623. Women in tech

Why do half of women in tech drop out by age 35?

by Individual Differences and ImpactResearch

In a collaborative report involving Code First Girls and Tech Talent Charter (TCC – a government-supported group of over 775 leading UK businesses and organisations) aimed to gain insights into the UK’s diversity talent shortage – and provide recommendations to address the diversity crisis.

It is revealed that half of the women in tech drop out by the age of 35, adding to concerns about the growing digital skills and gender gap.

Additionally, of the 149 million new jobs Microsoft predicts will be created by 2025 in software, data, AI and machine learning only 20% of the 5.8m newly skilled and qualified graduates will be women.

A few barriers for women in tech (and indeed in any industry) is: maternity leave, and work-family balance.

The top recommendations to encourage women to remain in tech include: flexible working, enhanced parental leave policies, and other female-specific family and healthcare policies and benefits.

Flexible working policies have been shown to have a positive impact on attracting and retaining talent. 

Job ads that include job flexibility in the offering have increased applicant volume by 30% and increased the proportion of female applicants.

88% of the 210,000 UK tech employees from TTC’s data reported having access to flexible work options including: part-time working (83%), job sharing (76%), condensed hours (65%) and remote working 47%). Other options available are a 4-day working week during the summer and uncapped holiday.

Although the availability of the report seems to focus on flexible work arrangements that are already available and female-related healthcare policies, the main solutions that seems to be suggested centre around making the tech workplace less of a ‘boys-club’ and slightly more inclusive to women’s family and healthcare needs. 

What the report doesn’t seem to address is the fact that flexible working policies are already available in almost 90% of tech companies and women are still leaving before 35. 

  • Could it be that there are much deeper underlying causes of women exiting the workplace by age 35 and not returning? 
  • Could workplace norms, narratives and job demands expectations also play a role?
  • Could the flexible workplace practices indeed be contributing to the inability to create work-home boundaries, which lead to higher stress, anxiety and feelings of burnout by the mid-30s, and making it less feasible for a healthy work-family life balance? 
  • Could the job demands that come from an industry that is already suffering from a skills shortage and an inherent need to grow and deliver at pace be significantly contributing to a stressful work environment that works for those in their 20s, but not always so well for those in their 30s? 
Read the press release from the research that was published in BM Magazine here
Related Articles
Creativity

Can technology use affect our creative and lateral thinking abilities?

by Creative & Divergent ThinkingResearch

There is a common misconception, based on research done on split-brain patients in the 1960s, that creativity and analytical thinking activities are either right- or left-hemisphere brain functioning. We often talk about people being either creative or analytical, implying a dominance of either the right or left side of their brain. This thinking has been challenged by creativity research conducted since the 1980s. But the outdated myth has become entrenched as a worldview, an overarching narrative about how we work, and a subconscious bias towards the creative ability of both ourselves and others. We are all creative, we just don’t always realise it, or label it as such. 

Research on freestyle wrappers indicated that it was necessary for the brain to attenuate (i.e. subvert) the analytical regions in order for the creative regions of the brain to be able to activate and form creative ideas. Both analytical and creative regions could be found on the right and left sides of the brain. This is why we have so many great ideas in the shower, on a walk, or at times we are not distracting ourselves with our cognitively demanding activities or our technology. Research done by Bluhm, R. et al in 2009 demonstrated that when we are bored the central part of our brain lights up. This means that the more distracted we are, the less likely we are to engage in types of self-reflection, or reflection of any kind for that matter. 

A creative idea is defined by Alice Flaherty as ‘one that is both novel and useful (or influential) in a particular social setting’. If our attention is focused on a screen or the analytical part of our brain is distracted or engaged in wrestling with a problem to solve, it seems it isn’t possible to have creative ideas or be able to make lateral thinking connections. 

Our ability to be creative has fascinated me for quite some time. During my corporate marketing days, with a growing sense of irony, I noticed that an analytical mindset was considered to have greater value than a more creative mindset. When there was discussion around ‘being creative’, what seems to have been implied was the ability to think laterally, rather than creatively. Additionally, there seemed to be an underlying thinking that (if DeBono was correct) lateral and divergent thinking skills were teachable. For some reason, this didn’t quite make sense to me. I had always assumed that creative, divergent and lateral thinking ability was inherent in everyone. I also believed that creativity and artistic ability weren’t always correlated  – in the same way as all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

In reviewing research literature, I discovered that those who have more of the Openness Personality Trait are more likely to be creative. However, I couldn’t find any previous research that focussed on the link between Lateral Thinking and personality traits. So, as part of my final psychology degree dissertation, I sought to understand if there was a specific type of person who had a greater ability to think laterally and was, therefore, someone that could be more ideally suited to a ‘creative’ role or career than others.

What my research study suggested is that although there did indeed seem to be a correlation between personality and creativity, there was no correlation between personality and lateral thinking skills. This could be because lateral thinking questions used in research are often based on the ability of a person to solve a puzzle by drawing on associations with their past lived experience. E.g. one of the questions is: Five pieces of coal, a carrot and a scarf are lying on the lawn. Nobody put them on the lawn but there is a perfectly logical reason why they should be there. Why is that? The answer is: They were used to make a snowman, which has now melted. The question assumes the reader has grown up where it snows during winter, and they have had the experience of building snowmen using carrots and coal for their facial features. Another question is: A man pushed his car. He stopped when he reached a hotel at which point, he knew he was bankrupt. Why? The answer is: He was playing Monopoly. If someone has never played Monopoly in the past, they would never be able to come up with that answer. 

What the research suggested is that lateral thinking ability is directly linked to age. The more life experience a person has, the greater ability they have to make connections between seemingly random pieces of information to solve a unique puzzle. 

Going back to how this creativity and lateral thinking are related to technology? The reality could be that spending more time online or staring at a screen, can limit our ability to engage in alternative lived experiences. It also limits the time our brain has to engage in free association while not distracted or thinking analytically. This can potentially lead to lower levels of creative time and possibly a sense of creative ability. The less experience we have at being creative and thinking laterally, the less creative we think we are and the lower the chances are that we will give ourselves the freedom to recognise that we are by nature creative and allow ourselves to engage in more creative tasks. 

If you’d like to read more on the personality and lateral thinking research (including the research questionnaire and analysis), you can read it here. 

Links to a few other articles and podcasts on being creative are available below:  

Related Articles
Home-Office-Boundaries

The advantage of creating bespoke boundary-blurring strategies

by ResearchWork-Home Boundary Blurring
'From Work to Life and Back Again: Examining the Digitally-Mediated Work/Life Practices of a Group of Knowledge Workers'.

Extracts and summary of the research by: Luigina Ciolfi & Eleanor Lockley (2018)

Key quotes from the research:

  • ‘[those in] knowledge-intensive roles devise strategies for handling work and non-work in light of a set of interconnected forces’ 
  • ‘Boundary dissolving and work-life blurring, and not just boundary setting and ‘balancing’, are essential resources within [boundary management] strategies’
  • ‘Boundary sculpting pertains not only to work pervading personal spheres of life, but also the opposite, and that establishing, softening and dissolving boundaries are practised to handle situations when the personal seeps into professional life’
  • ‘Establishing, softening and dissolving boundaries are practised to handle situations when the personal seeps into professional life’ 

Summary of the research:

The boundaries that we set, dissolve, blur and manage between work, home and play are how office workers juggle and deal with, the changing demands of both professional and personal tasks. Every worker has a boundary strategy that is unique to them and entirely dependent on personal preferences, individual circumstances, working styles, the expectations of others and specific work culture.

Home and hobbies can be time and labour-intensive, and require as much professional management as paid work. Home life can be as intrusive of work as work can be of home life. Boundaries that are set in one direction are independent to the boundaries set in the reverse direction.

The setting of boundaries is not limited to geographic location, time of day, technology ownership or application used, but can also include mindset, identities, ambitions, social practices and cognitive practices.

There is a continuum of boundary-setting strategies from ‘segmentation’ to ‘integration’ of work and home life. Everyone has a different interpretation of what the words and resulting actions mean to them.

Boundary strategies can either be a resource or a constraint. They can change and be adapted depending on life stage and lifestyle adjustments. Although a life stage is not a precursor that dictates the type of strategy we implement e.g. working parents can either be strong segmenters, or strong integrators as can single people, young or more mature workers.

Those whose work is closely tied to their core life passions view additional reading and work-type tasks as professional development or self-improvement. In contrast, others (a portion of whom may regard work as a means to an end) view having to engage in work-related tasks during personal time as eating into their recovery time or as unpaid work and time away from their family or hobbies.

Digital technology is a mediator of both boundary setting and blurring.

For some, being able to check emails and messages after hours can be a ‘lifeline’ to manage their workload – giving them a sense of control or to ‘signal availability’ when away from the office.

For others, access to emails outside of working hours is an interference. They use various tactics to fence off work from private time. These can range from:

  • technology-based solutions – such as leaving laptops and mobiles in a car boot overnight or setting out-of-office messages – to
  • person-based solutions – such as informing others of availability patterns and when to expect a response.

Reflection on the research:

The researchers specifically qualify that they ‘do not buy into the myth of the mobile worker who can seamlessly handle demands through flexible work arrangements and ubiquitous technology’ and ‘self-regulation is a crucial component for knowledge-intensive flexible work’. This is an important consideration in the remote and hybrid work environment. Although many take on a remote/hybrid or flexible working pattern, the expectation can be that it is as easy to maintain focus and productivity in the same way as being in the office does. Spending time with others in a similar activity is a key motivator to keep going and needs less self-regulation than sitting alone in a quiet space. Remote/hybrid and flexible workers will need different strategies and develop purposeful working patterns and tools/strategies to keep them motivated and focused away from the office.

What also seems to come through in this research is the notion that the setting and dissolving of boundaries between work and home life is something that workers need to proactively sculpt, manage and adjust according to life circumstances and demands.

The researchers also view ‘boundary sculpting [to] relate to spaces/locations (being at the office, or travelling, or at home), time (times of the day or days of the week), tasks (certain tasks are acted upon, others are not) or social circles/other people’. The creation of work-home-play boundaries is not limited to just whether or not we are looking at our work emails and messages during non-work time, but rather that both active and passive engagement in work during private time is a form of boundary setting.

Read the original article here

If you are unable to access the web page, you can read a PDF of the article here.

Return to the main Research Page

Some acronyms used in the research document: 

  • CSCW: Computer-Supported Cooperative Work
  • HCI: Human-Computer Interaction
Related Articles
Sociology Review 2019 WFB Mgt

Differing forms of work-family boundary management

by ResearchWork-Home Boundary Blurring
'Technology, Work, and Family: Digital Cultural Capital and Boundary Management'.

Extracts and a summary of research by: Ariane Ollier-Malaterre, Jerry A. Jacobs, and Nancy P. Rothbard (2019) – (based in Canada and the USA) who set out to develop a framework for how technology, work and family intersect, especially regarding how tech is changing the boundaries between work, home and play. Although this is a 2019 Annual Review of Sociology, conducted prior to the shift towards greater degrees of hybrid work, the principles of the theories remain unchanged.

Key quotes from the research:

  • ‘…boundaries between work and family are permeable … events from one domain affect the other… it is the permeability of these boundaries that makes boundary management such a key skill, enabling people to balance work and family life.’
  • ‘… technologies directly influence how people experience work and family life by further increasing the porousness of the temporal, spatial and relational boundaries between work and family roles and identities. This porousness in turn makes the management of connectivity, online self-preservation, and privacy more challenging and calls for more elaborate technology management.’
  • ‘technology management: work performed to gain control over technology and its associated social norms in order to align one’s use of technology and one’s values and goals.’ 

Summary of the research: 

The boundaries that we create between work and home can be compared to a ‘mental fence’ that divides two differing life roles. Like any physical geographic boundary, this fence can have varying degrees of permeability and cross-over-ability.

However, we only have a small amount of control over this mental fence that we create. Company norms, team expectations, or our own internal mental processes may scupper our ability to manage these mental fences. 

Boundary Types

There are not just 1, but rather 3 types of boundary fences that we need to consider: temporal, spatial and relational. 

  • Temporal boundaries are time-based and exist whether we work in a flexible or a more structured role. Conducting work outside of the times we have set aside for work each day is an example of the blurring of this boundary. There is some debate as to the impacts versus payoffs of a constant state of connectivity with work via technology (mainly through mobile phones). The downsides including overwork, productivity levels and work-family conflict are weighed up against the upsides such as greater ambition and work involvement.
  • Spatial boundaries are our ability to separate the places where we engage in work and home activities. With better connectivity and the ability to work from home, these boundaries have become a lot more porous. Even carrying a mobile phone with you after work hours, that instantly connects you to work email, is an example of expanding work into nonwork time and infringing on both temporal and spatial boundaries.
  • Relational boundaries refer to a person’s choice of whether to build friendships with work colleagues or keep these relationships strictly professional. This includes linking up with work people on social media sites – depending on the level of personal or professional self that is revealed on each platform. 

The increasing porousness of each of these boundaries requires greater levels of awareness, motivation and active management to navigate and curate multiple identities and life roles.

This constant management of online identities is referred to as ‘digital cultural capital’, which requires technical skill and is both time and effort-intensive. It also requires awareness of the impact of self-information disclosure on both personal relationships and professional reputation. 

Connectivity Decisions

The first challenge in managing digital cultural capital is connectivity decisions. Although some groups have little control over their connectivity decisions – often due to company cultural norms and expectations – most people have some control over their digital connectivity, which allows them to feel some element of digital control (rather than being controlled by their devices).

Some of the strategies that are used to manage connectivity are: keeping the phone out of easy reach or sight, managing notifications per app, decisions on how to be notified and when to check, and respond to, notifications. Some people leave work phones at work, in the boot of their car or turn them off when arriving home.

Online Self-preservation

The second challenge is online self-preservation management – i.e. monitoring how one appears in cyberspace – and includes both what is posted about yourself as well as what others post about you (with or without your permission). It requires constant surveillance and work to present a unified online presence, and has the potential to be perilous.

Whatever the online strategy used to manage an online profile, it requires everyday awareness, effort, skill and decision-making to consider the online content audience, as well as personal and professional impact.

Privacy Management

The third challenge is around privacy management. Technology amplifies the placement and blurring of boundaries between private and social life. There is debate amongst academics and lawyers as to whether online content is private or public and many questions are arising around privacy, visibility and surveillance.

Efforts by individuals to safeguard their personal information is a form of technology management and also require extensive energy and effort. 

Connectivity Management

Perspectives on connectivity vary across social groups.

Higher-income bracket individuals tend to limit their connectivity. They also attempt to transfer their digital cultural capital values and perspectives onto their children – encouraging a more active social life offline and spending time discussing digital deviant behaviour such as cyberbullying, risky behaviour such as compromising photo disclosure, and the need to switch off.

They tend to spend more time monitoring their children’s media use, helping them develop good digital habits and working on their privacy settings.

Read the original article here

If you are unable to access the web page, you can read a PDF of the article here.

Return to the main Research Page
Related Articles
Locus of Control and CyberSecurity

What role does job control play in adherence to Cyber Security?

by Cyber SecurityResearch
'Exploring the Role of Work Identity and Work Locus of Control in Information Security Awareness'.

Extracts and summary of the research by: Dr Lee Hadlington, Dr Masa Popovac, Prof. Helge Janicke, Dr Iryna Yevseyeva, Dr Kevin Jones (2019)

In her summary of the work, Dr Popovac describes the research as exploring ‘the adherence to organisational information security and the role of work-related and individual factors such as individuals’ perceived control within the workplace, their commitment to current work identity, and the extent to which they are reconsidering commitment to work.’

Key quotes from the research:

  • ‘Cyber security is not just about technology. Almost all successful cyber attaches have a contributing human factor’ (a direct extract from the UK National Cybersecurity Strategy 2016-2021 p. 38)
  • ‘for the most part, technology cannot be the only solution to issues related to organisational cybersecurity…employee[s] (the human factor), can present a paradoxical element into the fight’
  • ‘On the one hand, employees can be a critical asset in the fight against cybersecurity breaches, and can act to deny malicious attempts to access sensitive company data. On the other hand, employees can be the ‘weakest link’…in the cybersecurity system; they are not logical, prone to misunderstanding and confusion, act on impulse and want to get their jobs done’

Summary of the research: 

This research focuses on what factors, outside of personality type, play into employee engagement in cyber security engagement in the workplace. The main aim of the research was to understand:

  • to what extent the ability to control job function has in the taking of responsibility for cyber security
  • if the identification with the workplace plays any role in improving cyber security amongst workers

The researchers point out that:

  • there is a difference between knowledge of the company’s information security policies and the ability of the employee to understand them.
  • there is also a potential gap in how individual attitudes and behaviour aligns with these policies. 

Previous research done in the area of cyber security has found that those more likely to be cyber-security conscious were: 

In contrast, those who engage in cyberloafing (engaging in non-work tech use during working hours) or have higher levels of internet addiction were less likely to be cyber-security conscious. The assumption was that these workers believed the higher levels of company security mitigated online risk when accessing specific materials and activities. Another assumption is that those who have little regard for the company they work for, or who feel they have limited control over their job, are also more likely to have a lower interest in adhering to internet security protocols.

Employees who have a higher internal locus of control are more likely to have lower stress levels, feel more in control of their work and have greater job satisfaction. Those who are higher in external locus of control feel they have little control over work, higher levels of stress and lower job/company commitment – therefore more likely to engage in counter-productive work behaviours, often to rekindle a sense of self-control over their work or potentially as an active attempt to harm the company.  

Those who feel less committed to their work may be less prone or may not see the value in engaging in cyber security behaviour.

The findings of the research are: 

  • Those with a higher internal locus of control are more likely to see their actions as a way to protect both themselves and the company from cyber attacks
  • Workers with a higher external locus of control perceive themselves to have a minimal amount of control over their work and workplace, assumed that both they and the company were vulnerable to attacks whatever action they did or didn’t take, so saw little value in following processes relating to information security.  
  • Those who have a strong work identity, and experience a sense of belonging in their workplace, are more adherent to cyber security policies
  • In contrast, those with a lower level of work identity and/or looking for a new role are less compliant. 
  • Being older and being female were also found to be more likely to engage in higher levels of information security compliance – confirming previous research. 
  • Those who have a clear understanding of the formal company rules around information security are more likely to follow them. 

Definitions: 

Locus of control: ‘an individual’s expectancy related to how rewards or aspects of life outcomes are controlled on the basis of the actions of the individual (internally) or as a result of forces outside the control of the individual (externality)’.

Organisational commitment: ‘the level of attachment an employee has with their workplace’.

Work identity: ‘the strength of an individual’s identification with their work, and not directly their workplace or organisation’.

Read the original article here

This is not an open-source document and will need purchasing to read the full original article.

Return to the main Research Page
Related Articles
Working after hours

Contact with work after hours is linked to family conflict, distress and sleep issues

by Individual Differences and ImpactResearch
'Are communications about work outside regular working hours associated with work-to-family conflict, psychological distress and sleep problems?'
Extracts and summary of the research by: Scott Schieman and Marisa C. Young (2013)

Key quotes from the research:

  • ‘…work contact is associated with higher levels of work-to-family conflict, distress and sleep problems.’
  • ‘…simultaneous exposure to high pressure and contact [with work after hours] heightens arousal that , in turn, poses a greater threat to one’s sense of equilibrium, energy, and mental or physical resources that either one does on its own.’
  • ‘…job pressure might exacerbate the impact of work contact…[in] that both pressure and contact – as different but interrelated demands – draw on the same limited volitional resource…’

Summary of the research: 

Those who are in constant contact with work in private time are more likely to experience conflict with the family by reducing the level of finite time and energy workers have outside of work. Increased work engagement also increases psychological stress and exacerbates sleep issues.

 There are some caveats to this: 

  • Workers who have the ability to manage their workload, such as job control (i.e. flexibility as to when they get the work done) and autonomy (i.e. when and how they get their job done) are less impacted by work contact after hours
  • Those who have more challenging roles that are require the learning of new things, include creative elements, span a variety of different tasks and get to use their skills and abilities are less likely to experience family conflict, be stressed and have sleep issues 
  • In contrast, those whose roles are overwhelming and/or highly pressured intensifies the work contact after hours and exacerbates family contact and sleep problems. 

Having a highly pressurised job or one that is overwhelming is more likely to lead to greater levels of work contact after hours, which reduces the amount of time spent with others. Even that time with family is spent in a state of stress which also reduces the amount of recovery sleep received. 

Having a more rewarding role, that allows a worker the ability to work around other life commitments, and provides a level of personal growth and feeling valued is more likely to lead to lower levels of stress and better sleep, even if the worker has regular contact with work during private hours. 

Read the original article here

If you are unable to access the web page, you can read a PDF of the article here.

Return to the main Research Page
Related Articles
Generational Differences

Are there generational differences in expectations of work technology use after hours?

by Individual Differences and ImpactResearch
'Technological Tethering, Digital Natives, and Challenges in the Work-Family Interface'.
Extracts and summary of the research by: Andrew D. Nevin and Scott Schieman (2020)

Key quotes from the research:

  • ‘…mobile technologies have facilitated the extension of traditional working hours, reflective of workers being “technologically tethered” to their jobs while at home so that they are more accessible than ever to their employers … constant connectivity has become normalised in today’s society and ingrained in organizational cultures by fostering unrealistic expectations of worker availability, which has contributed to current norms of excessive job contact, multitasking, and working overtime’.
  • ‘…the modern worker represents one who is technologically tethered, that is, restricted by traditional separations of physical work and home environments while being digitally available for job contact and monitoring at all times … through technology, fast-paced work demands are “no longer bound by time and space” and have begun to transcend fixed work schedules … often workers cannot choose to disconnect from their devices, which reduces their autonomy and ability to cope with work stress’.
  • ‘…widespread expectations have emerged about the ability of digital natives to better manage technology-based tasks in the workplace and to handle increasing communication demands via work extending technologies.’

Summary of the research: 

‘Digital Natives’, i.e. those who have grown up using technology on a daily basis, are thought to be better more digitally intelligent and have superior digital skills than older ‘Digital Immigrant’ workers. 

This stereotype has been popularised by the media, who showcase them as needing constant stimulation, being more tech-savvy and more likely to use tech to learn and communicate with others. This has led to the perception that they are more likely to adapt to workplace tech demands, better at multi-tasking and more likely to seek out tech-centric roles.

However, the analysis of this research concluded that there was no difference in the generations in terms of their ability to cope with workplace technology use after hours.

Structural ageism assumes that older workers are less able to adapt to newer technologies, however, this study refutes that sentiment and suggests this assumption instead leads to discriminatory experiences amongst digital immigrants and can lead to reduced productivity. 

The study showcases that neither digital natives nor digital immigrants are able to cope with their workplace tech-tethering, which is synonymous with the modern workplace. 

Digital Natives are not better at balancing their various life roles and are as likely to either cope or struggle with role multitasking and constant workplace connectivity. 

The study did confirm previous findings that women are more likely to experience higher levels of role conflict through after-hours work tech use.

It also confirmed that those in higher status roles were more likely to subscribe to the ‘ideal worker’ norms that encourage overwork, increase work hours and workplace technology use after hours. These workers need both a more individualised and a more active commitment to work-life balance strategies. 

Read the original article here

This is not an open-source document and will need purchasing to read the full original article.

Return to the main Research Page
Related Articles
Productivity of Working Mothers

The paradox of perceived productivity in working parents

by Presence at Home and Family ImpactResearch
'The Paradox of Family Structure and Plans after Work: Why Single Childless Employees May Be the Least Absorbed at Work'.

Extracts and summary of the research by: Tracy L Dumas and Jill E. Perry-Smith (2018)

Key quotes from the research:

  • ‘single, childless workers reported lower absorption that workers with other family structures’
  • ‘anticipating domestic responsibilities after work reinforces, rather than distracts from, the work mindset, thus keeping employees more immersed psychologically in their work’

Summary of the research: 

Traditional workplace perceptions generally hold that being single is indicative of a person’s ability to be devoted to their work. Single people demonstrate this commitment by working longer hours. They additionally have less home-based distraction during and after working hours.

The same general perception is that those who are married and/or have children have family responsibilities that negatively impact devotion to work, productivity and work performance.

This research showcases the opposite to be a better reflection of reality. It found that parents are, in fact, more absorbed in their work during contracted office hours. 

  • Those who are married and/or have children tend to own their houses, take on cleaning and DIY tasks themselves and are more involved in domestic duties. These parents, when anticipating after-work chores, see their work as more fulfilling and compelling than the anticipated home-based (after-work) tasks. They tend, therefore, to be more absorbed in, focused on and productive while at work.
  • Single employees tend to engage in more leisure activities after work. These after-work activities may be more compelling than their work tasks. This may encourage their minds to wander away from the task at hand, reducing the tendency to be mentally absorbed in their work, and resulting in psychological detachment from work earlier in the day.  
  • Research by Hamilton and colleagues (2006) found that single and childless workers tended to experience greater levels of work-life conflict because of the expectation and pressures from work to be always available. This is because of the perception that they are unencumbered, and therefore always contactable. They also feel as though they do not get the support they would like from work when trying to build a non-work life. 
Read the original article here

If you are unable to access the web page, you can read a PDF of the article here.

Return to the main Research Page
Related Articles
Phone Presence

The subconscious distraction of a mobile phone

by Productivity and AttentionResearch
'The Mere Presence of a Cell Phone May be Distracting - Implications for Attention and Task Performance'.
Extracts and summary of the research by: Bill Thornton, Alyson Faires, Maija Robbins, and Eric Rollins (2014)

Key quotes from the research:

  • ‘the use and misuse of mobile technology has negatively impacted productivity both in quantity and quality of work output attributed in large part to the interruptions occurring every 15 min and the time it takes to regain concentration afterwards’.
  • ‘a 3-s distraction (the time it takes to reach out and silence a cell phone) while conducting a sequencing task is sufficient to disrupt attention and result in twice the number of errors made in the post-disruption phase of the task; the longer the interruption, the greater the error rate’.
  • ‘the presence of a cell phone [has] a negative impact on performance when the tasks are more intentionally and cognitively demanding’. 

Summary of the research: 

Previous research has shown that using a phone can be distracting while multi-tasking, such as while walking or driving.

Recent research has even shown that the simple presence of a phone (e.g. placed on a table), with all the extended cyberspace connections and networks that it represents, can distract from and reduce the overall quality and experience of in-person physical social interactions and connections.

This research goes a step further to investigate the distracting capability of the simple presence of a mobile phone while performing tasks that require greater cognitive demands within the workplace (and in education). 

What was found is that the presence of a mobile phone had a negative impact on the quality of work performed when tasks were attentionally and cognitively demanding.

In a similar way to the ability of thoughts unrelated to the task at hand causing the mind to wander, being subconsciously aware of the potential connections that are offered by the use of a mobile phone (e.g. social media connections) may cause the mind to wander and potentially interfere with performance – especially when engaging in more complex tasks.

It is easier to maintain attention on a task at hand when there are fewer visual elements to stimulate thoughts not related to the task itself. The impact of unrelated thoughts depends entirely on the complexity of the task being completed. There is a much lower impact, for example, on tasks that require lower levels of cognitive or attentional demands.

The implications for this subtle distraction that mobile phones have on productivity in the workplace can be wide-ranging. Although the actual use of a mobile phone in the workplace has been considered by many, the distracting ability of the presence of a mobile needs to also be considered. 

An ‘out of sight, out of mind’ concept may be required in some instances, especially when more complex and cognitively demanding tasks are being attended to. 

Read the original article here

If you are unable to access the web page, you can read a PDF of the article here.

Return to the main Research Page
Related Articles
Constant Phone Checking

Constant phone checking brings life to work and work to life

by ResearchWork-Home Boundary Blurring
'When You Just Cannot Get Away - Exploring the use of information and communication technologies in facilitating negative work/home spillover'.

Extracts and a summary of research by: Ronald W. Berkowsky (2013)

Key quotes from the research:

  • ‘Boundaries [between work and home], while sometimes motivated by the needs and beliefs of the individual, are often socially constructed and are based on societal norms, pressures, and expectations’. 
  • ‘Because [mobile digital technology] provides a means for individuals to be available to both work and home contacts at all times, there is an increasing potential for these contacts to impede upon a specific domain in which they do not necessarily belong’.
  • ‘[Mobile digital technology does not] dictate the permeability of the work/home interface, but are instead tools which perpetuate the structural norms associated with work/home boundaries’.
  • ‘Having a heavy workload, having unclear job expectations, and experiencing physical illness/ailments were significant predictors of negative spillover in both directions’.
  • ‘Other work-related characteristics (such as job autonomy and schedule control) … have previously been found to be significant predictors of spillover’. 

Summary of the research: 

The proliferation of mobile-based technology, since the turn of the century, has resulted in workers being constantly connected to friends, family and colleagues at all times of the day and night wherever they happen to be. This constant ability to be contacted has been a significant catalyst for increased physical and mental stress and negative well-being. Berkowski’s research is an investigation of the negative impact of digital technology’s ability to allow for work to spill over into non-work time and visa versa. 

The boundaries we set between one domain and another, and the level to which we allow one to permeate into another, are as distinct and unique as each of us are.

Prior to the introduction of mobile digital technology, the boundary between work and home was (generally) a simplistic and definitive one, determined by a geographic boundary between the two life realms. Mobile digital technology has removed this geographic boundary between work and home, resulting in one that was already more permeable prior to the onset of mass remote and hybrid working. There are advantages and disadvantages to this. 

The advantages are:

  • Life and work roles have the ability to enrich each other – i.e. a positive mood in one life realm can counteract any negative or stressful circumstances in another
  • Being successful in one role can compensate for any areas needing improvement in the other
  • Skillsets and competencies in one role can translate into the other – so participating in a number of different life roles can counterbalance negative stress and struggles in another

The disadvantages are: 

  • ‘Role interference’ – where the stress and negativity of one role can impact on other life realms
  • Work interruptions during private time can reduce the amount of time spent with significant others, reduce overall energy levels and take time away from personal pursuits

The level of either positive or negative impact that the more permeable boundary has on the individual is determined by the preference they have for allowing work to spill over into private time or visa versa.

The level of stress and anxiety is determined by the level of individual ability to meet these expectations in practice. e.g. if someone prefers to have their home and work life overlap, stress and anxiety result when they are not able to do so – either because workplace policies do not allow them to do so or a partner may have a strong preference for a clear segmented approach to work and home life.

Alternatively, if someone prefers very little overlap between work and home, but a line manager or client either sets a meeting for (or sends messages, emails, or calls) outside of official working hours asking questions or expecting a reply, this can result in higher levels of anxiety and stress, both for the work and others within the household. 

The impact of technology use during private time: 

  • Those who have higher levels of ambition and are more involved in their job role are more likely to use mobile technology after work, which results in higher levels of conflict in home life
  • Perceived usefulness of technology, organisational pressures, and after-hours supplementary work is directly associated with work-to-family conflict
  • Checking emails and work-based mobile use, over time, was linked to work negatively spilling over to private time, which was linked to higher levels of distress and lower family satisfaction.
  • Using Social Media to connect with work colleagues in private time can help to reduce stress, as social media is viewed as a means to socially engage with work colleagues outside of work commitments.
Read the original article here

This is not an open-source document and will need purchasing to read the full original article.

Return to the main Research Page
Related Articles