“Technology is killing me!”: the moderating effect of organization home-work interface on the linkage between technostress and stress at work

Abstract

Purpose The fear of the pandemic, confinement at home and the need to work created a unique situation. The pandemic catalyzed work-from-anywhere practice by adopting information and communication technologies (ICT) across all industries. While ICT saved organizations, it increased technostress among the workforce. A better understanding of the adverse effects of ICT usage might enable organizations to manage the mental well-being of the workforce. While technostress is gaining increasing interest, scholarly work investigating the dimensions of technostress and its impact on creating stress across various employee demographics and industry types is missing. Contrary to the prevalent assumptions, the authors theorized and tested the adverse moderation effect of the home-work interface on the linkage between technostress dimensions and stress. This paper aims to discuss the aforementioned objective. Design/methodology/approach The study captures dimensions of technostress and the resulting stress at work using a survey-based analysis of 881 working employees in India, representing multiple industries and functions. Findings The study indicates that techno-overload, techno-complexity and techno-invasion significantly impact employees during the pandemic. The authors further found that the home-work-interface is a powerful factor in understanding the complex linkage between dimensions of technostress and its outcomes. Research limitations/implications Based on the Conservation of Resources Theory and the Job-Demand-Resources model, this study highlights the adverse impact of this trend on employee well-being. However, the study suffers from a cross-sectional research design. The technostress research has focused primarily on static, at-premise environments and mostly on high ICT usage industries. Due to the pandemic, it has neglected the impact of various technostress dimensions across employee cohorts subjected to rapid technology-enabled working. Further, most studies focus on the voluntary choice of remote work. Employees struggle with the unexpected and involuntary shift to technology-enabled remote work. This study contributes to the literature by examining the consequences of technostress in the context of non-voluntary remote work. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, this study highlights the adverse effect of organizational home-work interface in influencing ICT-created stress. Practical implications The increasing use of ICT enables telecommuting across the workforce while increasing organizational productivity. Due to the pandemic, these trends will likely change the future of work permanently. To minimize employee stress, practitioners need to reconsider the dimensions of technostress. Further, the study cautions against the prevalent interventions used by practitioners. While practitioners facilitate a home-work interface, it could have adverse consequences. Practitioners may consider the adverse consequences of home-work interface while designing organizational policies. Social implications This study during the pandemic is crucial as research forecasts the likelihood of other cataclysmic events, such as future pandemics and political or climate change events, which may sustain technology-driven remote work practices and remain a feature of the future workplace. Hence understanding the implications of the dimensions of technostress would help organizations and policymakers to implement necessary interventions to minimize employee stress. Originality/value The present study examines the dimensions of technostress across multiple industries and job functions in an emerging market marked by a high economic growth rate and an Eastern cultural context. This study presents the dark side of excessive ICT adoption and indicates how organizations and HRM practices can help mitigate some of these effects.

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 — 50 citations exist upstream.

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