• No results found

Work/life Dynamics in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic  

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Work/life Dynamics in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic  "

Copied!
41
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Work/life Dynamics in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic Helena Birgusová

Master’s Programme Communication Science Graduate School of Communication

University of Amsterdam

Master’s Thesis

Supervisor: dhr. dr. Ward van Zoonen Student number: 12101214

Due date: 26. 6. 2020 Word count: 7 197

(2)

Abstract

The main objective of this study was to investigate the work/life dynamics in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, what are the consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak on work/life conflict and employee well-being. A model was tested with home workplace

distraction and disruption of work and life settings as predictors of work/life conflict. Moreover, work/life conflict was tested as a predictor of emotional exhaustion. In addition, the study strived to examine the moderation roles of workplace segmentation preferences and perceived

organizational support in the given context.

The study employed a cross-sectional survey design. The analysis of 210 observations reported predictive power and found several significant findings. Amongst the significant factors predicting work/life conflict were home workplace distraction and disruption of work settings. However, disruption of life setting was not found to be a significant predictor of work/life conflict. Furthermore, a direct relationship between work/life conflict and emotional exhaustion has been found. Contrary to expectations, workplace segmentation preferences did not show any significant moderation effect on the relationships between any of the hypothesized predictors and work/life conflict. Neither did the moderation effect of perceived organizational support on the relationship between work/life conflict and emotional exhaustion. Implications and further research were discussed with regard to theory and practice.

(3)

Work/life Dynamics in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Millions of people around the globe have been told to work remotely due to the ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and as a result the domains of work and life have been compressed into one space which can have serious consequences for mental health and well-being (ILO, 2020; Remuzzi & Remuzzi, 2020). Rudolph and Zacher (2020) propose that the coronavirus outbreak provides a unique opportunity to study such phenomena as a period effect and to investigate how the pandemic affects work-related aspects. Correspondingly, it is believed that COVID-19 has the potential to have an influence on the world of work in various aspects such as working conditions, work behaviors or employee health and well-being (Spurk & Straub, 2020) and hence it represents a massive experiment for researchers (Kramer & Kramer, 2020).

Under normal circumstances remote work might have positive outcomes such as

improved work life balance as people can tailor their work times and location according to their needs (Golden, Veiga & Simsek, 2006; Putnam, Myers & Gailliard, 2014). Nevertheless, compulsory and full-time work from home in a situation of a global pandemic differs from part-time and voluntary remote work under typical circumstances. Thus, while working from home due to COVID-19, the positive outcomes normally related to remote work may not occur.

In order to slow down the spread of COVID-19, the majority of affected countries have taken several measures such as lockdowns, school closings and social distancing which have drastically disrupted work and social life. Many people do not have sufficient physical work conditions at their home location that are suitable for remote work and hence they might struggle with a high level of distraction. Kitchen tables have been turned into work desks and some employees use teleworking full-time for the first time while having no prior experience with virtual teams (Neeley, 2020). In addition, communication with colleagues or friends and family is now mediated by screens. Moreover, in the countries where schools are now closed, parents need to work and look after their children at the same time.

Spurk and Straub (2020) suggest that while some employees may experience the outbreak and the related measures as positive (e.g., less interaction with bullying coworkers) other

individuals might experience it as negative, for instance due to the exhaustion from role

(4)

pandemic have the potential to exacerbate work/family conflict. Boundary theories have been studying how individuals isolate or mix their work and life domains over the last 20 years (Kossek, 2016). Boundary management is defined as to what degree an individual chooses to segment or integrate the private and professional lives (Ashforth, Kreiner & Fugate, 2000), blurring of boundaries between work and life domains may lead to work/life conflict (Ashforth et al., 2000). Such conflicting situations occur when responsibilities of the two different domains become incompatible (Kreiner, 2006). Individuals experiencing work/life conflict might

experience negative outcomes like diminished emotional well-being, increased stress and lack of involvement (Frone et al., 1992; Hunter, Clark & Carlsson, 2019; Parasuraman et al., 1996). Similarly, work-family integration and boundary blurring between these two domains leads to more hours worked, distractions at home and work-life conflict which can have negative effects on employee well-being (Rice, 2017).

Research in the field of work/life conflict during a global health crisis is scarce for obvious reasons. In the previous years there have been similar situations on a much smaller scale when people were forced to work throughout the time of their quarantines, especially health workers (Fiksenbaum, Marjanovic, Greenglass & Coffey, 2006). In the period between

November 1, 2002, and July 31, 2003, SARS, a contagious illness infected about 8,100 people worldwide and caused almost 800 deaths (World Health Organization, 2003). Based on previous research investigating the SARS outbreak causing situations of working under a threat and circumstances of a partial or full lockdown, several unique aspects that might trigger work/life conflict have been identified. For example, health workers that were obligated to work during the pandemic, experienced a work/life conflict between their obligations to their patients or their own families when they were forced to take rescues at significant personal peril (Coleman & Reis, 2008). However, the source of a conflict for health care workers might not apply for other individuals and therefore it is crucial to examine the effects of the pandemic on employees across occupations. Moreover, working in the context of COVID-19 pandemic comes with a particular set of challenges that might cause different triggers of work/life conflict.

Rudolph and Zacher (2020) propose that researchers and organizations should contribute to understanding the consequences of such rapid mass remote work policies caused by COVID-19 and examine related challenges that employees nowadays have to face. In addition, the current crisis opens new directions in the work/life conflict literature, and it is crucial to provide

(5)

practical implications for companies and organizations how to help their employees with such extreme work/life disruptions (Carnevale & Hatak, 2020). Therefore, the present study strives to answer the following research question:

To what extent do work/life dynamics relate to emotional exhaustion in the context of a global pandemic.

Theoretical background and hypotheses Workplace Distraction and Work/Life Conflict

A study by Leonardi, Treem and Jackson (2010) suggest that among the main reasons why employees seek out flexible work arrangements under normal circumstances are the

flexibility to balance professional and private lives and the opportunity to focus on work without distractions caused by the workplace environment in their office such as ad-hoc meetings or frequent visits of their colleagues by their desks. However, home workplace conditions during the pandemic differ from those in an office. Due to the measures related to the coronavirus outbreak, the work and life domains have been compressed into one physical space. According to Spurk and Straub (2020), working from home due to COVID-19 is highly affected by

interruptions and distractions caused by family domains such as family obligations. Based on prior research, distractions refer to the extent to which individuals feel distracted, disturbed or irritated by negative or otherwise unwanted stimuli at the workplace (Lee & Brand, 2010).

Remote work is enabled through information communication technologies (Leonardi, Treem & Jackson, 2010). Those technologies have the potential to cause unwanted interruptions or distractions at any time (Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007; Fonner & Roloff, 2012). While Wajcman and Rose (2011) propose that interruptions does not have to be necessarily negative and sometimes might be even needed in order to obtain new information they need in order to complete tasks they were previously working on, others define interruptions as negative

occurrences that tend to distract employees from the workflow and hence should be minimized (Jett & George, 2003; O’Conaill & Frohlich, 1995). It has been shown that interruptions such as personal messages reaching employees during their work as well as work related communication reaching individuals outside their office cause clashing between work and life spheres (Ashforth

(6)

et al., 2000). Work distraction from personal activities place employees at higher risk for work-to-life conflict (Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007). On that account Adams and Jex (1999) further propose that flexible working creates tensions caused by family member interruptions. Following similar reasoning, Rice (2017) points out that remote work can create demands, interruptions and conflict between work and family spheres.

The physical workspace plays a crucial role in terms of how the work is organized and structured. It has been shown that employees' ability to concentrate increases within a workplace without any office noises and other distractions (Banbury & Berry, 2005). Not many people work from home on a daily basis under normal circumstances, hence it might be hypothesized that their workplace ergonomics is not completely suitable for remote work. People do not have a separate room dedicated for work or in many cases they do not even have an actual separated desk which may create an environment full of noises that leads to potential distractions. Poor work environment, which is too noisy, visually distracting, and open to frequent interruptions leads to higher degree of stress which negatively affects work performance (Lee & Brand, 2010). Similarly, it has been found that workplace distractions have a negative effect on work attitudes (Sailer & Hassenzahl, 2000).

When people work remotely, they are surrounded by a home environment full of various noises and are constantly exposed to aspects from private life. They have to work in the same room where they normally eat, sleep or relax which can cause distractions. Edwards and Rothbard (2000) argue that work/life conflict might occur when individuals’ thoughts and

behaviors related to one domain interfere with the boundaries of the other domain. Under current circumstances, while working at home the most intrusive distractions people might experience are more likely from the home domain rather than the work domain. Individuals can purposely mute their phones and avoid emails, but they cannot avoid the aspects from their private life at home. Therefore, any distraction can be considered as a conflict between work and home demands. Hence, the study proposes the following hypothesis:

(7)

Disruption of Work and Life Settings and Work/Life Conflict

In terms of work and life boundary management, the effectiveness of people in creating borders between different life domains is one of the fundamental aspects. Under normal

circumstances, people have their own routines in terms of work and their private life. However, forced remote work during the pandemic outbreak has certainly disrupted professional life as well as private life and the way how effectively people organize their routines. The degree of disruption of regular daily routine might have an effect on how well individuals deal with the different demands from personal and professional lives. Disruption of those two domains forces individuals to juggle work and family responsibilities which lead to higher degree of stress and conflict (Tennant & Sperry, 2003).

A lot of employees that perform jobs which are not necessarily meant for working from home are now forced to quickly adapt to remote work (Carnevale & Hatak, 2020). For some individuals it is easier to work through mediated technologies than for others. Working through new technologies differs from regular working in offices. It changes working processes as it leads to less teamwork, reduces observability by management or creates more demands on one’s time (Rice, 2017). The level of disruption that individuals experience might affect how effective and stressed they are, which might have an influence on their life situation. Employees that are used to work through virtual technologies do not need any additional training on how to work with new devices. They can easily adjust to the current situation and managing the boundaries between different life domains might be easier for them. Moreover, the information sharing mechanisms have changed. Instead of physical meetings, people have to communicate through technologies.

Working from home during the lockdown while other members of the household as children, spouses or roommates are present can also lead to a conflict between social roles as it has been shown that being in two roles at once causes a mental distress (Ahmad, Fakhr & Ahm, 2011). Correspondingly, it has been shown that integrating several roles reduces work-family balance (Lobel, 1991). In addition, employees with childcare commitments experience higher degrees of work/life stress (Gregory & Milner, 2008) which might be even higher in the COVID-19 context, when parents (in many cases both of them) have to work in a house where their children also go to school. Kindergartens and schools have been closed as well and thus parents have to take care of their children while they still have to work at the same time. Furthermore,

(8)

some individuals have to work early in the morning or late in the evening when the children are in bed (Neeley, 2020). Widespread shutdown of life disrupted socialization routine, free time activities as well as it drastically changed how people communicate with their close friends and family members on a daily basis. Therefore, in the light of the above, the study speculates the following hypotheses:

H2a: Disruption of Work Setting positively predicts one's perceived Work/Life Conflict. H2b: Disruption of Life Setting positively predicts one's perceived Work/Life Conflict.

Work/life conflict and Emotional Exhaustion

Prior research has shown that work/life conflict has an effect on various outcomes, including employees' well-being (Karatepe & Tekinkus, 2006). One of the common predicted outcomes is emotional exhaustion which is defined as the depletion of the ability of an employee to sustain the resources required to fulfill job requirements and meet performance expectations (Maslach & Leiter, 2008). Correspondingly, exhaustion also refers to the depletion of emotional and physical resources (Maslach et al., 2001). Exhaustion is regularly being utilized in the field as the central feature of burnout (Maslach et al., 2001) which refers to fatigue and loss of desire to work caused by emotionally, physically and psychologically demanding work situations (Schaufeli & Greenglass, 2001).

As put forth by Lee and Ashforth (1996), emotional exhaustion directly correlates with harmful work outcomes such as role conflict or stressful events. Prior studies have found that work-family conflict can lead to emotional exhaustion (e.g., Ahmad, 2010; Halbesleben et al., 2012; Thompson et al., 2005; van Zoonen, Verhoeven & Vliegenthart, 2016). Nitzsche et al. (2013) suggest that the conflict between private and professional lives relates to the role theory. According to this theory, it is believed that various roles result in (inter-)role conflict as each role imposes different demands on one’s time, energy and actions (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). According to Hobfoll (2002) and personal resources perspective, high demands at work entail a priority on personal resources in this domain, allowing less resources to meet demands in other domains, such as those in the private life which leads to negative outcomes. In the context of COVID-19, it is very likely that employees will experience a high degree of emotional exhaustion caused by work/life conflict as they might feel trapped between their roles due to

(9)

work from home. Thus, it is hypothesized that work/life conflict predicts emotional exhaustion in the context of COVID-19 outbreak.

H3: Work/Life Conflict positively predicts one's perceived Emotional Exhaustion.

Workplace Segmentation Preference as a moderator

In line of the prior research, boundary theory (Nippert-Eng, 1996) suggests that individuals actively create boundaries in order to simplify their environments and distinguish their life domains. Moreover, boundary management is defined as the extent to which an

individual prefers either to integrate or segment the two life domains (Nippert-Eng, 1996). Clark (2000) argues that the goal of this behavior is to reduce work/life conflict and maintain a balance between the work and life domains. Furthermore, boundary preferences differ individually and vary in strength (Ashforth et al., 2000; Clark, 2000).

Boundary management preferences have been frequently utilized as a moderator variable in this field of research. People differ in their adaptation and response to events, partly because of influences of personal differences like personality (Diener et al., 2006). In addition, Kramer and Kramer (2020) propose that some individuals might be better suited for remote work in the context of COVID-19 pandemic than others. They further suggest that one of the crucial aspects might be individual preferences. Hence, boundary management preferences might play a crucial role in the relationship of how individuals cope with distractions and disruptions and work/life conflict in the context of the coronavirus outbreak. Similarly, it has been proposed that the relationship between flexible working arrangements and the outcome variables such as

interruptions, growth of demands, isolation and work/family conflict can be moderated by factors like boundary preferences (Rice, 2017). Rice (2017) further argues that individuals with high integration preferences do not experience interruptions as negatively as segmentators.

Correspondingly, it has been found that greater work/family integration is related to distractions at home and that these individuals do not experience it as a negative situation as individuals with great segmentation preferences would (Desrochers et al., 2005). Moreover, it has been shown that people with higher segmentation preferences are less satisfied when they have access to integrating policies such as onsite children (Rothbard, Phillips & Dumas, 2005). Therefore, working from home when both domains exist in the same physician space and workplace setting

(10)

is disrupted by the home environment might create difficulties for individuals with high segmentation preferences. Based on previous research, it is expected that people with higher preference for segmentation will be more affected by those experienced distractions and disruptions caused by COVID-19 than those with lower preference for segmentation:

H4a: The relationship between Home Workplace Distraction and Work/Life Conflict will be stronger for employees with high Workplace Segmentation Preference as opposed to those with low Workplace Segmentation Preference.

H4b: The relationship between Disruption of Work Setting and Work/Life Conflict will be stronger for employees with high Workplace Segmentation Preference as opposed to those with low Workplace Segmentation Preference.

H4c: The relationship between Disruption of Life Setting and Work/Life Conflict will be stronger for employees with high Workplace Segmentation Preference as opposed to those with low Workplace Segmentation Preference.

Perceived Organizational Support as a moderator

Beside individual characteristics such as boundary management preferences that might moderate the conflict between work and life domains, there are also several aspects on the organizational level which HR departments can implement in order to help their employees to deal with the negative outcomes. Among those policies is for instance the support from an organization which has recently become important for the research in the field of human resources management (Kossek et al., 2011). As put forth by Eisenberger et al. (2001),

organizational support theory suggests that people personify companies by attributing aspects of a human nature to them and tend to develop positive social exchanges with supporting

organizations. Perceived organizational support (POS) is defined as the belief about the level to which an organization values its employees, cares about their well-being as well as supports their socio-emotional needs by providing resources to help them manage a demand or a role

(Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). Prior research has examined POS as a moderator in the relationship between work/life balance and various variables such as employee engagement (Amarakoon & Wickramasinghe, 2010), emotional intelligence (Kumarasamy, Pangil & Mohd Isa, 2016), work overload and parental demands (Nasurdin & O'Driscoll, 2012)

(11)

or depression, anxiety, and concern for health (Grant-Vallone & Ensher, 2001). These studies have shown that POS may help employees feel valued, important, and loved. Furthermore, it can also help them to cope with work-related stressors and ultimately reduce the impact on their well-being.

It has been found that workplace support relates to work/life conflict (Kossek et al., 2011). Voydanoff (2004) proposes that perceived organizational support is part of boundary spanning resources which directly connect the work and life domains. Building up on previous studies, it has been shown that POS might significantly reduce the work/life conflict and hence lead to the desired balance between those two domains (e.g., Goff, Mount & Jamison, 1990; Kossek et al., 2011). Similarly, it has been found that perceived workplace support and supervisory support and work-schedule flexibility are correlated with employees' work/life balance (Frye & Breaugh, 2004). Moreover, it has been shown that POS has significant positive effects on employee’s well-being. When people perceive support, they are more likely to cope well with stress (Jex, 1998). Consequently, individuals that feel supported at their work tend to experience a feeling of being cared for and having accessible help (Cohen & Wills, 1985). POS can reduce family/work conflict and sustain employee well-being (French, Dumani, Allen & Shockley, 2018). Bentley et al. (2016) further argue that the more teleworking an employee is doing, the more organizational support they need. In the context of COVID-19, individuals work mainly through telework communication and thus it is assumed that the organizational support will be extra needed. As Neeley (2020) proposes, individuals cannot deal with the pandemic on their own, they need support and help from the organization. Carnevale and Hatak (2020) further suggest that organizational support in the context of the pandemic is crucial in order to balance blurred work/family roles. In line with previous research, the study hypothesizes a moderation role for perceived organizational support:

H5: The relationship between Work/Life Conflict and Emotional Exhaustion will be weaker for employees with high Perceived Organizational Support as opposed to those with low Perceived Organizational Support.

(12)

Figure 1. Conceptual model Methods Design and Sample

For the purpose of this study the cross-sectional survey design was adopted. This design enables measuring attitudes, beliefs, and feelings of a great number of respondents (Bryman, 2012). Furthermore, the confidentiality of a personally administered, web-based, self-completion questionnaire might cause participants' openness even to questions regarding sensitive issues such as work/life conflict or emotional exhaustion (Fowler, 2014). Firstly, a pilot test was carried out on a small convenience sample (N = 16) in order to identify potential mistakes and enhance the internal validity of the survey. After making a few adjustments based on the pilot test, the final version of the survey was published (see Appendix A).

To recruit participants, a non-probability convenience sampling method was combined with the snowball sampling method. Respondents were recruited via social media posts and private messages. In order to combat the rising survey fatigue, the questionnaire contained a charitable incentive (Fowler, 2014).

The data collection started on April 8 and closed on April 30, 2020. There were three criteria requirements that respondents had to meet in order to be included in the study.

(13)

Participants younger than 18 years old were excluded as well as respondents who did not work remotely due to the pandemic. In addition, respondents who identified themselves as either unemployed or freelancers were excluded too as the focus of this study was on full time and part time employees only. The reason for excluding unemployed and freelance participants is the focus of the study. The main objective of the paper is to examine the consequences of the pandemic crisis on work/life conflict, thus respondents needed to be employed. Furthermore, freelancers are a unique group in the context of organizational dynamics. We can assume that they work differently than regular employees and they are also affected by this crisis in different ways (e.g., income or job security).

The final sample consisted of 210 respondents with a mean age of 28.80 (SD = 6.13). There were more female respondents (71.4%) compared to male participants (28.6%) in the sample. The majority of respondents lived in the Czech Republic (39%), followed by the Netherlands (33.3%), and the rest being dispersed across 29 other countries. Most participants (88.1%) reported having obtained a university degree, while the others had completed high school education (6.7%) or gained a doctorate degree (5.2%). The majority of the respondents identified as full-time employers (81.9%) and the rest as part-time employers (18.1%). For detailed sociodemographic description, see Table 1.

In terms of the work-related context, 58.1% of the respondents work under normal circumstances primarily in the office, 27.1% work mainly in the office but sometimes remotely, 11.4% split their time between the office and remote work and 3.3% work mainly remotely. When it comes to the current household situation during the coronavirus outbreak, 11.4% of the participants have at least one child aged from 0 to 17 living at home with them. Moreover, 54.8% of the respondents live in one household with their spouse or a partner and 53.8% of the

participants are identified as dual-earner households. Table 1 Participant Demographics (N = 210) Characteristic M (SD) or % Sex Male 28.6 Female 71.4

(14)

Age 28.80 (6.13) Country Czech Republic 39 Netherlands 33.3 Other 27.7 Education High school 6.7 University degree 88.1 Doctorate 5.2 Work status Employed part-time 18.1 Employed full-time 81.9

In terms of the questionnaire structure, participants were at first presented with

introductory information about the study and provided with informed consent before they could continue to the main questions. After agreeing to participate, participants were asked to report their demographics and answer the items for control variables. Later, respondents were asked to answer the items related to main variables. Finally, participants were debriefed and asked to vote for a charity which should receive a donation from the study’s author. For the full questionnaire, see Appendix A.

Measures

All the main latent variables were measured with multiple items using a 7-point Likert scale and answered by all respondents, N = 210. A full overview of all items can be found in Appendix A. Exploratory factor analyses with a principal-axis factoring extraction and direct oblimin rotation were conducted, as correlations between items were expected (Field, 2009), Appendix B presents a full overview of the results. The reliability of all constructs was tested, and later new variables were subsequently computed. Overall means, standard deviations and reliability scores for all variables used in this study are presented in the Table 2.

Home workplace distraction. To measure this construct, a two-item indicator measuring the home-work location distraction was developed. It resulted with Cronbach’s alpha of .68

(15)

which approaches a satisfactory level. Responses average with a slightly higher mean (M = 3.79, SD = 1.51).

Disruption of work and life settings. To measure the level of disruption that the

respondents experienced due to the pandemic, two sets of three-item indicators were developed. In terms of the instrument referring to the disruption of work setting, the Cronbach’s alpha of .75 demonstrated good reliability of the mean scale. Participants scored on average slightly higher than the mid-score (M = 4.17, SD = 1.39). The instrument covering the disruption of life setting showed a sufficient Cronbach's alpha of .68. The average score of the disruption of life setting was a bit higher (M = 5.17, SD = 1.22).

Work/life conflict. Work/life conflict is bi-directional phenomenon, work demands may create conflict with life demands and create work-to-life conflict, but life demands may equally creep into the work domains as well causing life-to-work conflict. In line with Netemeyer, Boles and McMurrian (1996), work/life conflict was measured using a ten-item scale. The measure consisting of work-to-life conflict and life-to-work conflict dimensions resulted into two factors. This measure is often being applied in the field and generated great reliability results in this research with Cronbach's alpha of .91. On average, the participants scored with a rather lower mean (M = 3.32, SD = 1.34), which is slightly below the mid-score of the 7-point Likert scale.

Emotional exhaustion. To measure this construct, the five items of the sub dimension “emotional exhaustion” of the Dutch version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory were employed (MBI-NL; Maslach & Jackson, 1981). Overall, the instrument proved to have a good reliability with Cronbach’s alpha = .85. The mean scale averaged slightly lower than the midpoint (M = 3.31, SD = 1.23).

Workplace segmentation preference. To measure participants’ preferences for

segmentation setting, a measurement consisting of four items from Kreiner (2006) was used. The instrument resulted in a good Cronbach's alpha of .90. Responses averaged with a high mean (M = 5.13, SD = 1.47).

Perceived organizational support. In order to capture one’s perceived support from their employer, four items largely derived from research by Eisenberger et al. (1986) and inspired by the combination of emotional and informative organizational support measurement of Fiksenbaum et al. (2006) were used. Both informative and emotional dimensions formed one factor. A mean scale computed in order to measure this latent variable indicated good reliability

(16)

with Cronbach’s alpha = .88. On average, the sample scored high on the 7-point answer scale (M = 5.26, SD = 1.34).

Table 2

Means, SDs and reliabilities of main variables (N = 210)

Variable M SD Cronbach’s alpha

Home workplace distraction 3.79 1.51 .68

Disruption of work setting 4.17 1.39 .75

Disruption life setting 5.17 1.22 .68

Work/life conflict 3.32 1.34 .91

Emotional exhaustion 3.31 1.23 .85

Workplace segmentation preference 5.13 1.47 .90

Perceived organizational support 5.26 1.34 .88

Control variables

In order to prevent threats to internal validity caused by confounders affecting the main variables (Gravetter & Forzano, 2009), Age, Sex, Education were included as control variables. Prior research has shown that these variables may play a confounding role in the given context (e.g., Sonnentag, Kuttler & Fritz, 2010).

Results

Before hypotheses testing, several descriptive statistics were examined which revealed unexpected findings that are crucial for the topic of the study. For instance, participants scored on primary work location distraction (M = 4.12, SD = 1.53) higher than on home location distraction (M = 3.79, SD = 1.51). The relevance of this finding is further discussed in the Discussion.

To test Hypothesis 1 and Hypotheses 2a and 2b, a multiple regression was conducted. The sample size suffices given the number of predictors in the regression model. Moreover, upon inspecting the histogram, the residuals appear to be normally distributed. Correspondingly, upon

(17)

checking the scatterplot, the residuals appear to be distributed equally well above and below zero at all levels and thus the assumption of homoscedasticity is also met. Furthermore, the regression model also meets the assumptions of linearity as the effects of the predictors on the outcome variable seem to be linear. To sum up, all relevant regression assumptions are met. The

regression model predicting Work/Life Conflict from Home Workplace Distraction, Disruption of Work Setting and Disruption of Life Setting is statistically significant, F (3, 206) = 6.98, p < .001. Moreover, 9.2% of the variance in Work/Life conflict is explained by Home Workplace Distraction, Disruption of Work Setting and Disruption of Life Setting (R2 = .09). Home

workplace distraction at home work location positively predicts work/life conflict, b = 0.19. The higher the level of home workplace distraction, the higher is the work/life conflict, controlling for the effects of the other model predictors. This effect is statistically significant, t = 3.20, p = .002, 95% CI [0.07, 0.31]. It is also weak in size, b* = .22. Disruption of work setting is a positive predictor of work/life conflict, b = 0.14. A one-unit increase in disruption increases work/life unit by 0.14, with the other predictors controlled. This effect, while statistically

significant, t = 1.99, p = .048, 95% CI [0.01, 0.28], is very weak, b* = .15. Finally, disruption of life setting has no effect on work/life conflict, b = 0.50, b* = .05, t = 0.63, p = .531, 95% CI [– 0.12, 0.21]. Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2a were supported while Hypothesis 2b was not supported.

In order to test Hypothesis 3, stating that there is a direct relationship between work/life conflict and emotional exhaustion, a simple linear regression was conducted. The regression model predicting work/life conflict from emotional exhaustion is statistically significant, F (1, 208) = 53.99, p < .001. Approximately 21% of the variance in emotional exhaustion is explained by work/life conflict (R2 = .21), which is rather low. Work/life conflict positively predicts

emotional exhaustion, b = 0.42. The more one is experiencing a work/life conflict, the more he or she tends to experience emotional exhaustion, while all else is held. This effect is statistically significant, t = 7.35, p < .001, 95% CI [0.34, 0.53] and moderate, b* = .45. Hypothesis 3 was supported.

To address all three hypotheses testing the moderation effect of Workplace Segmentation Preference, three separate regression analyses using the PROCESS macro Version 3 (Hayes, 2012) were used. Model 1 and a percentile bootstrap estimation approach with 5,000 samples were chosen. Hypothesis 4a expected the relationship between Home Workplace Distraction and

(18)

Work/Life Conflict to be moderated by Workplace Segmentation Preference. The model was significant, F (3, 206) = 5.51, p = .001. However, the moderation analysis did not prove significant results for Workplace Segmentation Preference (b = 0.01, t (206) = 0.30, p = .762). Thus, Hypothesis 4a was not supported.

Correspondingly, Hypothesis 4b posited that the relationship between Disruption of Work Setting and Work/Life Conflict will be moderated by Workplace Segmentation Preference. Although the model was significant, F (3, 206) = 4.07, p = .008, the moderation analysis did not prove significant results for workplace segmentation preference (b = - 0.02, t (206) = - 0.43, p = .669). Therefore, Hypothesis 4b was not supported.

Finally, Hypothesis 4c stated that the relationship between Disruption of Life Setting and Work/Life Conflict will be moderated by Workplace Segmentation Preference. The model was significant, F (3, 206) = 2.72, p = .046) but the hypothesized interaction effect was not identified as significant (b = 0.06, t (206) = 1.24, p = .216). Hypothesis 4c was not supported.

To test Hypothesis 5, postulating that the relationship between work/life conflict and emotional exhaustion is moderated by perceived organizational support, a regression analysis using the PROCESS macro Version 3 (Hayes, 2012) was conducted, again with a percentile bootstrap estimation approach with 5,000 samples. Although the model was significant, F (3, 206) = 27.45, p < .001, the moderation analysis did not show significant results for perceived organizational support (b = 0.01, t (206) = 0.05, p = .819). Hence, no support was found for Hypothesis 5.

Discussion

The objective of the present study was to investigate the work/life dynamics in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study focused on employees working full-time or part-time from home due to the measures related to the outbreak.

Home workplace distraction emerged as a one of the significant predictors of work/life conflict. The findings are in line with theory and prior research. For instance, Boswell and Olson-Buchanan (2007) proposed that work distraction creates a potential risk for work-to-life conflict. In terms of the context of COVID-19, it was expected that remote work is strongly affected by distractions caused by life domains, in particular family (Spurk & Straub, 2020),

(19)

hence it could lead to work/life conflict. However, it can be assumed that even though it was found that home workplace distraction leads to work/life conflict in the context of the current pandemic, it does not necessarily mean that the degree of work/life conflict was higher than under normal circumstances. In terms of practical implications, organizations and managers should focus on work/life initiatives helping individuals reduce stress from interruptions (Fonner & Roloff, 2012).

The data further showed that employees do not feel more distracted when they work from home. These results are consistent with previous research. For instance, Leonardi, Treem and Jackson (2010) suggested that one of the benefits of remote work is lower degree of distractions. Interestingly, the present study found that employees are more distracted at primary work

location than at home workplace even under extreme circumstances in the context of COVID-19, where other family members are at home and there is no daycare. These findings might be important for future evolving of remote work. Spurk and Straub (2020) in their study propose that COVID-19 might affect the world of work in the long term as the flexible employment relationships might become more common in the labor market. Several companies, for instance, Twitter, have already announced that those whose occupations did not necessitate a physical appearance should be able to operate permanently from home (Christie, 2020).

Furthermore, disruption of work settings has been proven to be a predictor of work/life conflict. The result shows that employees struggle with the disruption of work settings caused by COVID-19 measures and thus organizations and managers should try to help to overcome these disruptions by providing help that would minimize the differences between prior work settings and the current one. The finding is in line with prior research as Ashforth et al. (2000) proposed that blurring of boundaries between private and professional domains results in work/life conflict. Drastical disruption of work and life settings due to COVID-19 and their compression into one physical space was expected to cause blurring between those two domains leading to a conflict. No significant evidence of the disruption of life settings as a predictor of the work/life conflict has been found.

Moreover, a direct effect of work/life conflict on emotional exhaustion has been found. Hence, it is in line with previous research. Prior studies have found that work-family conflict can lead to emotional exhaustion (e.g., Ahmad, 2010; Halbesleben et al., 2012; Thompson et al., 2005). Further, it has been shown that work and life domains may be affected by the COVID-19

(20)

pandemic and have a negative impact on well-being (Remuzzi & Remuzzi, 2020). The findings of the present study show that employees experience a higher degree of emotional exhaustion caused by work/life conflict also in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In addition, the study strived to examine the role of boundary management preferences and see if employees with a particular set of characteristics cope with remote work during the pandemic better than others. Based on boundary management theory (Nippert-Eng, 1996), it was expected that individuals with higher segmentation preferences will score higher on work/life conflict caused by distractions and disruptions caused by COVID-19 than those with lower segmentation preferences. However, no significant results have been found for the moderation effect of workplace segmentation preferences on the relationships of distraction and disruptions and work/life conflict. The absence of an interaction effect shows that the relationship between the independent variables (home workplace distraction, disruption of work setting, and

disruption of life setting) and work-life conflict does not differ across individuals with high and low segmentation preferences when they start working from home in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lastly, no significant results for the moderation effect of perceived organizational support on the relationship between work/life conflict and emotional exhaustion have been found. Those findings are not in line with prior research which showed that perceived organizational support might reduce the conflict between work and life domains and sustain mental health (French, Dumani, Allen & Shockley, 2018). Furthermore, Carnevale and Hatak (2020) argued that

organizational support is extremely important in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and that it can reduce work/life conflict. One of the explanations why the hypothesis was not supported is that the COVID-19 pandemic is considered to be a period effect (Rudolph & Zacher, 2020). As Spurk and Straub (2020) further propose, COVID-19 and the measures related to it have a huge impact on working conditions. Thus, findings that have been found in prior research might not necessarily apply in unique working situations such as a global pandemic. Hence, the results highlight the importance of studying and understanding the current situation. In terms of practical implications, prior research has found that there might be other variables reducing employee burnout which might be also working in the context of work/life conflict during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, sustaining leadership and cultural expectations which encourage openness and productive collaboration through technology, and protect individuals

(21)

from frequent interruptions and unnecessarily volatile work schedules (van Zoonen, Verhoeven & Vliegenthart, 2016).

Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations of the research should be addressed. The analysis revealed that only 9.2% of the variance in work/life conflict was explained by the tested predictors which indicates that other important factors might have an effect on the examined relationship. Furthermore, the generalization of the main findings might be limited because of the convenience sampling method. The sample may differ from the general population in many aspects. The participants’ average age is 28.80 which is rather low. In line with prior research, younger employees are considered to be well adept at working remotely and it is suggested that remote work due to COVID-19 might satisfy their needs in terms of flexibility (Roose, 2020). Although, it can be argued that mandatory remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic is not flexible at all. On the contrary, younger employees might not have a lot of experience so letting them work in

professional or social isolation might be specifically problematic for this group. Hence, older and more experienced workers could be better equipped to work alone/remote. Thus, future research should investigate the age differences in the given context.

In addition, the sample was diverse in terms of the country of residence. Although, the participants were asked if their country of residence had taken partial or full lockdown due to the coronavirus pandemic, the measures and restrictions related to the pandemic might differ in countries and result in different conditions. Moreover, participants of the study were not asked about their organizational and occupational sectors. As Rudolph and Zacher (2020) suggest, individuals working for smaller organizations might be more severely impacted by COVID-19 than people working at large organizations. Similarly, Spurk and Straub (2020) argue that the effects of COVID-19 might vary by occupational field or organization. Thus, future research might examine the differences across occupations. Another limitation of the study is the measurement of boundary management preferences. The widely used scale by Kreiner (2006) was chosen which is only measuring the segmentation preferences and does not take into account the integration preferences. However, if an individual scores low on segmentation preferences, it doesn’t automatically mean he or she is an integrator. Hence, no data about people who prefer to integrate life domains were collected.

(22)

When it comes to future research, as COVID-19 has caused a rapid change in terms of work setting, there is a lack of empirical evidence on remote work under such unique conditions which emphasizes the importance of pursuing research in this field. Future research devoting attention to this matter should adopt a qualitative approach which would provide deeper insights and complex explanations. Moreover, further research should investigate the long-term

consequences of the coronavirus outbreak on work-related aspects. The present study collected data at the time when the situation was very new, and people were just getting used to the new norm. A longitudinal design would enable to examine more fundamental changes caused by the pandemic.

Conclusion

The aim of the present study was to investigate the work/life dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular how it relates to work/life conflict. The study employed a cross-sectional survey design targeted at employees working remotely due to COVID-19. The analysis of 210 observations reported predictive power and found several significant findings.

The study found that home workplace distraction and disruption of work settings predict work/life conflict. Moreover, the results showed that work/life conflict leads to emotional exhaustion in the context of the pandemic. Furthermore, the study contributes to the literature by highlighting that individuals do not feel more distracted at home workplace location than in primary workplace locations. This finding is particularly very important and could be used beyond this crisis as organizations might consider implementing remote work in their work policies on a regular basis. Nonetheless, workplace segmentation preferences had no significant moderation effect on the relationship between home workplace distractions and work/life conflict and the relationship of work and life disruptions and work/life conflict which indicates that employees are affected by the presented triggers of work/life conflict no matter boundary management preferences. Unexpectedly, perceived organizational support had no significant effect on the relationship between work/life conflict and emotional exhaustion. The findings of the study emphasize that working from home at the time of a global pandemic differs from working conditions under normal circumstances which may be one of the reasons why several hypotheses have not been supported. Future research should adopt a qualitative approach in order

(23)

to provide a deeper dive into the role of remote work during pandemic and its consequences on work/life dynamics.

References

Adams, G. A., & Jex, S. M. (1999). Relationships between time management, control, work– family conflict, and strain. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4(1), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.4.1.72

Ahmad, A. (2010). Work-family conflict among junior physicians: Its mediating role in the relationship between role overload and emotional exhaustion. Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2), 265-271.

Ahmad, M. S., Fakhr, Z., & Ahmed, J. (2011). Working women work-life conflict. Business Strategy Series, 12(6), 289 – 302.

Amarakoon, A. & Wickramasinghe, V. (2010). Impact of work‐life balance on employee

engagement an empirical Study on Sri Lankan employee. Conference proceedings of 4th international research conference on management and finance held in University of Colombo, Sri Lanka, 661-671.

Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a Day’ s Work: Boundaries and Micro Role Transitions. The Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472–491. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/259305

Banbury, S.P., & Berry, D.C. (2005) Office noise and employees concentration: Identifying causes of disruption and potential improvements. Ergonomics, 48, 25-37.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140130412331311390

Bentley, T. A., Teo, S. T. T., McLeod, L., Tan, F., Bosua, R., & Gloet, M. (2016). The role of organisational support in teleworker wellbeing: A socio-technical systems approach. Applied Ergonomics, 52, 207-215.

(24)

Boswell, W. R, & Olson-Buchanan, J. B. (2007). The use of communication technologies after hours: The role of work attitudes and work-life conflict. Journal of Management, 33(4), 592-610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307302552

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carnevale, J. B., & Hatak, I. (2020). Employee adjustment and well-being in the era of

COVID-19: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Business Research, 116, 183-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.037

Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53(6), 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700536001

Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310 Coleman, Ch., & Reis, A. (2008). Potential penalties for health care professionals who refuse to

work during a pandemic. JAMA, 299(12), 1471–1473. doi:10.1001/jama.299.12.1471 Cumulative number of reported probable cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS):

Summary of probable SARS cases with onset of illness from 1 Nov 2002 to 31 July 2003. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/csr/sars/country/table2004_04_21/en/ Desrochers, S., Hilton, J., & Larwood, L. (2005). Preliminary validation of the work-family

integration-blurring scale. Journal of Family Issues, 26(4), 442-466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X04272438.

Diener, E., Tamir, M., & Scollon, C. N. (2006). Happiness, Life Satisfaction, and Fulfillment: The Social Psychology of Subjective Well-Being. In P. A. M. Van Lange (Ed.), Bridging social psychology: Benefits of transdisciplinary approaches (p. 319–324). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 178–199. https://doi.org/10.2307/259269

(25)

Eisenberger, R., & Stinglhamber, F. (2011). Perceived organizational support: Fostering enthusiastic and productive employees. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12318-000

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. 1986. Does pay for performance increase or decrease perceived self-determination and intrinsic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1026-1040.

Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (5th ed.). London: SAGE.

Fiksenbaum, L., Marjanovic, Z., Greenglass, E. R., & Coffey, S. (2006). Emotional exhaustion and state anger in nurses who worked during the SARS outbreak: The role of perceived threat and organizational support. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 25(2), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.7870/cjcmh-2006-0015

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,

https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2012.673000

Fowler, F. (2014). Survey research methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

French, K. A., Dumani, S., Allen, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2018). A meta-analysis of work– family conflict and social support. Psychological Bulletin, 144(3), 284–314.

https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000120

Frone, M. R., Russell, M., Cooper, M. L., Journal, S., Dec, N., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Prevalence of work-family conflict: Are work and family boundaries asymmetrically permeable? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(7), 723-729.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.1.65

Frye, N. K., & Breaugh, J. (2004). Family friendly policies, supervisor support, work family conflict, family work conflict and satisfaction: a test of a conceptual model. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 197–220.

Goff, S. J., Mount, M. K., & Jamison, R. L. (1990). Employer supported child care, work/family conflict, and absenteeism: A field study. Personnel Psychology, 43(4), 793–809.

(26)

Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Simsek, Z. (2006). Telecommuting's differential impact on work-family conflict: Is there no place like home? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1340– 1350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1340

Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Ensher, E. A. (2001). An examination of work and personal life conflict, organizational support and employee health among international expatriates. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25(3), 261–278.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(01)00003-7

Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L.-A. B. (2009). Research methods for the behavioral sciences. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources and conflict between work and family roles. The Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/258214 Gregory, A., & Milner, S. (2008) Fatherhood regimes and father involvement in France and the

UK, Community, Work & Family, 11(1), 61-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668800701419391

Halbesleben, J. R., Wheeler, A. R., & Rossi, A. M. (2012). The costs and benefits of working with one's spouse: A two‐sample examination of spousal support, work–family conflict, and emotional exhaustion in work‐linked relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(5), 597-615.

Hobfoll, S. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6, 307-324. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307

Hunter, E. M., Clark, M. A., & Carlson, D. S. (2019). Violating Work-Family Boundaries: Reactions to Interruptions at Work and Home. Journal of Management, 45(3), 1284– 1308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317702221

Christie, J. (2020, May 12). Keeping our employees and partners safe during #coronavirus. Twitter. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/keeping-our-employees-and-partners-safe-during-coronavirus.html

ILO (2020). ILO Monitor 2nd edition: COVID-19 and the world of work. Geneva: International Labor Office.

(27)

Jett, Q. R., & George, J. M. (2003). Work interrupted: A closer look at the role of interruptions in organizational life. The Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 494–507.

https://doi.org/10.2307/30040736

Jex, S. M. (1998). Advanced topics in organizational behavior.Stress and job performance: Theory, research, and implications for managerial practice. Sage Publications Ltd. Karatepe, O., & Tekinkus, M. (2006). The effects of work-family conflict, emotional exhaustion,

and intrinsic motivation on job outcomes of front-line employees. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 24. https://doi.org/173-193. 10.1108/02652320610659021.

Kossek, E. E. (2016). Managing work/life boundaries in the digital age. Organizational Dynamics, 45(3), 258–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2016.07.010

Kossek, E. E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., & Hammer, L. B. (2011). Workplace social support and family conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work-family-specific supervisor and organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 289-313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01211.x

Kramer, A., & Kramer, K. Z. (2020). The potential impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on occupational status, work from home, and occupational mobility. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 119, 103442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103442

Kreiner, G. E. (2006). Consequences of work-home segmentation or integration: A person-environment fit perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 485–507. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.386

Kumarasamy, M. M., Pangil, F., & Mohd Isa, M. F. (2016) The effect of emotional intelligence on police officers work-life balance: The moderating role of organizational support. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 18(3), 184-194.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1461355716647745

Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 123–133.

(28)

Lee, S. Y., & Brand, J. L. (2010). Can personal control over the physical environment ease distractions in office workplaces? Ergonomics, 53(3), 324-335,

https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130903389019

Leonardi, P. M., Jeffrey W. 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, 38:1, 85-105, doi: 10.1080/00909880903483599

Lobel, S. A. (1991). Allocation of investment in work and family roles: Alternative theories and implications for research. The Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 507–521.

https://doi.org/10.2307/258915

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2(2), 99 –113.

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Early predictors of job burnout and engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 498–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.498

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. In S. T.Fiske, D. L. Schacter, & C. Zahn-Waxler (Eds.), Annual Review ofPsychology, 52, 397–422.

Nasurdin, A. M., & O'Driscoll, M. P. (2012). Work overload, parental demand, perceived

organizational support, family support, and work-family conflict among New Zealand and Malaysian academics. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 41(1), 38–48.

Neeley, T. (2020, March 16). 15 Questions About Remote Work, Answered. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/03/15-questions-about-remote-work-answered#comment-section

Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work– family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400

Nippert-Eng, C. (1996). Calendars and keys: The classification of “home” and “work”. Sociol Forum, 11(3), 563–582, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02408393

(29)

Nitzsche, A., Pfaff, H., Jung, J., & Driller, E. (2013). Work–life balance culture, work–home interaction, and emotional exhaustion: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 55(1), 67-73.

O'Conaill, B. & Frohlich, D. (1995). Timespace in the workplace: Dealing with interruptions. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 262-263.

https://doi.org/10.1145/223355.223665

Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y. S., Godshalk, V. M., & Beutell, N. J. (1996). Work and family variables, entrepreneurial career success, and psychological well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 275–300.

Putnam, L., Myers, K. & Gailliard, B. (2014). Examining the tensions in workplace flexibility and exploring options for new directions. Human Relations, 67(4), 413-40.

Remuzzi, A., & Remuzzi, G. (2020). COVID-19 and Italy: what next? Lancet, 395, 1225-1228. Rice, R. E. (2017). Flexwork, boundaries, and work-family conflicts: How ICTs and work

engagement influence their relationship. In G. Hertel, D. Stone, R. D. Johnson, & J. Passmore (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of the Internet at work (pp. 175-193). London, UK: Wiley Blackwell Industrial & Organizational Psychology Series.

Roose, K. (2020, March 10). Sorry, but working from home is overrated. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/technology/working-from-home.html

Rothbard, N. P., Phillips, K. W., & Dumas, T. L. (2005). Managing Multiple Roles: Work-Family Policies and Individuals' Desires for Segmentation. Organization Science, 16(3), 243– 258. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0124

Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2020). “The COVID-19 generation”: A cautionary Note. Work, Aging and Retirement, waaa009. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waaa009

Sailer, U., & Hassenzahl, M. (2000). Assessing noise annoyance: An improvement-oriented approach. Ergonomics, 43, 1920-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130050174545 Schaufeli, W.B., & Greenglass, E.R. (2001) Introduction to special issue on burnout and health.

(30)

Sonnentag, S., Kuttler, I., &amp; Fritz, C. (2010). Job stressors, emotional exhaustion, and need for recovery: A multi-source study on the benefits of psychological detachment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(3), 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.06.005 Spurk, D., & Straub, C. (2020). Flexible employment relationships and careers in times of the

COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 119, 103435. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103435

Tennant, G. P., & Sperry, L. (2003). Work-Family Balance: Counseling Strategies to Optimize Health. The Family Journal, 11(4):404-408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480703255798 Thompson, B. M., Kirk, A., & Brown, D. F. (2005). Work based support, emotional exhaustion,

and spillover of work stress to the family environment: A study of policewomen. Stress and Health, 21(3), 199-207.

van Zoonen, W., Verhoeven, J. W., & Vliegenthart, R. (2016). Social media’s dark side: Inducing boundary conflicts. Journal of Managerial Psychology.

Voydanoff, P. (2004). The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(2), 398–412.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00028.x

Wajcman, J., & Rose, E. (2011). Constant connectivity: Rethinking interruptions at work. Organization Studies. 32, 941-961. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611410829

Appendices Appendix A: Questionnaire

By participating in this study, you will contribute €2 to a NGO supporting communities affected by the COVID-19 outbreak. Furthermore, you will get the chance to decide which NGO will receive a donation of €50. You will learn more about it at the end of the study.

My name is Helena Birgusová and this survey is part of my Master thesis research at the Graduate School of Communication (University of Amsterdam). The study investigates remote work during the

(31)

You will be asked a set of questions concerning remote work during the COVID-19 outbreak. Completing the survey should take about 10 minutes of your time. Thank you in advance for your time and effort! As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, we can guarantee that:

● Your anonymity will be safeguarded, and that your personal information will not be passed on to third parties under any conditions unless you first give your express permission to this.

● You can refuse to participate in the research or cut short your participation without having to give a reason for doing so.

● Participating in the research will not entail your being subjected to any appreciable risk or discomfort, the researchers will not deliberately mislead you, and you will not be exposed to any explicitly offensive material.

● No later than five months after the conclusion of the research, we will be able to provide you with a research report that explains the general results of the research.

If you wish to learn more about my research, please do not hesitate to contact me at helena.birgusova@student.uva.nl any time.

If you would like to participate in the survey, it is important that you read and consent with the following statement:

“I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research, as described in the invitation for this study.

I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation in the survey at any time.

If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way, this will ensure that my anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal data will not be passed on to third parties without any express permission.

If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in the future, I can contact Helena Birgusová at helena.birgusova@student.uva.nl.

By agreeing to participate, I acknowledge that I have read and understood the text above and that I am at least 18 years of age.

- I agree

(32)

I. FILTER QUESTIONS WSTA: What is your work status?

- Unemployed (>> end of survey)

- Self-employed/freelancer (>> end of survey) - Employed part-time (up to 35 hour per week) - Employed full time (36 hour and more per week)

WREM: Are you currently working (at least partially) from home? - Yes

- No (>> end of survey)

II. MAIN VARIABLES Disruption of work and life settings

Please indicate to what extent the following aspects of work and life have changed during the COVID-19 outbreak.

7-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all and 7 = To a very great extent) DRP1: To what extent have your work procedures changed?

DRP2: To what extent has the way you coordinate your work changed?

DRP3: To what extent have the information sharing mechanisms (memos, email, physical meetings) changed?

DRP4: To what extent has your daily social routine changed?

DRP5: To what extent has the way you communicate with your family and friends changed? DRP6: To what extent have your activities in your free time changed?

Home workplace distraction

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

7-point Likert scale (1 = Completely disagree and 7 = Completely agree) DST1: It is easy to get distracted in my remote work location (e.g., home-work location) DST2: It is noisy in my remote work location (e.g., home-work location)

Workplace segmentation preference (Kreiner, 2006)

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements under normal circumstances? 7-point Likert scale (1 = Completely disagree and 7 = Completely agree)

SEG1: I don’t like to have to think about work while I’m at home SEG2: I prefer to keep work life at work

SEG3: I don’t like work issues creeping into my home life SEG4: I like to be able to leave work behind when I go home Work/life conflict (Netemeyer, Boles & McMurrian, 1996)

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements during the COVID-19 outbreak? 7-point Likert scale (1 = Completely disagree and 7 = Completely agree)

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

All these five connections, this knotting, is about how to understand the dramaturgy of method, what kind of reality-generation capacities different ontologies can enact, what

The algorithms we present in this section operate on a credential graph, which is a directed graph representing a set C of credentials and is built as follows: each node [e]

Het kan zijn dat bromfietsers niet altijd een helm dragen of deze niet altijd sluiten, waardoor de helm bij botsingen weinig of geen effect heeft.. SWOV-Factsheet 1 ©

In essence, the results showed the potential of using the intervention to enhance wellbeing and manage common mental health problems in the short-term; with possible implications

Although digital tools seem to largely guarantee the essential role of communication during audit activities, working from home during the COVID-19 crisis involves drastic

Keywords: Telework; Work from home; Work-life Balance; Work routine; Work schedule; COVID-19; Pandemic... The pandemic started

In terms of one possible methodological approach, the present study will qualify as a (so-called) non-empirical type of research, based on a critical theoretical

The aim of this study was to explore the occupations and socio-cultural context of the Sesotho speaking adult with mental health problems, attending either of the group