Exploring Boundary Conditions of the Impact of Accessibility to Mobile Networks on Employees’ Perceptions of Presenteeism: from Both Individual and Social Perspectives

Abstract

Mobile networks, such as Wi-Fi and networks provided by mobile operators, are present everywhere nowadays and help employees to deal with business-related issues. With accessibility to mobile networks, employees perceive that they are constantly reachable to others, which is defined as “presenteeism”. With the importance of presenteeism in mind, this study aims to explore under what conditions employees’ perceptions of presenteeism based on accessibility to mobile networks can be increased or reduced. Based on self-determination theory and normative social influence, both individual-level (i.e., need for autonomy and need for relatedness) and social-level (i.e., norm of responsiveness) boundary conditions are indicated. Data was collected from 223 employees who use mobile technology at work. Our empirical results show that need for relatedness positively moderates the relationships between accessibility to mobile networks on employees’ perceptions of presenteeism. We also found that norm of responsiveness negatively moderates the relationships between accessibility to mobile networks on employees’ perceptions of presenteeism. This study contributes to the literature on presenteeism as well offers guidelines for practitioners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    The “presenteeism” in technology context is actually the “presenteeism through technology”. However, its core meaning is still about showing up but in different ways; that is, it is about showing up through technology. Therefore, to represent the similar core meaning and to simplify the expression, we still use the term of “presenteeism” in the technology context instead of using the term “presenteeism through technology”.

  2. 2.

    SOJUMP, URL: http://www.sojump.com/, accessed on Jan. 5th, 2018.

References

  1. Ahuja, M. K., Chudoba, K. M., Kacmar, C. J., McKnight, D. H., & George, J. F. (2007). IT road warriors: Balancing work-family conflict, job autonomy, and work overload to mitigate turnover intentions. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ayyagari, R., Grover, V., & Purvis, R. (2011). Technostress: Technological antecedents and implications. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 831–858.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory: Prentice-hall, Inc.

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bittman, M., Brown, J. E., & Wajcman, J. (2009). The mobile phone, perpetual contact and time pressure. Work, Employment and Society, 23(4), 673–691.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.

  9. Carpenter, D., McLeod, A., Hicks, C., & Maasberg, M. (2018). Privacy and biometrics: An empirical examination of employee concerns. Information Systems Frontiers, 20(1), 91–110.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chou, C.-H., Wang, Y.-S., & Tang, T.-I. (2015). Exploring the determinants of knowledge adoption in virtual communities: A social influence perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 35(3), 364–376.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer.

  14. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Handbook of self-determination research. Univ of Rochester Pr.

  15. Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagne, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 930–942.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629–636.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Donmeza, B., Matsonb, Z., Savanb, B., Farahanib, E., Photiadisb, D., & Dafoeb, J. (2014). Interruption management and office norms: Technology adoption lessons from a product commercialization study. International Journal of Information Management, 34(6), 741–750.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Edwards, J. R. (1996). An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit approach to stress. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 292–339.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Erskine, M. A., Gregg, D. G., Karimi, J., & Scott, J. E. (2018). Individual decision-performance using spatial decision support systems: A geospatial reasoning ability and perceived task-technology fit perspective. Information Systems Frontiers. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-018-9840-0.

  20. Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 992–1003.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gebauer, J., & Shaw, M. J. (2004). Success factors and impacts of Mobile business applications: Results from a Mobile e-procurement study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(3), 19–41.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gebauer, J., Shaw, M. J., & Gribbins, M. L. (2010). Task-technology fit for mobile information systems. Journal of Information Technology, 25, 259–272.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Rigdon, E. E. (2011). An update and extension to SEM guidelines for administrative and social science research. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), iii–xiv.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2013). Investigating the relations between motivation, tool use, participation, and performance in an e-learning course using web-videoconferencing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 285–292.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213–236.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Goodhue, D., Lewis, W., & Thompson, R. (2007). Statistical power in analyzing interaction effects: Questioning the advantage of PLS with product indicators. Information Systems Research, 18(2), 211–227.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hong, S.-J., & Tam, K. Y. (2006). Understanding the adoption of multipurpose information appliances: The case of Mobile data services. Information Systems Research, 17(2), 162–179.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hsu, C.-L., & Lin, J. C.-C. (2008). Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Information & Management, 45(1), 65–74.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hsu, C.-L., & Lu, H.-P. (2004). Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Information & Management, 41(7), 853–868.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hung, W. H., Chang, L. M., & Lin, C. H. (2011). Managing the risk of overusing Mobile phones in the working environment: A study of ubiquitous technostress. Paper presented at the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems.

  32. Isaac, H., & Leclercq, A. (2006). Assessing the value of Mobile technologies in organizations: An exploratory research. Paper presented at the International Conference on Mobile Business.

  33. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Lang, K. R. (2005). Managing the paradoxes of Mobile technology. Information Systems Management, 22(4), 7–23.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Junglas, I., & Watson, R. (2003). U-commerce: An experimental investigation of ubiquity and uniqueness. Paper presented at the International Conference on Information Systems.

  35. Karr-Wisniewski, P., & Lu, Y. (2010). When more is too much: Operationalizing technology overload and exploring its impact on knowledge worker productivity. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1061–1072.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ke, W., & Zhang, P. (2010). The effects of extrinsic motivations and satisfaction in open source software development. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11(12), 5.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(1), 51–60.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kim, S., & Garrison, G. (2009). Investigating mobile wireless technology adoption: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Frontiers, 11(3), 323–333.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kim, D., Cavusgil, S. T., & Calantone, R. J. (2006). Information system innovations and supply chain management: Channel relationships and firm performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(1), 40–54.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lee, D. J., Sirgy, M. J., Brown, J. R., & Bird, M. M. (2004). Importers’ benevolence toward their foreign export suppliers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 32–48.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lien, C.-H., Cao, Y., & Zhou, X. (2017). Service quality, satisfaction, stickiness, and usage intentions: An exploratory evaluation in the context of WeChat services. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 403–410.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Mazmanian, M., Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. (2006). Ubiquitous email: Individual experiences and organizational consequences of BlackBerry use. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Best Conference.

  43. Middleton, C. A., & Cukier, W. (2006). Is Mobile email functional or dysfunctional? Two perspectives on Mobile email usage. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(3), 252–260.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ragu-Nathan, T. S., Tarafdar, M., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Tu, Q. (2008). The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations: Conceptual development and empirical validation. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 417–433.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Roca, J. C., & Gagné, M. (2008). Understanding e-learning continuance intention in the workplace: A self-determination theory perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1585–1604.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Sharma, S. K. (2017). Integrating cognitive antecedents into TAM to explain mobile banking behavioral intention: A SEM-neural network modeling. Information Systems Frontiers. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9775-x.

  50. Sheldon, K. M., & Bettencourt, B. (2002). Psychological need satisfaction and subjective well being within social groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(1), 25–38.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Shen, A. X., Cheung, C. M., Lee, M. K., & Chen, H. (2011). How social influence affects we-intention to use instant messaging: The moderating effect of usage experience. Information Systems Frontiers, 13(2), 157–169.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Shih, H. P., & Huang, E. (2014). Influences of web interactivity and social identity and bonds on the quality of online discussion in a virtual community. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(4), 627–641.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2007). The impact of technostress on role stress and productivity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(1), 301–328.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., & Ragu-Nathan, T. (2010). Impact of technostress on end-user satisfaction and performance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(3), 303–334.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Tsai, H.-T., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2014). Contribution behavior in virtual communities: Cognitive, emotional and social influences. MIS Quarterly, 38(1), 143–163.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Tsai, H.-T., & Pai, P. (2014). Why do newcomers participate in virtual communities? An integration of self-determination and relationship management theories. Decision Support Systems, 57, 178–187.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008). Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work and Stress, 22(3), 277–294.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Wang, Y., Meister, D. B., & Gray, P. H. (2013). Social influence and knowledge management systems use: Evidence from panel data. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 299–313.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1989). Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 462–468.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Zhang, M., Guo, L., Huc, M., & Liud, W. (2016). Influence of customer engagement with company social networks on stickiness: Mediating effect of customer value creation. International Journal of Information Management, 37(3), 229–240.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Zhou, T., & Li, H. (2014). Understanding mobile SNS continuance usage in China from the perspectives of social influence and privacy concern. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 283–289.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jinbi Yang.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

Constructs Items
Employees’ perceptions of presenteeism (Ayyagari et al. 2011) 1. The use of this mobile technology enables others to have access to me at anytime and anyplace.
2. This mobile technology makes me accessible to others at anytime and anyplace.
3. The use of this mobile technology enables me to be in touch with others at anytime and anyplace.
4. This mobile technology enables me to access others at anytime and anyplace.
Accessibility to mobile networks (Self-Developed) 1. Using this mobile technology enables me to have access to mobile network (i.e., Wi-Fi, WLAN, network provided by mobile operator, etc.) at anytime and anywhere.
2. I am able to get into mobile network (i.e., Wi-Fi, WLAN, network provided by mobile operator, etc.) with this mobile technology at anytime and anyplace.
3. This mobile technology makes mobile network (i.e., Wi-Fi, WLAN, network provided by mobile operator, etc.) accessible to me at anytime and anywhere.
4. I can use this mobile technology to gain access to mobile network (i.e., Wi-Fi, WLAN, network provided by mobile operator, etc.) at anytime and anyplace.
Norm of Responsiveness (Self-Developed) 1. I think the people I work with response to one another as soon as possible.
2. I think people I work with have the expectations of getting responses from others as soon as possible.
3. I think it is a manner for people I work with to respond as soon as possible.
4. Overall, I think quick response is an implicit norm among the people I work with.
Need for Relatedness (Sheldon and Bettencourt 2002) 1. In job, it is important for me to have a sense of contact with people who care for me, and whom I care for.
2. In job, it is important for me to be close and connected with other people who are important to me.
3. In job, it is important for me to have a strong sense of intimacy with the people I spent time with.
Need for Autonomy (Sheldon and Bettencourt 2002) 1. In job, it is important for me to feel free and choiceful.
2. In job, it is important for me to feel wholehearted uncontrolled or unpressured.
3. In job, it is important for me to express my authentic self. *
Flexibility (Self-Developed) 1. I can freely set up my work schedule by using this mobile technology
2. I set my own schedule for completing assigned tasks by using this mobile technology
3. I have a lot of freedom to decide schedule by using this mobile technology
4. I control the schedule of my job by using this mobile technology
Invasion (Ragu-Nathan et al. 2008) 1. I have to be in touch with my work even during my vacation due to this mobile technology.
2. I spend less time with my family due to this mobile technology.
3. I feel my personal life is being invaded by this mobile technology.
4. I have to sacrifice my vacation and weekend to keep current on work information through this mobile technology.
  1. (1) All items were measured with 7-point Likert scale. The point 1 represents strongly disagree, and the point 7 is strongly agree.
  2. (2) The item with * means that this item is deleted from data analysis because its loading on its focused construct is lower than 0.6, based on initial confirmatory factor analysis.

Appendix B: Loadings and Cross-loadings Table

  Presenteeism Accessibility Invasion Flexibility Norm of responsiveness Need for relatedness Need for autonomy
present1 .881 Please specify the significance of the symbol BOLD emphasis reflected inside Appendix Table B by providing a description in the form of a table footnote. Otherwise, kindly amend if deemed necessary.Please help to add the following information as a table footnote:The indicators' own loadings are higher than cross loadings. .134 .089 .071 .138 .097 .026
present2 .878 .063 .051 .079 .081 .070 .053
present3 .780 .114 .095 .250 .244 .048 .083
present4 .699 .179 .057 .322 .178 .029 .090
access1 .057 .921 .046 .087 .092 .146 .050
access2 .137 .915 .016 .092 .063 .150 .009
access3 .132 .888 .054 .131 .071 .108 .043
access4 .127 .906 .063 .103 .130 .097 .081
invasion1 .266 .143 .679 .062 .050 .134 .021
invasion2 .044 −.017 .837 .047 .038 .002 .020
invasion3 −.043 .052 .806 −.053 −.022 −.091 .075
invasion4 .039 .000 .813 .008 .117 −.010 −.044
flex1 .137 .111 .031 .858 .006 .085 .042
flex2 .152 .081 .005 .831 .029 .085 .143
flex3 .102 .041 −.016 .874 .037 .018 .059
flex4 .161 .158 .041 .805 .071 .172 −.063
response1 .190 .046 .064 .019 .855 .181 .021
response2 .164 .157 .053 −.038 .741 .159 .186
response3 .153 .060 .092 .105 .829 .211 .059
response4 .075 .089 .006 .060 .783 .153 .209
relate1 .127 .151 .032 .127 .296 .792 .154
relate2 .082 .157 −.001 .083 .250 .834 .122
relate3 .030 .199 −.030 .157 .189 .823 .146
auto1 .175 .139 .009 .129 .315 .297 .740
auto2 .061 .040 .059 .073 .185 .156 .900

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, J., Yin, C. Exploring Boundary Conditions of the Impact of Accessibility to Mobile Networks on Employees’ Perceptions of Presenteeism: from Both Individual and Social Perspectives. Inf Syst Front 22, 881–895 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-019-09898-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mobile technology
  • Accessibility
  • Presenteeism
  • Psychological needs
  • Normative social influence