The always-connected age of modern technology:
Constant connectivity to work and its relationship with
employees’ well-being
Nadine Büchler (11571551)
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s Programme: Communication Science
Corporate Communication Supervisor: Dr. Claartje ter Hoeven
Abstract
The development of mobile work devices (MWD) such as laptops or smartphones has changed and is still changing our work habits, allowing especially knowledge intensive employees to work more time and location independently. Previous research has found that this perceived working flexibility not rarely results in people being constantly connected to work through their MWDs, which has been linked to considerable negative outcomes, such as work overload, stress and exhaustion. Yet, research regarding this constant connectivity’s (CC) relationship with
employees’ well-being as well as research regarding CC’s structural antecedents is still scarce. The present paper contributes thereto with a survey study among N = 661 knowledge intensive employees in two large corporations. Structural equation modeling shows that CC is negatively related to employees’ well-being through a lack of psychological detachment and that this negative relationship exists independently of an employee’s preference for segmenting or integrating one’s work and home domains. Examining different organization-related variables possibly allowing an organization’s management to influence the development of CC among their workforce and in turn to ensure its well-being, it is further concluded that the perceived alignment of the materiality of MWD and one’s occupational identity, the vulnerability to social pressure and the visibility of co-workers’ communication practices with MWDs should be prevented. Moreover, this paper is the first of its kind, creating and validating a multiple item scale to assess CC based on its core aspects and attributes to measure the construct close to its theoretical definition. The study closes with a discussion of theoretical and practical implications.
Keywords: constant connectivity, mobile work devices, well-being, psychological detachment, segmentation preferences
Introduction
In the past two decades, the development of mobile work devices (MWDs), such as laptops and smartphones, has changed work habits and enabled work autonomy in terms of space and time especially for knowledge professionals (Rice, 2017). Although autonomy principally is an important intrinsic motivator at work (George & Jones, 2012) and accordingly these new information and communication technologies (ICT) have been related to some positive
experiences for employees (e.g., Cavazotte, Heloisa Lemos, & Villadsen, 2014; Diaz, Chiaburu, Zimmerman, & Boswell, 2012; Frissen, 2000; Towers, Duxbury, Higgins, & Thomas, 2006; Valcour & Hunter, 2008), current research emphasizes that by allowing people to work anywhere and anytime, MWDs lead people to work everywhere and all the time, even beyond official work hours (e.g., Mazmanian, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2013; Rosen, 2012). This constant connectivity (CC) to work has been shown to be related to considerable negative outcomes such as
unavoidable stress (Murray & Rostis, 2007), work overload (Frissen, 2000), the pressure of constant availability (e.g., Cavazotte et. al., 2014; Frissen, 2000; Tarafdar, Tu, Ragu-Nathan, & Ragu-Nathan, 2007; Towers et. al., 2006), exhaustion (Derks, van Mierlo, & Schmitz, 2014), depletion and lower engagement (Lanaj, Johnson, & Barnes, 2014) and increased work to life or family conflict (e.g., Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007; Butts, Becker, & Boswell, 2015; Chesley, 2005; Diaz et. al., 2012; Derks, van Duin, Tims, & Bakker, 2015), overall indicating a certain harm of employees’ well-being (for a review, see Ďuranová & Ohly, 2016).
Since stress and generally impaired well-being of employees impact the functioning of organizations, for example through increased sick leave, staff turnover and decreased
performance (e.g., Cooper & Cartwright, 1994; Hoel, Sparks, & Cooper, 2001; for an overview, see Danna & Griffin, 1999), such outcomes not only concern individuals, but their organization alike. In numbers, workplace stress-related health costs are estimated to range from $125 to $190
billion dollars per year in the United States (Goh, Pfeffer, & Zenios, 2015). High demands at work and work-family conflict – both confirmed aspects related to CC (e.g., Butts et. al., 2015; Chesley, 2005) – were found to count among the strongest influences (Goh, Pfeffer, & Zenios, 2015). In Europe, workplace stress-related costs seem comparable (e.g., International Labour Organization, 2016).
Considering CC’s relationship with negative outcomes for individuals and their organization, it is relevant to examine the factors possibly influencing CC among an
organization’s workforce. Yet, research about antecedents of CC is still scarce (for a review, see Ďuranová & Ohly, 2016) and has mainly focused on individual attributes, such as job
involvement (Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007), ambition (Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007; Boswell, Olson-Buchanan, Butts, & Becker, 2016), identification with work (Boswell et. al., 2016) and preferences for integrative boundary management (e.g., Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2006; Richardson & Benbunan-Fich, 2011). Quantitatively, the distribution of MWDs and subjective norms about being connected or reachable have been the only variables associated with CC on the organizational level (e.g., Richardson & Benbunan-Fich, 2011). Qualitative studies however, not only similarly emphasize the role of group dynamics when it comes to the development of CC among an organization’s workforce (e.g., Matusik & Mickel, 2001;
Mazmanian, 2013; Mazmanian et. al. 2013; Mazmanian, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2006), but often suggest more detailed antecedents: For example, Mazmanian (2013) first stresses the importance of “understanding the social origins and potential social solutions to traps of connectivity” (p. 1247), pointing at the organization’s part in the development of CC and its role when it comes to providing solutions to prevent the latter. She then proposes three key dimensions steering the development of communication patterns with MWDs in an organization and therewith outlines opportunities to possibly influence CC and its negative consequences: First, the perceived
alignment between the materiality of a MWD and one’s occupational identity, thus if the
properties a MWD provides, aligns with the values one relates to one’s job, second, vulnerability to social pressure, thus if one is susceptible to adapt his or her behavior according to external expectations, and third the visibility of others’ communication practices, thus co-workers’ and supervisors’ influence (Mazmanian, 2013). Operationalizing Mazmanian’s (2013) key
dimensions, investigating their assumed association with CC and in turn the latter’s relationship with employees’ well-being in a quantitative study will allow generalized assertions about an organization’s role in the development of CC and the well-being of its workforce. Hence, the following research question will be addressed:
How is constant connectivity to work related to employees’ well-being and how may the key dimensions alignment between the materiality of mobile work devices and one’s occupational identity, vulnerability to social pressure, and visibility of co-workers’ and supervisors’
communication practices help to prevent constant connectivity among the workforce?
This study will contribute to theory and practice in a threefold way: First, the paper adds knowledge to previous findings about organizational antecedents of CC, which is still scarce (Ďuranová & Ohly, 2016). Considering the significant costs for organizations due to negative outcomes related to CC, it appears important to investigate organizations’ possibilities to
influence such practices. By looking closer at the relationship Mazmanian’s (2013) proposed key dimensions have with CC behavior among employees, relevant aspects on the organizational level are discerned.
Second, the paper contributes to previous research concerning the possible consequences of CC for employees: By shedding light on how (i.e. mechanism) and for whom (i.e. possible
moderating effect) CC may be related to well-being, future research claims by authors such as Boswell and Olson-Buchanan (2007) or Ďuranová and Ohly (2016) are followed, stating that the
relationship between CC and employees’ individual well-being needs to be deepened. To do so, it is accounted for the concept of psychological detachment (Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005), which has formerly been established as an underlying mechanism of related constructs (e.g. Derks et. al., 2014), as well as for the role of segmentation preferences (Kreiner, 2006), proposed as a possible variable moderating the consequences of CC for different individuals.
The last contribution concerns this paper’s methodological approach: Previous research mainly assessed CC by measuring the self-reported frequency, duration or intensity of people using their MWD during off-work hours (for an overview see Ďuranová & Ohly, 2016) – which has often been mentioned as respective limitations of the studies (e.g., Boswell &
Olson-Buchanan, 2007; Diaz et. al., 2012; Richardson & Benbunan-Fich, 2011) – or recently by applying an event perspective, assessing CC as specific time and place bound happenings after work-hours (Braukmann, Schmitt, Ďuranová, & Ohly, 2017). Yet, this paper is the first one, developing and validating a five-item scale by focusing the core aspects of CC found through a thorough review of core aspects related to CC (e.g., Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007; Perlow, 2012; Porter & Kakabadse, 2006; Wajcman & Rose, 2011): The measurement scale assesses the respondents’ impression of their availability and connectedness during non-work hours, whether they check and answer messages during non-work hours as well as the control the MWD gives them to monitor their work remotely. Through these items the latent construct is assessed closer to its theoretical definition. The newly created scale will be helpful for further research in the field of CC.
Theoretical Perspectives
Constant connectivity to work and employees’ reduced well-being
The relationship between the workplace situation and individuals’ well-being is a widely treated topic among practitioners and scholars (for reviews, see e.g., Bliese, Edwards, &
Sonnentag, 2017; Danna & Griffin, 1999). Due to its proven relationship with performance related business outcomes such as higher profitability, productivity, customer satisfaction and lower turnover rates (for a review, see Harter, Schmidt, & Keyes, 2003), especially the
relationship between well-being and organization-related variables, such as healthy workplace practices (for a review, see Grawitch, Gottschalk, & Munz, 2006) or the well-being of leaders (for a review, see Skakon, Nielsen, Borg, & Guzman, 2010) have been examined. Yet, while the work-setting is proven to be an important determinant of employees’ well-being, it is argued that well-being should be considered a dynamic construct associated with and linking work and non-work domains (Ilies, Schwind, & Heller, 2007; Sonnentag, 2015) since one’s experiences and achievements in one domain “spill over” into the respective other life domain (Danna & Griffin, 1999, p. 358).
Boundary theory (Ashforth et. al., 2000) explains why and to what extent such spill-overs happen: It suggests that individuals establish a sort of “mental fence” (Zerubavel, 1991, p. 2), commonly called ‘boundaries’ to manage the segmentation and/or integration of their work- and home-roles physically, psychologically and/or in terms of behaviors. These boundaries, their strength and their permeability differ among individuals, depending on both, one’s possibilities – relating to alternatives given by one’s employer and one’s job design – and preferences – relating to whether one likes to keep work and home domains separate (i.e. is a segmenter), by for
example not talking about work-related topics at home, or to integrate them (i.e. is an integrator), through practices such as working from home (Ashforth et. al., 2000; Kreiner, 2006; Mellner, Aronsson, & Kecklund, 2014; Rothbard, Phillips, & Dumas, 2005). Even though the strength and permeability of the enacted boundaries may differ among individuals, the concept of
psychological detachment suggests, that some segmentation is indispensable for one’s well-being (Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007): For the first time introduced by Etzion,
Eden, and Lapiot (1998), detachment refers to a “sense of being away from the work situation” (p. 579). Sonnentag and Bayer (2005) elaborated the term to “psychological detachment’’ and emphasize the importance of being both, physically and psychologically detached from work, thus to completely “switch off” by not only “leaving the working place” but also to “take a break from thinking about work related issues” (pp. 393-395). Research has widely confirmed the importance of psychological detachment for employees’ well-being, in shorter (Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005) and longer time intervals (Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza, 2010a) and detachment in leisure time has been discerned as one of five psychological mechanisms that are related to subjective well-being (Newman, Tay, & Diener, 2014). In contrast, a lack of psychological detachment has been related to impaired physical and psychological well-being – the former induced through increased psychosomatic health complaints (Taris, Geurts, Schaufeli, Blonk, & Lagerveld, 2008) and the latter directly (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007) and indirectly through increased stress (Sonnentag, Kuttler, & Fritz, 2010b), emotional exhaustion or burnout (Sonnentag et. al., 2010a, 2010b).
With the development of new ICT, such as laptops and smartphones, providing especially knowledge intensive employees with the possibility to work more time and location
independently, the distinction between work- and non-work or home hours increasingly blurs, since people often stay available for work purposes after working hours (Wajcman & Rose, 2011), resulting in work and home life being integrated to a larger extent (Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007). A key term that has become prevalent in this context is constant connectivity to work, referring to people being perpetually available (Wajcman & Rose, 2011) and connected to the organization ‘24/7’ (Porter & Kakabadse, 2006), implying that their work-related ICT use continues after official working hours (i.e. evenings, week-ends or holidays). Such CC practices are often related to a (perceived) obligation of connectedness and responsiveness (Valcour &
Hunter, 2008). Leslie Perlow (2012) defines this state as being constantly ‘on’, referring to “the time people spend working plus all the additional time they were available, monitoring their work in case something came up” (p. 6-7). Fenner and Renn (2004) refer to it as technology-assisted supplemental work (TASW), stating that new ICT enable an “anytime-anywhere connectedness of employees to their work” (p. 184).
Regardless of the label used, it becomes apparent that being constantly connected to work inherently excludes the possibility to detach from work (Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005). In this regard, a survey among university alumni in the U.S. concluded that technology use for work purposes at home was negatively related to psychological detachment and that segmentation of work and home role helped to detach from work (Park, Fritz, & Jex, 2011). Results of another online survey study among employees in the U.S. (Barber & Jenkins, 2014) as well as a diary study in Germany (Derks et. al., 2014) backed up these findings.
Combined with the findings that psychological detachment from work is essential for one’s well-being and that a lack of psychological detachment is associated with impaired well-being (e.g., Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007; Taris et. al., 2008) or even exhaustion (Derks et. al., 2014), it is hypothesized that:
H1: Constant connectivity is negatively related to well-being, through diminished psychological detachment.
While some segmentation has found to be essential for the necessary detachment to experience well-being (Binnewies & Sonnentag, 2008; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007), qualitative research suggests that the type of boundary management (i.e. segmentation vs. integration) is not the most important aspect, but whether people are able to manage their boundaries according to their preferences (Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2009). A survey among employees in different occupations similarly demonstrated that alignment between boundary management possibilities
and preferences was associated with less work-to-home conflict, decreased stress, and increased job satisfaction (Kreiner, 2006). In this regard, a quantitative diary study has moreover shown that work-related smartphone use after-hours is beneficial for integrators, since these activities were related to less work-family conflict and better family role performance (Derks, Bakker, Peters, & van Wingerden, 2016).
Since the use of MWD and CC lead to melting boundaries between work and home (Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007) and thus refer to rather integrated boundary management, it is assumed that people preferring to segment work and home are more severely concerned by CC than integrators, since for the latter, boundary management possibilities and preferences align in the case of CC. It is thus hypothesized:
H2: The indirect negative relationship between constant connectivity and well-being, through diminished psychological detachment is moderated by one’s segmentation preferences, in that the relationship is stronger for segmenters.
Organizational-level antecedents of constant connectivity
Quantitatively, merely the distribution of MWDs and organizational norms (Richardson & Benbunan-Fich, 2011) have been discerned as antecedents of CC on the organizational level. Different qualitative studies (e.g., Mazmanian, 2013; Mazmanian et. al., 2013) have similarly focused on the importance of group dynamics, generating specific insights that set a starting point for the identification of possible further variables related to CC among a workforce: Adopting a technology-in-practice perspective (Orlikowski, 2000) and by means of in-depth interviews, on-site observation and open-ended surveys among two different departments (i.e. legal and sales) of a footwear manufacturer, Mazmanian (2013) discerned that shared expectations regarding
appropriate communication practices with MWDs developed through the sense-making and the effective use of the MWD in question and that the framing process over time led to either
homogeneous and thus CC or to heterogeneous communication practices in different
departments. The development of the one or the other in the social context was influenced by three key dimensions on the organizational level, possibly predicting the specific type of communication practices that arise with a MWD (Mazmanian, 2013):
The first dimension concerns the alignment between the perceived materiality, thus the perception of what a MWD provides the user with in terms of functional, physical and symbolic aspects, and an employee’s occupational identity, referring to one’s self-perception regarding one’s interests, abilities, goals and values related to work (Hirschi, 2012). While the employees in the legal department perceived the properties of the device useful to live up to their occupational identity, sales representatives’ “sense of self [was] not aligned with cultural narratives suggesting what a device can do and whom it is for” (Mazmanian, 2013, p. 1244). Thus, the sales force used their MWDs in an experiential and individually supportive way, while alignment led to a
homogeneous trajectory of use among the attorneys: Based on their understanding of the attributes of a notable lawyer (i.e. occupational identity), everyone expected perpetual
accessibility and responsiveness from others and themselves. Since their MWD afforded exactly this accessibility and responsiveness, they used it accordingly (Mazmanian, 2013). Mazmanian’s (2013) finding is backed up by another qualitative study examining how knowledge professionals handled interruptions at work due to being constantly connected to different communication technologies (Wajcman & Rose, 2011): First, the study states that the material properties afforded by MWDs are integral for knowledge professionals. Second, it equally observes the influence of the entanglement of a communication device’s material properties with one’s self-perceived work role when it comes to CC. The finding was especially evident for the afforded property and perceived necessity of constant availability (Wajcman & Rose, 2011). Based on these qualitative studies, it is hypothesized that:
H3: Alignment between the perceived materiality of mobile work devices and one’s occupational role is positively related to constant connectivity.
Mazmanian’s (2013) second key dimension refers to people’s vulnerability to social pressure: While the sales group was directly responsible for the revenue of the firm and thus felt secure in their position, lawyers worked in the background and felt that they did not contribute directly to the firm’s revenue, and even saw themselves as a “revenue drain” (Mazmanian, 2013, p. 1242). Their structural position “left them vulnerable to internal and external pressures”, feeling the need to justify their presence (p. 1242). Thus, over time, the in-house lawyers stayed increasingly available and responsive to be perceived “on-top” (p. 1242). Sales people in turn were aware of others’ acknowledgement of their contribution and did not feel the obligation to be more responsive or perpetually available (Mazmanian, 2013).
Extending one’s availability through the ubiquitous use of ICTs for work purposes has already been shown to be a mean to show one’s commitment and value for the corporation in previous research (Murray & Rostis, 2007). Thus, CC serves as a mean to align one’s assumed social image with how one would like to be seen (Leary & Kowalski, 1990), namely as an important contributor. Also, shared expectations and a perceived obligation regarding people’s responsiveness and availability have been shown to be a widespread reason for people to stay constantly connected (e.g., Cavazotte et. al., 2014; Mazmanian et. al., 2013). Complying with such perceived expectations can be interpreted as being vulnerable to social pressure, leading to:
H4: Vulnerability to social pressure is positively related to constant connectivity. The last dimension concerns the visibility of others’ practices with a MWD. In the
attorney’s department CC practices were visible, for example through frequent cc-ing. People had the impression to know how others used their MWD and assumed those practices to be
appropriate. Over time, employees’ perception of appropriate communication practices changed in direction of increasing responsiveness and availability expectations, resulting in everyone being constantly connected to work. In the sales department in turn, where the employees had no knowledge about others’ communication practices, the perceived norm was to use the device according to one’s needs (Mazmanian, 2013).
The relationship between the visibility of others’ behaviors and shared assumptions about appropriate behavior has been shown in former studies: Regarding co-workers, interviews about the utilization of work-family policies among employees in the U.S. (Kirby & Krone, 2002) and of work-life policies among employees in the Netherlands (ter Hoeven, Miller, Peper, & den Dulk, 2017) showed, that the way employees talk about those policies – which can be interpreted as making their attitudes about the policies visible to others – shaped the workforce’s general meaning about their appropriateness, affecting employees’ attitudes towards the policies and finally how people made use of them. Moreover, seeing how co-workers made use of the affordances of connectedness and responsiveness of a MWD, changed collective expectations about appropriate communication practices with it and led to an escalating engagement, finally resulting in a norm of constant availability and responsiveness among the employees of a private equity group (Mazmanian et. al., 2013). Similarly, the relevance of supervisors as role models has been established for example for boundary management behavior (e.g., Koch & Binnewies, 2015): Accordingly, a survey among white-collar employees and their supervisors concluded that employees that have a supervisor showing work and home segmentation behavior – thus making his/her behavior visible – are more likely to segment work and home themselves. Additionally, a survey study among employees of a grocery store chain in the United States has shown that among other dimensions, supervisors’ role modeling – referring to the actual demonstration of behavior at the job – shapes organizational norms and shared values regarding work-life-balance
in the organization (Hammer, Kossek, Yragui, Bodner, & Hanson, 2009). It is therefore hypothesized1:
H5a: The visibility of co-worker’s communication practices with mobile work devices is positively related to constant connectivity.
H5b: The visibility of supervisors’ communication practices with mobile work devices is positively related to constant connectivity.
The conceptual model in Figure 1 summarizes and visualizes all hypotheses. Research Approach
The analysis of the introduced conceptual model and its hypotheses will encompass three main phases, discussed in detail in the method and result sections:
Phase 1 – Operationalization: Besides the constructs of well-being, psychological
detachment and segmentation preferences, for which existing scales are available, all constructs included in the conceptual model need to be newly operationalized or at least adapted to the present context. To do so, former studies and concept definitions are employed.
Phase 2 – Validating the measurement model: Since most constructs of the conceptual model are either operationalized for the first time or their operationalization is contextually adapted, different steps are employed to ensure their validity: First, the hypothesized factor structure of all scales is tested using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) upon a sample of n = 274 (Slavec & Drnovšek, 2012). The thereout discerned factor structure is replicated upon an independent sample (n = 387) and after some adaptions likewise on the study’s overall sample (N = 661). To finally validate the measurement model for further examinations, construct validity is demonstrated by testing the convergent and discriminant validity of the scales (Cole, 1987).
Phase 3 – Structural model and hypotheses testing: Next, the hypothesized structural model and the assumed relationships between the latent constructs are tested by structural equation
modeling (SEM) applying AMOS (Kline, 2011). It is accounted for different incremental and absolute indices to estimate the model fit: While the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) and the
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) are taken into account as incremental indices (Hu & Bentler, 1999), the standardized version of the root mean squared residual (SRMR) and the root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) are used as absolute fit indices (Byrne, 2001). To consider it a good model fit, the incremental indices should be >.90, or >.95 for an excellent fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). RMSEA and SRMR are considered good when displaying values of <.08 and <.10, or excellent with values of <.05 for RMSEA and <.09 for SRMR (Byrne, 2001).
Methods Sample and Procedures
Data were gathered among the workforce of two globally operating corporations Alpha and Beta2: Alpha is specialized in engineering and mass forming in the automotive industry,
employing 2,551 employees in Liechtenstein. Beta is a provider in the field of IT-systems, solutions and consulting, employing approximately 3,000 employees in Switzerland. All knowledge intensive employees being provided with a MWD (i.e. laptop and/or smartphone) were invited to participate in a ten minutes online survey about their habits regarding work-related MWD usage and their well-being. At Alpha, 637 employees are knowledge professionals and possess a laptop and/or a smartphone and thus were invited by E-Mail sent by the Head of Human Resource. At Beta, the conditions applied to all approximately 3,000 employees, who were invited to the study by E-Mail, sent by the Country General Manager. Since it could not be ensured that all employees at Alpha understand English on a sufficient level, both, invitation and survey were distributed in German. To ensure the consistence between both samples, everything was back translated with the help of a colleague, fluent in German and English (Slavec & Drnovšek, 2012).
The employees were given two weeks during November 2017 to participate in the study and were allowed to do so during work-time. In the end, 274 employees at Alpha filled out the survey, resulting in a response rate of 43.0% and 387 employees at Beta, resulting in a response rate of approximately 12.9% and in an overall sample of N = 661. The rather low response rate at Beta might be explained by the fact that its employees were asked to respond to a questionnaire regarding their satisfaction with work only few days before sending them the survey for the present study. Two surveys within few days probably was too much. Information about the demographic characteristics of the samples is shown in Table 1.
Measures (Phase 1)
The whole measurement model with its scales and final items (including factor loadings), as well as their average variance extracted are shown in Table 2. Moreover, the correlation matrix in Table 3, shows the scales’ means, standard deviations, and reliabilities (range α = .84 to .91).
Multiple indicator scales, consisting of Likert-type questions measured on five-point scales ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, are used to assess the latent constructs of the conceptual model. For well-being, psychological detachment and segmentation preferences available scales are used, the remaining scales are adapted from related constructs (i.e.
vulnerability to social pressure, alignment between materiality and organizational role) or newly constructed, based on qualitative findings of former studies and definitions (i.e. CC and visibility of communication practices):
To measure constant connectivity, a self-reporting scale is created, accounting for the core attributes of CC outlined by different scholars, such as perpetual availability (e.g., Wajcman & Rose, 2011), permanent connectedness to the organization (Porter & Kakabadse, 2006), the exerted control of work beyond work hours (Perlow, 2012) and blurred boundaries through the use of the device for work-purposes during non-work hours (e.g., Boswell & Olson-Buchanan,
2007). After having discarded two items due to low factor loadings displayed by the CFA, the scale finally contains five items.
Well-being is measured through the widely validated WHO-5 well-being scale, assessing subjective well-being in more than 30 languages (Topp, Ostergaard, Sondergaard, & Bech, 2015). Due to low factor loading, one item needed to be discarded during the CFA, resulting in a final four-item well-being scale for the present study.
To assess missing psychological detachment, Sonnentag and Fritz’s (2007) validated four-item ‘Recovery Experience Questionnaire’ is used. Yet, since the latter assesses psychological detachment, referring to people’s unwinding and recuperation processes from work, it is reversed coded.
Segmentation preferences, referring to one’s preferences to keep home and work domains separated or to integrate them, are assessed by Kreiner’s (2006) validated four-item scale.
To measure the alignment between materiality and occupational identity, assessing if people think that the properties a MWD provides them with (i.e. materiality) align with what they think is important in their job (i.e. occupational identity) a four-item scale is created. Items from Peters and Ben Alouch (2005) regarding the motives to use mobile devices are adapted to the work environment and completed with an assertion expressing the necessity of this property to live up to one’s occupational identity, based on findings from Wajcman, Bittman and Brown (2008) and Mazmanian (2013).
Since public self-consciousness refers to the likelihood persons conform to external pressure (Froming & Carver, 1981), vulnerability to social pressure is assessed by five items of Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss’ (1975) scale of public self-consciousness adapted to one’s work situation (cf. May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004). Due to a high cross-correlation between two scale items, one item was discarded during CFA. Therefore, a four-item scale remained.
To assess the visibility of others communication practices, two (i.e., for co-workers and supervisors) scales are constructed based on Mazmanian’s (2013) qualitative findings revealing the attributes of such visibility, for example the concrete sense of how others are engaging with the technology or the awareness of others’ e-mail practices. Due to high within factor loadings, one item in each scale was discarded during the CFA. The final scales thus consist of four items each.
Results Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Phase 2)
First, the theorized scales’ factor structure was tested by a CFA upon the independent sample from Alpha (n = 274) (Slavec & Drnovšek, 2012). Insignificant and low factor loadings (< .60) (Kline, 2011) led to the consecutive exclusion of six items from the scales of CC, alignment between materiality and occupational identity, visibility and well-being. Once all factor loadings were significant (p < .001) and sizable (range: .61 to .94), the measurement model’s fit was calculated, yet is judged to be unsatisfactory: χ2 (566)=1374.481; CFI= 0.87;
TLI=0.85; SRMR= 0.07 and RMSEA= 0.07 (CI: 0.067, 0.077). High within factor correlations were shown between two items of the visibility of co-workers’ communication practices (.39), the visibility of supervisors’ communication practices (.30) and the psychological detachment (.36) scales. Since the psychological detachment scale has been validated before (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007) and only consists of four items, an error-correlation was added between these two indicators. For the visibility scales, it was accounted for the importance of parsimony in scale construction (Hinkin, 1995) and thus the item with the lower factor loading was discarded in each scale. Moreover, a high cross-factor correlation (.38) became apparent between two items of the visibility of communication practices of one’s co-workers and supervisor scales. Since these items are identical in wording except for the target group (i.e. co-workers vs. supervisors) this
correlation was not further surprising and the items were allowed to correlate.After these adjustments, a good model fit is reached: χ2 (497)=868.410; CFI= 0.93; TLI=0.92; SRMR= 0.07 and RMSEA= 0.05 (CI: 0.047, 0.058) with factor loadings ranging from .58 to .94. To validate the herewith-discerned factor structure, the measurement model was tested upon the independent sample from Beta (n = 387). The model was largely validated and the model fit is good: χ2
(497)=930.402; CFI= 0.94; TLI=0.94; SRMR= 0.05 and RMSEA= 0.05 (CI: 0.043, 0.052), with factor loadings ranging from .58 to .93. However, due to a high within factor correlation between two items of the vulnerability scale (.25), one of these items was dismissed, again accounting for parsimony in scale construction (Hinkin, 1995). This adjustment led to an excellent model fit: χ2 (465)=805.141; CFI= 0.95; TLI=0.95; SRMR= 0.05 and RMSEA= 0.04 (CI: 0.038, 0.049) with factor loadings ranging from .58 to .93.3 Finally, the model is replicated upon the merged data of Alpha and Beta (N = 661), showing an excellent model fit: χ2 (465)=1011.029; CFI= 0.96;
TLI=0.95; SRMR= 0.05 and RMSEA= 0.04 (CI: 0.039, 0.046), with factor loadings ranging from .62 to .93 for the overall sample. Subsequently, the multiple indicator scales were adapted
according to the outcomes of the CFA, and finally varied from four to five items, reaching all good reliabilities (see Table 3).
Before testing the hypotheses, construct validity was assessed by weighting discriminant and convergent validity using the CFA approach (Cole, 1987), in order to justify an examination of the structural model: Since all factor loadings are significant and sizable, ranging from .62 to .93 on the intended factors (see Table 2), convergent validity can be confirmed. Cross-factor loadings were rather small, ranging from -.45 to .40 (see Table 3), except for the high cross-factor correlation between the visibility of co-workers’ and supervisors’ communication practices (.61) scales, which was expectable since the measurement items are identical in wording and only vary
regarding the target group (i.e. co-workers vs. supervisors). Thus, the distinctiveness of the factors and thus the discriminant validity is confirmed as well.
Hypotheses testing (Phase 3)
The last phase of the analysis consists of testing the structural model and the hypotheses. First, the data’s standard distribution and multicollinearity are contemplated: Histograms show that the data are not perfectly but acceptably linear for analysis. Multicollinearity between the factors is unproblematic since all variance inflation factors (VIF) show a value < 2. Moreover, the structural model’s (see Figure 2) fit is considered and judged to be good for the overall sample (χ2 (506)=1425.963; CFI= 0.94; TLI=0.93; SRMR= 0.07 and RMSEA= 0.052 (CI: 0.049,
0.056)). To assess the confidence intervals of the indirect and the direct effects in the structural model, bootstrapping with 5’000 replications is conducted for the hypotheses testing.
The first hypothesis (H1), suggesting a negative indirect relationship between CC and well-being through missing psychological detachment, is supported. This indirect negative relationship is weak but highly significant: b* = -.178, BC 95% [-.231; -.130], p < .001. Thus, employees who are more constantly connected, experience lower well-being due to a lack of psychological detachment. In Hypothesis 2, the indirect negative relationship between CC and well-being was assumed, to be moderated by one’s segmentation preferences. To construct the latent moderator (interaction) variable, the product of the items with the highest factor loadings according to the initial constructs of missing psychological detachment and segmentation preferences is calculated (Jöreskog & Yang, 1996). As shown by the bias-corrected confidence interval for the moderated relationship, this hypothesis must be rejected: b* = 0.764, BC 95% [-.057; 2.109], p = .071. As visualized by Figure 3, segmentation preferences do not moderate the indirect negative
relationship between CC and well-being. Figure 3 moreover indicates another interesting aspect: There is a strong negative relationship between segmentation preferences and well-being (b* =
-0.716, BC 95% [-1.520; -.213], p = .004), indicating that segmenters in the sample of Alpha and Beta generally experience lower well-being than integrators. Overall seen, 22.7% (R2 = .23) in the variance of the sample’s well-being can be explained by the factors of the structural model.
Subsequently, the relationships of Mazmanian’s (2013) proposed key dimensions with CC are tested and three (H3-5a) of the four hypotheses are supported: While the alignment of
materiality and occupational identity (b* = 0.307, BC 95% [.215; .397], p < .001) has a moderately strong positive relationship with CC, one’s vulnerability to social pressure (b* = 0.109, BC 95% [.024; .197], p = .011) has a weak positive relationship with CC. H5a and b examine how co-workers’ respectively supervisors’ communication practices are related to employees’ CC behavior. Thus, first it is necessary to evaluate, if the employees and supervisors in the study’s sample even engage in CC communication practices. Otherwise, there cannot be a relation between the CC behaviors. Yet, both, employees without (M = 3.5) and employees with management position (M = 4.0) manifest averages of CC above the average of the 5-point scale and thus engage at least partly in CC communication practices, such as checking and answering e-mails, monitoring work and staying available for work-related purposes beyond work-hours. While the visibility of such communication practices by co-workers’ (b* = 0.187 BC 95% [.077; .295], p = .001) has a weak positive association with the CC of other individuals (H5a), the last hypothesis (H5b) needs to be rejected (b* = 0.092, BC 95% [-.015; .200], p = .098) – the visibility of supervisors’ communication practices seems not associated to employees’ CC. In conclusion, the more one’s perception of the MWD’s affordances and one’s occupational identity are aligned, the more vulnerable one is to social pressure and the more visible one’s co-workers’ communication practices are, the higher one scores on the CC scale. Overall seen, 21.1% (R2 = .21) in the variance of CC can be explained by Mazmanian’s (2013) four key dimensions.
Discussion
The aim of the present study was to deepen the knowledge regarding the relationship between employees’ CC and their well-being as well as to discern organization-level variables associated with CC, possibly helping to influence the latter. Applying boundary management theory (Ashforth et. al., 2000), while simultaneously accounting for humans’ need of
psychological detachment from work (Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005) and operationalizing the key dimensions proposed by Mazmanian (2013), possibly predicting the development of CC in an organization, the present paper contributes to current research in a threefold way.
First, the present paper extends current research regarding organizational-level variables that are positively associated with CC by confirming the relationship of CC with three out of the four suggested antecedents by Mazmanian (2013): Alignment between the perceived materiality of MWDs and occupational identity had the strongest relationship with CC, followed by
vulnerability to social pressure and visibility of co-workers’ communication practices. The finding that the visibility of co-workers’ communication practices is related to CC among the workforce, while supervisor’s communication practices seem not to be associated with the latter, deserves a closer look: The significant finding regarding the influence of the visibility of peers’ behavior clearly indicates the relevance of concertive control (Barker, 1993) for CC behavior. Concertive control refers to co-workers explicitly or implicitly setting norms and expectancies among themselves regarding certain behaviors and reprimanding those who do not follow them (Barker, 1993). Different qualitative studies have shown the relevance of concertive control in organizations in the context of work-life policies (ter Hoeven et. al., 2017) and also in the context of ICT use beyond work hours (Mazmanian et. al., 2013). In turn, the rejection of the proposed antecedent of the visibility of supervisors’ communication behaviors should be reflected with caution: A look at the correlation matrix (see Table 3) shows that a suppression effect is possible
– considering the high correlation between the scales of co-workers’ and supervisors’ communication practices and their individual significant correlations with CC – and thus supervisors’ influence should not be underestimated. Still, equity theory (Adams, 1965) would provide a possible explanation for the insignificant finding regarding the visibility of supervisors’ CC practices: Accordingly, employees compare their in- and output to work to those of a
reference point, which they chose in terms of relatedness. In case that they perceive their ratio to be higher or lower than the one of their reference point, they try to restore equity by adapting the concerned behavior (Adams, 1965). Applied to the development of CC among a workforce, this indicates that, if others’ communication practices are visible, employees can compare their own availability, responsiveness and practices with MWDs after work-hours to those of others.
Subsequently – depending on whether they perceive others as a reference point – their perception of appropriate practices would be influenced. Since supervisors often get more and/or higher rewards and thus are – in the sense of equity theory (Adams, 1965) – expected to invest more to justify these rewards, employees may not take them into account as reference point but
distinguish between peers and supervisors with regard to expectancies of availability and responsiveness.
Second, by discerning an indirect negative relationship between CC and employees’ well-being through missing psychological detachment, the study not only broadens extant knowledge about possible outcomes related to CC (for a review, see Ďuranová & Ohly, 2016), but
simultaneously provides an explanation for its underlying mechanism, namely the lack of psychological detachment from work (Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005). This finding aligns with previous research, confirming psychological detachment as mediator between CC,
operationalized as MWD usage beyond working hours, and negative associations such as sleep quantity, quality and consistency (Barber & Jenkins, 2014) or exhaustion (Derks et. al., 2014) as
well as with former studies stating a negative association between general work-home
interferences and psychological detachment (e.g., Park et. al., 2011) and with those stating that psychological detachment from work is indispensable to experience well-being (e.g., Butts et. al., 2015; Newman et. al., 2014; Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). By rejecting segmentation preferences as a moderator and discerning that the indirect negative relationship between CC and well-being through missing psychological detachment exists independently of one being an integrator or a segmenter, the present study sheds more light on the important entanglement of psychological detachment with one’s well-being for every employee. For example, the latter finding somehow contrasts the ‘fit perspective’ (e.g., Chen, Powell, &
Greenhaus, 2009; Kreiner, 2006) in boundary theory research, stressing the prevailing importance of the positive interaction between employees’ boundary management possibilities and
preferences, as well as therewith related findings, such as that daily work-related smartphone use in the evenings is related to less work-home conflict and better family role performance for integrators (Derks et. al., 2016). In fact, the present paper argues, that although people with segmentation preferences generally experienced a lower level of well-being in the study sample, all employees’ well-being was negatively related to missing psychological detachment. This might indicate that alignment between boundary management preferences and possibilities is important in the context of specific outcomes, such as work-family conflict (Derks et. al., 2014), stress or job satisfaction (Kreiner, 2006), however that psychological detachment is indispensable for all employees, when it comes to one’s overall well-being.
The last contribution made by this study is of methodological nature: While in previous studies CC has mainly been assessed through employees’ self-report about the time, frequency or intensity spent working with mobile work devices after work-hours, this paper developed a five-item scale (see Table 2) to assess CC based on its core aspects, namely the perpetual availability
(e.g., Wajcman & Rose, 2011) and connectedness (e.g., Porter & Kakabadse, 2006) to the organization, the exerted control of work beyond work hours (Perlow, 2012) and blurred
boundaries through the use of the MWD for work-purposes during non-work hours (e.g., Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007). Through a CFA upon two independent samples, the scale has been validated and found to be highly consistent and reliable, providing an improved measure to assess CC, close to theory.
Implications for practice
Since impaired employee well-being harms the functioning of organizations (Danna & Griffin, 1999), the study’s findings regarding the negative relationship between CC and employees’ well-being via a lack of psychological detachment are of high interest for
practitioners and induce the advice to ensure psychological detachment as well as to prevent the development of CC among the workforce.
First, in order to ensure psychological detachment, organizations may raise awareness of the importance of switching off from work for all employees and establish a supportive recovery climate (Bennett, Gabriel, Calderwood, Dahling, & Trougakos, 2016; Sonnentag, 2015b), where it is generally accepted to leave work behind and enjoy non-work time without being available for work purposes. Different interventions have shown success in enhancing employees’ psychological detachment (for a review, see Sonnentag, Venz, & Casper, 2017): For example, mindfulness training, including exercises to learn to focus on the present moment, has been shown to function as cognitive-emotional segmentation strategy, benefitting psychological detachment (Michel, Bosch, & Rexroth, 2014). Additionally, certain internet-based
stress-management interventions, such as the one examined by Ebert et. al. (2016), provide possibilities to enhance psychological detachment without the necessity of a person leading the intervention and are thus even applicable in organization with a large workforce.
Second, in order to beware the development of CC in an organization, organizations may focus on the here discerned variables associated with CC on the organizational level. In this regard, it may be especially useful to manage the workforce’s impression of constant availability and responsiveness being part of their occupational identity, since people care to live up to their professional identities (Pratt, Rockmann, & Kaufmann, 2006). In this respect, Boswell et. al.’s (2016) guide to manage electronic work-related communication after-hours, emphasizing the importance of managing expectations regarding employees’ responsiveness, might be useful. Organizations may follow Volkswagen’s or the Boston Consulting Group’s example, setting specific policies regarding electronic communication after work-hours, defining time, channel and subjects that should or should not be discussed respectively used after hours (Boswell et. al., 2016). Moreover, deputies for holidays, on-call responsibilities and hours of availability should be clearly assigned and written down, for everyone to clearly know his or her responsibilities. Since vulnerability to social pressure is also positively related to CC, a supportive work-climate, with positive feedback and encouragements (Deci & Ryan, 1987) should be established, where employees experience psychological safety (Kahn, 1990), thus dare to be themselves without fearing negative consequences. Regarding the visibility of others’ communication practices, it may be beneficial to define when people need to be cc-ed in mails and what information in turn may only be shared on daily or weekly meetings to not overstrain employees with e-mails. This again emphasizes the usefulness of a guide for managing electronic communication after-hours like the one by Boswell et. al. (2016).
Limitations and future research
Limitations of the study need to be taken into account when interpreting the present findings and also when designing future studies in this field.
The first limitation concerns the cross-sectional nature of the present study, due to which no causal relationships can be derived from its results. It is merely possible to state relationships between the examined variables. Since many important associations have been discerned, affecting both, individuals and organizations, it would be relevant to replicate the study
longitudinally, in order to discern the causal relationship between them and in turn, possibly help ensuring employees’ well-being.
Second, data were self-reported, which may have led to common method-bias. In further research, self-reported data could be combined with data gathered upon a significant other, living with the employee and thus being aware of his or her communication and work practices,
psychological detachment and well-being. Although the present paper already extended the assessment of the construct closer to its theoretical definition and therewith follows research claims of other authors (i.e. Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007), research would benefit from combining self-reported with technically raised data, for example by calculating the time people are online or how frequently people check their e-mails with the help of technical equipment such as pagers or a chip.
Third, the role of supervisor role modeling in the context of CC behavior should be further examined. While the present study has found their behavior to be unrelated to CC behavior among their workforce, this might be due to a suppression effect among the variables of the visibility of co-workers’ and supervisors’ communication practices. Thus, further research would be beneficial in this context.
Finally, the present study has shed light on different organization-related variables possibly predicting the development of CC among a workforce. Moreover it has shown, that the detection of such variables is important since CC is related to impaired well-being of the whole workforce by hindering employees to switch off from work. It is thus relevant to further investigate
organization-related antecedents of CC in order to prevent such practices. The present study has shown that qualitative studies may be a good starting point to do so.
References
Adams, J. S. (1995). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
2, 267-299. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day's work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472-491. doi: 10.2307/259305 Barber, L. K., & Jenkins, J. S. (2014). Creating technological boundaries to protect bedtime:
Examining work–home boundary management, psychological detachment and sleep. Stress
and Health, 30(3), 259-264. doi: 10.1002/smi.2536
Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 408–437. doi: 10.2307/2393374
Bennett, A. A., Gabriel, A. S., Calderwood, C., Dahling, J. J., & Trougakos, J. P. (2016). Better together? Examining profiles of employee recovery experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(12), 1635–1654. doi: 10.1037/apl0000157
Binnewies, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2008). Recovery after work. Unwinding from daily job stress. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The long work hours culture - Causes, consequences and choices (pp. 275–293). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Bliese, P. D., Edwards, J. R., & Sonnentag, S. (2017). Stress and well-being at work: A century of empirical trends reflecting theoretical and societal influences. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 102(3), 389-402. doi: 10.1037/apl0000109
Boswell, W. R., & Olson-Buchanan, J. B. (2007). The use of communication technologies after hours: The role of work attitudes and work-life conflict. Journal of Management, 33(4), 592-610. doi: 10.1177/0149206307302552
Boswell, W. R., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., Butts, M. M., & Becker, W. J. (2016). Managing “after hours” electronic work communication. Organizational Dynamics, 45(4), 291-297. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2016.10.004
Braukmann, J., Schmitt, A., Ďuranová, L., & Ohly, S. (2017). Identifying ICT-related affective events across life domains and examining their unique relationships with employee recovery. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1-16. doi: 10.1007/s10869-017-9508-7 Butts, M. M., Becker, W. J., & Boswell, W. R. (2015). Hot buttons and time sinks: The effects of
electronic communication during nonwork time on emotions and work-nonwork
conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 763-788. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0170
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling: Perspectives on the present and the future. International Journal of Testing, 1(3-4), 327-334. doi:10.1080/15305058.2001.9669479
Cavazotte, F., Heloisa Lemos, A., & Villadsen, K. (2014). Corporate smart phones: professionals' conscious engagement in escalating work connectivity. New Technology, Work and
Employment, 29(1), 72-87. doi: 10.1111/ntwe.12022
Chen, Z., Powell, G. N., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2009). Work-to-family conflict, positive spillover, and boundary management: A person-environment fit approach. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 74(1), 82-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2008.10.009
Chesley, N. (2005). Blurring boundaries? Linking technology use, spillover, individual distress, and family satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(5), 1237-1248. doi:
10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00213.x
Cole, D. A. (1987). Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research. Journal of
Cooper, C. L., & Cartwright, S. (1994). Healthy mind; healthy organization – A proactive approach to occupational stress. Human Relations, 47(4), 455-471. doi:
10.1177/001872679404700405
Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Management, 25(3), 357-384. doi:
10.1177/014920639902500305
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024-1037. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024
Derks, D., Bakker, A. B., Peters, P., & van Wingerden, P. (2016). Work-related smartphone use, work–family conflict and family role performance: The role of segmentation
preference. Human Relations, 69(5), 1045-1068. doi: 10.1177/0018726715601890 Derks, D., Duin, D., Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2015). Smartphone use and work–home
interference: The moderating role of social norms and employee work engagement. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(1), 155-177. doi: 10.1111/joop.12083
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(1), 74-84. doi:
10.1037/a0035076
Diaz, I., Chiaburu, D. S., Zimmerman, R. D., & Boswell, W. R. (2012). Communication
technology: Pros and cons of constant connection to work. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Ďuranová L., Ohly S. (2016). Empirical Findings. In: Persistent Work-related Technology Use,
Recovery and Well-being Processes (pp. 35-59). Switzerland, Cham: Springer. doi:
10.1007/978-3-319-24759-5_4
Ebert, D. D., Lehr, D., Heber, E., Riper, H., Cuijpers, P., & Berking, M. (2016). Internet-and mobile-based stress management for employees with adherence-focused guidance: efficacy and mechanism of change. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 42(5), 382-394. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3573
Etzion, D., Eden, D., & Lapidot, Y. (1998). Relief from job stressors and burnout: Reserve service as a respite. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 577-585. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.577
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(4), 522-527. doi: 10.1037/h0076760
Fenner, G. H., & Renn, R. W. (2004). Technology assisted supplemental work: Construct
definition and a research framework. Human Resource Management, 43(2-3), 179-200. doi: 10.1002/hrm.20014
Frissen, V. A. J. (2000). ICTs in the rush hour of life. The Information Society, 16(1), 65-75. doi: 10.1080/019722400128338
Froming, W. J., & Carver, C. S. (1981). Divergent influences of private and public
self-consciousness in a compliance paradigm. Journal of Research in Personality, 15(2), 159-171. doi: 10.1016/0092-6566(81)90015-5
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R., (2012). Understanding and managing organizational behavior. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Goh, J., Pfeffer, J., & Zenios, S. A. (2015). The relationship between workplace stressors and mortality and health costs in the United States. Management Science, 62(2), 608-628. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.2115
Grawitch, M. J., Gottschalk, M., & Munz, D. C. (2006). The path to a healthy workplace: A critical review linking healthy workplace practices, employee well-being, and
organizational improvements. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 58(3), 129-147. doi: 10.1037/1065-9293.58.3.129
Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Yragui, N. L., Bodner, T. E., & Hanson, G. C. (2009).
Development and validation of a multidimensional measure of family supportive supervisor behaviors (FSSB). Journal of Management, 35(4), 837-856. doi:
10.1177/0149206308328510
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. (2003). Well-being in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. In C. L. Keyes, & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: positive psychology and the life well-lived, (p. 205-224). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10594-009
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-988. doi: 10.1177/014920639502100509
Hirschi, A. (2012). Callings and work engagement: Moderated mediation model of work meaningfulness, occupational identity, and occupational self-efficacy. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 59(3), 479-485. doi: 10.1037/a0028949
Hoel, H., Sparks, K., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). The cost of violence/stress at work and the benefits
of a violence/stress-free working environment. Switzerland, Geneva: International Labour
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling – a
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Ilies, R., Schwind, K. M., & Heller, D. (2007). Employee well-being: A multilevel model linking work and nonwork domains. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 16(3), 326-341. doi: 10.1080/13594320701363712
International Labour Organisation (ILO) (2016). Workplace stress – a collective challenge
(World day for safety and health at work). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
Jöreskog, K.G. & Yang, F. (1996). Nonlinear structural equation models: The Kenny-Judd model with interaction effects. In: Marcoulides GA and Schumacker RE (Eds.), Advanced
Structural Equation Modeling: Issues and Techniques (pp. 57–88). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724. doi: 10.2307/256287
Kirby, E., & Krone, K. (2002). "The policy exists but you can't really use it": communication and the structuration of work-family policies. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 30(1), 50-77. doi: 10.1080/00909880216577
Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Third Edition. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
Koch, A. R., & Binnewies, C. (2015). Setting a good example: Supervisors as work-life-friendly role models within the context of boundary management. Journal of Occupational Health
Kreiner, G. E. (2006). Consequences of work-home segmentation or integration: A person-environment fit perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 485-507. doi: 10.1002/job.386
Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2009). Balancing borders and bridges:
Negotiating the work-home interface via boundary work tactics. Academy of Management
Journal, 52(4), 704-730. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2009.43669916
Lanaj, K., Johnson, R. E., & Barnes, C. M. (2014). Beginning the workday yet already depleted? Consequences of late-night smartphone use and sleep. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 124(1), 11-23. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.01.001
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34-47. doi: 10.1037/00332909.107.1.34 Matusik, S. F., & Mickel, A. E. (2011). Embracing or embattled by converged mobile devices?
Users’ experiences with a contemporary connectivity technology. Human Relations, 64(8), 1001-1030. doi: 10.1177/0018726711405552
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11-37. doi: 10.1348/096317904322915892
Mazmanian, M. (2013). Avoiding the trap of constant connectivity: When congruent frames allow for heterogeneous practices. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1225-1250. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0787
Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W., & Yates, J. (2006). Ubiquitous email: Individual experiences and organizational consequences of BlackBerry use. Paper presented at the Annual
Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2013). The autonomy paradox: The implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organization Science, 24(5), 1337-1357. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1120.0806
Mellner, C., Aronsson, G., & Kecklund, G. (2014). Boundary management preferences, boundary control, and work-life balance among full-time employed professionals in knowledge-intensive, flexible work. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 4(4), 7-23. doi: 10.19154/njwls.v4i4.4705
Michel, A., Bosch, C., & Rexroth, M. (2014). Mindfulness as a cognitive–emotional segmentation strategy: An intervention promoting work–life balance. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(4), 733-754. doi: 10.1111/joop.12072
Murray, W. C., & Rostis, A. (2007). Who’s running the machine? A theoretical exploration of work stress and burnout of technologically tethered workers. Journal of Individual
Employment Rights, 12(3), 249-263. doi: 10.2190/IE.12.3.f
Newman, D. B., Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2014). Leisure and subjective well-being: A model of psychological mechanisms as mediating factors. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(3), 555-578. doi:10.1007/s10902-013-9435-x
Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Boswell, W. R. (2006). Blurring boundaries: Correlates of integration and segmentation between work and nonwork. Journal of Vocational behavior, 68(3), 432-445. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.006
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404-428. doi: 10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600
Park, Y., Fritz, C., & Jex, S. M. (2011). Relationships between work-home segmentation and psychological detachment from work: The role of communication technology use at home. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(4), 457–467. doi: 10.1037/a0023594 Perlow, L. A. (2012). Sleeping with your smartphone: How to break the 24/7 habit and change
the way you work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Peters, O., & Ben Allouch, S. (2005). Always connected: a longitudinal field study of mobile communication. Telematics and Informatics, 22(3), 239-256. doi:
10.1016/j.tele.2004.11.002
Porter, G., & Kakabadse, N. K. (2006). HRM perspectives on addiction to technology and work. Journal of Management Development, 25(6), 535-560. doi:
10.1108/02621710610670119
Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006). Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 235-262. doi:
10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786060
Rice, R. (2017). Flexwork, work-family boundaries, and information and communication technologies. In G. Hertel, D. Stone, R.D. Johnson & J. Passmore (Eds.), The Wiley
Blackwell Handbook of the psychology of the Internet at work, (pp. 175-193). Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi: 10.1002/9781119256151.ch9
Richardson, K., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2011). Examining the antecedents of work connectivity behavior during non-work time. Information and Organization, 21(3), 142-160. doi: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2011.06.002
Rosen, L. D. (2012). iDisorder: Understanding our obsession with technology and overcoming
Rothbard, N. P., Phillips, K. W., & Dumas, T. L. (2005). Managing multiple roles: Work-family policies and individuals’ desires for segmentation. Organization Science, 16(3), 243-258. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0124
Skakon, J., Nielsen, K., Borg, V., & Guzman, J. (2010). Are leaders' well-being, behaviours and style associated with the affective well-being of their employees? A systematic review of three decades of research. Work & Stress, 24(2), 107-139. doi:
10.1080/02678373.2010.495262
Slavec, A., & Drnovšek, M. (2012). A perspective on scale development in entrepreneurship research. Economic and Business Review for Central and South-Eastern Europe, 14(1), 39-62.
Sonnentag, S. (2015). Dynamics of well-being. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 261-293. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111347 Sonnentag, S. (2015b, April). Psychological recovery climate: Its relationship with recovery
experiences and employee well-being. Paper presented at the Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Philadelphia, PA.
Sonnentag, S., Venz, L., & Casper, A. (2017). Advances in recovery research: What have we learned? What should be done next?. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 365-380. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000079
Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2010). Staying well and engaged when demands are high: the role of psychological detachment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 965-976. doi: 10.1037/a0020032
Sonnentag, S., Kuttler, I., & Fritz, C. (2010b). Job stressors, emotional exhaustion, and need for recovery: A multi-source study on the benefits of psychological detachment. Journal of
