See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229563599

Work-Nonwork Conflict and Job Stress among Virtual Workers

Article  in  Human Resource Management · August 2004

DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20019

CITATIONS READS
108 985

2 authors:

Sumita Raghuram Batia M. Wiesenfeld

Pennsylvania State University New York University
40 PUBLICATIONS   1,540 CITATIONS    25 PUBLICATIONS   2,541 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sumita Raghuram on 23 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 WORK-NONWORK CONFLICT AND JOB
STRESS AMONG VIRTUAL WORKERS

Sumita Raghuram and Batia Wiesenfeld

A primary objective of organizational virtual work programs (e.g., providing the option to em-
ployees to work from home) is the reduction of employees’ work-nonwork conflict and job stress.
In this study, we find some preliminary evidence suggesting that virtual work is negatively re-
lated to work-nonwork conflict and job stress. We identify the work factors (clarity of appraisal
criteria, interpersonal trust, and organizational connectedness) and individual factors (self-effi-
cacy and ability to structure the workday) associated with work-nonwork conflict and find that
these associations are moderated by the extent of virtual work. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Introduction of dual-career couples, and communication

Job stress is a subject of great interest to re-
searchers and practitioners because of its
many negative implications. Job stress has
been defined as employees’ experience of
characteristics of the job environment (e.g.,
substantial demands of the job or insuffi-
cient supply of resources) as threatening
(Caplan, 1980). The experience of job stress
is known to cause health problems (De-
Longis, Folkman, & Lazarus, 1988), acci-
dents on the job, reduced job satisfaction
(Judge, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1994), and re-
duced ability and motivation to perform on
the job (Motowidlo, Packard, & Manning,
1986). With recent increases in American
workers’ average work hours, the prevalence
technologies (e.g., cell phones and e-mail)
allowing people to work anywhere anytime,
it is not surprising that an important source
of employees’ job stress is interference be-
tween work and nonwork domains—both
work interference in nonwork and nonwork
interference in work (Judge et al., 1994).
Organizations are increasingly recogniz-
ing the need for interventions to create bal-
ance in the work lives of their employees.
Advances in information technology have
made flex-work programs, such as virtual
work (where individuals work away from a
central office using technology), an option.
Virtual work or telework programs allow in-
dividuals to work away from central offices,
often reducing commute time and providing

Correspondence to: Sumita Raghuram, Fordham University, 113 W. 60th Street, New York, NY 10023,
E-mail: raghuram@fordham.edu

Human Resource Management, Summer/Fall 2004, Vol. 43, Nos. 2 & 3, Pp. 259–277
© 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20019
260 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Summer/Fall 2004
the opportunity for employees to adapt their
work hours to better suit the many different
demands on their time (Raghuram, Garud,
Wiesenfeld, & Gupta, 2001). Individuals
may choose to work from their homes, their
Virtual work clients’ offices, or satellite offices closer to
may decrease their residences (Apgar, 1998). Many have
job stress by hailed virtual work as one of the best exam-
increasing
flexibility and
ples of workplace flexibility (Ralston, 1990;
thus reducing Zedeck & Mosier, 1990). The implicit as-
work-nonwork sumption lending support to virtual work ini-
interference tiatives is that the technology provides work-
and overload. schedule flexibility, allowing people to cope
However,
with conflicting work and nonwork responsi-
virtual work
may conversely bilities that are a primary source of job stress
increase job (Greenhaus, Parasuraman, Granrose, Rabi-
stress by nowitz, & Beutell, 1989).
eliminating the Virtual work may decrease job stress by
boundaries that
increasing flexibility and thus reducing work-
separate work
and nonwork nonwork interference and overload. How-
domains ever, virtual work may conversely increase
job stress by eliminating the boundaries that
separate work and nonwork domains (Hill,
Miller, Weiner, & Colihan, 1998). Without
such boundaries, work interference in non-
work or nonwork interference in work may
occur more frequently. When employees
work out of a fixed location, physical bound-
aries and standardized work hours naturally
separate or segment work and nonwork do-
mains (Shamir & Solomon, 1985; Staines,
1980). In the case of virtual work, these
physical boundaries and work hours are not
as clearly defined as they are for traditional
office workers. Increased work-nonwork con-
flict may result simply because the domains
overlap and, therefore, work and nonwork
demands may be simultaneously salient
(Kraut, 1989; Olson & Primps, 1984). More-
over, because of physical dispersion in a vir-
tual work context, employees are less likely
to receive social support (e.g., relevant infor-
mation or feedback) from their supervisors
and coworkers (Wiesenfeld, Raghuram, &
Garud, 2001). Lack of social support may
also lead to increased stress on the job
(Beehr, 1985; House, 1983).
The research evidence to date concern-
ing the relationship between virtual work and
work-nonwork conflict is inconclusive.
Shamir and Solomon (1985) suggest that vir-
tual work creates a fuzzy boundary between
work and home domains, but individuals’
self-control may alleviate the problems often
associated with such ambiguous boundaries.
In an empirical study, Igbaria and Guimaraes
(1999) found that telecommuters face fewer
role stressors (e.g., role conflict and role am-
biguity) than traditional workers, and their
reduced role stress was associated with
higher overall satisfaction and organizational
commitment. Along the same lines, Cascio
(2000) summarizes evidence suggesting that
virtual workers may have lower levels of in-
terference from work to family and family to
work and fewer problems managing their
family time. The inconclusive nature of pre-
vious theory and empirical results suggests
the need to further investigate the linkages
between virtual work and work-nonwork re-
lationships to identify the factors that are as-
sociated with increases or decreases in work-
nonwork conflict among virtual workers.
Two categories of factors are likely to be
associated with virtual workers’ perceptions
of work-nonwork conflict—employees’ expe-
rience of their jobs and their own personal
attributes (Mokhtarian, Bagley, & Solomon,
1998). If a central challenge to virtual work-
ers is the management of ambiguous bound-
aries between work and nonwork domains,
we expect that individuals who experience
less ambiguity in their relationships with
peers or in performance expectations may be
less likely to experience conflict. Similarly,
employees whose personal attributes allow
them to proactively segment work and non-
work domains may experience less conflict.
Thus, in this article, we explore job-related
factors concerning employees’ perception of
their relationship with peers and perfor-
mance expectations (i.e., interpersonal trust,
organizational connectivity, and clarity of
performance criteria), and individual attrib-
utes concerning the ability to segment work
and nonwork domains (i.e., self-efficacy and
ability to structure the workday) in relation
to work-nonwork interference. Further, we
explore the relationship between work-non-
work interference and the experience of job
stress among virtual workers.
Potentially moderating these relation-
ships is the extent to which employees work
virtually. Virtual workers are not homoge-

nous with respect to the amount of time
they spend away from their offices (Wiesen-
feld, Raghuram, & Guard, 1999). Virtual
work programs frequently allow employees
to choose the number of days they wish to
work away from central offices, with some
employees working outside the office only
half a day per week and others coming into
the office only half a day per week (e.g., Kur-
land & Bailey, 1999). It is very likely that the
challenges of virtual work detailed above,
such as the need to make up for being “out
of sight, out of mind” or the perceived ambi-
guity of organizational boundaries, may be
experienced very differently by employees
who work virtually more extensively as com-
pared to those who work virtually less exten-
sively (Wiesenfeld et al., 1999). Therefore,
we explore the extent to which the relation-
ships we have outlined are applicable to
more or less extensive virtual work, expect-
ing the number of days spent away from the
office to affect the strength of the relation-
ships we propose.
Work-Nonwork Conflict and Job Stress
among Virtual Workers
Understanding virtual workers’ experience of
job stress is of great importance, because vir-
tual work is a relatively new work mode that is
especially common among highly skilled and
technologically capable professionals. Recog-
nizing that the definition of the term stress is
varied and sometimes confusing (e.g., Beehr
& Bhagat, 1985; Beehr, 1995), we focus
specifically on job stress in this study and not
on life stress or stress in any nonwork domain.
Lazarus and Folkman (1984) and Lazarus
(1966) adopt a cognitive perspective on stress
and draw a distinction between stressors
(characteristics of the environment that are
thought to cause stress, such as work pres-
sure), the experience of stress, and strain (the
physical or psychological consequences of
stress, such as aches/pains, fatigue, and anxi-
ety). In this article, we refer to job stress as the
combination of the cognitive experience of
stress in the work context and the experience
of work-related demands.
Work-nonwork conflict is a form of
inter-role conflict in which work- and fam-
Work-Nonwork Conflict and Job Stress among Virtual Workers • 261
ily-role demands are mutually incompatible
due to overwhelming simultaneous demands
(Burke & Greenglass, 1987; Edwards &
Rothbard, 2000; Greenhaus & Beutell, The challenge
1985). Conflict between work and nonwork of actively
segmenting
roles, and the role overload it triggers, has domains is
been found to be a major cause of job stress likely to be
(e.g., Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; Judge especially acute
et al., 1994). Job stress occurs because meet- for virtual
ing the demands of one work or nonwork role workers
because they
makes it difficult to meet the demands of the have less
other (Frone et al., 1992; Greenhaus & exposure to
Beutell, 1985; Judge et al., 1994; O’Driscoll, temporal and
Ilgen, & Hildreth, 1992). In other words, spatial cues
compliance with the expectations of one role that facilitate
segmentation.
makes performing the other role more diffi-
cult (Cooke & Rousseau, 1984).
How is virtual workers’ experience of job
stress and work-nonwork conflict linked? Re-
search suggests at least two mechanisms,
segmentation and resource drain, that may
be particularly relevant in the virtual work
context (e.g., Edwards & Rothbard, 2000).
Segmentation refers to the separation of
work and nonwork domains such that the
two do not affect each other. Originally, seg-
mentation was conceptualized as a natural
division of work and nonwork domains be-
cause of time and space distinctions. How-
ever, researchers have demonstrated that
work and nonwork domains are closely re-
lated, having a causal impact on one another
because of the time and behavioral demands
in both domains (Burke & Greenglass,
1987). Researchers now view segmentation
as an active process whereby people deliber-
ately suppress unwanted interference and
create boundaries between domains (Ed-
wards & Rothbard, 2000). Unwanted inter-
ference occurs when thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors that are specific to one domain are
transferred across domains.
The challenge of actively segmenting do-
mains is likely to be especially acute for vir-
tual workers because they have less exposure
to temporal and spatial cues that facilitate
segmentation. For instance, in traditional
work settings, proximity to coworkers may in-
troduce work-related thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors, while the absence of nonwork-re-
lated cues may suppress nonwork-related
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Goldsbor-
262 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Summer/Fall 2004
ough, 2000; Mirchandani, 1999). Virtual
workers may experience weaker segmenta-
tion because the natural time and space sep-
arations between work and nonwork domains
do not occur when they, for example, work in
. . . virtual a home office isolated from coworkers. Even
workers may the deliberate suppression of work-related
experience thoughts, feelings, and behaviors becomes a
substantial
resource drain
challenge, because the co-presence of work
if they have to and nonwork cues can blur the two domains
be especially (Hill et al., 1998). Virtual workers may con-
vigilant about sequently experience interference of
how they spend thoughts, feelings, and behaviors from one
their time away
domain to another in ways that would not be
from the office
because they expected for more traditional workers. For
are concerned example, feeling overloaded by work de-
about the mands in the nonwork domain may add to
stigma of being the stress virtual workers experience on the
“out of sight,
job because of the permeable boundaries be-
out of mind.”
tween work and nonwork domains.
Resource drain refers to depletion of the
finite resources (i.e., time, attention, and en-
ergy) available to people for performing do-
main-specific roles (Edwards & Rothbard,
2000). When expended in one domain, these
resources become unavailable for another
domain. Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) dis-
tinguish between time-based work-nonwork
conflict (when meeting the demands of one
role consumes time needed to meet demands
of the other role) and strain-based conflict
(when strain such as fatigue and tension cre-
ated by one role makes it difficult to comply
with demands of the other role). Both time-
based and strain-based conflicts have an ef-
fect similar to resource drain because both
reduce personal resources (time; physical
and mental energy) needed for role perfor-
mance (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). In a
traditional work mode where workplace and
work time are fixed, individuals may experi-
ence energy depletion from commuting (De-
longis et al., 1988), time depletion from
being bound to a specific domain for set time
intervals, or attention depletion from inabil-
ity to match fixed work schedules with their
own physical or mental pace.
Virtual work can optimize the use of re-
sources such as energy, time, and attention
between work and nonwork domains. For
instance, virtual workers may choose to ex-
pend their mental energies on work in the
morning rather than expending their energy
on an aggravating commute. However, it is
also likely that virtual workers may experi-
ence substantial resource drain if they have
to be especially vigilant about how they
spend their time away from the office be-
cause they are concerned about the stigma
of being “out of sight, out of mind.” Thus,
because virtual work is not uniformly asso-
ciated with segmentation and resource
drain, it is difficult to anticipate whether
virtual work exacerbates or attenuates work-
nonwork conflict (and, consequently, job
stress). We therefore leave this as an empir-
ical question. In either case, however, to the
extent that virtual workers experience work
and nonwork conflict, we would expect
such conflict to be positively associated
with job stress.
The work-nonwork conflict literature
distinguishes between work interfering with
nonwork responsibilities and nonwork inter-
fering with work responsibilities (Frone et
al., 1992; O’Driscoll et al., 1992). We adopt
the distinction made in prior research con-
cerning work and nonwork interference,
using the term work-nonwork conflict to
refer to both work interference in nonwork
and nonwork interference in work in all hy-
potheses. We explore the association of both
dimensions of conflict, with work and per-
sonal attributes on the one hand and the ex-
perience of job stress on the other.
Hypothesis 1: Work-nonwork conflict (both
work interference in nonwork and non-
work interference in work) will be posi-
tively related to job stress among virtual
workers.
Thus far, we have argued that segmentation
and resource drain are important processes
leading to work-nonwork conflict in a virtual
context. However, competing logics suggest
that segmentation and resource drain may be
facilitated or inhibited by virtual work in gen-
eral. This suggests that it may be useful to
explore more specific work and personal at-
tributes shaping how people respond to such
segmentation and resource-drain pressures
in order to clarify the relationship between
virtual work and work-nonwork conflict.

Work Factors and Work-Nonwork
Conflict
Segmentation is more difficult and re-
source drain is more likely when employees
experience ambiguity with regard to their
work. Specifically, work-related ambiguity
makes it more difficult for people to estab-
lish clear boundaries to segment their ac-
tivities, and ambiguous work roles lead
people to experience negative emotions, fa-
tigue, and tension, which may be associ-
ated with resource drain (Greenhaus &
Beutell, 1985; Jones & Butler, 1980). In a
virtual work context, at least three factors
may influence the degree of ambiguity em-
ployees experience—evaluation criteria, in-
terpersonal trust, and organizational con-
nectedness (e.g., Cascio, 2000; Handy,
1995; Raghuram et al., 2001). Moreover,
virtual workers’ physical isolation may be
an obstacle to establishing clear evaluation
criteria, interpersonal trust, and organiza-
tional connectedness.
Clarity of evaluation criteria—that is,
the perception that performance assess-
ment is objective, quantifiable, and trans-
parent—may reduce work ambiguity among
employees. Clear and explicit criteria are
particularly useful in guiding the perfor-
mance of virtual workers (Kurland & Egan,
1999; Raghuram et al., 2001). Virtual work-
ers have fewer opportunities to seek out
clarifications or to receive informal perfor-
mance feedback from their supervisors and
coworkers than employees who are centrally
located. Vague evaluation criteria may
therefore create insecure feelings and un-
certainty about work-related expectations.
When evaluation criteria are clear and ex-
plicit, on the other hand, virtual employees
may be more capable of managing them-
selves to satisfy others’ expectations.
Similarly, interpersonal trust—that is,
expectations, assumptions, or beliefs about
the likelihood that another’s future actions
will be beneficial, favorable, or at least not
detrimental to one’s interests (Frost, Stimp-
son, & Maughan, 1978; Gambetta, 1988)—
should help reduce ambiguity. Virtual em-
ployees’ remoteness and isolation, combined
with their tendency to rely on lean commu-
Work-Nonwork Conflict and Job Stress among Virtual Workers • 263
nication media (such as e-mail), increases
the likelihood of misunderstandings and dis-
trust relative to employees who are not re-
mote (Handy, 1995; Wiesenfeld et al., …ambiguous
1999). Distrust, in turn, leads to feelings of performance
criteria,
insecurity, uncertainty, and anxiety (Carlson distrust, and
& Perrewe, 1999; Gambetta, 1988). disconnectedness
Also, organizational connectedness (or may be
the extent to which individuals perceive that common among
they are central to, visible in, and involved virtual
employees,
with the organizational community) should creating
help reduce ambiguity by providing employ- insecurity.
ees with access to information and confi-
dence in how fellow organization members
view them. A consequence of physical isola-
tion may be that virtual workers feel discon-
nected from the organizational community
and the social support it provides (Kurland
& Egan, 1999). Their perceived lack of visi-
bility and the inability to demonstrate their
capabilities can negatively impact their per-
ceived job security and career progress
(Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992), possibly
causing them to feel pressure to compensate
at work and thus triggering work-nonwork
conflict.
In sum, ambiguous performance crite-
ria, distrust, and the perception of discon-
nectedness may be common among virtual
employees, creating insecurity. Insecurity,
in turn, may lead virtual workers to invest
extra effort and vigilance in their work at
the expense of their nonwork activities, cre-
ating resource drain. Furthermore, the psy-
chological impact of ambiguity is pervasive,
inhibiting virtual workers’ ability to segment
their activities. Thus, in the absence of
clear performance criteria, trust, and feel-
ings of connectedness, virtual workers may
be more likely to experience work-nonwork
conflict.
Hypothesis 2a: Clarity of performance cri-
teria will be negatively related to work-non-
work conflict.
Hypothesis 2b: Trust will be negatively re-
lated to work-nonwork conflict.
Hypothesis 2c: Feelings of connectedness
will be negatively related to work-nonwork
conflict.
264 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Summer/Fall 2004
Individual Characteristics and Work-
Nonwork Conflict
Individual characteristics that promote self-
regulation may help individuals avoid or
. . . individual better cope with work-nonwork conflict
characteristics (Danna & Griffin, 1999; Jimmieson, 2000;
promoting self- Rosenbaum & Cohen, 1999). These charac-
regulation
(such as self-
teristics may be particularly relevant within
efficacy and the virtual work context (Raghuram,
structuring Wiesenfeld, & Garud, 2003; Staples, Hul-
behavior) may land, & Higgins, 1999). When virtual em-
help virtual ployees work away from a traditional office
workers . . .
(typically in a home office), work and non-
work aspects of life are co-located. When
work and nonwork domains are co-located,
environmental cues may be conflicting or
ambiguous (e.g., the television or dirty
dishes in the sink are as salient as the com-
puter and file cabinet). Moreover, without
clear work-related cues, virtual workers may
be less able to focus on managing and com-
pleting their work tasks. They may have dif-
ficulty setting performance goals, maintain-
ing a work routine, and prioritizing work,
and yet these behaviors are crucial for seg-
menting work and nonwork domains or
managing resource drain.
In this ambiguous work environment,
minimizing resource drain and enabling seg-
mentation may depend on characteristics
such as self-efficacy (i.e., individuals’ belief
in their ability to manage the challenges that
they confront; Bandura, 1997), and structur-
ing behaviors (i.e., proactive strategies aimed
at planning and organizing the workday;
Raghuram et al., 2001, 2003). According to
Bandura, when presented with environmen-
tal demands, individuals judge their ability to
successfully cope with the challenges they
face. Based on this judgment, individuals ini-
tiate and persist with behaviors that help
them manage such challenges (Bandura,
1997; Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Thus, individ-
uals with greater self-efficacy are more likely
to invest effort in, and successfully reduce,
the degree of conflict they experience be-
tween work and nonwork. For instance,
those with higher self-efficacy are more
likely to be persistent in completing tasks
and control their urge to work during the
time that they should be fulfilling nonwork
responsibilities. They may also more confi-
dently and effectively allocate their personal
resources to achieve performance goals in
both arenas.
Similarly, individuals who use structur-
ing behavior effectively may be more able to
set specific work- and nonwork-related goals
and work rules (Raghuram et al., 2003). The
behavioral guidelines they set for themselves
may help virtual workers direct their energy
toward accomplishment of domain-specific
targets within particular time frames. Exam-
ples of strategies used for structuring behav-
ior may include having a daily task schedule,
setting daily performance goals, and estab-
lishing a work area free from distractions. In
sum, we expect individual characteristics
promoting self-regulation (such as self-effi-
cacy and structuring behavior) to help virtual
workers segment work and nonwork, and
cope effectively with stressors causing re-
source drain (Danna & Griffin, 1999; Rosen-
baum & Cohen, 1999).
Hypothesis 3a: Individual self-efficacy will be
negatively related to work-nonwork conflict.
Hypothesis 3b: Structuring behavior will be
negatively related to work-nonwork conflict.
Extent of Virtual Work as a Contingency
Factor
Most voluntary virtual work programs are de-
signed so that individuals can choose the
number of days per week they wish to work
virtually. We explore the possibility that the
relationship between employees’ experience
of job stress and work-nonwork conflict may
depend on how extensively people work vir-
tually. Those who work from home a greater
number of days may find it particularly diffi-
cult to cope with work-nonwork conflict
when it occurs because they have less tem-
poral and spatial differentiation segmenting
the two domains. Furthermore, working
from home more extensively may constrain
employees’ access to social support (Wiesen-
feld et al., 2001), which has been found to
serve as a key resource reducing the effect of
work-nonwork conflict on stress (Carlson &
Perrewe, 1999).

Hypothesis 4: Work-nonwork conflict will
be more strongly related to job stress
among those who work virtually more ex-
tensively compared to those who work vir-
tually less extensively.
As the number of days that virtual workers
work away from their offices increases, the
extent of contact that they have with
coworkers and the office environment de-
creases. Because of the reduced contact and
increased isolation, work factors such as
evaluation criteria, interpersonal trust, and
organizational connectedness become even
more important in resolving the ambiguities
surrounding work. The absence of clear
evaluation criteria, interpersonal trust, and
organizational connectedness may be espe-
cially strong correlates of work-nonwork
conflict for more extensive virtual workers,
because their insecurity may trigger even
greater effort and vigilance toward work ac-
complishment.
Hypothesis 5a: The negative relationship
between work-nonwork conflict and clarity
of criteria will be stronger for those who
work virtually more extensively than for
those who work virtually less extensively.
Hypothesis 5b: The negative relationship
between work-nonwork conflict and trust
will be stronger for those who work virtu-
ally more extensively than for those who
work virtually less extensively.
Hypothesis 5c: The negative relationship
between work-nonwork conflict and con-
nectedness will be stronger for those who
work virtually more extensively than for
those who work virtually less extensively.
Individual characteristics may similarly
be more important in relation to work-non-
work conflict when individuals are working
outside their office more extensively. This
may be due to the fact that when employees
spend most of their time working outside the
office, cues from the organizational context
are necessarily weaker, putting greater pres-
sure on virtual workers to manage them-
selves proactively rather than responding to
Work-Nonwork Conflict and Job Stress among Virtual Workers • 265
environmental demands and constraints. In
particular, extensive virtual workers may be
more reliant on self-efficacy and structuring
behavior to segment work and nonwork do- . . . when
mains and reduce resource drain, which, in employees
spend most of
turn, reduce work-nonwork conflict. In the their time
absence of such personal resources, exten- working outside
sive virtual workers may have little to buffer the office, cues
them from such conflicts. from the
organizational
context are
Hypothesis 6a: The negative relationship weaker, putting
between work-nonwork conflict and self- greater pressure
efficacy will be stronger for those who on virtual
work virtually more extensively than for workers to
those who work virtually less extensively. manage
themselves
proactively . . .
Hypothesis 6b: The negative relationship
between work-nonwork conflict and struc-
turing behavior will be stronger for those
who work virtually more extensively than
for those who work virtually less exten-
sively.
Research Method
To test our model, we surveyed virtual work-
ers. We developed a questionnaire utilizing
constructs drawn from the existing literature
on virtual work, as well as from our own ob-
servations and interviews with virtual work-
ers and their managers. The questionnaire
was refined at several stages with different
groups of virtual workers (e.g., clarifying,
adding, or removing items). Through this it-
erative process, we arrived at a survey rele-
vant to the virtual work context and com-
posed of a reliable set of measures. The
specific instrument that we used for this
study was pretested on a sample of 100 vir-
tual workers and their managers. The pretest
was conducted on an organization different
from the one we have employed for this
study, but from the same industry (i.e., the
telecommunications industry).
We circulated the final questionnaire to
all of the 2,400 formally registered virtual
workers, who are full-time employees in a
telecommunications organization that offers
a voluntary virtual work program. Of the
2,400 surveys, we received responses from
756 virtual workers, yielding a 32% response
rate. Among the respondents, 504 (i.e., 67%)
266 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Summer/Fall 2004
were women (the proportion of women regis-
tered in the virtual work program was 60%).
The mean organizational tenure was 9.5
years in our sample and 9.7 years for all pro-
gram participants. The mean virtual work ex-
. . . social perience was 18.94 months in our sample
events and and 21 months among all program partici-
work-related pants. The consistency between the profile
meetings in the
organization
of our sample and the profile of all program
built a sense of participants who received the survey sug-
community and gests that nonresponse bias may not be a sig-
strong nificant concern. The survey instructions ex-
interpersonal plained the purpose of the survey to the
relationships
respondents—that is, to understand issues
related to virtual work.
Study Measures
All items were measured on a scale of 1 to 7,
where 1 represents “not at all” or “strongly
disagree” and 7 represents “to a great extent”
or “strongly agree.”
Stress has been measured in a variety of
ways in previous research. These measure-
ment approaches include measuring specific
threats, termed stressors (e.g., Rizzo, House,
& Lirtzman, 1970), measuring physiological
symptoms, often termed strain (e.g., Maslach
& Jackson, 1981), and measuring employees’
psychological experience of stress (Stanton,
Balzer, Smith, Parra, & Ironson, 2001). We
utilized a measure of job stress that combined
the cognitive experience of stress in the work
context and the experience of work-related
demands. In particular, we measure job stress
with three items based on Caplan’s scales
(1980) and subsequently adapted by Ostroff
and Kozlowski (1992). These items measured
feelings of heavy workload, inability to satisfy
conflicting demands, and generally feeling
stressed by the job (alpha = .86; e.g., “I gen-
erally feel stressed by my job”).
We measured respondents’ experience of
work interference in nonwork and nonwork
interference in work using scales developed
by O’Driscoll et al. (1992). We used two
items to measure work interference in non-
work (“My job prevents me from participat-
ing in many activities outside of work” and “I
have to put off nonwork things I would like
to do because of my work requirements”).
Similarly, we measured nonwork interfer-
ence in work using two items (“The amount
of time I need to spend on my commitments
and activities outside of work interferes with
my work” and “I have to put off doing things
at work because of demands on my time out-
side of work”). The alpha value for work in-
terference in nonwork was .88 and for non-
work interference in work was .76.
Perceived clarity of evaluation criteria
was measured using three items developed
for the study (alpha = .90). Respondents in-
dicated the degree to which the criteria by
which they were evaluated were objective,
the ease of measuring and quantifying their
performance, and the clarity of job perfor-
mance measures (e.g., “It is easy to measure
and quantify my performance”).
We measured perceived interpersonal
trust using four items modeled on a study con-
ducted by Brockner, Siegel, Daly, Tyler, and
Martin (1997). Since interpersonal trust has
been viewed as a complex and dynamic con-
struct (Golembiewski & McConkie, 1975),
our measurement strategy focused on utilizing
an overall measure of trust rather than assess-
ing the many specific determinants of trust.
Two items measured the extent to which the
individual trusted his/her supervisor and
peers, and two items measured the extent to
which virtual workers perceived that their su-
pervisor and peers trusted them (alpha = .86).
An example is “I trust my supervisor.”
Perceived organizational connectedness
was measured with a four-item scale (alpha =
.83). Two of these were modified versions of
the items developed by Noe and Wilk (1993).
These two items measured the extent to
which individuals were aware of company is-
sues that could influence their career plans
and the extent to which they were aware of
specific opportunities for exposure and visi-
bility on the job. The other two were based
on our own interviews with virtual workers
and measured the extent to which social
events and work-related meetings in the or-
ganization built a sense of community and
strong interpersonal relationships (e.g., “The
social events in my office are adequate to
build a sense of community”).
The self-efficacy literature suggests that
domain-specific self-efficacy is most effective
as a correlate of individuals’ experiences within

a particular context (Bandura, 1997). Thus,
measures of self-efficacy that are cast at an in-
termediate level of generality (in this context,
self-efficacy beliefs relevant to the virtual work
domain) are the most appropriate. We asked
respondents to evaluate their self-efficacy in
the virtual work/telecommuting context using
three items adapted from Sherer et al. (1982).
These items assessed persistence in working
virtually, persistence in completing tasks, and
willingness to attempt challenging tasks while
working virtually (e.g., “I give up on things eas-
ily”—reverse scored; alpha = .83).
We measured virtual workers’ structuring
behavior using a five-item scale developed
for the study (alpha = .82). These items as-
sessed the extent to which virtual workers
began the workday by setting performance
goals, set time deadlines for accomplishment
of performance goals, achieved their perfor-
mance goals for the day, resumed work left at
the end of the previous day, and initiated
work when required (e.g., “I can usually get
down to work when I should”).
Control variables. We included several con-
trol variables that could potentially influence
the outcomes of interest to us. We controlled
for the number of young children (less than
five years of age) in the household, as they
may potentially increase the levels of non-
work interference in work and job stress
among people working from home offices.
Similarly, we controlled for gender, because
women may experience work-nonwork con-
flict and job stress differently than men do
(Duxbury & Higgins, 1991; Gutek, Searle, &
Klepa, 1991). We also controlled for age and
experience with virtual work (in months).
Age may signal the career and family de-
mands on an individual, and virtual work ex-
perience may signal the experience an indi-
vidual has in managing work and nonwork
demands while working virtually. Further, we
control for respondents’ job categories, be-
cause jobs may differ with regard to the ex-
pected level of interaction with coworkers or
customers and the impact such interaction
requirements may have on the ability of a
person to work virtually. Moreover, past evi-
dence suggests that sources of stress may
vary systematically among different roles and
Work-Nonwork Conflict and Job Stress among Virtual Workers • 267
positions in the organization (Schuler,
1977). We dummy-coded the jobs into five
categories: engineers (e.g., technical sup-
port, sales, project); specialists (e.g., techni- . . . virtual
cal support, marketing, customer service); work is
negatively
managers (e.g., technical, finance, market- related to work-
ing); top management (e.g., advisor, consul- nonwork
tant) and staff (e.g., customer service, ad- conflict and to
ministrator). In our analyses, staff is the job stress.
comparison category. To measure the extent
of virtual work, we asked respondents to in-
dicate the number of days in a typical week
that they worked from their home office.
Results
The descriptive statistics for the variables in
the study are included in Table I. The job
stress level for all virtual workers is just
below the midpoint of the seven-point scale
(mean
3.44) as is work interference in
nonwork (mean
3.74). The mean level of
nonwork interference in work is quite low
(mean
1.95 on a seven-point scale), sug-
gesting that a large number of virtual work-
ers in our sample feel that they are able to
cope with nonwork demands such that these
demands do not interfere with their work de-
mands. The mean number of days that the
respondents work from home is 3.27 per
week, suggesting a fairly normal distribution
of the extent of virtual work.
The number of days that a person works
from home is negatively correlated with job
stress (r = –.13, p  .01), nonwork interfer-
ence in work (r = –.10, p  .01), and work in-
terference in nonwork (r = –.18, p  .01).
These results provide some initial evidence
that virtual work is negatively related to
work-nonwork conflict and to job stress.
We conducted three sets of hierarchical
multiple regressions to test our hypotheses.
In the first set, we regressed job stress on the
control variables, the main effects (work in-
terference in nonwork and nonwork interfer-
ence in work), and the interaction terms
(Table II). In the second set, we regressed
work interference in nonwork on the control
variables, the main effects (the work factors
and the individual factors), and the interac-
tion terms (Table III). In the third set, we re-
gressed nonwork interference in work on the
 268
•

TABLE I Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Study Variables

Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Controls
1. Children under 5 .33 .62
2. Gender .68 .47 .09a
3. Age 40.61 8.17 –.35b –.07a
4. Job—Specialist .28 .45 .06 .03 –.15b
5. Job—Engineer .13 .34 .08a –.12b –.08a –.25b
6. Job—Management .33 .47 –.06 .00 .14b –.43b –.27b
7. Job—Top
Management .11 .31 –.05 .04 .11b –.22b –.14b –.25b
8. Virtual Work
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Summer/Fall 2004

Experience 18.94 20.69 –.03 .01 .13b –.02 –.04 .03 .02
9. Extent of
Virtual Work 3.27 1.49 –.06 –.03 .06 .06 .01 –.03 –.09a –.05

Independent Variables
10. Clarity of Criteria 5.18 1.46 .02 .09a .01 .08a –.01 –.02 .11b –.00 .23b
11. Trust 5.87 1.01 –.00 .02 .01 .03 .08a –.05 –.04 –.02 .19b .37b
12. Connectedness 4.73 1.32 .02 .05 .04 .05 –.00 –.05 –.04 –.07 .01 .47b .40b
13. Self-efficacy 6.47 .89 –.00 .03 .03 –.01 –.03 .02 –.01 –.06 .07 .17b .24b .18b
14. Structuring
Behavior 5.66 .91 –.01 .17b .11b .01 –.04 .02 –.05 –.04 .19b .45b .27b .35b .43b

Dependent Variables
15. Work
Interference
in Nonwork 3.74 1.83 .03 .03 .02 –.12b –.03 .17b .03 .06 –.18b –.18b –.20b –.22b –.11b –.14b
16. Nonwork
Interference
in Work 1.95 1.21 .10b –.04 –.08a –.00 .03 .00 .01 .05 –.10b –.11b –.13b –.09a –.34b –.34b .15b
17. Job Stress 3.44 1.61 .04 .01 –.03 –.14b –.02 .13b .04 .15b –.13b –.29b –.30b –.29b –.20b –.29b .54b .24b

a
p < .05, bp < .01; male = 0 and female = 1
 Work-Nonwork Conflict and Job Stress among Virtual Workers • 269

TABLE II Hierarchical Regression Analysis with Job Stress as Dependent Variable

Step 3
Step 1 Step 2 Moderator:
Control Variables Main Effects (Extent Virtual)
Variables ` (Std.) t ` (Std.) t ` (Std.) t
Children under 5 years .03 .68 –.00 –.11 –.01 –.18
Gender –.01 –.16 –.01 –.28 –.01 –.17
Age –.07 –1.71 –.05 –1.51 –.05 –1.45
Job-Specialist –.07 –1.19 –.08 –1.70 –.07 –1.56
Job-Engineering .02 .42 –.01 –.32 –.01 –.22
Job-Management .13* 2.38 .03 .51 .03 .68
Job-Top Management .05 1.14 .00 .01 .01 .18
Virtual Work Experience .16** 4.35 .13** 3.98 .13** 4.04
Extent of Virtual Work –.10** –2.73 –.01 –.39 –.16 –1.90
Work Interference in nonwork .49** 15.00 .33** 4.23
Nonwork Interference in work .14** 4.35 .14 1.91
Work Interference in nonwork*extent virtual .21* 2.22
Nonwork Interference in work*extent virtual –.00 –.04
R-square .071 .336 .341
F-value 5.88** 30.85** 26.61**
F-change F(3, 625)
180.4** F(2, 625)
4.49*

*p  .05, ** p  .01
Note: Please see Figure 1 for a plot of the significant interaction (work interference in Nonwork*Extent Virtual)

TABLE III Hierarchical Regression Analysis with Work Interference in Nonwork as Dependent Variable

Step 3
Step 1 Step 2 Moderator:
Control Variables Main Effects (Extent Virtual)
Variables ` (Std.) t ` (Std.) t ` (Std.) t
Children under 5 years .04 .87 .04 1.01 .05 1.21
Gender .02 .44 .04 .92 .04 1.05
Age –.01 –.15 .01 .23 .02 .40
Job-Specialist .00 –.00 –.01 –.15 –.02 –.38
Job-Engineering .04 .87 .03 .62 .03 .61
Job-Management .19** 3.39 .17** 2.77 .16** 2.63
Job-Top Management .08 1.66 .06 1.20 .06 1.12
Virtual Work Experience .06 1.67 .05 1.25 .04 1.14
Extent of Virtual Work –.15** –3.90 –.12** –2.96 .30 .82
Clarity of Criteria –.05 –1.04 .16 1.46
Trust –.09* –2.03 –.15 –1.48
Connectedness –.12* –2.60 –.16 –1.46
Self-efficacy –.05 –1.19 –.10 –.95
Structuring behavior –.01 –.19 .08 .76
Trust*extent virtual .19 .62
Clarity of criteria*extent virtual –.47 –2.14
Structuring behavior*extent virtual –.30 –.92
Connectedness*extent virtual .10 .49
Self-efficacy*extent virtual –.07 –.54
R-square .063 .115 .115
F-value 5.11** 5.67** 4.66**
F-change F(6, 681)
65.19** F(5, 681)
13.66**

p  .05
*, p  .01
**

Note: Please see Figure 1 for a plot of the significant interaction (work interference in Nonwork*Extent Virtual)
270 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Summer/Fall 2004

TABLE IV Hierarchical Regression Analysis with Nonwork Interference in Work as Dependent Variable

Step 3
Step 1 Step 2 Moderator:
Control Variables Main Effects (Extent Virtual)
Variables ` (Std.) t ` (Std.) t ` (Std.) t
Children under 5 years .07 1.73 .07 1.72 .07 1.79
Gender –.06 –1.61 –.01 –.29 –.01 –.16
Age –.05 –1.26 –.02 –.47 –.02 –.40
Job-Specialist .04 .70 –.01 –.21 –.01 –.18
Job-Engineering .06 1.16 .04 .73 .04 .84
Job-Management .07 1.21 .04 .66 .05 .79
Job-Top Management .04 .77 .00 .03 .01 .11
Virtual Work Experience .06 1.55 .03 .93 .04 .99
Extent of Virtual Work –.09* –2.45 –.04 –1.13 .54 1.52

Clarity of Criteria .02 .39 –.11 –1.02

Trust –.01 –.31 –.03 –.34
Connectedness .03 .69 .27** 2.60
Self-efficacy –.24** –5.72 –.33** –3.29
Structuring behavior –.24** –4.90 –.11 –1.05

Trust*extent virtual .04 .12

Clarity of criteria*extent virtual .27 1.30
Structuring behavior*extent virtual –.40 –1.29
Connectedness*extent virtual –.47* –2.50
Self-efficacy*extent virtual –.13 –1.01

R-square .028 .178 .190

F-value 2.21* 19.45** 7.97**
F-change *p  .05, ** p  .01 F(6, 626) 5 92.40** F(5, 626) 5 7.67**

Note: Please see Figure 3 for a plot of the significant interaction (Connectedness*Extent Virtual)

control variables, the main effects (three
work factors and two individual factors), and
the interaction terms (Table IV).
The regression analyses provide further
evidence that virtual work reduces stress and
work-nonwork conflict. We find a significant
negative relationship between extent of vir-
tual work and job stress, with a ß
–.10, p 
.01 (Step 1, Table II); between extent of vir-
tual work and work interference in nonwork,
with a ß
–.15, p < .01 (Step 1, Table III)
and between extent of virtual work and non-
work interference in work, with a ß
–.09,
p  .05 (Step 1, Table IV). In addition, some
of the control variables are significant in two
sets of hierarchical regressions. Specifically,
two variables—experience with virtual work
and the managerial job category—explain
significant variance in job stress. The mana-
gerial job category also explains significant
variance in work interference in nonwork.
Hypothesis 1, that there would be a pos-
itive relationship between work-nonwork
conflict and job stress, was supported. We
find that both work interference in nonwork
(ß
.49, p  .01) and nonwork interference
in work (ß
.14, p  .01) explain significant
amounts of variance in job stress (Step 2,
Table II).
Hypotheses 2a–2c suggest that work fac-
tors (clarity of criteria, trust, and connected-
ness) will be negatively related to work-non-
work conflict (both work interference in
nonwork and nonwork interference in work).
We find a significant negative relationship
between trust (ß
–.09, p  .05) and per-
ception of connectedness (ß
–.12, p  .01)
and work interference in nonwork (Step 2,
Table III). None of the work-related factors
are related to nonwork interference in work
(Step 2, Table IV). These results provide par-
tial support for Hypotheses 2b and 2c with

respect to nonwork interference in work but
fail to support Hypothesis 2a and do not sup-
port the hypotheses with respect to work in-
terference in nonwork.
Hypotheses 3a and 3b state that individ-
ual factors (self-efficacy and structuring be-
havior) will be negatively related to work-
nonwork conflict (both work interference in
nonwork and nonwork interference in work).
We find that none of the individual factors
are related to work interference in nonwork
(Step 2, Table III) and that self-efficacy (ß

–.24, p  .01) and structuring behavior (ß

–.24, p  .01) have a significant negative re-
lationship with nonwork interference in work
(Step 2, Table IV). This result fails to support
the hypotheses with respect to work interfer-
ence in nonwork but provides support for
Hypotheses 3a and 3b with respect to non-
work interference in work.
Hypothesis 4 states that the expected
positive relationship between work-non-
work conflict and job stress will be stronger
for those who work virtually more exten-
sively than for those who work virtually less
extensively. We find that the interaction of
work interference in nonwork and extent of
virtual work is significantly associated with
job stress (ß
.21, p  .01 in Step 3, Table
II). The addition of the interaction effect
also contributes significantly to the overall
model (R2
.341, Fchange (2, 681)
4.89, p 
.01).
To understand the nature of this interac-
tion effect, we plotted the form of the inter-
action. Specifically, we conducted median
splits for extent of virtual work and work in-
terference in nonwork and plotted the mean
level of stress for each category. When we ex-
amine the plot of the interaction (see Figure
1), we find that the positive relationship be-
tween work interference in nonwork and job
stress is stronger for those who work virtually
more extensively than for those who work
virtually less extensively.
Hypotheses 5a–5c state that the negative
relationship between work-nonwork conflict
(work interference in nonwork and nonwork
interference in work) and the work factors
(clarity of criteria, trust, and connectedness)
will be stronger for those who work virtually
more extensively than for those who work
virtually less extensively. We find that one in-
Work-Nonwork Conflict and Job Stress among Virtual Workers • 271
5
4
Job Stress
3
2
1
low interference high interference
Work Interferences in Nonwork
less days home
more days home
Figure 1. Interaction of Work Interference in Nonwork and
Days Worked from Home
teraction term, namely, clarity of criteria*ex-
tent virtual, is significant (ß
–.47, p  .01)
in explaining work interference in nonwork
(Step 3, Table III), providing partial support
for Hypothesis 5a. The interaction effect also
contributes significantly to the overall model
(R2
.128, Fchange (5, 625)
12.29, p  .01).
We conducted median splits for extent of
virtual work and clarity of criteria and plot-
ted the mean level of work interference in
nonwork for each category (Figure 2). The
graph shows that the relationship between
clarity of evaluation criteria and work inter-
ference in nonwork is stronger for those who
work virtually more extensively than those
who work virtually less extensively.
With respect to nonwork interference in
work, the interaction term connectedness*ex-
tent of virtual work is significant (ß
–.47,
p  .05; Step 3, Table IV). The addition of
the interaction term also contributes signifi-
cantly to the overall model (R2
.190, Fchange
(5, 626)
7.67, p  .01). These results provide
partial support for Hypothesis 5c.
We conducted median splits for extent of
virtual work and organizational connectedness
and plotted the mean level of nonwork inter-
ference in work for each category (Figure 3).
We see that the negative relationship between
perception of connectedness and nonwork in-
272 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Summer/Fall 2004
Work Interference in Nonwork
5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
low clarity high clarity
Criteria Clarity
less days home
more days
home
Figure 2. Interaction of Criteria Clarity and Days Worked
from Home
terference in work is stronger for those who
work virtually more extensively than for those
who work virtually less extensively.
Hypotheses 6a and 6b suggest that the
negative relationship between work-non-
work conflict (work interference in nonwork
and nonwork interference in work) and indi-
vidual factors (self-efficacy and structuring
behavior) will be stronger for those who
work virtually more extensively than for
those who work virtually less extensively.
Our data failed to support these hypotheses
(Step 3, Tables III and IV).
Discussion
In this study, we examined work-nonwork
conflict and job stress among virtual work-
ers. We find that both work interference in
nonwork and nonwork interference in work
are negatively related to extent of virtual
work. Job stress is also negatively related to
extent of virtual work. These results sug-
gest that virtual workers benefit from ex-
tensive virtual work with respect to their
experience of work-nonwork conflict and
job stress. We find that, controlling for the
Nonwork Interference in Work
5
low high
connectedness connectedness
Connectedness
less days home
more days home
Figure 3. Interaction of Connectedness and Days Worked
from Home
effect of extent of virtual work, work inter-
ference in nonwork and nonwork interfer-
ence in work are both positively related to
job stress. Moreover, perceptions of work
interference in nonwork are associated with
work factors (low interpersonal trust and
weak organizational connectedness), but
work factors do not appear to reduce non-
work interference in work. Nonwork inter-
ference in work is associated with individ-
ual characteristics (self-efficacy and
structuring behavior), but individual char-
acteristics do not reduce work interference
in nonwork.
These results are somewhat surprising,
because we expected work factors and indi-
vidual characteristics to impact both forms
of work-nonwork conflict. Perhaps the lack
of association between individual character-
istics and work interference in nonwork is
due to the fact that work responsibilities are
less directly controlled by an individual, and
thus less likely to be alleviated through
proactive self-management, than nonwork
demands. Likewise, nonwork responsibilities
are less affected by job conditions, perhaps
because in American society, social norms

dictate that people schedule nonwork de-
mands around work responsibilities, con-
straining individual control.
Our results demonstrate that although
virtual work has the overall effect of lower-
ing work interference in nonwork as well as
job stress, employees who worked virtually
more extensively displayed a stronger rela-
tionship between work interference in non-
work and job stress than employees who
were less extensive virtual workers. A possi-
ble explanation for these results is that more
extensive virtual workers may have difficulty
erecting clear boundaries between the work
and nonwork domains of their lives. The in-
termingling of these domains may lead to
stress on the job when their job responsibil-
ities interfere in their nonwork lives, be-
cause their nonwork lives may be salient
while they are at work. Though less exten-
sive virtual workers may have greater work-
nonwork conflict and stress overall, the ben-
efit of their work mode may be that they are
somewhat buffered from sources of job
stress that emanate from feelings of conflict
in the nonwork domain. Another explana-
tion for these results may lie in the nature of
our measures. It is possible that work inter-
ference in nonwork appears more influential
because we focus on job stress rather than
stress in general.
Furthermore, we find that, compared to
individuals who work virtually less exten-
sively, more extensive virtual workers derive
greater benefit (with respect to work-non-
work conflict) from clear criteria and organi-
zational connectedness. These work dimen-
sions may be a key resource aiding extensive
virtual workers in their efforts to reduce con-
flict between their overlapping work and
nonwork domains. Contrary to our expecta-
tions, individual factors (self-efficacy and
structuring behavior) and trust were no less
important for those who work virtually less
extensively than for more extensive virtual
workers. Apparently, these factors are equally
relevant to all individuals, regardless of the
extent of virtual work, in minimizing their ex-
perience of work-nonwork conflict.
We include several controls in our analy-
ses. Our results demonstrate that among vir-
tual workers, gender is not significantly re-
Work-Nonwork Conflict and Job Stress among Virtual Workers • 273
lated to either work-nonwork conflict or to
stress. In the virtual work context, it appears
that the flexibility to move across traditional
domains enables both men and women to . . . more
fulfill their role requirements with equal extensive
virtual workers
ease. The correlation table indicates that the derive greater
number of young children in the household benefit from
is correlated with nonwork interference in clear criteria
work (Table I), suggesting that child-care re- and
sponsibilities of virtual workers may interfere organizational
connectedness.
with their work responsibilities. However,
this relationship does not remain significant
in our regressions. Of the job categories,
managerial jobs are positively associated with
work interference in nonwork and job stress,
and specialist jobs are negatively associated
with work interference in nonwork and job
stress (Table I). These relationships may be
due to the constraints on interaction among
virtual workers, which may be an obstacle for
managerial-level jobs but a benefit for jobs
that are independent, such as those of spe-
cialists.
Limitations and Implications for
Future Research
Although the question of whether virtual
work eases or generates job stress has been
raised repeatedly since this work mode be-
came a reality (Kraut, 1989; Shamir &
Solomon, 1985), to date there are little data
available to provide a convincing answer. Our
study represents one of the first attempts to
examine job stress and work-nonwork conflict
in the virtual workplace using a large sample.
As an initial foray into the exploration of
these issues, our results offer a basis for repli-
cation and further refinement. Thus, the lim-
itations of the present study suggest impor-
tant avenues for future contributions.
We provide preliminary evidence of the
factors that may be responsible for job stress
among virtual workers. Future research may
benefit from going beyond the dimension of
job stress that we considered to explore the
relationship between virtual work and gen-
eral stress, because, as our results suggest,
the domains of work and nonwork are so in-
termingled in a virtual work context that it
may be more appropriate to assess the expe-
rience of stress across domains.
274 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Summer/Fall 2004
Furthermore, future research can benefit
from the recent renaissance in interest in
stress that has been driven, in part, by the in-
creasing interest in affect in both organiza-
tional behavior and psychology. Since our
Reassuringly, survey was first developed, measures of stress
the factors most that integrate the affective dimension and
strongly also are general, reliable, valid, and distinct
associated with
work
from similar constructs have been published
interference in (e.g., the Stress in General scale developed by
nonwork appear Stanton et al., 2001), providing a valuable re-
to be under source for future research on stress and vir-
managers’ tual work. New measures overcome many
control.
shortcomings of scales used in the past. For
example, past measures using a checklist of
stressors have the disadvantage of being con-
taminated or deficient, especially when trying
to measure the general experience of work-
place stress. Previous scales assessing physio-
logical symptoms of stress often called strain
are problematic, because self-reported strains
may have multiple causes for a given symp-
tom and may not all be related to stress. The
scale by Stanton et al. focuses on the self-re-
ported experience of stress emerging during
primary appraisal and reappraisal of stress as
described by Lazarus (1966).
Another limitation of the stress measure
we use in this study is the wording of the
scale. Future research may consider using
self-report measures that do not contain the
word stress. Scales containing the word stress
have been found deficient, because respon-
dents may misinterpret items that are meant
to measure stressors, stress, or strain (Jex,
Beehr, & Roberts, 1992). To overcome this
problem Jex et al. suggest using scales that
measure job-related stressors and employee
strains, without using the word stress in them.
Theoretical models of stress (e.g.,
Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) are causal in na-
ture, but the present study is cross-sectional
and thus indicative of association rather than
causation. Future research replicating our
findings but conducted longitudinally is
therefore essential to draw confident conclu-
sions about the causal direction of the rela-
tionships we obtained. In that regard, the as-
sessment of physiological measures of stress
such as blood-pressure reactivity would be es-
pecially helpful in diminishing concerns such
as common method and common source bias
that are important limitations of our findings.
However, these measures may be difficult to
obtain in a virtual work context due to the
physical dispersion of respondents.
Our measures of clarity of criteria and
structuring behavior have not been used ex-
tensively in prior research. The scales appear
reliable, but caution must be used in inter-
preting our findings, because construct vali-
dation of these measures, which is not the
goal of this study, has not been done. Al-
though the scales are face-valid because they
were developed in consultation with virtual
workers and their managers and were
pretested, future research validating these
scales both within and outside the virtual
work context would be valuable.
Implications for Practice
The results of this study hold several implica-
tions for managers of virtual work programs.
We found that work interference in nonwork is
more strongly associated with job stress than
nonwork interference in work. Reassuringly,
the factors most strongly associated with work
interference in nonwork appear to be under
managers’ control. Specifically, clarity of crite-
ria and organizational connectedness are two
work factors that play an important role in in-
creasing work interference in nonwork among
those who work virtually more extensively.
Managers can take the initiative to develop
clearer evaluation criteria, create opportunities
for employees to remain connected with the
organization, and foster interpersonal trust.
Organizations should focus on creating forums
where virtual workers can meet their col-
leagues on a face-to-face basis. Other initia-
tives may include using electronic media to in-
crease the level of explicit communication
about organizational or workplace events and
implementing mentoring programs to keep vir-
tual employees “in the loop.” These efforts will
enhance the perception of social support that
has proven to be beneficial in reducing nega-
tive job outcomes such as work-nonwork con-
flict and stress (e.g., House, 1983).
We find that individual characteristics
are significantly associated with nonwork in-
terference in work. Consequently, training
and mentoring aimed at enhancing self-effi-
 Work-Nonwork Conflict and Job Stress among Virtual Workers • 275

cacy and structuring behavior may benefit
employees and organizations (e.g., Gist &
Mitchell, 1992). Many organizations (e.g.,
NCR, IBM) offer training to virtual workers
that focuses on practices individuals should
adopt while working from home. These prac-
tices include drawing boundaries between
work and nonwork time, organizing child
care, and setting up an office in surroundings
that are not distracting. Virtual workers can
be trained in tactics such as developing rou-
tines and keeping running to-do lists that may
help them to better structure their workday.
Conclusion
Our study adds to a growing body of knowl-
edge about the experience of job stress
among virtual workers. We find lower job
stress and lower nonwork interference in
work for those who work more days from
home compared to those who work fewer
days from home. We find that both work
factors and individual characteristics are as-
sociated with work-nonwork conflict. Our
study suggests exciting avenues for future
research in an area that is drawing increas-
ing attention from academicians and practi-
tioners.
The study was funded in part by a grant from
the Society for Human Resource Manage-
ment. The conclusions, interpretations, and
recommendations, however, are those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent
those of the foundation.

Sumita Raghuram, PhD (University of Minnesota), is an associate professor at Ford-

ham University. Her research on virtual work has been published in Journal of Man-
agement, Journal of Vocational Behavior, and Organization Science. Some of her cur-
rent research projects include remote work in call centers, telecommuting in
international contexts, HRM in entrepreneurial firms, and international HRM.

Batia Wiesenfeld is a tenured associate professor of management at the Stern

School of Business, New York University and a senior faculty fellow at the Whar-
ton School, University of Pennsylvania. She received her PhD in organizational be-
havior from the Columbia Business School. Professor Wiesenfeld’s research,
teaching, and consulting focus on organizational change, especially emphasizing
virtual work initiatives, downsizing, restructuring, and mergers. Her work has been
published in journals such as Psychological Bulletin, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and Orga-
nization Science.

REFERENCES Beehr, T. A., & Bhagat, R. S. (1985). Introduction

Apgar, M. (1998). The alternative workplace:
Changing where and how people work. Harvard
Business Review, 73(6), 121–136.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of
control. New York: W. H. Freeman & Company.
Beehr, T. A. (1985). The role of social support in
coping with organizational stress. In T. A. Beehr
and R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Human stress and cog-
nitions in organizations (pp. 375–400). New
York: Wiley.
Beehr, T. A. (1995). Psychological stress in the work-
place. New York: Routledge.
to human stress and cognition in organizations.
In T. A. Beehr & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Human
stress and cognitions in organizations (pp.
3–22). New York: Wiley.
Brockner, J., Siegel, P. A., Daly, J. P., Tyler, T., &
Martin, C. (1997). When trust matters: The
moderating effect of outcome favorability. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly, 42, 558–583.
Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. (1987). Work and
family. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson
(Eds.), International review of industrial and
organizational psychology (pp. 273–320). New
York: Wiley.
276 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Summer/Fall 2004
Caplan, R. D. (1980). Job demands and worker
health: Main effects and occupational differ-
ences. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Research Center,
Institute for Social Research, University of
Michigan.
Carlson, D. S., & Perrewe, P. L. (1999). The role of
social support in the stressor-strain relation-
ship: An examination of work-family conflict.
Journal of Management, 25, 513–540.
Cascio, W. F. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace.
Academy of Management Executive, 14(3),
81–90.
Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992).
Formal and informal mentorships: A compari-
son on mentoring functions and contrast with
non-mentored counterparts. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 45, 619–636.
Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1984). Stress and
strain from family roles and work-role expecta-
tions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69,
252–260.
Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-
being in the workplace: A review and synthesis
of the literature. Journal of Management, 25,
357–384.
DeLongis, A., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988).
The impact of daily stress on health and mood:
Psychological and social resources as media-
tors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54,
486–495.
Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. A. (1991). Gender dif-
ferences in work-family conflict. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 76, 60–74.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mecha-
nisms linking work and family: Clarifying the
relationship between work and family con-
structs. Academy of Management Review, 25,
178–199.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992).
Antecedents and outcomes of work-family
conflict: Testing a model of the work-family in-
terface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77,
65–78.
Frost, T., Stimpson, D. V., & Maughan, M. R. C.
(1978). Some correlates of trust. Journal of Psy-
chology, 99, 103–108.
Gambetta, D. (1988). Trust. New York: Basil
Blackwell.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy:
A theoretical analysis of its determinants and
malleability. Academy of Management Review,
17, 183–211.
Goldsborough, R. (2000). Making telecommuting
work. Commercial Law Bulletin, 15(1), 34–35.
Golembiewski, R., & McConkie, M. (1975). The
centrality of interpersonal trust in group
process. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of
group process (pp. 131–185). New York: Wiley.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of
conflict between work and non-work family roles.
Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–85.
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., Granrose, C.,
Rabinowitz, S., & Beutell, N. (1989). Sources
of work-family conflict among two career cou-
ples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34,
133–153.
Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Ratio-
nal versus gender role explanations for work-
family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology,
76, 560–568.
Handy, C. (1995). Trust and the virtual organization.
Harvard Business Review, 73(3), 40–50.
Hill, E. J., Miller, B. C., Weiner, S. P., & Colihan, J.
(1998). Influences of the virtual office on as-
pects of work and work/life balance. Personnel
Psychology, 3, 667–684.
Hochschild, A. R. (1997). The time bind: When
work becomes home and home becomes work.
New York: Henry Holt and Company.
House, J. S. (1983). Work stress and social support
(pp. 59–88). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Igbaria, M., & Guimaraes, T. (1999). Exploring dif-
ferences in employee turnover intentions and
its determinants among telecommuters and
non-telecommuters. Journal of Management
Information, 16, 147–164.
Jex, S. M., Beehr, T. A., & Roberts, C. K. (1992).
The meaning of occupational stress items to
survey respondents. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 77, 623–628.
Jimmieson, N. L. (2000). Employee reactions to be-
havioral control under conditions of stress: The
moderating role of self-efficacy. Work and
Stress, 14, 262–280.
Jones, A. P., & Butler, M. C. (1980). A role transition
approach to the stresses of organizationally-in-
duced family role disruption. Journal of Mar-
riage and Family, 42, 367–376.
Judge, T. A., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D. (1994).
Job and life attitudes of male executives. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 79, 767–782.
Kraut, R. (1989). Telecommuting: The tradeoffs of
home work. Journal of Communication, 39,
19–47.

Kurland, N. B., & Bailey, D. E. (1999). Telework:
The advantages of working here, there, any-
where and anytime. Organizational Dynamics,
28, 53–68.
Kurland, N. B., & Egan, T. D. (1999). Telecom-
muting: Justice and control in the virtual
organization. Organization Science, 10,
500–513.
Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the
coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, ap-
praisal and coping. New York: Springer.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). Maslach
burnout inventory: Research edition. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists.
Mirchandani, K. (1999). Legitimizing work: Tele-
work and the gendered reification of the work-
non-work dichotomy. The Canadian Review of
Sociology and Anthropology, 36(1), 87–107.
Mokhtarian, P. L., Bagley, M. N., & Solomon, I.
(1998). The impact of gender, occupation and
presence of children on telecommuting motiva-
tions and constraints. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, 49,
1115–1134.
Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, J. S., & Manning, M. R.
(1986). Occupational stress: Its causes and
consequences for job performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71, 618–629.
Noe, R. A., & Wilk, S. (1993). Investigation of the
factors that influence employees’ participation
in development activities. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 291–302.
O’Driscoll, M. P., Ilgen, D. R., & Hildreth, K.
(1992). Time devoted to job and off-job activi-
ties, inter-role conflict, and affective experi-
ences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77,
272–279.
Olson, M. H., & Primps, S. B. (1984). Working at
home with computers: Work and nonwork is-
sues. Journal of Social Issues, 40, 97–112.
Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. (1992). Organiza-
tional socialization as a learning process: The
role of information acquisition. Personnel Psy-
chology, 45, 849–874.
Raghuram, S., Garud, R., Wiesenfeld, B., &
Gupta, V. (2001) Factors contributing to vir-
tual work adjustment. Journal of Manage-
ment, 27, 383–405.
Raghuram, S., Wiesenfeld, B. M., & Garud, R.
(2003). Technology enabled work: The role of
self efficacy in determining telecommuter ad-
Work-Nonwork Conflict and Job Stress among Virtual Workers • 277
justment and structuring behavior. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 63, 180–198.
Ralston, D. A. (1990). How flexitime eases
work/family tensions. Personnel, 67(8), 45–48.
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970).
Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organi-
zations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15,
150–163.
Rosenbaum, M., & Cohen, E. (1999). Equalitarian
marriages, spousal support, resourcefulness,
and psychological distress among Israeli
women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54,
102–113.
Schuler, R. S. (1977). Role perceptions, satisfaction
and performance moderated by organization
level and participation in decision making.
Academy of Management Journal, 20, 66–74.
Shamir, B., & Salomon, I. (1985). Work at home and
the quality of working life. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 10, 455–464.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Pren-
tice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W.
(1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction
and validation. Psychological Reports, 51,
663–671.
Staines, G. L. (1980). Spillover versus compensa-
tion: A review of the literature on the relation-
ship between work and nonwork. Human Rela-
tions, 33, 111–129.
Stanton, J. M., Balzer, W. K., Smith, P. C., Parra, L.
F., & Ironson, G. (2001). A general measure of
work stress: The stress in general scale. Educa-
tional and Psychological Measurement, 61 (5),
866–888.
Staples, S. D., Hulland, J. S., & Higgins, C. A.
(1999). Self-efficacy theory explanation for the
management of remote workers in virtual or-
ganizations. Organization Science, 10,
758–776.
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R.
(1999). Communication patterns as determi-
nants of organizational identification in a vir-
tual organization. Organization Science, 10,
777–790.
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R.
(2001). Organizational identification among
virtual workers: The role of need for affiliation
and perceived work-based social support. Jour-
nal of Management, 27, 213–229.
Zedeck, S., & Mosier, K. L. (1990). Work in the fam-
ily and employing organization. American Psy-
chologist, 45, 240–251.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

View publication stats