Is informal telework a threat to work-family reconciliation? Comparing the implications of formal and informal telework for work-family conflicts

Schwarz, Antje; Abendroth, Anja-Kristin Article — Published Version Is informal telework athreat to work-family reconciliation? Comparing the implications of formal and informal telework for work-family conflicts Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Schwarz, Antje; Abendroth, Anja-Kristin (2024) : Is informal telework athreat to work-family reconciliation? Comparing the implications of formal and informal telework for workfamily conflicts, Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft, ISSN 2366-4681, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Vol. 79, Iss. 1, pp. 1-11, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41449-024-00428-3 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/319235 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. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ WISSENSCHAFTLICHE BEITRÄGE https://doi.org/10.1007/s41449-024-00428-3 Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft (2025) 79:1–11 Is informal telework a threat to work-family reconciliation? Comparing the implications of formal and informal telework for work-family conflicts Antje Schwarz1· Anja-Kristin Abendroth1 Accepted: 11 June 2024 / Published online: 2 July 2024 © The Author(s) 2024 Abstract The study analyses the relationship between formal and informal telework and work-family conflicts using the job-demands and resources (JD-R) model. Previously, the model has more frequently been applied to understand the implications of telework without distinguishing between formal telework and informal telework outside contracted working hours. We conducted cross-sectional OLS-regressions on pilot data from the European Social Survey compiled in 2019. The results show that formal telework is associated with fewer, and informal telework with more work-family conflicts. While formal telework appears as a resource, informal telework rather functions as a demand. Additional analyses report that formal teleworkers are nevertheless at risk of work-family conflicts because formal telework often goes hand in hand with informal telework and, thus, work-family conflicts. Practical Relevance: While formal telework can facilitate the reconciliation of work and family life, employees are at risk of counteracting this dynamic when telework is conducted informally during paid or unpaid overtime. The findings suggest that it is important for managers, HR managers and employees to be aware of the potentials and risks of frequent teleworking that come with the ability to work anytime and anywhere in order to avoid unintended consequences. In this context, an organisational culture that values adherence to schedules and ‘switching off’ at the end of the workday, even under conditions of high workloads and low personnel resources, can be beneficial. Keywords Informal telework · Work-family conflicts (WFC) · Overtime · Austria · United Kingdom Ist informelle Telearbeit eine Gefahr für die Vereinbarkeit von Erwerbsarbeit und Familie? Ein Vergleich der Implikationen von formeller und informeller Telearbeit für Vereinbarkeitskonflikte Zusammenfassung Die Studie untersucht den Zusammenhang zwischen formeller und informeller Telearbeit und Vereinbarkeitskonflikten auf Basis des job-demands and resources (JD-R) Modells. Bislang wurde dies häufig angewandt ohne zwischen formaler Telearbeit und informeller Telearbeit, außerhalb vertraglich-vereinbarter Arbeitszeit, zu unterscheiden. Auf Basis von Pilotdaten des European Social Surveys wurden OLS-Regressionen durchgeführt, die nahe legen, dass formelle Telearbeit mit weniger und informelle Telearbeit mit mehr Vereinbarkeitskonflikten verbunden ist. Während formelle Telearbeit als Ressource erscheint, wirkt informelle Telearbeit eher im Sinne einer Belastung. Allerdings geht informelle Telearbeit häufig mit formeller Telearbeit einher, sodass vereinbarkeitsreduzierende Implikationen von formeller Telearbeit durch informelle Telearbeit abgeschwächt werden können. Antje Schwarz, M.A. [email protected] 1Bielefeld University, Universitätsstraße 25, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany K 2Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft (2025) 79:1–11 Praktische Relevanz: Während formelle Telearbeit vereinbarkeitsfördern scheint, besteht die Gefahr, dass diese Dynamik konterkariert wird, soweit diese mit informeller Telearbeit während bezahlter oder unbezahlter Überstunden einher geht. Die Befunde legen nahe, dass es wichtig ist, das Vorgesetzte, Personalverantwortliche und Beschäftigte das Potenzial und die Risiken häufiger Telearbeit kennen, die mit der Möglichkeit einhergehen jederzeit und überall arbeiten zu können, um unintendierte Folgen zu vermeiden. In diesem Zusammenhang kann eine Organisationskultur, die Wert auf die Einhaltung von Zeitplänen und das „Abschalten“ am Ende des Arbeitstages, auch bei hohen Belastungen durch zu große Arbeitsmengen und zu wenig Personalressourcen, legt, gewinnbringend sein. Schlüsselwörter Informelle Telearbeit · Vereinbarkeitskonflikte (WFC) · Überstunden · Österreich · Vereinigtes Königreich 1Introduction Telework as a resource for a better reconciliation of work and private life has gained a new momentum in recent years, in particular with the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. Understood as substituting a portion of typical working hours in a central workspace usually by working from home (Allen et al. 2015), telework is often carried out with digital information and communication technologies (ICTs) to collaborate with others or to access work documents and equipment. Following the job-demands and resources model (Bakker and Demerouti 2007; Demerouti et al. 2001), telework has been described as a resource to better align work and personal life but also seems to involve new demands. For example, it enables a flexible adjustment of demands in the work and family sphere but also fosters the dissolution of boundaries, which can increase the likelihood that work invades the family life (Clark 2000). For instance, having the ability to work on documents from a distance or being accessible for work communication irrespective of the location could not only enable telework in contracted hours but also facilitate work outside regular working hours. Existing research emphasises the importance of informality (Nätti et al. 2011; Ojala et al. 2014) and overtime work involved in the execution of telework (Lott 2019;Peters and Van der Lippe 2007). Although the frequency of telework plays an important role in current research, little is known on when it is performed (Golden 2012; Sullivan 2003). The timing of telework is of particular importance because the division of a day according to working hours and free time is potentially threatened by the use of ICTs and its boundary-spanning opportunities (Clark 2000;Olson and Primps 1984; Pfeiffer 2012; Tietze and Musson 2003; Wajcman et al. 2010). In an early study by Olson and Primps, formal telework and “after-hours work at home” (1984, p. 99) were distinguished in order to consider employees’ telework after a regular workday at a central workplace. Golden (2012) described the difference between “traditional telework” during typical working hours and “nontraditional telework” during the evening or on the weekend, and the informal character of telework was stressed by Finnish and Swedish researchers in contrast to formal telework (Nätti et al. 2011; Ojala 2011; Ojala et al. 2014). While time patterns of telework are addressed in theoretical and qualitative research (Ammons and Markham 2004; Olson and Primps 1984; Tietze and Musson 2003), quantitative examinations of the timing of telework are still scarce. Findings on national samples highlight that overtime work from home without compensation is the most prevalent conduction of telework and, thus, require further investigation (Ojala 2011). For instance, a more recent study on German employees highlights a worse temporal alignment of work and private life under the execution of informal overtime at home (Mergener et al. 2023). Drawing on previous research, we see the need to understand telework as a broad and continuously changing work practise that has to be clearly defined in order to avoid misunderstandings with respect to its different variations. We follow the advice of using “project-specific definitions” (Sullivan 2003, p. 159) to contribute to the existing investigations on the phenomena without neglecting its variety of forms. In this study, we focus on formal telework as work from home or another location of choice during contracted working hours. We distinguish this work arrangement from informal telework as work from home or another location of choice during paid or unpaid overtime. Our goal is to understand the implications of both kinds of telework with respect to the reconciliation of work and family by means of the well-established measure of work-family conflicts (Gallie and Russell 2009). As the timing of telework seems to be crucial for its implications to reconcile private and professional life, we ask: To what extent is formal and informal telework associated with experiences of work-family conflicts? In order to answer the research question, we apply cross-sectional OLS regressions on pilot data from the European Social Survey (10th round), which provides evidence of formal and informal telework in Austria and the United Kingdom. Existing surveys so far rarely allow to distinguish between formal and informal telework. K Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft (2025) 79:1–11 3 2 Reconciliation of work and family: Telework as a demand or a resource? With the increase of female employment in the last century (OECD 2022) and the overall increase of demanded flexibility in time and place at work (Sennett 1999), challenges in reconciling work and private life have gained importance. Employees have to manage the boundaries between work and family (Clark 2000) in order to reduce the likelihood of work-family conflicts. These are referred to “as a form of interrole conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect” (Greenhaus and Beutell 1985, p. 77). According to Frone et al. (1992), the perception of work-family conflicts arises when demands of work cross the boundary into the private domain. However, conflicts could also result from family demands invading the professional domain (Gutek et al. 1991). Assuming that factors associated with the job are stronger related to work-family conflicts than familywork conflicts (Byron 2005), we investigate the unidirectional perception of timeand strain-based work-to-family conflicts. Following existing research, we draw on the job-demands resources model (JD-R) (Bakker et al. 2004;Bakker and Demerouti 2007;Demeroutietal.2001)inorderto grasp telework as a multifaceted phenomenon, which can include both resource gains as well as increases in work demands, and to consider its relationship with formal and informal telework. The JD-R model describes working conditions and their functioning as a job demand or job resource. Although the initial aim of the model was to investigate the emergence of burnout (Demerouti et al. 2001), it has been used to study other outcomes in the field of well-being (Bakker and Demerouti 2007). In this approach, job demands are described as physical, social and organisational characteristics of a job that require effort and are, thus, related to mental and physical burdens of employees. Conversely, job resources are defined as similar physical, social and organisational aspects of a job that impact workers positively, for instance, in achieving work goals, inducing personal development, or reducing job demands and the associated burdens (Bakker et al. 2004; Demerouti et al. 2001). We assume that formal telework serves as a job resource easing the reconciliation of work and family life, whereas informal telework rather functions as a job demand on the work-family interface. In the following sections, we elaborate that formal telework is related to an employeefriendly flexibility, while informal telework is conducted to serve employers’ interests. 2.1 Job resource: Formal telework and work-family conflicts Following the perspective of formal telework as a job resource, formal telework serves employees’ reconciliation of work and family life and thus contributes to lower conflicts between these life domains. The rationale is that telework offers locational flexibility while it is embedded in rules of a formal arrangement. Formal telework during contracted work hours is subject to agreements with supervisors, and therefore not hidden in informality. Working hours refer to a normative frame of an accepted work time, even if they are not fully scheduled, for instance, during hours when colleagues and superiors are expected to be available. Often, arrangements of formal telework go hand in hand with strategies of collaboration (Collins et al. 2016) and a supportive infrastructure towards location-independent work, such as regular communication by mail or phone, or scheduled video conferences. These help teleworkers gain easy access to short-term coordination, collaboration or workrelated advice. In line with the perception of formal telework as a resource, there is supporting evidence, for instance, on reduced work-family conflicts (Hill et al. 2010; Laß and Wooden 2022), employees’ stronger perception of work-life support from supervisors (Abendroth and Schwarz 2023), a higher likelihood that mothers return to the labour market with more hours after the birth of a child (Chung and Van der Horst 2018), and a stronger enrichment of parent-child interactions (Kim 2020). Moreover, existing research shows that hours in telework can be used to fulfil tasks with less work-related distraction than in central workplaces (Allen et al. 2015). Additionally, control by line managers is limited through spatial distance. This could facilitate work beyond perceived “standards” of ideal worker norms (Williams 1999) and accordingly lead to less strain. Another aspect of telework during contracted working hours is its ability to strengthen the boundaries between occupational and private spheres. Even though the risk of boundary blurring is constantly discussed as a central implication of telework, it is limited through the institutional frame of formality and contracted working hours. Working in an accepted timeframe facilitates the different perception of certain points in time during a day and to perform special roles possibly minimizing behaviour-based conflicts. In this perception, time can be used as a boundary to segment private life from working hours (Clark 2000). Followingly, we assume that formal telework functions as a resource: H1 The more frequently respondents work in formal telework, the less frequently they experience work-family conflicts. K 4Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft (2025) 79:1–11 2.2 Job demand: Informal telework and workfamily conflicts Nevertheless, telework can also involve new work demands (Abendroth and Reimann 2018; Glavin and Schieman 2012; Lott 2019). We assume that informal telework during paid or unpaid overtime could especially increase the likelihood that work from home involves high work demands and more boundary blurring, and thus, increases the likelihood of conflicts between the life domains. One explanation is that it serves employers’ interests in flexibility and affects available time of employees in at least two ways: first, free time after work is filled with work and the need to invest additional effort, while, second, other relaxing activities cannot be carried out to the fullest. For instance, Schieman and Young (2010) report more work-family conflicts due to work-family multitasking. Thus, a constant switching between both domains may lead to higher boundary-blurring and possible distraction (Clark 2000). This is likely to be an even more prevalent situation in an informal setting, beyond contracted working hours and often in the evening, than in a formal setting of telework. Besides more simultaneous work and potential distractions, Nätti et al. (2011) reported an extension of working hours and a reduction of free time for workers doing unpaid telework. The examined motivations for supplemental work from home seem to be threefold (Ojala 2011): a voluntary willingness based on enthusiasm, the need to finish gathered tasks on a short notice, and the perception of an informal, regular work practise supported by the organisational culture. In addition to the challenges posed by extra work with regard to time, a study based on a sample of professionals in a large computer company in the United States reported that the proportion spent in informal telework increased the association between work-family conflicts and the feeling of exhaustion (Golden 2012). Work-family conflicts can become apparent when occupational roles constantly extend into what would otherwise be free time. Results from a Finnish study further support this assumption: informal overtime at home was more likely associated with concerns of neglecting family demands due to work and the partners’ perception that the respondent was working too hard (Ojala et al. 2014). It can be assumed that space for private demands is shrinking and people have to forgo potential time spent together due to the frequent performance of informal telework. In addition, accompanying factors of supplemental work at home after a regular work day, such as constant connectivity (Mazmanian et al. 2013; Mullan and Wajcman 2019), can play a role when free time is used for work. Thus, it can be presumed that informal telework is a demand to the reconciliation of work and family life: H2 The more frequently respondents work in informal telework, the more frequently they experience work-family conflicts. With our previously stated hypotheses, we draw on formal and informal telework as distinct work practises with opposing influences on work-family conflicts. Nevertheless, both kinds of telework can be performed by the same employees, for instance, through formal telework during a regular workday and additional informal after-hours work at home. 3 Materials and methods We use pilot data from the 10th round of the European Social Survey (ESS). The ESS is a trend survey that is conducted every two years and which was expanded by the rotating module “Digital Social Contacts in Work and Family Life” (European Social Survey 2022) in round 10. Unlike the data from the ESS main survey, only the pilot data investigates both kinds of formal and informal telework as well as items measuring work-family conflicts. Unfortunately, the broad examination of telework was omitted from the main survey due to the reduction of the questionnaire to a shorter self-completion version as a result of the pandemic. Therefore, this source of data on telework is unique as an opportunity for a more comprehensive examination of the phenomena. Participants were questioned in face-toface interviews in 2019 before the onset of the pandemic in Austria and the United Kingdom. We selected a restricted sample with respondents aged 19 or older who reported that they conducted paid work during the previous seven days (N= 206). In order to investigate our research question, we conducted linear OLS regression and provided additional sensitivity tests using linear structural equation models. The perception of timeand strain-based work-family conflicts was measured with the approved items conducted in ESS in 2004 and 2010 (Round 2 and 5, Gallie and Russell 2009): “How often do you keep worrying about work problems when you are not working?”, “How often do you feel too tired after work to enjoy the things you would like to do at home?”, “How often do you find that your job prevents you from giving the time you want to your partner or family?” and “How often do you find that your partner or family gets fed up with the pressure of your job?”. Respondents were asked to assess their situation on a 5-point scale from 0 “Never”, 1 “Hardly ever”, 2 “Sometimes”, 3 “Often”, to 4 “Always”. A mean value index (sum divided by number of items) was formed (α= 0.7865). For respondents who did not answer the third question because they were not in a relationship, the index is based only on the first two items. K Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft (2025) 79:1–11 5 The frequencies of formal and informal telework were assessed using the items “How often do you work from home or from another place of your choice during your basic or contracted working hours?” and “How often do you work from home or from another place of your choice during paid or unpaid overtime?” on a range from 1 “Never”, 2 “Several times/Once a month/Less often”, and 3 “Everyday/Several times a week”. Social demographic characteristics, such as country, gender, age and domicile were used as controls. Respondents from “Austria” were coded 0 and respondents from the “United Kingdom” 1. Gender was limited to 0 “Men” and 1 “Women”. Age was measured continuously. Respondents were asked to describe their residential environment as best as possible on a range from 1 “A big city”, 2 “Suburbs or outskirts of big city”, 3 “Town or small city”, and 4 “Country village/Farm or home in the countryside”. As work-related controls, contracted weekly working hours and occupations were involved in the analyses. The categories describing the respondents’ occupation were: 1 “Professional/Technical occupations”, 2 “Higher/Clerical administrator occupations”, 3 “Sales/Service occupations”, 4 “Skilled worker”, and 5 “Semi-skilled/Unskilled/Farm workers”. Furthermore, overtime was calculated as the difference between stated total and contracted weekly working hours. Household-related controls were applied through estimation of presence of partner and kids in the respondents’ household, coded by 0 “No” and 1 “Yes”. 4Results 4.1 Descriptive results Our descriptive results (Table 1) show significantly more work-family conflicts on average in the sample of the United Kingdom (2.75) compared to the Austrian sample (2.39). In line with the comparable diffusion of formal telework in both countries described above, descriptive results on the use of telework are very similar in our sample. An almost equal share of two thirds of the respondents in each country report that they never work from home. In the United Kingdom, the remaining one third comprises a higher share of employees doing telework monthly or less often (26.73%) than weekly or everyday (9.90%). In Austria, the share of employees working from home is equal in both groups of frequency (17.14%). However, the differences between the countries are not statistically significant. Overall, the majority never works from home informally (66.02%), while approximately one third of the respondents participates in informal telework monthly or less often (21.36%), or weekly or everyday (12.62%). Further analyses indicate that the frequencies of formal and informal telework are associated (Spearman’s rho= 0.6474, p< 0.001), thus, frequent formal telework goes hand in hand with frequent informal telework (Fig. 1). Correlations for the metric variables (Table 3in the Appendix) are presented in the appendix. 4.2 Multivariate analysis The linear regression model investigates the association of formal and informal telework with work-family conflicts (Table 2). The results show support for the hypothesized association H1 of a higher frequency of formal telework and less frequent experience of work-family conflicts. Employees who perform telework weekly or every day report a lower frequency of experienced work-family conflicts compared to respondents who never participate in telework (β= –0.493*). The analysis further lends support to hypothesis H2. Informal telework is associated with a higher frequency of work-family conflicts (β= 0.774**) for respondents who perform telework weekly or every day in contrast to non-teleworkers. In addition, several controls were significantly related to work-family conflicts. A higher frequency of work-family conflicts was found for female respondents and the group of semi-skilled, unskilled and farm workers. Furthermore, working longer contracted hours is related to more perceived conflicts. Vice versa, older respondents and respondents living in a country village, on a farm or in the countryside were associated with fewer work-family conflicts. Moreover, no differences were found accounting for respondents from the United Kingdom and Austria. The descriptive results (Fig. 1) further indicate that employees who perform formal telework are also more likely to perform informal telework frequently. Additionally, we test the mediating effect of informal telework between formal telework and work-family conflicts using a structural equation model accounting for the previous controls (Fig. 2 and Table 4in the Appendix). While formal telework often goes hand in hand with higher informal telework (β= 0.546***), the direct association between formal telework and work-family conflicts is negative (β= –0.189+) at the significance level of p< 0.010. In line with the previous results, more frequent informal telework is also associated with a stronger experience of work-family conflicts (β= 0.349**). The significant indirect effect (β= 0.190**) suggests that the association between formal telework and work-family conflicts is mediated through frequent informal telework. Thus, more informal telework seems to influence the association of formal telework and work-family conflicts. K 6Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft (2025) 79:1–11 Table 1 Descriptive Statistics Tab. 1 Deskriptive Statistik United Kingdom Austria Total (n= 101) (n= 105) (N= 206) PercentaSD Percent SD Percent SD Work-family conflicts 2.75** 0.91 2.39 0.85 2.57 0.90 Formal telework Never 63.37 – 65.71 – 64.56 – Several times/Once a month/Less often reported 26.73 – 17.14 – 21.84 – Every day/Several times a week 9.90 – 17.14 – 13.59 – Informal telework Never 64.36 – 67.62 – 66.02 – Several times/Once a month/Less often reported 21.78 – 20.95 – 21.36 – Every day/Several times a week 13.86 – 11.43 – 12.62 – Demography Women 55.45 – 46.67 – 50.97 – Age 40.35 12.84 42.42 – 41.40 12.69 Domicile A big city 22.77** – 22.86 – 22.82 – Suburb/outskirts 15.84 – 9.52 – 12.62 – Town/small city 47.52 – 33.33 – 40.29 – Country village/farm/countryside 13.86 – 34.29 – 24.27 – Work Occupation (prof./tech. occupation) Professional/technical occupation 35.64*** – 19.05 – 27.28 – Higher/clerical administration occupations 15.84 – 25.71 – 20.87 – Sales/service occupation 16.83 – 34.29 – 25.73 – Skilled worker 6.93 – 12.38 – 9.71 – Semi-skilled/Unskilled/Farm worker 24.75 – 8.57 – 16.50 – Contracted working hours 33.24 11.18 33.98 8.83 33.62 10.03 Overtime hours 1.17** 6.76 3.71 5.24 2.46 6.10 Family Living with partner 61.39 – 50.48 – 55.83 – Living with child 19.80 – 24.76 – 22.33 – Pilot data European Social Survey (Round 10). Standard errors in parentheses *p< 0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p< 0.001 aAsterisks symbolize significant differences between country samples examined by t-tests (two-tailed) across continuous variables and Chi2for all binary and categorial variables 5 Discussion The aim of this study was to examine the association of formal and informal telework with work-family conflicts. Previous research has stressed the importance of analysing overtime hours and informality of telework (Golden 2012; Ojala et al. 2014) but little is known about the differences between the implications of formal and informal telework for work-family conflicts. Our study contributes two major findings: first, we conclude that formal and informal telework are expressions of telework that are associated with antagonistic outcomes if frequently used. In line with the job demands-resources model we conclude on the phenomena of telework: Formal telework can serve as a means for a better reconciliation of work and family life. This finding is in line with the results of meta-analyses on fewer work-family conflicts when participating in telework (Allen et al. 2013; Gajendran and Harrison 2007). We assume that the regulated context with working hours as the subject of agreements in an equipped infrastructure during a normative frame of working hours (Nätti et al. 2011) has a positive impact on the work-family interface through facilitated short-term coordination, collaboration and access to workrelated advice. Opposite to that, frequent use of informal telework, in paid or unpaid overtime, rather functions as a threat to the reconciliation of work and family life. Due to the unregulated and often hidden performance (Ojala 2011), private demands are more likely to be under pressure from K Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft (2025) 79:1–11 7 Fig. 1 Frequency of informal telework grouped by frequency of formal telework Abb. 1 Häufigkeit der informellen Telearbeit gruppiert nach Häufigkeit der formellen Telearbeit professional demands than vice versa. The emergence of work-family conflicts is likely when work is performed in the evening (Nätti et al. 2011) or due to a heavy workload (Ojala 2011). This becomes particularly vital when work has to be conducted under conditions of low personnel resources. Nevertheless, previous research also describes the performance of informal telework out of free will. For instance, studies report a voluntary intensification of telework in overtime (Kelliher and Anderson 2010) or a willingness to work extra-hours based on enthusiasm (Ojala 2011), possibly going along with a higher likelihood for work-family conflicts. The contradictory outcomes of telework cannot be considered separately, as informal telework is often intertwined with formal telework arrangements. Even though some formal teleworkers do not participate in informal telework and vice versa, the dynamics suggest that formal teleworkers are at risk of work-family conflicts because informal telework is more likely in telework and often goes hand in hand with more experiences of work-family conflicts. One possible explanation is the adherence to gift-exchange dynamics, where employers provide telework in the flexibility interests of employees but expect that telework is also used in the flexibility interests of the employer as a return (Chung 2017). It seems that policy-makers, organisations and supervisors should pay special attention to the group of employees who frequently participate in telework on a weekly or daily basis in order to promote a reconciliation of work and family life and protect them from unconsidered effects, such as higher frequency of work-family conflicts. Although our analysis report higher work-family conflicts for semi-skilled, unskilled, and farm workers compared with professional and technical occupations, previous research has highlighted higher work-family conflicts in relationship with telework for employees with higher occupational status (Felstead et al. 2002; Schwarz et al. 2023). Higher conflicts for lower occupational professions overall are not in contradiction with telework-specific findings for higher occupational status groups, as existing research points towards a higher access to telework for higher occupational professions in Europe (Gschwind and Vargas 2019) which goes hand in hand with a higher work-nonwork interference for occupations with greater job authority, job skill, and decision-making latitude in line with the stress of higher status hypothesis (Schieman et al. 2009). Furthermore, higher contracted working hours are associated with higher work-family conflicts in our analysis. This finding is consistent with evidence on higher work-nonwork interference for long work hours, which are even more pronounced under conditions of flexible working arrangements (Schieman et al. 2009). To conclude, it is important to consider telework as a multifaceted phenomenon. Bailey and Kurland (2002, p. 390) stated it as “The overlooked question: How do people telework?”. Simple conceptualisations are inevitable in practise, but we would like to motivate researchers to use more defined definitions rather than “one for all” formulations (Sullivan 2003). From this perspective, it is worth considering findings that report that the majority of telework takes places in informal settings (Ojala 2011). K 8Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft (2025) 79:1–11 Table 2 OLS-regression analysis of work-family conflicts Tab. 2 OLS-Regressionsanalyse von Vereinbarkeitskonflikten βSE Formal telework (Ref. Never) Several times/Once a month/ Less often 0.066 (0.1749) Every day/Several times a week –0.493*(0.2353) Informal telework (Ref. Never) Several times/Once a month/ Less often 0.247 (0.1691) Every day/Several times a week 0.774** (0.2513) Demography Women (Ref. Men) 0.423** (0.1298) Age –0.012*(0.0048) Domicile (Ref. A big city) Suburb/Outskirts –0.252 (0.1973) Town/Small city –0.160 (0.1497) Country village/Farm/ Countryside –0.318+(0.1706) Work Occupation (Ref. Professional/Technical occupation) Higher/Clerical administration occupation –0.102 (0.1693) Sales/Service occupation –0.211 (0.1745) Skilled worker 0.054 (0.2219) Semi-skilled/Unskilled/Farm worker 0.525** (0.1881) Contracted working hours 0.024*** (0.0062) Overtime hours 0.012 (0.0102) Family Living with partner 0.001 (0.1255) Living with child 0.004 (0.1444) United Kingdom (Ref. Austria) 0.138 (0.1286) Constant 1.987*** (0.3539) N206 Adj. R20.2340 Pilot data European Social Survey (Round 10). Standard errors in parentheses +p< 0.10, *p< 0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p< 0.001 Additionally, limitations in the analysis have to be pointed out. The analysis is conducted cross-sectionally with a small sample size. Both factors limit the scope of the results. This should be improved for a more reliable investigation in the future. For this reason, both expressions of telework need to be included in large surveys in order to gain insights for larger samples over time. Nevertheless, the results provided highlight that the examination of formal and informal telework contributes to a better understanding of the partly contrary findings on the reconciliation of work and family life under the condition of telework and give further advice on how the practical use of telework could be improved. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4. 0/. K