Managing Expectations: Do We Give Each Other the Possibility to Disconnect? Research into the Relationship Between the Use of Smartphones and Laptops for Work and
Employee Flourishing
Jone Frijlink (11692480) Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s Programme: Communication Science Corporate Communication
Abstract
In this study it is argued that the organizational media affordances awareness, visibility and pervasiveness of smartphones and laptops have a negative impact on employee flourishing, through strengthened subjective norms around the use of these devices and constant
connectivity. Moreover, it was expected that giving employees the freedom to use their devices for personal purposes while at work mitigated this negative relationship. The findings demonstrate that visibility and awareness do not enhance subjective norms, but pervasiveness does. Also, employees that perceive their device affords awareness not indirectly, but directly flourish more. It was found that subjective norms surrounding the use of devices for work related tasks after work hours have a direct negative relationship with employee flourishing, while they also increase experiences of constant connectivity. This constant connectivity to work in turn, was found to increase employee flourishing. Furthermore, results suggest that smartphone or laptop use for personal purposes while at work or ‘cyberslacking’ has a positive effect on flourishing.
Keywords: affordances, awareness, visibility, pervasiveness, subjective norms, constant connectivity, employee flourishing, cyberslacking
Managing expectations: do we give each other the possibility to disconnect? Not so long ago, working often involved going to a designated workspace, where co-workers and the necessary tools to perform one’s job were present (Richardson & Benbunan-Fich, 2011). Since the introduction of communication and information technologies however, much has changed in employees’ work as well as private lives. Technologies like laptops and smartphones nullify temporal and spatial constraints to the office (Leonardi & Vaast, 2017; Mazmanian, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2013) and thus provide employees with the flexibility to perform job related tasks anywhere at any time. Thereupon, it seems increasingly difficult to disconnect from work (Leonardi, Treem, & Jackson, 2010; Perlow, 2012; Perlow & Kelly, 2014). This constant connectivity to work, meaning that employees are always available and connected to their organization, implies that their work-related technology use continues after regular office hours (Braukmann, Schmitt, Duranová, & Ohly, 2018; Derks, Bakker, Peters, & Wingerden, 2016) and is a widespread phenomenon. In America for example, 44% of
employees use their phone to check e-mails after regular work hours (Weber, 2015) spending on average 20 to 25 hours extra on work a week (Perlow & Porter, 2009). In the Netherlands, 20% of employees check at least 6 work-related messages after work, with 60% of Dutch employers expecting their employees to be reachable outside regular hours (Smit, 2018).
Where on the one hand employees are often expected to be connected to work anywhere at any time (Perlow & Kelly, 2014; Richardson & Benbunan-Fich, 2011), regulations emerge to restrict this behavior. In France for instance, the government introduced a law to give employees the right to be offline after regular hours (Giesen, 2017). In the Netherlands, political parties plea to follow this example as technostress is a large driver of absenteeism, costing the country around 1,8 billion euros per year (Brandsma, Van Velzen, & Bassie, 2018). Even though some enthusiastically welcomed these regulations, doubts about their
effectiveness arose quickly after their introduction (Giesen, 2017). In order to further
understand constant connectivity and manage it effectively, more research into its antecedents is needed (Mazmanian, 2013). Because in the end, effectively managing constant connectivity could mean that organizations and their employees reap the benefits, while minimizing the negative consequences (Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007).
When trying to explain the development of constant connectivity, investigating
organizational characteristics is crucial as not only the employees themselves, but also their surroundings affect their behavior (Richardson & Benbunan-Fich, 2011; Diaz, Chiaburu, Zimmerman, & Boswell, 2012). Especially the attitude and expectations regarding the use of communication technologies outside of regular hours (employees think) their surroundings hold, or so-called ‘subjective norms’, impact their connectivity behavior (Derks, Duin, Tims, & Bakker, 2015; Mazmanian, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2013). The present study aims to broaden the understanding of constant connectivity and these subjective norms as its organizational antecedent.
This is done by looking at the emergence of these norms through a media affordance lens. Taking this perspective means that it is assumed that not only the material features of a technology nor just the goals of a user determine how a technology is used, but rather the relationship between these two (Leonardi, 2014; Treem & Leonardi, 2012; Pozzi, Pigni, & Vitari, 2014). The user interprets the materiality of a smartphone or laptop, constructing the action possibilities or constraints these technologies ‘afford’. The concept of organizational media affordances more specifically refers to the relationship between the user and the material features of a medium, within or across different media and organizational contexts. In this research, it is argued that the organizational media affordances pervasiveness, visibility and awareness (Rice et al., 2017) contribute to the subjective norms, as they make the
(Gibbs, Rozaidi, & Eisenberg, 2013; Leonardi & Meyer, 2015). First, technologies can afford visibility of employee workflows and communication in a way that employees can easily see who does what at what time (Leonardi, 2014; Leonardi & Vaast, 2017). Similarly, laptops and smartphones can afford awareness, meaning that they can provide employees the possibility to increase their consciousness of activities and availability of others within their organization (Leonardi & Vaast, 2017; (Majchrzak, Faraj, Kane, & Azad, 2013). Third, smartphones and laptops afford a pervasive connection to work, allowing employees to stay constantly available to their organization (Leonardi, 2015; Leonardi & Meyer, 2015). Hence, these affordances are understood as facilitating condition for the development of subjective norms regarding the use of devices for work and the consequent constant connectivity experienced by employees (Leonardi & Meyer, 2015; Mazmanian, 2013).
Finally, in this research emphasis is on the relationship between constant connectivity and an extended definition of well-being, namely flourishing. Flourishing incorporates basic human needs like the need for competence, positive relationships and having a meaning in life (Diener et al., 2010). This way it grasps both aspects of work and private life, making it particularly fitting to constant connectivity as this affects both life domains. Hence, the research question central to this study will be:
How do the organizational media affordances awareness, visibility and pervasiveness contribute to subjective norms and consequently the emergence of constant connectivity to work and how is this related to employee flourishing?
This research contributes to understanding constant connectivity in three ways. First, this study adds to theory by adopting an affordances perspective. This way a theoretical difficulty encountered when studying the introduction of technologies and the consequences thereof is circumvented. That is to say, research often focuses on either the technology itself
interactions between the two (Orlikowski, 2007; Pozzi, Pigni, & Vitari, 2014). By using organizational media affordances in explaining the emergence of subjective norms surrounding the use of technology to stay connected to work, it is acknowledged that the material and the social are intertwined. Accordingly, this research aims to broaden understanding of how affordances are associated with changes in work activities and employee behavior, more specifically focusing on staying constantly connected.
Second, this study recognizes that as communication technologies afford the blurring of the boundary between work and private life, aspects of these domains flow both ways. This means that employees are not only connected to work during hours normally devoted to private life, but also to their private life while at work (Braukmann, Schmitt, Duranová, & Ohly, 2018; Richardson & Benbunan-Fich, 2011). Smartphones and laptops afford employees to compensate for the decline in their leisure time in the evening, as employees can pursue more personal activities while at work, giving them small opportunities for psychological detachment during the workday (Ohly & Latour, 2014; Hislop & Axtell, 2011). Also, these devices afford employees to actively manage the boundary between their work and private life. They can stay in contact with their friends and family during work, mitigating the fact that they ‘have’ to stay connected after work (Garrett & Danziger, 2008; Newman, Tay, & Diener, 2014). Therefore, it is argued that giving employees the freedom to use their devices for personal matters while at work mitigates the negative relationship between constant connectivity to work and employee flourishing. Hence, this study adds to theory and practice, helping managers and employees struggling to balance the consequences of staying constantly connected to work.
Finally, this study adds to theory by looking into the relationship between constant connectivity and flourishing. Where most studies concentrate on personal well-being, work-engagement or burn-out as separate concepts, flourishing captures both the effects on private
and work-life at the same time. Given that constant connectivity has consequences for both domains (Braukmann, Schmitt, Duranová, & Ohly, 2018), it seems worthy to relate constant connectivity to flourishing. Doing this, makes it possible to address the relationship between constant connectivity to work and an employees’ life quality and feeling good in general (Danna & Griffin, 1999; Fujimoto, Ferdous, Sekiguchi, & Sugianto, 2016).
Theoretical framework Organizational Media Affordances and Flourishing
As more and more workers indicate to use their technological devices to perform job related tasks outside their official work hours, research into this phenomenon is also growing (Braukmann, Schmitt, Duranová, & Ohly, 2018; Perlow & Kelly, 2014). Of course, working extra hours is not new. However, using different labels like techno stress (Tarafdar, Tu, Ragu-Nathan, & Ragu-Ragu-Nathan, 2007), Technology Assisted Supplemental Work (Fenner & Renn, 2004), and Work Connectivity Behavior After-hours (Richardson & Benbunan-Fich, 2011), researchers emphasize the use of technology, distinguishing this type of work from ‘regular’ extra hours. It is argued that these technologies negate traditional constraints to the
workplace, raising the expectation that this type of extra work has different and more far-reaching consequences than other types of overtime (Boswell, Olson-Buchanan, Butts, & Becker, 2016; Leonardi & Vaast, 2017). As these consequences are likely to influence both employees’ well-being at work and in their private life, a measurement considering both would be most appropriate to obtain an integrated image of what the use of smartphones and laptops for work means for employees (Danna & Griffin, 1999). In line with this, the present study relates the use of these devices for job related tasks after work to employee flourishing. Flourishing is based on several universal psychological needs and presents a rounded picture of overall psychological well-being (Demerouti, Bakker, & Gevers, 2015), indicating if people perceive that their life is going well, if they feel good and whether they function
effectively (Diener et al., 2010; Keyes, 2002). First, it incorporates the need for competence, referring to an employee’s feeling to be competent and capable in activities that are important to him or her, like work-related tasks. Second, flourishing includes the need for relatedness, which concerns the need to have supportive and rewarding relationships, to be respected by and contribute to the happiness of others. Also, the need for self-acceptance is incorporated, which refers to the need for self-respect and optimism. Finally, having a purposeful meaning in life and being engaged and interested in one’s activities are essential components of flourishing (Diener et al., 2010; Keyes, 2002).
Based on results from previous research, it is expected that the use of smartphones and laptops to perform job related tasks after work relates negatively to employee flourishing. That is to say it was found that using these devices can cause employees to feel overworked (Fenner & Renn, 2004), worn-out, emotionally exhausted and less engaged in work (Diaz, Chiaburu, Zimmerman, & Boswell, 2012; Xie, Ma, Zhou, & Tang, 2018; Fujimoto, Ferdous, Sekiguchi, & Sugianto, 2016). Ultimately, this decreases employees’ productivity and their life quality, diminishing their flourishing (Fujimoto, Ferdous, Sekiguchi, & Sugianto, 2016).
In order to explain these negative consequences, this study looks at the use of smartphones and laptops for job related tasks after work from an affordance perspective. While other studies differ largely regarding the role they ascribe to technologies themselves and the human actor using these technologies (Leonardi & Vaast, 2017; Orlikowski, 2007; Pozzi, Pigni, & Vitari, 2014), affordance theory finds a middle ground between the human centered and the techno-centered perspective. Gibson (1979) introduced this theory, defining an affordance as an action possibility available in the environment to an actor. Hutchby (2001) was the first to apply this theory to study the relationship between technologies and their human users. Since then, many have elaborated on this, agreeing on the central idea that a technology, its user and the environment are interdependent and together determine the
outcome (Orlikowski, 2007; Pozzi, Pigni, & Vitari, 2014). First, technologies have features that are constituted of materials that permit certain actions and limit others, for example the fact that smartphones no longer need a cord, which makes them portable. Then, a technology only ‘affords’ an action when the user actually perceives that the material features of the technology allow him/her to perform the actions within its context (Treem & Leonardi, 2012). As Leonardi and Vaast (2017, p. 152) summarize: “people have perceptions, objects have materiality, and affordances are created when people construct perceptions of an objects materiality”.
Within organizational research, affordance theory has mainly been used to understand the introduction of social media and its consequences for knowledge sharing (e.g. Gibbs, Rozaidi, & Eisenberg, 2013; Leonardi, 2014; Majchrzak, Faraj, Kane, & Azad, 2013). Posing the question “what happens when employee behavior becomes visible?”, Leonardi and Vaast (2017, p. 181) state however, that new technologies and their affordances can be associated with changes in work activities and behavior in a much broader sense. In agreement with this, the present study focuses on organizational media affordances to understand the relationship between using smartphones and laptops for work and employee flourishing. Beyond media affordances, organizational media affordances can be ascribed to multiple media at once, within or across specific organizational contexts (Rice et al., 2017).It is argued that especially the pervasiveness, visibility and awareness afforded by smartphones and laptops explain the negative association these devices have with employees flourishing.
First, smartphones and laptops afford pervasiveness, or ubiquity of communication and information related to work. Primarily they provide the technological infrastructure for this, as they are portable and can be connected to the internet (Leonardi, Treem, & Jackson, 2010). Additionally, they provide access to several applications, like email and Google Drive, that support communication and availability of information necessary to perform work-related
tasks (Leonardi, Treem, & Jackson, 2010), regardless of when or where an employee uses them. As Gibbs, Rozaidi and Eisenberg (2013) stated, this continuous flow – or pervasiveness of knowledge and communication, may lead users to fear they miss something urgent, making it difficult to disconnect. Consequently, employees might experience difficulty to manage their availability to their colleagues or clients, resulting in less personal time (Jarvenpaa & Lang, 2005; Ohly & Latour, 2014), simply reducing their time to relax and hampering their need for relatedness (Garrett & Danziger, 2008), thus decreasing their flourishing.
Second, smartphones and laptops afford visibility. Until recently, work activities and related communication within the office were difficult to recognize and differentiate as direct communication between employees was invisible and work tasks could be completed without the watchful eye of others (Leonardi, 2014; 2015). Smartphones and laptops however, afford users to make their workflow and related communication visible to others within the
organization (Leonardi, 2014; 2015; Rice et al., 2017, Treem & Leonardi, 2012). For example, smartphones and laptops afford employees to see which colleagues communicate about a project on the intranet or who updated the most recent version of a report.
Furthermore, Gibbs, Rozaidi and Eisenberg (2013) showed that as employees saw what others in their organization were doing, they realized others could watch them in the same way. The realization that their workflow and communication was visible, made the employees feel more closely monitored and supervised (Jarvenpaa & Lang, 2005) and pressured them to project an image of their work practices that showed legitimacy of their performance
(Leonardi, Treem, & Jackson, 2010; Leonardi & Vaast, 2017). As this is related to increased job insecurity (Gibbs, Rozaidi, & Eisenberg, 2013) and social insecurity (Leonardi & Vaast, 2017), it is argued here that the affordance visibility relates negatively to flourishing.
Related to the visibility of communication and workflows, is the affordance awareness (Rice et al., 2017). Through smartphones and laptops, employees become increasingly aware
of activities and opinion of others within their organization (Leonardi, 2014; 2015; Rice et al., 2017). Especially social media afford others that are not directly involved in an activity to improve their knowledge of who does what, and when (Leonardi, 2014). This can be active, by searching for information themselves, for example by looking in a Google Drive to see when a document was last edited. Or it can be passive, through triggered attending (Gibbs, Rozaidi, & Eisenberg, 2013), referring to notifications from for example shared calendars. This exposure alters an employee’s ambient awareness, or their awareness of the behaviors and knowledge of others surrounding them (Leonardi & Meyer, 2015). It is expected that this relates negatively to flourishing, as it can be cognitively too challenging to work on a task while simultaneously keeping an eye on others (e.g. Braukmann, Schmitt, Duranová, & Ohly, 2018; Newman, Tay, & Diener, 2014). Also, employees might experience difficulty to focus on their tasks due to constant interruptions from others within their organization, causing frustration and decreased productivity (Gibbs, Rozaidi, & Eisenberg, 2013; Leonardi & Meyer, 2015; Perlow, 2012), which in turn diminishes their feelings of being competent (Diener et al., 2010).
Subjective Norms, Constant Connectivity and Flourishing
In this study, it is argued that these negative associations between these affordances and employee flourishing, exist because the affordances strengthen subjective norms surrounding the use of smartphones and laptops for job related tasks after work and consequently enhance feelings of constant connectivity. These subjective norms refer to employee perceptions that most people who are important to them, like their colleagues or supervisor, think they should (not) perform a behavior (Richardson & Benbunan-Fich, 2011). The affordances
pervasiveness, visibility and awareness of smartphones and laptops contribute to the
subjective norms regarding staying connected to work after regular work hours, as they make the connectivity behavior of people within an organization more salient (Gibbs, Rozaidi, &
Eisenberg, 2013; Leonardi & Meyer, 2015). First, the pervasiveness afforded by smartphones and laptops is considered a facilitating condition for the emergence of subjective norms, as it provides a connection to work that would not be possible without the ubiquitous access to work related information and people (Leonardi, 2015; Leonardi & Vaast, 2017; Majchrzak, Faraj, Kane, & Azad, 2013). Next,subjective norms are shaped by signals from the
environment of an employee (Fenner & Renn, 2010), which implies that these signals, in this case the communication and connectivity behavior of others, should be visible (Pozzi, Pigni, & Vitari, 2014). By affording communication visibility, smartphones and laptops facilitate employees to see this behavior of others. Finally, employees become more aware of the norm as their smartphones and laptops allow them to continuously monitor the activities of others within their organizations (Gibbs, Rozaidi, & Eisenberg, 2013; Perlow & Kelly, 2014), even outside of regular work hours. By featuring small pieces of information about when or where employees work, a bigger picture is painted of employee behaviors and norms within the organization (Leonardi, 2015; Leonardi & Meyer, 2015; Leonardi & Vaast, 2017).
In line with the situated behavior approach, it is argued that the use of smartphones and laptops by colleagues and supervisors, impacts if and how employees themselves use these technologies (Richardson & Benbunan-Fich, 2011). According to this approach it is essential to look at individual and contextual factors, along with the interaction between these two, when aiming to understand peoples’ behavior (Gadeyne, Verbruggen, Delanoeije, & De Cooman, 2018). In this case, part of this context are group dynamics and norms surrounding the use of smartphones and laptops for job related tasks after work (Leonardi & Vaast, 2017; Mazmanian, 2013; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). Thus, as employees recognize the connectivity behavior of others, they feel like their colleagues expect them to be as available and
responsive as they are (Bűchler, Ter Hoeven, & Van Zoonen, 2018; Fenner & Renn, 2004; 2010), making it likely they will conform to this norm (Derks, Duin, Tims, & Bakker, 2015;
Mazmanian, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2006). At the same time, employees might start expecting the same engagement from others (Gibbs, Rozaidi and Eisenberg, 2013; Leonardi, Treem, & Jackson, 2010). This way, the assumptions employees produce together regarding how they should use their device to do their job, can keep raising expectations of connectivity further and further. Eventually this could lead to a so-called ‘collective spiral of escalating
engagement’ (Mazmanian, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2013).
Ultimately, this is argued to explain the negative relationship between the affordances and employee flourishing, as it shows why employees cannot just turn off their phone. It becomes increasingly difficult for employees to manage their availability (Gibbs, Rozaidi, &
Eisenberg, 2013; Ohly & Latour, 2014) and the pressure rises to create an image of themselves and their performance that fits the norm of constant connection (Leonardi & Vaast, 2017). Furthermore, these subjective norms are expected to explain why employees constantly monitor others and allow themselves to be interrupted by updates from their peers. Consequently, employees stay constantly connected to their work, feeling obliged to do so and guilty when they do not (Gibbs, Rozaidi, & Eisenberg, 2013; Leonardi, Treem, &
Jackson, 2010). This connectivity behavior then, has been associated with feeling overworked (Fenner & Renn, 2004) and emotionally exhausted (Xie, Ma, Zhou, & Tang, 2018; Fujimoto, Ferdous, Sekiguchi, & Sugianto, 2016), ultimately decreasing employees’ productivity, their happiness in life and diminishing their flourishing (Fujimoto, Ferdous, Sekiguchi, &
Sugianto, 2016).
All in all, this study agrees with Mazmanian (2013), arguing that constant connectivity is not the unavoidable outcome of using smartphones and laptops for work. It is the shared interpretations of the nature, role and potential of these technologies that influence how they are used. At the same time, the technologies themselves ‘ask for renegotiation of the norms of connectivity’ (Mazmanian, 2013, p.1227). In summary, the following is hypothesized:
H1: The organizational media affordance pervasiveness is negatively related to flourishing, through enhanced subjective norms and constant connectivity
H2: The organizational media affordance visibility is negatively related to flourishing, through enhanced subjective norms and constant connectivity
H3: The organizational media affordance awareness is negatively related to flourishing, through enhanced subjective norms and constant connectivity
Using Devices for Personal Purposes While at Work and Flourishing
While on the one hand smartphones and laptops change employees’ lives in terms of connectivity to work, these technologies also afford them a perpetual connection to their private life (Boswell, Olson-Buchanan, Butts, & Becker, 2016; Garrett & Danziger, 2008; Hislop & Axtell, 2011). Employees can use their devices at work either for personal communication, like handling calls and messages from their friends or family, or personal leisure-related activities, like playing a quick game or read the news. In practice as well as in the academic field this is often referred to as cyberslacking, presenting it as a way to avoid work and express dissatisfaction, emphasizing the negative consequences (Braukmann, Schmitt, Duranová, & Ohly, 2018; Vitak, Crouse, & LaRose, 2011). However, the use of smartphones and laptops for personal purposes while at work also has potential benefits (Garrett & Danziger, 2008) that neutralize the aforementioned negative effects on flourishing.
First, engaging in personal matters while at work could make up for the extra hours spent on work-related tasks during private time (Day, Paquet, Scott, & Hambley, 2012; Gadeyne, Verbruggen, Delanoeije, & De Cooman, 2018; Ohly & Latour, 2014). Employees can use their smartphone or laptop as a tool to actively manage the boundary between work and private life (Hislop & Axtell, 2011). If they succeed in this, using their devices can thus increase their feeling of competence and enhance their flourishing (Braukmann, Schmitt, Duranová, & Ohly, 2018; Diener et al., 2010; Fujimoto, Ferdous, Sekiguchi, & Sugianto,
2016). Additionally, smartphones and laptops afford employees to maintain their social relationships, also during work (Braukmann, Schmitt, Duranová, & Ohly, 2018; Garrett & Danziger, 2008; Hislop & Axtell, 2011), helping employees to fulfill their need for
relatedness (Diener et al., 2010; Keyes, 2002).
Second, it was argued that constant connectivity to work creates a lack of time to recover from work (Bűchler, Ter Hoeven, & Van Zoonen, 2018; Hislop & Axtell, 2011; Ohly & Latour, 2014). Next to affording the performance of work-related tasks after work hours however, smartphones and laptops also afford short moments of detachment during work hours. Messaging a friend or watching the summary of a sports game during work for example, offers employees the possibility to unwind and recuperate from work tasks during work hours (Braukmann, Schmitt, Duranová, & Ohly, 2018). These short moments of non-work activities might refresh employees’ minds and enhance their productivity afterwards (Garrett & Danziger, 2008).
Following this, it is argued that using a smartphone or laptop at work for private purposes, mitigates the negative effect of constant connectivity on employee flourishing. Therefore, the final hypothesis is as follows:
H4: Personal smartphone or laptop use at work moderates the negative relationship between constant connectivity and flourishing; the relationship is weaker for employees who use their device for personal purposes more (compared to less) during work
Method Sample and procedure
To answer the research question and test the hypotheses, a quantitative research was carried out, doing an online cross-sectional survey amongst Dutch employees who worked at least 30 hours in an organization with at least 30 employees. Considering the time and budget constraints of a Master Thesis, the non-probability sampling strategy snowballing was used to
obtain the sample. This way, a total of 269 employees completed the survey between November 26 and December 10, 2018. The average age of respondents was 41.90 (SD = 12.89), 93.3% was higher educated, 52.4% were female and 50.2% of respondents had a management position. On average, respondents had a contract for 35.47 hours per week (SD = 5.48) but indicated they actually worked 41.60 hours on average per week (SD = 7.86). Most respondents worked in the public administration (21.6%), healthcare (17.5%), education and science (11.9%), financial services (9.7%), trade and commercial services (8.9%) or business services (8.2%). Respondents worked in organizations of different sizes, most of them in organizations with more than 1001 employees (39.8%) or between 30 and 100 employees (36.1%).
Measurements
The latent constructs in this research were measured with multiple items. For all items participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) ‘Strongly Disagree’ to (5) ‘Strongly Agree’, unless stated otherwise. Final scales were constructed by adding and averaging all items measuring the particular latent construct. Table 1 shows the bivariate correlations and Cronbach alpha coefficients of all variables used. Organizational media affordances. Three organizational media affordances were used as independent variables, namely; pervasiveness, awareness and visibility. All three were
measured using the measurement scales of Rice et al. (2017), asking participants to answer to what extent they agree if it is currently possible for them to perform the behavior stated. A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was performed using Varimax rotation to see whether the same constructs would be extracted. The sample size was sufficient (KMO = .84,
Bartlett’s p <.001). Based on an eigenvalue bigger than one, four components were extracted, as reported in Table 2.
Pervasiveness. This scale originally consisted of three items, for example: [It is currently possible for me to] ‘…communicate with others while moving, commuting, travelling’. After the PCA however, one item loaded below .60 (.29) and was excluded.
Awareness. This scale initially consisted of five items. An example statement is [It is currently possible for me to] ‘…be aware of activities, opinions, or locations of others’. After the PCA only three items loaded above .60, as reported in Table 2. The other items were excluded.
Visibility. This scale consisted of six items, however, the PCA showed that this variable consists of two components rather than one. Therefore, it was decided to divide the visibility measurement into two subcategories. The three items in the first subcategory mainly
concerned getting information signals and updates of other’s actions; this category is thus labeled ‘Signaling’. An example item is ‘…receive notifications about other information or updates that are similar to what I have just been looking at’. The two items in the second category concerned the visibility of evaluations and answers of others; this subcategory is thus labeled ‘Evaluability’. An example item is ‘…see other people’s answers to other people’s questions’.
Subjective norms. To measure the extent to which a respondent experienced subjective norms surrounding the use of laptops and smartphones for work, a four-item scale was used. This scale was introduced by Richardson and Benbunan-Fich (2011) and shown to be reliable. An example item is ‘It's normal to be reachable throughout the day and evening at my
organization’.
Constant connectivity. To measure constant connectivity, the scale constructed by Bűchler, Ter Hoeven and Van Zoonen, (2018) was used. This five-item scale was developed based on the core attributes of constant connectivity, like continuous availability,
between work and non-work life. One of the statements is for example ‘Through my mobile work device, I am always available for my colleagues and/or clients, also during non-work hours’.
Flourishing. This is the dependent variable in this research, measured using the scale developed by Diener et al. (2010). The scale consists of eight items and has been shown to be reliable (Demerouti, Bakker, & Gevers, 2015). Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each item on a 7-point Likert-scale ranging between (1) ‘Strongly
Disagree’ to (7) ‘Strongly Agree’. A high score thus indicated that a participant had many psychological resources and strengths. An example item is ‘I am competent and capable in the activities that are important to me’.
Table 1. Correlations and descriptive statistics M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. Awareness 3.44 (.83) .77 2. Visibility/Signaling 3.07 (.90) .362** .79 3. Visibility/Evaluability 2.96 (1.05) .382** .504** .81 4. Pervasiveness 3.98 (.78) .264** .168** .253** .68 5. Subjective Norms 3.35 (.82) .026 .160** .041 .281** .80 6. Constant Connectivity 3.58 (.96) .050 .178** .097 .341** .647** .90
7. Personal Device Use 2.92 (1.00) -.004 .082 .053 .258** .269** .276** .78
8. Flourishing 5.94 (.69) .200** .025 .008 .217** -.012 .103 .132* .88 9. Gender (0=male,
1=female)
- .028 -.017 -.001 -.152* -.084 -.152* -.256** -.033 -
10. Age 41.90 (12.89) -.012 -.091 .020 .067 -.065 .074 -.123 -.054 -.154* -
11. Actual working hours 41.60 (7.86) .003 .072 .012 .099 .216** .253** .127* .070 -.312** .062 -
12. Contract hours 35,47 (5.48) -.015 -.063 -.023 .137* .011 -.017 .147* .020 -.256** -.004 .612** - 13. Management position
(0=no, 1=yes)
- -.064 .029 -.043 .155* .244** .262** .233** .067 -.173** .098 .315** .130* -
14. Organizational size 4.03 (1.80) .020 .10 -.089 .091 -.028 .022 -.025 .083 -.101 .039 .021 .141* -.068 - Note: Values on the diagonal represent Cronbach’s Alphas
** is significant at .01 (2-tailed) * is significant at .05 (2-tailed)
Table 2. Media Affordances Descriptives, Components and Loadings
Note: Princi pal Components Analysis, varimax rotation. Loadings <.30 are suppressed. Factor loadings of items that are included are presented in bold.
Item N M SD 1 (Awareness) 2 (Visibility /Signaling) 3 (Visibility / Evaluability) 4 (Pervasiveness)
Info others in dept 257 3.84 .915 .808
Info others outside dept 257 3.18 1.053 .808
Activities, opinion, locations of others 257 3.32 1.016 .674 .326
Keep up-to-date progress of projects 257 3.70 .906 .599 .425 Keep up-to-date organizational policies and norms 257 3.99 .848 .418 .531
Get responses quickly 257 4.05 .818 .465
Communicate while moving 257 4.07 .949 .839
Communicate infrequent work relations 257 3.92 .808 .850
See other’s evaluations 257 2.97 1.137 .787
See other’s answers to other’s questions 257 2.95 1.127 .820
See interactions among employees 257 2.91 1.023 .470 .576
See number of others liked or linked 257 3.18 1.077 .673 .355
Receive notifications about similar info 257 3.02 1.100 .782 Receive notifications about other’s info 257 3.01 1.053 .740
Eigenvalue 4.90 1.66 1.32 1.03
Variance explained 35.00% 11.87% 9.46% 7.39%
Personal smartphone or laptop use while at work. This variable was a moderator and was measured using the scale of Garrett and Danziger (2008) adjusted after example of Vitak, Crouse and LaRose (2011). While the original scale only incorporated sending e-mails or text-messages for personal purposes, Vitak, Crouse and LaRose argued that because of the increasing popularity of online communication, specifically Social Network Sites use, this should also be considered. Therefore, an item addressing this was added to the scale.
Consequently, the scale consisted of three items measuring the frequency of internet use for personal ends. Participants were asked to indicate how often they use their device during work to perform the stated behaviors on a 5-point scale ranging from (0) ‘Never’ to (5) ‘Often’. An example of a statement is ‘To look up information of personal interest, such as news, sports scores, or stock reports’.
Control variables. When testing the hypotheses, several control variables were included in the model. Gender, measured as a dichotomous variable (0 = male, 1 = female), and age, contract hours and actual working hours, all measured as continuous variables, were included. Also, organizational size was included, measured by six categories 1 = 30-100, 2 = 101-250, 3 = 251-500, 4 = 501-1000 and 5=1001 or more. Finally, managerial position was measured as a dichotomous variable (0 = no management position, 1 = management position).
Results
In order to test the first three hypotheses a multiple mediation analysis (model 6) was performed using PROCESS v3.0 by Hayes (2018). When testing one affordance as independent variable, the others were included as control variables. There was no
multicollinearity, homoscedasticity was assumed, and residuals were normally distributed. The analysis showed that this model was significant F(15, 220)= 2.89, p < .001, and that all variables together explained 16.46% of the variance in employee flourishing.
To test hypothesis 1, the affordance pervasiveness was included as the independent variable, subjective norms and constant connectivity were included as mediators and employee flourishing was the dependent variable. The (a) paths from pervasiveness to subjective norms b = .28, SE = .07, t(222)= 4.07, 95% CI [.142, .426], p <.001 and from pervasiveness to constant connectivity b = .20, SE = .07, t(221)= 2.76, 95% CI [.056, .335], p = .006, were significant and positive. The (b) path between subjective norms and flourishing was significant and negative: b = -.22, SE = .07, t(220)= -3.32, 95% CI [-.357, -.091], p = .001, and the path between constant connectivity and flourishing was significant but positive: b = .13, SE = .06, t(220)= 2.15, 95% CI [.011, .241], p = .033. Also, the path between
subjective norms and constant connectivity was significant and positive: b = .67, SE = .06, t(222)= 10,46, 95% CI [.540, .791], p < .001. In the model without the mediators the effect of pervasiveness on flourishing was not significant b = .11, SE = .06, 95% CI [-.013, .226], p = .081. The absence of this effect indicates that mediation is not possible. In the model with the mediators the direct effect of pervasiveness on flourishing remained insignificant b = .12, SE = .07, t(220)= 1.95, 95% CI [-.002, .245], p = .053, as was the total indirect effect from pervasiveness to flourishing through subjective norms and constant connectivity b = -.02, SE = .03, 95% CI [-.070, .038], p = .053. Thus, employees who perceive their device affords pervasiveness do not experience less flourishing due to altered subjective norms and constant connectivity to work. These results do not support H1. Remarkably, a closer inspection of the indirect effect did suggest that the separate indirect effects from pervasiveness to flourishing through (1) subjective norms b = -.06, SE = 0.03, 95% CI [-.124, -.016], through (2) constant connectivity b = .02, SE = .02, 95% CI [.001, .063] and through (3) subjective norms and constant connectivity (parallel instead of in sequence) b = .02, SE = .01, 95% CI [.002, .056] are significant, as the confidence intervals do not cross zero. This means there is no double mediation, but the effect of pervasiveness on flourishing is mediated by subjective norms and
constant connectivity separately. As the first is negative and the second is positive, the effects cancel each other out, causing the total indirect effect to be insignificant.
For hypothesis 2, two models were tested because the affordance visibility was found to consist of two subcategories; signaling and evaluability. First, signaling was used as the independent variable. The (a) paths from signaling to subjective norms b = .10, SE = .07, t(222)= 1.55, 95% CI [-.028, .232], p = .122 and to constant connectivity b = .04, SE = .06, t(221)= .58, 95% CI [-.087, .160], p = .562, were not significant. The (b) paths from
subjective norms and constant connectivity to flourishing remained unchanged. Additionally, the direct effect of signaling on flourishing was not significant b = .04, SE = .05, t(220)= -.80, 95% CI [-.151, .064], p = .423. As the (a) and (c) paths were not significant mediation was not possible, reflected in the insignificant indirect relationship b = -.01, SE = .02, 95% CI [-.045, .018]. This means that employees who perceive their device affords signaling do not experience less flourishing due to altered subjective norms and constant connectivity.
Second, evaluability was used as the independent variable. Again, the (a) paths from evaluability to subjective norms b = -.05, SE = .57, t(222)= -.89, 95% CI [-.164, .062], p = .375 and to constant connectivity b = .02, SE = .05, t(222)= .42, 95% CI [ -.084, .130], p = .673, were not significant. The direct relationship between evaluability and flourishing was not significant b = -.07, SE =.05, t(220)=-1.46, 95% CI [-.162, .024], p = .145. Consequently, no significant indirect effect could be found b = .01, SE = .01, 95% CI [-.012, .038]. This means that employees who perceive their device affords evaluability do not experience less flourishing due to altered subjective norms and constant connectivity to work. All in all, hypothesis 2, suggesting that visibility was negatively related to flourishing through subjective norms and constant connectivity, was rejected.
For hypothesis 3, the model contained awareness as independent variable. The (a) path between awareness and subjective norms was not significant b = -.08, SE = .07, t(222)= -1.26,
95% CI [-.218, .048], p = .211, nor was the path between awareness and constant connectivity b = -.03, SE = .07, t(221)= -.48, 95% CI [-.158, .096], p = .629. In the model without the mediators, the effect of awareness on flourishing was positive and significant b = .17, SE = .06, t(222), 95% CI [.058, .282], p = .003. When controlling for the mediators, this direct effect slightly decreased but remained significant b = .16, SE = .06, t(220)= 2.90, 95% CI [.052, .272], p = .004. Also, the total indirect effect was not significant b = .01, SE = .01, 95% CI [-.017, .038], meaning that employees that perceive their device affords awareness do not experience lower flourishing, due to enhanced subjective norms and constant connectivity. H3 thus had to be rejected.
Hypothesis 4 stated that the relationship between constant connectivity and flourishing was moderated by personal smartphone or laptop use at work in a way that employees who used their device more for personal purposes during work, experienced less negative effects of constant connectivity for their flourishing. This was tested with a moderated mediation analysis (model 14), calculating the index of moderated mediation (Hayes, 2018). The model was significant F(13, 227) = 2.30, p =.007 and all variables together explained 11,62% of the variance in employee flourishing. The hypothesized moderated mediation effect however, was not significant b = .01, SE = .04, 95% CI [-.061, .099]. Hence, hypothesis 4 was not
supported. A closer look at the moderation effect reveals that the interaction effect of constant connectivity and personal smartphone or laptop use at work was not significant b = .02, SE = .04, t(227)= .50, 95% CI [-.059, .099], p =.617. This means the effect of constant connectivity on flourishing is the same for employees that use their device for personal purposes during work more, as for those who do this less. As visible in figure 6, employees that indicated to use their device more for personal purposes during work, did flourish slightly more than employees who used their device less b = .10, SE = .05, t(227) = 2.14, 95% CI [.008, .192], p = .033.
Discussion
The aim of the present study was to further understand the relationship between using smartphones and laptops for job related tasks after work and employee flourishing. Using an organizational media affordance lens, the role of both the user, the material features of the devices and the relationship between these two, were acknowledged when striving to grasp the emergence of subjective norms surrounding the use of these devices for work. These subjective norms in turn, where expected to enhance constant connectivity, leading to a decline in flourishing.
Theoretical implications
To begin with, this study provided useful insights into organizational media affordances and their relationship to subjective norms. Overall, the affordances did not explain the emergence of subjective norms surrounding the use of smartphones and laptops to perform job related tasks after work. A reason for this could be that as employee perceptions of affordances are socially constructed, they do not only influence the perception of subjective norms, they are also shaped by them (Leonardi & Vaast, 2017; Rice et al., 2017). This implies there is a symmetric relationship between these concepts rather than asymmetric, arguing that one does not lead to another. Looking at the correlations (Table 1), this could be the case for the signaling part of visibility and pervasiveness.
The results do however, show that it is useful to apply the affordance perspective when examining the relationship between the use of smartphones and laptops for job related tasks after work and flourishing. First, employees that perceived their device afforded awareness experienced more flourishing. Against expectations, the underlying mechanism of this effect was not the altered subjective norms and constant connectivity. An alternative explanation for this positive effect could be that being aware of information others have, helps employees to prevent duplication of tasks and promotes building on knowledge that already exists
(Leonardi, 2014). This way, employees can perform better, enhancing their feeling of
competence and thus positively affecting their flourishing. Likewise, Stuart, Dabbish, Kiesler, Kinnaird, and Kang (2012) argued that ambient awareness can increase employee
productivity by enabling micro-level coordination of actions, smoothening collaboration. Additionally, awareness of activities or opinions of others might help employees to understand personal and professional contexts of their colleagues, stimulating the development of good relationships (Schreurs & De Laat, 2014) and thus enhancing flourishing.
Second, the affordance visibility was not found to relate to employee flourishing, nor did it contribute to subjective norms or constant connectivity. It appears that the mere visibility of workflows and communication of others does not contribute to connectivity of employees themselves. However, following Leonardi (2014) it can be argued that only through visibility, smartphones and laptops can afford awareness. Because, in order to be aware of behavior of others, this behavior should first be visible. The visibility can thus be seen as a boundary condition for the positive relationship between the affordance awareness and flourishing. This implies that only when visibility leads employees to actually be aware of the behavior of others, it can affect their flourishing.
Third, employees that perceived their device afforded pervasiveness of communication and information related to their work, initially seemed to experience no consequences for their flourishing. However, a closer look showed that in fact, they experienced two simultaneous effects that cancelled each other out. First it was found that pervasiveness did contribute to the emergence of subjective norms, which in turn had a negative impact on employee flourishing. At the same time, this pervasiveness was found to enhance feelings of constant connectivity, creating a small increase in employee flourishing. Both effects are clarified later. By all means, these results underline the ambiguous ramifications that the ubiquity of work-related
information and communication, afforded by smartphones and laptops, has for employees (Jarvenpaa & Lang, 2005; Mazmanian, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2013).
Next, this research adds to knowledge about constant connectivity and its possible outcomes for employees. Corresponding with the results of previous research, this study found that subjective norms are an antecedent of constant connectivity. This means that expectations and behaviors of colleagues regarding the use of laptops or smartphones for work indeed stimulate constant connection by employees themselves (Leonardi & Vaast, 2017; Richardson & Benbunan-Fich, 2011). Moreover, these subjective norms not only related to constant connectivity, they also directly decreased employee flourishing. A reason for this could be that employees feel pressured to stay connected to their work and feel guilty when they do not conform to this norm (Gibbs, Rozaidi, & Eisenberg, 2013; Leonardi, Treem, & Jackson, 2010). Also, they might feel like they have to justify why they are not as available or responsive as others or even have to act strategically as if they are (Leonardi & Vaast; Gadeyne, Verbruggen, Delanoeije, & De Cooman, 2018). This could make them feel less supported or frowned upon, explaining the decline in their flourishing.
While previous research predominantly found that constant connectivity is negatively related to employee well-being, this study found a small positive effect on flourishing. Other studies mentioning a positive effect state that smartphones and laptops can afford employees to work wherever and whenever suits them best, enhancing the feeling of flexibility and control over their work schedule and location (Leonardi & Vaast, 2017; Ohly & Latour, 2014). This possibly enhances their job satisfaction (Boswell, Olson-Buchanan, Butts, & Becker, 2016; Fenner & Renn, 2004), organizational commitment and engagement in work-tasks (Fujimoto, Ferdous, Sekiguchi, & Sugianto, 2016). This way, staying connected to work can enhance feelings of competence and self-worth (Xie, Ma, Zhou, & Tang, 2018), thus explaining their increased flourishing. Additionally, employees’ integration preferences could
be an explanation for the opposite findings regarding the consequences of constant
connectivity. This refers to the extent to which employees long to keep their work and private life separate or not (Fenner & Renn, 2004; 2010). Possibly this sample contained mostly ‘integrators’, whom prefer to merge those domains and are thus more likely to experience positive consequences of constant connectivity to their work (Boswell, Olson-Buchanan, Butts, & Becker, 2016). With these results, this study emphasizes once more that constant connectivity is indeed what others have called a ‘double-edged sword’ (e.g. Gadeyne, Verbruggen, Delanoeije, & De Cooman, 2018; Mazmanian, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2013), referring to the fact that it has positive and negative consequences that can coexist.
Finally, this study adds to theory by establishing that using smartphones or laptops for personal purposes while at work does not change the relationship between constant connectivity and employee flourishing. A reason for this could be that the flexibility and control over work schedules that employees experience as a consequence of their constant connection to work, do not depend on their device use during work. Regardless of how much they use their smartphone or laptop for personal matters, these devices afford them the possibility to perform job related tasks when and where suits them best. However, using devices for personal matters at work does have a slight direct and positive effect on employee flourishing. Thus, while other research often emphasizes the negative effects of this behavior, referring to it as cyberslacking (Garrett & Danziger, 2008), this study stresses the possible opportunities it provides. Even though the effect is small and should not be exaggerated, it does show that allowing employees to ‘cyberslack’ helps them to feel well and prosper in life. Furthermore, there was a positive correlation between personal device use and constant connectivity, meaning that employees that experienced a constant connection to their work, also used their device more often for personal matters during work, and vice versa. This could indicate that employees increasingly use their devices to manage the boundary between their
work and private life, going back and forth between work and non-work matters regardless of their location or time of the day (Richardson & Benbunan-Fich, 2011).
Practical implications
The results of this study have two main implications for organizational practice. First, the small increases in flourishing as a consequence of constant connectivity and awareness, point out that managers should not be too rigorous in limiting employees to use their devices for work related tasks after hours under the guise of helping them to prevent spending too much time on work. Likewise, governments should be cautious when introducing laws to restrict the use of smartphones or laptops to work after hours, because these restrictions also abolish the positive effects of constant connectivity. Still, it is important that managers pay attention to the connectivity behavior of their employees. In line with Mazmanian, Orlikowski and Yates (2013), amongst others, this study shows that relying on norms that naturally emerge amongst employees could have negative effects on employee flourishing. These norms stimulate connectivity behavior while employees might feel they cannot or do not want to meet such standards. To prevent this, managers and their teams should discuss expectations regarding the use of smartphones and laptops and make them explicit. Together with the Boston Consulting Group, Perlow offers a specific method to do this called Predictability, Teaming and Open communication (PTO; Perlow, 2012). Following this method, managers and their teams should set a collective goal to make the free time of all members predictable. Once the goal is clear, teams should engage in a structural dialogue regarding expectations and
difficulties surrounding their connectivity behavior. With PTO then, employees can
renegotiate the norms so they know what they can expect from each other (Perlow & Kelly, 2014; Richardson & Benbunan-Fich, 2011). This way, organizations enjoy the benefits of enhanced employee performance, without jeopardizing employee flourishing.
Second, as personal smartphone or laptop use enhances employee flourishing, this study encourages managers to look into giving their employees the space to use their smartphone for personal purposes during work. As smartphones and laptops become more integrated in employees’ private lives, the temptation to check personal messages or the latest sports results while at work grows (Vitak, Crouse, & LaRose, 2011). This study shows that this behavior might not be as detrimental as feared. Allowing employees to use their smartphone or laptop at work to communicate with friends or read a news article, helps them to take a breath and recover from one task before going on to the next, possibly enhancing their job satisfaction and productivity afterwards. To make this work, managers should trust their employees will find an appropriate balance and will not abuse this freedom.
Limitations and future research
When interpreting the results of this study, it is important to be aware of several
limitations. First, the results were obtained using a cross-sectional design, meaning that the independent and dependent variables were assessed at the same point in time and no claims can be made about causality. Also, it is possible that common method bias occurred, as self-reported data were used. To avoid this type of bias, future research could gather information on actual usage by logging what applications are used and for how long. This can be done by installing tracking applications like Apple’s Screen Time on participants’ devices. Combining this data with the subjective experiences of participants regarding their connectivity behavior might provide interesting insights in the origin of feeling constantly connected to work.
A third limitation is the sampling method of this study. As snowballing was used to obtain the sample, it is difficult to assess its representativeness of the population. Therefore, results are possibly not generalizable to the Dutch workforce. Looking at the demographics, there are no indications that the employees in the sample deviate much from the average workforce,
other than their generally high education. However, it would still be wise to reproduce the study with a random sample to assess its generalizability.
Fourth, this study assessed the use of smartphones and laptops to work outside office hours with three of the affordances extracted by Rice et al. (2017). Based on the factor analysis four items had to be dropped, producing slightly different scales. For pervasiveness this resulted in a two-item scale, seemingly measuring the possibility to stay in contact or communicate with others rather than the ubiquity of the devices. Also, because of the dynamic and relational nature of the concept, the boundaries between affordances are
‘permeable’ (Rice et al., 2017) which possibly explains the correlation between the measured affordances. This could however, also mean that they facilitate or constrain each other. Future research should further explore this in order to advance the quantitative measurement of affordances.
Furthermore, as this study aligns with the notion of constant connectivity as a double-edged sword, other academics are encouraged to capture these opposing effects for employees within their research. A starting point could be the study of Jarvenpaa and Lang (2005), describing several paradoxes surrounding the use of mobile technologies. Additionally, researchers are advised to use multiple outcome indicators as this research illustrated that two opposing processes can cancel each other out, causing the overall effect on one indicator to disappear. In the end, addressing both sides of a constant connection to work, helps to unravel the complex circumstances it creates for employees.
Finally, this study stimulates other academics to look beyond the negative statements surrounding the use of smartphones and laptops for personal purposes during work. Further analyses into the effects on employee productivity and creativity for example could help us understand if the positive effect for employees also translates into better performance and improved results for their organizations.
References
Boswell, W., & Olson-Buchanan, J. (2007). The use of communication technologies after hours: The role of work attitudes and work-life conflict. Journal of Management 33, 592–610.
Boswell, W., Olson-Buchanan, J., Butts, M., & Becker, W. (2016). Managing “after hours” electronic work communication. Organizational Dynamics, 45, 291-297.
Brandsma, J., Van Velzen, J., & Bassie, L. (2018, November 14). Samenleving: PvdA: Geef elke werknemer het recht om onbereikbaar te zijn. Trouw. Viewed on
https://www.trouw.nl/samenleving/pvda-geef-elke-werknemer-het-recht-om-onbereikbaar-te-zijn~a1b4fff4/
Braukmann, J., Schmitt, A., Duranová, L., & Ohly, S. (2018). Identifying ICT-related affective events across life domains and examining their unique relationships with employee recovery. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33, 529-544.
Bűchler, N., Ter Hoeven, C.L., & Van Zoonen, W. (2018). The Always-Connected Age of Modern Technology: Constant Connectivity to Work and its Relationship to Employee Well-Being. Paper presented at the EAWOP SGM Working Anywhere Anytime,
Leuven, Belgium.
Danna, K., & Griffin, R. (1999). Health and well-Being in the workplace: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Management, 25, 357-384.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A., & Gevers, J. (2015). Job crafting and extra-role behavior: The role of work engagement and flourishing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 87–96. 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
Diaz, I., Chiaburu, D., Zimmerman, R., & Boswell, W. (2012). Communication technology: pros and cons of constant connection. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 500-508. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R.
(2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97, 143-156.
Fenner, G. & Renn, R. (2010). Technology-assisted supplemental work and work-to-family conflict: the role of instrumentality beliefs, organizational expectations and time management. Human Relations, 63, 63-82.
Fenner, G., & Renn, R. (2004). Technology-assisted supplemental work: construct definition and a research framework. Human Resource Management, 43, 179-200.
Fujimoto, Y., Ferdous, A. S., Sekiguchi, T., & Sugianto, L. (2016). The effect of mobile technology usage on work engagement and emotional exhaustion in Japan. Journal of Business Research, 69, 3315-3323.
Gadeyne, N., Verbruggen, M., Delanoeije, J., & De Cooman, R. (2018). All wired, all tired? Work-related ICT-use outside work hours and work-to-home conflict: the role of integration preference integration norms and work demands. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 107, 86,-99.
Garrett, R. K., & Danziger, J. N. (2008). On cyberslacking: Workplace status and personal internet use at work. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 11, 287-292.
Gibbs, L. J., Rozaidi, N. A., & Eisenberg, J. (2013). Overcoming the ideology of openness: Probing the affordances of social media for organizational knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 102-120.
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances: Perceiving, acting and knowing, Shaw R. and Bransford J. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
onbereikbaarheid?. De Volkskrant. Retrieved from
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuwsachtergrond/hoe-toepasbaar-is-frans-recht-op onbereikbaarheid-~b2bbdaa6/
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach (2nd Ed). New York: The Guilford Press. Hislop, D., & Axtell, C. (2011). Mobile phones during work and non-work time: A case
study of mobile, non-managerial workers. Information and Organization, 21, 41-56. Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances, Sociology, 35, 441–456.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Lang, K. R. (2005). Managing the paradoxes of mobile technology. Information Systems Management, 22, 7-23.
Keyes, C.L.M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 43, 207–222.
Leonardi, P. M. (2014). Social media, knowledge sharing, and innovation: A theory of communication visibility. Information Systems Research, 25, 796-816.
Leonardi, P. M. (2015). Ambient awareness and knowledge acquisition: Using social media to learn “Who Knows What” and “Who Knows Whom”. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 39, 747–762.
Leonardi, P. M., & Meyer, S. R. (2015). Social media as social lubricant: How ambient awareness eases knowledge transfer. American Behavioral Scientist, 5, 10–34. 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. Leonardi, P., M., & Vaast, E. (2017). Social media and their affordances for organizing: A
review and agenda for research. Academy of Management Annals, 11, 150-188. Majchrzak, A., Faraj, S., Kane, G. C., & Azad, B. (2013). The contradictory influence of
social media affordances on online communal knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 38–55.
Mazmanian, M. (2013). Avoiding the trap of constant connectivity: When congruent frames allow for heterogeneous practices. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1225-1250. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0787
Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2013). The autonomy paradox: the
implications of mobile devices for knowledge professionals. Organization Science, 24, 1337-1357.
Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W., & Yates, J. (2006). Ubiquitous email: Individual
experiences and organizational consequences of BlackBerry use. Paper presented at the Annual Academy of Management Conference, Atlanta, GA. doi:
10.5465/AMBPP.2006.27169074
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, 555-578.
Ohly, S., & Latour, A. (2014). Work-related smartphone use and well-being in the
evening: The role of autonomous and controlled motivation. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 13, 174-183.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28, 1435-1448.
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.
Perlow, L. A., & Kelly, E. L. (2014). Toward a model of work redesign for better work and better life. Work and occupations, 41, 111-134.
predictable - and required. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2009/10/making-time-off-predictable-and- required
Pozzi, G., Pigni, F., & Vitari, C. (2014). Affordance theory in the IS discipline: A review and synthesis of the literature. In Twentieth Americas Conference on Information Systems (12pp.), Association for Information Systems. Retrieved from
http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1228&context=amcis2014 Rice, R. E., Evans, S. K., Pearce, K. E., Sivunen, A., Vitak, J., & Treem, J. W. (2017).
Organizational media affordances: Operationalization and associations with media use. Journal of Communication, 67, 106-130.
Richardson, K., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2011). Examining the antecedents of work
connectivity behavior during non-work time. Information and Organization, 21, 142-160.
Schreurs, B., & De Laat, M. (2014). The network awareness tool: A web 2.0 tool to visualize informal networked learning in organizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 385–394.
Smit, F. (2018). Zet dat ding uit! FNV Magazine, pp. 4-7.
Stuart, H. C., Dabbish, L., Kiesler, S., Kinnaird, P., & Kang, R. (2012). Social Transparency in Networked Information Exchange: a Theoretical Framework. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, New York.
Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, B., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2007). The impact of technostress on role stress and productivity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24, 301–328.
Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Communication
Yearbook, 36, 143–189.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186-204.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Vitak, J., Crouse, J., & LaRose, R. (2011). Personal internet use at work: Understanding cyberslacking. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1751-1759.
Weber, L. (2015, May 20). Business, management & careers: Can you sue the boss for making you answer late-night email? The Wall Street Journal. Viewed on https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-you-sue-the-boss-for-making-you-answer-late night-email-1432144188
Xie, J., Ma, H., Zhou, Z., & Tang, H. (2018). Work-related use of information and communication technologies after hours (W_ICTS) and emotional exhaustion: A mediated moderation model. Computers in Human Behavior, 79, 94-104.
Appendix
Note: ind1 = P SN FL, ind2 = P CC FL, ind3 = P SN CC FL. * is significant at .05 (2-tailed)
Figure 4. Results of multiple mediation analysis awareness (H3)
Figure 5. Results of moderated mediation model (H4)
Note: the indirect effect is split in three levels, referring to the effect for people that use their device for personal purposes less often, average or more often.
Figure 6. Interaction plot moderation effect
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Low constant connectivity High constant connectivity
Flou ris h ing Low Personal device use High Personal device use
