1190324

research-article2023
ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X231190324Review of Public Personnel AdministrationLee et al.

Article
Review of Public Personnel Administration

Paving the Way for

2024, Vol. 44(4) 768­–789
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
Interpersonal Collaboration sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0734371X231190324
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X231190324
in Telework: The Moderating journals.sagepub.com/home/rop

Role of Organizational
Goal Clarity in the Public
Workplace

David Lee1 , Jeongyoon Lee2 ,

and Sun Young Kim3

Abstract
One aspect of telework that has been underresearched is the effect of telework
on interpersonal collaboration. Relatively little is known about how employees
collaborate when they telework. Drawing on boundary theory and goal setting theory,
we examined the impact of telework participation on three types of interpersonal
collaboration (horizontal, vertical, and inter-work unit) and then tested the role of
organizational goal clarity as a potential moderator in strengthening or weakening
these relationships. The results of a series of fixed effects regression models show
that telework participation rates are negatively associated with all three types of
interpersonal collaboration. We also found that organizational goal clarity mitigates
such negative relationships. Our findings contribute to the growing literature on
telework and interpersonal collaboration, focusing on the crucial role of organizational
goal clarity.

Keywords
telework participation, interpersonal collaboration, organizational goal clarity,
boundary theory, goal setting theory

1
Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
2
University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
3
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Corresponding Author:
Sun Young Kim, Department of Public Administration, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies,
107 Imun-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 02450, Republic of Korea.
Email: [email protected]
Lee et al. 769

Over the past few decades, both public and private sector organizations have increas-
ingly offered telework arrangements to their employees as a means of enhancing flex-
ibility in working locations and hours and improving work–life balance. The U.S.
Office of Personnel Management (OPM, 2013) defines telework as “a work flexibility
arrangement under which an employee performs the duties and responsibilities of such
employee’s position, and other authorized activities, from an approved worksite other
than the location from which the employee would otherwise work” (pp. 17–18). Since
the signing of the 2010 Telework Enhancement Act, the U.S. federal government has
prepared for the successful adoption and implementation of telework partly because
the ability to work from remote locations is an essential aspect of emergency planning.
A status report published by the OPM (2021) shows this initiative has been relatively
effective, as the percentage of eligible federal employees working remotely for at least
part of the week has increased from only 29% in 2012 to 56% in 2019.
While telework is not a new concept, it has recently become the norm in many
workplaces as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to impose widespread restrictions
on mobility. In the public sector, telework has helped ensure better functioning of
public service delivery while enabling government organizations to maintain opera-
tions and achieve business goals and missions during the global health crisis. Although
this sudden shift has introduced several issues related to remotely accessing organiza-
tional systems and processes, both employers and employees have seen the benefits of
telework and are thus expected to continue these arrangements when the pandemic
ends (Maurer, 2021).
With the growing interest in telework, its antecedents and consequences have been
widely studied from various perspectives. Scholars have examined how telework
relates to work outcomes, including work productivity (Hill et al., 1998; Schmidt &
Duenas, 2002), organizational performance (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Golden
et al., 2008; Major et al., 2008), job satisfaction (T. D. Allen et al., 2015; Gajendran &
Harrison, 2007; S.-Y. Lee & Hong, 2011), and work–life balance (Seron & Ferris,
1995). An ample body of research also exists on the roles of supervisory support (Choi,
2018; Lautsch & Kossek, 2011), diversity management (Bae et al., 2019; T. Kim &
Mullins, 2016), and trust (Kaplan et al., 2018; Raghuram et al., 2001) in promoting
telework participation.
While previous research has considerably advanced our understanding of telework,
whether and how such work arrangements impact interpersonal collaboration still needs
to be explored. Scholars have suggested that interactions among employees, or a lack
thereof, can significantly influence work productivity and organizational performance
(Whitford et al., 2010). Thus, it is essential to theoretically and empirically examine how
telework relates to the degree of interpersonal collaboration among employees and iden-
tify the circumstances under which telework can lead to a higher degree of collaboration.
Such findings can inform human resources (HR) executives of changes that may need to
be introduced to improve organizational outcomes in the teleworking context.
This gap in the pertinent literature motivated us to examine the effects of telework
participation rates on different types of interpersonal collaboration including hori-
zontal, vertical, and inter-work unit collaboration. A further goal was to investigate
770 Review of Public Personnel Administration 44(4)

whether and how organizational goal clarity plays a moderating role in the link
between telework participation and the degree of collaboration within and across
work units. According to goal setting theory, clear and specific organizational goals
can help both telework and non-telework employees better understand the shared
vision and mission of the organization and direct their collective efforts toward
achieving common goals by actively engaging in interpersonal collaboration. Thus,
we expect organizational goal clarity to mitigate the negative effects of telework
participation on interpersonal collaboration. For these purposes, we performed a
panel data analysis on a sample comprising 68 U.S. federal subagencies, focusing on
the 2012 to 2017 period.1
In the sections that follow, we review the literature on telework, collaboration, and
organizational goal clarity, and develop multiple hypotheses regarding the effects of
telework on the degree of interpersonal collaboration and the moderating role of orga-
nizational goal clarity in the relationship between telework and collaboration. Next,
we describe our data collection instruments and analytic methods and the empirical
results. After discussing key findings and theoretical and practical implications, we
conclude with study limitations and future research suggestions in the field of public
personnel administration.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Collaboration in Public Organizations
Miles et al. (2005) defined collaboration as “a process whereby two or more parties
work with each other to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes” (p. 40). As organiza-
tions with active collaboration can expect employees to carry out strategic communi-
cation with collaborative partners to gain tangible and intangible resources that cannot
be achieved by personal effort alone (Thomson & Perry, 2006), collaboration typically
improves work productivity by enabling collaborative partners to utilize critical
resources attained from each other (Jap, 2001). Thus, collaboration-centered work
environments allow organizations to effectively leverage their employees’ capacity to
achieve collective goals.
Scholars have differentiated three types of interpersonal collaboration—horizontal,
vertical, and inter-work unit—and examined their relationship to performance and
work motivation (Campbell, 2016; Whitford et al., 2010). The three forms of collabo-
ration cover the most fundamental levels of human interactions occurring within an
organization (Likert, 1967; Scott, 1998) and capture critical social-psychological and
structural processes by which common goals and objectives are achieved (Campbell,
2016; Whitford et al., 2010). An in-depth examination of interpersonal collaboration
among employees can contribute to research and practice in public personnel admin-
istration because most prior research has focused on collaboration across organiza-
tions rather than within (Whitford et al., 2010).
Among the three types, horizontal collaboration occurs among peers on the same
level, while vertical collaboration indicates how managers partner with subordinates
Lee et al. 771

to achieve common goals, representing managers’ leadership or decision-making

styles (Campbell, 2016; Cunningham et al., 2009; Whitford et al., 2010). Inter-work
unit collaboration is defined as collaborative behaviors or activities among different
work units in an organization. Bureaucratic structures such as specialization and
departmentalization can pose obstacles to collaboration due to different functions and
expectations. Thus, inter-work unit collaboration is often used to “diversify the pool of
expertise and resources available in ways which vertical interpersonal and horizontal
interpersonal collaboration do not as well as bring the broader goals of the organiza-
tion as a whole into sharper relief” (Campbell, 2016, p. 659). However, most research
has studied interpersonal collaboration within regular office spaces or traditional
workplaces. The rise of telework reshapes employees’ ability and willingness to
engage in these three types of collaboration.

Collaboration in the Telework Context

The performance of public organizations is contingent on successful collaboration at
all levels, but the impact of telework on the degree of interpersonal collaboration has
yet to be sufficiently studied. Telework arrangements can present numerous complica-
tions in the effective management and encouragement of collaboration. For instance,
increased use of telework may diminish potential for collaboration among employees
due to increased tensions between work and family demands, emotional exhaustion,
and disconnection from coworkers and the organization, hindering exchange of knowl-
edge and reducing opportunities to build mutual trust and shared understanding
(Allgood et al., 2022; de Vries et al., 2019; Golden et al., 2008). The loss of social
interactions and positive work environments caused by telework is likely to deter
employees from developing and maintaining effective collaborative relationships
within their organization.
Boundary theory provides a conceptual framework for understanding why telework
produces unique collaboration challenges not observed in traditional workplaces
(Greer & Payne, 2014). According to boundary theory, employees deliberately man-
age and are influenced by physical, temporal, and psychological boundaries when
demarcating work and personal/family domains and developing working relationships
(Ashforth et al., 2000; Greer & Payne, 2014). The strength of these boundaries deter-
mined by individual preferences, family, coworkers, occupational types, and policies
is related to role transitions between domains (T. D. Allen et al., 2021; Jostell &
Hemlin, 2018). Strong work and personal/family boundaries help segment roles and
limit interruptions, while weaker boundaries can decrease the costs of role transitions
between domains (Ashforth et al., 2000). For example, home-based teleworkers typi-
cally face the complexity of managing high work–family boundary permeability,
which refers to “the degree to which a role allows one to be physically located in the
role’s domain but psychologically and/or behaviorally involved in another role”
(Ashforth et al., 2000, p. 476), and continually negotiating tensions between profes-
sional and personal role responsibilities (Allgood et al., 2022; Fonner & Stache, 2012).
Teleworkers are prone to distractions, inter-role interruptions, and inter-role conflict
772 Review of Public Personnel Administration 44(4)

between work and personal/family domains (Shumate & Fulk, 2004), which limit their
ability to identify and engage in collaborative opportunities.
Telework can also be harmful because it creates new physical, temporal, and
psychological boundaries within and across work units. These boundaries are likely
to undermine teleworkers’ willingness and ability to collaborate with colleagues,
supervisors, and different work units due to limited social interactions and work-
related knowledge exchanges (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; van der Meulen et al.,
2019). Employees no longer work at the same physical location at the same time.
They cannot visit colleagues’ offices to network, chat about tasks informally and
openly, receive spontaneous feedback, or exchange social support and resources for
interdependent collaborative tasks (Greer & Payne, 2014; Mesmer-Magnus et al.,
2011), lowering horizontal interpersonal collaboration. Being physically separated
from the primary worksite can also result in fewer professional developmental
opportunities and less access to vertical resources (e.g., mentoring opportunities,
direct guidance, and informal performance assessment feedback), make teleworkers
invisible to their colleagues and supervisors, and increase social and professional
isolation (Allgood et al., 2022), negatively affecting vertical collaboration between
employees and supervisors. Moreover, as teleworkers may be limited in their acqui-
sition of tacit knowledge distributed across their organization (Taskin & Bridoux,
2010), they may find it challenging to develop knowledge awareness (a form of
metaknowledge representing “who knows what”) across work units (van der Meulen
et al., 2019), mutual understandings about collective goals across work units, and
inter-work group bonds (Golden & Raghuram, 2010), decreasing inter-work unit
collaboration. These “blurring” boundaries at home and “new” boundaries at work
negatively affect the degree of the three types of interpersonal collaboration. Thus,
our first set of hypotheses is as follows:

H1: Telework participation rates will be negatively associated with (a) the degree
of horizontal interpersonal collaboration, (b) the degree of vertical interpersonal
collaboration, and (c) the degree of inter-work unit collaboration.

Organizational Goal Clarity as a Moderator in the Relationship Between

Telework and Collaboration
While telework is increasingly being adopted as a managerial strategy to improve
work flexibility and productivity, the physical, temporal, and social separations cre-
ated and expanded by telework are likely to hinder interpersonal collaboration, under-
mining individual and organizational performance. Employees who would otherwise
work together at the same location have limited opportunities for collaborative activi-
ties in teleworking situations, negatively influencing performance levels. Thus, identi-
fying circumstances that can promote interpersonal collaboration in the telework
context or at least mitigate the negative impact of telework is crucial to maintaining or
improving performance.
Lee et al. 773

In this study, we focus on the role of organizational goal clarity as a potential mod-
erator in the association between telework and collaboration. According to goal setting
theory, goals are the desired states that individuals consciously strive to achieve (Locke
& Latham, 2013). Goal setting is effective in improving work motivation and task
performance since it helps individuals regulate the direction, intensity, and persistence
of their efforts to achieve set goals (Locke & Latham, 2002). The theory also suggests
that clear, specific goals have greater motivational power than ambiguous, unclear
goals and lead to higher levels of performance (Locke & Latham, 2013). Goal clarity
can help employees understand what is expected of them, which behaviors are valued
by the organization, and how they can contribute to goal accomplishment (van der
Hoek et al., 2018). Thus, setting clear goals is essential to improving individual and
organizational performance because it creates working conditions in which employees
clearly comprehend the roles and responsibilities they need to perform to achieve
those goals. Previous research has shown that a clear understanding of organizational
goals and missions can lead to improved efficiency (Terborg, 1976). Goal clarity has
also been found to increase trust in supervisors and promote citizenship behaviors,
which in turn enhances organizational performance (Grant & Sumanth, 2009).
The concept of goal clarity (or the opposite, often called goal ambiguity) has
received widespread attention in the public sector. Scholars have agreed that setting
clear goals in public organizations is challenging due to the complex, ambiguous,
and multifaceted nature of goals (Chun & Rainey, 2005; Jung, 2011). Furthermore,
people may interpret set goals in different ways because they are attached to multi-
ple and potentially conflicting values, norms, and beliefs (Chun & Rainey, 2005).
Given the difficulty in maintaining high levels of goal clarity in public organiza-
tions, it is not surprising that telework can worsen the situation by reducing connect-
edness, communication, and interactions among employees. Thus, scholars have
argued that clarifying goals, roles, and functions is of particular importance in vir-
tual teams where “members collaborate from distant locations predominantly based
on electronic communication media” (Hertel et al., 2004, p. 1; also see Hertel et al.,
2005). Using a sample of Dutch public servants, van der Hoek et al. (2018) showed
that clear goals can contribute to team performance. J. Kim (2023) found that orga-
nizational goal clarity was positively associated with telework satisfaction during
the COVID-19 pandemic.
When organizational goals are clear, both teleworkers and non-teleworkers are
likely to engage in more collaborative activities. Clear goals can reduce uncertainty
and ambiguity in terms of what they need to do and how they should coordinate with
each other to achieve common goals (van der Hoek et al., 2018). Clear goals can help
employees comprehend the vision and mission of their organization, engage in more
frequent interactions and communications, and share knowledge, information, and
other valuable resources, all of which are the foundations for effective collaboration.
Organizational goal clarity can also alleviate employee stress and anxiety (House &
Rizzo, 1972), helping them more effectively deal with tensions and conflicts caused
by telework.
774 Review of Public Personnel Administration 44(4)

As collaboration is a strategic tool for securing critical resources needed to achieve

common goals (Gray & Wood, 1991), teleworking and non-teleworking employees
with a clear understanding of organizational goals are likely to pursue active collabo-
ration with other employees who possess the resources needed to complete their jobs.
When some, or all, employees work remotely, it is difficult to identify who has what
resources and to secure them. According to goal setting theory, however, clear goals
help employees align their work efforts with the overall goals and objectives of the
organization (Locke & Latham, 1990), which in turn increases the possibility that
knowledge, skills, information, and other valuable resources will be shared through
collaboration. Moreover, when organizational goals are clear, employees better com-
prehend how to collaborate with others to obtain and utilize such resources to contrib-
ute to attaining those goals (Gonzalez-Mulé et al., 2016). Thus, organizational goal
clarity serves as an important condition for overcoming the reduced connections and
interactions experienced in teleworking situations and promoting higher levels of
interpersonal collaboration.
In sum, organizational goal clarity could positively moderate the negative relation-
ship between telework participation and the degree of interpersonal collaboration.
Specifically, we expect the negative relationships between telework participation rates
and the three types of interpersonal collaboration to be mitigated when employees
have a better and clearer understanding of how their tasks relate to their organization’s
goals and priorities. Thus, we develop the second set of hypotheses as follows:

H2: Organizational goal clarity will positively moderate the negative relationship
between telework participation rates and (a) the degree of horizontal interpersonal
collaboration, (b) the degree of vertical interpersonal collaboration, and (c) the
degree of inter-work unit collaboration.

Data and Method

Data
To test the hypotheses, we constructed a panel dataset of 68 U.S. federal subagencies
spanning the 2012 to 2017 period with a total of 266 observations. We collected data
from various government sources, including the Status of Telework in the Federal
Government Report to Congress (Telework Report), the Federal Employee Viewpoint
Survey (FEVS), and FedScope. The OPM publishes Telework Reports to present over-
all trends in federal agencies’ telework programs, including the numbers of telework-
eligible employees and teleworkers at the subagency level. The OPM also conducts an
FEVS annually to capture federal employees’ attitudes toward their work environ-
ments, including teleworking situations. Lastly, FedScope provides more objective
information on each subagency’s overall size and demographic composition.
After eliminating all records with missing or incomplete data, the final sample size
of 68 subagencies and 266 observations spanning the 6-year period (2012–2017) was
Lee et al. 775

obtained. Additional analyses confirmed this subset was representative of all federal
subagencies. The subagency level was chosen as the unit of analysis as it allowed us
to measure rates of participation in telework programs and the degree of interpersonal
collaboration within and across work units in each subagency.

Measurement
Degree of Interpersonal Collaboration. The outcome of interest in this study was the
degree of interpersonal collaboration within and across work units. We used several
survey items from the FEVS to measure three types of interpersonal collaboration—
horizontal, vertical, and inter-work unit—perceived by employees, as suggested by
Campbell (2016) and Whitford et al. (2010). Whitford et al. (2010) constructed the
interpersonal collaboration scale using the FEVS items. Survey respondents were
asked to indicate their attitudes or perceptions related to interpersonal communication,
knowledge sharing, and strategic planning to complete work cooperatively (Campbell,
2016; Jap, 2001; Thomson & Perry, 2006).
To measure the degree of horizontal interpersonal collaboration, we used two sur-
vey items: “The people I work with cooperate to get the job done” and “Employees in
my work unit share job knowledge with each other” (Cronbach’s alpha = .74). Vertical
interpersonal collaboration was measured using two items: “Supervisors work well
with employees of different backgrounds” and “Managers communicate the goals and
priorities of the organization” (Cronbach’s alpha = .80). Inter-work unit collaboration
was measured with two items: “Managers promote communication among different
work units” and “Managers support collaboration across work units to accomplish
work objectives” (Cronbach’s alpha = .93). All items were measured using a 5-point
Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
We conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and compared fit indices for a
three-factor model that consisted of horizontal interpersonal collaboration, vertical
interpersonal collaboration, and inter-work unit collaboration as separate factors and a
one-factor model that combined all three collaboration constructs as one factor. The
CFA results showed the three-factor model (χ2 = 73,420.764, df = 6, CFI = 0.993,
TLI = 0.981, RMSEA = 0.066) had a better fit than the one-factor model
(χ2 = 887,720.606, df = 9, CFI = 0.910, TLI = 0.849, RMSEA = 0.189). CFI and TLI
greater than 0.95 indicated a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999), and an RMSEA lower than
0.08 was considered a reasonable fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Also, a chi-square
difference test provided support for the three-factor model (Δχ2 = 814,299.842, Δdf = 3,
p < .001).
As the objective of this study was to explore whether and how actual telework par-
ticipation rates relate to the degree of interpersonal collaboration collectively per-
ceived by organizational members, we aggregated individual responses to the survey
items for each collaboration construct to the subagency level.

Telework Participation Rate. The independent variable of this study was the telework
participation rate at the subagency level. This variable was measured using Telework
776 Review of Public Personnel Administration 44(4)

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics.

Variable M SD Minimum Maximum

Horizontal interpersonal collaboration 3.84 0.15 3.36 4.38
Vertical interpersonal collaboration 3.56 0.20 2.87 4.11
Inter-work unit collaboration 3.37 0.22 2.59 3.98
Telework participation rate 0.31 0.26 0.00 0.98
Organizational goal clarity 4.05 0.13 3.23 4.31
Supervisory support 3.97 0.15 3.50 4.41
Support for work-life balance 3.83 0.22 3.07 4.37
Task significance 4.33 0.09 3.84 4.57
Job satisfaction 3.70 0.18 2.94 4.14
Resource availability 3.05 0.29 1.99 3.77
Workload 3.33 0.22 1.94 3.85
Ratio of female employees 0.43 0.14 0.20 0.75
Ratio of minority employees 0.34 0.14 0.07 0.90
Ratio of nonsupervisory employees 0.84 0.03 0.70 0.92
Organizational size (ln) 9.14 1.48 6.04 12.53

Note. Descriptive statistics are reported at the subagency level.

Reports published by the OPM, which asks each federal agency to report telework
eligibility and participation numbers by subagency. We used this information to mea-
sure the ratio of the number of telework participants to the number of employees eli-
gible to telework in each subagency. Thus, the telework participation rate was derived
from objective data instead of self-reported survey information. According to the
OPM (2016), telework eligibility rates remained steady (between 44% and 47%) dur-
ing the 2012−2015 period, but the percentage of teleworkers dramatically increased
from 29% to 46%. However, as shown in Table 1, telework participation rates varied
considerably across federal subagencies, with the mean being 0.31 and the standard
deviation, 0.26. Thus, this sample provided an ideal opportunity to probe the associa-
tion between telework participation rates and interpersonal collaboration at the sub-
agency level.

Organizational Goal Clarity. The moderating factor we examined was organizational

goal clarity. Organizational goal clarity refers to “the clarity of organizational goals as
perceived and evaluated by members of the organization” (J. Kim, 2023, p. 565). We
specifically focused on the degree to which individuals understood their agency’s
goals and priorities. Following Moon and Christensen (2020), we used a single item
from the FEVS (“I know how my work relates to the agency’s goals and priorities”) to
measure this variable on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree). Similar to the collaboration variables, individual responses to this item were
aggregated to the subagency level to measure the degree of organizational goal clarity
as collective perceptions of organizational members.
Lee et al. 777

While there is an ongoing debate on single- versus multi-item measures, research

in psychology, marketing, and management has provided increasing evidence that
single-item measures can ensure the validity and reliability of attitudinal and percep-
tual constructs as well as multi-item measures (M. S. Allen et al., 2022; Bergkvist &
Rossiter, 2007; Fuchs & Diamantopoulos, 2009; Jordan & Turner, 2008; Nagy, 2002;
Wanous et al., 1997). As organizational goal clarity is “unambiguous or narrow in
scope” (M. S. Allen et al., 2022, p. 1), the single-item measure used in this study can
be considered an appropriate approach that does not weaken the validity of the under-
lying construct.

Control Variables. We included a set of control variables to account for the influence of
potential confounding factors on the relationships among telework participation rates,
organizational goal clarity, and degree of interpersonal collaboration. Several control
variables were derived from the FEVS to capture employees’ work attitudes and per-
ceptions of work environments and job conditions. Previous research has found that
employees participating in telework programs report more favorable perceptions of
their work environment when levels of overall supervisory support and support for
work–life balance are higher (Bae et al., 2019; Choi, 2018). Thus, we measured super-
visory support using three survey items: “My supervisor listens to what I have to say,”
“My supervisor treats me with respect,” and “I have trust and confidence in my super-
visor.” Support for work–life balance was measured using two items: “My supervisor
supports my need to balance work and other life issues” and “Senior leaders demon-
strate support for work/life programs.” Task significance was measured using “The
work I do is important,” and job satisfaction, using “Considering everything, how
satisfied are you with your job?” Further, resource availability was measured using “I
have sufficient resources (e.g., people, materials, budget) to get my job done,” and
workload, using “My workload is reasonable.” Lastly, we used FedScope to obtain
information on each subagency’s demographic and organizational characteristics. We
controlled for the ratios of female, minority, and nonsupervisory employees, and orga-
nizational size.

Analytic Method
We employed a two-way fixed effects panel regression model with robust standard
errors to further control for any additional unobserved characteristics associated with
subagencies as well as time trends. To choose the most appropriate model, we con-
ducted a series of statistical tests. First, the Hausman test produced χ2 = 29.30, so the
null hypothesis (H0: difference in coefficients is not systematic) was rejected at the .05
level (Wooldridge, 2005), indicating a fixed effects model would be preferable to a
random effects model. Second, we tested the joint significance of temporal differences,
and an F-statistic of 21.56 confirmed that time-fixed effects were required to control for
any temporal effects that occurred in any given year in our dataset (Wooldridge, 2005).
Last, the modified Wald test for heteroscedasticity showed that error terms must be
robust and clustered, so our empirical model took the following form:
778 Review of Public Personnel Administration 44(4)

Yit  b0  b1Telework Participation Rateit  b2Organizational Goal Clarityit

b3Telework Participation Rateit  Organizational Goal Clarityit
 X   i  t  it

where Yit refers to the degree of interpersonal collaboration (horizontal interpersonal

collaboration in Model 1, vertical interpersonal collaboration in Model 2, and inter-
work unit collaboration in Model 3) for subagency i and year t.
Telework Participation Rateit refers to the ratio of the number of teleworkers to the
number of employees who are eligible to telework in subagency i and year t, and
Organizational Goal Clarityit indicates the average level of organizational goal clarity
for subagency i and year t. Telework Participation Rateit × Organizational Goal Clarityit
refers to the interaction of telework participation rates and organizational goal clarity,
which allows us to test if goal clarity plays a moderating role in the relationship
between telework participation and interpersonal collaboration. We included a vector
of control variables, X , to account for potential confounding factors. Finally, ρ and
τ denote subagency and year dummies, respectively, and ε is the robust-clustered
error term.

Results
The results from our empirical analyses are reported in Table 2. Telework participation
rates were negatively associated with the three types of interpersonal collaboration—
horizontal (b1 = −1.59, p < .001), vertical (b1 = −1.52, p < .01), and inter-work unit
( b1 = −2.29, p < .001). These results suggest the higher the ratio of teleworkers in a
subagency, the less likely employees are to collaborate with other colleagues both
within and across work units. This provides support for H1a–H1c.
Next, organizational goal clarity was positively related to vertical interpersonal col-
laboration (b2 = 0.53, p < .001) and inter-work unit collaboration (b2 = 0.35, p < .001),
but not significantly associated with horizontal interpersonal collaboration (b2 = −0.03,
n.s.). As employees perceive their organizational goals more clearly, they are more
likely to collaborate either vertically within their work units or across work units.
However, organizational goal clarity did not have a significant relationship with the
degree to which employees collaborate horizontally within work units.
We further examined whether and how the links between telework participation
rates and the three types of interpersonal collaboration are moderated by organiza-
tional goal clarity. The interaction terms between telework participation rates and
organizational goal clarity were all positive and significant (at least p < .05). These
results indicate the aforementioned negative associations between telework participa-
tion and interpersonal collaboration are weaker when employees perceive organiza-
tional goals more clearly.
To illustrate the patterns of interaction in greater detail, we present the predicted
levels of the three types of interpersonal collaboration in Figures 1 to 3. Each figure
shows three predicted margins for high (i.e., one standard deviation above the mean),
Lee et al. 779

Table 2. Empirical Results from Fixed Effects Regression Models.

Model 1: horizontal Model 2: vertical Model 3:

interpersonal interpersonal inter-work unit
collaboration collaboration collaboration

Telework participation rate −1.59*** (0.46) −1.52** (0.76) −2.29*** (0.63)

Organizational goal clarity −0.03 (0.10) 0.53*** (0.10) 0.35*** (0.09)
Telework participation 0.38*** (0.11) 0.36* (0.18) 0.55*** (0.15)
rate × organizational goal clarity
supervisory support 0.61*** (0.10) 0.35*** (0.10) 0.29*** (0.08)
Support for work-life balance 0.009 (0.08) 0.29*** (0.08) 0.34*** (0.07)
Task significance 0.01 (0.12) −0.37** (0.15) −0.35*** (0.12)
Job satisfaction 0.07 (0.09) 0.16 (0.09) 0.32*** (0.10)
Resource availability 0.05 (0.03) 0.04 (0.03) 0.06* (0.03)
Workload −0.07 (0.05) −0.03 (0.06) −0.04 (0.05)
Ratio of female employees 0.23 (0.29) 0.55** (0.26) 0.29 (0.28)
Ratio of minority employees −0.26 (0.21) −0.00 (0.18) −0.10 (0.15)
Ratio of nonsupervisory employees −0.35** (0.16) 0.02 (0.27) −0.31 (0.24)
Organizational size (ln) −0.001 (0.04) 0.02 (0.04) 0.04 (0.04)
Subagency dummies Yes Yes Yes
Year dummies Yes Yes Yes
Observations 266 266 266
Number of subagencies 68 68 68
Within R2 .87 .92 .93
Probability > F-test 0.00 0.00 0.00

Note. Two-tailed test. Unstandardized coefficients are reported. Robust standard errors are in parentheses.
***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

middle (i.e., the mean), and low (i.e., one standard deviation below the mean) levels
of organizational goal clarity. In general, the relationship between telework participa-
tion rates and each type of interpersonal collaboration is moderated by organizational
goal clarity. In Figure 1, the effect of telework participation rates on horizontal inter-
personal collaboration is negative when the level of organizational goal clarity is low
or in the middle range. However, this relationship becomes positive when the level of
organizational goal clarity is high. Similar patterns of interactions were found for
vertical interpersonal collaboration (Figure 2) and inter-work unit collaboration
(Figure 3), indicating organizational goal clarity not only mitigates the negative
impact of telework participation rates on the degree of interpersonal collaboration but
also makes the effect of telework more positive. In other words, when organizational
goals are very clear, higher telework participation relates to more collaboration within
and across work units. These results provide support for H2a–H2c.
It is worth noting that among the control variables, employee perception of sup-
portive supervisors was positively related to all three types of interpersonal collabora-
tion (p < .001). Also, when employees perceived greater support for work–life balance,
the degrees of vertical interpersonal collaboration and inter-work unit collaboration
780 Review of Public Personnel Administration 44(4)

Figure 1. Predicted levels of horizontal interpersonal collaboration.

Figure 2. Predicted levels of vertical interpersonal collaboration.

were higher, at the .001 level. Interestingly, however, employee perception of task
significance was negatively associated with vertical interpersonal collaboration
(p < .01) and inter-work unit collaboration (p < .001). Both job satisfaction (p < .001)
and resource availability (p < .05) were positively related to inter-work unit collabora-
tion, but not significantly associated with either horizontal or vertical interpersonal
collaboration. As the percentage of female employees in a subagency rose, so did the
Lee et al. 781

Figure 3. Predicted levels of inter-work unit collaboration.

degree of vertical interpersonal collaboration (p < .01). On the other hand, when the
percentage of nonsupervisory employees in a subagency increased, the degree of hori-
zontal interpersonal collaboration (p < .01) decreased.

Discussion and Conclusion

The empirical results of this study reveal an essential picture of how public employees
perceive and engage in interpersonal collaboration particularly in workplaces where
some participate in telework. Boundary theory indicates that increased role-blurring
activities at home and new work-related boundaries induced by teleworking make it
difficult for teleworkers to devote themselves to collaborative activities requiring
more complex human interactions (Ashforth et al., 2000; Greer & Payne, 2014;
Shumate & Fulk, 2004). However, as goal setting theory suggests, the negative impacts
of telework participation on interpersonal collaboration within and across work units
are mitigated by organizational goal clarity. These findings can inform useful manage-
rial strategies for resolving potential limitations brought about by telework programs
in the public workplace.
Overall, this study offers several important implications for theory, research, and
practice regarding telework and collaboration. Theoretically, our findings suggest that
when telework programs are in use, teleworkers’ inter-role conflicts between work and
personal/family domains and the presence of physical, spatial, and temporal boundaries
among employees, between supervisors and employees, and across work units may
inhibit the three types of interpersonal collaboration. Such boundaries result in a reduc-
tion in the quality and frequency of communication and social support among colleagues.
They can deteriorate working relationships between employees and supervisors due to
poor communication (Lau & Cobb, 2010) and reduce career development opportunities
782 Review of Public Personnel Administration 44(4)

(Golden & Eddleston, 2020). For instance, Cooper and Kurland’s (2002) study of tele-
working and non-teleworking employees in U.S. city governments showed teleworkers
were less likely to have socialization and professional development opportunities, such
as interpersonal networking among colleagues and informal learning and mentoring
from supervisors. The lack of such opportunities was found to relate to employees’ pro-
fessional isolation and low trust in colleagues and supervisors (Cooper & Kurland,
2002), which can impact the operation of teamwork, especially horizontal and vertical
collaboration. Positive norms of reciprocity in relationships among employees and
between employees and supervisors are more challenging to establish if workers lack
opportunity to see their coworkers and leaders (van der Lippe & Lippényi, 2020).
As the U.S. federal government fosters interorganizational, cross-functional proj-
ects in conjunction with increased task interdependence and complexity in the civil
service, teleworkers and non-teleworkers from functionally different work units are
increasingly required to work together to get the jobs done. However, teleworking
situations limit employees’ ability to diversify their awareness of “who knows what”
across work units, acquire tacit knowledge from others on different teams, and coordi-
nate contextual workflows and competing motivations behind inter-work unit collabo-
ration (van der Lippe & Lippényi, 2020). Discretionary or spontaneous support from
colleagues bridging various work units is less likely to be available to teleworkers,
although it is critical for dealing with functionally interdependent and complex work-
place demands that cannot be easily incorporated into formal job descriptions across
work units (Bailey & Kurland, 2002).
Our findings also support the critical role of organizational goal clarity in overcom-
ing the negative results of telework participation in terms of interpersonal collabora-
tion. Teleworking has become an inevitable trend in many workplaces due to changes
in work climate and concerns for public health safety, including those prompted by the
COVID-19 pandemic. Public managers should be aware of the efficacy of organiza-
tional goal clarity to utilize the benefits of both telework and collaboration. Clear goals
can offer a powerful signal of the organization’s intention to link personal work efforts
with organizational goals and provide employees with a strong feeling of attachment
to their organization. Previous research on organizational goal clarity suggests that
employees with clear goals improve in performance after performance-related feed-
back (Gonzalez-Mulé et al., 2016). In line with this stream of research, our findings
suggest organizational goal clarity may be a critical factor for employees’ successful
handling of issues related to physical, temporal, and psychological boundaries when
collaborating with other employees in the telework context.
Another implication of this study’s findings is that managers can expect active
interpersonal collaboration in the workplace even when some employees participate in
telework, but only when organizational goal clarity is high. Public organizations can
maximize the benefits of both telework and collaboration by using managerial strate-
gies aimed at helping employees clearly understand organizational goals and align
their work efforts to goal attainment. When these conditions are met, both teleworkers
and non-teleworkers are more likely to engage in collaborative activities, including
communicating job-related issues and sharing work-related knowledge and resources.
Lee et al. 783

It is, however, essential to note that the three types of interpersonal collaboration
could have been easily affected by subagency-specific characteristics, such as agency
culture and work climate. For example, some subagencies more frequently attempt
performance-oriented innovation than others. If this were the case, our findings may
be the result of a specific type of innovation culture. Moreover, employees working in
a subagency with a specific work climate may be more inclined to collaborate with
other employees regardless of the teleworking situation or goal clarity level. Since
these factors are somewhat unobservable, they are difficult, if not impossible, to con-
trol for using cross-sectional data. Further, organizational goal clarity is likely to vary
across subagencies. For example, some subagencies may have relatively straightfor-
ward, measurable goals, while others may have vague, abstract ones. As the nature of
organizational goals, not their clarity levels, can affect the degree of interpersonal
collaboration, it is important to find a better way to control for it. Both culture and
climate are deeply rooted in the workplace and hardly change over time. Using a panel
fixed effects model enabled us to control for such subagency-specific characteristics.
That is, our empirical results regarding the impact of telework participation on inter-
personal collaboration and the moderating role of organizational goal clarity are robust
at the subagency level.
Although this study offers both theoretical and methodological contributions to
telework research in the public sector, it has several limitations. First, our panel dataset
only included the pre-COVID-19 period. While this study does not aim to address the
impact of such an unexpected and groundbreaking global event on the workplace, our
findings can provide public managers with useful lessons in how to prepare the post-
pandemic workplace to produce the benefits of telework and collaboration at the same
time. Giauque et al. (2022) examined interpersonal collaboration among public
employees during the forced telework period caused by COVID-19 and found tele-
work had a negative impact on interpersonal collaboration, consistent with our find-
ings. We can expect that similar patterns of telework–collaboration relationships
occurred in many job sectors during the pandemic period. Dandalt (2021) interviewed
41 public managers who led organizations virtually during the pandemic period and
found managerial practices played an important role in making a positive work climate
and facilitating employees’ work processes during forced telework. Although our
empirical results are oriented to the pre-pandemic period, our findings can be extended
to the post-pandemic period to help managers reap the benefits of collaborative activi-
ties in teleworking situations. However, it is still important to learn if any changes
happened to the workplace, in terms of interpersonal collaboration in telework pro-
grams, during and after the pandemic. We expect future research will be able to answer
this question by collecting more recent data.
Also, limitations related to the measurement of constructs used in this study suggest
directions for future research. First, this study focused on the perceived degree of
interpersonal collaboration by measuring it in terms of work- and job-related interac-
tions at the interpersonal level. Future studies can use more objective measures of
collaboration, such as the number of joint service deliveries or collaborative projects
784 Review of Public Personnel Administration 44(4)

and the frequency of inter-unit communications or meetings. Second, while it was not
specified in this study whether the method for collaboration was virtual or traditional,
it would be beneficial to examine whether and how telework participation, organiza-
tional goal clarity, and their interactions influence virtual and traditional collaboration
differently. Doing so will broaden understanding of the mechanisms behind telework,
office work, goal clarity, and virtual collaboration. Additionally, scholars in public
personnel administration need to clarify why and how organizational goal clarity can
allow organizations with a large number of teleworkers to overcome barriers to col-
laboration using in-depth qualitative analysis including interviews and focus groups
with teleworkers and non-teleworkers across the federal government and beyond. This
would develop our understanding of what specific aspects of an agency’s goals and
priorities can alleviate the negative associations between telework and collaboration.
In addition, we used a single item to measure organizational goal clarity. While
several scholars have argued that single-item measures can be as valid and reliable as
multi-item measures when the construct of interest is clearly defined, narrow in
scope, and unidimensional (M. S. Allen et al., 2022; Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007;
Fuchs & Diamantopoulos, 2009; Jordan & Turner, 2008), which is the case for orga-
nizational goal clarity, we acknowledge that our findings can be complemented by
multi-item measures and encourage future research to develop and use appropriate
multi-item scales for organizational goal clarity (e.g., J. Kim, 2023). Lastly, we note
that although we developed and tested hypotheses regarding telework, collaboration,
and organizational goal clarity at the subagency level, it would be interesting to
examine individual-level processes related to collaboration between teleworkers and
non-teleworkers and whether individual or organizational goal setting would help
them better collaborate.
To conclude, collaboration is indispensable in modern organizations to achieve
common goals. However, the increased use of telework, partly caused by fast-paced
environmental changes surrounding public organizations, rapid developments in
information and communication technology, and unexpected natural disasters and
public health emergencies, makes it difficult for employees to collaborate. The find-
ings of this study advance understanding of the extent to which telework undermines
interpersonal collaboration within and across work units and whether organizational
goal clarity alleviates the adverse effects of telework. We hope additional research will
be conducted on these subjects, focusing on the conditions that help realize the fruits
of collaboration in the telework context.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
Sun Young Kim notes that this work was supported by Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
Research Fund.
Lee et al. 785

ORCID iDs
David Lee https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9331-652X
Jeongyoon Lee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6991-1238
Sun Young Kim https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2937-4041

Note
1. Scholars suggest employees who voluntarily telework exhibit different work attitudes and
behaviors (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, performance, and withdrawal
behavior) from those required to work remotely (Feldman & Gainey, 1997; D. Lee &
Kim, 2018). This distinction should be taken into account when examining the influence
of telework during the COVID-19 pandemic, an unforeseen global event that has imposed
severe restrictions on both organizations and employees. The present study examines the
effect of voluntary telework prior to the outbreak and offers baseline information for future
investigations focusing on telework during the pandemic.

References
Allen, M. S., Iliescu, D., & Greiff, S. (2022). Single item measures in psychological science:
A call to action. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 38(1), 1–5. https://doi.
org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000699
Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting?
Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,
16(2), 40–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615593273
Allen, T. D., Merlo, K., Lawrence, R. C., Slutsky, J., & Gray, C. E. (2021). Boundary manage-
ment and work–nonwork balance while working from home. Applied Psychology, 70(1),
60–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12300
Allgood, M., Jensen, U. T., & Stritch, J. M. (2022). Work–family conflict and burnout amid
COVID-19: Exploring the mitigating effects of instrumental leadership and social belong-
ing. Review of Public Personnel Administration. Advance online publication. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0734371X221101308
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro
role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472–491. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amr.2000.3363315
Bae, K. B., Lee, D., & Sohn, H. (2019). How to increase participation in telework programs in
U.S. federal agencies: Examining the effects of being a female supervisor, supportive lead-
ership, and diversity management. Public Personnel Management, 48(4), 565–583. https://
doi.org/10.1177/009102601983292
Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new direc-
tions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4),
383–400. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.144
Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-
item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 175–184.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen
& J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Sage.
Campbell, J. W. (2016). A collaboration-based model of work motivation and role ambiguity
in public organizations. Public Performance and Management Review, 39(3), 655–675.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1137763
786 Review of Public Personnel Administration 44(4)

Choi, S. (2018). Managing flexible work arrangements in government: Testing the effects of
institutional and managerial support. Public Personnel Management, 47(1), 26–50. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0091026017738540
Chun, Y. H., & Rainey, H. G. (2005). Goal ambiguity in U.S. federal agencies. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/
mui001
Cooper, C. D., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee
development in public and private organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
23(4), 511–532. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.145
Cunningham, R., Olshfski, D., & Abdelrazek, R. (2009). Paradoxes of collaboration: Managerial
decision styles. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 29(1), 58–75. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0734371X08326434
Dandalt, E. (2021). Managers and telework in public sector organizations during a crisis. Journal
of Management & Organization, 27(6), 1169–1182. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2022.1
de Vries, H., Tummers, L., & Bekkers, V. (2019). The benefits of teleworking in the public
sector: Reality or rhetoric? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(4), 570–593.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X18760124
Feldman, D. C., & Gainey, T. W. (1997). Patterns of telecommuting and their consequences:
Framing the research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 7(4), 369–388.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(97)90025-5
Fonner, K. L., & Stache, L. C. (2012). All in a day’s work, at home: Teleworkers’ manage-
ment of micro role transitions and the work–home boundary. New Technology, Work and
Employment, 27(3), 242–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2012.00290.x
Fuchs, C., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2009). Using single-item measures for construct mea-
surement in management research: Conceptual issues and application guidelines. Die
Betriebswirtschaft, 69(2), 195–210.
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecom-
muting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524–1541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524
Giauque, D., Renard, K., Cornu, F., & Emery, Y. (2022). Engagement, exhaustion, and per-
ceived performance of public employees before and during the COVID-19 crisis. Public
Personnel Management, 51(3), 263–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260211073154
Golden, T. D., & Eddleston, K. A. (2020). Is there a price telecommuters pay? Examining the
relationship between telecommuting and objective career success. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 116(Part A), 103348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103348
Golden, T. D., & Raghuram, S. (2010). Teleworker knowledge sharing and the role of altered
relational and technological interactions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 1061–
1085. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.652
Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Dino, R. N. (2008). The impact of professional isolation on tele-
worker job performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent teleworking, interacting
face-to-face, or having access to communication-enhancing technology matter? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1412–1421. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012722
Gonzalez-Mulé, E., Courtright, S. H., DeGeest, D., Seong, J.-Y., & Hong, D.-S. (2016).
Channeled autonomy: The joint effects of autonomy and feedback on team performance
through organizational goal clarity. Journal of Management, 42(7), 2018–2033. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0149206314535443
Grant, A. M., & Sumanth, J. J. (2009). Mission possible? The performance of prosocially moti-
vated employees depends on manager trustworthiness. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94(4), 927–944. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014391
Lee et al. 787

Gray, B., & Wood, D. J. (1991). Collaborative alliances: Moving from practice to
theory. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(1), 3–22. https://doi.
org/10.1177/002188639127100
Greer, T. W., & Payne, S. C. (2014). Overcoming telework challenges: Outcomes of success-
ful telework strategies. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 17(2), 87–111. https://doi.
org/10.1037/mgr0000014
Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current
empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15(1), 69–95. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2005.01.002
Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Orlikowski, B. (2004). Managing distance by interdepen-
dence: Goal setting, task interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(1), 1–28. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13594320344000228
Hill, E. J., Miller, B. C., Weiner, S. P., & Colihan, J. (1998). Influences of the virtual office on
aspects of work and work/life balance. Personnel Psychology, 51(3), 667–683. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00256.x
House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model
of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7(3), 467–
505. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(72)90030-X
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure anal-
ysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Jap, S. D. (2001). “Pie Sharing” in complex collaboration contexts. Journal of Marketing
Research, 38(1), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.1.86.18827
Jordan, J. S., & Turner, B. A. (2008). The feasibility of single-item measures for organizational
justice. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 12(4), 237–257. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10913670802349790
Jostell, D., & Hemlin, S. (2018). After hours teleworking and boundary management: Effects on
work–family conflict. Work, 60(3), 475–483. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-182748
Jung, C. S. (2011). Organizational goal ambiguity and performance: Conceptualization, mea-
surement, and relationships. International Public Management Journal, 14(2), 193–217.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2011.589760
Kaplan, S., Engelsted, L., Lei, X., & Lockwood, K. (2018). Unpackaging manager mistrust in
allowing telework: Comparing and integrating theoretical perspectives. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 33(3), 365–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9498-5
Kim, J. (2023). Public management strategies for improving satisfaction with pandemic-induced
telework among public employees. International Journal of Manpower, 44(3), 558–575.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-01-2022-0048
Kim, T., & Mullins, L. B. (2016). How does supervisor support and diversity management
affect employee participation in work/family policies? Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 36(1), 80–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X14553883
Lau, R. S., & Cobb, A. T. (2010). Understanding the connections between relationship conflict
and performance: The intervening roles of trust and exchange. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 31(6), 898–917. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.674
Lautsch, B. A., & Kossek, E. E. (2011). Managing a blended workforce: Telecommuters and
non-telecommuters. Organizational Dynamics, 40(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.org-
dyn.2010.10.005
788 Review of Public Personnel Administration 44(4)

Lee, D., & Kim, S. Y. (2018). A quasi-experimental examination of telework eligibility and
participation in the U.S. federal government. Review of Public Personnel Administration,
38(4), 451–471. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X16680269
Lee, S.-Y., & Hong, J. H. (2011). Does family-friendly policy matter? Testing its impact on
turnover and performance. Public Administration Review, 71(6), 870–879. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02416.x
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and values. McGraw-Hill.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Prentice-
Hall, Inc.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2013). Goal setting theory, 1990. In E. A. Locke & G. P. Latham
(Eds.), New developments in goal setting and task performance (pp. 3–15). Routledge.
Major, D. A., Verive, J. M., & Joice, W. (2008). Telework as a dependent care solution:
Examining current practice to improve telework management strategies. The Psychologist-
Manager Journal, 11(1), 65–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10887150801967134
Maurer, R. (2021, June 14). Federal government to preserve flexible work post-pandemic.
Society for Human Resource Management. https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-news/
pages/federal-government-preserve-flexible-work-post-pandemic.aspx
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., DeChurch, L. A., Jimenez-Rodriguez, M., Wildman, J., & Shuffler,
M. (2011). A meta-analytic investigation of virtuality and information sharing in teams.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 214–225. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.002
Miles, R. E., Miles, G., & Snow, C. C. (2005). Collaborative entrepreneurship: How commu-
nities of networked firms use continuous innovation to create economic wealth. Stanford
University Press.
Moon, K. K., & Christensen, R. K. (2020). Realizing the performance benefits of workforce
diversity in the U.S. federal government: The moderating role of diversity climate. Public
Personnel Management, 49(1), 141–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026019848458
Nagy, M. S. (2002). Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(1), 77–86. https://doi.
org/10.1348/096317902167658
Raghuram, S., Garud, R., Wiesenfeld, B., & Gupta, V. (2001). Factors contributing to
virtual work adjustment. Journal of Management, 27(3), 383–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/
01492063010270030
Schmidt, D. E., & Duenas, G. (2002). Incentives to encourage worker-friendly organizations. Public
Personnel Management, 31(3), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600203100303
Scott, W. R. (1998). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. Prentice Hall.
Seron, C., & Ferris, K. (1995). Negotiating professionalism: The gendered social capital of flexible
time. Work and Occupations, 22(1), 22–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888495022001002
Shumate, M., & Fulk, J. (2004). Boundaries and role conflict when work and family are colo-
cated: A communication network and symbolic interaction approach. Human Relations,
57(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726704042714
Taskin, L., & Bridoux, F. (2010). Telework: A challenge to knowledge transfer in organiza-
tions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(13), 2503–2520.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2010.516600
Lee et al. 789

Terborg, J. R. (1976). The motivational components of goal setting. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 61(5), 613–621. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.61.5.613
Thomson, A. M., & Perry, J. L. (2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public
Administration Review, 66(s1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00663.x
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2013). 2013 Status of telework in the federal govern-
ment: Report to the Congress. https://www.telework.gov/reports-studies/reports-to-
congress/2013reporttocongress.pdf
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2016). 2016 Status of telework in the federal gov-
ernment: Reports to the Congress. https://www.telework.gov/reports-studies/reports-to-
congress/2016-report-to-congress.pdf
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2021). The future of work. https://www.opm.gov/pol-
icy-data-oversight/future-of-work
van der Hoek, M., Groeneveld, S., & Kuipers, B. (2018). Goal setting in teams: Goal clarity and
team performance in the public sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 38(4),
472–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X16682815
van der Lippe, T., & Lippényi, Z. (2020). Co-workers working from home and individual and
team performance. New Technology, Work and Employment, 35(1), 60–79. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ntwe.12153
van der Meulen, N., van Baalen, P., van Heck, E., & Mülder, S. (2019). No teleworker is an
island: The impact of temporal and spatial separation along with media use on knowl-
edge sharing networks. Journal of Information Technology, 34(3), 243–262. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0268396218816531
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good
are the single item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 247–252. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.247
Whitford, A. B., Lee, S.-Y., Yun, T., & Jung, C. S. (2010). Collaborative behavior and the
performance of government agencies. International Public Management Journal, 13(4),
321–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2010.529378
Wooldridge, J. M. (2005). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach (3rd ed.). South-
Western.

Author Biographies
David Lee is an associate professor in the Department of Public Administration at Ewha
Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. His research interests include collaborative pub-
lic management, telework arrangements, and diversity and inclusion in the public sector.
Jeongyoon Lee is an assistant professor in the Martin School of Public Policy and Administration
at the University of Kentucky. Her scholarship is grounded in theories on how various working
relationships among stakeholders (networks) are managed in the design of public policy and
implementation. Her research focuses on interorganizational and interpersonal network manage-
ment in the public sector, negative relationships, and nonprofit organizational sustainability.
Sun Young Kim is an assistant professor in the Department of Public Administration at Hankuk
University of Foreign Studies, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Her research interests include
employee empowerment, flexible work arrangements, leadership, and public service ethics.