The Stressful Implications of Remote E-Working: Evidence from Europe

Ylenia Curzi,Barbara Pistoresi,Tommaso Fabbri

doi:10.5539/ijbm.v15n7p108

Abstract

This paper investigates the importance of different modes of spatial flexibility as well as of the distinction between autonomy and discretion to find plausible explanations of the so-called autonomy paradox, which maintains that the more the job autonomy that remote e-workers have the greater the effort they put into their work with adverse effects on work-related stress. Using multiple regressions, we test the hypotheses regarding the direct influence of autonomy, discretion and work intensification as well as their interaction effects on occupational stress in two subsamples of 1.380 home-based e-workers and 2.574 mobile ones drawn from the 2015 European Working Conditions Survey. The main findings are as follows. Home-based e-workers perceive that autonomy (namely over work goals) directly decreases occupational stress and buffers work intensification (i.e. autonomy over work goals and in the organizational choices of their department/company). In the context of remote e-work, discretion is more likely to boost the stressful impact of work intensification when work is mobile. At the same time, we do not find that autonomy increases work intensification, neither among mobile e-workers, nor among home-based e-workers (for whom it buffers the adverse impact of work intensification). In summary, this study does not confirm the existence of an autonomy paradox associated with remote e-work. Contrarily, it suggests that such a paradox is more likely to surface when research relies on conceptual frameworks that ambiguously define autonomy in terms of what should be more properly conceptualized as discretion.

Highlights

This study contributes to the debate on the micro-level consequences of novel ways of organizing work enabled by digitalization, providing a quantitative, more nuanced understanding of the implications of remote e-work on individual wellbeing, namely on occupational stress
This research makes two contributions. It provides new empirical evidence on the mode of spatial flexibility as a key variable to unpack the stressful effects of remote e-work, by highlighting that the negative consequences of this work mode on occupational stress are stronger for mobile e-workers
We find that mobile e-workers experience higher levels of occupational stress compared to home-based ones and perceive a greater number of work intensification dimensions as drivers of occupational stress

Summary

Introduction

Fostered by the new opportunities enabled by digitalization, remote e-work is becoming an increasingly popular work mode in many developed countries (Charalampous, Grant, Tramontano, & Michailidis, 2018; European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions [EUROFOUND] and the International Labour Office [ILO], 2017), enabling workers to choose where, when and how to perform their daily work activities (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Gajendran, Harrison, & Delaney-Klinger, 2015).Research suggests that this may have paradoxical consequences for individual wellbeing: the more the job autonomy that remote e-workers have the greater the effort they put into their work with adverse effects on individual wellbeing (Cavazotte, Lemos, & Villadsen, 2014; Mazmanian, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2013; Kelliher & Anderson, 2010; Putnam, Myers, & Gailliard, 2014). One possible explanation for these contradictory findings is that extant studies do not distinguish between different groups of remote e-workers (Neirotti, Paolucci, & Raguseo, 2013), neglecting that perception of working conditions and consequences of remote e-work on individual wellbeing may differ depending on the kind of remote location (i.e. the mode of spatial flexibility: home vs customers’ premises, the field or public spaces) (Charalampous et al, 2018). Another possible explanation is that extant research relies on an ambiguous definition of autonomy, using it and discretion as interchangeable terms. It explores whether the direct relationships of autonomy, ijbm.ccsenet.org

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion