TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC TÀI CHÍNH - MARKETING

KHOA QUẢN TRỊ KINH DOANH

TIỂU LUẬN MÔN HỌC QUẢN TRỊ NHÂN SỰ

Lớp học phần: 2121702052803

Chủ đề:

TELEWORKING

Giảng viên giảng dạy: Nguyễn Lê Bình Minh

Sinh viên: nhóm 2

Nguyễn Lê Ánh Ngọc

Nguyễn Phương Linh

Hoàng Nhi

Phạm Thị Thúy Như

Hà Kiều Oanh

Nguyễn Thành Tuấn

Hồ Chí Minh, ngày 21, tháng 03, năm 2021

 MỤC LỤC

1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................2

1.1. Introduction.........................................................................................................2

1.2. Definitions of Telework......................................................................................2

2. MAIN RESEARCH THEMES...............................................................................4

2.1. Telework outcomes.............................................................................................6

2.1.1. The inclusion of certain groups....................................................................6

2.1.2. Job satisfaction.............................................................................................7

2.1.3. Work-life balance.........................................................................................8

2.1.4. Career impacts.............................................................................................8

2.1.5. Productivity and firm performance..............................................................9

2.1.6. Interpersonal interaction and social isolation.............................................10

2.2. Telework challenges.........................................................................................11

2.2.1. Autonomy vs control..................................................................................11

2.2.2. Teleworkers and non-teleworkers relationship...........................................13

1
 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Introduction

Since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, in 2020, working life -among other
aspects of life-has undergone major changes worldwide. Flexible work arrangements,
such as teleworking, are not newly introduced. Their adoption was gradually driven by
a working life in transition characterized by multiple factors such as demographic
changes in the workforce, employees’ preferences, ICTs development coupled with the
reduction of related costs and increased availability, a tendency towards outsourcing
activities, changes in employment types, less commuting time and pollution, work-life
balance issues, economic pressures in the business environment and unpredictable
changes resulting from global competition (Lim and Teo, 2000; Kerrin and Hone,
2001; Taskin and Bridoux, 2010).

1.2. Definitions of Telework

In telework research, there is no universally accepted definition of the term ‘telework’

(Martínez-Sánchez et al., 2007). There seems to be an important, albeit not total,
agreement regarding the criteria applied in order to define ‘telework’. However, there
has been no consensus on the emphasis given by researchers on different aspects of
telework (Wilks and Billsberry, 2007). A remote work location and the use of ICTs
constitute two of the most agreed upon criteria while affiliation to an employer and the
time threshold to telework have puzzled researchers leading some of them to exclude
self-employed and occasional teleworkers from their teleworker samples (Haddon and
Brynin, 2005; Hilbrecht et al., 2008; Peters et al., 2004).

‘Telework’ and a host of other terms, such as ‘homeworking’, ‘telehomeworking’,

‘telecommuting’, ‘remote working’, ‘virtual work’, ‘electronic homeworking’ and
‘distributed work’ have been used interchangeably (Golden and Eddleston,
2018; Haddon and Brynin, 2005; Illegems and Verbeke, 2004; Lautsch et al.,
2009; Nunes, 2005). The terms ‘e-Work’ and ‘home-anchored work’ have also been
suggested as an alternative to ‘telework’ (Nunes, 2005; Whittle and Mueller, 2009).

2
Different types of telework have also been discussed and scholars usually agree on
three main categories: home-based work or homeworking, group-based teleworking
including satellite-office and neighborhood office centers and mobile telework or
otherwise called nomadic (Nunes, 2005; Pérez et al., 2002; Taskin and Devos,
2005; Wilson and Greenhil, 2004; Morganson et al., 2010). Some argue that there are
more types of telework such as independent telework and networking or flexible
teleworking systems (Nunes, 2005; Taskin and Devos, 2005). Based on this telework
typology, scholars distinguish certain categories of teleworkers, generally accepted in
research (Peters et al., 2004). Nevertheless, more focused groups of teleworkers are
also delineated. Such an example is mentioned by Wilson and Greenhil (2004) who
utilize Ovortup’s (1992) classification of teleworkers in substitutors, self-employed
and supplementers.

3
 2. MAIN RESEARCH THEMES
The third research question concerning the main research themes led to a table with
three different kinds of themes based on whether they are employee-, organization- or
manager-related. According to table, during the 2000–2020 period, research on
telework focused on employees by investigating potential career impacts, work-life
balance issues, opportunities and preference of telework, job satisfaction as a result of
telework and the importance of self-control. Further, studies measured the
productivity, competitive advantage and general performance of organizations which
had adopted telework.

TABLE 1: MAIN RESEARCH THEMES 2000-2020

Employee Organization Manager

Likelihood to adopt Autonomy vs

Career impacts
telework control

Individual vs
Work-life balance Productivity
collective

Approaches to
Gender Performance
telework

Telework
Attitudes/Preferences/Opportunities Competitive advantage allowance
decisions

Benefits and
Self-control Organisation commitment
pitfalls

Job satisfaction Turnover

4
 Loneliness HRM practices

Affective well-being Enablers and constraints

Benefits and pitfalls Benefits and pitfalls

Equipment Infrastructure/Equipment

Other organization-level telework-related topics, such as employee commitment

towards the organization as well as turnover rates and human resources management
practices, were explored. Additionally, authors analyzed what is referred to as ‘the
telework paradoxes’ that managers have to deal with, namely ‘individual vs collective’
and ‘autonomy vs control’, managerial approaches towards telework and decisions on
allowing telework. Last, employee and manager perceptions regarding advantages and
disadvantages as well as potential enablers and constraints of telework within the
workplace were considered. Table presents the main research themes categorized by
whether they correspond to the employees, managers or the organization.

In this study, the main research themes found in the reviewed articles were divided
into two categories, telework challenges and outcomes. The main reason behind this
approach is because addressing both challenges and outcomes related to telework in
the extant literature will be conducive to overcoming the former and improving the
latter. As a result, a review of telework outcomes, such as the inclusion in the
workforce of certain groups, job satisfaction, work-life balance, career impacts,
productivity and performance as well as interpersonal interaction and social isolation,
will be conducted followed by a discussion on challenges which rise in a telework
work environment, such as the autonomy versus control paradox and the relationships
between teleworkers and non-teleworkers.

5
2.1. Telework outcomes

2.1.1. The inclusion of certain groups 

Telework has been portrayed as “a new job organisation paradigm for companies
working in the new Economy” (Pérez et al., 2002, p. 775). On the other hand, it has
been claimed that telework does not constitute a major shift in organizational practices
as it reflects traditional occupational practices (Haddon and Brynin, 2005). It lies,
therefore, in a more thorough analysis to establish how telework impacts different
aspects of the business world.

Telework is linked to the inclusion of certain groups in employment. Baruch

(2000) supports that teleworking could possibly fit individuals in critical periods of
their lifetime. Married individuals with young children and, especially, female
employees can benefit from a flexible working practice, such as telework (Baruch,
2000; Chung and van der Horst, 2018; Hilbrecht et al., 2008; Iscan and Naktiyok,
2005; Sullivan and Lewis, 2001; Vilhelmson and Thulin, 2016). Chung and van
der Horst (2018) found that flexitime and telework helped women sustain their
employment status in the time after the birth of their children.

Home-related problems appear to be a responsibility of women and ‘feminine’ time is

considered domestic and polychronic as opposed to the ‘masculine’ industrial time
(Hilbrecht et al., 2008; Iscan and Naktiyok, 2005). Despite the fact that men's
participation in the domestic field has slowly increased, family commitments still
remain more marginal for men (Sullivan and Lewis, 2001). As a result, women view
telework as an opportunity to combine work and family (Chung and van der Horst,
2018; Hilbrecht et al., 2008; Iscan and Naktiyok, 2005). In spite of the fact that
telework seems to reproduce traditional and not gender-equitable roles -as women
have less time devoted to themselves and an unequal domestic burden-this remains
unrecognized by most women who perceive it as the price they pay for their dual role
(Hilbrecht et al., 2008; Sullivan and Lewis, 2001; Wilson and Greenhil, 2004).

It has been reported that another group of people who could benefit from telework is
the people recovering from an accident or the disabled (Baruch, 2000; Nunes,
2005). Nunes (2005) notes that telework offers an opportunity for people with

6
disabilities in Portugal to be integrated in the labor market. Several temporal and
spatial characteristics of the traditional workplace act like a constraint to the
participation of those groups in employment, either temporarily or permanently
(Nunes, 2005). Nevertheless, Peters et al. (2004) observed that partly disabled
employees were not offered the opportunity to telework more often than other
employees. Moreover, they did not prefer to do so and they practically did not
telework more often than others (Peters et al., 2004).

On the other side, telework has been ‘accused’ of excluding certain worker groups
such as those with no technical skills, the low level educated and those residing in
rural areas (Nunes, 2005; Peters et al., 2004; Vilhelmson and Thulin, 2016).
However, Sullivan (2003) contends that for people living in rural areas telework
is not just an option but rather the only option for employment.

2.1.2. Job satisfaction 

Job satisfaction reflects the quality of the relationship between the employee and the
organisation and is inextricably linked to one of the most important telework effects,
namely the benefits of attracting, motivating and retaining the human capital resource-
base of the organisation (Illegems and Verbeke, 2004). Job satisfaction needs to be
understood on two levels. First, it is derived from the job itself (intrinsic satisfaction)
but also from the conditional effects which result from differences in the activities
embedded in the job (extrinsic satisfaction) (Golden and Veiga, 2005; Illegems and
Verbeke, 2004).

Morganson et al. (2010) report equally high levels of job satisfaction between main
office and home-based workers while most researchers agree on increased job
satisfaction for teleworkers especially under specific circumstances (Baruch,
2000; Golden and Veiga, 2005; Illegems and Verbeke, 2004; Martinez-Sanchez
et al., 2007; Mü ller and Niessen, 2019; Simpson et al., 2003; Virick et al., 2010). A
curvilinear relationship has been detected by both Virick et al. (2010) and Golden and
Veiga (2005) between the extent of telework and job satisfaction moderated by
performance outcome orientation as well as task interdependence and job discretion,

7
respectively. Both studies imply the existence of a critical threshold in the time
devoted to telework beyond which benefits to job satisfaction cease to accrue.

2.1.3. Work-life balance 

Telework is generally associated with high levels of work-life balance (Chung and
van der Horst, 2018; Collins, 2005; Hibrecht et al., 2008; Kossek et al.,
2006; Lautsch et al., 2009; Mann and Holdsworth, 2003; Sullivan and Lewis,
2001). In contrast, Whittle and Mueller (2009, p. 140) disagree with what they call a
“one-sided view of the realities of telework” by questioning the idea that purchasing
an internet connection or a laptop can automatically result in benefits such as work-life
balance.

The results of this literature review show that telework can indeed be linked to
increased work-life balance under certain conditions. Chung and van der Horst
(2018) cite Piszczek and Berg's (2014) view according to which it is the institutional
setting of each country -which influences who has access to flexible work
arrangements-that shapes how telework will affect work-life balance. Strong
boundaries between the family and the work domain are also associated with better
work-life balance and increased well-being facilitated by flexibility (Chung and van
der Horst, 2018; Kossek et al., 2006; Lautsch et al., 2009). Additionally, greater
psychological job control and a sharing-information supervision approach lead to
lower family-work conflict (Kossek et al., 2006; Lautsch et al., 2009).

On the other hand, Delanoeije et al. (2019) maintain that, on teleworking days,

workers experience less work-to-home conflict but more home-to-work conflict and
that those with a strong home protection preference report more conflict resulting from
interruption from work. Last, Sullivan and Lewis (2001) assert that working at home
can be a source of family conflict as it also affects the lives of co-residents.

2.1.4. Career impacts 

Mann and Holdsworth (2003) and Illegems et al. (2001) both acknowledge

telework as an impediment of career progression. Kerrin and Hone (2001) reveal the
fear of employees that telework may reduce their chances for career advancement

8
while Mann and Holdsworth (2003) report that women who telework are not even
perceived as working by others.

Telework is related to negative career outcomes because of the perceived lack of

dedication to one's career and the flexibility stigma that is “the devaluation of
employees who use flexible work practices … because they are seen as deviating
from the work devotion schema that places work at the center of one's life” (Golden
and Eddleston, 2018). In fact, Golden and Eddleston, 2018 found similar results for
teleworkers and non-teleworkers in terms of promotions. Although, they detected a
negative relationship between telework and salary growth. In their study, they
conclude that it is not teleworking per se but its extent which is negatively associated
with promotions and salary growth and that occasional teleworkers enjoyed greater
career benefits.

Golden and Eddleston, 2018 point to three moderators, namely supplemental work,

an effective impression management strategy and the appropriate work context. In
particular, when supplemental work is high, employees who telework more will
receive more promotions and greater salary growth than when supplemental work is
low. In terms of the work context, in organizations where teleworking normativeness
is high, employees who telework more will receive more promotions -but not greater
salary growth-than when they work in a less telework normative environment. Finally,
face-to-face contact with the supervisor is considered an effective impression
management strategy which leads to greater salary growth for extensive teleworkers
when it is high.

2.1.5. Productivity and firm performance 

Improved productivity and firm performance are two of the important advantages of
telework (Baruch, 2000; Illegems et al., 2001; Mann and Holdsworth,
2003; Nunes, 2005). Lautsch et al. (2009) claim that it is how telework is
implemented that determines whether it will have a positive impact on
performance. Martínez-Sá nchez et al. (2007) and Illegems and Verbeke
(2004) highlight the importance of human resources (HR) development practices as a
moderator in the relationship between telework and firm performance. Both studies

9
assess such practices as necessary in order to enhance what otherwise would be a
marginal contribution of teleworking to the organization.

Access to HR practices can increase an individual's self-efficacy and the organization's

broader productivity efficiency (Illegems and Verbeke, 2004; Martínez-Sá nchez
et al., 2007). Moreover, HR development reinforces the positive effect of teleworking
on the company's flexibility besides its financial and innovation performance
(Martínez-Sá nchez et al., 2007; Pérez et al., 2002).

Another interesting contribution is made by Dutcher (2012) who distinguishes

between the productivity of creative and dull tasks within the telework
context. Dutcher (2012) proves that teleworking environmental effects may positively
affect productivity of creative tasks but negatively impact productivity of dull
tasks. Kossek et al. (2006) recognize the link between a formal use of telework
policies and higher performance but cannot prove whether formal telework policies
lead to increased performance or if the direction of the very relationship is
reversed. Perez et al.’s (2002) paper is the only one which negatively relates telework
to productivity and that is only when the teleworker has a dual role including raising
children.

2.1.6. Interpersonal interaction and social isolation 

Interpersonal interaction is defined by Humphrey et al. (2007) as “the extent to

which a job provides opportunities to interact and engage with others” (Windeler
et al., 2017, p. 978). On the one hand, it is argued that telework and the
‘despatialisation’ relative to its practice may negatively impact social and
professional interaction thereby leading to a sense of social isolation (Illegems
and Verbeke, 2004; Morganson et al., 2010; Taskin and Devos, 2005; Whittle and
Mueller, 2009). In addition to isolation, telework is linked to a concern regarding
the potential exclusion, both social and professional, of teleworkers but also to
loneliness, and disconnection which are, in turn, associated with negative
emotions (Mann and Holdsworth, 2003; Sewell and Taskin, 2015; Whittle and
Mueller, 2009). Baruch (2000), therefore, proposes that an individual with high
need for social life is not fit for telework.

10
On the other hand, Wilks and Billsberry (2007) argue that it depends on the
characteristics of each individual whether isolation will be viewed as a
drawback. Illegems and Verbeke (2004) also suggest that the appropriate HR
management practices can provide a benevolent work environment so that
interpersonal interaction is not negatively affected. After all, social interaction is
not unanimously judged as positive or negative. Windeler et al.
(2017) and Wilson and Greenhil (2004) maintain that social interaction places
more emotional demands which are unwelcomed by employees. The former
discovers a growing recognition of the costs linked to social interaction, such as
increased work exhaustion, while highlighting the important role of the quality
and quantity of interaction. Part-time telework - but not full-time telework-is
found to alleviate the negative effects of interaction quantity as it acts like a mini-
break. Simpson et al. (2003), also refer to isolation as a highly subjective
experience depending on the nature of the role, the personal experiences of the
teleworker and their attitude towards technology. For example, isolation of rural
workers was reduced rather than caused by telework.

2.2. Telework challenges

2.2.1. Autonomy vs control 

One of the major challenges that researchers and practitioners of telework have to deal
with is the ‘autonomy vs control’ paradox or otherwise referred to as the ‘flexibility
paradox’ which implies some flexibility and autonomy in spatial and temporal terms
but the organization must simultaneously establish procedures in order to ensure that it
continues to work efficiently and develop employees (Martínez-Sá nchez et al.,
2007; Sewell and Taskin, 2015; Taskin and Devos, 2005).

The teleworking environment and, most importantly, the relative autonomy over where
and when one works has been praised by employees who need to combine their work
with the timetables of their children (Sullivan and Lewis, 2001). In addition,
according to Daniels et al. (2001) international employees who telework tend to enjoy
higher levels of autonomy owing to the emotional and physical distance from the
home-office (Mayo et al., 2009).

11
Anderson et al. (2014) argue that working in a teleworking environment leads to
positive emotions due to the perceived autonomy, control and flexibility. Such higher
levels of autonomy and the entailed transfer of responsibility, however, present the risk
of an intensification of the mental burden for teleworkers (Taskin and Devos, 2005).
Within this context, self-leading strategies, meaning those strategies which enable
individuals to successfully accomplish tasks even when they are unpleasant, are
deemed a necessary resource but are also demanding themselves (Mü ller and Niessen,
2019; Taskin and Devos, 2005).

Conversely, self-management strategies are associated with managerial telework

allowance decisions (Beham et al., 2015). One possible explanation is that these
strategies are required in trust management (Taskin and Devos, 2005). The
distantiation negatively affects the trust relationship between teleworkers and
supervisors due to lack of face-to-face contact (Sewell and Taskin, 2015; Taskin and
Bridoux, 2010).

On one side, teleworking allowance might be viewed as proof of trust from the
supervisor towards the employee thereby leading the latter to an attempt to reciprocate
by disciplining themselves or by showing appreciation and loyalty (Morganson et al.,
2010; Wilson and Greenhil, 2004). Coordination based on mutual trust is considered
the solution to the lack of face-to-face contact and direct supervision yet managers are
often reluctant to abandon full control over the working process and adopt new control
habits (Golden and Veiga, 2005; Perez et al., 2002; Illegems et al., 2001).

Snell (1992) proposes three different kinds of control systems based on behavior,

input and output while research suggests that more objective types of control are more
motivating (Virik et al., 2010). Iscan and Naktiyok (2005) claim that managers have
difficulties in controlling and monitoring teleworkers. Vilhelmson and Thulin
(2016), eleven years after Iscan and Naktiyok's study, argue that manager's control
and other essential constraining factors to the adoption of telework eased as a result of
the advanced internet-based systems for supervision.

Sewell and Taskin (2015) support that teleworkers are obliged to accept an

intensified technocratic control system which undermines their autonomy. However,

12
this supervision is not recognized by teleworkers as control but as a by-product of the
new mode of working (Sewell and Taskin, 2015). Lautsch et al. (2009) and Illegems
et al. (2001) propose a change in the models of supervision which will possibly pave
the way for more positive outcomes for both the teleworkers and the organization.
Instead of an increase in manager's controls -since presence and visibility cannot be
checked in situ and de visu-supervisors are advised to apply an approach placing
emphasis on sharing information rather than closely monitoring teleworkers' work
schedules (Lautsch et al., 2009; Taskin and Bridoux, 2010). Once again, the role of
HR development practices in the improvement of the trust relationship between the
supervisor and the teleworker is underlined (Illegems and Verbeke, 2004; Martinez-
Sanchez et al., 2007).

2.2.2. Teleworkers and non-teleworkers relationship 

Telework has resulted in the creation of tension between those employees who
telework and those who do not. Teleworkers express worries regarding workplace
exclusion (Morganson et al., 2010; Sewell and Taskin, 2015). An ‘us and them’
feeling has emerged between teleworkers and non-teleworkers (Collins, 2005).
Teleworkers fear that non-adopters of telework would doubt about teleworkers'
commitment, trustworthiness and the extent of their contribution (Sewell and Taskin,
2015). In this context, the availability principle replaced the responsiveness principle.
While the latter is seen as an important contributor to autonomy, Sewell and Taskin
(2015) maintain that the former leads to a new norm of conduct which enhances
technocratic managerial control by means of forming a peer-based social control
system.

Following the impact of telework on the trust relationship between adopters and non-
adopters of teleworking mediated by the lack of face-to-face contact, the transfer of
knowledge between the two groups was also negatively affected (Taskin and Bridoux,
2010). In fact, the nature of the relationship between them was altered leading to more
superficial connections and fears of inability to cooperate with each other while
teleworkers simultaneously tried to place themselves into the workplace on the days
they did not telework (Sewell and Taskin, 2015; Wilson and Greenhil, 2004). Taskin
and Bridoux (2010) suggest that new routines need to be developed to ensure better

13
contact between the two groups as colleague support is considered beneficial to
attitudes towards teleworking (Iscan and Naktiyok, 2005; Taskin and Bridoux,
2010).

An increasing complexity in managing mixed groups has been detected (Collins,

2005; Lautsch et al., 2009). Perceived advantages and disadvantages by both groups
are to blame for the resentment between teleworkers and non-teleworkers (Collins,
2005; Iscan and Naktiyok, 2005). Managers are faced with five dilemmas in terms of
monitoring the two groups, work schedule regulation, time allocated to each group,
boundary control between work and family and reward system (Collins,
2005; Lautsch et al., 2009). Researchers consent to the adoption of the same
approach towards teleworkers and non-teleworkers for more positive results (Collins,
2005; Lautsch et al., 2009).

14
 TÀI LIỆU THAM KHẢO

Anderson A.J., Kaplan S.A., Vega R.P. Tá c độ ng củ a là m việc từ xa đố i vớ i trả i

nghiệm cả m xú c: khi nà o và đố i vớ i ai, là m việc từ xa có cả i thiện sứ c khỏ e tình
cả m hà ng ngà y khô ng? Eur. J. Làm việc. Cơ quan. Tâm thần. 2014; 24(6):882–897. 

Ayyagari R., Grover V., Purvis R.L. Technostress: tiền đề cô ng nghệ và ý nghĩa. MIS
Q. 2011; 35:831–858.

Baruch Y. Là m việc từ xa: lợ i ích và cạ m bẫ y như nhậ n thứ c củ a cá c chuyên gia và

nhà quả n lý. Technol mới, làm việc. Dụng. 2000; 15(1):34–49.

Beham B., Baierl A., Poelmans S. Quyết định trợ cấ p là m việc từ xa quả n lý - mộ t
nghiên cứ u họ a tiết giữ a cá c nhà quả n lý Đứ c. Nhà trọ J. Hum. Resour. Quản
lý. 2015; 26(11):1385–1406. 

Bissola R., Imperatori B. Đố i mặ t vớ i e-HRM: hậ u quả đố i vớ i thá i độ củ a nhân

viên đố i vớ i tổ chứ c và bộ phậ n nhâ n sự trong cá c doanh nghiệp vừ a và nhỏ củ a
Ý . Eur. J. Int. Quản lý. 2013; 7(4):450–468.

Chung H., van der Horst M. Mô hình việc là m củ a phụ nữ sau khi sinh con và nhậ n
thứ c tiếp cậ n và sử dụ ng flexitime và là m việc từ xa. Hum. 2018; 71(1):1–
26. Phiên bả n đặ c biệt.

Collins M. Trườ ng hợ p (khô ng đơn giả n) để là m việc từ xa: mộ t nghiên cứ u tạ i

Lloyd's of London. Technol mới, làm việc. Dụng. 2005; 20(2):115–132. 

Delanoeije J., Verbruggen M., Germeys L. Chuyển đổ i vai trò ranh giớ i: cá ch tiếp
cậ n hà ng ngà y để giả i thích tá c độ ng củ a là m việc từ xa tạ i nhà đố i vớ i xung độ t
giữ a cô ng việc và xung độ t từ nhà đến nơi là m việc. Hum. 2019; 72(12):1–26. 

Daniels K., Lamond D., Standen P. Teleworking: khuô n khổ cho nghiên cứ u tổ
chứ c. J. Quản lý. 2001; 38(8):1151–1185. 

Ngườ i Hà Lan G.E. Tá c độ ng củ a là m việc từ xa đố i vớ i năng suấ t: mộ t cuộ c kiểm

tra thử nghiệm. Vai trò củ a cá c nhiệm vụ buồ n tẻ và sá ng tạ o. J. Econ. Behav. Cơ
quan. 2012; 84(1):355–363. 

15
Eurofound. Liên minh châ u  u; Dublin: 2020. Số ng, là m việc và COVID-10: Nhữ ng
phá t hiện đầ u tiên - Thá ng 4 nă m
2020. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2020/living-
working-and-covid-19 

Ủ y ban châ u  u . Trung tâ m nghiên cứ u chung; Liên minh châ u  u: 2020. Là m

việc từ xa ở EU trướ c và sau covid-19: nơi chú ng tô i đã ở , nơi chú ng tô i hướ ng
đến - thá ng 4 nă m
2020. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/jrc120945_policy_brief_-
_covid_and_telework_final.pdf 

Golden T.D. Trá nh cạ n kiệt trong cô ng việc ả o: là m việc từ xa và tá c độ ng can thiệp

củ a kiệt sứ c cô ng việc đố i vớ i cam kết và ý định doanh thu. J. Vocat.
Behav. 2006; 69(1):176–187. 

Golden T.D., Eddleston K.A. Có mộ t mứ c giá mà ngườ i là m việc từ xa phả i trả

khô ng? Kiểm tra mố i quan hệ giữ a là m việc từ xa và thà nh cô ng nghề nghiệp
khá ch quan. J. Vocat. Behav. 2018; Phầ n A(116):1–46. 

Golden T.D., Veiga J.F. Tá c độ ng củ a mứ c độ là m việc từ xa đố i vớ i sự hà i lò ng

trong cô ng việc: giả i quyết nhữ ng phá t hiện khô ng nhấ t quá n. J. Quản
lý. 2005; 31(2):301–318. 

Haddon L., Brynin M. Đặ c điểm củ a là m việc từ xa và đặ c điểm củ a nhâ n viên là m

việc từ xa. Technol mới, làm việc. Dụng. 2005; 20(1):34–46. 

Hilbrecht M., Shaw S.M., Johnson L.C., Andrey J. "Tô i ở nhà cho nhữ ng đứ a trẻ":
nhữ ng tá c độ ng mâ u thuẫ n đố i vớ i sự câ n bằ ng giữ a cô ng việc và cuộ c số ng củ a
cá c bà mẹ là m việc từ xa. Gend. Làm việc. Cơ quan. 2008; 15(5):454–476. 

Humphrey S.E., Nahrgang J.D., Morgeson F.P. Tích hợ p cá c tính nă ng thiết kế cô ng

việc độ ng lự c, xã hộ i và ngữ cả nh: tó m tắ t phâ n tích tổ ng hợ p và mở rộ ng lý
thuyết củ a tà i liệu thiết kế cô ng việc. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007; 92(5):1332–1356. 

Illegems V., Verbeke A. Telework: nó có ý nghĩa gì đố i vớ i quả n lý? Dài. Kế hoạch

phạm vi. 2004; 37(4):319–334.

16
Illegems V., Verbeke A., S' Jegers R. Bố i cả nh tổ chứ c thự c hiện là m việc từ
xa. Technol. Dự báo. Soc. Thay đổi. 2001; 68(3):275–291. 

ILO. 2020. COVID-19: Hướ ng dẫ n thu thậ p dữ liệu thố ng kê lao độ ng. Xá c định và
đo lườ ng là m việc từ xa, là m việc từ xa, là m việc tạ i nhà và là m việc tạ i nhà . Lưu ý
kỹ thuậ t, Tổ chứ c Lao độ ng Quố c
tế. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---stat/
documents/publication/wcms_747075.pdf 

Iscan O.F., Naktiyok A. Thá i độ đố i vớ i là m việc từ xa: trườ ng hợ p thổ Nhĩ Kỳ. J. Inf.
Technol. 2005; 20(1):52–63. 

Kerrin M., Hone K. Nhậ n thứ c củ a ngườ i tìm việc về là m việc từ xa: mộ t cá ch tiếp
cậ n lậ p bả n đồ nhậ n thứ c. Technol mới, làm việc. Dụng. 2001; 16(2):130–143. 

Kossek E.E., Lautsch B.A., Eaton S.C. Là m việc từ xa, kiểm soá t và quả n lý ranh
giớ i: tương quan củ a việc sử dụ ng và thự c hà nh chính sá ch, kiểm soá t cô ng việc và
hiệu quả cô ng việc-gia đình. J. Vocat. Behav. 2006; 68(2):347–367. 

Lautsch B.A., Kossek E.E., Eaton S.C. Cá c phương phá p tiếp cậ n giá m sá t và nghịch
lý trong việc quả n lý thự c hiện là m việc từ xa. Hum. 2009; 62(6):795–827. 

Lim V.K.G., Teo T.S.H. Là m việc hay khô ng là m việc ở nhà . Mộ t cuộ c điều tra thự c
nghiệm về cá c yếu tố ả nh hưở ng đến thá i độ đố i vớ i là m việc từ xa. J. Quản lý. Tâm
thần. 2000; 15(6):560–586.

Mann S., Holdworth L. Tá c độ ng tâ m lý củ a là m việc từ xa: că ng thẳ ng, cả m xú c và

sứ c khỏ e. Technol mới, làm việc. Dụng. 2003; 18(3):196–211. 

Martínez-Sá nchez A., Pérez-Pérez M., de-Luis-Carnicer P., Vela-Jiménez M.J.

Telework, tính linh hoạ t củ a nguồ n nhâ n lự c và hiệu suấ t vữ ng chắ c. Technol mới,
làm việc. Dụng. 2007; 22(3):208–223. 

Mayo M., Mụ c sư J.-C., Gomez-Mejia L., Cruz C. Tạ i sao mộ t số cô ng ty á p dụ ng là m

việc từ xa trong khi nhữ ng ngườ i khá c thì khô ng: quan điểm dự phò ng. Hum,
Resour. Quản lý. 2009; 48(6):917–939. 

17
Morganson V.J., Major D.A., Oborn K.L., Verive J.M., Heelan M.P. So sá nh cá c địa
điểm là m việc từ xa và sắ p xếp cô ng việc truyền thố ng Sự khá c biệt trong hỗ trợ
câ n bằ ng giữ a cô ng việc và cuộ c số ng, sự hà i lò ng trong cô ng việc và hò a nhậ p. J.
Quản lý. Tâm thần. 2010; 25(6):578–595. 

Mü ller T., Niessen C. Tự lã nh đạ o trong bố i cả nh là m việc từ xa bá n thờ i gian. J.

Organ. Behav. 2019; 40(8):883–898. 

Neirotti P., Paolucci E., Raguseo E. Lậ p bả n đồ tiền thâ n củ a khuếch tá n là m việc

từ xa: bằ ng chứ ng cấ p độ cô ng ty từ Ý . Technol mới, làm việc.
Dụng. 2013; 28(1):16–36.

Nguyễn T.H.H., Ntim C.G., Malagila J.K. Phụ nữ trong hộ i đồ ng quả n trị cô ng ty và
hoạ t độ ng tà i chính và phi tà i chính củ a cô ng ty: mộ t đá nh giá tà i liệu có hệ thố ng
và chương trình nghiên cứ u trong tương lai. Mục sư Financ. Hậu môn. 2018;
(71):1–71. 

Nunes F. Hầ u hết cá c yếu tố và hạ n chế có liên quan ả nh hưở ng đến sự lâ y lan củ a

là m việc từ xa ở Bồ Đà o Nha. Technol mới, làm việc. Dụng. 2005; 20(2):133–149. 

OECD. 2020. Giả i quyết coronavirus (Covid-19): Đó ng gó p và o nỗ lự c toà n cầ u. Lợ i

ích nă ng suấ t từ là m việc từ xa trong thờ i kỳ hậ u COVID-19: Cá c chính sá ch cô ng
có thể là m cho nó xả y ra như thế nà o? Phản ứng chính sách của OECD đối với
coronavirus (COVID-19)https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=135_135250-
u15liwp4jd&title=Productivity-gains-from-teleworking-in-the-post-COVID-19-
era 

Pérez M.P., Sá nchez A.M., de Luis Carnicer M.P. Lợ i ích và rà o cả n củ a là m việc từ

xa: sự khá c biệt về nhậ n thứ c củ a cá c nhà quả n lý nguồ n nhâ n lự c theo chiến lượ c
hoạ t độ ng củ a cô ng ty. Technovation. 2002; 22(12):775–783. 

Peters P., Tijdens K.G., Wetzels C. Cơ hộ i, sở thích và thự c tiễn củ a nhâ n viên trong
việc á p dụ ng là m việc từ xa. Inf. Quản lý. 2004; 41(4):469–482. 

Phillips W., Lee H., Ghobadian A., O'Regan N., James P. Đổ i mớ i xã hộ i và kinh
doanh xã hộ i: mộ t đá nh giá có hệ thố ng. Cơ quan nhóm. Quản lý. 2014; 40(3):428–
461. 

18
Piszczek M.M., Berg P. Mở rộ ng ranh giớ i củ a lý thuyết ranh giớ i: cá c tổ chứ c điều
tiết và quả n lý vai trò cô ng việc - gia đình. Hum. 2014; 67(12):1491–1512. Trích
dẫ n trong Chung, H. & van der Horst, M. (2018). Mô hình việc là m củ a phụ nữ sau
khi sinh con và nhậ n thứ c tiếp cậ n và sử dụ ng flexitime và là m việc từ xa. Quan hệ
con ngườ i, 71(1), Phiên bả n đặ c biệt, 1-26. 

PwC. PwC; Mỹ: 2020. Khả o sá t cô ng việc từ xa tạ i Mỹ củ a

PwC. https://www.pwc.com/us/en/library/covid-19/us-remote-work-
survey.html 

Salazar-Concha C., Ficapal-Cusí P., Boada-Grau J., Camacho L.J. Phâ n tích sự tiến
hó a củ a technostress: mộ t cá ch tiếp cậ n lậ p bả n đồ khoa
họ c. Heliyon. 2021; 7(4) 1-15. 

Sewell G., Taskin L. Ra khỏ i tầ m nhìn, ra khỏ i tâ m trí trong mộ t thế giớ i mớ i củ a
cô ng việc? Tự chủ , kiểm soá t và mở rộ ng quy mô spatiotemporal trong là m việc từ
xa. Cơ quan. Stud. 2015; 36(11):1507–1529. 

Simpson L., Daws L., Pini B., Wood L. Là m việc từ xa nô ng thô n: cá c nghiên cứ u
điển hình từ vù ng hẻo lá nh củ a Ú c. Technol mới, làm việc. Dụng. 2003; 18(2):115–
126.

Snell S.A. Lý thuyết kiểm soá t trong quả n lý nguồ n nhân lự c chiến lượ c: Hiệu ứ ng
trung gian củ a thô ng tin hà nh chính. Acad. Quản lý. J. 1992; 35:292–327. 

Sullivan C. Có gì trong mộ t cá i tên? Định nghĩa và khá i niệm hó a là m việc từ xa và

là m bà i tậ p về nhà . Technol mới, làm việc. Dụng. 2003; 18(3):158–165. 

Sullivan C., Lewis S. Là m việc từ xa tạ i nhà , giớ i tính và đồ ng bộ hó a cô ng việc và

gia đình: quan điểm củ a nhâ n viên từ xa và đồ ng cư dâ n củ a họ . Gend. Làm việc. Cơ
quan. 2001; 8(2):123–145. 

Taskin L., Devos V. Nghịch lý từ việc cá nhâ n hó a quả n lý nguồ n nhâ n lự c: trườ ng
hợ p là m việc từ xa. J. Bus. Đạo đức. 2005; 62(1):13–24. 

Taskin L., Bridoux F. Telework: mộ t thá ch thứ c đố i vớ i việc chuyển giao kiến thứ c
trong cá c tổ chứ c. Nhà trọ J. Hum. Resour. Quản lý. 2010; 21(13):2503–2520. 

19
Tranfield D., Denyer D., Smart P. Hướ ng tớ i mộ t phương phá p phá t triển kiến thứ c
quả n lý thô ng tin bằ ng chứ ng bằ ng cá ch xem xét có hệ thố ng. Br. J. Quản
lý. 2003; 14(3):207–222. Trích dẫ n trong Laurett, R. & Ferreira, J. J. (2018). Chiến
lượ c trong cá c tổ chứ c phi lợ i nhuậ n: Đá nh giá vă n họ c có hệ thố ng và chương
trình nghị sự cho nghiên cứ u trong tương lai. VOLUNTAS: Tạ p chí quố c tế về cá c
tổ chứ c tự nguyện và phi lợ i nhuậ n, (29), 881-897. 

Vilhelmson B., Thulin E. Nhữ ng ngườ i lao độ ng linh hoạ t là ai và ở đâ u? Khá m phá
sự khuếch tá n hiện tạ i củ a là m việc từ xa ở Thụ y Điển. Technol mới, làm việc.
Dụng. 2016; 31(1):77–96. 

Virick M., DaSilva N., Arrington K. Ngườ i điều hà nh mố i quan hệ cong giữ a mứ c độ
là m việc từ xa và sự hà i lò ng về cô ng việc và cuộ c số ng: vai trò củ a định hướ ng kết
quả hiệu suấ t và loạ i cô ng nhâ n. Hum. 2010; 63(1):137–154. 

Wilks L., Billsberry J. Chú ng ta có nên loạ i bỏ là m việc từ xa khô ng? Mộ t cuộ c kiểm
tra xem là m việc từ xa có thể đượ c xá c định trong thế giớ i cô ng việc mớ i hay
khô ng. Technol mới, làm việc. Dụng. 2007; 22(2):168–177.

Wilson M., Greenhil A. Giớ i tính và bả n sắ c là m việc từ xa trong xã hộ i rủ i ro: mộ t

chương trình nghiên cứ u. Technol mới, làm việc. Dụng. 2004; 19(3):207–221. 

Windeler J.B., Chudoba K.M., Sundrup R.Z. Trá nh xa tấ t cả : quả n lý kiệt sứ c từ

tương tá c xã hộ i vớ i là m việc từ xa. J. Organ. Behav. 2017; 38(7):977–995.

Whittle A., Mueller F. "Tô i có thể chết trong hai tuầ n và ô ng chủ củ a tô i sẽ khô ng
bao giờ biết": là m việc từ xa và chính trị đạ i diện. Technol mới, làm việc.
Dụng. 2009; 24(2):131–143. 

20