IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ecoind/v46y2025i3p851-873.html

Exploring the delicate relation between technological innovations and work quality: A study among civil servants

Author

Listed:
  • Maria C. W. Peeters
  • Jan Fekke Ybema
  • Pascale M. Le Blanc
  • Judith Plomp

Abstract

This study explores the delicate relation between technological innovations and work quality. It was conducted across various parts of the Dutch central government. The authors assessed how civil servants perceive changes in job demands, job resources and some relevant outcomes following the implementation of new technologies. Data were collected through an online Technology Monitor (TM) which was (at least partly) completed by 332 respondents. Results showed that employees perceived significant increases in various job demands, alongside a modest increase in the job resource autonomy after technology implementation. Additionally, civil servants who experienced more autonomy following new technology implementation reported higher levels of both work engagement and employability. In contrast, perceptions of increased workload were associated with more burnout symptoms. Interestingly, perceived increases in task variation were associated with fewer burnout symptoms, lower job insecurity and higher work engagement. These findings offer valuable insights for managers and HR professionals involved in managing technological transitions, emphasizing the importance of employee-centered strategies to safeguard and enhance the quality of work of civil servants.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria C. W. Peeters & Jan Fekke Ybema & Pascale M. Le Blanc & Judith Plomp, 2025. "Exploring the delicate relation between technological innovations and work quality: A study among civil servants," Economic and Industrial Democracy, Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden, vol. 46(3), pages 851-873, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ecoind:v:46:y:2025:i:3:p:851-873
    DOI: 10.1177/0143831X251347151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0143831X251347151
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0143831X251347151?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brougham, David & Haar, Jarrod, 2018. "Smart Technology, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Algorithms (STARA): Employees’ perceptions of our future workplace," Journal of Management & Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 239-257, March.
    2. Katherine C. Kellogg & Wanda J. Orlikowski & JoAnne Yates, 2006. "Life in the Trading Zone: Structuring Coordination Across Boundaries in Postbureaucratic Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 22-44, February.
    3. Ignacio González Vázquez & Maurizio Curtarelli & Ioannis Anyfantis & Emmanuelle Brun & Annick Starren, 2024. "Digitalisation and workers wellbeing: The impact of digital technologies on work-related psychosocial risks," JRC Working Papers on Labour, Education and Technology 2024-03, Joint Research Centre.
    4. Stephen R. Barley & Gideon Kunda, 2001. "Bringing Work Back In," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 76-95, February.
    5. Karl E. Weick & Kathleen M. Sutcliffe & David Obstfeld, 2005. "Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 409-421, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel Geiger & Jochen Koch, 2008. "Von der individuellen Routine zur organisationalen Praktik — Ein neues Paradigma für die Organisationsforschung?," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 60(7), pages 693-712, November.
    2. Janssen, M. & Stoopendaal, A.M.V. & Putters, K., 2015. "Situated novelty: Introducing a process perspective on the study of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1974-1984.
    3. Tim Williams & Melissa Edwards & Tamsin Angus-Leppan & Suzanne Benn, 2021. "Making sense of sustainability work: A narrative approach," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 46(4), pages 740-760, November.
    4. Annika Härenstam & Anders Pousette & Erik Berntson, 2022. "Improving organizational and working conditions for managers in the Swedish public sector: A conceptual model and evaluation of interventions," Economic and Industrial Democracy, Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden, vol. 43(1), pages 72-97, February.
    5. Teres Hjärpe, 2025. "Child Protection and the Municipal Budget: Interaction and Sensemaking Over a Welfare Dilemma," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 13.
    6. Davina Allen & Carl May, 2017. "Organizing Practice and Practicing Organization: An Outline of Translational Mobilization Theory," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, June.
    7. Mark Dodgson & David M. Gann & Ammon Salter, 2007. "“In Case of Fire, Please Use the Elevator”: Simulation Technology and Organization in Fire Engineering," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5), pages 849-864, October.
    8. Dusya Vera & Mary Crossan & Claus Rerup & Steve Werner, 2014. "‘Thinking Before Acting’ or ‘Acting Before Thinking’: Antecedents of Individual Action Propensity in Work Situations," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 603-633, June.
    9. Sarah Kaplan & Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2013. "Temporal Work in Strategy Making," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 965-995, August.
    10. Victor P. Seidel & Siobhán O’Mahony, 2014. "Managing the Repertoire: Stories, Metaphors, Prototypes, and Concept Coherence in Product Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 691-712, June.
    11. Hatim A. Rahman & Melissa A. Valentine, 2021. "How Managers Maintain Control Through Collaborative Repair: Evidence from Platform-Mediated “Gigs”," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 1300-1326, September.
    12. Carlos Martin-Rios, 2016. "Innovative management control systems in knowledge work: a middle manager perspective," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 181-204, May.
    13. Verena Brinks, 2016. "Situated affect and collective meaning: A community perspective on processes of value creation and commercialization in enthusiast-driven fields," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 48(6), pages 1152-1169, June.
    14. Stefan Gröschl & Patricia Gabaldón & Tobias Hahn, 2019. "The Co-evolution of Leaders’ Cognitive Complexity and Corporate Sustainability: The Case of the CEO of Puma," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 741-762, March.
    15. Elena Antonacopoulou, 2018. "Energising critique in action and in learning: The GNOSIS 4R Framework," Action Learning: Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 102-125, May.
    16. Kertcher, Zack & Venkatraman, Rohan & Coslor, Erica, 2020. "Pleasingly parallel: Early cross-disciplinary work for innovation diffusion across boundaries in grid computing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 581-594.
    17. Eeman Almokdad & Chung Hun Lee, 2024. "Service Robots in the Workplace: Fostering Sustainable Collaboration by Alleviating Perceived Burdensomeness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-17, November.
    18. Guiette, Alain & Vandenbempt, Koen, 2017. "Change managerialism and micro-processes of sensemaking during change implementation," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 65-81.
    19. Pandza, Krsto & Ellwood, Paul, 2013. "Strategic and ethical foundations for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1112-1125.
    20. Martina Linnenluecke & Andrew Griffiths & Peter Mumby, 2015. "Executives’ engagement with climate science and perceived need for business adaptation to climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 321-333, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ecoind:v:46:y:2025:i:3:p:851-873. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ekhist.uu.se/english.htm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.