Where did my office go? : the influence of New Ways of Working on employee well-being

(1)

‘Where did my office go?’

The influence of New Ways of Working on

employee well-being

Master Thesis

Stefan Kapteijns University of Amsterdam

Westermarkt 48 Graduate School of Communication

1016 DL Amsterdam Corporate Communication

Tel: +31614032858 June 26, 2015

stefankap92@gmail.com Student number: 10000836 Supervisor: dr. S.R. Sumter

(2)

1

The current study aims at investigating the effect of New Ways of Working on the well-being of employees i.e. exhaustion and workaholism, while taking the moderating effects of extraversion (Big Five) and the perceived expectations of employers into account. A case study was performed in a large consultancy/accountancy company in the Netherlands, which has implemented New Ways of Working (NWW). Data were collected through an online survey distributed in one particular division of the company (N= 77). The results indicated that NWW has a significant, but weak negative relationship with exhaustion. In addition, a significantly weak positive correlation was found between workaholism and the perceived expectations of employers. Furthermore, no moderating effects of extraversion and perceived expectations of employers were found. Future research should include qualitative methods to find additional support for these findings, and look at other moderating variables such as media of communication used by employees in the workplace.

(4)

3

Introduction

Worldwide, companies are experimenting with the implementation of flexible working conditions as a means to improve efficiency in work processes, yet reducing the

organizational costs (Ten Brummelhuis, Bakker, Hetland & Keulemans, 2012). These changes have been referred to as a New Way of Working (NWW). Many large organizations in the Netherlands such as Essent, Microsoft and Philips have already implemented certain forms of NWW. An increased amount of organizations is additionally considering making the switch as these flexible working arrangements are argued to improve the functioning of employees and organizations as a whole (De Menezes & Kelliher, 2011). According to De Menezes & Kelliher (2011), organizations have additionally shown interest in NWW as it might reduce costs for the health and welfare of employees.

Several studies on how NWW affects the work outcomes for companies have

illustrated contradictory results. NWW contain benefits such as a better work-life balance, yet also certain pitfalls which include exhaustion and workaholism (e.g., Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Mazmanian, 2012; De Menezes & Kelliher, 2011;

Schaufeli, Taris & Van Rhenen, 2008). Surprisingly, few studies have focused on how NWW affects employee well-being. Most studies on NWW revolve around benefits from the

company’s perspective rather than addressing the importance of the well-being of employees.

Therefore, this research attempts to examine the link between NWW and employee well-being, whilst determining which factors underlie the relationship between NWW and employee well-being. In doing so, it is revealed how NWW can be employed in such a way that the disadvantages are weakened, whereas the advantages are emphasized and

(5)

4

.New Ways of Working

NWW comprise of four different fundamental features by which it can be defined (Baane, Houtkamp & Knotter, 2010). Firstly, the authors argue that employees can

independently decide when and where to work. Ten Brummelhuis (2012) indicates that this means that companies have implemented flexible working spots that are available and suitable to the entire staff. In addition, employees no longer have access to their fixed offices and fixed work schedules have also disappeared.

Secondly, Baane et al. (2010), argue that employees are now evaluated based on their results, rather than on their presence. This implies that managers expect an increased

independency of their employees as the perceived control is mitigated.

The third fundamental feature is related to the emergence of web 2.0. Clearly, web 2.0 is of great importance in contemporary work life as employees have unlimited access to and connectivity with the rest of the company (Baane et al., 2010). These new media technologies such as e-mail, instant messaging and video calls allow the employee to communicate with roughly everyone involved in the company such as colleagues, clients and supervisors (Ten Brummelhuis, 2012). Finally, Baane et al., (2010) argues that NWW offers the employee the possibility to engage in a perfect fit relationship with the company based on ambition and competence. These four fundamental features have led to defining NWW as ‘a flexible

organization of working, where employees can decide when they work, where they work and via which communication medium’ (Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012, p.114).

Baane et al. (2010) introduce the so-called employee 2.0, which originates from the development of web 2.0. Basically, this means that the new generation of employees have experienced the countless possibilities that web 2.0 has to offer and their behavior is primarily based on these developments. Ultimately, this implies that newly hired employees will have little trouble adapting to NWW, whereas they do encounter problems when submitting to the

(6)

5

original way of working (Baane et al., 2010). The new generation of employees expect increased flexibility and say in their working conditions. Conversely, the older generation of employees might encounter troubles while adopting the developments of NWW (Shelley, Thrane & Shulman, 2006). The authors found that the older generation did use new technologies, however significantly lacked skills compared to their younger counterparts. Therefore, age may play an important role for managers whilst implementing NWW.

Employee Well-Being

Employee well-being has been studied for decades and has proven to be of great importance for organizations (e.g., Sparks et al., 2001; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Danna & Griffin, 1999). Employee well-being is a broad term as well-being contains both

psychological and physical factors, which in turn makes it hard to define. However, for the sake of clarity the following definition is adapted ‘employee well-being is that part of an employee’s overall well-being that they perceive to be determined primarily by their work and can be influenced by workplace interventions’ (Juniper, Bellamy & White, 2010, p. 347).

Employee well-being is related to a vast amount of factors found in the workplace. For instance, as the average adult spends a significant amount of his life working, employees expect and desire a sense of deeper meaning from their work yet also consider their work to be a ‘calling, enjoyable, fulfilling and socially useful’ (Harter, Schmidt & Keyes, 2003, p.2).

In addition, the authors argue that the well-being of employees is in the best interest of

employers because job satisfaction and individual performance have been positively related to each other, which indicates that employees who are increasingly satisfied with their job will enhance their individual performance significantly. Moreover, Spector (1997) indicated that increased job satisfaction of employees leads to being more cooperative, more helpful towards

(7)

6

colleagues, increased punctuality and time efficiency and decreased absence compared with dissatisfied employees.

Furthermore, Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) distinguish between job demands and job resources and argue that both are related to employee well-being. The authors state that job demands refer to certain aspects of the job that involve physical or psychological effort and can be affiliated with psychological or physiological costs. The authors argue that these costs may elicit negative responses such as depression, anxiety or burnout. Conversely, job

resources refer to those aspects of the job that reduce the job demands along with their psychological and physiological costs. Additionally, these resources encourage personal development and growth and help employees to achieve goals in a more efficient way (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). This study will focus on two specific factors of well-being, namely exhaustion and workaholism. In doing so, this study attempts to provide fresh insights into the relationship between NWW and these outcome variables.

Who Fares Well Under the New Ways of Working?

To the frequently studied concepts of NWW and employee well-being, perceived

expectations of employers and extraversion as described in the Big Five personality traits are

included as moderating variables. The perceived expectations of employers have changed to great extent with the implementation of NWW, as employers expect their employees to be more autonomous and supply them with increased power of decision making (Peters, Kraan & van Echelt, 2014). In addition, the authors argue that employees are no longer judged on being present, but rather controlled and evaluated based on their results. Therefore, it is interesting to identify the effect of these expectations on the relationship between NWW and employee well-being. Moreover, extraversion as one of the Big Five personality traits is included in the model. All measures of personality are assigned to the ‘Big Five’ factor model

(8)

7

of personality (Goldberg, 1990). However, this study mainly focuses on extraversion since it may play a significant role in the relationship between NWW and employee well-being. For example, flexible working conditions may lead to more interaction with other employees due to the loss of fixed work places. In addition, Barrick and Mount (1991) found that

extraversion has shown to positively influence job performance and increase interaction with colleagues.

As mentioned before there have been limited amounts of studies performed on the effects of NWW on employee well-being. Therefore, the aim of this study is to contribute to the field of research on the influences that NWW has on its employees with special regard to their well-being. The above-mentioned line of reasoning leads up to the following research question:

RQ: How do New Ways of Working influence employee well-being (Exhaustion and Workaholism)?

Exhaustion

Employee well-being is considered a broad term, which comprehends a large number of workplace factors. (Harter et al., 2002). The authors argue that high employee well-being leads to positive workplace perceptions and feelings, which in turn is affiliated with ‘higher business-unit customer loyalty, higher profitability, higher productivity, and lower rates of turnover’ (Harter et al., 2002, p.1). Clearly, these aforementioned factors show the

significance of employee well-being for businesses.

The current study will mainly focus on two specific features of well-being, namely exhaustion and workaholism. Exhaustion can be defined as ‘fatigue without referring to other people as the source of one’s tiredness’ (Maslach & Jackson, 1986, p. 294). In addition,

(9)

8

Moreover, Ten Brummelhuis et al. (2012) argued that enhanced and constant connectivity would increase fatigue and therefore result in employees being more exhausted, yet the results showed the opposite. The authors recently found in their five-day diary study (n=550) that some features of NWW decreased exhaustion among employees whereas others increased exhaustion. For example, the authors unexpectedly found that NWW decreased exhaustion among employees due to increased effective, efficient communication and enhanced connectivity. However, interruptions were found to increase exhaustion among employees (Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012). These contradictory results show that more research needs to be done in this field and therefore the first hypothesis is:

New Ways of Working are negatively related to Exhaustion (H1).

Workaholism

The second outcome variable that will be studied is workaholism. Workaholism was first introduced by Oates who defined it as ‘the compulsion or the uncontrollable need to work incessantly’ (1971, p.11). In addition, Spence and Robbins (1992) who created the leading

model of workaholism distinguish three underlying dimensions, which comprise the

‘workaholic-triad’ and consist of work involvement, drive and work enjoyment (Schaufeli &

Bakker, 2008). Workaholics tend to spend obsessive amounts of time working and work harder than most colleagues. Moreover, they often work harder than necessary to measure up to the company’s standards (Van Beek, Taris & Schaufeli, 2011). In addition, the authors

argue that workaholics often refuse to disengage from work and unremittingly recall work matters in their mind, often without being at work. Workaholism is worrisome because ‘workaholics report higher levels of stress, exhibit higher levels of perfectionism, claim more

health-related problems, and are less likely to delegate work to others when compared to most non-workaholic workers’ (Bonebright, Clay & Ankenmann, 2000, p.469). Furthermore,

(10)

9

Kelliher and Anderson (2009) found that employees who frequently work from home have shown increased effort and identified a greater work intensification. The authors argue that based on the social exchange theory, employees want to reciprocate for gaining the trust to work from home and returning the favor by intensifying their work. Therefore, it is expected that the constant connectivity and work intensification that comes with the implementation of NWW might influence the extent to which employees engage in workaholism. This leads up to the second hypothesis:

New Ways of Working are positively related to Workaholism (H2).

Extraversion (Big Five)

Norman (1967) coined the concept of the Big Five personality traits, which include: Openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. As mentioned before, this study will mainly focus on extraversion in order to keep the study from becoming too comprehensive. Extraversion is argued to be one of the outstanding features in psychology, as it is prominent in largely every personality measures (Judge, Higgins,

Thoresen & Barrick, 1999). Furthermore, Barrick and Mount (1991) identified extroverts as being outgoing, sociable and talkative. Similarly, Taggar (2000) suggests various features of extraversion including warmth, assertiveness, excitement seeking and positive emotions. Moreover, he stresses that extraverts score high on gregariousness, which basically means they prefer the company of other people. Extroverts are considered highly active and energetic individuals and therefore unremittingly desire attention and stimulation, which results in effective team membership and increased admiration of colleagues (Morgeson, Reider & Campion, 2005). In addition, Tagger (2000) found that on a group level, sociability has demonstrated a positive correlation with product quality and performance, whereas

(11)

10

positively correlated with job performance. However, Buhler and Land (2003) found that individuals who seek excitement and take more risks have an increased tendency to end up emotionally exhausted. Moreover, Freudenberger and Richelson indicated that ‘burning out is confined mainly to dynamic and ambitious men and women, who, in all that they do, give of their best and with heart and soul’ (1980, p.40). Finally, Bakker et al. (2006) illustrated that

extraversion is a predictor of burnouts. This shows that even though extraversion may have many benefits for companies, ultimately it may prove detrimental in terms of emotional exhaustion. Therefore it is expected that employees who score high on extraversion will have increased sense of exhaustion.

Extraversion diminishes the negative relationship between NWW and Exhaustion (H3).

Many studies have shown positive correlations between extraversion and parts of the workaholism-triad (e.g., Burke, Matthiesen & Pallesen, 2006; Aziz & Tronzo, 2011;

Andreassen, Hetland & Pallesen, 2010). Extraversion was positively correlated to especially work involvement and enjoyment of work, as part of the triad. Based on these previous studies it is expected that employees who score high on extraversion will have an increased sense of workaholism.

Extraversion enhances the positive relationship between NWW and Workaholism (H4).

Perceived Expectations of the Employer

A second characteristic of employees that might explain how they experience NWW is their perceived expectations of their employers. The employees are not solely undergoing these changes from traditional to new ways of working. Clearly, managers and superiors are also subject to change as their way of evaluating their employees is becoming different. In

(12)

11

addition, both the employers and the employees need to redefine their expectations as both are increasingly remote working (Peters et al., 2013). Furthermore, the authors argue employees are given more responsibility and autonomy as the evaluations of their superiors have

transformed into performance agreements rather than on being present at work. Additionally, Peters et al. (2013) argue that this greater responsibility may lead to an increased sense of tension and stress among employees, yet the lack of challenges may turn out detrimental to the psychological health of the employees. Ultimately, Peters et al. (2013) argue that based on the ‘goal-setting theory’ (Locke & Latham, 2002), evaluations purely based on results would increase employees’ motivations to reach goals and personally develop. In addition, the

perceived expectations of the employers may cause work intensification among flexible workers. Kelliher and Anderson (2009) found that, based on the social exchange theory, flex workers exercised extra effort as to meet up to the renewed standards of NWW provided by their employees. Employees felt an increased sense of organizational commitment and the need to repay their employers for the additional responsibility. Based on the previous arguments the following two hypotheses are presented:

The perceived expectations of employers enhance the negative relationship between NWW and exhaustion (H5).

The perceived expectations of employers enhance the positive relationship between NWW and Workaholism (H6).

The conceptual model that has been created based on the theoretical background is presented in figure 1. The following paragraphs will discuss the methods and data analysis.

(13)

12

Figure 1. Theoretical model

H6 H5 H1 H2 H4 H3 Method Sample

Data were collected in 2015 in one of the Dutch branches of Deloitte. Deloitte is an organization in which thousands of employees worldwide work together in different fields such as accountancy, consulting and risk management. All respondents are currently working in the Human Capital Service Area (HCSA) which is focused on leveraging research,

analytics and industry insights to help design and execute critical programs from business driven HR to innovative talent, leadership and change programs (Deloitte, 2015). This particular division contains approximately 140 employees. Deloitte has implemented NWW for several years now and employees often times engage in remote working. Furthermore, the manager of this division has indicated that their employees occasionally experience problems

New Ways of Working

Exhaustion Workaholism Perceived expectations of employers Extraversion

(14)

13

while balancing their work and private lives.

Of the 140 current employees of the HSCA 77 completed the questionnaire (a response rate of 55%). Among the respondents, 21 (27.3%) were male and 56 (72.7%) were female In addition, the respondents’ age varied from 22 to 53 years old (M= 32.9, SD= 7.4). The majority (92.2%) of the respondents had fixed contracts and the average contractual working hours per week were 39.1 (SD=2.7). Furthermore, the average of job experience was 3.5 years (SD=3.5). Additionally, a large majority (92.2%) of the respondents held a

university degree.

Design

The study was conducted through a cross-sectional online survey. The survey was created and distributed on Qualtrics, which is a tool specifically designed for creating surveys. Furthermore, the survey also addressed whether extraversion and perceived expectations of employers influence their well-being. Additionally, demographic information such as age, sex and work experience has been included in the questionnaire. Upon participation, the

respondents were guaranteed anonymity and assured that they were able to withdraw at any given point. Furthermore, it was stated that participation was voluntary and if participants experienced discontent with some of the questions, it was ensured that they did not have to answer them. To increase response rates, two gift-cards (€10) have been randomly assigned to the respondents after completing the survey.

Measures

New Ways of Working. The variable New Ways of Working was measured as the

daily hours and minutes using 1) remote access, 2) working at home, 3) e-mail and 4) phone and 5) video conference and was adapted from Ten Brummelhuis et al. (2012). Flextime was

(15)

14

not included as measuring the time spent on NWW creates a more reliable measure of the definite use of NWW (Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012). Example questions were ‘How many hours have you used remote access today?’ and ‘How many hours have you worked from home today?’. High scores reflect greater use of the technologies that comprise new ways of

working. After conducting a reliability analysis of all five features of the subscale

(Cronbach’s α= .40), it was decided to omit three of the items to increase reliability of the

scale. Therefore, only the factors remote access and working from home will be used in the subscale NWW. The two remaining items showed a moderate correlation r(77) = .47, p< .01.

Exhaustion. Exhaustion was measured with three items on a 7 point Likert scale,

ranging from completely disagree (1) to completely agree (7) and was adapted from the Dutch version of the Utrecht Burnout Scale (UBOS; Schaufeli & Van Dierendonck, 2001). The three items were ‘Today, I felt exhausted due to my work’, ‘At the end of the working day I felt emotionally drained, and ‘I felt used up at the end of my workday’. High scores reflect greater emotional exhaustion caused by employees’ work life. The items formed a scale which was highly reliable, Cronbach’s α = .87.

Workaholism. Workaholism was measured with the Dutch Work Addiction Scale

(DUWAS; Taris & Schaufeli, 2009). The DUWAS consists of two core components, namely

working excessively and working compulsively. This study focuses on working excessively

and therefore includes only the first subscale. The subscale consisted of 9 items on a 4 point scale ranging from (Almost) never (1) to (Almost) always (4). Some examples of the item were ‘I am still working when my colleagues have gone home already’, ‘I feel guilty when I am not working’ and ‘I feel it is hard to relax when I am not working’. High scores reflect greater levels of workaholism among employees. Cronbach’s alpha was α = .70, which

(16)

15

Extraversion. Extraversion was measured with The Big Five Inventory (BFI; John,

Donahue & Kentle, 1991). The current study limits itself to only using extraversion rather than implementing all five traits. The subscale consisted of 8 items on a 5 point Likert scale, which ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The subscale included items such as ‘I am someone who is full of energy’, ‘I am someone who is talkative’ and ‘I am

someone who generates a lot of enthusiasm’. High scores reflect a greater level of

extraversion among the employees. Cronbach’s alpha was α = .75, which shows that the scale

was reliable.

Perceived expectations of the employer. The perceived expectations were measured

with three items on a 5 point Likert scale, which ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly

agree (5). The three-item scale included the items ‘I am expected to be available by phone

outside working hours’ and ‘I am expected to check my e-mail in personal time’. High scores

indicated that employees experience greater pressure from their employers to work outside of working hours. Cronbach’s alpha was α = .83, which indicated that the scale was highly

reliable.

Control variables. Finally, some demographic information was taken into

consideration as control variables. These demographics consisted of age, gender and the status of the employees’ contract (either temporary or permanent).

Procedure

The outcomes of the survey have been exported into SPSS and composite variables were made for each construct that is measured. Subsequently, reliability analyses have been conducted where appropriate. The first two hypotheses were tested using regression models. The moderation hypotheses were tested by using the PROCESS Macro by Hayes (model 1),

(17)

16

which is a tool specifically designed to test moderation and mediation in an easier way and therefore the macro will be used in this study (Hayes, 2013).

Results

Descriptives

Table 1 indicates the means, standard deviations and correlation of all the variables used in the analysis. In addition, the reliability of the scales is shown on the diagonal.

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, correlations and reliability of the scales for variables.

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 1. NWW 3.31 3.12 α= .63 2. Exhaustion 3.05 1.43 -.22* α = .87 3. Workaholism 2.38 0.42 .12 .46** α = .70 4. Extraversion 3.86 0.45 -.09 -.17 -.13 α = .75 5. Perceived exp of employers 3.02 0.87 .18 -.00 .30* .09 α = .83

Notes: N = 77; scale reliabilities are shown on the diagonal. *correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

(two-tailed); ** correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

New Ways of Working is negatively related to Exhaustion (H1).

Firstly, it was tested whether NWW is a significant predictor of exhaustion. The regression model with exhaustion as dependent variable and NWW as independent variable approached significance, F(1,75) = 3.86, p = 0.053. This model included the following control variables, age, gender and the status of the contract . Table 2 presents a summary of the regression analysis regarding the control variables. In addition, NWW had a negative, almost significant and weak coherence with exhaustion, β= -.13, t(1,75)= -1.96, p= 0.053. These results were in line with the first hypothesis.

(18)

17 Table 2. Summary of multiple regression analysis for control variables predicting NWW.

Understandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Constant .64 3.10 .21 .84 Age .06 .06 .14 .99 .33 Gender -.72 .88 -.11 -.82 .42 Status of Contract 1.69 1.49 .16 1.13 .26 Note: N=77

New Ways of Working is positively related to Workaholism (H2).

The second hypothesis was used to test whether NWW is a significant predictor of workaholism. The regression model with workaholism as dependent variable and NWW as predictor variable was not significant, F(1,72) = 1.09, p = .30. This indicated that the

regression model cannot be used to predict workaholism. NWW had a positive, insignificant and weak coherence with Workaholism, β= .12, t(1,72)= 1.04, p= .30. Based on the above-mentioned results, the second hypothesis was rejected.

Extraversion diminishes the negative relationship between NWW and Exhaustion (H3).

Hypothesis three stated that extraversion diminishes the negative relationship between NWW and exhaustion. To test this hypothesis a moderation analysis was conducted with the PROCESS macro tool (model 1). The model showed that there was no significant interaction effect between the independent variable NWW and the moderating variable extraversion, b*= .16, t(3,71) = 1.40, p= 0.17, CI [-.069, .393]. This indicated that extraversion has no influence on the relationship between NWW and exhaustion. Therefore, the third hypothesis was rejected.

(19)

18

The fourth hypothesis tested whether extraversion had a positively moderating effect on the relationship between NWW and workaholism. A moderation analysis with the

PROCESS macro tool (model 1) showed that there is no significant interaction effect between the independent variable NWW and the moderating variable extraversion, b*= .04, t(3,68) = 1.25, p= .22, CI [-.026, .116]. This shows that extraversion also does not have an influence on the relationship between NWW and workaholism, and therefore the fourth hypothesis is also rejected.

The perceived expectations of employers enhance the negative relationship between

NWW and exhaustion (H5).

The fifth hypothesis addressed whether the perceived expectations of employers enhance the negative relationship between NWW and exhaustion. A moderation analysis with the process macro tool (model 1) showed that there was no significant interaction effect between the independent variable NWW and the moderating variable perceived expectations of employers, b* = .05, t(3,73) = .78, p= .43, CI [-.075, .175]. This result indicates that the perceived expectations of employers do not have an influence on the relationship between NWW and exhaustion. As a result, the fifth hypothesis was rejected.

The perceived expectations of employers enhance the positive relationship between

NWW and Workaholism (H6).

Finally, the sixth hypothesis indicated that the perceived expectations of the employers enhance the positive relationship between NWW and workaholism. A moderation analysis with the PROCESS macro tool (model 1) showed that there is no significant interaction effect between the independent variable NWW and the moderating variable perceived expectations of employers, b* = -.01, t(3,70) = -.32, p = .75, CI [-.042, .030]. This shows that the perceived

(20)

19

expectations of employers do not influence the relationship between NWW and workaholism. Therefore, the sixth hypothesis was rejected.

Discussion

The aim of this research was to investigate how the implementation of NWW influences employee well-being and to establish which factors play an important role

regarding this relationship. NWW is argued to improve the overall functioning of employees and organizations as it might reduce costs for the health and welfare for employees (De Menezes & Kelliher, 2011). However, studies that have been performed on this topic have thus far shown contradictory results in terms of the benefits and disadvantages of NWW. In addition, empirical studies that investigated the perspective of employees on NWW rather than organizations were lacking. Nevertheless, building on the existing literature the current study attempted to provide fresh insights into the relationship between NWW and the importance of employee well-being in the workplace. The following paragraphs will discuss the findings with regard to the research question which reads: How do New Ways of Working influence employee well-being, i.e. exhaustion and workaholism?

First, a small negative effect of the use of NWW on exhaustion was found. This result is in accordance with previous findings and can be attributed to improved efficient and effective communication (Ten Brummelhuis, 2012). In addition, NWW provides employees with increased freedom in terms of scheduling their time, which results in saving time and energy (Kelliher & Anderson, 2008). This finding contains valuable information for managers who are responsible for the implementation of NWW. Previous research has identified the importance of well-being in the workplace and therefore by implementing NWW managers might be able to decrease the exhaustion among their employees, which in turn leads to increased job satisfaction (Spector, 1997). However, since the effect was small

(21)

20

more research is necessary to find additional support for this relationship. Secondly, it was proposed that NWW might be positively related to workaholism. However, no significant relationship between these two variables was found. A possible reason for this might be that three of the features in the NWW scale had to be removed due to reliability issues. The scale now only consisted of working from home and working via remote access. As a result, the problem of constant connectivity, which was proposed as the main issue regarding

workaholism, is not addressed. Furthermore, this outcome is not in line with previous

research, which illustrated that flexible workers who frequently work from home exert greater extensive and intensive effort compared to their colleagues (Kelliher & Anderson, 2009). Future research might expand the measure of NWW to reflect constant connectivity better. For example, by including and addressing availability through smartphones and other new technologies that are used within the workplace.

To identify whether there were individual differences in the effects of NWW, the moderating effect of extraversion was investigated on the relationships between NWW and exhaustion and NWW and workaholism. On the one hand, it was expected that extraversion might diminish the negative relationship between NWW and exhaustion, and on the other hand that it might enhance the positive relationship between NWW and workaholism. However, in contrast to the expectations, in both cases, no moderating effect of extraversion was found. This means that employees who scored high on extraversion did not show increased signs of exhaustion. This is surprising as there is an ample amount of previous research that has linked extraversion to both exhaustion and workaholism (Burke et al., 2006; Andreassen et al., 2010; Bakker et al., 2006). Future research might look at other moderators such as the different media of communication that are used in the workplace.

The final two tests addressed the moderating effect of the perceived expectations of employers. The current study found that these expectations did not enhance the negative

(22)

21

relationship between NWW and exhaustion. This means that employees did not experience the expectations of their bosses with regard to NWW as an extra burden, which would make them feel more exhausted at the end of the day. A possible explanation for this could be that NWW provides the employees with more freedom and less office time which means feelings of constantly being checked by the employers are absent. In addition, this result can also be linked back to the social exchange theory, which indicates that employees want to return the favor to their employees as a token of appreciation for the greater amounts of responsibility and trust that they have gained through NWW (Emerson, 1976).

Similar to the previous result, the second moderation regarding the expectations of employers also showed no effect meaning that these expectations did not enhance the positive relationship between NWW and workaholism. A possible explanation for this outcome could be that, again, employees do not experience these expectations as stressful, but rather enjoy the increased amount of freedom.

A noteworthy finding was the relationship between perceived expectations and

workaholism. The two variables were positively correlated, which meant that employees who thought their boss expected them to work in the weekend felt guilty if they did not meet up to these expectations. This shows that these expectations could also function as an indicator of how employees engaged in NWW.

The current study contained several limitations that have to be noted. First of all, the sample size was quite low. Even though the respondents were from one particular division of Deloitte and the response rate was high, more respondents would have been necessary to maintain a higher overall reliability. In addition, a greater sample size would most likely have resulted in the first hypothesis to be fully significant instead of marginally significant.

Furthermore, the scale of NWW turned out to be not reliable when including all five items. In order to upgrade the reliability, three of the five items had to be deleted and therefore certain

(23)

22

important aspects regarding the use of new technologies in NWW have not been addressed in the analysis. Thirdly, the current study only included one of the personality traits of the Big Five, namely extraversion. All five personality traits would have provided a more in depth perspective of how these traits affect the relationship between NWW, exhaustion and workaholism.

On a final note, the use of qualitative methods could have also helped to obtain a more in depth understand of how employees deal with NWW. For example, interviews with

employees and employers would allow the researcher to get a better understanding of the company’s organizational culture and how NWW was implemented. In addition, it would

have been interesting to conduct a study in which employees are interviewed or asked to fill in surveys for consecutive days to get a clearer view of the work week.

Thus, future research should include qualitative methods to test the relationships proposed in this study and identify whether by using these methods a more in depth view of the relationships can be identified. In addition, future researchers could attempt to include all five personality traits of the Big Five to fully investigate whether one of these traits might affect the proposed relationships in the present study. Finally, instead of limiting research to one division or one company, future researchers could approach several companies to study the differences in terms of implementation of NWW and develop a report which describes the benefits and disadvantages as provided by the employees rather than the organizations

themselves.

Despite the limitations and other shortcomings, the present study has contributed to the body of research on NWW and employee well-being. It has supported the previous research that NWW can decrease exhaustion among employees. In addition, unlike many other studies the present study has taken the perspective of the employees into consideration rather than most other studies on NWW, which merely addressed the view of the companies.

(24)

23

References

Andreassen, C. S., Hetland, J., & Pallesen, S. (2010). The relationship between

‘workaholism’, basic needs satisfaction at work and personality. European Journal of

Personality, 24(1), 3-17.

Aziz, S., & Tronzo, C. L. (2011). Exploring the relationship between workaholism facets and personality traits: A replication in American workers. The Psychological Record,

61(2), 7.

Baane, R., Houtkamp, P., & Knotter, M. (2010). Het nieuwe werken ontrafeld. Over Bricks,

Bytes & Behavior. Assen: Van Gorcum

Bakker, A. B., Van Der Zee, K. I., Lewig, K. A., & Dollard, M. F. (2006). The relationship between the big five personality factors and burnout: A study among volunteer counselors. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(1), 31-50.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.

Bonebright, C. A., Clay, D. L., & Ankenmann, R. D. (2000). The relationship of workaholism with work–life conflict, life satisfaction, and purpose in life. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 47(4), 469.

Bühler, K. E., & Land, T. (2003). Burnout and personality in intensive care: an empirical study. Hospital Topics, 81(4), 5-12.

Burke, R. J., Matthiesen, S. B., & Pallesen, S. (2006). Personality correlates of workaholism.

Personality and Individual differences, 40(6), 1223-1233.

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.

De Menezes, L. M., & Kelliher, C. (2011). Flexible working and performance: A systematic review of the evidence for a business case. International Journal of Management

Reviews, 13(4), 452-474.

(25)

24

Fonner, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (2012). Testing the connectivity paradox: Linking teleworkers' communication media use to social presence, stress from interruptions, and

organizational identification. Communication Monographs,79(2), 205-231.

Freudenberger, H. J., & Richelson, G. (1980). Burn-out: The high cost of high

achievement. Garden City, NY: Doubleday

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative" description of personality": the big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216.

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. Flourishing:

Positive Psychology and the Life Well-Lived, 2, 205-224.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process

analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.

John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm Shift to the Integrative Big-Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Conceptual Issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114-158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span.

Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 621-652.

Juniper, B., Bellamy, P., & White, N. (2011). Testing the performance of a new approach to measuring employee well-being. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,

32(4), 344-357.

Kelliher, C., & Anderson, D. (2008). For better or for worse? An analysis of how flexible working practices influence employees' perceptions of job quality. The International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(3), 419-431.

Kelliher, C., & Anderson, D. (2009). Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and the intensification of work. Human Relations, 63, 83-106.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9).

(26)

25

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1986). Maslach Burnout Inventory: Manual (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Mazmanian, M. (2012). Avoiding the trap of constant connectivity: When congruent frames allow for heterogeneous practices. Academy of Management Journal.

Morgeson, F. P., Reider, M. H., & Campion, M. A. (2005). Selecting individuals in team settings: The importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge. Personnel Psychology, 58(3), 583-611.

Norman, W.T. (1967). 2800 personality trait descriptors: Normative operating

characteristics for a university population. Department of Psychology, University of

Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

Oates, W. E. (1971). Confessions of a workaholic: The facts about work addiction. New York: World.

Peters, P., Kraan, K., & Echtelt, P. V. (2014). Het Nieuwe Werken en burn-out. In Echtelt, P. van (red.), Burn-out: verbanden tussen emotionele uitputting, arbeidsmarktpositie en

Het Nieuwe Werken, pp. 33-39. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi‐sample study. Journal of organizational

Behavior, 25(3), 293-315.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2001). Utrechtse Burnout Schaal (UBOS). De

Psycholoog, 36(1), 9-12.

Schaufeli, W. B., Shimazu, A., & Taris, T. W. (2009). Being driven to work excessively hard: The evaluation of a two-factor measure of workaholism in the Netherlands and Japan.

Cross-Cultural Research, 43(4), 320-348.

Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, Burnout, and Work Engagement: Three of a Kind or Three Different Kinds of Employee Well‐

being? Applied Psychology, 57(2), 173-203.

Shelley, M., Thrane, L., & Shulman, S. (2006). Generational differences in informational technology use and political involvement. International Journal of Electronic

(27)

26

Sparks, K., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). Well‐being and occupational health in the 21st century workplace. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 74(4), 489-509.

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences (Vol. 3). Sage.

Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and preliminary results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58(1), 160-178.

Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. The Academy of Management Journal, 45, 315-330.

ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., & Keulemans, L. (2012). Do new ways of working foster work engagement?. Psicothema, 24(1), 113-120.

van Beek, I., Taris, T. W., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2011). Workaholic and work engaged employees: Dead ringers or worlds apart? Journal of Occupational Health

Where did my office go? : the influence of New Ways of Working on employee well-being