Moderating role of location autonomy on technostress and subjective wellbeing in information technology companies
-
Author(s)Pallavi DattaLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3524-039X
,
Sathiyaseelan BalasundaramLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9593-871X
,
Sridevi NairLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1529-4297
,
Rekha AranhaLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5853-6698
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(2).2024.48
-
Article InfoVolume 22 2024, Issue #2, pp. 615-626
- 292 Views
-
96 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Integrating digital tools into day-to-day work activities has become an undeniable reality. However, the unprecedented reliance on technology has brought with it the escalating degrees of technostress evident through health concerns like chronic musculoskeletal problems and decreased job satisfaction. And the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the negative impact, as IT industries adopted the hybrid workplace approach, especially in developing countries like India. This paper aims to find whether location autonomy moderates the effect of technostress on subjective wellbeing among IT employees working in a hybrid model. A purposive sampling method gathered 440 responses from IT professionals in Bengaluru tech parks. IBM SPSS and AMOS software were used to assess the constructs by SEM analysis, in line with the job demand-control theory. The results showed that location autonomy accounts for 31.6% of the variance in subjective wellbeing, while technostress explains 33.2% of the variance, with dimensions ranging from 21% to 46%. Additionally, location autonomy moderates and strengthens the link between technostress and subjective wellbeing. The study recommends that organizational leaders adopt HR policies that allow employees to choose their workplace rather than mandating a specific location for scheduled days in the week. This approach can potentially improve overall employee wellbeing, offering a favorable resolution to the challenges posed by technostress in the IT industry.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)D23, M12, M14
-
References65
-
Tables7
-
Figures1
-
- Figure 1. Conceptual framework
-
- Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the sample
- Table 2. Descriptive statistics
- Table 3. KMO and Bartlett’s test
- Table 4. Model fit (n = 440)
- Table 5. Construct validity measures
- Table 6. Reliability statistics
- Table 7. Analysis of hypothesized relationships with PLS path algorithm
-
- Alagarsamy, S., Sugirthan, N., Mehrolia, S., & Elangovan, N. (2022). Translation and validation of the Tamil version of depression anxiety stress scales-21. Journal of Affective Disorders Reports, 10.
- Allvin, M., Aronsson, G., Hagström, T., Johansson, G., & Lundberg, U. (2011). Work without boundaries: Psychological perspectives on the new working life. Wiley-Blackwell.
- Baruah, A. (2022). 80% of IT companies, GCCs likely to adopt hybrid work model: Report. Mint.
- Beheshti, N. (2022). New Gallup workplace report says employee stress is at an all-time high. Forbes.
- Berger, R., Czakert, J. P., Leuteritz, J.-P., & Leiva, D. (2019). How and when do leaders influence employees’ well-being? Moderated mediation models for job demands and resources. Frontiers in Psychology, 10.
- Bloom, N. N. B. (2021). Don’t let employees pick their WFH days. Harvard Business Review.
- Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6.
- Borle, P., Reichel, K., Niebuhr, F., & Voelter-Mahlknecht, S. (2021). How are techno-stressors associated with mental health and work outcomes? A systematic review of occupational exposure to information and communication technologies within the technostress model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(16).
- Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford publications.
- Camacho, S., & Barrios, A. (2022). Teleworking and technostress: Early consequences of a COVID-19 lockdown. Cognition, Technology Work, 24(3), 441-457.
- Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., Bywaters, D., & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 652-661.
- Christ-Brendemühl, S., & Schaarschmidt, M. (2020). The impact of service employees’ technostress on customer satisfaction and delight: A dyadic analysis. Journal of Business Research, 117, 378-388.
- Clausen, T., Pedersen, L. R. M., Andersen, M. F., Theorell, T., & Madsen, I. E. H. (2021). Job autonomy and psychological well-being: A linear or a non-linear association? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31(3), 395-405.
- Cowan, R., & Hoffman, M. F. (2007). The flexible organization: How contemporary employees construct the work/life border. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 8(1), 37-44.
- Datta, P., Balasundaram, S., Aranha, R. H., & Chandran, V. (2023). The paradox of workplace flexibility: Navigating through the case of Career Pandit. Emerald Emerging Markets Case Studies, 13(2), 1-33.
- De-Juanas, A., Bernal Romero, T., & Goig, R. (2020). The relationship between psychological well-being and autonomy in young people according to age. Frontiers in Psychology, 11.
- DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
- DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications (5th ed.). SAGE publications.
- Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276-302.
- Estrada-Muñoz, C., Vega-Muñoz, A., Boada-Grau, J., Castillo, D., Müller-Pérez, S., & Contreras-Barraza, N. (2022). Impact of techno-creators and techno-inhibitors on techno-stress manifestations in chilean kindergarten directors in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and teleworking. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
- Fisher, J., Silverglate, P. H., Bordeaux, C., & Gilmartin, M. (2023, June 20). As workforce well-being dips, leaders ask: What will it take to move the needle? Deloitte.
- Flecker, J., Fibich, T., & Kraemer, K. (2017). Socio-Economic Changes and the Reorganization of Work. In Job Demands in a Changing World of Work: Impact on Workers’ Health and Performance and Implications for Research and Practice (pp. 7-19). Springer.
- Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39.
- Fuglseth, A. M., & Sørebø, Ø. (2014). The effects of technostress within the context of employee use of ICT. Computers in Human Behavior, 40, 161-170.
- Future Forum. (2022). Future forum pulse summer snapshot 2022.
- Ghasemi, A., & Zahediasl, S. (2012). Normality tests for statistical analysis: A guide for non-statisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 10(2), 486-489.
- Gunawan, J., Aungsuroch, Y., Fisher, M. L., McDaniel, A. M., & Lu, Y. (2021). Competence-based human resource management to improve managerial competence of first-line nurse managers: A scale development. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 28(1).
- Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis: Pearson new international edition. Essex: Pearson Education Limited, 1(2).
- Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook. Springer Nature.
- Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis.
- Jeffrey Hill, E., Grzywacz, J. G., Allen, S., Blanchard, V. L., Matz-Costa, C., Shulkin, S., & Pitt-Catsouphes, M. (2008). Defining and conceptualizing workplace flexibility. Community, Work & Family, 11(2), 149-163.
- Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285.
- Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (5th ed.). Guilford Publications.
- Korunka, C., & Kubicek, B. (2018). Job demands in a changing world of work: Impact on workers’ health and performance and implications for research and practice. Springer Cham.
- Krishnan, T. N., & Poulose, S. (2016). Response rate in industrial surveys conducted in India: Trends and implications. IIMB Management Review, 28(2), 58.
- Lee, V., Albaum, C., Tablon Modica, P., Ahmad, F., Gorter, J. W., Khanlou, N., McMorris, C., Lai, J., Harrison, C., Hedley, T., Johnston, P., Putterman, C., Spoelstra, M., & Weiss, J. A. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on the mental health and wellbeing of caregivers of autistic children and youth: A scoping review. Autism Research, 14(12), 2477-2494.
- Maier, C., Laumer, S., Weinert, C., & Weitzel, T. (2015). The effects of technostress and switching stress on discontinued use of social networking services: A study of Facebook use. Information Systems Journal, 25(3), 275-308.
- Malik, P., & Garg, P. (2017). The relationship between learning culture, inquiry and dialogue, knowledge sharing structure and affective commitment to change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 30(4), 610-631.
- Melendro, M., Campos, G., Rodríguez-Bravo, A. E., & Arroyo Resino, D. (2020). Young people’s autonomy and psychological well-being in the transition to adulthood: A pathway analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 11.
- Mendoza, N. B., & Dizon, J. I. W. T. (2023). Principal autonomy-support buffers the effect of stress on teachers’ positive well-being: A cross-sectional study during the pandemic. Social Psychology of Education, 27(1), 23-45.
- Miller, S. (2022). Distinguish flexibility from autonomy in return-to-work policies. SHRM.
- Mishra, P., Gupta, A., Pandey, C., Singh, U., Sahu, C., & Keshri, A. (2019). Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data. Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia, 22(1), 67.
- Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321-1339.
- Shadbad, N. F., & Biros, D. (2020). Technostress and its influence on employee information security policy compliance. Information Technology & People, 35(1), 119-141.
- Nisafani, A. S., Kiely, G., & Mahony, C. (2020). Workers’ technostress: A review of its causes, strains, inhibitors, and impacts. Journal of Decision Systems, 29(sup1), 243-258.
- Pfaffinger, K. F., Reif, J. A. M., & Spieß, E. (2020). When and why telepressure and technostress creators impair employee well-being. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 28(2), 958-973.
- 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.
- 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.
- Reisinger, H., & Fetterer, D. (2021). Forget flexibility. Your employees want autonomy. Harvard Business Review.
- Sardeshmukh, S., Sharma, D., & Golden, T. (2012). Impact of telework on exhaustion and job engagement: A job demands and job resources model. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2012(1).
- Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2015). Multiple-indicator multiple-cause (MIMIC) Model. In A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed., pp. 192-198). Routledge.
- Tarafdar, M., Pullins, E. B., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2014). Technostress: Negative effect on performance and possible mitigations. Information Systems Journal, 25(2), 103-132.
- Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2010). Impact of technostress on end-user satisfaction and performance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(3), 303-334.
- 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.
- Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, T. S., & Ragu-Nathan, B. S. (2011). Crossing to the dark side. Communications of the ACM, 54(9), 113-120.
- The Enterprise World. (2019). Bangalore, The IT capital of India.
- Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 227-242.
- Umair, A., Conboy, K., & Whelan, E. (2023). Examining technostress and its impact on worker well-being in the digital gig economy. Internet Research, 33(7), 206-242.
- Upadhyaya, P., & Vrinda. (2020). Impact of technostress on academic productivity of university students. Education and Information Technologies, 26(2), 1647-1664.
- Warr, P. (2009). Environmental “vitamins”, personal judgments, work values, and happiness. In The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Well Being (pp. 57-85). Oxford University Press.
- Warr, P. (1994). A conceptual framework for the study of work and mental health. Work & Stress, 8(2), 84-97.
- Whelan, E., Golden, W., & Tarafdar, M. (2022). How technostress and self-control of social networking sites affect academic achievement and wellbeing. Internet Research, 32(7), 280-306.
- Wong, M. C. S., Wong, E. L. Y., Huang, J., Cheung, A. W. L., Law, K., Chong, M. K. C., Ng, R. W. Y., Lai, C. K. C., Boon, S. S., Lau, J. T. F., Chen, Z., & Chan, P. K. S. (2021). Acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine based on the health belief model: A population-based survey in Hong Kong. Vaccine, 39(7), 1148-1156.
- Yang, E., Kim, Y., & Hong, S. (2021). Does working from home work? Experience of working from home and the value of hybrid workplace post-COVID-19. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 25(1), 50-76.
- Yang, S., Chen, L., & Bi, X. (2023). Overtime work, job autonomy, and employees’ subjective well-being: Evidence from China. Frontiers in Public Health, 11.
-
The impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the Indian stock market – A sectoral analysis
Rahul Kumar ,
Prince Bhatia ,
Deeksha Gupta
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.18(3).2021.28
Investment Management and Financial Innovations Volume 18, 2021 Issue #3 pp. 334-346 Views: 7368 Downloads: 3489 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThis paper aims to examine the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on Indian firms listed on the NSE and analyze its impact on various sectors. In addition, a sub-sample analysis based on market capitalization was performed to understand the effect of size during extreme events. The sample consisted of 1,335 firms listed on the NSE India. A standard event study outlined by Brown and Warner (1985) was employed to analyze the price impact on the COVID-19 outbreak. The event windows from -10 days to +10 days were selected. The estimation window is 250 days. The Nifty 50 has been chosen as a proxy for market return. The sample firms witnessed a negative impact of the COVID-19 outbreak with a negative CAAR in different event windows. In addition, various sectors are classified according their responsiveness towards the COVID-19 outbreak into three groups: highly negatively affected, moderately negatively affected, and slightly negatively affected. The paper also points out that the pandemic substantially affects the above-median market capitalized firms than the below-median market capitalized firms, which contradicts the size effect phenomenon. The results assist shareholders in managing their portfolios and mitigate the systematic risk of their investments during extreme events such as a pandemic, wars, and others. This study is the first comprehensive analysis of the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on different sectors in India. It is also the first study to investigate the size effect anomalies during extreme events.
-
The impact of social distancing policy on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Indonesia
Muhtar Lutfi ,
Pricylia Chintya Dewi Buntuang ,
Yoberth Kornelius ,
Erdiyansyah ,
Bakri Hasanuddin
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(3).2020.40
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 18, 2020 Issue #3 pp. 492-503 Views: 3792 Downloads: 1363 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThis study aims to investigate the impact of social distancing policies on SMEs in Indonesia. It used a quantitative method with a survey design. Respondents were all SMEs in Indonesia that are affected by social distancing policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. It involved a total of 587 SME samples selected randomly. The data were collected through observations, questionnaires, and literature studies. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics with SPSS software to determine the mean value. The result showed that social distancing policies affect SMEs during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is indicated by the decreasing income and demand for SMEs products, and even some have no income (mean values of 2.40) due to the social distancing policies. Besides, the policy’s impact is also shown in the increasing cost of raw materials and production costs due to supply chain problems (mean values of 4.79). The policy’s impact raises anxiety for SMEs to survive so that business actors change their plans by utilizing information technology (mean values of 4.81). This change is a strategy to survive due to the impact of the applied policies. Although social distancing policies affect SMEs’ survival during the pandemic, research findings show that SMEs in Indonesia did not terminate employment (mean values of 4.37) due to the presence of economic stimulus policies that helped SMEs survive and grow during the COVID-19 pandemic.
-
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on retailer performance: empirical evidence from India
Amgad S.D. Khaled ,
Nabil Mohamed Alabsy ,
Eissa A. Al-Homaidi ,
Abdulmalek M.M. Saeed
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/im.16(4).2020.11
Innovative Marketing Volume 16, 2020 Issue #4 pp. 129-138 Views: 3464 Downloads: 5877 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThe study aims to synthesize the challenges that retailers are facing during the COVID-19 emergency. The research is definitive, informative, and based on a single design of cross-sectional research. Quantitative data based on the research instrument were produced (a questionnaire). Five hundred responses were collected from employees of major retail stores in India. Retailer performance is considered a dependent variable, whereas employee well-being, customer and brand protection, use of technology, government policies, and supply chain are used as independent variables. The current study results indicated that employee well-being and government policies have a significant positive impact on retailer performance, while customer and brand protection, use of technology, and supply chain have a significant positive impact on retailers’ performance. This study will help retailers develop strategies for their employees to protect them and understand that technology is needed in the new normal times. This study highlights the need to be flexible in executing strategic strategies, but retailers need to develop comprehensive action plans, including selecting managers of initiative and defining goals and deadlines. Provided that retailers’ current reality is different from the old normal, no time is lost in taking audacious action.
