The Interaction of Work Stressors and Organizational Sanctions on Cyberloafing

Abstract

The Internet has changed the way organizations do business by offering rapid communication and enhanced information access and distribution. Further, the Internet enables organizations to decrease expenses, reduce product cycle times, and market goods and services more efficiently (Anandarajan et al., 2000). However, along with these benefits, the Internet provides employees with a high-tech method of shirking their duties. Although employees have long found ways of shirking such as personal phone calls or trips to the water cooler, cyberloafing enables employees to avoid work duties using modern technology. Cyberloafing refers to employees' use of their employers' Internet access and email during work hours for non-work-related purposes (Lim, 2002). This can include emailing jokes, surfing non-work-related Internet sites, online shopping, instant messaging, posting to newsgroups, and downloading music. Previous research investigating cyberloafing is primarily descriptive (an exception is Lim, 2002). These studies have examined the frequency that employees engage in cyberloafing and the type of Internet site visited (Lim et al., 2002; Lim and Teo, 2005), as well as employer responses to cyberloafing such as Internet usage policies, monitoring software and filters, and discipline (e.g., Young and Case, 2004). Although description is a necessary first step when investigating a new construct, we believe it is time to move forward by investigating theoretical explanations for why employees cyberloaf. Thus, the current study proposes that employees cyberloaf to cope with certain types of workplace stressors like role ambiguity and role conflict, but not others like role overload. Further, cyberloafing will be more likely to be used as a coping method when employees perceive there are few, if any, sanctions for doing so. It is important to empirically study cyberloafing because of its prevalence and detrimental consequences. First, cyberloafing is convenient for U.S. employees as nearly 40% have Internet access at work (eMarketer, 2003). A survey by Vault.com (2000) indicates that almost 88% of respondents surf non-work-related websites during working hours, with 66% surfing anywhere between ten minutes and one hour in an average workday. Likewise, 82% of employees send non-work-related emails during work hours and nearly 87% receive them. Indeed, a recent survey found cyberloafing was the most common distraction at work (Malachowski, 2005). Although cyberloafing can have positive effects (e.g., increased creativity; Block, 2001), it has the potential to be quite costly for employers who allow this behavior to continue unchecked. Like other methods of shirking, cyberloafing may reduce productivity by as much as 30 to 40 percent and can cost companies $54 billion annually (Conlin, 2000). However, unlike other types of shirking, employees can flood computing resources with their personal use, which leads to clogged bandwidth and degraded system performance (Sipior and Ward, 2002). Cyberloafing also exposes companies to legal liability in the form of harassment (e.g., employees emailing sexist or racist jokes to co-workers), copyright infringement (e.g., employees using clipart found on the Internet without permission), defamation (e.g., disgruntled workers posting lies about a manager in a chat room), and negligent hiring (e.g., an employee with a history of violence cyberstalking a customer). In summary, we believe it is important to research the antecedents of cyberloafing in order to predict its occurrence and, thus, reduce the negative outcomes often associated with it. Below we discuss our model of cyberloafing as well as the theoretical and empirical support for it. Stressors and Cyberloafing Stress is a normal psychophysical response to demanding or taxing events in the environment (Selye, 1974). Some amount of stress is needed for normal functioning; however, if high levels of stress are experienced repeatedly, negative consequences to well-being may result (e. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 190 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.