IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mod/depeco/0165.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Understanding the stressful implications of remote e-working: Evidence from Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Ylenia Curzi
  • Barbara Pistoresi
  • Tommaso Fabbri

Abstract

This paper investigate 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, that is 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 eworkers 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, demanding to managing complex relationships with a high number of different interest groups and thus more uncertain. At the same time, we do not find that autonomy increases work intensification, neither among mobile e-workers, nor among home-based eworkers (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 is based on the JD-C and JD-R frameworks or other approaches that like the former ambiguously define autonomy in terms of what should be more properly conceptualized as discretion.

Suggested Citation

  • Ylenia Curzi & Barbara Pistoresi & Tommaso Fabbri, 2020. "Understanding the stressful implications of remote e-working: Evidence from Europe," Department of Economics 0165, University of Modena and Reggio E., Faculty of Economics "Marco Biagi".
    • Handle: RePEc:mod:depeco:0165
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://155.185.68.2/wpdemb/0165.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Melissa Mazmanian & Wanda J. Orlikowski & JoAnne Yates, 2013. "The Autonomy Paradox: The Implications of Mobile Email Devices for Knowledge Professionals," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(5), pages 1337-1357, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paula Rodríguez-Modroño & Purificación López-Igual, 2021. "Job Quality and Work—Life Balance of Teleworkers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-13, March.
    2. Purificación López-Igual & Paula Rodríguez-Modroño, 2021. "Factores de desigualdad entre teletrabajadores en Europa," Revista de Economía Crítica, Asociación de Economía Crítica, vol. 31, pages 62-79.

    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. Viktoria Maria Baumeister & Leonie Petra Kuen & Maike Bruckes & Gerhard Schewe, 2021. "The Relationship of Work-Related ICT Use With Well-being, Incorporating the Role of Resources and Demands: A Meta-Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, November.
    2. Angela Garcia Calvo & Martin Kenney & John Zysman, 2023. "Understanding work in the online platform economy: the narrow, the broad, and the systemic perspectives," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 32(4), pages 795-814.
    3. Yi Sun & Shihui Li & Lingling Yu, 2022. "The dark sides of AI personal assistant: effects of service failure on user continuance intention," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(1), pages 17-39, March.
    4. Nurmi, Niina & Koroma, Johanna, 2020. "The emotional benefits and performance costs of building a psychologically safe language climate in MNCs," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 55(4).
    5. Armanda Cetrulo & Dario Guarascio & Maria Enrica Virgillito, 2020. "Anatomy of the Italian occupational structure: concentrated power and distributed knowledge," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 29(6), pages 1345-1379.
    6. Nada Endrissat & Aurélie Leclercq Vandelannoitte, 2021. "From sites to vibes: Technology and the spatial production of coworking spaces," Post-Print hal-03332209, HAL.
    7. Ruthanne Huising, 2014. "The Erosion of Expert Control Through Censure Episodes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 1633-1661, December.
    8. Christian P Theurer & Andranik Tumasjan & Isabell M Welpe, 2018. "Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-35, October.
    9. Andrea Salvatori & Seetha Menon & Wouter Zwysen, 2018. "The effect of computer use on job quality: Evidence from Europe," OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 200, OECD Publishing.
    10. Ferdinando Paolo Santarpia & Laura Borgogni & Chiara Consiglio & Pietro Menatta, 2021. "The Bright and Dark Sides of Resources for Cross-Role Interrupting Behaviors and Work–Family Conflict: Preliminary Multigroup Findings on Remote and Traditional Working," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-20, November.
    11. Giurge, Laura M. & Bohns, Vanessa K., 2021. "You don’t need to answer right away! Receivers overestimate how quickly senders expect responses to non-urgent work emails," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 114-128.
    12. M. Lynne Markus & Frantz Rowe, 2018. "Is IT changing the world?," Post-Print hal-03716243, HAL.
    13. Zhuofei Lu & Senhu Wang & Wendy Olsen, 2023. "Revisiting the ‘flexibility paradox’: degree of work schedule flexibility and time use patterns across gender and occupational groups," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    14. Reinhardt, Ronny & Gurtner, Sebastian, 2018. "The overlooked role of embeddedness in disruptive innovation theory," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 268-283.
    15. Yasuhiro Kotera & Katia Correa Vione, 2020. "Psychological Impacts of the New Ways of Working (NWW): A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-13, July.
    16. Matt Beane & Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2015. "What Difference Does a Robot Make? The Material Enactment of Distributed Coordination," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1553-1573, December.
    17. Bertschek, Irene & Niebel, Thomas, 2016. "Mobile and more productive? Firm-level evidence on the productivity effects of mobile internet use," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 888-898.
    18. Mohamed Ali Ben Halima & Nathalie Greenan & Joseph Lanfranchi, 2021. "Organisational changes and long-term sickness absence and injury leave: a difference in difference approach," TEPP Working Paper 2021-05, TEPP.
    19. Dittes, Sven & Richter, Shahper & Richter, Alexander & Smolnik, Stefan, 2019. "Toward the workplace of the future: How organizations can facilitate digital work," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 62(5), pages 649-661.
    20. Ylenia Curzi & Tommaso Fabbri & Barbara Pistoresi, 2021. "The Stressful Implications of Remote E-Working: Evidence from Europe," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 15(7), pages 108-108, July.

    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:mod:depeco:0165. 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: Sara Colombini (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/demodit.html .

    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.