‘My Company is Invisible’—Generating Trust in the Context of Placelessness, Precarity and Invisibility in Virtual Work

Part of the Dynamics of Virtual Work book series (DVW)


This chapter examines how placelessness, precarity and invisibility are experienced in virtual work and analyses the coping strategies used to generate trust by the employee in this context. Challenges posed by working at a distance away from the organisation have received considerable attention. For example, the mobility and flexibility inherent in virtual work creates risks of work-life conflict, work intensification, workaholism, and 24/7 connectivity (Leonardi et al. 2010; MacCormick et al. 2012; Derks et al. 2014; Porter and Kakabadse 2006; Greenhill and Wilson 2006; Hilbrecht et al. 2008; Kelliher and Anderson 2010; Mirchandani 2000; Russell et al. 2009). However, paradoxically, being constantly available through ICTs (Wajcman and Rose 2011) can coincide with experiences of loneliness, isolation, worry and guilt (Collins 2005; Haddon and Lewis 1994; Kurland and Bailey 1999; Mann and Holdsworth 2003; Felstead et al. 2005; Sullivan 2000).


Coping Strategy Virtual Work Subject Position Employment Relationship Relational Space 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Agnew, J. (2011). Space and place. In J. Agnew & D. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of geographical knowledge (pp. 316–330). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., & Howcroft, D. (2014). Amazon mechanical turk and the commodification of labour. New Technology, Work and Employment, 29, 213–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beynon, H., & Hudson, R. (1993). Place and space in contemporary Europe: Some lessons and reflections. Antipode, 25, 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brocklehurst, M. (2001). Power, identity and new technology homework: Implications for‘new forms’ of organizing. Organization Studies, 22, 445–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchanan, D. A. (2012). Case studies in organizational research. In G. Symon & C. Cassell (Eds.), Qualitative organizational research (pp. 351–370). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Burman, E., & Parker, I. (1993). Discourse analytic research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cavazotte, F., Lemos, A. H., & Villadsen, K. (2014). Corporate smart phones: Professionals’ conscious engagement in escalating work connectivity. New Technology, Work and Employment, 29, 72–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins, M. (2005). The (not so simple) case for teleworking: A study at Lloyd’s of London. New Technology, Work and Employment, 20, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Courpasson, D. (2000). Managerial strategies of domination. Power in soft bureaucracies. Organization Studies, 21, 141–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crozier, M. (1964). The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20, 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Derks, D., van Mierlo, H., & Schmitz, E. B. (2014). A diary study on work-related smartphone use, psychological detachment and exhaustion: Examining the role of the perceived segmentation norm. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19, 74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellem, B., & Shields, J. (1999). Rethinking ‘regional industrial relations’: Space, place and the social relations of work. Journal of Industrial Relations, 41, 536–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Felstead, A., Jewson, N., & Walters, S. (2005). Changing places of work. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Flyvberg, B. (2006). Five misunderstanding about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12, 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gold, M., & Mustafa, M. (2013). Work always wins: Client colonisation, time management and the anxieties of connected freelancers. New Technology, Work and Employment, 28, 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greenhill, A., & Wilson, M. (2006). Heaven or hell? Telework, flexibility and family in the e-society: A marxist analysis. European Journal of Information Systems, 15, 379–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grey, C., & Garsten, C. (2001). Trust, control and post-bureaucracy. Organization Studies, 22, 229–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grugulis, I., & Stoyanova, D. (2011). The missing middle: Communities of practice in a freelance labour market. Work, Employment and Society, 25, 342–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haddon, L., & Lewis, A. (1994). The experience of teleworking: An annotated review. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5, 193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Halford, S. (2005). Hybrid workspace: Re-spatialisation of work, organisation and management. New Technology, Work and Employment, 20, 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hilbrecht, M., Shaw, S. M., Johnson, L. C., & Andrey, J. (2008). ‘I’m home for the kids’: Contradictory implications for work-life balance of teleworking mothers. Gender, Work & Organization, 15, 454–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hislop, D., & Axtell, C. (2007). The neglect of spatial mobility in contemporary studies of work: The case of telework. New Technology, Work and Employment, 22, 34–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hislop, D., Bosch-Sijtsema, P., & Zimmermann, A. (2013). Introduction for special themed section: Information and communication technology and the work-life boundary. New Technology, Work and Employment, 28, 177–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kelliher, C., & Anderson, D. (2010). Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and the intensification of work. Human Relations, 63, 83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kolb, D. G., Caza, A., & Collins, P. D. (2012). States of connectivity: New questions and new directions. Organization Studies, 33, 267–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koroma, J., Hyrkkänen, U., & Vartiainen, M. (2014). Looking for people, places and connections: Hindrances when working in multiple locations: A review. New Technology, Work and Employment, 29, 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kurland, N. B., & Bailey, D. E. (1999). When workers are here, there, and everywhere: A discussion of the advantages and challenges of telework. Organizational Dynamics, 28, 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leonardi, P. M., Treem, J. W., & Jackson, M. H. (2010). The connectivity paradox: Using technology to both decrease and increase perceptions of distance in distributed work arrangements. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38, 85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. MacCormick, J. S., Dery, K., & Kolb, D. G. (2012). Engaged or just connected? Smartphones and employee engagement. Organizational Dynamics, 41, 194–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mann, S., & Holdsworth, L. (2003). The psychological impact of teleworking: Stress, emotions and health. New Technology, Work and Employment, 18, 196–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Massey, D. (1984). Spatial divisions of labour. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. Matusik, S. F., & Mickel, A. E. (2011). Embracing or embattled by converged mobile devices? Users’ experience with a contemporary connectivity technology. Human Relations, 64, 1001–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2013). The autonomy paradox: The implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organization Science, 24, 1337–1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Merrifield, A. (1993). Place and space: A lefebvrian reconciliation. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 18, 516–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mirchandani, K. (2000). ‘The best of both worlds’ and ‘cutting my own throat’: Contradictory images of home-based work. Qualitative Sociology, 23, 159–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mirchandani, K. (1998a). Protecting the boundary: Teleworker insights on the expansive concept of ‘work’. Gender & Society, 12, 168–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mirchandani, K. (1998b). No longer a struggle? Teleworkers’ reconstruction of the work-non-work boundary. In P. J. Jackson & J. M. Van der Wielen (Eds.), Teleworking: International perspectives—From telecommuting to the virtual organisation (pp. 118–135). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28, 1435–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Porter, G., & Kakabadse, N. K. (2006). HRM perspectives on addiction to technology and work. Journal of Management Development, 25, 535–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology—Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Potter, M., & Hamilton, J. (2014). Picking on vulnerable migrants: Precarity and the mushroom industry in Northern Ireland. Work, Employment and Society, 28, 390–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Russell, H., O’Connell, P. J., & McGinnity, F. (2009). The impact of flexible working arrangements on work-life conflict and work pressure in Ireland. Gender, Work and Organization, 16, 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Siebert, S., & Wilson, F. (2013). All work and no pay: Consequences of unpaid work in the creative industries. Work, Employment and Society, 27, 711–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith, J. A. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In J. A. Smith, R. Harré, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 9–26). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  48. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: The dangerous new class. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  50. Sullivan, C. (2000). Space and the intersection of work and family in homeworking households. Community, Work & Family, 3, 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tietze, S. (2002). When ‘work’ comes ‘home’: coping strategies of teleworkers and their families. Journal of Business Ethics, 41, 385–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tietze, S., & Musson, G. (2005). Recasting the home–work relationship: A case of mutual adjustment. Organization Studies, 26, 1331–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vayre, E., & Pignault, A. (2014). A systemic approach to interpersonal relationships and activities among french teleworkers. New Technology, Work and Employment, 29, 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Visconti, L. M., Sherry Jr., J. F., Borghini, S., & Anderson, L. (2010). Street art, sweet art? Reclaiming the ‘public’ in public place. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 511–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wajcman, J., & Rose, E. (2011). Constant connectivity: Rethinking interruptions at work. Organization Studies, 32, 941–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Willig, C. (2008). Introducing qualitative research in psychology. Adventures in theory and method (2nd ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press, McGraw Hill Education.Google Scholar
  58. Wilson, J. M., O’Leary, M. B., Metiu, A., & Jett, Q. R. (2008). Perceived proximity in virtual work: Explaining the paradox of far-but-close. Organization Studies, 29, 979–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human Resource Management and Organisational Behaviour (HROB)Lord Ashcroft International Business SchoolCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations