 

technology plays in our personal and work lives today.    
 

Implications for Practice 
 

When organizations employ highly virtual workers, the organization no longer directly controls or facilitates 

optimal joint systems balance attainment and thus the system outcomes. Our respondents indicated a lack of support 

and training being provided to them by the company. This included the additional managers from the same 

organization, who while not part of the team interviewed, were those who validated our findings. These managers 

substantiated the lack of support and training in their comments.   

A manager quoted her mentor who said, “Each person’s definition of work/life balance is different, but it’s the 

right definition for them.” Thus, it would be difficult for an organization to provide individuals with specific 

personal guidelines, despite their vested interest in the maximizing outcomes. Virtual workers require support and 

training which should include increasing situational awareness and consciously making choices concerning a 

personal definition of balance. Also included should be how to avoid pitfalls such as technostress and other adverse 

health effects. 

As discussed in Perlow’s (2012) research, organizations and workers can first recognize the issue, and then begin 

facilitating discussions among teams and work groups to make it possible for workers to be “off” and to make 

conscious choices about how they work. Further, organizations need to realize that mixed messages are given.  

Despite espoused organizational calls for maintaining work-life balance, the 24/7 work demands are often greater 

than can reasonably be expected and ubiquitous technology provides an opportunity to overwork This makes 

optimally balancing the systems increasingly complex and reduces the chances of positive outcomes such as high 

productivity levels. 
 

REFERENCES 
 

Aboujaoude, E., Koran, L., Gamel, N., Large, M., & Serpe, R. 2006. Potential markers for problematic internet use: 

A telephone survey of 2,513 adults. CNS Spectrums, 11(10), 750-755.  
 

Bostrom, R., & Heinen, J. 1977. MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective. Part I: The Causes. MIS 

Quarterly, 1(3), 17-32. 
 

Bryant, S. 2000. At home on the electronic frontier: Work, gender, and the information highway. New Technology, 

Work, and Employment, 15(1), 19-33.  

 



Ruppel, Tworoger, and Tworoger                                                                                                                                 Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 12-24 

 23  

 

Cooper, R. 1996. Telecommuting: The good, the bad, and the particulars. Supervision, 57(2), 10-12. 
 

Creswell, J. 2007. Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, 

CA: Sage Publications. 
 

De Sousa, F., Pellissier, R., & Monteiro, I. 2012. Creativity, innovation and collaborative organizations.  

International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 5(1), 26-64.  
 

Dokoupil, T. 2012, July 9. Is the web driving us mad? Newsweek, Retrieved from http://www. 

thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/08/is-the-internet-making-us-crazy-what-the-new-research-says.html 
 

Feldman, D., & Gainey, T. 1997. Patterns of telecommuting and their consequences: Framing the research agenda. 

Human Resource Management Review, 7(4), 369-388. 
 

Gendreau, R. 2007. The new techno culture in the workplace and at home. Journal of American Academy of 

Business, 11(2), 191-196. 
 

Hill, E., Miller, B., Weiner, S., & Colihan, J. 1998. Influences of the virtual office on aspects of work and work/life 

balance. Personnel Psychology, 51(3), 667-683.  
 

Jaakson, K., & Kallaste, E. 2010. Beyond flexibility: Reallocation of responsibilities in the case of telework. New 

Technology, Work, and Employment, 25(3), 196-209. 
 

Kurland, N., & Bailey, D. 1999. When workers are here, there, and everywhere: A discussion of the advantages and 

challenges of telework. Organizational Dynamics, 28(2), 53-68.  
 

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage Publications. 
 

Morganson, V., Major, D., Oborn, K., Verive, J., & Heelan, M. 2010. Comparing telework locations and traditional 

work arrangements: Differences in work-life balance support, job satisfaction, and inclusion. Journal of 

Managerial Psychology, 25(6), 578-595.  
 

Olson, M. 1983. Remote office work: Changing work patterns in space and time. Communications of the ACM, 

26(3), 182-187. 
 

Pasmore, W., Francis, C., Haldeman, J., & Shani, A. 1982. Sociotechnical systems: A North American reflection on 

empirical studies of the Seventies. Human Relations, 35(12), 1179-1204. 
 

Patnayakuni, R., & Ruppel, C. 2010.  A socio-technical approach to improving the systems development process. 

Information Systems Frontiers, 12(2), 219-234.  
 

Perlow, L. 2012. Sleeping with your smartphone: How to break the 24/7 habit and change the way your work. 

Watertown, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. 
 

Priest, H. 2002. An approach to the phenomenological analysis of data. Nurse Researcher, 10(2), 50-63. 
 

Pyoria, P. 2011. Managing telework: Risks, fears, and rules. Management Research Review, 34(4), 386-399.  
 

Richtel, M. 2012, July 24. Silicon Valley says step away from the device. New York Times, p. B1.  
 

Shamir, B., & Salomon, I. 1985. Work-at-home and the quality of working life. Academy of Management Review, 

10(3), 455-464. 
 

Taskin, L., & Bridoux, F. 2010. Telework: A challenge to knowledge transfer in organizations. International 

Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(13), 2503-2520. 
 

Toffler, A. 1980. The third wave. New York, NY: William Morrow. 
 



Ruppel, Tworoger, and Tworoger                                                                                                                                 Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 12-24 

 24  

 

Trist, E., Higgin, G., Murray, H., & Pollock, A. 1963. The assumption of ordinariness as a denial mechanism: 

Innovation and conflict in a coal mine. Organizational Choice (pp. 476-493), London, UK: Tavistock. 
 

Turel, O., Serenko, A, & Bontis, N. 2011. Family and work-related consequences of addiction to organizational 

pervasive technologies. Information & Management, 48(2-3), 88-95. 
 

Turkle, S. 2007. Can you hear me now? (2007, May 7). Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/free_ 

forbes/2007/0507/176.html. 
 

Turkle, S., & Coutu, D. 2003. Technology and human vulnerability: A conversation with MIT’s Sherry Turkle and 

Diane L. Coutu. Harvard Business Review, 81(9), 43-50. 
 

Tworoger, L., Ruppel, C., Gong, B., & Pohlman, R. 2012. Leadership constraints: Leading global virtual teams 

through environmental complexity. In Press. 
 

Whittle, A., & Mueller, F. 2009. ‘I could be dead for two weeks and my boss would never know’: Telework and the 

politics of representation. New Technology, Work, and Employment, 24(2), 131-143. 
 

 

Cynthia Ruppel is an associate professor at Nova Southeastern University. She received her Ph.D. in MIS from 

Kent State University. Her research interests include telecommuting, ecommerce, supply chains, and virtual teams 

as well as innovation adoption and diffusion. She has published in IEEE Transactions on Professional 

Communications, Database, Journal of the AIS, Information Resource Management Journal, and Information 

Systems Frontiers. 
 

Leslie Tworoger is an associate professor of management at Nova Southeastern University. She received her 

D.B.A. in Business Administration from Nova Southeastern University. Her research interests include 

telecommuting and virtual teams as well as innovation and change. She has published in International Journal of E-

Collaboration, Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship and Journal of Organizational Culture, 

Communication and Conflict. 
 

Tom Tworoger is an associate professor and chair of the entrepreneurship department at Nova Southeastern 

University. He received his DBA from Nova Southeastern University. His current research interests include 

entrepreneurship, microfinance, and leadership. He has published in Journal of Leadership & Organizational 

Studies, Journal of Business and Leadership, Academy of Information Management Sciences Journal, and the 

Academy of Information and Sciences Journal. 

  

 


