Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/23970022221083695
German Journal of
Human Resource Management
2022, Vol. 36(3) 213 –237
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/23970022221083695
journals.sagepub.com/home/gjh
When the exception becomes
the norm: A quantitative
analysis of the dark side
of work from home
Cara Kossen
University of Münster, Germany
Alexandra M van der Berg
University of Münster, Germany
Abstract
Although many scholars and practitioners have shown that work from home (WFH) leads to
positive organizational outcomes, the COVID-19 outbreak’s consequences suggest important
downsides associated with an increased extent of WFH. Utilizing theories of social identity and
need to belong, this study aims to investigate the potential dark sides of an increased extent of
WFH. In a moderated mediation model, we test how an increased extent of WFH affects feelings
of isolation and further influences the employees’ organizational identification. Our study is based
on data from an online survey of 382 employees in Germany. Results suggest that a higher extent
of WFH during the COVID-19 lockdown leads to more social isolation and less organizational
identification. Besides, our results show that task interdependence significantly moderates the
correlation between an increased extent of WFH and social isolation. In such manner, our study
contributes to the literature on potential counterproductive organizational effects caused by an
increased necessity of WFH. Organizations must develop countermeasures to better integrate
employees who WFH more intensely into organizational routines to decrease their feelings of
social isolation and increase their organizational identification.
Keywords
Organizational identification, professional isolation, social isolation, task interdependence, work
from home
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic changed the manner of working for many people. Since the
first nationwide lockdown in March and April 2020, more than a third of the employees
Corresponding author:
Alexandra M van der Berg, Business Management Group, University of Münster, Schlossplatz 3, Münster
48149, Germany.
Email: alexandra.vanderberg@uni-muenster.de
1083695GJH0010.1177/23970022221083695German Journal of Human Resource ManagementKossen and van der Berg
research-article2022
Article
214 German Journal of Human Resource Management 36(3)
in Germany went on short-time work or have lost their jobs (Alipour et al., 2020). To
minimize the spread of the virus and to reduce the risk of short-time work, many compa-
nies decided for a sudden change to work from home (WFH) (Alipour et al., 2020).
According to a survey of German human resources (HR) managers, about 39% of the
workforce worked from home occasionally or regularly before COVID-19. This has
now, however, increased by more than 20% (Statista, 2020), which led to an unprece-
dented discussion about an increased extent of WFH and the effects on employees and
organizations among researchers and practitioners.
Since companies such as Twitter want to offer their employees the possibility to work
frequently or even always from home (Der Spiegel, 2020), there is a clear need to under-
stand how an increased extent of WFH affects employees’ sense of belonging. Previous
studies on voluntary and occasional WFH demonstrate advantages at the employee level
due to flexibility and autonomy, and on the company level due to lower turnover inten-
tions and reduced real estate costs (Bailey and Kurland, 2002; McCloskey and Igbaria,
1998). However, WFH as a frequently imposed way of working has not been the focus
of the literature thus far. Exploring studies on virtual teams and virtual offices, scholars
already identify the risk of increased isolation and the decrease of communication and
work-life balance as key challenges in digital work settings (Allen et al., 2015; Zhang,
2016). Furthermore, employees who are physically separated not only from their col-
leagues but also from the whole organization are at risk to lose their organizational iden-
tification (Allen et al., 2003).
Especially with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic, primary studies demonstrate how
the use of WFH has changed during the pandemic and examine factors (e.g. work inde-
pendence, isolation) that might influence the switch toward more intensified remote
work (Van Zoonen et al., 2021). This study therefore aims to identify potential dark sides
of frequently imposed WFH due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To achieve this goal, the
study examines how an increased extent of WFH impacts each employee along employee-
related and organizational factors. We combine social identity theory and need-to-belong
theory to answer the following research questions:
How does an increased extent of WFH influence the organizational identification of employees
who work from home? Which role do social isolation, professional isolation, and task
interdependence play in this relationship?
Whereas previous research predominantly focused on the intensity of WFH in terms
of hours or days spent working from home (e.g. Allen et al., 2015; Green, 2019; Vander
Elst et al., 2017), our study addresses the increased extent of WFH due to the COVID-19
lockdown in terms of the difference in percentage points between WFH before the pan-
demic and WFH during the pandemic. Throughout the paper, a higher or increased extent
of WFH refers to a higher percentage of WFH during the time of the survey within the
COVID-19 pandemic compared to pre-COVID-19 times. The increased extent of WFH
does not refer to the amount or intensity of WFH, which is simply measured in hours or
days spent working from home. A higher percentage stands for more interruptions of
office hours compared to the pre-COVID-19 work environment, which makes the nega-
tive side effects of telework more likely (Bartel et al., 2012). This study therefore opens
Kossen and van der Berg 215
up a new perspective on the ongoing discussion about WFH in terms of the dynamic and
intensified shift toward WFH and sensitizes for a well thought through decision if
employees are asked to work from home more often than they were used to.
Furthermore, even though previous research has addressed the topics of isolation and
less identification at work due to WFH, these previous studies follow different, if any,
theoretical approaches. Whereas certain studies only focus on job characteristics without
a clear reference to an underlying theory (e.g. Marshall et al., 2007) or by following a
grounded theory approach to explain isolation at work (e.g. Cooper and Kurland, 2002),
others refer to social identity research (e.g. Bartel et al., 2012), or need-to-belong theory
(e.g. Wang et al., 2020) separately. However, individuals’ need to belong is directly
linked to individuals’ fear to lose social connections and, thus, to lose the identification
with the organization (Kane, 2014). To address this relation, we combine social identity
theory and need-to-belong theory and thereby make a valuable contribution to the litera-
ture on WFH by explaining negative effects due to an increased extent of WFH. By
combining both theories, we are also able to theoretically derive the relevance of task
interdependence and work isolation for the relationship between an increased extent of
WFH and organizational identification.
The results show how an increased extent of WFH influences organizational identifi-
cation negatively. Social isolation further explains the relationship between WFH and
organizational identification. This study contributes to the existing literature on WFH by
pointing out how an increased extent of WFH triggered by COVID-19 affects employ-
ees’ isolation and their identification with the company. We highlight that a shift toward
online communication decreases direct interactions between employees and therefore
reduces the occasions that allow colleagues to build an overall identity, which is espe-
cially harmful to employees who have a profound need to develop a sense of belonging
(Kane, 2014).
Theoretical background and hypotheses
Literature review on WFH
The origins of WFH research can be traced back to telework. In 1975, Jack Nilles is the
first to use the term “telework” that describes the possibility of avoiding long distances
to the workplace (Bailey and Kurland, 2002; Nilles, 1975). Telework is defined as work
that takes place outside of the conventional workplace and where communication with
others is achieved through telecommunications or computer-based technology (Bailey
and Kurland, 2002; Nilles, 1994). Besides WFH, other means of teleworking included
satellite and neighborhood workstations (Bailey and Kurland, 1999; Kurland and Egan,
1999).
Originally, organizations considered telework as an incentive to reduce real estate
costs and to contribute to minimizing air pollution and traffic congestion (Bailey and
Kurland, 2002). Various studies on telework identified increased productivity and job
satisfaction at the employee level through greater flexibility and autonomy (Bailey and
Kurland, 1999, 2002; Duxbury et al., 1998). Companies benefit from less employee
turnover and a larger talent pool. The most common problems with telework include,
216 German Journal of Human Resource Management 36(3)
however, the control of employees, separation of family and work, and isolation (Bailey
and Kurland, 1999).
Thatcher and Zhu (2006), as well as Feldman and Gainey (1997), identified telework
as a multidimensional approach. First, the place of work matters; second, the voluntary
nature of telework is relevant; and third, the frequency of WFH influences its success.
Many workers occasionally take advantage of the opportunity to work from home to
avoid disturbances and interruptions at work. If this option is only used a few days a
month, it does not significantly impact isolation or communication with colleagues
(Bailey and Kurland, 2002; Belanger, 1999). Other results may be expected for those
who work from home frequently, that is high-intensity teleworkers who work from home
at least 3 days a week (Gajendran and Harrison, 2007).
Accordingly, specific occupational groups became high-intensity teleworkers due to
the COVID-19 outbreak. The pandemic led to an immense shift toward working from
home, as WFH was forced to become the new normal for those occupational groups that
were able to rearrange their work routines such that they could work from their homes
(Kramer and Kramer, 2020). Incidentally, previous research on teleworking already
showed mixed results with regard to the effects of working from home on relevant out-
come variables. One stream of literature identified positive effects in terms of more flex-
ibility, more autonomy, and more work-life balance; other studies show that more
teleworking leads to isolation, family interruptions, and a higher level of stress (Allen
et al., 2003). We therefore utilize previous research on teleworking and WFH and apply
the relevant underlying theoretical mechanisms to the new shift of an increased extent of
WFH due to the COVID-19 outbreak.
The major difference between our study and previous studies is that we do not only
consider the amount and intensity of WFH in terms of hours or days spent working from
home: We consider the change in hours or days spent working from home due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Since previous research has convincingly investigated the posi-
tive as well as the negative effects of occasional WFH depending on a higher or lower
intensity of working from home, our study sensitizes for the effect that not only the
amount of WFH matters but also the difference in percentage points of WFH. Putting the
actual amount worked from home to one side, a higher change in WFH during the pan-
demic compared to pre-COVID-19 times will show the same effects on relevant outcome
variables.
Social identity theory and need-to-belong theory
The first underlying theory used in this study is the social identity theory, which explains
effects on organizational identification. The origins of social identity theory are traced
back to Tajfel and Turner in the 1970s and 1980s. The core statement is that people tend
to classify themselves and others into different social categories, such as religion, age, or
organizational affiliation (Tajfel, 1974; Tajfel and Turner, 1986). Thereby, social catego-
rization, social identity, psychological distinctiveness, and social comparison describe
the underlying concepts that influence the identification of individuals (Tajfel, 1974;
Tajfel and Turner, 1979).
Kossen and van der Berg 217
When discussing WFH and organizational identification, social identity theory
explains why employees might lose their bond with the organization due to less direct
interactions and a shift toward online communication (Wiesenfeld et al., 2001). At the
same time, organizational identification is even more relevant in virtual settings to main-
tain positive behaviors within work groups (Wiesenfeld et al., 1999). Social identity
theory is therefore used to explain how the amount of WFH influences determining out-
comes (e.g. organizational identification) in previous studies (e.g. Allen et al., 2003;
Wiesenfeld et al., 2001). Likewise, we use the social identity theory to explain how an
increased extent of WFH affects organizational identification. We follow this approach
because an increased extent of WFH—in terms of the difference in percentage points
compared to previous work arrangements—reduces communication and face-to-face
interactions with colleagues in the organization (Allen et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2020).
The feeling of belonging to an organization also describes the organizational identifi-
cation of individuals (Wiesenfeld et al., 2001). Definitions of social and organizational
identification therefore often include the term “belonging” used by Ashforth and Mael
(1989), for example, which is why the need-to-belong theory is a relevant complement
to the social identity theory. The need-to-belong theory plays a particularly important
role with regard to isolation at home, which will be demonstrated later on (Wang et al.,
2020). This theory therefore forms the second relevant theory for our hypotheses
development.
The need-to-belong theory of Baumeister and Leary (1995) assumes that the desire to
form at least a small number of interpersonal relationships is naturally present among
humans. These relationships are important for mental, emotional, and physical well-
being (Wang et al., 2020). The theory states that people want regular personal contact
and interaction with other people and that they must establish an interpersonal bond or
relationship that is characterized by stability, affective concern, and continuity for the
foreseeable future (Baumeister and Leary, 1995).
The theory also plays an important role in the organizational context. Employees
strive to connect with other colleagues to satisfy the need to form meaningful relation-
ships (Wang et al., 2020). Isolated individuals feel less connected and less inclined to
actively seek regular interactions with colleagues, which leads to a loss of belonging
(Golden et al., 2008). When people worry about losing these connections and relation-
ships, they feel anxious and lonely. Anxiety and depression can also be triggered by the
feeling of not being accepted or included (Baumeister and Leary, 1995; Leary, 1990).
Furthermore, employees with more interwoven tasks (high task interdependence) will
feel less isolated (Golden and Veiga, 2005).
Social identity theory and the need-to-belong theory therefore complement each
other. While the social identity theory describes the “social and psychological tie binding
employees and the organization” (Wiesenfeld et al., 1999: 778), the need-to-belong the-
ory directly addresses the relevance of personal connections within the organization
(Baumeister and Leary, 1995). Furthermore, organizational belonging refers to “what it
is like to be valued at work (. . .) and also valuing what it means to identify with work”
(Belle et al., 2015). Individuals’ need to belong is directly linked to individuals’ fear to
lose social connections and, thus, to lose the identification with the organization (Kane,
2014). This connection highlights why both theories should be used simultaneously,
218 German Journal of Human Resource Management 36(3)
which becomes especially relevant in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic that has
led employees to face an extraordinary work environment of less social and professional
face-to-face interactions (Gao and Sai, 2020).
WFH and organizational identification
Organizational identification is a process in which the company’s and individual’s goals
become increasingly integrated (Hall et al., 1970). The employees define themselves
through the company to which they belong, making organizational affiliation an impor-
tant part of their self-definition (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Mael and Ashforth, 1992).
Changes in the work setting, such as working from home more regularly, further influ-
ences employees’ organizational identification (Thatcher and Zhu, 2006).
At the same time, organizational identification is of enormous importance in compa-
nies with a higher degree of WFH. Organizational identification is viewed as an organi-
zational glue that connects employees who work from home, and as a strong motivator
to reconcile the interests of employees with the interests of the company (Thatcher and
Zhu, 2006; Wiesenfeld et al., 1999). Wiesenfeld et al. (2001) name three predictors of
organizational identification that are also important for WFH. These include the extent of
contact between the individual and the organization, the visibility of organizational affil-
iation, and the attractiveness of organizational identity. When working from home,
employees are less exposed to company-related rituals, symbols, and informal situations
such as coffee breaks with colleagues. Instead, employees who work from home are
more connected to identities in their own homes. Interactions at work and points of con-
tact, however, usually help build or consolidate organizational identities, which, in turn,
influence organizational identification. These may be absent while working from home
(Thatcher and Zhu, 2006; Wiesenfeld et al., 2001).
According to social identity theory, people who work from home reduce their self-
categorization as members of the organization due to the physical distance and the result-
ing lower visibility of their organizational belonging (Wiesenfeld et al., 2001). Employees
who frequently work from home find it more difficult to develop a sense of identification
and lack important contact with the company that serves to strengthen organizational
identification (Bartel et al., 2012; Scott and Timmerman, 1999). The higher the extent of
WFH is, the less the employees are exposed to organizational structures (Thatcher and
Zhu, 2006). This weakens employees’ self-esteem and leads to more uncertainty about
their self-identity. Furthermore, the self-categorization process at work whereby indi-
viduals seek groups with which they can identify is interrupted (Allen et al., 2003; Hogg
and Terry, 2000). Instead, these employees are exposed to identities associated with their
homes, such as family members, which leads to less affiliation with the work group.
Identification with the company is thus weakened. In this study we therefore pick up the
reasoning behind the negative correlation between the amount of WFH and organiza-
tional identification and apply this reasoning to an increased extent of WFH in compari-
son to previous work arrangements. Employees who are suddenly exposed to an increased
extent of WFH lose structure in their everyday work routine. More frequent separation
from the actual work unit, in turn, decreases employees’ organizational identification.
This leads to the following hypothesis:
Kossen and van der Berg 219
H1: An increased extent of WFH decreases employees’ organizational
identification.
WFH and social and professional isolation
Whereas more autonomy and a better work-life balance are two examples why employ-
ees like to work from home occasionally (Wang et al., 2020), one of the biggest obstacles
of WFH is the experience of isolation (Bailey and Kurland, 1999; Wang et al., 2020).
Employees fear that physical separation leads to isolation as a result of a lack of support
and interaction with other employees and supervisors (Marshall et al., 2007). Isolation is
generally divided into two categories. Social isolation describes the fear that employees
who work from home will miss the informal exchange that takes place with colleagues
in the office or hallway (Kurland and Egan, 1999). Professional isolation includes the
fear that when employees are out of sight they are also out of mind and therefore less
likely to be considered for promotions and other rewards (Bailey and Kurland, 1999;
Kurland and Egan, 1999).
New information technologies changed the style of working and at the same time
these technological advances were the starting point of being able to work away from the
company (e.g. WFH). Employees have access to work content on different (mobile)
devices and are able to constantly stay connected with work issues (Thörel et al., 2021;
Wang et al., 2020). At the same time, these new manners of communication do not pro-
vide the same level of information and social presence as face-to-face communication
(Marshall et al., 2007). The feeling of isolation when working from home is therefore
most likely to occur if (1) WFH happens often, (2) employees expect they will have to
work from home for a long time, (3) employees have not been with the company long,
and (4) employees hope to be promoted soon (Kurland and Cooper, 2002; Salomon and
Salomon, 1984).
With an increased extent of WFH, employees have fewer social interactions with
other colleagues. Thus, it is more difficult to strengthen relationships (Feldman and
Gainey, 1997). This is also confirmed by Gajendran and Harrison (2007) who report
lower quality relationships between high-intensity teleworkers and their colleagues.
However, according to need-to-belong theory people need frequent and regular inter-
actions with others. Otherwise, the lack of frequent and regular interactions has a nega-
tive impact on their well-being (Baumeister and Leary, 1995). Frequent WFH carries
the risk that interactions between colleagues are weakened, and employees no longer
feel connected. This results in social isolation. More than half of the participants in a
previous study stated that social contact had decreased since they worked from home
(Harris, 2003). If employees are rarely absent from the office, these effects are not
severe (Bailey and Kurland, 2002). These findings are consistent with those of Kurland
and Cooper (2002) concerning professional isolation. Employees only feel isolated
and worried about being less visible for promotions if they often work from home. We
therefore argue that an increasing extent of WFH compared to pre-COVID-19 times
plays a decisive role. Employees who were asked to work from home more often than
they were used to, are at the same time more often out of sight in terms of face-to-face
220 German Journal of Human Resource Management 36(3)
communication and have less personal contact with their colleagues and supervisor.
We therefore hypothesize:
H2: An increased extent of WFH increases (a) social isolation and (b) professional
isolation.
Employees who work from home may lack meaningful relationships with other
employees. The former ones tend to feel isolated more quickly and, thus, detached and
less emotionally connected with the company (McCloskey and Igbaria, 2003; Wang
et al., 2020). Higher isolation resulting from an increased level of WFH, in turn, leads to
emotional separation from the company. This is associated with greater insecurity and
lower self-esteem, which normally motivate social identity processes. These processes
therefore weaken the connection with the company (Allen et al., 2003) and imply that
feelings of organizational identification are negatively affected. Furthermore, higher
social presence leads to higher organizational identification (Allen et al., 2015). However,
feelings of social and professional isolation prevent relationship building and, thus, iso-
lation at work reflects the opposite of social presence. Employees who experience social
or professional isolation at work experience a detachment from the organization through
less social interaction and less communication (Bartel et al., 2012), with social interac-
tion and communication being two very important factors for the achievement of feel-
ings of organizational identification (Fay and Kline, 2012). Social isolation and
professional isolation therefore mediate the relationship between an increased extent of
WFH and organizational identification, leading to the following hypotheses:
H3: The negative influence of an increased extent of WFH on organizational identifi-
cation is mediated by (a) social isolation and (b) professional isolation.
WFH and task interdependence
Task interdependence describes the extent to which members of an organization must
rely on each other to complete their work tasks (Kiggundu, 1981; Morgeson and
Humphrey, 2006). Individuals with high task interdependence need to communicate and
coordinate tasks more often with others within the organization, while those with lower
task interdependence perform tasks more independently (Golden and Gajendran, 2019;
Golden and Veiga, 2005). For employees who work from home, higher task interdepend-
ence means greater dependence on e-mail, telephone, and video conferencing, since they
cannot communicate with others personally. Furthermore, high task interdependence is
more challenging for these employees because details about tasks or processes, which
are often communicated in informal, spontaneous conversations, are lost and therefore
have to be obtained through more complex means (Golden and Gajendran, 2019).
However, higher task interdependence also implies that employees must interact and
communicate frequently (Golden and Gajendran, 2019). Employees who communicate
more often have more opportunities to regularly promote informal exchanges (Golden
and Veiga, 2005) and experience a higher sense of belonging (Wang et al., 2020). New
Kossen and van der Berg 221
technological advances open up the possibility to meet face to face in the digital world
such that employees who work from home are not forced to simply communicate via
e-mail or telephone. If employees are asked to work from home more often than they
were used to (i.e. increased extent of WFH), they will benefit from a higher task interde-
pendence because they are not left alone during times of working from home. Higher
task interdependence therefore creates a higher sense of belonging to the group and also
to the work tasks, reducing the negative effects of an increased extent of WFH on feel-
ings of isolation. We therefore hypothesize:
H4: Task interdependence moderates the relationship between an increased extent of
WFH and (a) social isolation as well as (b) professional isolation such that high task
interdependence weakens the positive influence.
Our conceptual model is shown in Figure 1.
Method
Measures
If not stated otherwise, all items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale.
The extent of WFH. We measure the extent of WFH for each employee based on the stud-
ies by Wiesenfeld et al. (1999) and Golden and Veiga (2005), and query the average
amount that employees WFH in a working week, which is expressed as a percentage
(from 0% to 100%). We asked the participants to indicate the extent of WFH concerning
the time before COVID-19 and concerning the current time. The difference in percentage
points between these two values became the relevant measure (= increased extent of
WFH for each employee, expressed as a percentage).
Figure 1. Conceptual research model.
222 German Journal of Human Resource Management 36(3)
Organizational identification. We follow Mael and Ashforth (1992) and measure organiza-
tional identification using six items. We modified the sentences slightly by changing the
school context to a working context, replacing “name of school” with “my employer,”
for example, “My employer’s successes are my successes.”
Social isolation. We refer to Marshall et al. (2007) who developed a measurement for
social isolation as part of the Workplace Isolation Scale. The measurement consists of
five items and describes how employees perceive isolation if the need for casual interac-
tions and friendships is not fulfilled (e.g. “I have friends available to me at work”).
Professional isolation. Referring to the Workplace Isolation Scale again, we measure pro-
fessional isolation using five items including, for example, “I am part of the company
network.” In this instance, the measurement describes the perception of isolation from
the company when the need for work-related support is not fulfilled (Marshall et al.,
2007).
Task interdependence. This variable also consists of five items (e.g. “I work closely with
others in doing my work”) and describes the mutual task interdependence of employees
(Pearce and Gregersen, 1991).
Control variables. We included the following control variables for the analysis: age and
gender because organizational identity can differ with regard to age and gender (Bailey
and Kurland, 2002; Fritz and Van Knippenberg, 2017; Raghuram et al., 2001; Riketta,
2005); volume of employment since full-time employees tend to identify more strongly
with the company than part-time employees (Rousseau, 1998); the personal preference
with regard to WFH as a generational preference for WFH may exist (Wang et al., 2020);
experience with WFH as working from home can be perceived as very positive in the
beginning or at a low level (Golden and Veiga, 2005; Raghuram et al., 2001); job satis-
faction as there is a tested correlation between the extent of WFH and job satisfaction as
well as with organizational identification (Allen et al., 2003). Table A1 of the Appendix
shows the measurement of all control variables.
Sample
Data collection took place from the end of August 2020 till the beginning of September
2020. Germany had just recovered from the so called first COVID-19 wave and started
to prepare for a second COVID-19 wave of restrictions and lockdowns that was fore-
casted for the winter months. During August and September 2020 restrictions in terms of
social distancing did not vanish, but were loosened. Following previous survey research
designs, we followed a convenience sampling approach (e.g. Qiu and Dauth, 2022). The
survey was spread via professional networks (e.g. LinkedIn) and also via the authors’
personal networks, targeting employed workers. As new WFH policies due to the
COVID-19 pandemic affected a broad range of people in their everyday work routines,
we addressed a broad range of possible participants via professional networks to collect
representative data and to avoid possible selection effects. Data reduction was needed to
Kossen and van der Berg 223
eliminate biased estimates due to a small remaining risk of possibly fake participants.
After data reduction, the final sample size contained 382 people from Germany. We
excluded participants who were not currently in a work relationship (N = 25), who did not
answer in a reasonable time (N = 5), and who did not pass the attention check question
(N = 23). In such manner, we ensured high-quality answers. The demographic data shows
that 57.33% of the sample are women and 42.67% are men. The average age is 33.92 years.
Forty-two point nine three percent of the participants have been with their company for
1–4 years; therefore, it is just under a quarter for those who have been with their company
for less than a year, and roughly a quarter for those who have been with their company
for 5–10 years and more than 10 years. Well over half of the participants are permanent
employees, 23.56% of them are in internships or student jobs, and 10.99% of them are in
temporary employment.
Results
Model quality indicators
We checked for indicator and construct reliability as well as discriminant validity of our
model (Hofeditz et al., 2017). Good indicator reliability is proven through factor load-
ings between 0.595 and 0.888 (Hulland, 1999). Satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha between
0.825 and 0.871 indicates construct reliability. Our model reveals robust discriminant
validity, as the squared correlations per construct are smaller than their matching aver-
age variance extracted (AVE) and the AVE is higher than 0.5 (Hair et al., 2012, 2014).
An overview of all criteria is presented in the appendix (Table A2). We furthermore set
up a complex moderated mediation model to reduce common method variance ex post
(Chang et al., 2010). With a total variance extracted of 35.12%, Harman’s single factor
test also revealed that there is no problem with common method bias in our data
(Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Descriptives
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the variables, including the mean values and
standard deviations as well as the correlation coefficients. At this point, Table 1 indicates
that there is a negative correlation not only between social isolation and organizational
identification (r = −0.348) but also between professional isolation and organizational
identification (r = −0.480). The significant negative correlations between social isolation
and task interdependence (r = −0.393) and between professional isolation and task inter-
dependence (r = −0.457) already point in the direction of Hypothesis 4. Interestingly,
there is only a significant positive correlation between social isolation (r = 0.290) (but not
for professional isolation) and the increased extent of WFH.
Regression, mediation, and moderated mediation
We calculated multiple regression analyses to test and verify the hypothesized relation-
ships. Results are shown in Table 2. The final Model 7 shows an R2 of 0.310, indicating
high goodness of fit (Cohen, 1988). The first hypothesis stated that an increased extent
224 German Journal of Human Resource Management 36(3)
Table 1. Descriptive statistics: means, standard deviations, and correlations.
# Construct Mean (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 Organizational identification 4.672 (1.200)
2 Increased extent of WFH 36.80 (36.813) −0.112*
3 Social isolation 2.492 (1.275) −0.348*** 0.290***
4 Professional isolation 2.824 (1.260) −0.480*** 0.086†0.536***
5 Task interdependence 5.289 (1.242) 0.318*** −0.113* −0.393*** −0.457***
6 Age 33.92 (11.593) 0.173*** −0.244*** −0.015 −0.140** 0.061
7 Gender 1.57 (0.495) −0.042 0.062 −0.090†−0.007 0.035 −0.115*
8 Job satisfaction 5.27 (1.453) 0.390*** −0.048 −0.287*** −0.468*** 0.250*** 0.148** −0.056
9 Preference for WFH 4.88 (1.824) −0.091 0.078 −0.098†−0.048 0.058 −0.100†0.114* 0.08
10 Experience in WFH 5.16 (1.557) −0.013 0.064 −0.141** −0.099†0.110* −0.080 0.058 0.159** 0.812***
11 Volume of employment 0.712 (0.453) 0.112* −0.010 −0.067 −0.145** 0.05 0.131* −0.175*** 0.005 −0.072 −0.076
WFH: work from home.
†p < 0.1. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.
Kossen and van der Berg 225
Table 2. Results of regression analyses.
Dependent variable Organizational
identification
Organizational
identification
Social isolation Social isolation Professional
isolation
Professional
isolation
Organizational
identification
Independent variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7
Increased extent
of WFH
−0.112* (0.051) −0.067 (0.048) 0.290*** (0.049) 0.273*** (0.045) 0.086†
(0.051)
0.013 (0.043) −0.006 (0.047)
Social isolation −0.114* (0.056)
Professional isolation −0.266*** (0.059)
Task interdependence −0.285*** (0.046) −0.339*** (0.044) 0.099* (0.050)
Interaction −0.092* (0.042) −0.075† (0.040)
Age 0.007 (0.004) 0.008† (0.004) −0.005 (0.004) 0.007† (0.004)
Gender 0.049 (0 097) −0.208* (0.091) −0.082 (0.086) −0.030* (0.090)
Job satisfaction 0.038*** (0.048) −0.194*** (0.046) −0.363*** (0.044) 0.201*** (0.050)
Preference for WFH −0.170* (0.08) 0.006 (0.076) 0.013 (0.071) −0.154* (0.075)
Experience in WFH 0.082 (0.081) −0.084 (0.076) −0.018 (0.072) 0.038 (0.075)
Volume of employment 0.214* (0.105) −0.173† (0.099) −0.269** (0.094) 0.085 (0.099)
R20.013 0.192 0.084 0.293 0.007 0.368 0.310
N382 382 382 382 382 382 382
Standardized regression coefficients are reported. Robust standard errors in parentheses.
WFH: work from home; Interaction: increased extent of WFH × Task interdependence.
†p < 0.1. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.
226 German Journal of Human Resource Management 36(3)
of WFH has a negative influence on organizational identification. The regression results
of Model 1 indicate a significant negative relationship between an increased extent of
WFH and organizational identification (ß = −0.112; p = 0.028), supporting Hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 2a assumes a positive effect of an increased extent of WFH on social iso-
lation. Model 3 of Table 2 shows the regression result without control variables (ß = 0.290;
p = 0.000) and Model 4 with control variables (ß = 0.273; p = 0.000), supporting
Hypothesis 2a. In Hypothesis 2b, we expected that the increased extent of WFH would
have a positive effect also on professional isolation. This relationship is insignificant
without control variables (ß = 0.086; p = 0.095) and likewise insignificant with control
variables (ß = 0.013; p = 0.764); therefore, we reject Hypothesis 2b.
Hypothesis 3 states that (a) social and (b) professional isolation explain the negative
impact of an increased extent of WFH on organizational identification. Results are
shown in Table 3. For social isolation, the indirect effect shows a significant influence
(ß = −0.038; confidence interval: −0.077 | −0.001), supporting Hypothesis 3a. For pro-
fessional isolation, the indirect effect is insignificant (ß = −0.026; confidence interval:
−0.060 | 0.009). We therefore reject Hypothesis 3b. Since the total indirect effect stays
significant (ß = −0.064; p = 0.020), and the direct effect of an increased extent of WFH
on organizational identification becomes insignificant (ß = −0.009; p = 0.853), social
isolation fully mediates the effect of an increased extent of WFH on organizational
identification.
The last hypothesis, Hypothesis 4, postulates that task interdependence moderates the
relationship between the increased extent of WFH and (a) social as well as (b) profes-
sional isolation. The interaction of an increased extent of WFH and task interdependence
has a significant influence on social isolation (ß = −0.092; p = 0.029), which is seen in
Model 4 of Table 2 and in Figure 2. However, the interaction has a non-significant influ-
ence on professional isolation (Model 6: ß = −0.075; p = 0.060). Consequently, our data
supports Hypothesis 4a and rejects Hypothesis 4b.
Discussion
The results of this study show that an increased extent of WFH decreases employees’
organizational identification. This implies that with an increased extent of WFH and
therefore less exposure to organizational identities, employees already feel less con-
nected to the company. Adding to previous research, we show that a greater reliance on
WFH during the pandemic compared to pre-COVID-19 times (putting the actual amount
worked from home to one side) will show the same effects on the relevant outcome vari-
ables. The bond with the company is weakened by missing important rituals and struc-
tures at the office, as well as the regular exchange with colleagues, not taking place or
taking place less frequently while working at home more often than before. According to
social identity theory, frequent absences from the office weaken the sense of belonging
(Tajfel, 1974; Wiesenfeld et al., 2001).
Concerning the problem of isolation, the results show that the increased extent of
WFH increases social isolation. This means that although new technologies and com-
munication channels exist, they may be primarily used for work-related purposes instead
of informal communication. Furthermore, new technologies and communication
Kossen and van der Berg 227
Table 3. Results of the multiple mediation analysis.
Shared leadership environment Coefficient SE Confidence interval p-Value
Indirect effect through professional
isolation
−0.026 0.018 −0.060 0.009 0.146
Indirect effect through social
isolation
−0.038 0.019 −0.077 −0.001 0.049
Total indirect effect −0.064 0.028 −0.118 −0.010 0.020
Direct effect of an increased
extent of WFH
−0.009 0.046 −0.101 0.083 0.853
Age 0.007 0.004 −0.001 0.014 0.087
Gender −0.026 0.090 −0.201 0.150 0.774
Job satisfaction 0.204 0.049 0.107 0.301 0.000
Preference for WFH −0.159 0.074 −0.304 −0.014 0.032
Experience in WFH 0.046 0.746 −0.100 0.192 0.536
Volume of employment 0.084 0.098 −0.108 0.276 0.390
The number of observations is 382 with an R2 of 0.302.
Figure 2. Interaction effect of task interdependence and an increased extent of WFH on
social isolation.
channels do not have the same quality as face-to-face conversations to maintain a bond
with colleagues. Moreover, social isolation or rather the individuals’ need for social
interactions (Allen et al., 2003) can explain the negative relationship between an
increased extent of WFH and organizational identification. According to social identity
theory this implies that socially isolated employees who work from home more often
228 German Journal of Human Resource Management 36(3)
than before strengthen relationships with other identities outside of the organization to
reduce relational uncertainties and to fulfill their need for social interactions. This
detaches them not only from their colleagues as a social group but also from the com-
pany, which decreases their bond (Allen et al., 2003).
Compared to social isolation, we did not find a significant relationship between an
increased extent of WFH and professional isolation. We also did not find a significant
mediation of an increased extent of WFH through professional isolation on organiza-
tional identification. This may be true, because when employees worked at home during
COVID-19, their colleagues usually did the same and all colleagues were therefore vis-
ible in a similar form. In such manner, employees felt less excluded or disadvantaged in
terms of perceived career opportunities (e.g. promotions and other rewards) (Bailey and
Kurland, 1999; Kurland and Egan, 1999).
Furthermore, we show that task interdependence significantly negatively moderates
the effect of an increased extent of WFH on social isolation such that it weakens the posi-
tive influence of an increased extent of WFH on social isolation. This implies that tasks
that require a certain degree of coordination are suitable to reduce the negative feelings
of social isolation that arise if employees have to work from home more often than they
were used to. At the same time, the positive effects of task interdependence at work while
working remotely from home have a natural turning point. If the interdependence
becomes too high, work demands through more intensified online communication lead
to less favorable work outcomes (Stark et al., 2014). Managers need to be aware of this
relationship.
Theoretical implications
This study focuses on the increasing extent of WFH for each employee, which was trig-
gered by the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of this study enrich the literature to a
significant degree, showing that a positive change toward WFH, measured as an increased
extent of WFH, decreases the organizational identification of employees. Concerning
social identity theory, the results confirm the assumption that an increased extent of
WFH makes corporate values and identities less visible. These employees thus feel less
part of the company they work for (Tajfel, 1974; Tajfel and Turner, 1979; Wiesenfeld
et al., 2001).
Furthermore, we are able to make two valuable theoretical contributions in terms of
defining a clear theoretical foundation for studying relationships between an increased
extent of WFH, isolation, and organizational identification. First, we demonstrate the
need to combine social identity theory and need-to-belong theory because individuals’
need to belong is directly linked to individuals’ fear to lose social connections and, thus,
to lose the identification with the organization (Kane, 2014). This observation becomes
especially relevant in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic that has caused employees
to face an extraordinary work environment of less social and professional face-to-face
interactions (Gao and Sai, 2020). Second, we show that an increased extent of WFH fol-
lows the same reasoning as previous research: Previous research has predominantly stud-
ied the amount of WFH in terms of days or hours spent working from home but has
neglected the effects of the change toward more WFH (i.e., an increased extent of WFH).
Kossen and van der Berg 229
Accordingly, also the findings concerning the positive impact of an increased extent
of WFH on social isolation are consistent with the findings of previous studies (Bailey
and Kurland, 2002; Harris, 2003). The consideration of an increased extent of WFH is of
great relevance for further research, due to not only the recent increase in using WFH
more often than in pre-COVID-19 times but also due to the potential negative effects of
working from home more often on employees’ well-being and employees’ feelings of
belonging.
A contribution that has not yet been empirically proven is the mediation effect through
social isolation, which illustrates the necessity of appropriately integrating employees
into the company when WFH increases. Thus far, only constructs like autonomy, respect,
work exhaustion, or work-family conflict have been investigated as mediators. Isolation
of employees has rarely been studied (Bartel et al., 2012; Bentley et al., 2016; Gajendran
and Harrison, 2007; Golden, 2006). Following need-to-belong theory, the results also
show that when isolation is present, regular interactions with colleagues are less actively
sought and, consequently, feelings of belonging are lost (Baumeister and Leary, 1995;
Golden et al., 2008). We did not find a significant correlation between an increased
extent of WFH and professional isolation; this outcome is also partly consistent with
other studies (Gajendran and Harrison, 2007; McCloskey and Igbaria, 2003). This find-
ing therefore suggests that a positive change toward WFH does not necessarily lead to
fewer perceived career opportunities in the organization.
Task interdependence has already played an important role in the literature on virtual
work, as task interdependence increases the effectiveness of virtual teams (Hertel et al.,
2004). This study contributes to new insights into the relationship between WFH and
isolation, depending on task interdependence. The results show that task interdepend-
ence reduces the negative influence of an increased extent of WFH on social isolation.
Task interdependence thus becomes an important boundary condition to feelings of
social isolation when working from home. This reasoning is consistent with Golden and
Veiga’s (2005) study in which task interdependence moderates the relationship between
the extent of WFH and job satisfaction.
Practical implications
To minimize social isolation at home, companies should take steps to better integrate
these employees into their teams. Companies can achieve this through regular meetings
where supervisors offer support and address personal issues (Wiesenfeld et al., 1999,
2001). Meetings are thus not only used for professional, work-related purposes but also
to maintain the common bond. However, it is important to ensure that such meetings are
held in a balanced setting such that they do not harm the benefits of WFH. Boundaries
and expectations should therefore be agreed upon beforehand (Fonner and Roloff, 2012).
If possible, employees who frequently work from home should also try to attend occa-
sional face-to-face meetings or change the workplace now and then if they feel only
partially involved (Morganson et al., 2010). If companies plan to integrate an increasing
extent of WFH, it is also advisable to offer training to all employees and supervisors.
Within these training sessions, all parties become prepared for virtual collaboration (Hill
et al., 2003; Wiesenfeld et al., 2001).
230 German Journal of Human Resource Management 36(3)
The significant negative relationship between social isolation and organizational
identification points further to the relevance of social support. From previous research
we know that social support minimizes the social isolation of employees who work from
home (Bentley et al., 2016). Social support has also a positive influence while working
from home, for example, on job satisfaction and organizational identification.
Accordingly, support from supervisors and colleagues is important to ensure that employ-
ees with an increased extent of WFH feel integrated and not left alone. This support is
achieved through the appropriate type of communication, which, in addition to the tech-
nological equipment, is crucial for mutual exchange. Regular and open communication
is particularly important to keep employees up to date (Cooper and Kurland, 2002;
Wiesenfeld et al., 2001). Managers should make sure that they pay similar attention to
employees who work at the office and those who work at home (Kaufman et al., 2020).
Employees who lose the identification with the organization at the same time lose the
glue that connects them to the specific organization. If employees do not feel a sense of
organizational connection anymore, they are prone to also become demotivated at work
and unsatisfied with their job (Van Dick et al., 2004). Less organizational identification
therefore leads to higher turnover intentions (Van Dick et al., 2004), which in turn nega-
tively affect a lasting business success that depends partly on the retention of excellent
employees. Especially if employees have to work from home more often, practitioners
need to integrate strategies that sustain the employees’ identification with the organiza-
tion. Exemplary strategies are: improving the reputation of the organization (Zhao et al.,
2019); highlighting the unique culture of the organization (Van Dick et al., 2004); spread-
ing the organization saga that reflects the organization’s identity (Cole and Bruch, 2006).
Ultimately, we assume that a high extent of WFH will not remain an exception in the
future but will be a frequently used option. In the long term, companies could therefore
have a workforce that works partly at the office and partly at home. This hybrid model
requires an adapted corporate culture (e.g. Barbour et al., 2021; Cappelli, 2021; Der
Spiegel, 2020). If companies do not adapt processes and structures, it can lead to two
corporate cultures in which particularly employees who work from home feel increas-
ingly isolated and dissatisfied, and the sense of community is lost. Instead, a common
culture needs to be built that promotes social cooperation and provides stability and
identity (Alexander et al., 2020). Hierarchies should be minimized to a certain extent
without losing focus on defined structures and processes to simplify collaboration
(Alexander et al., 2020). Furthermore, the relationship between managers and employ-
ees also changes by creating virtual social intimacy, which can happen through manag-
ers showing insights into their private lives by video conferencing out of their living
rooms (Kaeppler, 2020; Kaufman et al., 2020). This creates trust and promotes similar-
ity, which strengthens group membership.
Another decisive factor is whether WFH is voluntary or involuntary. Organizational
identification and commitment are correspondingly higher when people decide for them-
selves whether they want to work at the office or at home (Thatcher and Zhu, 2006). In
the current COVID-19 pandemic, the German government called upon companies to let
their employees work from home if possible. At the time of the survey, we thus assumed
that respondents were not yet free to decide where to work and therefore organizational
identification was negatively affected. The decision for an (abrupt) change toward an
increased extent of WFH should therefore be wisely made. For future extraordinary
Kossen and van der Berg 231
situations that require a sudden shift toward more WFH, and also for general decisions
for an increased extent of WFH, the current study demonstrates that communication and
connectivity between employees (i.e. colleagues) are crucial.
Limitations and future research
This study is subject to possible limitations and shows promising avenues for future
research. We conducted a survey using cross-sectional data. If longitudinal data were to
be used to observe how isolation and organizational identification change in the face of
the increasing extent of WFH during COVID-19, it would be even more revealing for
further discussions. Such causal relationships emerge over time and therefore cannot be
certainly identified within a cross-sectional study (Bartel et al., 2012).
Our study took place within a time of an increased extent of WFH due to a global
pandemic situation. Within the time of the survey, work was mostly carried out at home;
however, meeting family, friends, or even traveling was allowed to a certain degree. We
therefore expect that isolation measures of our study are not biased by participants’ pri-
vate circumstances of feeling socially isolated due to lockdown restrictions. Further
research, however, should extend our study and also investigate employees’ private situ-
ation in terms of feelings of isolation to determine a possible relation between the private
context and the work context.
This survey with 382 participants from Germany represents a convenience sample
from which we draw generalizable implications. To be able to make more specific rec-
ommendations based on our general results, further studies should deal with, for exam-
ple, a specific business context or specific industries. Furthermore, studies should not
only include German participants to allow transferability to other countries. This
approach should be followed, because there may be differences in personal perceptions
of isolation between different countries and cultures (Bailey and Kurland, 2002; Belle
et al., 2015).
Future research should also consider personality as a possible important moderator.
With the help of the Big Five personality factors, future studies should provide new
insights into the relationship between personality, an increased extent of WFH, and isola-
tion at work. For example, people with a high degree of openness to new experiences
may be better suited to an increased extent of WFH than those with higher degrees of
extraversion or agreeableness or low emotional stability (Feldman and Gainey, 1997;
Golden, 2006; Wang et al., 2020). In future studies, the personality component may
therefore lead to new insights with regard to the appropriate handling of different char-
acters in terms of WFH.
Lastly, the role of job satisfaction in the discussion about WFH, feelings of isolation,
and organizational identification provides room for future research. The current study
uses job satisfaction as a control variable that demonstrates a highly significant effect on
organizational identification. Furthermore, job satisfaction might at the same time be a
relevant mediator in our proposed model. Since the discussion about job satisfaction’s
effects is still in need of new insights, we encourage future research to follow Qiu and
Dauth (2022) and determine job satisfaction’s effects through new perspectives within
the virtual work context.
232 German Journal of Human Resource Management 36(3)
Conclusion
The study aimed to investigate how the increasing extent of WFH due to the COVID-19
pandemic influences the organizational identification of employees. We developed a
research model based on social identity theory and need-to-belong theory. The results
show that the increased extent of WFH decreases organizational identification and
increases social isolation. Social isolation acts as a mediator, explaining the negative
influence of an increased extent of WFH on organizational identification. In light of the
underlying research questions, the results show that an increased extent of WFH lets
downsides of WFH come to light. In line with the two theories used, employees who
work from home more often than before (i.e. employees who experience an increased
extent of WFH) identify less with the organization and thus search for people outside the
company with whom they can interact regularly and thus identify more. The study hereby
contributes to the research by delivering valuable insights regarding an increased extent
of WFH since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
ORCID iD
Alexandra M van der Berg https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4677-4488
References
Alexander A, Smet A de and Mysore M (2020) Reimagining the postpandemic workforce.
Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/reim-
agining-the-postpandemic-workforce# (accessed 12 May 2021).
Alipour J-V, Fadinger H and Schymik J (2020) My home is my castle: The benefits of working
from home during a pandemic crisis. Evidence from Germany. ifo Working Paper No. 329,
ifo Insitute – Leibniz Insitute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, Munich.
Allen DG, Renn RW and Griffeth RW (2003) The impact of telecommuting design on social
systems, self-regulation, and role boundaries. In: Martochhio JJ and Ferris G (eds) Research
in Personnel and Human Resources Management. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing
Limited, pp.125–163.
Allen TD, Golden TD and Shockley KM (2015) How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the
status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 16(2): 40–68.
Ashforth BE and Mael F (1989) Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review 14(1): 20–39.
Bailey DE and Kurland NB (1999) The advantages and challenges of working here, there any-
where, and anytime. Organizational Dynamics 28(2): 53–68.
Bailey DE and Kurland NB (2002) A review of telework research: Findings, new directions, and
lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23(4): 383–400.
Barbour N, Menon N and Mannering F (2021) A statistical assessment of work-from-home par-
ticipation during different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Transportation Research
Interdisciplinary Perspectives 11: 100441.
Kossen and van der Berg 233
Bartel CA, Wrzesniewski A and Wiesenfeld BM (2012) Knowing where you stand: Physical
isolation, perceived respect, and organizational identification among virtual employees.
Organization Science 23(3): 743–757.
Baumeister RF and Leary MR (1995) The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as
a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin 117(3): 497–529.
Belanger F (1999) Communication patterns in distributed work groups: A network analysis. IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication 42(4): 261–275.
Belle SM, Burley DL and Long SD (2015) Where do I belong? High-intensity teleworkers’ experi-
ence of organizational belonging. Human Resource Development International 18(1): 76–96.
Bentley TA, Teo ST, McLeod L, et al. (2016) The role of organisational support in teleworker
wellbeing: A socio-technical systems approach. Applied Ergonomics 52: 207–215.
Cappelli P (2021) The Future of the Office: Work From Home, Remote Work, and the Hard
Choices We All Face. Philadelphia: Wharton School Press.
Chang S-J, Van Witteloostuijn A and Eden L (2010) From the editors: Common method variance
in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies 41(2): 178–184.
Cohen J (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum
Associates.
Cole MS and Bruch H (2006) Organizational identity strength, identification, and commitment
and their relationships to turnover intention: Does organizational hierarchy matter? Journal
of Organizational Behavior 27(5): 585–605.
Cooper CD and Kurland NB (2002) Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee devel-
opment in public and private organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23(4): 511–
532.
Der Spiegel (2020) Homeoffice nach Corona: Twitter-Mitarbeiter dürfen “für immer” von zu Hause
aus arbeiten. DER SPIEGEL. Available at: https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/
twitter-mitarbeiter-duerfen-fuer-immer-von-zuhause-arbeiten-a-065aa5a4-d33b-4f8e-afc3-
947f92b972c0 (accessed 14 May 2021).
Duxbury L, Higgins C and Neufeld D (1998) Telework and the balance between work and family:
Is telework part of the problem or part of the solution? In: Igbaria M and Tan M (eds) The
Virtual Workplace. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Pub, pp.218–255.
Fay MJ and Kline SL (2012) The influence of informal communication on organizational
identification and commitment in the context of high-intensity telecommuting. Southern
Communication Journal 77(1): 61–76.
Feldman DC and Gainey TW (1997) Patterns of telecommuting and their consequences: Framing
the research agenda. Human Resource Management Review 7(4): 369–388.
Fonner KL and Roloff ME (2012) Testing the connectivity paradox: Linking Teleworkers’ com-
munication media use to social presence, stress from interruptions, and organizational identi-
fication. Communication Monographs 79(2): 205–231.
Fritz C and van Knippenberg D (2017) Gender and leadership aspiration: the impact of organi-
zational identification. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 38(8): 1018–1037.
Gajendran RS and Harrison DA (2007) The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting:
Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied
Psychology 92(6): 1524–1541.
Gao G and Sai L (2020) Towards a ‘virtual’ world: Social isolation and struggles during the
COVID-19 pandemic as single women living alone. Gender, work, and organization. Epub
ahead of print 3 June 2020. DOI: 10.1111/gwao.12468.
Golden TD (2006) Avoiding depletion in virtual work: Telework and the intervening impact of
work exhaustion on commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior
69(1): 176–187.
234 German Journal of Human Resource Management 36(3)
Golden TD and Gajendran RS (2019) Unpacking the role of a telecommuter’s job in their perfor-
mance: Examining job complexity, problem solving, interdependence, and social support.
Journal of Business and Psychology 34(1): 55–69.
Golden TD and Veiga JF (2005) The impact of extent of telecommuting on job satisfaction:
Resolving inconsistent findings. Journal of Management 31(2): 301–318.
Golden TD, Veiga JF and Dino RN (2008) The impact of professional isolation on teleworker
job performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent teleworking, interacting face-to-
face, or having access to communication-enhancing technology matter? Journal of Applied
Psychology 93(6): 1412–1421.
Green CR (2019) Examining the effects of negative work outcomes on telecommuting. Doctoral
Dissertation, Middle Tennessee State University.
Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, et al. (2014) A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, et al. (2012) An assessment of the use of partial least squares
structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 40(3): 414–433.
Hall DT, Schneider B and Nygren HT (1970) Personal factors in organizational identification.
Administrative Science Quarterly 15(2): 176.
Harris L (2003) Home-based teleworking and the employment relationship. Personnel Review
32(4): 422–437.
Hertel G, Konradt U and Orlikowski B (2004) Managing distance by interdependence: Goal set-
ting, task interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology 13(1): 1–28.
Hill EJ, Ferris M and Märtinson V (2003) Does it matter where you work? A comparison of how
three work venues (traditional office, virtual office, and home office) influence aspects of
work and personal/family life. Journal of Vocational Behavior 63(2): 220–241.
Hofeditz M, Nienaber A-M, Dysvik A, et al. (2017) “Want to” versus “have to”: Intrinsic and
extrinsic motivators as predictors of compliance behavior intention. Human Resource
Management 56(1): 25–49.
Hogg MA and Terry DI (2000) Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational
contexts. Academy of Management Review 25(1): 121–140.
Hulland J (1999) Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of
four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal 20(2): 195–204.
Kaeppler C (2020) Nach dem Spiel ist vor dem Spiel: Die aktuelle Krise als Chance nachhaltiger
Veränderungen. Capgemini Invent. Available at: https://www.capgemini.com/de-de/2020/05/
invent-die-krise-als-chance/ (accessed 14 May 2021).
Kane LM (2014) Telework and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: The Underexplored Roles
of Social Identity and Professional Isolation. City University of New York, NY: ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing.
Kaufman E, Lovich D, Bailey A, et al. (2020) Remote Work Works—Where Do We Go From Here?
Boston Consulting Group. Available at: https://www.bcg.com/de-de/publications/2020/remote-
work-works-so-where-do-we-go-from-here (accessed 14 May 2021).
Kiggundu MN (1981) Task interdependence and the theory of job design. Academy of Management
Review 6(3): 499–508.
Kramer A and Kramer KZ (2020) The potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on occupa-
tional status, work from home, and occupational mobility. Journal of Vocational Behavior
119: 103442.
Kurland NB and Cooper CD (2002) Manager control and employee isolation in telecommuting
environments. The Journal of High Technology Management Research 13(1): 107–126.
Kossen and van der Berg 235
Kurland NB and Egan TD (1999) Telecommuting: Justice and control in the virtual organization.
Organization Science 10(4): 500–513.
Leary MR (1990) Responses to social exclusion: social anxiety, jealousy, loneliness, depression,
and low self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 9(2): 221–229.
McCloskey DW and Igbaria M (1998) A review of the empirical research on telecommuting and
directions for future research. In: Igbaria M and Tan M (eds) The Virtual Workplace. Hershey,
PA: Idea Group Pub, pp.338–358.
McCloskey DW and Igbaria M (2003) Does “out of sight” mean “out of mind”? An empirical
investigation of the career advancement prospects of telecommuters. Information Resources
Management Journal 16(2): 19–34.
Mael F and Ashforth BE (1992) Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated
model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior 13(2): 103–123.
Marshall GW, Michaels CE and Mulki JP (2007) Workplace isolation: Exploring the construct and
its measurement. Psychology and Marketing 24(3): 195–223.
Morganson VJ, Major DA, Oborn KL, et al. (2010) Comparing telework locations and traditional
work arrangements. Journal of Managerial Psychology 25(6): 578–595.
Morgeson FP and Humphrey SE (2006) The work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and
validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal
of Applied Psychology 91(6): 1321–1339.
Nilles J (1975) Telecommunications and organizational decentralization. IEEE Transactions on
Communications 23(10): 1142–1147.
Nilles JM (1994) The Telecommuting Handbook. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Pearce JL and Gregersen HB (1991) Task interdependence and extrarole behavior: A test of the
mediating effects of felt responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology 76(6): 838–844.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral
research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology 88(5): 879–903.
Qiu F and Dauth T (2022) Virtual work intensity, job satisfaction, and the mediating role of work-
family balance: A study of employees in Germany and China. German Journal of Human
Resource Management: Zeitschrift für Personalforschung 36: 77–111.
Raghuram S, Garud R, Wiesenfeld B, et al. (2001) Factors contributing to virtual work adjustment.
Journal of Management 27(3): 383–405.
Riketta M (2005) Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior
66(2): 358–384.
Rousseau DM (1998) Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of Organizational
Behavior 19(3): 217–233.
Salomon I and Salomon M (1984) Telecommuting: The employee’s perspective. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 25(1): 15–28.
Scott CR and Timmerman CE (1999) Communication technology use and multiple workplace
identifications among organizational teleworkers with varied degrees of virtuality. IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication 42(4): 240–260.
Stark E, Bierly P and Harper S (2014) The interactive influences of conflict, task interdepend-
ence and cooperation on perceptions of virtualness in co-located teams. Team Performance
Management 20(5/6): 221–241.
Statista (2020) Homeoffice-Nutzung vor und während der Corona-Krise Q2 2020. Available at:
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1140049/umfrage/corona-krise-homeoffice-nut-
zung-und-potenzial/ (accessed 14 May 2021).
Tajfel H (1974) Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information 13(2): 65–93.
236 German Journal of Human Resource Management 36(3)
Tajfel H and Turner JC (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin WG and
Worchel S (eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole
Pub. Co, pp.33–47.
Tajfel H and Turner JC (1986) The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: Worchel S and
Austin WG (eds) Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall, pp.7–24.
Thatcher SMB and Zhu X (2006) Changing identities in a changing workplace: Identification,
identity enactment, self-verification, and telecommuting. Academy of Management Review
31(4): 1076–1088.
Thörel E, Pauls N and Göritz AS (2021) Work-related extended availability, psychological detach-
ment, and interindividual differences: A cross-lagged panel study. German Journal of Human
Resource Management: Zeitschrift für Personalforschung 35(2): 176–198.
Vander Elst T, Verhoogen R, Sercu M, et al. (2017) Not extent of telecommuting, but job char-
acteristics as proximal predictors of work-related well-being. Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine 59(10): e180–e186.
Van Dick R, Christ O, Stellmacher J, et al. (2004) Should I stay or should I go? Explaining turn-
over intentions with organizational identification and job satisfaction. British Journal of
Management 15(4): 351–360.
Van Zoonen W, Sivunen A, Blomqvist K, et al. (2021) Factors influencing adjustment to remote
work: Employees’ initial responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health 18(13): 6966.
Wang W, Albert L and Sun Q (2020) Employee isolation and telecommuter organizational com-
mitment. Employee Relations 42(3): 609–625.
Wiesenfeld BM, Raghuram S and Garud R (1999) Communication patterns as determinants of
organizational identification in a virtual organization. Organization Science 10(6): 777–790.
Wiesenfeld BM, Raghuram S and Garud R (2001) Organizational identification among virtual
workers: The role of need for affiliation and perceived work-based social support. Journal of
Management 27(2): 213–229.
Zhang J (2016) The dark side of virtual office and job satisfaction. International Journal of
Business and Management 11(2): 40–46.
Zhao H, Liu W, Li J, et al. (2019) Leader–member exchange, organizational identification, and
knowledge hiding: The moderating role of relative leader–member exchange. Journal of
Organizational Behavior 40(7): 834–848.
Appendix
Table A1. Measurement of control variables.
Variable Measurement
Preference for WFH “I like to work from home” on a 7-Point Likert scale
Job satisfaction “How satisfied are you today with your job?” on a
7-Point Likert scale
Experience in WFH “How much experience do you have in working
from home?” on a 7-Point Likert scale
Age Numerical value
Gender 2 = female, 1 = male
Volume of employment 1 = full-time, 0 = part-time
Kossen and van der Berg 237
Table A2. Survey items and construct validity.
Constructs and items Cronbach’s
alpha
AVE Maximum squared
correlation
Loadings
Organizational identification10.825 0.542 0.166
1. When someone criticizes my employer,
it feels like a personal insult.
0.746
2. I am very interested in what others
think about my employer.
0.727
3. When I talk about my employer, I
usually say “we” rather than “they.”
0.686
4. My employer’s successes are my
successes.
0.780
5. When someone praises my employer, it
feels like a personal compliment.
0.855
6. If a story in the media criticized my
employer, I would feel embarrassed.
0.595
Social isolation20.836 0.619 0.240
1. I have friends available to me at work. 0.786
2. I have one or more co-workers available
who I talk to about day-to-day problems
at work.
0.835
3. I have co-workers available whom I can
depend on when I have a problem.
0.757
4. I have enough people available at work
with whom I can talk about my job.
0.832
5. I have people around me at work. 0.719
Professional isolation20.832 0.605 0.240
1. I am well integrated with the company
where I work.
0.810
2. I am kept in the loop regarding company
social events/functions.
0.729
3. I am part of the company network. 0.793
4. Upper management knows about my
achievements.
0.804
5. My supervisor communicates my
achievements to upper management.
0.751
Task interdependence30.871 0.666 0.171
1. I work closely with others in doing my
work.
0.831
2. I frequently must coordinate my efforts
with others.
0.853
3. My own performance is dependent on
receiving accurate information from
others.
0.778
4. The way I perform my job has a
significant impact on others.
0.718
5. My work requires me to consult with
others fairly frequently.
0.888
1Mael and Ashforth (1992), 2Marshall etal. (2007), 3Pearce and Gregersen (1991).
