Teleworking is a work practice that entails remote working for at least some of the time. Common arrangements include work done at home or in the field, by teleworkers in a range of occupations. As such, telework is one of the most radical departures from standard working conditions in the suite of flexible work practices now gaining widespread acceptance. In this paper, we develop an explanatory model of organizational adoption of teleworking. We do this as a means of integrating the current literature on the incidence of teleworking and to provide a theoretical grounding and framework for understanding differentials in the growth of teleworking in different organizations, industries and countries. We begin by developing an appropriate framework for conceptualizing teleworking. We propose a multivariate approach that is able to differentiate the various forms of teleworking. We then use this framework to develop a model and a series of propositions concerning the adoption of different forms of teleworking. Neo-institutional theory, as well as recent empirical evidence on teleworking informs this model

Home-based telework is a growing phenomenon with great potential to affect employees' psychological well-being. Although prior studies show both positive and negative effects on work-family interaction, conclusions are limited by the way telework, well-being, and work-family interaction have been modeled. The authors present a conceptual framework that describes telework as a multidimensional phenomenon and separates the effects of the home environment from those of distance from the organization. Propositions concerning work-family interaction are developed from P. Warr's (1987) model of the environmental antecedents of well-being, prior telework studies, and the work-family literature. Spillover between work and nonwork domains of well-being is discussed, and suggestions for future research on this complex issue are presented.

Analects, Confucius, Confucian, management ethics, self-regulation,

During the twentieth century, much of the discussion about managerial behaviour centred on the difference between management functions and manager roles, with much of the debate centring on``Who is right, Mintzberg or Fayol?'' Reports on a study, involving 523 Australian managers, which suggests both are right ± Fayol gave us management as we would like it to be and Mintzberg gave us management as it is. In doing so, promulgates a set of new constructions of managerial behaviour ± preferred managerial style (management as we would like it to be) and enacted managerial style (management as it is). Taken together, we now have available to us a more integrated theoretical base for research on management and managerial behaviour, and a measure that can be used to progress the required research.

Turnover, Training, Multinational companies (MNCs), Expatriate management, Chinese, Asia,