Individual Differences and Impact
The use of home-based ICT at work and the adoption of, and engagement with, work-based ICT in private time (including the subsequent impact this has on the worker and their family) is unique for everyone. Park and Jex (2011)suggest that work interference into family life is three times more likely to be due to individual factors than it is for family interference into the workplace.
This may be accounted for by greater external influences such as company policies, workplace norms and worker boundary management strategies that may influence workers to engage in work-based ICT during private time (Park & Jex, 2011). There are, however, some common characteristics amongst workers most likely to use work-based ICT during private time.
It is not always the case that we consider individual differences when we think of the crossover of technology use and workplace norms.
A few individual differences that we may need to consider when thinking about how workers can differ when it comes to technology use in the workplace.
Workplace Telepressure
Workplace telepressure is a construct developed by Barber and Santuzzi (2015). It is defined as “the combination of a strong urge to be responsive to people at work through message-based ICTs with a preoccupation with quick response times” (Barber & Santuzzi, 2015, p. 172). The concept is based on the worker’s perception that ICT messages are a synchronous form of communication that needs responding to immediately, both during business hours and private time (Barber & Santuzzi, 2015). They suggest, as do Grawitch et al. (2018), that these preoccupations with e-communication response times are driven by both external and internal factors.
Barber et al. (2019) suggest that workplace telepressure originates mostly from external sources, such as techno-overload and prescriptive norms where employees interpret expectations of business norms around response times (Barber et al., 2019) rather than from internal forces such as public self-consciousness (Barber & Santuzzi, 2015; Oaklander, 2014). External drivers, such as subjective workplace norms, whether explicitly or implicitly communicated, can be influenced by the framing of narratives and the behaviour of supervisors and colleagues in the workplace, relating specifically to email response times and after-work availability (Barber & Santuzzi, 2015). Oaklander (2014) has also observed that although workers do not like being tele-pressured, they do like to telepressure others, as doing so ensures that others help them to achieve their work objectives faster.
In contrast, Grawitch et al. (2018) found that the internal drivers of “neuroticism, workaholism and self-control” (p. 317) contributed almost twice the amount of telepressure than external work demands. Workaholism’s strong association with workplace telepressure is linked to perceived personal availability, the innate desire to work excessively hard and complete work tasks, suggesting that this pressure is self-, rather than other-imposed (Grawitch et al., 2018).
Barber and Santuzzi (2015) originally developed the workplace telepressure concept to showcase ICT response during both work and private time. At the time, it was assumed to influence ICT responsiveness to the same degree across these two distinct realms (Grawitch et al., 2018). Grawitch et al. (2018), however, found that workplace telepressure was only associated with email behaviour during paid working hours, with little evidence of the behaviour occurring during private hours. The exception to this was where individual differences such as workaholism was present (Grawitch et al., 2018) and where excessive ICT use during private hours has been directly linked to workaholism (Schlachter et al., 2018). Subsequent work by others therefore focussed on workplace telepressure as a behaviour occurring only during working hours (Hu et al., 2019).
A strong correlation, however, was found between workplace telepressure and the inability of workers to psychologically detach from work after hours, resulting in workers engaging in boundary crossing behaviours, such as responding to work-related text-messages during private time (Barber et al., 2019; Barber & Santuzzi, 2015; Hu et al., 2019; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007, 2015). Linked to this, Sonnentag and Fritz (2007) also found that increased workload and time pressure, both actual and perceived, made it difficult for employees to psychologically detach and switch off from work and ICT related workplace demands during private hours. Grawitch et al. (2018) concurred, but found no direct correlation between workplace telepressure and work-life balance, but instead found that individual differences and job demands were more strongly associated with boundary crossing and work-life balance.
Gender Differences in Preferences and Perceptions
The perceived gender roles of men and women in dual income households has evolved substantially since the turn of the century (Bianchi & Milkie, 2010). Within the first decade, family dynamics diverged more away from the two parent, two child families (Bianchi & Milkie, 2010). More women were entering the workforce who had either child or elder care responsibilities (Bergen & Bressler, 2019). More dual-earner and single parent households have resulted in more adults being employed with less flexibility to fulfil home demands and child care requirements (Bianchi & Milkie, 2010; Kim et al., 2020). Despite the rising trend of working fathers helping out in childcare and household responsibilities in the past few decades, the majority of childcare and unpaid work in the home still falls to the mother (A. Adams & Golsch, 2020; Bianchi & Milkie, 2010; Lyonette & Crompton, 2015). Having taken on greater financial responsibilities women have, however, tended to reduce the number of domestic duties they perform (Bianchi & Milkie, 2010). Although men have increased their household and childcare responsibilities by an extra 6 hours a week, this does not compensate for the reduced female hours (Bianchi & Milkie, 2010). The remaining household and childcare requirements have had to be outsourced to professionals or are not being done at all (Craig, 2006).
Even though men have taken on more childcare and domestic responsibilities in recent decades, the time and level of engagement required to fulfil of these responsibilities differs across genders (A. Adams & Golsch, 2020; Craig, 2006; Lyonette & Crompton, 2015). Mothers still engage in more domestic and childcare work than men (A. Adams & Golsch, 2020; Lyonette & Crompton, 2015), spending two to three times longer with their children than fathers do (Craig, 2006). They tend to shoulder the burden of managing the absolute and physical responsibilities around childcare, which are often rigid and timebound elements such as meals, bath times, bedtimes, transport to and from school and extra-curricular activities (Craig, 2006). According to Craig (2006), “mothering involves more double-activity, more physical labour, a more rigid timetable, and even more overall responsibility than fathering” (p. 276). Fathers spend more time in passive childcare involving play and chatter with their children, making paternal care a lot more fun, more ‘time-discretionary’ and less like work than maternal care (Craig, 2006). They are also more likely to participate in the more visible household tasks such as cooking and shopping (Lyonette & Crompton, 2015). Although in general women carry out more housework than men, Lyonette and Crompton (2015) found that for those households where the female partner was either earning more or working longer hours, the male partner tended to carry out more domestic duties and take up additional household responsibilities.
Both female and male genders have found that telework in private time increases stress and fatigue, as higher job demands often requires extended work beyond normal working hours (Kim et al., 2020). Berkowsky (2013) found that there was no difference in gender when considering the negative spill-over of work into home life, and Schmoll (2019)found no gender difference in workers’ intentions to use ICT during private hours. However, Kim et al. (2020) reported that females experienced more stress and WFC when they engaged in remote or after hours telework, even though they also reported greater job satisfaction from flexible working practices. Hammer et al. (2005) also found this and surmised that it was due to flexible work arrangements allowing women from dual-earner households to take on more caregiving and household chores, rather than them using flexitime as an opportunity to catch-up on sleep or engage in more leisure time. Nevin and Schieman (2020) and Shockley et al. (2017) also found that women experienced higher levels of WFC (due to occupying two distinct roles) and higher levels of guilt and distress when working during private hours, whatever their age or generational category. This does not seem to be the case with men, even though men did report a slightly higher time-based WFC (Shockley et al., 2017) and those who do not conform to traditional norms also feel guilt for not spending enough time with their children (A. Adams & Golsch, 2020). Shockley et al. (2017)conclude that there is little evidence for any substantial difference between gender and WFC and that, theoretically, men should experience greater levels of WFC due to their longer working hours and weaker family boundaries than women. They surmise that the rationale for the perceptions around gender specific WFC perceptions is that traditionally men and women occupied one specific role; men as financial provider, women as nurturer (Shockley et al., 2017).
Personality Type
Our personality type plays a role in how we ‘do work’ and how we manage remote working.
- Along with Introverts (who tend to get their energy from being alone), Conscientious types are also better able to manage remote and hybrid working long-term and are more likely to be efficient and productive
- Introverts are less likely to want to return to the office full-time because constant office interaction, especially in open-plan offices, is exhausting work for them
- Extroverts, however, find remote working more difficult. They tend to need regular human contact and engagement with others to drive their energy levels up. They tend to get lonely and bored when working alone. They are therefore more likely to distract themselves by setting up more online meetings, engaging in more email and messaging apps and clicking on dodgy spam emails and text links, thereby substantially reducing productivity levels. They are also more likely to return to the office full-time and view remote work as unproductive and inefficient.
Although personality factors are only moderately correlated to workplace telepressure, there are some nuances in personality factors associated with telepressure and telework (Barber & Santuzzi, 2015). Those higher in public self-consciousness and low in self-control were more likely to experience workplace telepressure whereas those higher in extroversion and conscientiousness are less likely to experience telepressure (Barber & Santuzzi, 2015). Workers who lack internal self-control and self-discipline also find it difficult to segment their work and life realms (Köffer et al., 2015).
Those who are more conscientious, being more disciplined and more able to stick to a work schedule, are more likely to work more efficiently in engaging with homebased telework (Demerouti et al., 2010). Openness to new experiences, including adapting to new ways of working such as telework, can translate into these workers being more engaged and better able to adapt to any changes in working practices (Demerouti et al., 2010). Those high in neuroticism find the use of work-based ICT in private time to be a predictor of emotional exhaustion (Thörel et al., 2020).
When it comes to ICT use, extroverts are more likely to engage in writing and receiving text messages (Ünal et al., 2016). They spend more time making and receiving calls and spend more time using applications related to office use, their calendar, finance, social networking, music, video and games (Ünal et al., 2016). Extroversion was found to be negatively related to productivity (Ünal et al., 2016). Extroverts are more likely to feel burdened by workplace telepressure – having to respond quickly to both private and work-based ICT (Barber & Santuzzi, 2015). They may also find remote work to be more stressful, as they are more likely to miss having face-to-face contact with colleagues (Demerouti et al., 2010) which by implication would be much better suited to introverts.
It can be surmised that several bespoke individual characteristics can play a part in how workers engage with both professional and personal ICT. These individual characteristics, in combination with current and evolving workplace norms, will determine the segmentation strategies the worker chooses to adopt and the boundary blurring behaviour they engage in. These segmentation strategies and boundary blurring behaviour are discussed below.
Self-Evaluation Traits: Generalised and Computer Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is a person’s belief in their own ability to perform successfully in any situation whilst dealing with, and solving, life’s difficult problems (Cobb-Clark, 2015; Pejtersen et al., 2010). Self-efficacy, self-esteem (the appraisal of self-worth) and emotional stability (the propensity to remain calm) together form the basis of Self-Evaluation Theory (Galvin et al., 2018; Johnson et al., 2015). Self-Evaluation Theory suggests that people tend to act in a way that expresses how they evaluate themselves, and in turn, how they evaluate and compare their own actions versus those of people they spend a lot of time with (Tesser, 1985). It also posits that individuals are relatively consistent in how they evaluate their own abilities, their experiences and their work environment, whether that view is positive or negative (Galvin et al., 2018). These core self-evaluation traits are considered to be “the most basic evaluations that people hold, which spill over to influence all other beliefs and evaluations” (Johnson et al., 2015, p. 1569).
These three core self-evaluation traits are closely tied to the individual trait of locus of control (Bandura, 1982). Two of these traits, self-efficacy and locus of control (the perceived ability to control external environmental factors), together constitute a person’s perceived behavioural control (Ajzen, 2002; Cobb-Clark, 2015), which forms part of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 2002). The Theory of Planned Behaviour has three distinct elements – the belief around the consequences of behaviour, the belief in the normative expectations of others and the belief in the existence of elements that either diminish or improve behaviour or ability to perform (Ajzen, 2002). Perceived behavioural control is based on the perceived ability to control these elements or factors, thereby giving a person some ability to manage performance and outcomes (Ajzen, 2002). Self-efficacy is related to the internal ability to control factors or situations and locus of control the perceived ability to control external environmental factors (Ajzen, 2002; Cobb-Clark, 2015). Those who have an internal locus of control perceive that they have the ability to control their own future, whereas those with an external locus of control believe that external, environmental forces are the elements that directly impact on their future (Galvin et al., 2018; Spector, 1988). Cobb-Clark (2015) makes the additional point that the combination of these two traits has a direct impact on a person’s ability to apply self-control and solve behaviour problems when considering the trade-off between short-term actions and long-term consequences.
Those with a strong internal locus of control, who have high core self-evaluation traits, are more likely to perceive they have autonomy and control within their role within a work environment (Johnson et al., 2015; Spector, 1988). They have greater ability to manage their personal resources (Meier et al., 2008) and are more likely to say ‘no’ to workplace telepressure (Higgins & Duxbury, 2005), having stronger perceived control over their ability to resist external pressure (Schmoll, 2019). This can help them manage overall workplace related stress (Schmoll, 2019). These workers are less likely to report being stressed (Galvin et al., 2018) and more likely to experience high job satisfaction (Johnson et al., 2015). This could be due to the problem-focussed, behavioural coping strategies that those with strong internal locus of control are more likely to adopt when handling stress (Galvin et al., 2018). Conversely, those with a strong external locus of control are more likely to see themselves as victims of current and future circumstances, playing a passive role in future events and the outcomes they will achieve (Galvin et al., 2018).
Those who are high in the self-efficacy trait, are more optimistic about their ability to cope with and manage life’s many stressors (Schwarzer et al., 1999). The beliefs people hold around their own self-efficacy are “developed based on four sources of information: previous experience, observation of other’s experiences, verbal persuasion, and affective arousal” (p. 3) and are related directly to their previous behaviour and how well they have performed in the past (Barbeite & Weiss, 2004). Self-efficacy has also been shown to have a strong link to detachment strategies. Clauss et al. (2020) found that workers with higher self-efficacy are more likely to psychologically detachment from, and less likely to worry about, work during private hours. For those that did monitor emails during private hours, Becker et al. (2018) found that doing so affected their work self-efficacy through their overinvestment of attention in ICT and inability to therefore adequately fulfil private roles – which facilitated negative thoughts, leading to stress and anxiety.
Computer self-efficacy, a specific type of self-efficacy, is a worker’s belief in their own capabilities in computers, that has a “significant influence on individual’s expectation of the outcomes of using computers, their emotional reaction to computers (affect and anxiety), as well as their actual computer use” (Compeau & Higgins, 1995, p. 189). ICT is a rapidly evolving medium, requiring constant adaptation to and familiarisation with new innovation, technology, platforms and software upgrades (Mesquita et al., 2020; Schlachter et al., 2018). Along with these innovations, many companies often embrace new technologies and software so as to streamline and optimise productivity, capacity and team functioning. Email is no longer the only form of computer mediated communication that can impact on employee stress, as there is often a need to use multiple media channels, that can be both distracting and have an impact on overall concentration levels (Braukmann et al., 2018). These multimedia channels can also include instant messaging and audio-visual conferencing (Stich et al., 2017). This compounded innovation and digitisation require those working with, and alongside, technology to engage in continual personal and technological competency development, adapting working practices to embrace and engage with ongoing innovations and improvements.
Those with limited confidence in their computational ability may experience low performance on computer-based tasks (Barbeite & Weiss, 2004). Not having the digital competencies required to perform a job function can become a barrier for those already in the marketplace, not just for those hoping to enter it (Mesquita et al., 2020). Inappropriate levels of technical and IT resource support can also lead to a worker experiencing low levels of job satisfaction (Allen et al., 2015). Even for those employees familiar with ICT, having to use media that is not appropriate to the task when communicating with others, or having to use technology that their co-worker prefers to use or that they are reluctant to use can lead to heightened feelings of frustration (Stich et al., 2017).
Age, Life-stage, Family Status and Generational Impact
There is a long-standing workplace narrative that younger generations are better at technology than older generations. This is no longer true. The so-called ‘Digital Natives’ are now moving into middle and senior management positions.
Additionally, although younger generations are more confident with social technology, they are less knowledgeable about business technology.
Where younger generations have an advantage over the older generations is that their overall higher tech confidence (i.e. digital self-efficacy) makes them more likely to learn new technology quickly.
Digital Intelligence is of greater value now than generational differences.
Those seemingly most affected by ICT related stress, burnout and mental health issues are middle-aged employees between 35-45 years old (Berg-Beckhoff et al., 2017). As stress tends to dissipate in older age ranges, the assumption is made that stress is often due to the middle-aged group being most likely to be juggling both a young family and career progression concerns (Berg-Beckhoff et al., 2017). This middle-aged lifespan, however, falls across two theoretical generations: Millennials, currently aged 20-40 years old and Generation-X, currently aged 40-55 years old (Clark, 2017)and does not consider the variances in responsibilities and commitments required by working parents with children of different ages. Allen and Finkelstein (2014) found that the greatest level of work interference with family life, amongst dual income households, occurs for families with children under the age of 5 and only starts declining when the youngest child is between 6-12 years old. They also point out that older workers are less likely to encounter negative work spill-over into family life, and surmised that this was due to their changes in temperament and becoming less swayed by work stressors as they age (Allen & Finkelstein, 2014).
Although women are more likely to juggle work around the demands of their family, the extent to which they do so varies across family stage (Allen & Finkelstein, 2014). Both male and female genders tend to engage with, and are motivated by, work at different life stages, depending on their family responsibilities (Allen & Finkelstein, 2014). With the ebb and flow of family life and variance in children’s ages, peak periods of work interference for men and women differ based on family responsibility across the family life span (Allen & Finkelstein, 2014). For example, during teen years fathers are more likely to feel greater interference as children become more independent, autonomous and require greater involvement from parents in ferrying them from one activity to another (Allen & Finkelstein, 2014).
Working Parents Have a Tougher Gig
Hybrid working is, on average, a better option for working parents. Remote working gives them the opportunity to manage both work and home responsibilities more effectively, especially when given the option to work flexibly and chunk their day into home and work slots.
However, there still remains some interesting diametrically opposing gender expectations and biases that working parents have to juggle:
- For fathers, societal shifts encourage them to engage more in family life – which many want to do. Company expectations, however, still see fathers as the primary breadwinner, showing dedication to their families and employers by working longer hours. Heading home early is interpreted as not being a team player and means they are often overlooked when it comes to promotions and training opportunities. Hybrid work allows fathers to juggle both roles more successfully
- Working mothers may either not return to the workplace or face their own set of biases if they do. Working only contracted hours is interpreted as lower productivity, being less of a team player and not aligning with personal goals with team goals. If they, however, spend longer in the office, they are viewed as cold, heartless and not a very good mother.
Contrary to this workplace bias, research shows that mothers are particularly good at focusing and separating out their work and home time. They have to be fully present in each area of responsibility and are, as a result, actually more productive with their shorter working hours or work time than any other type of employee – regardless of gender, relationship status and number of hours worked. This was as true before Covid as it has been since then.
The Implications of Overwork
Stress and anxiety are often directly associated with overwork and heightened demands in a role. We will often embrace these factors as outliers of a strain on mental health.
But, we don’t often talk about how job stress and overwork impact us in the area of burnout – the end result of extended periods of job-related stress and anxiety.
In early 2023, Dr Rangan Chatterjee posted a video specifically on the effects of burnout – on the emotions, the mind and the body. It is worth a watch.
What other research has pointed out is that we don’t know we are on the road to burnout, until we burn out.
When we are spending excessive time and focus on ensuring we don’t drop the ball at work, the first thing we sacrifice is our free/play time and time with friends. The next thing to go is how much time we spend sleeping and looking after ourselves. Both of these we rationalise as necessary and short-lived ‘just to get through this bit’.
The final thing to be sacrificed before we burn out is time with family. This is the final sign that we are heading rapidly towards burnout, and need to reassess how we are balancing our work, home and play lives.
The signs of burnout:
Emotional Exhaustion
- Getting annoyed by small requests
- Becoming more cynical and judgemental about things
- Having mini-outbursts of anger at home
Mental Exhaustion
- Noticing a lower performance at work – which shows up as a lack of creativity
- Sensing an inability to gain pleasure from simple everyday things that previously sparked enjoyment
- Engaging in procrastination – going over the same thing repeatedly and an inability to make decisions
Physical Exhaustion
- Feeling physically tired – no get-up and go
- Noticing that self-care starts to disappear – not eating well, comfort eating, neglecting good food choices and personal hygiene
- Reducing overall moving and reducing activities that get blood pumping through the body
