Why Permit Telework? Exploring the Determinants of California City Governments’ Decisions to Permit Telework

• Published date: 01 September 2017
• Author: Myungjung Kwon,So Hee Jeon
• DOI: 10.1177/0091026017717240
• Date: 01 September 2017
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026017717240

Public Personnel Management

2017, Vol. 46(3) 239 –262

© The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0091026017717240

journals.sagepub.com/home/ppm

Article

Why Permit Telework?

Exploring the Determinants of

California City Governments’

Decisions to Permit Telework

Myungjung Kwon1 and So Hee Jeon2

Abstract

This study examines what factors influence a local government’s decision to permit

its employees to telework. Drawing on insights from contingency theory, this study

investigates how external forces influence California local governments’ decisions

regarding whether or not to permit telework for their employees. To examine this

question, this article uses the 2010 International City/County Management Association

survey data and the 2009 American Communities Survey by the U.S. Census Bureau

as its primary data sources. The findings show that various contextual factors such

as municipal climate protection efforts, citizen participation, population diversity,

political institutions, and support from state legislators play a significant role in a city

government’s decision to permit telework for city employees.

Keywords

telework programs, employee-friendly programs, climate protection, contingency

theory, California local governments

Introduction

As the contextual environment of government workforce changes rapidly, public orga-

nizations explore a variety of innovative human resource (HR) programs to help their

workers adapt to the changing environment. With the enactment of the 2010 Telework

1California State University, Fullerton, USA

2Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, USA

Corresponding Author:

Myungjung Kwon, Division of Politics, Administration and Justice, California State University, Fullerton,

800 N. State College Blvd., Fullerton, CA 92834, USA.

Email: mkwon@fullerton.edu

717240PPMXXX10.1177/0091026017717240Public Personnel ManagementKwon and Jeon

research-article2017

240 Public Personnel Management 46(3)

Enhancement Act, telework programs have now become a popular HR management

tool among federal government agencies. Federal agencies offer telework for their

workforces not only to recruit and retain a talented workforce but also to help protect

the environment. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (USOPM;

n.d.), telework refers to “a work arrangement that allows an employee to perform

work, during any part of regular, paid hours, at an approved alternative worksite (e.g.,

home, telework center)” (“What Is Telework?” section, para. 1). The 2010 Telework

Enhancement Act requires all federal agencies to establish and offer telework policies

to their workforce. This requirement is based on the assumption that telework helps

government agencies to accomplish their missions while achieving climate protection

goals by having employees drive less and by increasing their satisfaction through flex-

ible working schedules and locations. The Act has encouraged the use of telework in

the public sector and resulted in an increased number of federal government employ-

ees who choose to telework (Overmyer, 2011). For instance, in the case of the U.S.

Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), 80% of its workforce are eligible for telework,

and 80% of the eligible positions are teleworking.

Previously, telecommuting was introduced to permit employees to reduce the num-

ber of commute trips from their homes to their employers’ locations. It was a place-

based option to give employees who do not make a daily commute to the office

workplace flexibility—that is, “[having] a fixed alternative worksite at home” (Hill,

Miller, Weiner, & Colihan, 1998; Torraco, 2005, p. 99). Even though some scholars

use the terms telecommuting and telework interchangeably (Caillier, 2013b; Dahlstrom,

2013; Getha-Taylor & Lee, 2008; Kim & Wiggins, 2011; Lee & Hong, 2011), there is

a difference between these two programs. Telework provides not only workplace flex-

ibility but also time flexibility, allowing employees to accomplish their work effi-

ciently and effectively while accommodating family needs (Hunton & Norman, 2010;

Maruyama, Hopkinson, & James, 2009). In a nutshell, telework is a more evolved and

broader family-friendly program than telecommuting. This research focuses on tele-

work, specifically telework permission by local government.

With the rapid emergence and diffusion of telework throughout all levels of govern-

ment, public personnel management scholars have paid special attention to under-

standing the effects of telework programs. Current telework studies report potential

benefits and downsides of telework programs (e.g., Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Caillier,

2013a; Mahler, 2012; Overmyer, 2011; Pearce, 2009; Wadsworth, Facer, & Arbon,

2010). For instance, one of the benefits is increased climate protection due to the

reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as a result of having employees drive

less and reducing energy use in the office (Perez, Sánchez, Carnicer, & Jiménez,

2004). Another benefit is to make government a more attractive place to work for

younger generations that place greater emphasis on work–life balance (Berman,

Bowman, West, & Van Wart, 2016; Wadsworth et al., 2010). On the contrary, telework

programs may pose management challenges such as difficulty in monitoring a tele-

worker’s performance and negative effects on employee attitudes. These effects may

include perceptions of inequity by employees who are not allowed to telework, which

may cause these employees to be less satisfied with their jobs ( Lee & Kim, 2016).