Next Article in Journal
Beyond Donations: Isomorphism and Revenue Mix in Nonprofit Start-Ups
Previous Article in Journal
COVID-19 Disruption and Meaningful Work: The Mediating Role of Family–Work Conflict
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Relationship between Demographics and Knowledge Risk Perception of High School Teachers: Training as a Mediator
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Worker’s Satisfaction and Intention toward Working from Home—Foreign Non-EU Citizens vs. National Workers’ Approach: Case Study of Central European Countries (Visegrád Group (V4))

1
Institute of Rural Development and Sustainable Economy, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 2100 Pater Karoly, Hungary
2
Budapest Business School Faculty of Finance and Accountancy, Buzogány u. 10-12, 1149 Budapest, Hungary
3
Department of Agridigitalization and Extension Activities, Institute of Rural Development and Sustainable Economy, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 2100 Pater Karoly, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13(3), 88; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13030088
Submission received: 18 January 2023 / Revised: 6 March 2023 / Accepted: 8 March 2023 / Published: 16 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Knowledge Work Management)

Abstract

:
The COVID-19 lockdown has brought about many sudden changes in the social and work environment, causing organizations and businesses to change work conditions to adapt to the new situation which has affected millions of workers who shifted to telework. The teleworkers’ variations in gender, age, residency situation, status as national or foreign employees, and many other aspects create differences in their response toward the telework experience. This study attempts to fill the literature gap concerning the differentiation in response between national and foreign employees’ satisfaction with the working from home experience and their future intention to work from home, with a case study of the Visegrád Group as an example from Central European countries. The study found that 84.4% of teleworkers were satisfied with working from home, but no significant difference was found between national and foreign teleworkers in their satisfaction with the telework experience; this satisfaction mainly derives from allocating the gained time to social–personal activities. A surprising result presented by this research is that, in spite of the fact that foreign non-EU-citizen workers were satisfied with the teleworking experience, they do not tend to work from home due to fears of losing their jobs and residence permits, whereas national teleworkers have the intention to work from home if given the opportunity. Another important addition of this study is the development of a new scale specifically for measuring employee satisfaction with working from home instead of using traditional job satisfaction scales.

1. Introduction

The accelerated progression in ICT has resulted in a considerable transformation in the way businesses and organizations build relations with customers and deliver their services/products, and it has also changed the practices of work and offered more-decentralized work premises (Houston and Reuschke 2017; Hussein et al. 2011). These technological advancements have enabled humans to exercise more control over their lives and made people more able to handle the obstacles and challenges which are encountered in their lives more easily (Felstead and Henseke 2017), challenges such as the experience caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the regulations set out globally to control the spread of the infection. Here, new technology has made it possible to introduce the home office as a solution to keep businesses alive and the wheel of the economy running at the time of lockdown, which resulted in a severe change in the work environment for many workers (HSE 2021), resulting in work-time flexibility, decreased working hours, and a changing workplace environment (Kamerāde et al. 2019). This solution has been widely implemented, eliminating the time required to travel to work and providing employees with the opportunity to reallocate the gained time to their families or friends (Balderson et al. 2020).
After the COVID-19 experience, terms such as working from home, remote working, teleworking, home office, and telecommuting jumped to the forefront of the discussions, debates, and analyses in academic research, resulting from the popularity of these kinds of jobs due to the appealing conditions they offer, such as the flexibility in terms of work-time and working hours, more independence in performing tasks, as well as higher job satisfaction, but, at the same time, the new conditions arising from working from home may bring new, hidden challenges (Karanikas and Cauchi 2020). One of these challenges is the difference in accepting the work-from-home concept driven by the various motivations and interests of workers who see the benefits of working from home and may also feel threatened by the new work conditions related to the uncertainty of dealing with the virtual environment (Shareef et al. 2018), difficulties in handling new technology, fear of change, and the probability of losing their jobs (Bernhard and Grundé 2013; Chadwick 2011). From this context, this study decided to evaluate workers’ intention toward working from home after the COVID-19 lockdown experience with regard to the different interests and motivations of employees, studying the anticipated differentiation between foreign and national workers, as no study has been found in the literature comparing the difference in intention between foreign and national workers toward working from home. In attempt to fill this gap, this study conducted quantitative research, taking a Visegrád Group countries (V4 countries) case study as an example from Central European countries.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Workers’ Satisfaction with Working from Home

While prolonged and tremendous research of the traditional work environment in the office has been conducted, there is not enough steady knowledge available regarding the telework environment and its impact on the satisfaction, productivity, and mental health of teleworkers, and the intricacies affecting their intentions (Allen et al. 2015; Eurofound and International Labor Office 2017; Martin et al. 2022).
The International Labor Organization recognizes the homeworker and home-based worker; the latter is called a teleworker when the employee uses ICT tools to perform their job (International Labour Organization 2021). Depending on this distinction, employees who shifted to performing their jobs from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic precaution measures are considered teleworkers; hence, teleworking is featured by using ICT products (Messenger and Gschwind 2016).
Gajendran and Harrison (2007)’s study involving 12,883 employees found that there are small positive effects of telecommuting on work satisfaction, performance, turnover intent, and mental health as a mediator; meanwhile, Felstead and Henseke (2017) expressed the notion that working from home may raise job satisfaction.
In the search for more evidence regarding the positive effect of working from home on job satisfaction, performance, and intention, Kröll and Nüesch (2019)’s research on the influence of flexible work practices on employees’ turnover intention and job satisfaction finds that home working increases employees’ satisfaction consistently and decreases their intentions to leave their jobs; in the same context, Yang et al. (2021) reported that employees’ productivity and job satisfaction increased when executing their job from home. In addition, they found that one of the main drivers of raised satisfaction is the reduction in anxiety caused by spending time commuting; meanwhile, Vega et al. (2015) reported the differences in the job satisfaction of working from home employees between working days spent at the office and those spent at home and recorded higher job satisfaction levels during the working from home days.
The flexibility that working from home provides can decrease family–work conflict and eventually enhances a person’s job satisfaction (Solís 2016) as whenever a person’s work-time conflicts with their family life, it leads to a lower balance engagement in their work or family life, which is reflected in lower productivity and satisfaction (Greenhaus et al. 2003).
Even though job satisfaction proved to increase in many studies due to the work flexibility gained from working from home during the COVID-19 lockdown, we should not ignore the negative effect of the growing feeling of loneliness on productivity and job satisfaction which derives from social isolation relating to less personal contact with colleagues or customers (Wood et al. 2021; Joyce et al. 2010).
The important comparative study of Martin et al. (2022) assessed how the teleworker’s use of digital communication tools impacts the evolution of the teleworker’s work productivity, satisfaction, and stress before and during the lockdown in 2020. They found that the group which had a master’s degree or higher and that were using digital tools on a weekly or daily basis experienced a growth in their work productivity, but at the same time, their work satisfaction decreased, and this may be because of the lack of social interaction. Another result of Martin et al. (2022) shows that the increase in using digital tools during lockdown results in teleworkers dealing with more excessive information, which puts her/him under pressure and stress and eventually leads to lower work productivity and satisfaction.
From another point of view, even though fewer work hours lead to less income, an evaluation of satisfaction with time against money, as discussed by Hershfield et al. (2016), disclosed that persons who prefer time to money are happier, and the higher their preference for time to money, the happier they become, taking into account the fact that Bellet et al. (2019) proposed that a happier worker is a more satisfied and productive one. In this context, Colley and Williamson (2020)’s study found that the vast majority of teleworkers expressed that the time flexibility they had when working from home allowed them to allocate more time to their families and provide their children with a satisfying amount of attention.
From another perspective, Karanikas and Cauchi (2020) debated that the working from home environment may propose unexpected negatives, such as the fear of job loss, a lack of confidence in using new technology (Bernhard and Grundé 2013; Chadwick 2011), feelings of uncertainty in the virtual environment (Shareef et al. 2018), or the inconvenience of home equipment and uncomfortable space, but even the work environment at home may be less comfortable for work compared to the traditional onsite office (Cuerdo-Vilches et al. 2021). Despite the presence of employees’ children, spouse, or mates in the working from home environment, teleworkers rarely reported distractibility and discomfort as a negative aspect of working from home (Wegner et al. 2011). In contrast, Zürcher et al. (2021) found that teleworkers reported less distractibility when working from home compared to working on-site, as well as higher job satisfaction.
Finally, studies and research concerning working from home job satisfaction should take into consideration the worker’s productivity as a vital mark of satisfaction, since Haapakangas et al. (2018) declared that the employee’s satisfaction with the workplace has a direct influence on his/her productivity.

2.2. Workers’ Intention to Work from Home

Shareena and Shahid (2020) found that workers’ intention to work from home is related to their children’s presence at home, the availability of a decent and comfortable space for work, calm noise-free space, and sufficient ICT equipment. Barrero et al. (2021) conducted a mass survey of more than thirty thousand respondents in the USA and found that 20% of full-time workers intended to work from home full-time once the COVID-19 lockdown ended; meanwhile, only 5% of workers were working full-time from home before COVID-19 pandemic measures.
In the same regard, Felstead and Reuschke (2020) reported that 88.2% of home-workers preceding and within the COVID-19 restriction measures period had the intention to continue working from home for some working days per week, whereas 47.3% of workers expressed their intention to switch to entirely home working if they had the opportunity; furthermore, 50% of new workers who had little experience working from home expressed their intention to continue working from home after the COVID-19 lockdown ended.
From another perspective, Ortiz-Lozano et al. (2022) found that the higher the age of teleworkers, the less willing they were to continue working from home after the COVID-19 restrictions ended, and they reported a surprising result that whenever a teleworker is of the opinion that it is harder to accomplish tasks within the time frame, their intention to keep working from home increases. Additionally, Ortiz-Lozano et al. (2022) noticed that when employees are convinced that working from home enables them to be more organized, their intention to keep working from home increases remarkably; furthermore, workers consider that teleworking serves working women by providing this group with more time to look after their family, as well as facilitating taking care of children. In this regard, Wheatley (2017) expressed that making the decision or having the intention to work from home may be pushed by the duties of the household, especially for women, even if they are not satisfied with the working from home experience.
Finally, Green (2017) found that the teleworking lifestyle can facilitate work for people with disabilities.

2.3. Foreign and National Workers’ Satisfaction and Intention

Foreign workers are an important segment of the EU workforce who have received increased attention over the years. In this context, Fasani and Mazza (2020) reported that migrant EU workers face an increased risk of losing their jobs compared to national EU workers and that these risks are higher among females than among males. On the other side, Clark (1998) denoted that job satisfaction for the same work may vary between national and foreign workers due to the difference in cultural and institutional background. In this regard, many researchers studied the impact of worker’s culture on job satisfaction, such as de Bustillo Llorente and Fernandez-Macias (2005) and Hauff et al. (2015). These differences in job satisfaction between foreign and national workers may be reflected in a difference in intention to continue working in the same job since it is widely accepted in the literature that job satisfaction has a key impact on the intention of leaving work (Poon 2004; Paillé et al. 2010). In the same context, if we look at e learning as an example of teleworking for both trainees and trainers, Alassaf and Szalay (2020) reported that satisfaction with e learning leads to a high level of intention to practice e learning in the future.
These discussions stimulated this study to test the influence of satisfaction with work from home on the intention to work from home in the future among both national and non-EU foreign workers within Central European countries.
H1. 
Satisfaction with the work from home experience impacts national workers’ intention to work from home in the future.
H2. 
Satisfaction with the work from home experience impacts foreign workers’ intention to work from home in the future.

3. Objectives and Importance of the Study

The ultimate goal of this study is to assess the differences in intention toward working from home between national and foreign workers in EU countries regarding their interests and concerns and to discover the impact of satisfaction with work from the home experience on the intentions of the two groups, as the COVID-19 lockdown offered a practical experience to work from home to a wide range of people.
Furthermore, EU countries are hosting a large number of migrant workers as 12.6% of the EU28 labor force have a migrant background (EU-OSHA 2015). This study provides tested results of satisfaction with working from home for this important segment of the workforce and presents the causes which oppose or boost this satisfaction.
Another goal of this study is to develop a new scale specifically designed for assessing employees’ satisfaction with teleworking because working from home has created new conditions for the job environment and provided a new means to perform tasks and communicate and interact with superiors and co-workers using ICT in remote and virtual workplaces (Karanikas and Cauchi 2020), aspects which are nonexistent in the traditional work environment. Here, this study takes the opportunity to fill in this gap in the literature as previous studies have used traditional work satisfaction scales to assess working from home satisfaction.

4. Materials and Methods

Preceding COVID-19, ICT and technical support were not significantly correlated with job satisfaction and intentions to continue working from home (Galanti et al. 2021); moreover, this study did not distinguish any scale specifically dedicated for workers’ satisfaction with working from home in the literature, as the studies concerned with this subject used traditional job satisfaction scales which ignored the new environment of tele jobs related to working online, the use of new technology, and different online services (Waizenegger et al. 2020). Besides, the new working environment has presented new kinds of relations and incentives that were not available before such, as full online communication with coworkers and superiors (Negulescu and Doval 2021), a cost and time reduction caused by eliminating commuting, and family–job balance (Balderson et al. 2020; Colley and Williamson 2020). In addition, disadvantages have emerged from the extra cost of using the internet, occupying space in a residential place, and the existence of children and a spouse (Cuerdo-Vilches et al. 2021; Wegner et al. 2011) who may cause some distraction; all of these disadvantages derive from a blurred line between being at home but also being busy with a job (family understanding of WFH) (Yang et al. 2021).
Based on the aforementioned reasons, this study decided to design a new scale specifically for measuring workers’ satisfaction with working from home instead of using traditional job satisfaction scales. We then adapted and elaborated a scale for measuring workers’ intention to work from home depending on the reliable scales of intention already used in the literature.
The next step in this study is to conduct a quantitative work to collect the necessary data for assessing foreign and national workers’ job satisfaction and their intention to work from home using surveys in V4 countries. The collected data will be analyzed statistically to discover the differences between foreign non-EU and national workers in satisfaction and intention to continue working from home, define the causes behind this difference if it exists, and test the hypotheses of the study, taking into account the gender of workers in those analyses.

4.1. Measuring Working from Home Satisfaction/Developing New Scale

To measure teleworking satisfaction, this research elaborated a new scale depending on several reliable job satisfaction scales and users’ satisfaction with online services; justifying and the validation of the new scale will be discussed and explained in what follows.
Yang et al. (2021) argued that satisfaction should be evaluated with one question depending on Scarpello and Campbell’s (1983) suggestion, and justified this opinion by presenting many studies, such as Cheung and Lucas (2014) and Nagy (2002), which utilized a single-item measure to assess satisfaction. Opposing Yang et al.’s (2021) opinion, this study chose a multiple-item scale depending on Diamantopoulos et al.’s (2012) research, which declared that under almost all conditions that usually occur across practical practices, multi-item scales obviously surpass single-item scales regarding predictive validity, and under certain conditions, single-item scales act in the same way as multi-item scales; hence, empirical studies should be careful when using a single-item scale as it should be used strictly and under specific conditions.
In regard of Alassaf and Szalay’s (2020) 18-item scale developed to assess student satisfaction with online courses during the COVID-19 lockdown in CE countries, considering online learning as an example of working from home for both two ends of the process, such as in the case of trainees and trainers who use ICT to complete tasks remotely, this particularity of working remotely using ICT has been ignored by traditional job satisfaction scales. This research adapted the mentioned Alassaf and Szalay (2020) scale to comply with various aspects of working from home; on the other hand, in order to overcome any possible neglect of any aspect of traditional job satisfaction constructs, this study also revised and used traditional job satisfaction scales: Andrews and Withey’s (1976) scale, that was revalidated by Rentsch and Steel (1992), Schriesheim and Tsui’s (1980) scale, and Bono and Judge’s (2003) scale, which was adapted originally from Brayfield and Rothe (1951). Finally, another item adapted from Yang et al.’s (2021) study concerns satisfaction with the working from home environment relating to interruptions caused by others in the home, such as a spouse, children, or roommates.
From the abovementioned scales, this research elaborated a new 20-item scale designed especially for assessing workers’ satisfaction with teleworking. To validate this scale, the researchers conducted a pilot survey with 72 respondents, executed factor analysis to eliminate the repeated items, and confirmed the 20 items of the scale. Then, the researchers sent the scale to three experts of the labor market who confirmed the validity of the scale. To confirm the reliability of this scale, Cronbach’s alfa test was performed on the final survey and a score of 0.86 was obtained; this exceeds the minimum criterium of 0.7 set by Nunnally (1978).
The final telework satisfaction scale consists of 20 items, as shown in Appendix B.
Finally, the research added one open-ended question about what caused respondents to be less satisfied.

4.2. Measuring Home-Work Intention

To assess workers’ intentions to work from home after they widely experienced it during the COVID-19 lockdown, this study depends on Alassaf and Szalay’s (2022) five-item scale, which reliability reported a value of 0.82 using Cronbach’s alpha test. Alassaf and Szalay’s (2022) scale was designed to evaluate users’ intentions to keep using e-services after the COVID-19 lockdown ended in V4 countries; this study chose this scale regarding the similarity in case of employees/users using online ICT tools to perform tasks/services remotely. The original scale was developed using Esterhuyse et al.’s (2016), Pavlou’s (2003), and Gefen and Straub’s (2000) scales from their studies about consumers’ adoption of IS and e commerce.
The research added one item to assess the feeling of fear of losing one’s job in the case of working from home; additionally, one open-ended question was included to address the causes of fear of losing one’s job if the respondent experienced this feeling.

4.3. Sample and Procedure

This study deals with workers in CE countries by taking Visegrád group countries as a case study. All items were translated into the four languages of V4 countries (Czech, Hungarian, Slovakian, and Polish). The targeted population falls into two groups: national and foreign workers who worked from home for at least two months during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.
This research designed a single cross-sectional survey for the two targeted groups using judgmental sampling that selected only workers who have practiced working from home for at least two months during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. In total, 500 questionnaires were distributed (325 for national citizens, 175 for foreigners) in the 4 countries; we received 423 valid responses, 92 in Czech (61 national workers, 31 foreign workers), 132 in Hungary (96 national workers, 36 foreign workers), 101 in Poland (69 national workers, 32 foreign workers), and 98 in Slovakia (67 national workers, 31 foreign workers).
None of the targeted foreign workers in the four countries were EU citizens.
This research used a 5-point Likert scale to assess the respondents’ answers to satisfaction and intention questions.
The questionnaire contains 20 items for measuring satisfaction, 5 items for intention, 1 question to assess fears of one’s losing job, 1 open-ended question to address the causes of fear of losing one’s job if the respondent experienced this feeling, and 1 open-ended question about what caused a respondent to be less satisfied with working from home, as well as questions of the respondents’ general information regarding their gender, age, etc.
The questionnaire was distributed between 2 August 2021 and 28 January 2022 to the respondents in person with the help of a small local team of PhD/master’s students in each of the four targeted countries.

5. Results and Interpretation

This study developed two new variables from the answers of each of the satisfaction and intention scales collected from the responses of the questionnaire to be used in the analysis, namely, overall satisfaction and overall intention. To provide the mean of all the answers of the satisfaction and intention of every respondent, the SPSS program was used in all of the analyses.

5.1. Sample Background Analyzes

In total, 30.75% of respondents were foreign non-EU citizen workers (130 workers) and 69.25% of respondents were national workers (293 workers); see Figure 1.
In total, 22% of the respondents worked in Czech (61 national workers, 31 foreign workers), 31% worked in Hungary (96 national workers, 36 foreign workers), 24% worked in Poland (69 national workers, 32 foreign workers), and 23% worked in Slovakia (67 national workers, 31 foreign workers); see Figure 2.
In total, 47.75% of respondents were females and 52.25% were males (202 female, 221 male); see Figure 3.
Table 1 shows a detailed sample distribution and demonstrates gender and national/foreign workers ratios in each of the V4 countries. In the sample as a whole, these ratios will be discussed thoroughly when assessing the workers’ satisfaction depending on gender and citizenship in the next paragraph.

5.2. Working from Home Satisfaction during COVID-19 Pandemic Precaution

Analyzing the collected data starts with a descriptive analysis, taking into account that whenever the overall satisfaction mean of a response oversteps the middle of the scale (three is the middle of the five-point Likert scale), the respondent is considered satisfied.
In total, 84.4% of the respondents (357 respondents) were satisfied with working from home; this percentage was almost the same in all V4 countries. Hungary was the least satisfied with 81% (107 respondents) due to the inconvenience of technical problems, as 68% of the unsatisfied respondents expressed.
On other hand, international non-EU workers have a relatively higher percentage of unsatisfaction rate, at 27% (35 respondents), whereas 89.4% of national teleworkers (262 respondents) were satisfied with their teleworking experience (see Table 2).
This research used one sample T-test to test if teleworks’ job satisfaction for each of the sample groups (grouping variable: national/foreign workers) and the whole sample significantly exceed the middle of the scale. Consequently, the studied society tended to be significantly satisfied with working from home.
The result confirmed that V4 workers were satisfied (overall satisfaction mean = 4.3, p value for one sample T-test = 0.02 < α = 0.05). Overall, the satisfaction rates among national and foreign teleworkers were M = 4.5, 3.85, respectively, with a p value < α = 0.05 for both, meaning that the vast majority of teleworkers (84.4%) in V4 countries were satisfied with the telework experience during the COVID-19 lockdown.
Furthermore, an independent samples T-test was conducted to see if there was the existence of a significant difference between national and foreign employees in their satisfaction with their working from home experience. The test result with a p value for the independent sample T-test = 0.604 > α = 0.05 (the case of equality of variances assumed as the F coefficient of Leven’s test has a p value = 0.850 > α = 0.05) shows no significant difference between national and foreign teleworkers in their satisfaction with their telework experience during the COVID-19 lockdown (see Table 3).
Another independent samples T-test was carried out to investigate the existence of a significant difference between females and males in their satisfaction with their working from home experience; the result declared that there was no significant difference between female and male teleworkers in their satisfaction with their telework experience during the COVID-19 lockdown: p value = 0.301 > α = 0.05 (case of equality of variances assumed as the p value of F coefficient of Leven’s test = 0.294 > α = 0.05) (see Table 3).
More analyzes were performed to investigate the satisfaction motives of the working from home experience for national and non-EU workers within V4 countries taking, into account genders and country of work in this investigation.
Appendix A shows that the dominant cause of working from home satisfaction is the capability to allocate more time for family, friends, or self-relief, with 46.8% of satisfied workers, followed by benefitting from eliminating commuting time, allowing them to do other things, and decreasing anxiety which derived from the routine time of transportation, with 28.6%, and, finally, cutting the cost of commuting and other expenses relating to working in the office such as buying clothes, foods, and perfumes, with 24.6%. These results demonstrate that the majority of workers appreciate the time saved by working from home more than the money it saves; these preferences are almost the same for all foreign and national workers. In the same context, from the gender approach, we can easily distinguish that females within both foreign and national workers groups are satisfied with working from home because of the time gained for family, friends, or self-relief (social and personal time), with about 55.6% of satisfied females, followed by cost reduction with 23.7%, and eliminating commuting time with 20.7%, whereas males appreciate both social–personal time and the time gained from eliminating commuting time, with 38.8% and 35.6% in sequence, where cost reduction tables in third place of their preferences. Here, we can say that both genders are satisfied with working from home because of the possibility to allocate more time to family, friends, or self-relief (social–personal time) in the first place, whereas females appreciate cost reduction more than males who prefer cutting their commuting time over saving money. These results are almost the same in each of the V4 countries, as evident in Appendix A.
From another perspective, the results in Appendix A show that only 15.6% of the respondents in V4 countries are unsatisfied with their working from home experience, and the motives of this dissatisfaction derived—in the first place—from the inconvenience which can be experienced from technical problems that workers have to deal with (37.9% of unsatisfied workers), with the extra cost of using the internet and using personal ICT tools arriving in second place with 25.7%, whereas the distraction from others existing at home, such as children, a spouse, and residence mates, as well as the blurred line between personal life and work, finishing in third place with 16.7% for both causes. Only 3% of unsatisfied workers expressed that their unsatisfaction was because of occupying space in a residential place, which may cause discomfort for others.
Those ranks of unsatisfaction causes are the same between foreign and national workers within V4 counties, whereas they differ a little between females and males, where the inconvenience of technical problems is the first cause for both genders, the extra cost of using the internet and using personal ICT tools arrives in second place for females, followed by the distraction which derives from the existence of children, a spouse, residence mates at home, and then the blurred line between personal life and work finishes in the last place. They did not demonstrate any objection of occupying space in a residential place; on the other hand, males placed the distraction which derives from the existence of children, a spouse, residence mates at home, and the blurred line between personal life and work, in second and third places, before the extra cost of using their own ICT. Finally, only 6.1% of unsatisfied males registered objections of discomfort caused to others by occupying space at home.
From the above comparisons, we can conclude that the technical problems the employees have to deal with during working from home form the biggest problem of unsatisfaction. Additionally, males appreciate maintaining lines separating work and private life and focusing on work without distraction at the expense of the money they pay for using their own ICT, whereas females show more objections to the extra cost of using their ICT more than the negative effects on private life and focusing on work, but generalizing the ranking of dissatisfaction reasons in each of the V4 countries individually is not practical as the numbers of unsatisfied respondents are insufficient to make generalization in each country separately, with 14 unsatisfied respondents in Czech, 25 in Hungary, 14 in Poland, and 13 in Slovakia. The related statistical information is shown in Appendix A.

5.3. Workers’ Future Intention to Work from Home

Starting with descriptive analysis, taking into account whenever the overall intention mean of a response oversteps the middle of the scale (three is the middle of the five-point Likert scale), the respondent is considered to have the intention to work from home.
Table 4 shows that 80.2% of the respondents (339 out of 423 respondents) have the intention to work from home in the future if they have the chance. This percentage was almost the same in all V4 countries, but this percentage is general and it does not reveal if there are any differences among the studied population regarding national/foreign workers or regarding their gender; hence, 87% (255 respondents) of national workers have this intention, whereas most foreign workers (67%, 87 respondents)1 do not tend to work from home in spite of their satisfaction with their working from home experience (as resulted in the previous paragraph). This may be related to workers’ concerns of losing jobs since 64% of foreign workers expressed concerns about deportation probabilities in case they lost their jobs and thus work residence permits. To corroborate this assumption, this research conducted a correlation test between the intention to work from home and fear of losing one’s job among foreign workers. Before doing this, one sample T-test was used by this research to test if the teleworkers’ overall intention to work from home in the future of each of the sample groups (grouping variable: national/foreign workers) significantly exceeds the middle of the scale. Consequently, the studied groups significantly intended to work from home in future if they were given the chance.
The results confirmed that V4 national workers intend to work from home in the future (overall intention mean = 4.5, p value for one sample T-test = 0.01 < α = 0.05); meanwhile, the overall intention among foreigners to work from home is below the middle of the scale (M = 2.4, p value = 0.00 < α = 0.05), leading to the conclusion that foreign non-EU citizen workers within V4 countries do not tend to work from home in spite of their satisfaction with their teleworking experience during COVID-19 lockdown. To interpret this result, a further analysis conducted on the intention and fears of losing jobs in case of working from home using a correlation test. The results in Table 5 show a strong negative relation (r = −0.883, p = 0.001 < α = 0.05) between fear of losing jobs and V4 non-EU resident workers’ intention to work from home; the relation is considered strong when Pearson’s correlation coefficient exceeds 0.6 depending on the relations’ strengths guidance, as suggested by Evans (1996).
Another independent samples T-test was conducted between workers’ genders and intention to work from home. Table 6 shows no meaningful difference between the two genders in their intention to work from home in the future as the p value for all tests > α = 0.05.

5.4. The Relation between Workers’ Satisfaction with Telework Experience and Intention to Work from Home in the Future

A correlation test conducted between workers’ intention to work from home in the future and their satisfaction with their working from home experience for national and foreign non-EU workers within V4 countries. Table 7 shows a strong positive relation between national workers’ satisfaction and their intention to work from home in the future (r = 0.798, p = 0.001 < α = 0.05).
Looking at Table 8, evidently, there is no meaningful relation (p = 0.224 > α = 0.05) between foreign non-EU nationality workers’ satisfaction and their intention to work from home in the future.
From the above two correlation tests, it is easy to conclude that the increase in satisfaction with telework is accompanied by an increase in a future intention to work from home for national CE workers. As a result, the first hypothesis of this study, H1, is accepted and confirms that “Satisfaction with their work from home experience impacts national workers’ intention to work from home in the future”. Meanwhile, the satisfaction of non-EU citizen workers does not correlate with the future intention to work from home. This may derive from the fear of losing jobs and residency, as shown by the results and discussions of Table 5. As a result, the second hypothesis of this study, H2, is rejected as there is no significant impact of foreign workers’ satisfaction with their working from home experience on their intention to work from home in the future.
Summarizing all the above results shows that Central European workers were satisfied with their working from home experience, with no significant difference found between citizens and non-EU workers’ satisfaction with working from home, nor between females and males. Meanwhile, there is a difference between citizens and non-EU workers’ intention toward working from home in the future, as non-EU workers in V4 countries have a distinguished negative intention toward working from home in the future if they have the chance in spite of their satisfaction of their teleworking experience relating to a fear of losing their jobs and their residence permits in sequence, whereas national citizens have a positive intention toward working from home in the future if they have an opportunity to.
Additionally, in CE countries, there are no significant differences between female and male workers in their future intention to work from home.

6. Conclusions

A deep reading of the above discussions and results shows that although workers in Central European countries were generally satisfied with their working from home experience, their satisfaction was not always reflected in increasing their intention to work from home: where the intention of national workers to work remotely increased with their satisfaction of their teleworking experience, foreign non-EU workers’ satisfaction was not vital enough to increase their intention to work from home, which stayed low at only 33%. This result is correlated strongly with foreign non-EU workers’ fears of losing their work and, in sequence, their residence permits in the European Union as they believe that CE governments may find no need for workers who work remotely to stay in EU territory as they can deliver their work remotely. This drives the research to predict the existence of a legal problem which has not been revealed or thoroughly discussed concerning the legal situation of working from home within EU territory for some non-EU workers relating to their rights to exist in the EU, since work can be delivered online from anywhere in the world, thus the need of workers’ physical existence in EU territory may not be justified anymore.
From another perspective, this research found that the most dominant factor in increasing satisfaction with remote work for both genders is the possibility of allocating the time saved by working from home to be spent with family, friends, and self-relief (social–personal time). In the same context, the most important cause of dissatisfaction is the inconvenience which derives from the technical problems the employee has to deal with during working from home.
Another important conclusion of this study is that males who work from home are disattisfied with the blurred lines separating work from private life and the distraction of work caused by home residents more than the extra cost of using their own ICT, signaling that they prefer privacy and focusing on their job more than money, whereas females demonstrate more objections to the additional cost of using their own ICT more than the negative effects on their private life and focusing on their job. Similarly, males appreciate the time gained from cutting their commuting time more than cost reduction which results from working from home, which is the opposite of females who are more satisfied with cost reduction compared to cutting their commuting time.

7. Implications and Future Research Directions

One of the important benefits of this research is shedding the light on a problem that might face foreign residents within the EU who have work permits when their employers encourage them to work from home, as the legal argument that justifies their existence on EU territory may be weak as well if they can deliver their work remotely. In this context, it would be good for legal institutions to start an early discussion of the legal situation of working from home as it is a growing work model and likely to be a dominant work paradigm in the future.
Additionally, in regard to the previous studies of the authors focusing on measuring the age impact on implementing and using ICT applications in users’ utilization of online services, it is important to complete the image by studying the impact of age on teleworkers’ satisfaction and intentions to keep working from home regarding the difficulties facing the older generation in using online tools and the complications related to increased security and privacy procedures in the virtual environment (Alassaf et al. 2020a, 2020b; Alassaf and Szalay 2022).
Additionally, in the context of the literature discussion presented by this study regarding the distractions that may occur during working from home emerging from family members or roommates’ existence around the inability to allocate sufficient work space or affording reliable ICT tools and internet connection, the authors of this research propose conducting further research concerning satisfaction, intention, and attitude toward working from home given the effect of exogenous home working environment factors, distinguishing between two genders, marital status, and the existence of children.
The authors of this research have planned to expand this research in regard to worker age and the exogenous factors of the impact of the working from home environment on satisfaction, intention, and attitude toward teleworking, taking into regard the gender differences in response to these factors.
It may be useful for researchers to conduct this same research in future but for an expanded research society beyond each of the Visegrád countries.

8. Limitation

The results may be exposed to biases because the questionnaire was distributed in the capitals of the V4 countries, which lacks the opinions of workers in rural areas and smaller cities.
Additionally, the data collected in a specific short period of time which, according to Podsakoff et al. (2003), may subject data to common method biases since the data have been gathered in a single point of time.
According to Hogg et al. (2018), who recommended the minimum sample for statistical analysis by 20–30 cases, this research has consented to this recommendation for any stand-alone analyzable sub-population with a minimum number of cases, with 31 cases of foreign non-EU workers within the Czech Republic, as well as 31 cases in Slovakia, but it is more desirable for researchers to expand those samples for more reliable generalization of the results when analyzing the data of each country alone. This shortcut prevented the study from carrying out a deep, highly reliable analysis of each of V4 countries independently.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.A., Z.G.S. and B.M.E.-a.; methodology, P.A.; software, P.A.; validation, P.A. and Z.G.S.; formal analysis, P.A. and B.M.E.-a.; investigation, P.A.; resources, P.A. and Z.G.S.; data curation, P.A.; writing—original draft preparation, P.A.; writing—review and editing, P.A., Z.G.S. and B.M.E.-a.; visualization, P.A. and Z.G.S.; supervision, Z.G.S.; project administration, Z.G.S. and P.A.; funding acquisition, Z.G.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

There is no funding provided for this research.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Descriptive Analysis. Satisfaction and Dissatisfactions Motives of Working from Home among Foreign Non-EU and National and Genders within V4 Countries

V4 Countries
SatisfactionCause/MotiveForeign WorkersNational WorkersAll Workers
FemalesMalesFemalesMalesFemalesMales
Satisfied Time for family, friends, or self-relief2420705394
55.6% of satisfied working females
73
38.8% of satisfied working males
Both genders44
46.3% of satisfied foreign workers
123
46.9% of satisfied national workers
167
46.8% of satisfied workers
Reduction costs1012303640
23.7% of satisfied working females
48
25.6% of satisfied working males
Both genders2266
25.2% of satisfied national workers
88
24.6% of satisfied workers
Eliminating of commuting time920264735
20.7% of satisfied working females
67
35.6% of satisfied working males
Both genders29
30.5% of satisfied foreign workers
73
27.9% of satisfied national workers
102
28.6% of satisfied workers
43
72.9% of foreign worker females
52
73.2% of foreign workers males
126
88.1% of foreign worker females
136
90.7% of foreign worker males
169
83.7% of worker females
188
85.1% of worker males
95 respondents (73% of foreign workers)262 respondents (89.4% of national workers)357 respondents (84.4% of respondents)
Not satisfiedExtra cost of using internet, and using personal ICTs tools547112
36.4% of unsatisfied working females
5
15.2% of unsatisfied working males
Both genders9
25.7% of unsatisfied foreign workers
8
25.8% of unsatisfied national workers
17
25.7% of unsatisfied workers
Occupying space in residential place-1-1-2
6.1% of unsatisfied working males
Both genders1
2.9% of unsatisfied foreign workers
1
3.2% of unsatisfied national workers
2
3% of unsatisfied workers
Distraction from existence of children, a spouse, resident mate14334
12.1% of unsatisfied working females
7
21.2% of unsatisfied working males
Both genders5
14.3% of unsatisfied foreign workers
6
19.4% of unsatisfied national workers
11
16.7% of unsatisfied l workers
The blurred line between personal life and work23153
9.1% of unsatisfied working females
8
24.2% of unsatisfied working males
Both genders5
14.3% of unsatisfied foreign workers
6
19.4% of unsatisfied national workers
11
16.7% of unsatisfied national workers
Inconvenience of technical problems876414
42.4% of unsatisfied working females
11
33.3% of unsatisfied working males
Both genders15
42.8% of unsatisfied foreign workers
10
32.2% of unsatisfied national workers
25
37.9% of unsatisfied workers
16
27.1%
19
26.8%
17
11.9%
14
9.3%
33
16.3%
33
14.9%
35 respondent (27% of foreign worker)31 respondents (10.6% of national workers)66 respondents (15.6% of respondents)
Czech Republic
SatisfactionCause/MotiveForeign WorkersNational WorkersAll Workers
FemalesMalesFemalesMalesFemalesMales
Satisfied Time for family, friends, or self-relief9814142322
Both genders172845
Reduction costs226587
Both genders41115
Eliminating commuting time2448612
Both genders61218
131424273741
78 respondents (85% of Czech workers)
Not satisfiedExtra cost of using internet, and using personal ICT tools112-31
Both genders224
Occupying space in residential place------
Both genders---
Distraction from existence of children, spouse, resident mate-13233
Both genders156
Blurred line between personal life and work-11213
Both genders134
Inconvenience of technical problems------
Both genders
136477
14 respondents (15% of Czech workers)
Hungary
SatisfactionCause/MotiveForeign Workers/Female, MaleNational Workers/Female, MaleAll Workers in the Country
FemalesMalesFemalesMalesFemalesMales
Satisfied Time for family, friends, or self-relief6525203125
Both genders114556
Reduction costs1279811
Both genders31619
Elimination of commuting time3410151319
Both genders72532
101142445255
107 respondents (81% of Hungarian workers)
Not satisfiedExtra cost of using internet, and using personal ICT tools112-31
Both genders224
Occupying space in residential place-1---1
Both genders1-1
Distraction from existence of children, spouse, resident mate-1-- 1
Both genders1-1
Blurred line between personal life and work-1-1
Both genders112
Inconvenience of technical problems6443107
10717
78641312
25 respondents (19% of Hungarian workers)
Poland
SatisfactionCause/MotiveForeign Workers/Female, MaleNational Workers/Female, MaleAll Workers
FemalesMalesFemalesMalesFemalesMales
SatisfiedTime for family, friends, or self-relief4415101914
Both genders82533
Reduction costs359101215
Both genders81927
Eliminating of commuting time268111017
Both genders81927
91532314146
87 respondents (86.2% of Polish workers)
Not satisfiedExtra cost of using internet, and using personal ICT tools1-1121
Both genders123
Occupying space in residential place---1-1
Both genders 11
Distraction from existence of children, spouse, resident mate11--11
Both genders2 2
Blurred line between personal life and work11-112
Both genders213
Inconvenience of technical problems121123
Both genders325
442468
14 respondent (13.8% of Polish workers)
Slovakia
SatisfactionCause/MotiveForeign Workers/Female, MaleNational Workers/Female, MaleAll Workers
FemalesMalesFemalesMalesFemalesMales
Satisfied Time for family, friends, or self-relief531692112
Both genders82533
Reduction costs438121215
Both genders72027
Eliminating of commuting time26413619
Both genders81725
111228343946
85 respondents (86.7% of Slovakian workers)
Not satisfiedExtra cost of using internet, and using personal ICT tools222-42
Both genders426
Occupying space in residential place------
Both genders---
Distraction from existence of children, spouse, resident mate-1-1-2
Both genders112
Blurred line between personal life and work1--111
Both genders112
Inconvenience of technical problems111-21
Both genders2 13
443276
13 respondents (13.3% of Slovakian workers)

Appendix B. The New Scale Developed by This Research to Measure Workers’ Satisfaction with Working from Home

  • You were able to work through the medium of an online teleworking connection.
  • You were stimulated to conduct additional efforts or research on the assigned tasks through the online teleworking connection.
  • You put a great deal of effort into learning the working from home system to participate in telework.
  • You were satisfied with your learned experiences through the teleworking communication system.
  • You were satisfied with the support you received through the teleworking communication system.
  • You were satisfied with the feedback you received about your teleworking performance.
  • You were satisfied with using ICT tools for teleworking.
  • You achieved your tasks using ICTs tools.
  • Working from home helped you to improve your performance.
  • You were happy with the tasks you did when working from home.
  • You were satisfied with the number of tasks you were asked to do when working from home.
  • You were satisfied with your working hours when working from home.
  • When working from home, you were satisfied working without the equipment that was provided by the conventional office.
  • You were satisfied with the tele relation with your working from home co-workers.
  • You were satisfied with your tele relation with your work superior.
  • You were satisfied with your salary paid when working from home.
  • You were satisfied with the work from home environment related to being interrupted by others: children, spouse, roommates, etc. (reversed coded).
  • You found real enjoyment in the working from home experience.
  • Working from home was a useful working experience.
  • You would recommend working from home to others.

Note

1
33% of foreign non-EU workers in V4 countries have the intention to work from home in future the (43 respondents).

References

  1. Alassaf, Pierre, and Zsigmond Gábor Szalay. 2020. Transformation toward e-learning: Experience from the sudden shift to e-courses at COVID-19 time in Central European countries; students’ satisfaction perspective. Studia Mundi–Economica 7: 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alassaf, Pierre, and Zsigmond Gábor Szalay. 2022. The Impact of ‘Compulsory’ Shifting to Use e-Services during COVID-19 Pandemic Restrictions Period on e-Services Users’ Future Attitude and Intention “Case Study of Central European Countries/Visegrád Group (V4). Sustainability 14: 9935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Alassaf, Pierre, Miriam Bahna, and Basem Munir El-assaf. 2020a. The Relation between Online Protection Regulations and the Intention to Use e-Services/Age Perspective: Case Study of Hungary. Hungarian Agricultural Engineering, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Alassaf, Pierre, Samir Zaien, and Judit Olah. 2020b. Factors affecting e-government implementation: Developing countries e-opportunities. Acta Oeconomica Universitatis Selye 9: 7–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Allen, Tammy D., Timothy D. Golden, and Kristen M. Shockley. 2015. How Effective Is Telecommuting? Assessing the Status of Our Scientific Findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 16: 40–68. [Google Scholar]
  6. Andrews, Frank M., and Stephen B. Withey. 1976. Social Indicators of Well-Being: American’s Perceptions of Life Quality. New York: Plenum Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Balderson, Ursula, Brendan Burchell, Daiga Kamerāde, Senhu Wang, and Adam Coutts. 2020. An exploration of the multiple motivations for spending less time at work. Time and Society 30: 55–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Barrero, Jose Maria, Nicholas Bloom, and Steven J. Davis. 2021. Why Working from Home Will Stick. NBER Working Paper, No 28731. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, pp. 1–68. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bellet, Clement, Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, and George Ward. 2019. Does Employee Happiness Have an Impact on Productivity? ïd Business School WP 2019-13. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3470734 (accessed on 28 February 2022).
  10. Bernhard, Irene, and Kerstin Grundé. 2013. Challenging Organizational Issues When Municipal Contact Centers Are Implemented. Electronic Journal of e-Government 11: 198–209. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bono, Joyce E., and Timothy A. Judge. 2003. Self-Concordance at Work: Toward Understanding the Motivational Effects of Transformational Leaders. Academy of Management Journal 46: 554–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Brayfield, Arthur H., and Harold F. Rothe. 1951. An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology 35: 307–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chadwick, Andrew. 2011. Explaining the failure of an online citizen engagement initiative: The role of internal institutional variables. Journal of Information Technology and Politics 8: 21–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cheung, Felix, and Richard E. Lucas. 2014. Assessing the validity of single-item life satisfaction measures: Results from three large samples. Quality of Life Research 23: 2809–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Clark, Andrew E. 1998. Measures of job satisfaction: What makes a good job? Evidence from OECD countries. In OECD Labor Market and Social Policy, Occasional Papers. Paris: OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  16. Colley, Linda, and Sue Williamson. 2020. Working during the Pandemic: From Resistance to Revolution? Canberra: UNSW Canberra Public Service Research Group and CQ University. Available online: http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/553763 (accessed on 15 July 2021).
  17. Cuerdo-Vilches, Teresa, Miguel Ángel Navas-Martín, and Ignacio Oteiza. 2021. Working from home: Is our housing ready? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18: 7329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. de Bustillo Llorente, Rafael Munoz, and Enrique Fernandez-Macias. 2005. Job satisfaction as an indicator of the quality of work. The Journal of Socio-Economics 34: 656–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, Marko Sarstedt, Christoph Fuchs, Petra Wilczynski, and Sebastian Kaiser. 2012. Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: A predictive validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40: 434–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Esterhuyse, Maxine P., Brenda M. Scholtz, and Danie Venter. 2016. Intention to use and satisfaction of e-learning for training in the corporate context. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management 11: 347–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Eurofound and International Labor Office. 2017. Working Anytime, Anywhere: The Effects on the World of Work. Geneva: Publications Office of the European Union. Luxembourg: The International Labour Office. [Google Scholar]
  22. EU-OSHA–European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. 2015. Introduction to “Migrant workers”. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Last Updated 2022. Available online: https://oshwiki.osha.europa.eu/en/themes/introduction-migrant-workers#references (accessed on 5 August 2022).
  23. Evans, James D. 1996. Straightforward Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing. ISBN 32106013017055. [Google Scholar]
  24. Fasani, Francesco, and Jacopo Mazza. 2020. Being on the Frontline? Immigrant Workers in Europe and the COVID-19 Pandemic. IZA Institute of Labor Economics Discussion Paper Series; Bonn: IZA Institute of Labor Economics. [Google Scholar]
  25. Felstead, Alan, and Darja Reuschke. 2020. Homeworking in the UK before and during the 2020 lockdown. In WISERD Report. Cymru: Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research. [Google Scholar]
  26. Felstead, Alan, and Golo Henseke. 2017. Assessing the growth of remote working and its consequences for effort, well-being and work-life balance. New Technology, Work and Employment 32: 195–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Gajendran, Ravi S., and David A. Harrison. 2007. The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology 92: 1524–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Galanti, Teresa, Gloria Guidetti, Elisabetta Mazzei, Salvatore Zappalà, and Ferdinando Toscano. 2021. Work From Home During the COVID-19 Outbreak: The Impact on Employees’ Remote Work Productivity, Engagement, and Stress. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 63: e426–e432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gefen, David, and Detmar W. Straub. 2000. The Relative Importance of Perceived Ease of Use in IS Adoption: A Study of E-Commerce Adoption. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 1: 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Green, Anne E. 2017. Implications of technological change and austerity for employability in urban labour markets. Urban Studies 54: 1638–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Greenhaus, Jeffrey H., Karen M. Collins, and Jason D. Shaw. 2003. The relation between work, family balance and quality of life. Journal of Vocational Behavior 63: 510–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Haapakangas, Annu, David M. Hallman, Svend Erik Mathiassen, and Helena Jahncke. 2018. Self-rated productivity and employee well-being in activity-based offices: The role of environmental perceptions and workspace use. Building and Environment 145: 115–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hauff, Sven, Nicole Franziska Richter, and Tabea Tressin. 2015. Situational job characteristics and job satisfaction: The moderating role of national culture. International Business Review 24: 710–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hershfield, Hal E., Cassie Mogilner, and Uri Barnea. 2016. People who choose time over money are happier. Social Psychological and Personality Science 7: 697–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hogg, Robert V., Elliot Tanis, and Dale Zimmerman. 2018. Probability and Statistical Inference, 10th ed. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC, Pearson. ISBN 978-0-13-518939-9. [Google Scholar]
  36. Houston, Donald, and Darja Reuschke. 2017. City economies and microbusiness growth. Urban Studies 54: 3199–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. HSE (Health and Safety Executive). 2021. Work-Related Stress, Depression or Anxiety statistics in Great Britain, 2021. In Annual Statistics. London: HSE. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hussein, Ramlah, Norshidah Mohamed, Abd Rahman Ahlan, and Murni Mahmud. 2011. E-government application: An integrated model on G2C adoption of online tax. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 5: 225–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. International Labour Organization. 2021. Working from Home: From Invisibility to Decent Work. Geneva: ILO. ISBN 978-92-2-033709-7. [Google Scholar]
  40. Joyce, Kerry, Roman Pabayo, Julia A. Critchley, and Clare Bambra. 2010. Flexible working conditions and their effects on employee health and wellbeing. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD008009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kamerāde, Daiga, Senhu Wang, Brendan Burchell, Sarah Ursula Balderson, and Adam Coutts. 2019. A shorter working week for everyone: How much paid work is needed for mental health and well-being? Social Science & Medicine 241: 112353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Karanikas, Nektarios, and John Cauchi. 2020. Literature Review on Parameters Related to Work-From-Home (WFH) Arrangements, Arrangements (Technical Report). CRICOS No. 00213J. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kröll, Claudia, and Stephan Nüesch. 2019. The effects of flexible work practices on employee attitudes: Evidence from a large-scale panel study in Germany. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 30: 1505–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Martin, Ludivine, Laetitia Hauret, and Chantal Fuhrer. 2022. Digitally transformed home office impacts on job satisfaction, job stress and job productivity. COVID-19 findings. PLoS ONE 17: e0265131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Messenger, Jon C., and Lutz Gschwind. 2016. Three generations of Telework: New ICTs and the (R) evolution from Home Office to Virtual Office. New Technology, Work and Employment 31: 195–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Nagy, Mark S. 2002. Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 75: 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Negulescu, Oriana Helena, and Elena Doval. 2021. Ergonomics and time management in remote working from home. Acta Technica Napocensis, Series: Applied Mathematics, Mechanics and Engineering 64: 99–108. [Google Scholar]
  48. Nunnally, Jum C. 1978. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ortiz-Lozano, José M., Pedro C. Martínez-Morán, and Víctor L. de Nicolás. 2022. Teleworking in the Public Administration: An Analysis Based on Spanish Civil Servants’ Perspectives During the Pandemic. SAGE Open 12: 21582440221079843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Paillé, Pascal, Laurent Bourdeau, and Isabelle Galois. 2010. Support, trust, satisfaction, intent to leave and citizenship at organizational level. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 18: 41–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Pavlou, Paul A. 2003. Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce: Integrating Trust and Risk with the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 7: 101–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and Nathan P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical re-view of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Poon, June M. L. 2004. Effects of performance appraisal politics on job satisfaction and turnover intention. Personnel Review 33: 322–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rentsch, Joan R., and Robert P. Steel. 1992. Construct and Concurrent Validation of the Andrews and Withey Job Satisfaction Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement 52: 357–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Scarpello, Vida, and John P. Campbell. 1983. Job satisfaction: Are all the parts there? Personnel Psychology 36: 577–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Schriesheim, Chester, and Anne S. Tsui. 1980. Development and Validation of a Short Satisfaction Instrument for Use in Survey Feedback Interventions. Paper Presented at the Western Academy of Management Meeting, Phoenix, AZ, USA; pp. 115–17. [Google Scholar]
  57. Shareef, Mahmud Akhter, Abdullah Baabdullah, Shantanu Dutta, Vinod Kumar, and Yogesh K. Dwivedi. 2018. Consumer adoption of mobile banking services: An empirical examination of factors according to adoption stages. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43: 54–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Shareena, P., and Mahammad Shahid. 2020. Work from home during covid 19: Employees perception and experiences. Global Journal for Research Analysis 9: 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Solís, Martín Salazar. 2016. Telework: Conditions that have a positive and negative impact on the work-family conflict. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administracion 29: 435–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Vega, Ronald P., Amanda J. Anderson, and Seth A. Kaplan. 2015. A within- person examination of the effects of telework. Journal of Business and Psychology 30: 313–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Waizenegger, Lena, Brad McKenna, Wenjie Cai, and Taino Bendz. 2020. An affordance perspective of team collaboration and enforced working from home during COVID-19. European Journal of Information Systems 29: 429–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wegner, Ralf, Maren Schröder, Bernd Poschadel, and Xaver Baur. 2011. Belastung und Beanspruchung durch alternierende Telearbeit [Stress and strain in alternating telework]. Zentralblatt für Arbeitsmedizin, Arbeitsschutz und Ergonomie 61: 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wheatley, Daniel. 2017. Employee satisfaction and patterns in availability and use of flexible working arrangements. Work, Employment and Society 31: 567–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Wood, Stephen James, George Michaelides, Ilke Inceoglu, Elizabeth T. Hurren, Kevin Daniels, and Karen Niven. 2021. Homeworking, Well-Being and the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Diary Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18: 7575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Yang, Eunhwa, Yujin Kim, and Sungil Hong. 2021. Does working from home work? Experience of working from home and the value of hybrid workplace post-COVID-19. Journal of Corporate Real Estate. ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zürcher, Andrea, Sibylle Galliker, Nicola Jacobshagen, Peter Lüscher Mathieu, Andrea Eller, and Achim Elfering. 2021. Increased Working from Home in Vocational Counseling Psychologists During COVID-19: Associated Change in Productivity and Job Satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 750127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Foreign non-EU citizen teleworkers vs. national V4 countries teleworkers.
Figure 1. Foreign non-EU citizen teleworkers vs. national V4 countries teleworkers.
Admsci 13 00088 g001
Figure 2. Teleworker geographical distribution within V4 countries.
Figure 2. Teleworker geographical distribution within V4 countries.
Admsci 13 00088 g002
Figure 3. Gender distribution.
Figure 3. Gender distribution.
Admsci 13 00088 g003
Table 1. Gender and foreign/national workers distribution of the sample over V4 countries.
Table 1. Gender and foreign/national workers distribution of the sample over V4 countries.
Foreign WorkersNational WorkersAll Workers
FemaleMaleFemaleMaleFemaleMale
Czech Republic141730314448
45.2%54.8%49.2%50.8%47.8%52.2%
31
33.7% of Czech workers
61
66.3% of Czech workers
92 Respondents
22% of the total sample
Hungary171948486567
47.2%52.8%50%50%49.25%51.75%
36
27.3% of Hungarian workers
96
72.7% of Hungarian workers
132 Respondents
31% of total sample
Poland131934354754
40.6%59.4%49.3%50.7%46.5%53.5%
32
31.7% of Polish workers
69
68.3% of Polish workers
101 Respondent
24% of total sample
Slovakia151631364652
48.4%51.6%46.3%53.7%47%53%
31
31.6% of Slovakian workers
67
68.4% of Slovakian workers
98 Respondent
23% of total sample
Total5971143150202221
45.4%54.6%48.8%51.2%47.75%52.25%
130 Respondents
30.75% of total sample
293 Respondents
69.25% of total sample
423 Respondent
Table 2. V4 countries teleworkers’ satisfaction with working from home experience during COVID-19 lockdown; foreign non-EU citizens vs. nationals.
Table 2. V4 countries teleworkers’ satisfaction with working from home experience during COVID-19 lockdown; foreign non-EU citizens vs. nationals.
SatisfiedNot Satisfied
V4 countries teleworkers84.4%15.6%
Foreign non-EU nationality teleworkers73%27%
National V4 countries teleworkers89.4%10.6%
Table 3. Independent samples tests for V4 countries workers’ satisfaction with working from home experience; foreign non-EU citizens vs. nationals, and females vs. males.
Table 3. Independent samples tests for V4 countries workers’ satisfaction with working from home experience; foreign non-EU citizens vs. nationals, and females vs. males.
Independent Samples Test
Levene’s Test for Equality of VariancesT-test for Equality of Means
FSig.Sig. (2-tailed)
Satisfaction with working from home experience. (Foreign non-EU citizen/national workers within V4 countries)Equal variances assumed0.0380.8500.604
Equal variances not assumed 0.616
Satisfaction with working from home experience, within V4 countries. (female/male)Equal variances assumed1.1190.2940.301
Equal variances not assumed 0.295
Table 4. V4 countries teleworkers’ intention to work from home in future: foreign non-EU citizens vs. nationals.
Table 4. V4 countries teleworkers’ intention to work from home in future: foreign non-EU citizens vs. nationals.
Intention to Work from HomeDo Not Tend to Work from Home
Teleworkers within the V4 territory80.2%19.8%
Foreign non-EU nationality teleworkers33%67%
National V4 countries teleworkers87%13%
Table 5. Correlations between V4 non-EU resident workers’ fears of losing job in case of working from home and their intention to work from home.
Table 5. Correlations between V4 non-EU resident workers’ fears of losing job in case of working from home and their intention to work from home.
Correlations
Fear of Losing JobOverall Intention
Fear of losing jobPearson’s Correlation1−0.883 **
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001
N 130
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 6. Independent samples tests for V4 countries workers’ future intention to work from home, case females vs. males.
Table 6. Independent samples tests for V4 countries workers’ future intention to work from home, case females vs. males.
Independent Samples Test
Levene’s Test for Equality of VariancesT-test-for-Equality of Means
FSig.Sig. (2-tailed)
Intention to work from home within V4 countries. (female/male)Equal variances assumed1.0650.3040.412
Equal variances not assumed 0.741
Table 7. Correlations between V4 national workers’ overall satisfaction with working from home experience during COVID-19 lockdown and their intention to work from home in the future.
Table 7. Correlations between V4 national workers’ overall satisfaction with working from home experience during COVID-19 lockdown and their intention to work from home in the future.
Correlations
Overall intention of V4 national workers to work from home in futureOverall Satisfaction of V4 national workers with teleworking experience
Overall intention of V4 national workers to work from home in future.Pearson’s Correlation10.798 **
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001
N 293
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 8. Correlations between V4 non-EU resident workers overall satisfaction with working from home experience during COVID-19 lockdown and their intention to work from home in future.
Table 8. Correlations between V4 non-EU resident workers overall satisfaction with working from home experience during COVID-19 lockdown and their intention to work from home in future.
Correlations
Overall satisfaction of V4 non-EU resident workers with working from homeOverall intention of V4 non-EU resident workers to work from home in future
Overall Satisfaction of V4 non-EU resident Workers with working from home experience during COVID-19 lockdownPearson’s Correlation10.142 **
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.224
N 130
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alassaf, P.; El-assaf, B.M.; Szalay, Z.G. Worker’s Satisfaction and Intention toward Working from Home—Foreign Non-EU Citizens vs. National Workers’ Approach: Case Study of Central European Countries (Visegrád Group (V4)). Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13030088

AMA Style

Alassaf P, El-assaf BM, Szalay ZG. Worker’s Satisfaction and Intention toward Working from Home—Foreign Non-EU Citizens vs. National Workers’ Approach: Case Study of Central European Countries (Visegrád Group (V4)). Administrative Sciences. 2023; 13(3):88. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13030088

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alassaf, Pierre, Basem Munir El-assaf, and Zsigmond Gábor Szalay. 2023. "Worker’s Satisfaction and Intention toward Working from Home—Foreign Non-EU Citizens vs. National Workers’ Approach: Case Study of Central European Countries (Visegrád Group (V4))" Administrative Sciences 13, no. 3: 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13030088

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop