IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ilrrev/v76y2023i1p135-159.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Remote Work and Post-Bureaucracy: Unintended Consequences of Work Design for Gender Inequality

Author

Listed:
  • Kim de Laat

Abstract

In-depth interviews with IT employees ( N = 84) working under two types of work design—a post-bureaucratic work design labeled “agile,†and a bureaucratic work design labeled “waterfall†—are used to examine gendered patterns in the adoption of remote work. Interviews reveal an unintended consequence of the agile model: It promotes a physical orientation that induces on-site work. Agile is gender-inegalitarian, with more women than men working remotely despite its perceived unacceptability, and low numbers of employees working remotely overall. By contrast, workers within a waterfall work design express a digital orientation to work and feel empowered to work remotely. The waterfall model is associated with gender egalitarianism; most employees opt to work remotely, and men and women do so in even numbers. Findings suggest that when compared to the post-bureaucratic work design, the bureaucratic work design provides more flexibility. This article refines our understanding of barriers to remote work and provides a lens on the gender dynamics underlying work design.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim de Laat, 2023. "Remote Work and Post-Bureaucracy: Unintended Consequences of Work Design for Gender Inequality," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 76(1), pages 135-159, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:ilrrev:v:76:y:2023:i:1:p:135-159
    DOI: 10.1177/00197939221076134
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00197939221076134
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00197939221076134?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ilrrev:v:76:y:2023:i:1:p:135-159. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.