Telework is a work practice enabling employees (teleworkers) to conduct all or a share of their work away from their on-site workplace, typically from home (Allen et al., 2015). Whereas numerous studies examined the impacts of teleworking (Gajendran and Harrison, 2007), such as reduced work-family conflict (e.g., Raghuram and Wiesenfeld, 2004; Golden et al., 2006; Allen et al., 2013), enhanced job performance (e.g., Bailey and Kurland, 2002; Bloom et al., 2015; Gajendran et al., 2015), and professional isolation (e.g., Baruch and Nicholson, 1997; Gainey and Kelley, 1999; Kurland and Cooper, 2002), little attention has been paid to the individual strategies teleworkers implement (telework strategies) when organizing their telework. These telework strategies may serve different goals such as drawing boundaries between work- and private-life (e.g., Fonner and Stache, 2012; Basile and Beauregard, 2016; Golden, 2021; see also Allen et al., 2021, calling for research), working task-oriented and productively (e.g., Greer and Payne, 2014; Troll et al., 2022), and keeping social contact (e.g., Ilozor et al., 2001; Turetken et al., 2011).

Most research on telework strategies stems from boundary theory (Nippert-Eng, 1996; Ashforth et al., 2000) proposing that individuals follow idiosyncratic approaches (boundary management strategies) to establish or dismantle boundaries in order to organize transitions between their work- and private-life. In an interview-based landmark study, Kreiner et al. (2009) distinguished four categories of boundary management strategies implemented by priests: Physical (manipulating physical space/items, e.g., setting up a separate workstation), temporal (manipulating time, e.g., setting work/non-work times), behavioral (inter alia establishing technological routines, e.g., not taking work-related calls after hours), and communicative (setting expectations and making arrangements, e.g., confronting boundary violators) boundary management strategies. Basile and Beauregard (2016) applied boundary management strategies to the telework context, in which boundaries between work- and private-life are particularly prone to blur. They found qualitative evidence for the implementation of physical (e.g., mimicking the physical boundary of an on-site office at home), temporal (e.g., establishing set times to finish the workday at home), behavioral (e.g., recreating technological routines of stationary work to ending up the workday at home), and communicative (e.g., making arrangements with household members facilitating undisturbed work at home) telework strategies. Other qualitative studies found similar telework strategies to be implemented (Tietze, 2002; Tietze and Musson, 2003; Myrie and Daly, 2009; Mustafa, 2010; Nansen et al., 2010; Fonner and Stache, 2012; Mustafa and Gold, 2013; Allen et al., 2021). First quantitative studies provide initial evidence on boundary related (telework) strategies’ global (Kossek et al., 2006; Wepfer et al., 2018) and differentiated level of implementation (differentiating between the aforementioned categories; Binnewies et al., 2020; Park et al., 2020; Haun et al., 2022) along with impacts on outcomes such as family-to-work conflict, recovery experiences, and well-being.

Whereas most studies embedded telework strategies in the framework of boundary theory, Greer and Payne (2014) identified complementing telework strategies by asking 86 high-performing teleworkers to freely recall telework strategies facilitating task-oriented and productive telework. Keeping connected with colleagues, supervisors, and customers (e.g., being accessible via various communication channels), using modern technologies (e.g., using a technological setup at home close to the on-site setup), and showing a conducive work attitude (e.g., adopting a work-oriented mindset) were frequently mentioned. Taking a quantitative approach, Troll et al. (2022) recently found telework strategies related to self-control (Duckworth et al., 2014), in particular, altering somatic conditions (optimizing the physical state to work productively, e.g., sleeping sufficiently) and autonomous motivation (motivating oneself to start and endure work tasks), to be frequently implemented and associated with working productively among 106 teleworkers.

Furthermore, some research has found telework strategies related to keeping social contact (e.g., seeking social interaction; Kowalski and Swanson, 2005) to be associated with job satisfaction (Ilozor et al., 2001), knowledge sharing (Golden and Raghuram, 2010), and the reduction of social isolation (Mann et al., 2000). In a similar vein, building on media richness theory (MRT; Daft and Lengel, 1986), Turetken et al. (2011) examined the impacts of telework strategies related to communication media richness (i.e., the extent to which a medium approximates face-to-face communication).

Overall, mainly qualitative approaches were used to identify telework strategies stemming from different theoretical frameworks and pursuing different goals, particularly establishing boundaries between work- and private-life (Nippert-Eng, 1996; Tietze, 2002; Tietze and Musson, 2003; Kossek et al., 2006; Kreiner et al., 2009; Myrie and Daly, 2009; Nansen et al., 2010; Fonner and Stache, 2012; Basile and Beauregard, 2016; Wepfer et al., 2018; Binnewies et al., 2020; Park et al., 2020; Golden, 2021; Haun et al., 2022), but also working task-oriented and productively (Greer and Payne, 2014; Troll et al., 2022), and keeping social contact (Mann et al., 2000; Ilozor et al., 2001; Kowalski and Swanson, 2005; Golden and Raghuram, 2010; Turetken et al., 2011). Whereas qualitative approaches are suited to exploratively identify telework strategies, they come with limitations that can be targeted by quantitative approaches: First, participants might forget to mention implemented telework strategies. Second, the binary classification of (not) implementing a telework strategy does not display gradual differences. Both aspects impede the identification of the impacts of implementing telework strategies. Quantitative research, however, is scarce and has either been conducted outside the telework context (Wepfer et al., 2018; Binnewies et al., 2020), or has placed a narrow focus on a specific facet of telework strategies, namely, telework strategies related to boundary management (Haun et al., 2022), to self-control (Troll et al., 2022), or to keeping social contact (Mann et al., 2000; Ilozor et al., 2001; Kowalski and Swanson, 2005; Golden and Raghuram, 2010; Turetken et al., 2011). Also, previous research reported results solely on an aggregated level differentiating between broad telework strategy categories.

With this study, we advance the young literature on telework strategies by (a) quantitatively examining a comprehensive set of 85 telework strategies stemming from different theoretical streams and pursuing different goals, and (b) thereby conducting analyses on both an aggregated category level to identify overarching patterns (Binnewies et al., 2020; Haun et al., 2022; Troll et al., 2022), and on an individual telework strategy level to draw highly resolved, zoomed-in inferences. To paint a comprehensive picture, we complement telework strategies derived from the scientific literature with telework strategies from popular media (see Figure 1). Online practical guides on telework strategies have flourished during the COVID-19 pandemic and many teleworkers have presumably been searching for advice.

There is initial evidence that the implementation of telework strategies is associated with outcomes such as well-being, recovery, satisfaction, knowledge sharing, and reduced isolation (Mann et al., 2000; Ilozor et al., 2001; Golden and Raghuram, 2010; Wepfer et al., 2018; Binnewies et al., 2020; Park et al., 2020; Haun et al., 2022). However, we know little about how the implementation of telework strategies is related to job performance. For instance, Binnewies et al. (2020) call for research on the consequences of boundary management strategies for job performance. Rudolph et al. (2021, p. 13) call for research on telework strategies and state that “it would be useful to have empirical information on the efficacy”. Allen et al. (2021, p. 81) conclude that “additional work is needed that provides guidance concerning the effectiveness of various strategies”.

Kossek et al. (2006) provide initial evidence that boundary related telework strategies’ global implementation might not be associated with job performance. Greer and Payne (2014) provide first hints on telework strategies freely-recalled by high performers (in particular keeping connected, using modern technology, showing a conducive work attitude) that might be positively associated with job performance. However, to reliably identify telework strategies associated with job performance, the inclusion of low performers is needed to (a) rule out that low performers use the same telework strategies as high performers, (b) identify telework strategies that might deteriorate job performance, and (c) make use of the full job performance range facilitating to detect significant associations by mitigating range restrictions. Troll et al. (2022) found self-control telework strategies related to autonomous motivation and somatic condition to be unique positive predictors of job performance. Turetken et al. (2011) found a positive association between telework strategies related to communication media richness and self-reported job performance.

In this study, we examine associations of a broad set of highly resolved telework strategies with job performance to paint a comprehensive, fine-grained picture. As we examine both the implementation of telework strategies and their association with job performance, this also offers the possibility to examine whether teleworkers have an intuitive understanding of telework strategies’ relation to job performance, that is, whether telework strategies that are more (less) associated with job performance are implemented more (less). In particular, telework strategies can then be identified that are “under (over) implemented”, that is, that are implemented less (more) frequently than they actually should be according to their high (low) association with job performance.

It is crucial to understand which telework strategies might be more or less strongly related to job performance for specific groups of employees sharing common characteristics (see also Binnewies et al., 2020, calling for research on moderators of boundary management strategies) to provide advice or training interventions tailored to employees’ individual preferences and needs (see also Kossek, 2016). Following person-environment fit approaches (P-E fit; Kristof, 1996; Edwards, 2008; see also Arthur et al., 2006), a (mis-) match between person and environment induces additional effects beyond the respective separate main effects. More specifically, the preferences/needs-supplies fit considers individual preferences and needs (here related to boundary management preferences and telework experience) and environmental supplies (here related to telework strategies) interacting to predict work outcomes (here job performance).

Boundary management preferences represent the degree to which employees prefer to separate (versus integrate) work- and private-life (Ashforth et al., 2000; Kreiner, 2006): Whereas employees leaning toward separation (“separators”) aim to draw rigorous boundaries, employees leaning toward integration (“integrators”) aim to remove boundaries. Individual boundary management preferences are crucial in telework contexts (Kossek et al., 2006; Allen et al., 2021; Kerman et al., 2022) because borders between work- and private-life are particularly prone to blur. Following P-E fit approaches, telework strategies congruent with individual boundary management preferences may be particularly beneficial to job performance because a fit between individual preferences and needs, and the environment is achieved. Thus, telework strategies aligned to separating work- and private-life (e.g., not working beyond agreed hours) might be more beneficial for separators, whereas telework strategies aligned to integrating work- and private-life (e.g., being flexible in handling work requests) might be more beneficial for integrators. This reasoning is supported by the boundary congruence approach (Kreiner, 2006) combining the P-E fit approach (Kristof, 1996; Edwards, 2008) with boundary theory (Nippert-Eng, 1996; Ashforth et al., 2000). Following the boundary congruence approach, a (mis-) fit (boundary congruence versus boundary incongruence) between individual boundary management preferences and environmental boundary influences such as workplace policies and conditions induces additional effects beyond the respective separate main effects (see Rothbard et al., 2005; Kreiner, 2006; Chen et al., 2009, for initial evidence on positive impacts of boundary congruence on outcomes such as reduced work-family conflict, higher job satisfaction, and commitment). In a similar vein, the boundary fit approach (Ammons, 2013) proposes that a (mis-) match (boundary fit versus boundary misfit) between individual boundary management preferences and boundary enactments (actual borders that individuals establish to separate work- and private-life) induces additional effects beyond the respective separate main effects (see Haun et al., 2022). In this study, we, for the first time, explore interaction effects related to boundary congruence/fit predicting job performance, whereby telework strategies might be either seen as environmental boundary influences or actual boundary enactments. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many employees were sent to the home office without choice (Kniffin et al., 2021) providing a unique opportunity to investigate moderating influences of boundary management preferences by mitigating self-selection effects: Typically, separators tend to prefer stationary on-site work over telework because telework is to some extent inherently incongruent with the preference to separate work- and private-life (Shockley and Allen, 2010).

The COVID-19 pandemic also provides the opportunity to examine moderating influences of the individual level of telework experience as many employees who have had little experience with telework migrated to the home office (Kramer and Kramer, 2020; Milasi et al., 2021). The wide range of experience levels allows us to examine moderating influences without self-selection biases and range restrictions. Following the P-E fit approach, teleworkers with low experience might have different needs than teleworkers with high experience so telework strategies might be differently beneficial for job performance. For instance, telework strategies providing structure (e.g., maintaining routines of the on-site stationary work) might be more beneficial for unexperienced teleworkers, whereas telework strategies demanding adaptivity (e.g., flexibly transferring work to times designated for personal matters) might be more beneficial for experienced teleworkers.

With this study, we shed light on the individual ways teleworkers organize their work processes to achieve different goals, in particular, drawing boundaries between work- and private-life, working task-oriented and productively, and keeping social contact. We aim to better understand (research question 1; RQ 1) the implementation of telework strategies, (RQ 2) associations with job performance, (RQ 3.1, 3.2) divergences between the implementation and association with job performance, and (RQ 4.1, 4.2) moderating influences of boundary management preferences and telework experience building on P-E fit theory. For this purpose, we collected survey data from 548 teleworkers assessing the implementation of 85 highly resolved telework strategies (see Figure 1), self-reported job performance, boundary management preferences, and telework experience. Due to the novelty and explorative nature of this research topic, and because this study was not preregistered, we do not formulate hypotheses but more open research questions:

Our final sample consists of 548 German-speaking teleworkers¹ (336 women) from various sectors (the most represented are 16.61% IT, telecommunication, media; 11.13% health and social services; 9.85% research and development) and professions (the most represented are 48.18% highly skilled and 29.38% skilled employees). We recruited participants via posting the online survey in online professional (LinkedIn, Xing) and social (Facebook) network groups without offering compensation. Participants on average spend most of their weekly working days teleworking (M = 3.85, SD = 1.33). The average age is 39.91 (SD = 11.63). Most participants (339, 71.72%) hold a bachelor’s degree or higher. Participants have extensive years of work experience (M = 15.52, SD = 11.92) and their weekly contractual working hours (M = 35.77, SD = 7.42) are similar to the weekly working hours of German full-time employees. Data collection took place between July and December 2020 and thus, started five months after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic declared by the World Health Organization. This should ensure that teleworkers who had been teleworking for the first time due to the pandemic have had the opportunity to develop telework strategies (Lally et al., 2010). For an overview of the survey structure and assessed variables see the Codebook at https://osf.io/gqpdf/.

We used the statistical program R (version 4.1.0; R Core Team, 2018) and the interface RStudio (version 1.2.5042; RStudio Team, 2016) for all analyses. The data and statistical code can be found in the Online Supplement at https://osf.io/gqpdf/. To identify broader patterns of results on a higher aggregated level, we summarized all appropriate results for super- and subordinate categories of telework strategies by computing (weighted) means.

To answer the question of how much telework strategies are implemented, we computed the means of the individual implementation of each of the 85 telework strategies. We then computed 85 multiple linear regressions of the individual implementation of each telework strategy on job performance. We included boundary management preferences and telework experience as additional predictors in each multiple linear regression to examine their interaction effects with telework strategies on job performance. We also included control variables (e.g., Binnewies et al., 2020; Troll et al., 2022), that is, basic demographic (age, gender) and situational aspects (living space in m², M = 109.87, SD = 50.16; living with children, M = 0.25, SD = 0.43). Job performance and all predictor variables were z-scaled, except for the dummy-coded variables gender (0/1 = female/male) and living with children (0/1 = no/yes). We answer the question of how the individual implementation of telework strategies is associated with job performance based on the β-coefficients of the telework strategies on job performance. We answer the questions of the moderation effects of boundary management preferences and telework experience, respectively, on the association between telework strategies and job performance based on the β-coefficients corresponding to these interaction effects in the multiple linear regressions.

To examine how the telework strategies’ average implementation is associated with the telework strategies’ association with job performance, we correlated the 85 means of the implementation of the telework strategies with the 85 β-coefficients of the telework strategies on job performance in the outlined multiple linear regressions. To answer the question of how the telework strategies’ relative implementation diverges from their relative association with job performance, we computed differences between a telework strategy’s z-scaled implementation and a telework strategy’s z-scaled β-coefficient on job performance in the outlined multiple linear regressions.

We found telework strategies related to keep connection and to conducive work attitude to be most implemented. Aligning this result with previous research, Greer and Payne (2014) and Troll et al. (2022) observed similar patterns. Greer and Payne (2014) found telework strategies related to “be accessible” and to “communicate with coworkers/supervisor” to be among high performing teleworkers’ most frequently mentioned telework strategies, matching our finding of telework strategies related to keep connection. They also found telework strategies related to “adopt a work-oriented mindset”, “be extra productive”, “plan tasks”, and “set goals and prioritize” to be commonly mentioned, matching our finding of telework strategies related to conducive work attitude. Troll et al. (2022) found telework strategies related to modifying social conditions to be frequently implemented, but they laid a specific focus on getting motivated by friends/colleagues to work productively not matching the core of our telework strategies related to keep connection. However, Troll et al. (2022) also found telework strategies related to autonomous motivation (motivating oneself to start and endure work tasks) being frequently implemented that overlap with telework strategies related to conducive work attitude (e.g., practicing self-praise, showing dedication, reducing breaks to make progress).

It catches the eye that we found boundary related telework strategies to be less implemented than telework strategies related to keep connection and to conducive work attitude. This is remarkable because the largest proportion of research on telework strategies stems from boundary theory (Nippert-Eng, 1996; Ashforth et al., 2000) transferring boundary management strategies to the telework context (Tietze, 2002; Tietze and Musson, 2003; Myrie and Daly, 2009; Mustafa, 2010; Nansen et al., 2010; Fonner and Stache, 2012; Mustafa and Gold, 2013; Basile and Beauregard, 2016; Kossek, 2016; Allen et al., 2021; Haun et al., 2022). Also in the popular media (e.g., Cobler, n.d.; Stross, n.d.; Westdeutsche Zeitung, 2020) boundary related telework strategies receive much attention. Due to boundary related telework strategies being in the spotlight, one might be tempted to conclude that these are the most implemented. In contrast, the present study suggests that it is valuable to complement telework strategies serving other goals such as keeping social contact (Mann et al., 2000; Ilozor et al., 2001; Kowalski and Swanson, 2005; Golden and Raghuram, 2010; Turetken et al., 2011), and working task-oriented and productively (Greer and Payne, 2014; Troll et al., 2022) to paint a comprehensive picture of telework strategies’ implementation.

Responding to multiple calls for research on the effectiveness of boundary management strategies (Binnewies et al., 2020) and telework strategies (Allen et al., 2021; Rudolph et al., 2021), we found telework strategies related to conducive work attitude (driven by showing dedication, adjusting behavior and attitude to focus, strengthening the supervisor’s confidence in the own work quality, getting organized, setting goals, practicing self-praise, and valuing telework benefits) and to keep connection (driven by communicating expectations and work progress, keeping connected via technology, using various communication channels, seeking social interaction after work, using modern communication technology, and using technology to stay in personal contact with colleagues) being positively associated with job performance. These results fit with high performers’ implemented telework strategies: Greer and Payne (2014) found “adopt a work-oriented mindset”, “be extra productive”, “plan tasks”, and “set goals and prioritize” as well as “be accessible” and “communicate with coworkers/supervisor” to be commonly mentioned.⁵ Troll et al. (2022) found telework strategies related to autonomous motivation to predict job performance, matching our finding of a positive association between telework strategies related to conducive work attitude and job performance.^6,7 Finally, our finding of telework strategies related to keep connection being positively associated with job performance might be aligned with MRT (Daft and Lengel, 1986) and goes well with Turetken et al.’s (2011) finding of communication media richness predicting teleworkers’ job performance.

We found telework strategies related to conducive work attitude and to keep connection to be positively associated with job performance, whereas boundary related telework strategies were less associated with job performance. On the one hand, this is in line with Kossek et al. (2006), who found the global implementation of boundary related telework strategies not being associated with job performance. On the other hand, this is striking because boundary related telework strategies are regularly referred to as “best-practice” (Golden, 2021) and proposed to foster productive teleworking in the popular media (e.g., Prophet, 2017; Schulz, 2020). The young literature on telework strategies might profit from complementing telework strategies serving goals of working task-oriented and productively, and keeping social contact when examining telework strategies’ impacts on work outcomes and deriving practical recommendations.

The present study is the first to quantitatively examine a large number of telework strategies on a highly resolved level, which enabled us to suggest that telework strategies more positively associated with job performance tend to be implemented more often. Thus, it seems that teleworkers have an intuitive understanding of the telework strategies important to job performance and tend to implement them accordingly. However, there were also telework strategies with substantial divergences in terms of their relative association with job performance and their relative implementation enabling us to derive initial fine-grained practical recommendations. We identified telework strategies related to conducive work attitude (driven by showing dedication, practicing self-praise, and adjusting attitude and behavior to focus) to be under implemented. In comparison, telework strategies related to keep connection were more implemented and less associated with job performance, leading to a smaller divergence. Thus, taking the current level of implementation into account, teleworkers might be advised to pay particular attention to implementing telework strategies related to conducive work attitude. Concerning telework strategies for which their relative association with job performance subceeded their relative implementation, we particularly found telework strategies related to temporal flexibility being over implemented (driven by transferring personal matters to work times, scheduling work time to get the most of leisure time, banking work times), so that teleworkers might be advised to reduce their implementation.

Following P-E fit approaches (preferences/needs-supply fit; Kristof, 1996; Edwards, 2008) and specific approaches related to boundary theory (Nippert-Eng, 1996; Ashforth et al., 2000), that is, the boundary congruence approach (Kreiner, 2006) and the boundary fit approach (Ammons, 2013), telework strategies congruent with individual boundary management preferences might be particularly beneficial to job performance as a fit between individual preferences and needs (boundary management preferences) and environmental boundary influences/boundary enactments (telework strategies) is achieved. Indeed, we found a telework strategy aligned to separating work- and private-life (i.e., not working beyond agreed hours) being more beneficial to job performance for separators. In comparison, we found telework strategies aligned to integrating work- and private-life (i.e., flexibly handling urgent work requests and scheduling leisure time to get the most of the work time) being more beneficial to job performance for integrators. We also identified three further telework strategies particularly beneficial to integrators that might align with a preference for integrating work- and private-life. First, using modern communication technology such as instant messaging might blur the borders between work- and private-life due to being continuously accessible for work matters. Second, listening to music that helps to concentrate might be seen as mingling a typical leisure activity with work. Third, valuing the benefits of telework might be particularly beneficial to integrators as many benefits of teleworking are aligned to a better integration of work- and private-life due to enhanced flexibility.

Concerning moderating influences of telework experience, we found two telework strategies related to spatial flexibility (i.e., working outside from home, for instance, in a café, and integrating outdoor activities into the workday) and one telework strategy related to temporal flexibility (i.e., flexibly transferring work to times when typically attending personal matters) being more beneficial to job performance for experienced teleworkers. In comparison, we found mainly telework strategies related to establishing routines (i.e., maintaining the routines of the on-site work, establishing routines to start and to end the work day, setting daily goals) and to adhering to work/non-work rules (i.e., strictly separating work and leisure time, not reading/responding to work messages after hours, making arrangements about when (not) to be reached regarding work) being more beneficial to job performance for unexperienced teleworkers. Thus, following the P-E fit approach (Kristof, 1996; Edwards, 2008), it seems that telework strategies related to flexibility might rather meet the preferences and needs of experienced teleworkers that might desire and be able to handle alternation resulting in a more positive association with job performance. In comparison, telework strategies related to establishing routines and work/non-work rules might rather meet the preferences and needs of unexperienced teleworkers that might desire and need structure resulting in a more positive association with job performance.

Overall, in the present study, we identified the effects of P-E fit on job performance, whereas previous research in the context of boundary congruence/fit (Kreiner, 2006; Ammons, 2013) rather focused on outcomes such as work-family-conflict, job satisfaction, commitment, and recovery (see Rothbard et al., 2005; Kreiner, 2006; Chen et al., 2009; Haun et al., 2022). The pattern of results underlined the utility of transferring P-E fit, in particular, boundary congruence/fit, to telework contexts to paint a differentiated picture of telework strategies’ effectiveness depending on teleworkers’ individual preferences and needs.

The present study sheds light on the puzzling impacts of individual telework strategies, an under-explored field of research that is not yet well-anchored in the scientific literature. Whereas most previous studies have focused on telework strategies aligned to establishing/dismantling boundaries between work- and private-life in the tradition of boundary theory (Nippert-Eng, 1996; Ashforth et al., 2000), the present results suggest that the young field of research on telework strategies might profit from expanding this narrow focus. In particular, we demonstrate that teleworkers rather tend to implement telework strategies serving goals such as working task-oriented and productively (e.g., Greer & Payne) as well as keeping social contact (e.g., Kowalski and Swanson, 2005). Even more so, these telework strategies were most decisive for job performance. Thus, future research on telework strategies could progress by adopting a broader focus on telework strategies serving divergent goals to understand more comprehensively telework strategies’ enigmatic impacts on various (tele-) work outcomes. The present study also contributes to the literature by demonstrating that applying the P-E fit framework (Kristof, 1996; Edwards, 2008) to the telework context helps to unravel the differential impacts of telework strategies when considering teleworkers’ individual preferences and needs. We did not find a one-fits-all solution to effective telework strategies uniformly applying to all teleworkers. The present findings rather suggest that the effectiveness of many telework strategies depends on teleworkers’ individual boundary management preferences and experience with working from home. Thus, marrying the literature streams of P-E fit, in particular boundary congruence/fit (Kreiner, 2006; Ammons, 2013), and telework strategies seems to be another promising avenue for future research to advance progress in this nascent research field.

Whereas there are plenty of recommendations for implementing individual telework strategies spread throughout the popular media, the scientific literature still lags behind in providing empirical evidence on telework strategies’ effectiveness (Allen et al., 2021; Rudolph et al., 2021; see also Binnewies et al., 2020). The present study aims to fill this gap and delivers reassuring results on the implementation of commonly circulating telework strategies: In general, teleworkers seem to have an intuitive understanding of which telework strategies are effective. That is, teleworkers tend to implement telework strategies more often that are more positively associated with job performance. However, we still found telework strategies related to adopting a conducive work attitude (e.g., practicing self-praise) to be less implemented than they probably should be according to their strong association with job performance. If verified in future confirmatory research, organizations might pick up on these findings by taking measures to educate teleworkers about effective telework strategies, especially those that are yet poorly implemented. On the other side, we also identified telework strategies for which organizations might be advised to take measures to educate their teleworkers to implement them less. In particular, we found telework strategies related to temporal flexibility (e.g., transferring personal matters to work times) to be implemented more often than they probably should be based on their low or even negative association with job performance. However, organizations need to consider that the implementation of telework strategies may not always be a matter of choice. Real-life circumstances can occasionally hinder teleworkers from implementing effective strategies and from avoiding ineffective strategies. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many teleworkers have been affected by sudden school and daycare closures due to lockdown measures to limit the spread of the pandemic. Thus, many teleworkers might have had to switch flexibly between work requests and demands spilling over from their private-life (e.g., taking care of the children). Organizations might therefore also try to anticipate potential reasons (e.g., lack of childcare) for implementing less conducive telework strategies (e.g., transferring personal matters to work times) and to take action to mitigate these reasons (e.g., organizations might offer (virtual) childcare programs). Finally, organizations may adopt measures to identify groups of employees sharing common characteristics critical to the effectiveness of telework strategies and tailor advice (e.g., via organizational e-mail newsletters) or trainings educating about effective telework strategies to employees’ individual preferences and needs. This is particularly intriguing in situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic in which employees may be urged to telework considering themselves not prepared to do so (e.g., separators and unexperienced teleworkers).

First, due to the cross-sectional design, we cannot draw causal inferences, that is, we can only demonstrate which telework strategies are associated with job performance, but this does not imply that the telework strategies cause between person differences in job performance. We thus suggest future research to apply longitudinal research designs (e.g., experience sampling/daily diary methods, Larson and Csikszentmihalyi, 2014; structural equation modeling approaches to cross-lagged panel models, Hamaker et al., 2015) to examine the directional impacts telework strategies and job performance have on one another over time. We also encourage future research to adopt (quasi-) experimental designs, for instance, to examine a training intervention in a pre-post control group design monitoring the implementation of telework strategies and job performance after the training (see also Rexroth et al., 2016; Binnewies et al., 2020). This could also demonstrate telework strategies’ trainability with practical implications for teleworkers that might be able to learn to telework productively by applying effective telework strategies. Against the background of ongoing change processes of work in the digital age, such as technological advances and increasing flexibility of working time and space, particularly online training interventions might be a promising starting point to do so (see Rexroth et al., 2017).

Second, our data is based on self-reports assessed at one measurement time point, which may have introduced common-method bias (CMB; Podsakoff et al., 2012). However, CMB does not always compromise results. For instance, in the present study, despite the large sample size, the majority of telework strategies did not show significant associations with job performance, which should have been the case, if CMB was a severe problem (Spector, 2006). Also CMB is less of a problem in regression models with multiple predictors and when testing interaction effects (Siemsen et al., 2010). Nevertheless, we suggest future research to assess telework outcomes such as job performance with multiple independent, objective indicators (e.g., supervisor/coworker ratings, customer satisfaction, objective records such as the number of claims processed). Also, telework strategies might be assessed through acquaintance reports (e.g., household members, coworkers). Measuring the implementation of telework strategies and telework outcomes at different time points would be a further approach to mitigate CMB.

Third, the directionality of boundary related telework strategies (see Hecht and Allen, 2009; Allen et al., 2014; Wepfer et al., 2018) might be considered, that is, telework strategies can either be geared toward keeping private matters out of work (versus integrating) or toward keeping work out of private matters (versus integrating). In our study, we summarized findings of telework strategies related to both boundary management directions as both indicate a separation/integration of work- and private-life. However, telework strategies with a different directionality might differentially impact work outcomes. Such a differentiated pattern might be masked because divergent effects might cancel each other out. Indeed, for some telework strategies, we observed a pattern that might provide initial support for this notion (however, this pattern does not apply uniformly to all concerned telework strategies requiring to draw conclusions with caution): We found rather positive performance associations for telework strategies geared to keeping private matters out of work (e.g., avoiding to read non-work related material at work, attending to personal matters only during breaks), whereas we found rather zero performance associations for telework strategies geared to keeping work out of private matters (e.g., not going back to work after hours, not reading/responding to work-related messages/calls after hours). Future research should consider telework strategies’ boundary management directionality to examine potential divergent effects on telework outcomes.

Fourth, the lack of associations of boundary related telework strategies with job performance does not imply that they do not have other positive effects. Quite the opposite, these telework strategies are likely to have various positive effects, particularly when it comes to outcomes such as reduced stress, well-being, and satisfaction (Binnewies et al., 2020; Haun et al., 2022). It should also be considered that telework strategies that have been found to be positively associated with job performance in the present study (e.g., scheduling leisure time to get the most out of work time) could have detrimental effects on other outcomes such as stress and well-being. Future research will profit from examining the effects of telework strategies on a broad set of telework outcomes to draw a differentiated picture of telework strategies’ various impacts.

Fifth, in the present study, we focused on boundary management preferences and telework experience as two important individual characteristics of teleworkers that had a moderating influence on the relationship between telework strategies and job performance. Future research could examine other individual characteristics that might affect the effectiveness of telework strategies. This would contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the puzzling effects of telework strategies on (tele-) work outcomes. For instance, whereas teleworkers’ personality traits such as extraversion and conscientiousness have already been shown to directly affect telework outcomes (O’Neill et al., 2009), little is known about their moderating effects. For example, it may be that extraverted teleworkers suffer particularly from social isolation (especially during times of pandemic), so they could benefit from implementing communicative telework strategies related to keep connection, such as engaging in virtual small talk with colleagues. Similarly, teleworkers with low conscientiousness might particularly benefit from telework strategies that help to maintain a clear daily structure, such as adhering to fixed work/non-work hours. However, these moderating factors are not limited to the individual characteristics of the teleworker but may also represent broader situational factors. For example, whereas we found that most boundary related telework strategies do not positively impact job performance, this could change when children are at home. In light of the lockdown measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, many teleworkers may have faced this situation. In these cases, for example, physical telework strategies related to physical separation of work and leisure, such as working in a separate room, could be beneficial because they may facilitate undisturbed work. A better understanding of the moderating factors that influence the relationship between telework strategies and (tele-) work outcomes could have immediate practical implications for organizations to tailor advice on telework strategies to employees’ individual characteristics and situational circumstances.

Sixth, in the present study, we applied a P-E fit approach (Kristof, 1996; Edwards, 2008) to a teleworker sample, which stands out due to teleworkers having great latitude to self-adjust various work environmental aspects (in contrast to stationary on-site workers). It might be an exciting future research topic to examine whether performance differences between teleworker and non-teleworker samples (Gajendran and Harrison, 2007) might (to some extent) be driven by enhanced P-E fit in telework contexts, in which teleworkers are empowered to self-adjust their working environment in a way that corresponds to their individual preferences and needs. Indeed, we found initial indications that teleworkers to some extent successfully customize their telework environment. For example, whereas we found separators to profit more from not working beyond their agreed working hours, we also found separators to implement this telework strategy more. Likewise, whereas we found integrators to profit more from being temporally flexible in handling urgent work requests and from scheduling their leisure time to get the most out of their work time, we also found integrators to implement these telework strategies more. Future confirmatory research could build on these exploratory findings.

Seventh, future research would profit from establishing a mutually accepted taxonomy of telework strategies by deriving theoretically sound dimensions of telework strategies and testing these with factor analytical or structural equation modeling procedures. A self-report questionnaire might be developed to measure the implementation of telework strategies meeting psychometric test properties. In particular, future research in this vein should make efforts to demonstrate that such a test actually measures the dimensions of telework strategies that it is claimed to measure, that is demonstrating construct validity (Badenes-Ribera et al., 2020). This would ensure that researchers use terms consistently and increase the comparability of research findings streamlining progress in this nascent research field.

Finally, we would like to emphasize the Northern European cultural context of our study, which is likely to have affected the individual ways in which participants organized their work processes from home. The cultural context has a strong influence on work-related values and norms (e.g., Hofstede, 1984; Schwartz, 1999), which also affect telework constellations (e.g., Peters and den Dulk, 2003; Adamovic, 2022). In addition, there have been cross-cultural differences in pandemic related measures to limit the spreading of the COVID-19 virus (e.g., imposing lockdowns; Bajaj et al., 2021) and in individuals’ psychological responses to the COVID-19 pandemic (Yap et al., 2021), which may have caused further cross-cultural differences in the adoption of telework strategies. We therefore suggest future research to address cross-cultural similarities and differences in the way teleworkers organize their work processes.