This paper contributes to the telework literature by investigating empirically the impact of social influence on the decision to telework. An innovative web-based telework survey was developed and used to obtain data from a sample of employees of a large postsecondary institution in Ontario, Canada, between January and March 2009. A unique feature of the survey instrument is that it allowed employees to easily construct their workplace social networks. Using a univariate (binary) probit model, we identify three mutually exclusive sources of social influence on the decision to telework: friends who telework, neighbors who telework, and colleagues at the workplace. With respect to colleagues, we find that the net impact of social influence is governed by both the composition and the size of an employee's workplace social network. Composition is captured by interacting telework status with relationship strength.
AkerlofG A, 1997, “Social distance and social decisions”Econometrica651005–1027
2.
ArentzeTTimmermansH, 2008, “Social networks, social interactions, and activity–travel behavior: a framework for microsimulation”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design351012–1027
3.
AxhausenK W, 2006, “Social networks and travel: some hypotheses”, in Social Aspects of Sustainable Transport: Transatlantic Perspectives Eds DonaghyK PPoppelreuterSRudingerG (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 90–108
4.
BaileyD EKurlandN B, 2002, “A review of telework research: findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work”Journal of Organizational Behavior23383–400
5.
BaruchY, 2000, “Teleworking: benefits and pitfalls as perceived by professionals and managers”New Technology Work and Employment1534–49
6.
BaruchY, 2001, “The status of research on teleworking and an agenda for future research”International Journal of Management Reviews3113–129
7.
BelangerF, 1999, “Communication patterns in distributed work groups: a network analysis”IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication42261–275
8.
CarrascoJMillerE J, 2006, “Exploring the propensity to perform social activities: a social network approach”Transportation33463–480
9.
DuxburyLNeufeldD, 1999, “An empirical evaluation of the impacts of telecommuting on intra-organizational communication”Journal of Engineering and Technology Management161–28
10.
EllenIHempsteadK, 2002, “Telecommuting and the demand for urban living: a preliminary look at white-collar workers”Urban Studies39749–766
11.
ForesterT, 1989, “Computers in the human context”, in The Myth of the Electronic Cottage Ed. ForesterT (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 213–227
12.
HandyS LMokhtarianP L, 1996, “The future of telecommuting”Futures28227–240
13.
HarpazI, 2002, “Advantages and disadvantages of telecommuting for the individual, organization and society”Work Study5174–80
14.
HarveyA STaylorM E, 2000, “Activity settings and travel behaviour: a social contact perspective”Transportation2753–73
15.
HuwsUKorteW BRobinsonS, 1990Telework: Towards the Elusive Office (John Wiley, Chichester Sussex)
16.
KinsmanF, 1987, “The telecommuters”, in The Homeworker's Tale Ed KinsmanF (John Wiley, New York) pp 70–93
17.
LeendersR T A J, 2002, “Modeling social influence through network autocorrelation: constructing the weight matrix”Social Networks2421–47
18.
McNallyM, 2000, “The activity-based approach”, in Handbook of Transport Modelling Eds HensherD AButtonK J (Pergamon Press, Oxford) pp 53–68
19.
MahmassaniH SYenJ RHermaRSullivanM A, 1993, “Employee attitudes and stated preferences toward telecommuting: an exploratory analysis”Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board141331–41
20.
ManneringJ SMokhtarianP L, 1995, “Modeling the choice of telecommuting frequency in California: an exploratory analysis”Technological Forecasting and Social Change4949–73
21.
MarsdenP VFriedkinN E, 1994, “Network studies of social influence”, in Advances in Social Network Analysis: Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Eds WassermanSGalaskiewiczJ (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) pp 3–25
22.
Martinez-SanchezAPerz-PerezMVela-JimenezM JDe-Luis-CarnicerP, 2008, “Telework adoption, change management, and firm performance”Journal of Organizational Change Management217–31
23.
MokhtarianP L, 1998, “A synthetic approach to estimating the impacts of telecommuting on travel”Urban Studies35215–241
24.
MokhtarianP LSalomonI, 1994, “Modeling the choice of telecommuting—setting the context”Environment and Planning A26749–766
25.
MokhtarianP LSalomonI, 1996, “Modeling the choice of telecommuting: 3. Identifying the choice set and estimating binary choice models for technology-based alternatives”Environment and Planning A281877–1894
26.
MokhtarianP LSalomonI, 1997, “Modeling the desire to telecommute: the importance of attitudinal factors in behavioral models”Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice3135–50
27.
MokhtarianP LBagleyM NSalomonI, 1998, “The impact of gender, occupation, and presence of children on telecommuting motivations and constraints”Journal of the American Society for Information Science491115–1134
28.
MoscoviciS, 1985, “Social influence and conformity”, in The Handbook of Social Psychology Eds LindzeyGAronsonE (Random House, New York) pp 347–412
29.
NillesJ M, 1988, “Traffic reduction by telecommuting: a status review and selected bibliography”Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice22301–317
30.
OlsonM H, 1988, “Organizational barriers to telework”, in Telework: Present Situation and Future Development of a New Form of Work Organization Eds KorteW BRobinsonSSteinleW J (Elsevier Science, Amsterdam) pp 77–100
31.
OlsonM HPrimpsS B, 1984, “Working at home with computers: work and non-work issues”Journal of Social Issues4097–112
32.
PáezAScottD M, 2007, “Social influence on travel behavior: a simulation example of the decision to telecommute”Environment and Planning A39647–665
33.
PrattJ, 1984, “Hometeleworking: a study of its pioneers”Technological Forecasting and Social Change251–14
34.
SalomonI, 1985, “Telecommunications and travel: substitution or modified mobility?”Journal of Transport Economics and Policy19219–235
35.
ScottD M, 2006, “Embracing activity analysis in transport geography: merits, challenges and research frontiers”Journal of Transport Geography14389–392
36.
SturessonL, 1998, “The mis-match between suppliers and users in telework”, in Teleworking: International perspectives Eds JacksonP Jvan der WielenJ M (Routledge, London) pp 319–328
37.
SullivanM AMahmassaniH SYenJ R, 1993, “A choice model of employee participation in telecommuting under a cost-neutral scenario”Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board141342–48
38.
TindallDWellmanB, 2001, “Canada as social structure: social network analysis and Canadian sociology”Canadian Journal of Sociology26265–308
39.
TofflerA, 1980The Third Wave (Collins, London)
40.
Tomaskovic-DeveyDRismanB J, 1993, “Telecommuting innovation and organization: a contingency theory of labor process change”Social Science Quarterly74367–385
41.
WiltonR DPáezAScottD M, 2011, “Why do you care what other people think? A qualitative investigation of social influence and telecommuting”Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice45269–282
42.
YenJ R, 2000, “Interpreting employee telecommuting adoption: an economics perspective”Transportation27149–164
