Advertisement

Occupational Health Science

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 337–363 | Cite as

Workplace Telepressure and Worker Well-Being: The Intervening Role of Psychological Detachment

  • Alecia M. SantuzziEmail author
  • Larissa K. Barber
Major Empirical Contribution

Abstract

Workplace telepressure—an employee’s preoccupation and urge to respond quickly to work-related messages via information and communication technologies (ICTs)—may be associated with negative well-being outcomes for workers. The present study expands upon past work on ICT-related stressors and worker well-being with an examination of the presumed role of lower psychological detachment from work in the relationships between workplace telepressure and negative worker outcomes. A three-wave web-based survey with 234 employed adults confirmed between-person associations between workplace telepressure and lower psychological detachment from work, higher levels of exhaustion (physical and cognitive), and more sleep problems. Moreover, results supported the predicted indirect effect of workplace telepressure to physical exhaustion and sleep problems through psychological detachment at the between-person level. Results also showed a negative indirect effect of workplace telepressure through psychological detachment on within-person variation in work engagement, despite the positive bivariate association between workplace telepressure and engagement (absorption). Finally, exploratory analyses suggested that workplace telepressure might be a stronger predictor of exhaustion when ICT connection demands at work are low. We discuss implications for workplace telepressure in terms of both health impairment and motivational processes with respect to work recovery.

Keywords

Telepressure Psychological detachment Work recovery Technology Employee well-being 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The project was supported by a Research and Artistry grant awarded to the authors by Northern Illinois University. The authors are grateful to Sarah Bailey for her assistance with data collection and data management for this project.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bakker, A. B., & Bal, M. P. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: a study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(1), 189–206.  https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X402596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.  https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barber, L. K., & Jenkins, J. S. (2014). Creating technological boundaries to protect bedtime: examining work–home boundary management, psychological detachment and sleep. Stress and Health, 30(3), 259–264.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Barber, L. K., & Santuzzi, A. M. (2015). Please respond ASAP: workplace telepressure and employee recovery. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(2), 172–189.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038278.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Barber, L. K., & Santuzzi, A. M. (2017). Telepressure and college student employment: the costs of staying connected across social contexts. Stress and Health, 33(1), 14–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Barley, S. R., Meyerson, D. E., & Grodal, S. (2011). E-mail as a source and symbol of stress. Organization Science, 22(4), 887–906.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (2005). Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40(3), 373–400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Beal, D. J. (2015). ESM 2.0: State of the art and future potential of experience sampling methods in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 383–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Braukmann, J., Schmitt, A., Ďuranová, L., & Ohly, S. (in press). Identifying ICT-related affective events across life domains and examining their unique relationships with employee recovery. Journal of Business and Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9508-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs, 55(1), 58–79.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among US managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 65–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: a quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89–136.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834–848.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Day, A., Scott, N., & Kelloway, E. K. (2010). Information and communication technology: implications for job stress and employee well-being. Research in Occupational Stress and Well-being, 8, 317–350.  https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3555(2010)0000008011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Day, A., Paquet, S., Scott, N., & Hambley, L. (2012). Perceived information and communication technology (ICT) demands on employee outcomes: the moderating effect of organizational ICT support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(4), 473.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029837.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. de Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A., Houtman, I. L., & Bongers, P. M. (2003). “The very best of the millennium”: longitudinal research and the demand-control-(support) model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(4), 282–305.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Derks, D., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). Smartphone use, work–home interference, and burnout: a diary study on the role of recovery. Applied Psychology, 63, 411–440.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00530.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Derks, D., ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Zecic, D., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). Switching on and off … : does smartphone use obstruct the possibility to engage in recovery activities? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(1), 80–90.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.711013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferguson, M., Carlson, D., Boswell, W., Whitten, D., Butts, M. M., & Kacmar, K. M. M. (2016). Tethered to work: a family systems approach linking mobile device use to turnover intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(4), 520–534.  https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000075.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Finkel, S. E. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisher, C. D., & To, M. L. (2012). Using experience sampling methodology in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(7), 865–877.  https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ford, M. T., Matthews, R. A., Wooldridge, J. D., Mishra, V., Kakar, U. M., & Strahan, S. R. (2014). How do occupational stressor-strain effects vary with time? A review and meta-analysis of the relevance of time lags in longitudinal studies. Work and Stress, 28(1), 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Freedy, J. R., & Hobfoll, S. E. (1994). Stress inoculation for reduction of burnout: a conservation of resources approach. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 6, 311–325.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10615809408248805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2006). Recovery, well-being, and performance-related outcomes: the role of workload and vacation experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 936–945.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.936.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Fritz, C., Yankelevich, M., Zarubin, A., & Barger, P. (2010). Happy, healthy, and productive: the role of detachment from work during nonwork time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 977–983.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019462.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Jones Young, N. C., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015). Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1313–1337.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314559946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: the strengths and weaknesses of mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 213–224.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grawitch, M. J., Werth, P. M., Palmer, S. N., Erb, K. R., & Lavigne, K. N. (2017). Self-imposed pressure or organizational norms? Further examination of the construct of workplace telepressure. Stress and Health, 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2792.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hahn, V. C., Binnewies, C., Sonnentag, S., & Mojza, E. J. (2011). Learning how to recover from job stress: effects of a recovery training program on recovery, recovery-related self-efficacy, and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(2), 202–216.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Harpaz, I. (2002). Advantages and disadvantages of telecommuting for the individual, organization and society. Work Study, 51(2), 74–80.  https://doi.org/10.1108/00438020210418791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huang, J. L., Bowling, N. A., Liu, M., & Li, Y. (2015). Detecting insufficient effort responding with an infrequency scale: evaluating validity and participant reactions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(2), 299–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jenkins, C. D., Stanton, B. A., Niemcryk, S. J., & Rose, R. M. (1988). A scale for the estimation of sleep problems in clinical research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 41(4), 313–321.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(88)90138-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Kenny, D. (1975). Cross-lagged panel correlation: a test for spuriousness. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 887–903.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.82.6.887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kühnel, J., Sonnentag, S., & Westman, M. (2009). Does work engagement increase after a short respite? The role of job involvement as a double-edged sword. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(3), 575–594.  https://doi.org/10.1348/096317908X349362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Landers, R. N., & Behrend, T. S. (2015). An inconvenient truth: arbitrary distinctions between organizational, mechanical Turk, and other convenience samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 142–164.  https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mastin, D. F., Bryson, J., & Corwyn, R. (2006). Assessment of sleep hygiene using the sleep hygiene index. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29(3), 223–227.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-9047-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2013). The autonomy paradox: the implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organization Science, 24(5), 1337–1357.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028085.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In P. J. D. Drenth & H. Thierry (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational psychology, Work psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 5–33). Hove, England: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  40. Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Boswell, W. R. (2006). Blurring boundaries: correlates of integration segmentation between work and family. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 432–445.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Park, Y., Fritz, C., & Jex, S. M. (2011). Relationships between work-home segmentation and psychological detachment from work: the role of communication technology use at home. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(4), 457–467.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023594.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Perlow, L. A., & Porter, J. L. (2009). Making time off predictable-and required. Harvard Business Review, 87(10), 102–109.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Peugh, J. L., & Enders, C. K. (2004). Missing data in educational research: a review of reporting practices and suggestions for improvement. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 525–556.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074004525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209–233.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Preacher, K. J., Zhang, Z., & Zyphur, M. J. (2015). Multilevel structural equation models for assessing moderation within and across levels of analysis. Psychological Methods, 20(4), 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Querstret, D., & Cropley, M. (2012). Exploring the relationship between work-related rumination, sleep quality, and work-related fatigue. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(3), 341–353.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028552.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shirom, A., & Melamed, S. (2006). A comparison of the construct validity of two burnout measures in two groups of professionals. International Journal of Stress Management, 13(2), 176–200.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.13.2.176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smit, B. W., & Barber, L. K. (2016). Psychologically detaching despite high workloads: the role of attentional processes. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 21(4), 432–442.  https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 518–528.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.518.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Sonnentag, S., & Frese, M. (2003). Stress in organizations. Handbook of Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 453–491). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  52. Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The recovery experience questionnaire: development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 204–221.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2015). Recovery from job stress: the stressor-detachment model as an integrative framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 72–103.  https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2010a). Staying well and engaged when demands are high: the role of psychological detachment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 965–976.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020032.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Sonnentag, S., Kuttler, I., & Fritz, C. (2010b). Job stressors, emotional exhaustion, and need for recovery: a multi-source study on the benefits of psychological detachment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(3), 355–365.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.06.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van den Broeck, A., De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). Not all job demands are equal: differentiating job hindrances and job challenges in the job demands-resources model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 735–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zapf, D., Dormann, C., & Frese, M. (1996). Longitudinal studies in organizational stress research: a review of the literature with reference to methodological issues. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(2), 145–169.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNorthern Illinois UniversityDeKalbUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologySan Diego StateSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations