"No need to dress to impress" evidence on teleworking during and after the pandemic: A systematic review

Almeida, Filomena; Rodrigues, Helena; Freitas, Patrícia Article "No need to dress to impress" evidence on teleworking during and after the pandemic: A systematic review Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Almeida, Filomena; Rodrigues, Helena; Freitas, Patrícia (2024) : "No need to dress to impress" evidence on teleworking during and after the pandemic: A systematic review, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 14, Iss. 4, pp. 1-34, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14040076 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/320898 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Almeida, Filomena, Helena Rodrigues, and Patrícia Freitas. 2024. “No Need to Dress to Impress” Evidence on Teleworking during and after the Pandemic: A Systematic Review. Administrative Sciences 14: 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/ admsci14040076 Received: 13 February 2024 Revised: 29 March 2024 Accepted: 1 April 2024 Published: 10 April 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). administrative sciences Article “No Need to Dress to Impress” Evidence on Teleworking during and after the Pandemic: A Systematic Review Filomena Almeida, Helena Rodrigues * and Patrícia Freitas Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Business Research Unit (BRU-IUL), 1649-026 Lisboa, Portugal; [email protected] (F.A.); patricia_alexandra_morais_fr[email protected] (P.F.) *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Due to the working conditions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, teleworking also known as remote work has witnessed an increase in use, prompting a resurgence of interest in the topic among researchers. This article analyzes the evolution of literature before, during, and after the pandemic, as well as the research foci through an application of the antecedents, decisions, and outcomes framework. A systematic literature review methodology was employed using the evidence from 136 articles from 2016 to 2023. This review is about ‘telework literature in business, management, and accounting areas published in English’. Opportunities are identified for future studies and the findings afford managers with the advantage of understanding the crucial dimensions of telework. The bibliometric analysis revealed the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the widespread acceptance of teleworking globally, accompanied by a surge in studies on this subject. Additionally, the study provides deeper insights into the progression of teleworking literature since 2016 and organizes the various topics explored in this field. Keywords: teleworking; remote work; human resources; companies; advantages; disadvantages; systematic literature review 1. Introduction The rapid development of new digital technologies such as smart technology, artificial intelligence and automation, robotics, cloud computing, and the Internet of Things is changing the nature of work and business models. Designated as the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” or “Industry 4.0”, the speed and scale of technological change have given rise to concerns about the transformation of workplaces (Trenerry et al. 2021). Information and communication technologies (ICT) allow people to connect with friends and family as well as co-workers and managers, at any time and in any place (Eurofound & ILO 2017). With greater technological resources made available by organizations for their employees, the incidence of employees working at remote locations, away from the conventional workplace, continues to grow rapidly (Charalampous et al. 2019). The concept of remote working arose during the oil crisis in the early 1970s, encouraged by the belief that the worsening traffic problems in large cities could be minimized by creating remote-working centers and even allowing employees to work from their own homes (Pyöriä 2011). Remote work has progressed over the ensuing decades with the widespread adoption of tools like personal mobile computers, the internet, and mobile phones (Eurofound 2020). Teleworking was initially defined as working outside the conventional location or at home, while later definitions have added the use of ICT and virtual work (Coenen and Kok 2014). This has transformed the physical and social environments of work, whereby at least some part of the work is carried out in other (nonconventional) locations and interaction with colleagues takes place via email, messages, or videoconferencing (Gajendran and Harrison 2007). Findings of studies carried out before the COVID-19 pandemic showed that teleworking can have both positive and negative effects, depending Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14040076 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 76 2 of 34 on the profile of teleworkers, the means of measuring work quality, the support received from managers, personal preferences, and the employee’s family structure (Charalampous et al. 2019). Although teleworking is not a new concept, its adoption has been slower than expected (Pyöriä 2011). Its impact became more evident following the outbreak of COVID-19 in March 2020, when a stay-at-home lockdown was imposed as one of the measures aimed at limiting the spread of the pandemic (Eurofound 2022;Gostin et al. 2020). Due to public health measures including social distancing, lockdown, and the closure of many workplaces, the number of employees teleworking doubled between 2020 and 2021 (Eurofound 2022). Because of the global pandemic, which forced the implementation of teleworking, research on the topic has become increasingly important as this form of work has continued and even flourished. Due to the multiplicity of definitions, some studies are limited to workers whose home is their only place of work, others are broader, encompassing various nonconventional workplaces, and still others address only workers for whom telework is their normal form of employment (Eurofound & ILO 2017). There is thus a wide range of studies, which strongly affects the type and availability of data, which in turn leads researchers to different conclusions (Eurofound & ILO 2017). Because to date no published work exists to the authors’ knowledge that encompasses the study of the evolution of teleworking comparing the pre-and post-pandemic periods, a review of all articles would be beneficial by structuring and analyzing current knowledge in this field. We therefore considered it valuable to carry out a systematic literature review (SLR), as it is the most appropriate method for managing the diversity of knowledge on a subject (Tranfield et al. 2003). To analyze the evolution of the study of teleworking, especially following its sharp rise since the global COVID-19 pandemic, the following research questions were formulated. Q1— How did the study of teleworking grow regarding the number of publications and number of citations between 2016 and 2023? Q2— Who are the biggest contributors, in terms of authors, journals, and countries, to the development of the study of teleworking? Q3— What are the antecedents, decisions, and outcomes of teleworking? Q4—What are the future research and publication opportunities in the study of teleworking? The ADO (antecedents, decisions, and outcomes) framework is employed to address Q3 in this study. This framework offers significant advantages in conducting systematic literature reviews (SLRs). By systematically categorizing literature based on antecedents, decisions, and outcomes, researchers gain a structured approach to analyze and synthesize existing knowledge within a particular domain. This framework enables a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing decisions and their subsequent outcomes, fostering deeper insights into the underlying mechanisms at play. Moreover, by organizing findings according to these categories, researchers can identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the literature more effectively, facilitating the development of robust theoretical frameworks and guiding future research directions (Paul and Benito 2018). 2. Literature Review 2.1. Teleworking Telework, also known as remote work or telecommuting, is a work arrangement where employees perform their job duties from locations outside the traditional office, such as their homes or remote sites. It relies on telecommunications and digital technologies for communication, collaboration, and task completion. Telework can be either full-time remote work or a blend of remote and in-office work, depending on the preferences and requirements of the employer and the employee (Vartiainen 2021). According to (Gajendran and Harrison 2007), the term “distributed work” is defined as a working model in which employees and their tasks are situated in environments at a distance from the physical location of the organization. The authors state that the best-known type of work is “telecommuting”, also known as “teleworking” or “remote working”. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 76 3 of 34 Telecommuting emerged in the 1970s in the United States of America (USA) as a response to the oil crisis that cautioned for energy savings and the need to reduce commuting (Athanasiadou and Theriou 2021). The flexibility provided by remote work has been demonstrated to be beneficial for both organizations and employees (Athanasiadou and Theriou 2021). According to (Nilles 1997), teleworking can be defined as the arrival of the work to the workers, rather than the arrival of workers at work – the aim being to replace the workers’ transportation with telecommunication, through a commuting network. Teleworking was then further defined as work undertaken outside the conventional location, using technologies to communicate with the workplace (Nilles 1997). An inspection of the literature reveals that there exists no universally accepted definition, but instead, several names that describe teleworking. Nevertheless, two of the criteria most agreed upon by the authors are the replacement of the conventional workplace with a remote location and the use of ICT (Athanasiadou and Theriou 2021). The definitions include discordant aspects, as these arise due to changes in the socioeconomic context, evolving technologies, and the goal of the investigations. These differ due to the absence or divergence of elements such as the extent of work carried out via teleworking, the type of employment contract, and/or the understanding regarding the substitute workplace (Allen et al. 2015). According to (Golden and Veiga 2005), teleworking is defined as carrying out part of the work outside the conventional workplace, often from home, and communicating through computers. The emergence of smartphones, tablets, and other technologies made it possible to work anywhere, with the evolution of ICT being fundamental, facilitating interactions and information sharing (Boell et al. 2016). As these novel devices multiplied, more and more jobs emerged that could be carried out remotely. Considering previous investigations, (Allen et al. 2015) developed a definition that encompasses all the fundamental features, defining teleworking as a form of work that involves the elements of an organization, replacing some of the working hours (ranging from a few hours per week to full time) with work outside of the conventional workplace, usually at home, and interacting with colleagues through technology. 2.2. Types of Teleworking Kurland and Bailey (1999), described four types of teleworking: home-based telecommuting, satellite offices, neighborhood work centers, and mobile working. Home-based telecommuting refers to work performed by persons who often work from home. A person can be considered a telecommuter if they have a telecommunications link with the company as simple as a telephone. However, telecommuters also habitually use additional means of communication such as email, links from their personal computer to the company office, and fax. The company or employee purchases the equipment necessary to perform their functions (Kurland and Bailey 1999). Satellite offices refer to convenient workplaces for workers other than the home or the company’s office. These workplaces are for individuals from only a single company. Satellite offices are furnished with office furniture and other equipment provided by the company. They are usually located outside urban centers, in areas with lower real estate and rental costs and in areas closer to employees’ homes (Kurland and Bailey 1999). A neighborhood work center is identical to a satellite office except that it is accessible to employees from other companies. These centers are furnished and equipped with the technology necessary for teleworking. Each company rents the space for as long as it deems necessary (Kurland and Bailey 1999). Mobile working refers to individuals who work anywhere and anytime, via telecommunications (Kurland and Bailey 1999). Although different types of teleworking are mentioned in the literature, there is agreement on three main categories: home-based telecommuting, group teleworking (i.e., neighborhood work center), and mobile teleworking, also referred to as nomadic teleworking (Athanasiadou and Theriou 2021;Pérez et al. 2002). Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 76 4 of 34 2.3. Advantages and Disadvantages of Teleworking Much research has been carried out seeking to understand the impact of teleworking on organizations and individuals, as this type of work entails both benefits and challenges at the individual, organizational, and societal levels (Tables 1and 2). Table 1. Advantages of teleworking for the employee, organization, and society. (Source: authors, based on literature review). Employee Saving time and costs on travel (Harpaz 2002;Pinsonneault and Boisvert 2001) Increased job opportunities (Illegems and Verbeke 2004) Greater autonomy and flexibility (Gajendran and Harrison 2007;Harpaz 2002;Pérez et al. 2002;Pinsonneault and Boisvert 2001) Better balance and reconciliation in personal and professional life (Boell et al. 2016;Harpaz 2002;Kurland and Bailey 1999) Stress reduction (Pinsonneault and Boisvert 2001) Fewer distractions and less wasting of time on informal conversations (Fonner and Roloff 2010;Pinsonneault and Boisvert 2001) Greater commitment and job satisfaction (Felstead and Henseke 2017;Gajendran and Harrison 2007;Kurland and Bailey 1999;Fonner and Roloff 2010;Perry et al. 2018) Greater creativity and capacity for innovation (Fonner and Roloff 2010;Perry et al. 2018) Organization Cost reductions (Harpaz 2002;Kurland and Bailey 1999;Pérez et al. 2002;Vega et al. 2015) Competitive advantage in recruiting and retaining employees (Illegems and Verbeke 2004) Elimination of the geographic location barrier (Harpaz 2002;Illegems and Verbeke 2004) Increased productivity (Bailey and Kurland 2002;Pérez et al. 2002) Reduced absenteeism among teleworkers (Harpaz 2002;Kurland and Bailey 1999) Society Reduced harm to environment (Harpaz 2002;Kurland and Bailey 1999;Allen et al. 2015) Reduced road traffic (Harpaz 2002;Kurland and Bailey 1999;Allen et al. 2015) Savings on infrastructure and energy (Harpaz 2002) Solutions for populations with special needs (Harpaz 2002) Strengthening the local economy (Allen et al. 2015) Table 2. Disadvantages of teleworking for employee, organization, and society. (Source: authors, based on literature review). Employee Reduction in face-to-face conversations, and limits on knowledge and ideas sharing (Allen et al. 2015;Bélanger et al. 2013;Charalampous et al. 2019; Cooper and Kurland 2002;Harpaz 2002) Jeopardized career progression (Charalampous et al. 2019;Cooper and Kurland 2002; Gajendran and Harrison 2007) Reduced identification with the organization’s values and goals (Bailey and Kurland 2002) Social and professional isolation (Allen et al. 2015;Charalampous et al. 2019;Cooper and Kurland 2002;Harpaz 2002) Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 76 5 of 34 Table 2. Cont. Difficulty maintaining boundaries between private and work life (Bailey and Kurland 2002;Charalampous et al. 2019;Felstead and Henseke 2017;Gajendran and Harrison 2007;Harpaz 2002) Greater need for time and energy to obtain information and approvals (Perry et al. 2018) Increase in work hours as there is difficulty in disconnecting from work (Charalampous et al. 2019) Organization Inefficiency in managing employees when teleworking (Bailey and Kurland 2002;Harpaz 2002;Pérez et al. 2002) Perception of unequal workloads and potential tension (Pérez et al. 2002) Difficulty in transmitting the company’s identity and culture (Harpaz 2002;Pérez et al. 2002) Costs involved in the transition to teleworking (Harpaz 2002) Risk to data security (Illegems and Verbeke 2004) 2.3.1. For the Employee Advantages At the individual level, one of the greatest gains from adopting teleworking is the increase in family and leisure time (Nakrošien ˙ e et al. 2019). Managing one’s schedule allows for a better balance and reconciliation between personal and professional life (Boell et al. 2016;Coenen and Kok 2014;Harpaz 2002;Kossek et al. 2015;Kurland and Bailey 1999), which can boost the employee’s well-being (Boell et al. 2016). Teleworking is positively related to autonomy and flexibility (Gajendran and Harrison 2007;Harpaz 2002;Pérez et al. 2002;Pinsonneault and Boisvert 2001), as it allows workers to choose the location and decide how and when to address their tasks, thereby increasing both job satisfaction (Gajendran and Harrison 2007;Kurland and Bailey 1999) and productivity (Gajendran and Harrison 2007). Couples with young children and especially women who are employed can benefit from work practices that afford flexibility, such as teleworking (Athanasiadou and Theriou 2021). Other notable benefits of teleworking are the time and cost savings associated with reduced travel (Harpaz 2002;Pinsonneault and Boisvert 2001), both of which improve the employee’s quality of life and reduce stress. Also, the time that is not spent commuting to the workplace can be used for other tasks (Pinsonneault and Boisvert 2001). Disadvantages Working in the company’s facilities brings with it moments of distraction including conversations with colleagues, phone calls, dealing with situations and colleagues outside the normal working hours, and noise in the workplace environment (Fonner and Roloff 2010). Performing one’s work in a quieter environment with fewer interruptions and less live communication in terms of sharing information, ideas, and feedback may ultimately be a way to reduce disruptions and the wasting of time and trim down the sharing of less valuable information and the number of superfluous meetings (Fonner and Roloff 2010;Pinsonneault and Boisvert 2001). The flexibility of teleworking can generate greater employee commitment and satisfaction (Felstead and Henseke 2017;Fonner and Roloff 2010;Perry et al. 2018), and this engenders possibilities for greater creativity and innovation for both the employee and the organization (Fonner and Roloff 2010;Perry et al. 2018). Illegems and Verbeke (2004), state that job opportunities multiply as the geographic location is no longer an obstacle since employees can perform their tasks anywhere. This increase in opportunities also extends to workers who are physically challenged, as teleworking eliminates many hurdles to obtaining employment (Harpaz 2002;Illegems and Verbeke 2004). On the other hand, teleworking brings the risk of isolation, both socially and professionally (Allen et al. 2015;Charalampous et al. 2019;Cooper and Kurland 2002), through reduced knowledge sharing and face-to-face encounters with colleagues and superiors (Allen et al. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 76 6 of 34 2015;Bélanger et al. 2013). These are mentioned as the main disadvantages of teleworking (Nakrošien ˙ e et al. 2019), which can lead to a decrease in employees’ identification with the organization’s values and goals (Bailey and Kurland 2002). Although teleworking is associated with greater ease of managing professional and personal commitments, providing an increase in the time available for family life, some studies indicate that because of the lack of boundaries between private and work life, employees may have difficulty disconnecting from work at the end of the day and on weekends (Bailey and Kurland 2002;Charalampous et al. 2019;Felstead and Henseke 2017;Gajendran and Harrison 2007;Harpaz 2002). The technologies used to perform remote work make employees available at any time, encouraging them to work longer hours (Charalampous et al. 2019). Other authors report a negative perception on the part of teleworkers regarding their career progression to be an additional disadvantage. Some employees consider that the visibility of their performance and behavior by superiors is diminished and feel jeopardized as a result (Charalampous et al. 2019;Cooper and Kurland 2002;Gajendran and Harrison 2007). Teleworkers may simultaneously experience greater stress as they need to spend more time and energy contacting colleagues to obtain information or approvals, coordinate tasks, and even complete basic tasks without access to technology and equipment found on the company’s premises (Perry et al. 2018). 2.3.2. For the Organization Advantages One of the advantages for organizations is a reduction in absenteeism among teleworkers, as even when they are sick, they can often work at home (Harpaz 2002;Kurland and Bailey 1999). The fact that teleworkers have fewer interruptions from colleagues, work longer hours, and have greater flexibility in their schedule is also a benefit to the productivity of organizations (Bailey and Kurland 2002;Pérez et al. 2002). Teleworking allows companies to reduce operational costs and those related to location (Vega et al. 2015). Facilities costs, for example, can be lower if workplaces are in areas with lower real estate values. Having fewer on-site employees in a company drives down spending on water, electricity, maintenance of air conditioning units, security, and other expenditures (Harpaz 2002;Kurland and Bailey 1999;Pérez et al. 2002). Illegems and Verbeke (2004), describe as a competitive advantage the absence of geographic barriers in the recruitment and retention of employees who prefer teleworking. This advantage is also obtained when employees live in locations prohibitively distant from the company and even in other countries, thereby improving the range and availability of talent and human resources (Harpaz 2002). Teleworking can also create opportunities for the sharing of information resources by connecting human resources through networks that allow for more efficient use of organizational resources (Vega et al. 2015). Disadvantages Disadvantages felt by organizations include the problems in supervising and controlling teleworkers (Bailey and Kurland 2002;Harpaz 2002;Pérez et al. 2002), difficulty in retaining their loyalty, and the struggle to transmit the company’s identity and culture (Harpaz 2002;Pérez et al. 2002). Another negative factor can be the conflicts that may arise between teleworkers and employees who work on the company’s premises, as there may come to be a perception of an increase in the workload on one’s group, some may find it difficult to interact with colleagues in the other work situation, and a feeling of inequality and even injustice may prevail (Pérez et al. 2002). According to (Harpaz 2002), companies view the costs involved in the transition to teleworking in training, technological equipment, and technical support at home as disadvantages. Illegems and Verbeke (2004), also identify remote access to company data as a drawback as it increases the risk of information leakage, compromising its security. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 76 7 of 34 2.3.3. For Society Advantages In addition to the impacts on companies and their employees, studies show that teleworking brings benefits to the environment, as there are fewer private and public motor vehicles on the road, thus easing traffic issues and reducing carbon dioxide emissions (Harpaz 2002;Kurland and Bailey 1999;Allen et al. 2015). Furthermore, it helps municipalities to keep down their expenditures on transport infrastructure, electricity, and road repairs, as more people work at home and travel less (Harpaz 2002). The fact that employees can work where it is more convenient for them helps with regional development as there is the possibility of strengthening the local economy and boosting labor in that region, even if companies are not located there (Allen et al. 2015). As mentioned above, teleworking creates opportunities through the removal of physical barriers (Harpaz 2002;Illegems and Verbeke 2004). This, according to (Harpaz 2002), is also an advantage for society across the board, as employment opportunities are extended to more members of the community. Persons who are physically challenged, parents caring for young children, and/or people who have difficulty leaving home for reasons of religion, tradition, or culture can be incorporated into the job market through teleworking (Harpaz 2002). Disadvantages Telework also presents several disadvantages that can impact society. One significant concern is the potential lack of parental interaction with children, which can lead to social inadequacies in the younger generation (Elsamani and Kajikawa 2024). Additionally, telework has the potential to exacerbate inequality, as not all employees have equal access to teleworking opportunities or suitable home environments (Elsamani and Kajikawa 2024). 3. Methodology Scholarly literature has experienced exponential growth, and since 1989, systematic literature reviews (SLRs) have been increasingly used as a research tool, as it is a method to compile and analyze large sets of data from published studies and is considered highquality evidence (Donato and Donato 2019). The method is a replicable, scientifically sound, and transparent process that minimizes biases (Tranfield et al. 2003). It has achieved a fundamental role in academic research to assemble in a single place the knowledge that exists on a given subject (Linnenluecke et al. 2020). An SLR collects, identifies, and critically analyzes published research studies, updating the reader with the current standing of scholarship on a topic of interest (Carrera-Rivera et al. 2022). The present SLR seeks to answer the following research questions: Q1— How did the study of teleworking grow regarding the number of publications and number of citations between 2016 and 2023? Justification: The aim is to carry out a quantitative longitudinal analysis to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the evolution of the study of teleworking. Q2— Who are the biggest contributors, in terms of authors, journals, and countries, to the development of the study of teleworking? Justification: Bibliometric analysis also allows for identifying the main contributors in terms of journals, countries, authors, and the main concepts studied, which will be useful for identifying scholarly leadership on the topic to contribute to cooperation between researchers. Q3— What are the antecedents, decisions, and outcomes of teleworking? Q4—What are the future research and publication opportunities in the study of teleworking? Justification: By applying the antecedents, decisions, and outcomes (ADO) framework, the aim is to identify and systematize which concepts/themes are studied by the authors. In doing this, we can identify possible gaps and establish guidelines for future studies. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 76 8 of 34 3.1. Selecting the Articles The validity of a study pivots on the appropriate selection of a database, as it must adequately cover the area under investigation. Scopus is currently the largest multidisciplinary database in existence and at the time of this writing indexes 26,591 peer-reviewed journals with more than 97 million documents (Elsevier 2023). It is considered one of the most important bibliographic databases (Cobo et al. 2011), and for this reason was chosen to apply in the study. The selection took place on 20 June 2023 using the keywords “Telework”, “Telecommuting”, and “Teleworking”. The choice of these keywords was based on an attempt to gather as many relevant articles as possible because different authors use different designations for teleworking. This first search returned 4736 documents. It was then necessary to establish inclusion criteria to limit the scope of the investigation to the field of articles written in English, between 2016 and 2023, and in “Business, Management, and Accounting” (Table 3). The second search identified 379 articles. We then inspected the titles and abstracts of the 379 articles to identify those that address our research goals, in other words, to exclude “false positives”, i.e., articles that mention the keywords but refer to different subjects. No study should be excluded because it is deemed to be of low quality or to contain methodological or other flaws, as this could bias the review (Linnenluecke et al. 2020). This step led to the exclusion of 243 articles that were outside the scope of the study or did not develop the concept of teleworking, leaving a total of 136 articles to be included in our SLR. Our selection of articles followed the guidelines of the PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) research strategy, which is an update of the 2009 guideline. These guidelines have been widely adopted by authors cited in over 60,000 articles in the Scopus database (August 2020; Page et al. 2021). The PRISMA flow diagram Figure 1illustrates the steps used to eliminate articles not relevant to the study. Table 3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Justification Period of publication 2016 to 2023 Although teleworking already existed, the pandemic accelerated its growth (Eurofound 2020). The sample was restricted to the four years preceding the COVID-19 outbreak and the three years following it, so that a comparison could be made. Document’s type of source Journal articles, excluding books, conference proceedings, reports, research We chose to include only articles from journals and no other sources, as they are subjected to peer review (Ramos-Rodríguez and Ruíz-Navarro 2004). Area of study Business, Management, and Accounting Our study was limited to the area of Social Sciences, more precisely to Business, Management, and Accounting research. Language English The English language dominates scientific publications, with more than 90% of indexed articles (Di Bitetti and Ferreras 2017). (Source: authors). Adapted from: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. “The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews”. BMJ, 2021. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 76 15 of 34 2022;Magnier-Watanabe et al. 2022;Raišien ˙ e et al. 2022;Zhang et al. 2020) as antecedents. Regarding occupation/job function, (Ha 2022), found that large companies tend to offer more opportunities for remote work, especially in the ICT, finance, and education sectors. Khan et al. (2017), investigated whether there are differences between teleworking in the public sector compared to the private. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 36 Figure 4. Most-cited articles. (Source: Scopus database). Figure 4. Most-cited articles. (Source: Scopus database). Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 76 16 of 34 Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 36 4.2. Content Analysis We used the ADO framework Figure 5 to synthesize and integrate the information collected from the literature along with factors that lead to various types of positive and negative outcomes. Figure 5. ADO framework for teleworking. (Source: Paul and Benito 2018). 4.2.1. Antecedents Antecedents refer to the reasons for engaging or not in a certain behavior and, therefore, can have a direct influence on decisions or an indirect influence on results (Paul and Benito 2018). Antecedents directly explain why a decision is made or not, and indirectly why a result has value or not (Lim and Rasul 2022). In this review, the authors report about six main categories of antecedents of teleworking cited in articles: individual, work, family/domestic life, technology, public health/environment, and social aspects. Antecedents Associated with the Employee The antecedents associated with the employee refer to factors or characteristics of individuals that influence the decision to telework. Among them, it was possible to identify three subcategories: sociodemographic factors; behaviors/attitudes associated with work; and personal characteristics/personality traits. Sociodemographic factors Factors of age, gender, marital status, level of education, job function/occupation, salary/earnings, ethnicity, and immigration status were identified as antecedents of teleworking. These, in turn, also influence its outcomes. Age is studied by several authors (Arvola et al. 2017; Ha 2022; Hamouche and Parent-Lamarche 2023; Raišiene et al. 2022; Figure 5. ADO framework for teleworking. (Source: Paul and Benito 2018). Only one article studied the ethnicity of workers as a factor that can influence the implementation of teleworking (Tahlyan et al. 2022). There is also only a single article that addresses the immigration status of workers, that is, whether they are national citizens or foreign employees (Alassaf et al. 2023). Behaviors/Attitudes associated with work These antecedents are associated with characteristics regarding employees’ attitudes that may influence teleworking. Previous teleworking experience was studied as one of the factors that might influence eligibility and intention to telework (Anthonysamy 2022; Labrado Antolín et al. 2022). The ability of employees to adapt to this type of work increases their willingness to become a teleworker (Lopes et al. 2023). An agile workforce has a direct and positive effect on the success of implementing telework (Heidt et al. 2022). Our sample includes a study that seeks to identify what drives workers to telework, classifying them into three categories: job requirements (“teleworking because it is necessary”), efficiency (“teleworking to deal with deadlines and pressure”), and work–life balance (“teleworking to have a healthy balance between work and family/leisure”) (Vanderstukken et al. 2022). Personal/psychological characteristics Personality characteristics are thoughts and behaviors that shape an individual’s interactions. These characteristics can be antecedents to the successful implementation of teleworking (Doberstein and Charbonneau 2022). The need for routines and relationships (Kumar et al. 2022), the need for autonomy (Kumar et al. 2022,2023), and lifestyles (Cortés- Pérez et al. 2023) are also considerable antecedents to the adoption of teleworking. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 76 17 of 34 Antecedents Associated with Work Work-associated antecedents are characteristics and/or features of the work environment that can influence the adoption, implementation, and success of teleworking. Organizational factors and labor relations Organizational culture can influence the decision to adopt and implement teleworking, as can interpersonal relationships and support from supervisors, colleagues, and companies. A culture that aligns with the characteristics of teleworking is more likely to enjoy positive results. An example is presented by (Kim 2023;Kwon and Jeon 2020), of a culture based on performance. Some authors also address organizational culture as a distinctive factor in the implementation of teleworking (Díaz-Soloaga and Díaz-Soloaga 2023) and the behavior of teleworkers (Krajcsák and Kozák 2022). Organizational trust has been addressed by some authors due to its importance in crises (Ficapal-Cusíet al. 2023), with trust between workers and managers being crucial to the success of teleworking. If managers support teleworking, employees are likely to feel secure and motivated to become teleworkers (Jaiswal et al. 2022;Vilhelmson and Thulin 2016). Organizational support is also highlighted as playing a significant role in reducing workers’ desire to leave the company (Choi 2018). The author also suggests that the level of organizational commitment to teleworking is a crucial factor, as it can influence the physical and psychological experience of teleworking (Choi 2018; Wang et al. 2020). Behavior/practices of managers and leaders The behavior and attitudes of managers about teleworking are identified as antecedents that can influence the availability and participation of employees engaged in this form of work. The leader’s commitment to teleworking is an important antecedent for its implementation and success (Kwon and Jeon 2020). Manager support (Bae et al. 2019;Choi 2018; Gan et al. 2022;Jamal et al. 2022;Kumar et al. 2022,2023;Popaitoon 2023), especially about family matters (Campo et al. 2021;Chambel et al. 2022) has an impact on teleworking outcomes. Special attention has also been directed to support from colleagues, confirming that social support networks should be established before deciding to work from home (Collins et al. 2016). Managers’ controlling behavior is also considered an antecedent to the adoption of teleworking (Vilhelmson and Thulin 2016), with results being better when the manager’s support is greater than control (Gan et al. 2022). In addition to supportive leadership, management of diversity is important in reducing non-participation in telework among persons eligible and qualified to perform the work (Bae et al. 2019). Performance management positively impacts the implementation of teleworking (Park and Jae 2022). Conditions/characteristics of the work itself There are antecedents associated with the characteristics of teleworking in emerging countries, such as Brazil, which affect its implementation and results (Dávila et al. 2022). These authors highlight the intense nature of teleworking, that is, the number of hours working outside the conventional location (Dávila et al. 2022;Golden and Gajendran 2019; Labrado Antolín et al. 2022;Lazauskaite-Zabielske et al. 2022;Park and Jae 2022). The feeling of greater social isolation (Mosquera et al. 2022;Sahai et al. 2022) and work overload (Mosquera et al. 2022) are also considered antecedents that can affect the implementation of teleworking. Belief in the fair distribution of workloads can be important for all employees to think positively about the impact of teleworking on the organization, and it is important to provide similar and/or equal tasks among teleworkers and non-teleworkers to encourage positive perceptions (Park and Jae 2022). Antecedents Associated with Family/Domestic Aspects Antecedents associated with family/domestic aspects refer to factors in an employee’s family environment that may influence their decision to engage in teleworking or their ability to do it effectively. Some authors included in this review explore these aspects to Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 76 18 of 34 understand how they can influence the teleworking experience. One of the factors often discussed is the family structure, namely the presence of dependents, both children (Chung and Van der Horst 2018;Dávila et al. 2022;Laß and Wooden 2023;Pigini and Staffolani 2019; Raišien ˙ e et al. 2022;Rieth and Hagemann 2021;Tahlyan et al. 2022;Zhang et al. 2020) and the elderly, who need care (Kumar et al. 2022). One such article highlights teleworkers who live with their parents as having the most positive evaluations of teleworking (Raišien ˙ e et al. 2022). Many of these articles relate this antecedent to the outcome of work–family conflict, which is discussed further below. Mayer and Boston (2022), represent the only published research on the conditions of the domestic space, determining that this is an important factor to consider for good implementation, as it has an impact on the ability to work remotely. Antecedents Associated with Technology The availability of technological devices (Mayer and Boston 2022;Park and Jae 2022), accessibility to ICT (Kumar et al. 2022;Park and Jae 2022;Vilhelmson and Thulin 2016), including digital literacy (Dávila et al. 2022;Dias et al. 2022), communication via ICT (Park and Jae 2022), and the use of the computer system and its quality (Kuruzovich et al. 2021) are fundamental antecedents of the successful adoption and implementation of teleworking. Antecedents Associated with Environmental/Public Health The pandemic catalyzed the widespread acceptance and implementation of teleworking, and because of the restrictive measures imposed, had a profound impact on the way organizations came to be structured. Many of the articles included in the review refer to the outbreak of COVID-19 as a significant antecedent for the adoption and implementation of teleworking (Alassaf et al. 2023;Ameen et al. 2023;Andrade and Lousã2021;Beˇno and Kˇrížová2022;Bodjona et al. 2021;Borkovich and Skovira 2020;Boulet and Parent-Lamarche 2022;Campo et al. 2021;Chambel et al. 2022;Chang et al. 2023;Chênevert et al. 2022; Chi et al. 2021;ˇ Ciarnien ˙ e et al. 2023;Çoban 2022;Custodia de Oliveira 2023;de Esteban Curiel et al. 2023;Delfino and Van Der Kolk 2021;Díaz-Soloaga and Díaz-Soloaga 2023; Doberstein and Charbonneau 2022;Ficapal-Cusíet al. 2023;Gan et al. 2022;Giauque et al. 2022;Ha 2022;Jaiswal et al. 2022;Jamal et al. 2021,2023;Kakar et al. 2023;Karácsony 2021; Kim 2023;Kumar et al. 2022;Labrado Antolín et al. 2022;Lazauskaite-Zabielske et al. 2022; Lemos et al. 2020;Li and Li 2022;Lopes Júnior and Daniel 2022;Madureira and Rando 2022;Magnier-Watanabe et al. 2022;Mallett et al. 2020;Mayer and Boston 2022;Miglioretti et al. 2022;Mosquera et al. 2022;Ng et al. 2022;Pirzadeh and Lingard 2021;Popaitoon 2023; Prodanova and Kocarev 2022;Raišien ˙ e et al. 2022;Raišien ˙ e et al. 2023;Rieth and Hagemann 2021;Rossi and Mc Laren 2022;Sahai et al. 2022;Sandoval-Reyes et al. 2023;Shipman et al. 2023;Tahlyan et al. 2022;Tan and Antonio 2022;Tavares et al. 2020;Varotsis 2022a,2022b). Based on interviews with representatives from 22 companies, (Soroui 2021), examines how geographic factors drive the use of remote work by companies, concluding that it is increasingly used as a strategy to overcome regional challenges regarding the acquisition of talent. Antecedents Associated with Cultural Issues National-cultural values are the shared beliefs, norms, and attitudes that prevail in a culture or society. These have been studied as possible antecedents to the implementation of teleworking. It was found in a comparison between Spain and Kazakhstan that the same experience had different perceptions among the populations (Díaz-Soloaga and Díaz- Soloaga 2023). Also, Cortés-Pérez et al. (2023), studied cultural values as an important factor in the eligibility of teleworkers in Colombia. Adamovic (2022) focused on two different cultural experiences (“individualism” and “power distance”), concluding that they affect the teleworking experience. Employees with low “power distance” scores and Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 76 19 of 34 high “individualism” scores have positive beliefs about the effectiveness of teleworking (Adamovic 2022). 4.2.2. Decisions Decisions refer to behavioral performance or non-performance and are therefore the direct response to antecedents and a precursor to outcomes (Paul and Benito 2018). After analyzing the articles, it was possible to identify two major decisions: adoption and implementation of teleworking. In terms of the adoption of teleworking, some studies focus on the eligibility of workers and others on the availability and permission for this type of work in organizations. With the implementation of teleworking, they focus on participation, location, frequency, and the practices adopted. Adoption of Teleworking Telework eligibility criteria are the requirements that an employee must meet to be considered suitable for telework. The authors (Bae and Kim 2016;Lee and Kim 2018), focused their studies on employees who meet the eligibility requirements and their respective participation. At the same time, there may be factors that influence eligibility and consequently, the probability of adopting teleworking, and some authors focused on those criteria (Cortés-Pérez et al. 2023;Pigini and Staffolani 2019). Some researchers investigated the decision to provide for and allow teleworking in organizations (Kaplan et al. 2018;Silva-C 2019;Williamson et al. 2022). Williamson et al. (2022), compared data from 2018 to data from mid-2020, focusing on what differed between these two periods concerning decisions about offering this type of work in organizations in Australia. Also, Silva-C (2019), examined the factors that influence managers’ decisions regarding the adoption of teleworking in their companies. Implementation of Teleworking When analyzing articles that look at implementation, telecommuting is seen to have different structures. Some studies have paid attention to whether the work was implemented full-time or part-time (Biron and Van Veldhoven 2016;Chung and Van der Horst 2018;Kwon and Kim-Goh 2022;Müller and Niessen 2019;Windeler et al. 2017). Other studies have commented on whether employees’ decision to telework is voluntary or involuntary (Dias et al. 2022;Ha 2022;Huo et al. 2022;Jamal et al. 2022;Lapierre et al. 2016; Lopes et al. 2023). Note that many studies have analyzed the teleworking that was induced by the COVID-19 restrictions, which is one of the strongest antecedents for this type of work, as mentioned above. In some articles, the researchers sought to understand the impact of deciding where to telework, whether at home or in another location outside the office (Aidla et al. 2023;Laß and Wooden 2023;Metselaar et al. 2022;Ollo-López et al. 2020). Other investigations were undertaken to analyze, identify, and characterize organizations’ teleworking practices (Bagley et al. 2021;Delfino and Van Der Kolk 2021;Golden 2021; Günther et al. 2022;Kim et al. 2021;Monroe and Haug 2021;Park and Cho 2022;Rossi and Mc Laren 2022;Tavares et al. 2020). 4.2.3. Outcomes Outcomes are the consequences arising from behavioral performance or non-performance (Paul and Benito 2018). It was found that one of the major goals of the authors included in the review wastounderstand the outcomesofteleworking and howantecedentscanbe determining factors in the success of implementing teleworking. For example, (Campbell and Heales 2016), created a model divided into six areas in which teleworking can affect the employee. Outcomes Related to Work Teleworkers’ performance is one of the most studied outcomes and is found to be favorable (Ameen et al. 2023;Jamal et al. 2021;Junça Silva et al. 2022a;Ng et al. 2022;Tan and Antonio 2022;Kwon and Kim-Goh 2022). The higher the frequency of journals that Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 76 20 of 34 include telework, the better the performance levels (Golden and Gajendran 2019;Park and Jae 2022), and comparing days spent teleworking and days in the office, the results are better when teleworking (Delanoeije and Verbruggen 2020). However, this may vary throughout the day due to daily interruptions and the isolation felt (Aitken et al. 2023). Trust in the organization and managers (Ficapal-Cusíet al. 2023;Jaiswal et al. 2022;Jamal et al. 2022) and support from superiors (Campo et al. 2021;Jamal et al. 2022) are also highlighted as factors with a positive impact on performance (Ficapal-Cusíet al. 2023). The freedom to organize one’s work and collaborate with colleagues was identified as the main feature that positively influences employee performance (Ficapal-Cusíet al. 2023), along with performance management (Park and Jae 2022). However, there are differences between performance when teleworking at home and teleworking elsewhere (Metselaar et al. 2022), as well as when not everyone in the workgroup is teleworking (Podolsky et al. 2022). Performance is also positively linked to the intention to continue teleworking and employee engagement (Ameen et al. 2023). On the other hand, it is also reported that few employees perceive that their performance matters (Lopes Júnior and Daniel 2022) or that it helps them to improve (Varotsis 2022a). As a result of mandatory teleworking from home, performance eroded (Magnier-Watanabe et al. 2022) and the extensive use of teleworking systems also negatively affected this outcome (Kuruzovich et al. 2021). Productivity is seen as a result that can be affected both positively and negatively (Prodanova and Kocarev 2022), as several antecedents can affect it (Chang et al. 2023;Kumar et al. 2023;Labrado Antolín et al. 2022). Employees’ intention to continue teleworking does not occur when they are immigrants due to fear of losing their jobs and residence permits (Alassaf et al. 2023). In companies where teleworking is already implemented, this type of work also strengthens employee retention (Choi 2018,2020;Kakar et al. 2023). On the other hand, some studies report that teleworking increases turnover intentions (Chi et al. 2021;Jamal et al. 2023). Most teleworkers were satisfied with teleworking during the pandemic (Alassaf et al. 2023; Jamal et al. 2021;Karácsony 2021;Magnier-Watanabe et al. 2022), which it was considered to have a positive impact on job satisfaction (Bae and Kim 2016;Kwon and Jeon 2020;Kwon and Kim-Goh 2022;Lee and Kim 2018). On the other hand, according to (Bellmann and Hübler 2020), there are no clear effects in this relationship. de Esteban Curiel et al. (2023), delved deeper into professional satisfaction by creating two profiles of a worker dissatisfied with teleworking in Spain. Some studies have focused on how teleworking can impact professional satisfaction (Bellmann and Hübler 2020;Kim 2023;Tahlyan et al. 2022), and some elements affect it both positively and negatively (Prodanova and Kocarev 2022). For example, satisfaction with telecommuting is greater for middle-aged individuals than for younger and older ones (Tahlyan et al. 2022). There are characteristics of teleworking that can increase or decrease engagement (Popaitoon 2023). When participation is involuntary (Dias et al. 2022) and there is a feeling of work overload and isolation (Mosquera et al. 2022), engagement is negatively affected. Nevertheless, in the studies of (Giauque et al. 2022;De Vries et al. 2019), teleworking forced by the pandemic had no association. On the other hand, telework is considered to have a positive impact (Chi et al. 2021;Masuda et al. 2017;Miglioretti et al. 2021,2022). Teleworkers report having a greater loss of control over their career success (Rieth and Hagemann 2021) and self-rewarding attitudes (Müller and Niessen 2019). Golden and Eddleston (2020), examine these issues in greater depth by providing a more informed understanding of how there are certain moderating factors in this relationship, namely the intensity of teleworking. Other negative outcomes associated with teleworking are the inability to disconnect from work (Felstead and Henseke 2017), working during free time (Goñi-Legaz et al. 2023), difficulty in establishing boundaries between professional and personal life (Felstead and Henseke 2017;Goñi-Legaz et al. 2023), work overload (Felstead and Henseke 2017;Junça Silva et al. 2022b), virtual (as opposed to in-person) presence (Goñi-Legaz et al. 2023), occupational cynicism (Aidla et al. 2023), and alienation from work (Doberstein and Charbonneau 2022). Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 76 21 of 34 Outcomes Related to the Organization In a study by (Aidla et al. 2023), a comparison was made between the periods before and during the pandemic of distinct types of offices and working from home. Both before and during, those who were working from home felt very well informed about what was happening in their company, expressing values like those of office workers (Aidla et al. 2023). Satisfaction with pre-pandemic information flow was even better at home (Aidla et al. 2023). In terms of relationships with colleagues, the results were similar and relationships with superiors were identical or even better than in some types of offices (Aidla et al. 2023). It is described that when employees choose to telework, they support their colleagues more than when they are forced to work remotely (Huo et al. 2022). Non-teleworking colleagues perceive a less positive impact of teleworking on organizational and individual outcomes (Lee and Gascó-Hernandez 2022). Teleworking has been associated with a reduction in commitment (De Vries et al. 2019;Kuruzovich et al. 2021;Raišien ˙ e et al. 2023), but for others, it has a positive impact (Felstead and Henseke 2017;Tan and Antonio 2022). Karia and Abu Hassan Asaari (2016), study teleworking to investigate the factors that drive a sustainable competitive advantage, stating that this is dependent on the company’s capacity for innovation. Outcomes Related to Psychological Health Campdesuñer et al. (2023), studied not only satisfaction among workers and managers but also investigate family members’ perceptions of teleworking. Workers are more satisfied with managers, in most evaluations. In fact, during the pandemic, those who tried teleworking reported greater satisfaction with life, and that their satisfaction was not affected by the presence of children at home (Rieth and Hagemann 2021) or work overload (Mosquera et al. 2022). The feeling of social isolation, in turn, had a negative effect (Mosquera et al. 2022). When comparing remote work and working in different office spaces, before and during the pandemic, the differences in well-being are not noticeable (Aidla et al. 2023). When studying the psychological well-being of managers at the beginning of the pandemic, it was found that there was a decrease in well-being and an increase in stress at work (Sandoval-Reyes et al. 2023). Teleworking during the pandemic negatively affected the well-being of workers (Pirzadeh and Lingard 2021;Raišien ˙ e et al. 2022;Raišien ˙ e et al. 2023), especially men (Raišien ˙ e et al. 2022), and when there were dependent elderly persons (Kumar et al. 2022). On the other hand, other authors indicate that these factors had a positive effect (Boulet and Parent-Lamarche 2022;Felstead and Henseke 2017;Junça Silva et al. 2022b), or even that there was no relationship (Arvola et al. 2017;Misra et al. 2022). Charalampous et al. (2022), mention the value of a multidimensional approach to understanding the well-being of remote workers. A higher quality of teleworking is associated with greater well-being (Miglioretti et al. 2022), and supervisor support also has a positive effect (Chambel et al. 2022;Kumar et al. 2022). Having dependent children, age, and gender greatly affects workers’ health (Raišien ˙ e et al. 2022). The mental health problems caused by teleworking are also addressed (Sahai et al. 2022;Wöhrmann and Ebner 2021). Teleworking is associated with greater employee exhaustion (Jamal et al. 2021), both physical and mental (Raišien ˙ e et al. 2023). The authors state that when this is involuntary its effect is negative (Dias et al. 2022;Lopes et al. 2023). However, when forced by the pandemic, it had a positive association (Giauque et al. 2022). Perhaps the intensity of teleworking is a factor to consider for mitigating this outcome (Windeler et al. 2017). Although teleworking is not a predictor of burnout, teleworkers feel more absorbed in their work, which does influence burnout (Chi et al. 2021), as does a heavier workload (Jamal et al. 2023). Other drawbacks of teleworking include isolation (De Vries et al. 2019; Raišien ˙ e et al. 2023;Shipman et al. 2023;Spilker and Breaugh 2021;Wang et al. 2020) and increased stress (Jamal et al. 2021;Li and Li 2022;Popaitoon 2023;Shipman et al. 2023). According to (Goñi-Legaz et al. 2023), this is especially due to the increase in their work outside normal working hours. On the other hand, when comparing teleworkers with non-teleworkers, the latter are reported to suffer more stress (Rieth and Hagemann 2021). Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 76 22 of 34 Part-time teleworkers show lower stress when working (Delanoeije and Verbruggen 2020). One study reports higher levels of motivation among teleworkers (Caillier 2016). There was a fall in all quality-of-life indicators during lockdown. The erosion was driven mainly not by the lack of previous experience in teleworking, but rather by a combination of three factors: having young children at home, having a high frequency of teleworking, and being a man (Chênevert et al. 2022). Outcomes Related to Social Issues Teleworking, and more specifically working from home, can be useful for achieving a satisfactory balance between personal and professional life (Delanoeije and Verbruggen 2020;Metselaar et al. 2022). According to some authors, teleworking has a positive effect on work–family conflict (Jamal et al. 2021;Laß and Wooden 2023;Magnier-Watanabe et al. 2022), especially when employees feel the support of their superiors in this regard (Chambel et al. 2022). Working remotely is more beneficial for mothers than for fathers (Laß and Wooden 2023). On the other hand, at least one study reports that teleworking has no influence, either positive or negative, on work–family conflict (Campo et al. 2021). Others report that working from home violates the boundaries between professional and home life (Bellmann and Hübler 2020;Eddleston and Mulki 2017;Lapierre et al. 2016;Li and Li 2022;Palumbo et al. 2022;Varotsis 2022b). In a study carried out among women of Turkish nationality, work–life balance was affected in the pandemic, as women’s traditional domestic roles became centralized (Çoban 2022). On the contrary, in a study with Brazilian women, the respondents reported that despite the work overload they felt no worsening in their work–family balance, even stating that they gained more time for their leisure and family activities (Lemos et al. 2020) Custodia de Oliveira believes that other dimensions of domestic life must be considered when teleworking, the most affected being leisure, family, and education (Custodia de Oliveira 2023). Some researchers indicate that teleworking has a negative influence on informal communication and interpersonal conflicts (Viererbl et al. 2022;Li and Li 2022), and that working from home, depending on the company’s organizational culture, influences organizational citizenship behavior (Krajcsák and Kozák 2022). During pandemic-induced teleworking, it was also found that trust in the government was greater among teleworkers than among those who did not have this possibility (Rieth and Hagemann 2021). Outcomes Related to Economic and Environmental Behaviors ˇ Ciarnien ˙ e et al. (2023), focused on teleworking as a facilitator of sustainability behaviors at an economic and environmental level. They state that in the context of the pandemic and with forced teleworking, there was a reduction in travel and shopping trips, thereby reducing costs associated with transportation, food, clothing, and beauty services ( ˇ Ciarnien ˙ e et al. 2023). In turn, there was better access to healthy food and better opportunities for professional development ( ˇ Ciarnien ˙ e et al. 2023). On the other hand, employees experienced increased costs in energy consumption, heating systems, medication, and greater amounts of household waste ( ˇ Ciarnien ˙ e et al. 2023). During the pandemic, teleworking also had a positive impact on companies perceived financial performance (Bodjona et al. 2021). Outcomes Related to ICT Only a single article addresses cybersecurity problems that occur when telecommuting. The authors make recommendations to reduce and mitigate these issues (Borkovich and Skovira 2020). 4.2.4. Conclusions Drawn from the ADO Framework, and Future Directions The content analysis shows that most studies addressed the antecedents and outcomes related to teleworking. Teleworking decisions can be divided into studies focused on adoption and its criteria and on the implementation itself and the factors that can Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 76 23 of 34 influence its impact. Based on the ADO framework, we present conclusions and future recommendations for each dimension. Antecedents In the studies included in the review, several antecedents associated with individual and organizational factors that influence the decision to telework are highlighted. The COVID-19 pandemic appears as a crucial trigger for the widespread adoption and implementation of teleworking. The measures imposed during this period forced a change in the work structure of organizations, with the COVID-19 virus acting as a catalyst for the acceptance of this type of work. Sociodemographic Factors and Inequalities The study of sociodemographic factors as antecedents to teleworking may be important to understanding inequalities in remote-work opportunities. Understanding how age, gender, education level, and salary/earnings, for example, can be decisive for the implementation of teleworking will help in the promotion of equitable teleworking policies and provision of the support needed by distinct groups of workers. The paucity of studies on the effects of ethnicity and immigration status on teleworking point to an area that could benefit from additional attention. Individual Characteristics and Behaviors Investigating how these factors intersect with other sociodemographic characteristics and impact teleworking experiences can contribute to a more inclusive approach to labor. Exploring worker characteristics, behaviors, and attitudes can provide insights into the drivers and barriers to telework adoption. Each worker has her/his personality and way of working, so it is important to take these individual differences into account when deciding to implement this type of work. Organizational Support and Culture Understanding how features related to home life can be drivers for greater participation in teleworking can offer insights to companies. Exploring strategies to support teleworkers with dependents and how organizations can provide resources to contribute to a calmer remote-work environment are valuable goals for future studies. One such support strategy would be to ensure that teleworkers have the necessary technology and ICT proficiency to function well. It is thus important for organizations to provide training in this area to optimize their teleworking experiences. It would be interesting in future research to investigate obstacles to technological accessibility for different demographic groups, as well as to conduct studies to evaluate the effectiveness of digital literacy training programs in the implementation and success of teleworking. Likewise, identifying the best virtual communication practices would be valuable in improving collaboration and teamwork. The study comparing Spain and Kazakhstan (Díaz-Soloaga and Díaz-Soloaga 2023) reveals the importance of considering cultural differences when examining the issues related to teleworking. Embracing cultural diversity and implementing inclusive telecommuting practices makes it easier for organizations to leverage the strengths and talents of employees from diverse cultural backgrounds. The importance of organizational culture as an antecedent highlight the need for organizations to promote a culture that supports remote work if they wish to employ it. Companies should also focus on building trust between managers and workers. These can be definitive factors for the implementation of teleworking, making it important to examine the strategies necessary to transform and create a culture favorable to this type of work. Leadership and Managerial Support Organizations must prioritize the support of managers and leadership to ensure the success of teleworking. Some studies included in this review already focus on the practices adopted by managers, which is an essential element of research to understand how this antecedent can make a positive contribution. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 76 24 of 34 Aligning Work Structures with Telework Characteristics The antecedents associated with the characteristics of the work itself play a crucial role in shaping telework outcomes. Companies must recognize the importance of aligning their work structures with the characteristics of teleworking to facilitate its implementation. Dealing in advance with predictable (and potential) problems, such as social isolation, is essential for teleworking to be effective. Providing opportunities for virtual types of social interaction can mitigate the drawback of isolation. Identifying the antecedents of teleworking helps managers adapt their business models and work structure to achieve company sustainability (Dávila et al. 2022). Decisions For the “D element” in the ADO framework, studies focus on both the adoption of teleworking and on its implementation and the practices inherent to that implementation. Few studies focus on understanding the relationship between eligibility criteria and the adoption of teleworking. Note that not all eligible employees use teleworking, which suggests that factors beyond the eligibility criteria may influence their decision. Therefore, it would be interesting for future investigations to adopt a holistic approach, examining various individual, organizational, and environmental factors that may affect the adoption of this type of work. Organizational Decision-Making and Policies Decisions made by organizations to offer the option of teleworking are also examined. Williamson et al. (2022), investigated how these decisions evolve, especially in response to events such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The focus on these decisions highlights the importance of organizational culture and policies in the adoption of teleworking. It is important, then, to learn more about which organizational factors can facilitate or hinder the adoption of teleworking, including the technological infrastructure itself, communication tools, and support from managers, for example. Variability and Best Practices in Telework Implementation Teleworking is a multifaceted concept, and the literature reflects various perspectives on how it can be implemented, whether it is carried out at home or elsewhere, whether participation is voluntary or involuntary, and whether it is full-time or part-time. Studies focused on the policies of organizations can help to identify the best practices that contribute to successful teleworking. Before deciding to adopt and implement teleworking, organizations must create policies that meet the unique needs of their employees (Günther et al. 2022). It is important to highlight that the COVID-19 pandemic was a significant factor in the adoption and implementation of teleworking, as mentioned above. The event triggered a surge of studies regarding teleworking that was imposed by lockdown restrictions. It would be interesting to continue investigating the consequences of pandemic-induced changes in work structures and how work trends have evolved in the post-pandemic period, to provide insights into their long-term sustainability. Outcomes Our review reveals that the dimension of outcomes is an area widely explored by researchers. Understanding outcomes helps organizations adapt their strategies to maximize the benefits of teleworking and reduce its disadvantages. In general, the outcomes have contradictory results, which demonstrates the complexity of studying the issue of teleworking. Performance and productivity have a positive association with teleworking, but when this was forced by the pandemic, the impact reported was negative. Understanding how teleworking affects these outcomes is important, as it provides companies with data on the implementation of this type of work, allowing them to optimize the work of employees, that is, determining which functions or tasks are suitable for teleworking and which can be more effective when carried out in the office workspace. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 76 31 of 34 Labrado Antolín, Maribel, Óscar Rodríguez-Ruiz, and JoséFernández Menéndez. 2022. A time after time effect in telework: An explanation of willingness to telework and self-reported productivity. International Journal of Manpower 45: 200–14. [CrossRef] Lapierre, Laurent M., Elianne F. Van Steenbergen, Maria CW Peeters, and Esther S. Kluwer. 2016. Juggling work and family responsibilities when involuntarily working more from home: A multiwave study of financial sales professionals. Journal of Organizational Behavior 37: 804–22. [CrossRef] Laß, Inga, and Mark Wooden. 2023. Working from Home and Work–Family Conflict. Work, Employment and Society 37: 176–95. [CrossRef] Lazauskaite-Zabielske, Jurgita, Arunas Ziedelis, and Ieva Urbanaviciute. 2022. When working from home might come at a cost: The relationship between family boundary permeability, overwork climate and exhaustion. Baltic Journal of Management 17: 705–21. [CrossRef] Lee, David, and Sun Young Kim. 2018. A Quasi-Experimental Examination of Telework Eligibility and Participation in the U.S. Federal Government. Review of Public Personnel Administration 38: 451–71. [CrossRef] Lee, Hongseok, and Mila Gascó-Hernandez. 2022. The Perspective of Non-Teleworkers on the Impacts of Coworkers’ Telework: Assessing Individual and Organizational outcomes. Public Performance and Management Review 46: 563–84. [CrossRef] Lemos, Ana Heloisa Da Costa, Alane De Oliveira Barbosa, and Priscila Pinheiro Monzato. 2020. Women in home office during the COVID-19 pandemic and the work-family conflict configurations. RAE Revista de Administracao de Empresas 60: 388–99. [CrossRef] Li, Junjun, and Zhongwu Li. 2022. Causes of intraorganization conflict: Telecommuting triggered by the epidemic. Problems and Perspectives in Management 20: 161–74. [CrossRef] Lim, Weng Marc. 2020. Challenger marketing. Industrial Marketing Management 84: 342–45. [CrossRef] Lim, Weng Marc, and Tareq Rasul. 2022. Customer engagement and social media: Revisiting the past to inform the future. Journal of Business Research 148: 325–42. [CrossRef] Lim, Weng Marc, Sheau-Fen Yap, and Marian Makkar. 2021. Home sharing in marketing and tourism at a tipping point: What do we know, how do we know, and where should we be heading? Journal of Business Research 122: 534–66. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Linnenluecke, Martina K., Mauricio Marrone, and Abhay K. Singh. 2020. Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses. Australian Journal of Management 45: 175–94. [CrossRef] Lopes, Silvia, Paulo C. Dias, Ana Sabino, Francisco Cesário, and Ricardo Peixoto. 2023. Employees’ fit to telework and work well-being: (in)voluntariness in telework as a mediating variable? Employee Relations 45: 257–74. [CrossRef] Lopes Júnior, Elias Pereira, and Ana Nery Alves Daniel. 2022. Workers Performance: What has Changed with the COVID-19 Crisis? International Journal of Public Administration. 1–11. [CrossRef] Madureira, César, and Belén Rando. 2022. Teleworking in Portuguese public administration during the COVID-19 pandemic. Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation 16: 119–39. [CrossRef] Magnier-Watanabe, Remy, Caroline Benton, Philippe Orsini, Toru Uchida, and Kaoruko Magnier-Watanabe. 2022. COVID-19 and mandatory teleworking from home in Japan: Taking stock to improve satisfaction and job performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. [CrossRef] Mallett, Oliver, Abigail Marks, and Lila Skountridaki. 2020. Where does work belong anymore? The implications of intensive homebased working. Gender in Management 35: 657–65. [CrossRef] Martínez-López, Francisco J., JoséM. Merigó, Leslier Valenzuela-Fernández, and Carolina Nicolás. 2018. Fifty years of the European Journal of Marketing: A bibliometric analysis. In European Journal of Marketing. Leeds: Emerald Group Holdings Ltd., vol. 52, pp. 439–68. [CrossRef] Masuda, Aline D., Claudia Holtschlag, and Jessica M. Nicklin. 2017. Why the availability of telecommuting matters: The effects of telecommuting on engagement via goal pursuit. Career Development International 22: 200–19. [CrossRef] Mayer, Bethany, and Megan Boston. 2022. Residential built environment and working from home: A New Zealand perspective during COVID-19. Cities 129: 103844. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Metselaar, Samantha Alexandra, Laura den Dulk, and Brenda Vermeeren. 2022. Teleworking at Different Locations Outside the Office: Consequences for Perceived Performance and the Mediating Role of Autonomy and Work-Life Balance Satisfaction. Review of Public Personnel Administration 43: 456–78. [CrossRef] Miglioretti, Massimo, Andrea Gragnano, Simona Margheritti, and Eleonora Picco. 2021. Not all telework is valuable. Revista de Psicologia Del Trabajo y de Las Organizaciones 37: 11–19. [CrossRef] Miglioretti, Massimo, Andrea Gragnano, Silvia Simbula, and Marco Perugini. 2022. Telework quality and employee well-being: Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. New Technology, Work and Employment 38: 548–71. [CrossRef] Misra, Richa, Vranda Jain, Shalini Srivastava, and Tavishi Tewary. 2022. Rejuvenating psychological well-being through work staycation: A COR perspective. Tourism Recreation Research. 1–13. [CrossRef] Monroe, Richard W., and James C. Haug. 2021. Assessment of Telework in a Federal Agency at the Operational Phase. Public Organization Review 22: 725–42. [CrossRef] Mosquera, Pilar, Maria Eduarda Soares, and Teresa Alvadia. 2022. Is teleworking at odds with social sustainability and organizational learning? Learning Organization 29: 527–47. [CrossRef] Müller, Teresa, and Cornelia Niessen. 2019. Self-leadership in the context of part-time teleworking. Journal of Organizational Behavior 40: 883–98. [CrossRef] Nakrošien ˙ e, Audron ˙ e, Ilona Buˇci ¯ unien ˙ e, and Bernadeta Goštautait ˙ e. 2019. Working from home: Characteristics and outcomes of telework. International Journal of Manpower 40: 87–101. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 76 32 of 34 Ng, Peggy ML, Kam Kong Lit, and Cherry TY Cheung. 2022. Remote work as a new normal? The technology-organization-environment (TOE) context. Technology in Society 70: 102022. [CrossRef] Nilles, Jack M. 1997. Telework: Enabling distributed organizations: Implications for it managers. Information Systems Management 14: 7–14. [CrossRef] Niñerola, Angels, María-Victoria Sánchez-Rebull, and Ana-Beatriz Hernández-Lara. 2019. Tourism research on sustainability: A bibliometric analysis. Sustainability 11: 1377. [CrossRef] Ollo-López, Andrea, SaloméGoñi-Legaz, and Amaya Erro-Garcés. 2020. Home-based telework: Usefulness and facilitators. International Journal of Manpower 42: 644–60. [CrossRef] Page, Matthew J., Joanne E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M. Tetzlaff, Elie A. Akl, Sue E. Brennan, and et al. 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. The BMJ 372: n71. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Palumbo, Rocco, Giulia Flamini, Luca Gnan, Massimiliano Matteo Pellegrini, Damiano Petrolo, and Mohammad Fakhar Manesh. 2022. Disentangling the implications of teleworking on work–life balance: A serial mediation analysis through motivation and satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness 9: 68–88. [CrossRef] Park, Seejeen, and Moon M. Jae. 2022. Determinants of teleworkers’ job performance in the pre-COVID-19 period: Testing the mediation effect of the organizational impact of telework. Journal of General Management 49. [CrossRef] Park, Seejeen, and Yoon Jik Cho. 2022. Does telework status affect the behavior and perception of supervisors? Examining task behavior and perception in the telework context. International Journal of Human Resource Management 33: 1326–51. [CrossRef] Paul, Justin, and Alexander Rosado-Serrano. 2019. Gradual Internationalization vs Born-Global/International new venture models: A review and research agenda. In International Marketing Review. Leeds: Emerald Group Holdings Ltd., vol. 36, pp. 830–58. [CrossRef] Paul, Justin, and Gabriel RG Benito. 2018. A review of research on outward foreign direct investment from emerging countries, including China: What do we know, how do we know and where should we be heading? Asia Pacific Business Review 24: 90–115. [CrossRef] Paul, Justin, and Mojtaba Barari. 2022. Meta-analysis and traditional systematic literature reviews—What, why, when, where, and how? In Psychology and Marketing. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons Inc., vol. 39, pp. 1099–115. [CrossRef] Paul, Justin, Sundar Parthasarathy, and Parul Gupta. 2017. Exporting challenges of SMEs: A review and future research agenda. Journal of World Business 52: 327–42. [CrossRef] Paul, Justin, Weng Marc Lim, Aron O’Cass, Andy Wei Hao, and Stefano Bresciani. 2021. Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-4-SLR). International Journal of Consumer Studies 45: O1–O16. [CrossRef] Pérez, M. Pérez, Angel M. Sánchez, and M. P. de Luis Carnicer. 2002. Benefits and barriers of telework: Perception differences of human resources managers according to company’s operations strategy. Technovation 22: 775–83. [CrossRef] Perry, Sara Jansen, Cristina Rubino, and Emily M. Hunter. 2018. Stress in remote work: Two studies testing the Demand-Control-Person model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 27: 577–93. [CrossRef] Pigini, Claudia, and Stefano Staffolani. 2019. Teleworkers in Italy: Who are they? Do they make more? International Journal of Manpower 40: 265–85. [CrossRef] Pinsonneault, Alain, and Martin Boisvert. 2001. The Impacts of Telecommuting on Organizations and Individuals: A Review of the Literature. In Telecommuting and Virtual Offices: Issues and Opportunities. Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 163–85. Pirzadeh, Payam, and Helen Lingard. 2021. Working from Home during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Health and Well-Being of Project-Based Construction Workers. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 147: 04021048. [CrossRef] Podolsky, Mark, Mary Jo Ducharme, and Christa McIntyre. 2022. Normative telecommuting: The effects of group composition and task interdependence on telecommuter and non-telecommuter performance. Personnel Review 51: 1902–21. [CrossRef] Popaitoon, Patchara. 2023. Integrative work design for telework practices: Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand. Journal of Asia Business Studies 17: 504–23. [CrossRef] Prodanova, Jana, and Ljupco Kocarev. 2022. Employees’ dedication to working from home in times of COVID-19 crisis. Management Decision 60: 509–30. [CrossRef] Pyöriä, Pasi. 2011. Managing telework: Risks, fears and rules. Management Research Review 34: 386–99. [CrossRef] Raišien ˙ e, Agota Giedr ˙ e, Evelina Danausk ˙ e, Karolina Kavaliauskien ˙ e, and Vida Gudžinskien ˙ e. 2023. Occupational Stress-Induced Consequences to Employees in the Context of Teleworking from Home: A Preliminary Study. Administrative Sciences 13: 55. [CrossRef] Raišien ˙ e, Agota Giedr ˙ e, Violeta Rapuano, Greta Masilionyt ˙ e, and Simonas Juozapas Raišys. 2022. ‘White collars’ on self-reported well-being, health and work performance when teleworking from home. Problems and Perspectives in Management 20: 497–510. [CrossRef] Ramos-Rodríguez, Antonio-Rafael, and JoséRuíz-Navarro. 2004. Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980–2000. Strategic Management Journal 25: 981–1004. [CrossRef] Rieth, Michèle, and Vera Hagemann. 2021. The Impact of Telework and Closure of Educational and Childcare Facilities on Working People during COVID-19. Zeitschrift Fur Arbeits- Und Organisationspsychologie 65: 202–14. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 76 33 of 34 Rossi, Mathias, and Eric Mc Laren. 2022. Companies’ views of teleworking difficulties. Journal of the International Council for Small Business 3: 314–20. [CrossRef] Sahai, Shikha, Mariam Anil Ciby, and Elizabeth Dominic. 2022. Workplace isolation amongst home-based teleworkers: Can psychological capital make a difference? Human Systems Management 41: 327–39. [CrossRef] Sandoval-Reyes, Juan, Lorenzo Revuelto-Taboada, and Edison Jair Duque-Oliva. 2023. Analyzing the impact of the shift to remote work mode on middle managers’ well-being in the pandemic. European Research on Management and Business Economics 29: 100217. [CrossRef] Shipman, Kristine, Darrell Norman Burrell, and Allison Huff Mac Pherson. 2023. An organizational analysis of how managers must understand the mental health impact of teleworking during COVID-19 on employees. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 31: 1081–104. [CrossRef] Silva-C, Alejandro. 2019. The attitude of managers toward telework, why is it so difficult to adopt it in organizations? Technology in Society 59: 101133. [CrossRef] Šímová, Tereza, and Kristýna Zychová. 2023. Who and What is Driving Remote Working Research? A Bibliometric Study. Vision, 09722629221139064. [CrossRef] Singh, Shiwangi, Justin Paul, and Sanjay Dhir. 2021. Innovation implementation in Asia-Pacific countries: A review and research agenda. Asia Pacific Business Review 27: 180–208. [CrossRef] Södergren, Jonatan. 2021. Brand authenticity: 25 Years of research. International Journal of Consumer Studies 45: 645–63. [CrossRef] Soroui, Sarah T. 2021. Understanding the drivers and implications of remote work from the local perspective: An exploratory study into the dis/reembedding dynamics. Technology in Society 64: 101328. [CrossRef] Spilker, Maria A., and James A. Breaugh. 2021. Potential ways to predict and manage telecommuters’ feelings of professional isolation. Journal of Vocational Behavior 131: 103646. [CrossRef] Tahlyan, Divyakant, Maher Said, Hani Mahmassani, Amanda Stathopoulos, Joan Walker, and Susan Shaheen. 2022. For whom did telework not work during the Pandemic? understanding the factors impacting telework satisfaction in the US using a multiple indicator multiple cause (MIMIC) model. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 155: 387–402. [CrossRef] Tan, Rony, and Ferdi Antonio. 2022. New insights on employee adaptive performance during the COVID-19 pandemic: Empirical evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation 18: 175–206. [CrossRef] Tavares, Fernando, Eulália Santos, Ana Diogo, and Vanessa Ratten. 2020. Teleworking in Portuguese communities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Enterprising Communities 15: 334–49. [CrossRef] Tranfield, David, David Denyer, and Palminder Smart. 2003. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management 14: 207–22. [CrossRef] Trenerry, Brigid, Samuel Chng, Yang Wang, Zainal Shah Suhaila, Sun Sun Lim, Han Yu Lu, and Peng Ho Oh. 2021. Preparing Workplaces for Digital Transformation: An Integrative Review and Framework of Multi-Level Factors. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 620766. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Vanderstukken, Arne, Irina Nikolova, Jeroen P. de Jong, and Monique Ramioul. 2022. Exploring types of telecommuters: A latent class analysis approach. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 31: 245–59. [CrossRef] Varotsis, Nikolaos. 2022a. Exploring the influence of telework on work performance in public services: Experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance 24: 401–17. [CrossRef] Varotsis, Nikolaos. 2022b. Impact of Telecommuting on Work-Family Conflict and Attitudes Among Greek Employees in Some Service Industries; Based on Working Restrictions During COVID-19. Journal of East-West Business 28: 350–71. [CrossRef] Vartiainen, Matti. 2021. Telework and remote work. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. Edited by J. M. Peiro. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [CrossRef] Vega, Ronald P., Amanda J. Anderson, and Seth A. Kaplan. 2015. A Within-Person Examination of the Effects of Telework. Journal of Business and Psychology 30: 313–23. [CrossRef] Viererbl, Benno, Nora Denner, and Thomas Koch. 2022. “You don’t meet anybody when walking from the living room to the kitchen”: Informal communication during remote work. Journal of Communication Management 26: 331–48. [CrossRef] Vilhelmson, Bertil, and Eva Thulin. 2016. Who and where are the flexible workers? Exploring the current diffusion of telework in Sweden. New Technology, Work and Employment 31: 77–96. [CrossRef] Wang, Wendy, Leslie Albert, and Qin Sun. 2020. Employee isolation and telecommuter organizational commitment. Employee Relations 42: 609–25. [CrossRef] WHO. 2023. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. Geneva: World Health Organization. Available online: https://covid19.who. int/table (accessed on 7 September 2023). Williamson, Sue, Linda Colley, and Meraiah Foley. 2022. Public servants working from home: Exploring managers’ changing allowance decisions in a COVID-19 context. Economic and Labour Relations Review 33: 37–55. [CrossRef] Windeler, Jaime B., Katherine M. Chudoba, and Rui Z. Sundrup. 2017. Getting away from them all: Managing exhaustion from social interaction with telework. Journal of Organizational Behavior 38: 977–95. [CrossRef] Wirtz, Bernd W., Jan C. Weyerer, Marcel Becker, and Wilhelm M. Müller. 2022. Open government data: A systematic literature review of empirical research. Electronic Markets 32: 2381–404. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 76 34 of 34 Wöhrmann, Anne Marit, and Christian Ebner. 2021. Understanding the bright side and the dark side of telework: An empirical analysis of working conditions and psychosomatic health complaints. New Technology, Work and Employment 36: 348–70. [CrossRef] Zhang, Shihang, Rolf Moeckel, Ana Tsui Moreno, Bin Shuai, and Jie Gao. 2020. A work-life conflict perspective on telework. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 141: 51–68. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.