Self‐leadership in the context of part‐time teleworking

• Published date: 01 October 2019
• Date: 01 October 2019
• Author: Teresa Müller,Cornelia Niessen
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2371

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Self‐leadership in the context of part‐time teleworking

Teresa Müller |Cornelia Niessen

Institute of Psychology, Chair of Work and

Organizational Psychology, Friedrich‐

Alexander University Erlangen‐Nürnberg,

Erlangen, Germany

Correspondence

Teresa Müller, Chair of Work and

Organizational Psychology, Friedrich‐

Alexander University Erlangen‐Nürnberg,

Nägelsbachstr. 49c, Erlangen 91052, Germany.

Email: teresa.tm.mueller@fau.de

Summary

Employees who work periodically in both a traditional office and home office (part‐

time teleworkers) face opportunities and risks related to both working locations. As

self‐leadership might play a crucial role in this context, we examined within‐person

variations in self‐leadership (self‐reward, self‐punishment, self‐cueing, self‐goal set-

ting, imagining successful performance, and evaluation of beliefs and assumptions)

on home days and office days. In a typical workweek, 195 part‐time teleworkers filled

out daily surveys (729 days), and we examined the relationship between working

location (office and home) and self‐leading behavior as well as the mediating role of

autonomy. Finally, we investigated whether self‐leading behavior relates to ego

depletion and work satisfaction at the end of the working day. Multilevel analyses

revealed that part‐time teleworkers reported higher use of self‐reward, self‐goal set-

ting, and visualization of successful performance on home days than on office days.

The association between working location and self‐reward, self‐goal setting, visualiza-

tion of successful performance, and evaluation of beliefs and assumptions was medi-

ated by autonomy. There were no indirect effects of working location on ego

depletion through self‐leadership. However, we found that on home days, part‐time

teleworkers were more satisfied with their job at the end of the workday through

self‐goal setting.

KEYWORDS

autonomy, ego depletion, self‐leadership,telework, work satisfaction

1|INTRODUCTION

In modern work environments, technology leads to constant accessi-

bility and allows employees to work from almost everywhere and

anytime. As this can possibly raise both opportunities and risks, flex-

ible work arrangements are a prominent topic in research and prac-

tice (Bailey & Kurland, 2002). Traditional work environments

typically provide some sort of temporal and spatial framework that

prestructures and organizes workers' daily routines (e.g., fixed work-

ing hours and lunch break, spatial separation from private life

demands, and monitoring by supervisors). Employees lose this tempo-

ral structure and physical environment when working outside their

organization's traditional office (Jahoda, 1981; Paul & Batinic, 2010;

Standen, 2000). Part‐time teleworkers, in particular, are confronted

with opportunities and risks of both working locations, the traditional

office and the home office.

Part‐time telework is an alternative work arrangement in which

employees—for some portion of their work schedule—work from

somewhere other than their organization's central workplace (e.g., at

home) using information and communication technologies (Bailey &

Kurland, 2002; Biron & van Veldhoven, 2016; Gajendran & Harrison,

2007). On home days, part‐time teleworkers have to manage work

task scheduling without the temporal and spatial organizational

framework resulting in greater flexibility in daily working routines

and autonomy concerning individual work processes and outcomes.

In short, they have to lead themselves (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007;

Received: 24 July 2018 Revised: 12 April 2019 Accepted: 14 April 2019

DOI: 10.1002/job.2371

J Organ Behav. 2019;40:883–898. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 883

Hill, Hawkins, & Miller, 1996). Consequently, self‐leadership as a

“self‐influence process through which people achieve the self‐

direction and self‐motivation necessary to perform”(Neck &

Houghton, 2006, p. 271) should play a crucial role in the context of

part‐time telework.

In the present study, we investigated the self‐leadership behaviors

of part‐time teleworkers (i.e., who regularly work from home in addition

to working from their organization's traditional office) on a daily level

and asked whether part‐time teleworkers exhibited more self‐

leadership behaviors when working from home than at their regular

office and whether this effect might be due to enhanced work auton-

omy at home.

We further investigate possible outcomes of different self‐

leadership strategies on home versus office days in the present

study. We focus on two outcomes of self‐leadership, namely, ego

depletion and work satisfaction, asking whether higher self‐

leadership behaviors as a self‐regulatory strategy during home office

days are associated with more ego depletion and more work satisfac-

tion at the end of the working day. Building on vast empirical evi-

dence demonstrating that self‐regulatory efforts are demanding

(e.g., Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007; Hülsheger, 2016; Müller &

Niessen, 2018; Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998; Schmeichel,

2007), we argue that self‐leading behaviors are effortful and demand-

ing as well. Thus, we hypothesize that part‐time teleworkers are

more depleted on home days due to higher use of self‐leadership

strategies. Furthermore, building on past research showing that

both teleworking (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007) and self‐leadership

(e.g., Stewart, Courtright, & Manz, 2010) are positively associated

with work satisfaction, we further hypothesize that part‐time

teleworkers report higher work satisfaction on home days due to

higher self‐leadership.

This study contributes to research and practice in at least three

ways. First, it contributes to the literature on teleworking as we inves-

tigate the group of part‐time teleworkers by comparing home days

and office days. Recent panel data show that the majority of

teleworkers periodically combine working in a traditional working

location with working from home (i.e., part‐time telework; HILDA,

2009). European experts for Internet, communication, and media even

forecast that 75% of employees in the period from 2020 to 2024 will

belong to this group of part‐time teleworkers (TNS Infratest, n.d.).

Thus, it seems reasonable to focus on within‐person variations among

part‐time teleworkers. Second, the present study broadens research

on self‐leadership. Although past research has mainly focused on pos-

sible outcomes of self‐leading behavior—often applying cross‐

sectional or longitudinal study designs—possible antecedents and

within‐person differences in self‐leadership have largely been

neglected. Therefore, this study investigates within‐person variation

concerning home and office days, illuminating underlying mechanisms

through work autonomy, and examines outcomes from a daily per-

spective. Finally, this study contributes to organizational practice as

it takes a closer look at the growing group of part‐time teleworkers

and could provide valuable suggestions and starting points with

respect to work design.

2|THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 |Self‐leadership and autonomy in the context of

part‐time telework

Self‐leadership is a process of influencing and leading oneself in which

individuals control their own behavior using a specific set of behav-

ioral and cognitive strategies (Neck & Houghton, 2006; Neck & Manz,

2013). Strategies such as mentally congratulating oneself for an impor-

tant accomplishment (self‐reward; Neck & Houghton, 2006), using

lists, motivational screensavers and posters, or other external cues to

keep one's attention and effort focused on goal attainment (self‐cue-

ing), and setting challenging and specific goals (self‐goal setting) enable

employees to successfully accomplish work tasks even when they are

unpleasant (Locke & Latham, 2002; Neck & Houghton, 2006). Strate-

gies like imagining successful performance before starting a work task

or evaluating one's beliefs and assumptions make it possible to iden-

tify counterproductive thought patterns and replace them with more

positive, constructive ones (Stewart et al., 2010). Past research on

self‐leadership has largely focused on potential outcomes of self‐

leadership (Neck & Houghton, 2006; Stewart et al., 2010). The still

sparse research on potential antecedents of self‐leadership has thus

far been limited to intervention studies (e.g., Frayne & Geringer,

2000; Neck & Houghton, 2006; Neck & Manz, 1996), and to external

leadership (e.g., Manz & Sims, 1991, 2001; Manz, Sims, & Vella, 1990),

personality (e.g., Houghton, Bonham, Neck, and Singh (2004), and

national culture (Neubert & Cindy Wu, 2006; Stewart et al., 2010) as

determining factors of self‐leadership. Furthermore, in his theoretical

paper, Ross (2014) proposes a conceptual model of underlying internal

processes leading to self‐leadership development. He identifies inter-

nal states (i.e., self‐esteem, self‐concept, and self‐confidence) as medi-

ators in the self‐leadership development process and illuminates the

mutual influence of internal processes and external forces in order to

provide recommendations for the development of effective leadership

programs. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no empir-

ical research on workplace characteristics as antecedents of self‐

leadership or on mediating factors from a daily perspective. Illuminat-

ing those mechanisms is of particular importance as knowledge about

underlying mechanisms can help to adequately interpret existing evi-

dence on self‐leading behavior and its consequences. Furthermore,

this knowledge could be a starting point for valuable suggestions

and practical implications regarding the use of self‐leadership in every-

day work life and efficient work design.

Moreover, as a large proportion of teleworkers work in part‐time

teleworking arrangements (e.g., HILDA, 2009; Socio‐Economic Panel

[SOEP], n.d.), it is reasonable to investigate variations between home

and office days. Biron and van Veldhoven (2016) already highlighted

this gap in recent literature on teleworking arrangements and found

that worktime control moderated the association between job

demands and need for recovery on home days but not on office days.

More specifically, they found that on home days, high worktime con-

trol amplifies the positive association between job demands and need

for recovery and that the association reversed when worktime control

884 MÜLLER AND NIESSEN