Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.
We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.
To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India:
CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
www.cbspd.com
|
customercare@cbspd.com
Information technology (IT) has brought a number of benefits in aiding remote work and facilitating hybrid work models. Though individuals are enjoying the benefits, hybrid work settings are characterised by ambiguity and excessive use of technology, which may result in technostress and may influence well-being negatively. Within this hybrid work model, a number of techno-stressors may impede employee efficiency and trigger anxiety. Among the stressors are techno-overload, techno-complexity, techno-unreliability, techno-uncertainty and techno-invasion. These techno-stressors may be exacerbated by other hybrid work model challenges including long working hours, consistent connectivity, emotional exhaustion, demand for higher cognitive abilities, workaholism and overload. Technostress has thus emerged as a critical issue within the realm of management, owing to its propensity to impose pronounced repercussions on employee welfare and work-life equilibrium, in ways that can significantly impact the overall efficiency of organisations. This chapter contributes and expands literature by identifying technology self-efficacy and mindfulness as coping mechanisms that can be applied by organisations to mitigate the negative consequences of techno-stressors. The recommendations offer practical value in developing, planning and implementing targeted interventions that enable individuals to cope. Practising and implementing technology self-efficacy and mindfulness strategies can protect employees from the negative consequences of technostress, enhance well-being and improve the overall performance of the organisation.
Department of Human Resource Management, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
Herbert Kanengoni
Department of Human Resource Management, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
*Address all correspondence to: martha.harunavamwe@up.ac.za
1. Introduction
A recent survey revealed that nine out of ten employees expect flexibility at work and they are ready to quit if they do not get it [1]. In response, about 77% of organisations have opted for hybrid work settings. Thus, understanding the changing working landscape and providing physical spaces that revolutionise innovation and provide the technology needed to enable the hybrid work facets have become crucial. Additionally, the proliferation of IT to facilitate hybrid work settings within organisations has resulted in significant alterations, enhancements and heightened effectiveness. Nonetheless, there exist unfavourable facets linked to the stress induced by IT [2, 3]. This phenomenon, known as ‘technostress’, denotes the stress encountered by employees due to the extended and intensive utilisation of IT. Unforeseen technology slowdowns or breakdowns, as well as unfamiliarity with software, applications and technology, can result in employee stress leading to feelings of anxiety and hopelessness in technology-dependent industries [4, 5]. The impacts of technostress are substantial, with projections indicating that its repercussions incur a financial toll exceeding 100 billion pounds annually for businesses in the United Kingdom. This stems from diminished workforce productivity, elevated rates of employee absenteeism, heightened turnover and escalated expenditures on insurance [6].
Considering the evident influence of technostress on corporate performance and its potential implications for the overarching prosperity of organisations, it becomes imperative to strategize interventions within the evolving paradigm of hybrid work settings to ameliorate the effects of technostress. Organisational mechanisms known as technostress inhibitors, such as literacy enhancement, frequent technical assistance, and engagement facilitation, have been applied commonly as strategies to effectively diminish the influence of technostress on employees [7]. However, with the shift to a hybrid work model, the problem seems to have taken a new turn and presents unique challenges [8, 9]. Only limited research has explored alternative methods of alleviating the adverse impacts of technostress within the hybrid model. Research has suggested that leveraging personal resources, such as technology self-efficacy [10], and mindfulness can act as potential mechanisms to alleviate technostress and hybrid work challenges [6]. Although previous studies have investigated extensively the beneficial effects of personal resources on work-related stress in general [11, 12], we examine the role of technology self-efficacy and mindfulness both to mitigate the effects of technostress and to alleviate its negative consequences. This chapter tries to answer the question: how can these two personal resources (technology self-efficacy and mindfulness) be applied as coping strategies for technostress creators within the hybrid work setting? The following sections will be addressed in the chapter: an outline of the challenges associated with technology in hybrid work models, technostress creators, other challenges of hybrid work models, theoretical explanations, personal resources, technology self-efficacy, mindfulness, practical tips, lessons learnt and recommendations.
2. Challenges associated with technology use in hybrid work environments: techno-stressors
Technostress has been referred to as a modern disease of adaptation, a condition resulting from the difficulty of adapting to new IT [13]. No one is spared from the pace at which technology is changing and improving. Individuals are attempting to handle the constantly altering and developing information and communication technologies (ICTs), which introduce novel complexities in adapting to the frequent transformations in the cognitive, social and physical demands imposed by ICT within work contexts [14]. The prevalent adoption of virtual and hybrid work arrangements facilitated by ICT has engendered a series of stress-inducing factors for employees, encompassing issues such as excessive workload, encroachment on personal time, unclear role expectations, intricate demands and heightened job insecurity [15]. Research has indicated that some individuals may experience anxiety, fear and stress when they perceive a lack of competence in utilising new devices, applications and software effectively, and adapting to, or coping with new ICTs in their work [14, 16]. Within the hybrid work model, the technostress challenges are exacerbated by constant adoption of new company systems, new software and the excessive and simultaneous use of multiple devices (laptops, tablets, cell phones) [16, 17]. Ragu-Nathan et al. [18] have identified and classified five technostress creators experienced by employees, including techno-complexity, techno-overload, techno-insecurity, techno-invasion and techno-uncertainty. The techno-stressors are illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Technostress creators.
2.1 Technostress creators
Techno-overload is one of the major challenges imposed on employees by the hybrid work setting. Techno-overload is experienced when work with digital technologies is demanding because of a high pace, frequent interruptions, multitasking, prolonged working time, expectations with regard to response times in digital communication. Employees being forced both to multitask and to execute their duties at a high speed [19]. The amount of information that individuals have to absorb from ICTs can be massive and difficulty to comprehend, to the extent that it results in adverse consequences and harmful impacts on individual health. A good example is that, within hybrid work environments, the practice of staying connected with the central office through the use of a variety of devices (such as laptops, phones, emails and instant messaging), along with engaging in diverse job tasks, reduce the quality of work and decrease effectiveness of tasks. This decline occurs because the employee’s cognitive processing demands sufficient time to effectively assimilate the acquired information [20].
Closely associated with techno-overload is techno-complexity, referring to the high complexities presented by new ICTs which cause an employee to feel incompetent [21]. Increased complexity in both devices and software elicits high levels of frustration and diminishes individuals’ psychological well-being, as they grapple with the cognitive effort required to comprehend the operational nuances of the technological system. This results in frustration, poor performance and low productivity and negatively affects well-being [22]. These complexities also trigger techno-uncertainty, which is a constant feeling of uncertainty and ambiguity caused by chronic digital transformation processes fostering constant change owing to upgrades in computer hardware and software [23]. The uncertainty leads to frustration and a perceived inability to cope with the rapid technological advancements, resulting in a fear of being replaced [19]. This is associated with techno-unreliability, which is stress induced by breakdowns, technical errors, load shedding, poor network, weak Wi-Fi and low usability. When an employee experiences all three: techno-overload, techno-complexity and techno-uncertainty, they perceive their work environment to be both challenging and ambiguous; hence, the need to expand resources to buffer the effects of overload and complexity.
If the complex demands and ambiguous environment are not managed well, this may also result in feelings of insecurity which translate to techno-insecurity. Thus, techno-insecurity is the fear of job loss or of a degradation in status caused by the perception that digital technologies or more qualified personnel will fully or partially replace one’s own job/position [24]. The constant feeling of being overwhelmed with technology change threatens job security and makes employees feel that they may be replaced by new information systems or by better equipped or more technologically skilled employees [25]. Instead of focusing on producing good results, employees frequently spend much of their time experiencing fear of job loss owing to automation. In addition, within the hybrid work settings, employees operate from both home and office and this may pose challenges related to another techno-stressor referred to as techno-invasion. This phenomenon denotes the intrusion of (ICTs) into an employee’s personal life, making it hard to separate work from private time, thus blurring the boundaries between professional and private spheres [26]. Hybrid environments enable high flexibility, which can blur boundaries between work and other life domains, causing work-life conflicts and impairing recovery from work. Mahapatra and Pati [27] found techno-invasion to be related negatively to well-being in employees. When employees are exposed to elevated levels of technostress, they eventually suffer the psychological strains of diminished commitment, struggle to flourish and display signs of languishing [28], have poor self-esteem [29] and show dissatisfaction with the IT system [20], and burnout [30]. It is clear that the adverse impacts of technostress are not limited to behavioural manifestations only such as diminished performance, high absenteeism and poor productivity, but also manifest in psychological ways including, anxiety, low organisational commitment, depression and low morale [28, 31].
2.2 Other challenges of hybrid work model
Besides the challenges related to technostress identified in the previous section, other negative effects of hybrid work include extended work hours, constant accessibility, emotional drain, need for greater thinking skills, excessive dedication to work, overwhelming tasks, overload and health problems affecting, for instance, the musculoskeletal system [32, 33, 34]. The hybrid work model also upsets work-life balance through blurring the boundaries between work and personal life, the extension of working hours and the intensification of work, including e-mail activity, in particular [32]. The ambiguity between professional and private time create conflicts that negatively affects well-being, disrupt the work-life integration, cause exhaustion and negatively impact individual productivity [33]. The minimised face-to-face interactions intensify the challenges of social, psychological and emotional relationships. All of these stressors require unique interventions that are designed to empower individuals to cope with challenges. In this regard, it is important to reflect on theory.
Some of the challenges caused by technostress in the hybrid work setting are a result of the failure of individuals to accept technology, the inability to use the software or systems of some devices as well as negative attitudes towards the usefulness of these technologies. In line with the technology acceptance model (TAM), individuals who use technology are driven by three key factors: their perception of the technology’s usefulness, their perception of how easy it is to use and their overall attitude towards using it. This attitude is notably shaped by their perception of the technology’s usefulness and its ease of use [35]. When employees struggle to use IT, they perceive themselves as incompetent and experience techno-insecurity. These perceptions of incompetence increase technostress levels and diminish productivity [28, 36]. Studies show that low-level individual ability, such as ICT literacy, positively predict high technostress [37], and that self-efficacy plays a role in shaping positive perceptions towards the use of technology. Yahşi and Hopcan [38] determined that high self-efficacy predicts low technostress. TAM3 offers a comprehensive list of interventions that have direct implications for decision-making regarding IT implementation and management [39]. Among these interventions is computer self-efficacy, which contributes significantly to perceived ease of use. The perception of competence in technology is a major factor in technostress and determines the attitude towards technology. When an individual’s required technological competence exceeds their current abilities, the demands are perceived to be high and stress occurs [38]. In such cases, individuals rely on personal resources such as technology self-efficacy to deal with the challenges.
Based on the Job Demands Resource model (JD-R model) [40] and from the perspective of the conservation of resource theory (COR) [41], increasing resources may help to buffer the effects of high job demands and job stressors. Thus, we theorise that with adequate resources (e.g. personal resources; mindfulness and technology self-efficacy), even when exposed to technostress creators, employees are more likely to thrive in hybrid work models. Considering that the hybrid work space is characterised by technical failures, unfamiliar software, new devices, defective functionalities or long waiting times, it can easily be a source of frustration, with stress imposing high job demands on employees. Consistently being exposed to an environment with demands that exceed capabilities and resources to accomplish a task results in stress, burnout and eventually, low productivity. Both hybrid work setting and technostress expose employees to high job demands platforms. Fortunately, based on the COR theory, employees possess a range of resources (work and non-work) at their disposal, and these resources can be used to deal with the demands placed on them by their working environment. When employees invest in the development or use of resources, they synergistically combine different resources to cultivate additional reserves [42], and they flourish. When employees have an abundance of such resources, they create resource caravans to deal with all sorts of demands and stressors [41]. Typical stress reactions include anxiety, mental fatigue, scepticism and feelings of inefficiency, which call for the utilisation of more personal resources than job resources to buffer the effects of technostress and to maintain productivity. Therefore, training individuals to utilise their personal resources, such as self-efficacy and mindfulness, can typically aid as coping mechanisms within high techno-stressful environments. The experience of technostress is highly individual and the utilisation of personal resources could be of great assistance especially for hybrid work settings.
4. Personal resources: coping with technostress in hybrid work settings
The noted technostress creators and the challenges imposed by the hybrid work setting have psychological impacts on employees. They are linked, among other things, to reduced well-being and intensified stress [43]. The hybrid model holds appeal due to its potential to blend the advantages of office-based work, including opportunities for collaboration, innovation and in-person interactions with colleagues, with the added flexibility associated with working from home. While beneficial to both employees and organisations, as noted above, it has some downsides. In a comparative analysis of employees operating under three distinct work models (remote, hybrid and stationary) [44], results indicated that individual groups differed in terms of resource gains and resource losses based on the work environment. Relatively, the group that experienced both the strongest losses and strongest gains of resources globally and in most specific areas were the hybrid workers. From a long-term perspective, this suggests that working within the hybrid model, compared to the other models, can generate the strongest changes (both positive and negative) in different areas of life. This implies that, although empirical reports to date have mainly emphasised the positive consequences of hybrid work [45], in practice the hybrid work model may also be accompanied by a number of negative effects if employees do not have access to the required psychosocial resources.
It is clear that, since hybrid models have sparked a new wave of experimentation, this will undoubtedly become an increasingly common experience for many individuals and organisations. Companies are implementing different solutions and approaches to find out what works best for both employees and the business [38]. Reflecting on the elements of the Job Demands Resource model, technostress and hybrid work settings are seen as difficult job demands imposed on employees, and technology self-efficacy and mindfulness are seen as personal resources that employees may use to buffer the effects of those job demands. Thus, nurturing, investing and accumulating personal resources for hybrid employees may impact positively on how they deal with the challenges and demands associated with both technostress and hybrid environments in the long term. For example, a combination of technology self-efficacy and mindfulness techniques can reduce employee stress and burnout and can improve employee well-being [12]. What follows is a discussion of how technology self-efficacy and mindfulness can be used to aid challenges related to technostress and hybrid work settings.
4.1 Technology self-efficacy as a coping strategy
Self-efficacy is based on Bandura’s social learning theory, and it is viewed as the adaptation and change in the behaviours of individuals according to their environment [46]. High levels of self-efficacy assist individuals in being confident, consciously determined and fulfilling their responsibilities in those domains where they have self-efficacy [47]. It is also positively related to active problem-focused coping, and negatively related to vital exhaustion and anxiety [48], which are caused by technostress. This chapter will focus on domain-specific self-efficacy (computer/technology self-efficacy). This is referred to as person’s estimation of their ability to use technological devices/systems to complete work tasks [49]. Individuals with good technology self-efficacy and proper guidelines learn fast and adjust better in hybrid work models [50]. Studies have indicated [5] that technology self-efficacy has a significant relationship with technostress and that it moderates the relationship between technostress and workload. Technology self-efficacy reduces the perceived technostress through influencing thinking processes and biases towards technology use, and it regulates how people anticipate the use of technology [51]. Some studies note that technological self-efficacy and technical support reduces perceived stress through positively manipulating individual perceptions towards technology use [13, 15, 51]. Training self-efficacy is thus useful in controlling the technostress and maintaining the performance of employees. It has been observed that employees with greater computer self-efficacy experience reduced levels of computer-related technostress, while those with low technology self-efficacy and high technology dependence experience increased levels of computer-related technostress [46, 52]. Individuals who are high in technology self-efficacy are computer self-efficient, believe in themselves to solve problems relating to ICT, and eventually overcome techno-complexity and techno-uncertainty.
Hybrid work models are associated with demanding circumstances that have the potential to induce stress. In such instances, the abilities that aid individuals in managing their emotional responses and adjusting to the increasing pressures assume significance [53]. There is a need for adaptive functioning, which could help employees to experience a positive effect in negative situations. Circumstances like the exposure to negative conditions such as techno-overload and techno-complexity could end up with undesirable outcomes like anxiety and strain. One of the adaptive functioning skills mentioned could result from self-efficacy beliefs. Thus, the capacity to manage different negative conditions and emotions appropriately rests on different abilities and self-efficacy beliefs [53]. Self-efficacy is the leverage that individuals depend on while dealing successfully with challenging situations. In this context, since the stress is triggered by ICTs, it is proposed that the domain-specific self-efficacy (technological self-efficacy) might act as a buffer to extenuate the effects of technostress. Literature has indicated that technology self-efficacy can play a positive role in the successful use of technology [37, 54]. Taking into consideration the fact that technostress represents individual responses to technology-based expectations, individuals who possess technology self-efficacy might be able to reduce their technostress levels.
4.2 Mindfulness as a coping strategy for technostress
Digitisation forces all employees to be tech-savvy but some employees struggle to adapt to new technology. It is important to explore the role of mindfulness as a potential alleviator to stress induced by extended IT usage. Mindfulness involves consciously bringing one’s awareness to the present moment, with openness, curiosity and acceptance of both pleasant and unpleasant experiences [55]. The purposeful focusing of attention encourages awareness of our habitual mental functioning (the auto-pilot mode). There are different perspectives on mindfulness; for example, it is depicted as a state, a dispositional trait, an attitude, a type of meditation and an intervention programme [56]. To date, attention has been on dispositional mindfulness/trait mindfulness, which is malleable and can be enhanced and cultivated through training and interventions programmes [6]. Of more interest is the domain-specific mindfulness (IT mindfulness), which is oriented towards IT use and its contexts, and it is believed to reduce perceptions of technostress [11]. IT, mindfulness was first introduced through the work of Ramiller and Burton Swanson [57], which proposed the idea of incorporating it into the processes of IT innovation in an organisation. Related to this, in 2018, Thatcher et al [58] systematically developed the concept of IT mindfulness, defined as ‘a dynamic IT-specific trait, evident only when an individual is working with IT’.
IT mindfulness consists of four dimensions that help to explain how it can be applied as a coping strategy to manage challenges imposed by hybrid work models and technostress. The first dimension is alertness to distinction, which refers to the extent that an IT-mindful individual understands the capabilities of IT applications and the context in which they will prove useful. This aspect can help individuals to deal with both techno-uncertainty and techno-complexity. The second IT-mindfulness dimension is awareness of multiple perspectives. This refers to the IT-mindful individual who is able to identify multiple uses of specific IT applications as well as to develop innovative solutions to emerging problems [58, 59]. Considering that one of the major techno-stressors relates to the complexity of IT and the use of multiple devices, software and applications, dimension two can provide coping strategies for individuals struggling with techno-overload, techno-complexity and techno-uncertainty. The third dimension relates to openness to novelty. This refers to the individual’s willingness to explore more potential and novel applications of the deployed system and relates well to techno-uncertainty as well. Individuals who explore their company systems more often experience less techno-uncertainty. The final dimension is orientation in the present, which refers to the IT-mindful individual who is focused on the present moment and context and is thus able to adapt technologies to several different contexts [59]. This dimension can help individuals to cope with techno-invasion and avoid getting carried away. An individual with a high levels of IT mindfulness will exhibit a greater degree of flexibility and adaptability when confronted with unforeseen situations (techno-unreliability) and novel technological occurrences within their work environment, leading to heightened levels of end-user contentment [60]. Correspondingly, an individual displaying high IT mindfulness possesses the capacity to modify their responses and alter viewpoints based on the circumstances, thereby formulating inventive resolutions to address technological intricacies and instances of technology malfunction that necessitate a congruence between the utilised technology and the specific task being undertaken [58, 61]. Mindfulness can thus offer significant advantages in the hybrid work context, such as work resilience and enhancing performance [62], while also reducing the burden of technostress.
In general, mindfulness strengthens one’s ability to deal with job-related tensions that can impact the physical, mental and emotional well-being negatively. The practice of mindfulness helps employees to reduce the effects of stress. It helps individuals to be more effective in a busy and hi tech dependent work environment. It reduces stress, increases focus and improves the ability to deal with technology-imposed challenges, both at work and at home. Technology is evolving rapidly, so focusing one’s mind to handle challenges with confidence is necessary. Mindfulness reduces technostress, enhances focus and promotes well-being. Table 1 displays practical tips for cultivating digital mindfulness and technology self-efficacy to overcome technostress.
Techno-stressors and hybrid challenges
Mindfulness techniques
Technology self-efficacy techniques
Techno-overload
Mindful notifications: disable notifications on your mobile, tablet and popups on laptop Single tasking, do not multitask (e.g. avoid attending to emails during virtual meetings) Remove distractions (uninstall unused apps) Digital detox: take mindful pauses
Apply mastery experience, Social persuasion (accept encouragement from others and organisational support)
Techno-complexity
Focus on understanding details of IT devices, apps, systems and software used by your company before using it. Be mindful of the state of your mind when consuming content using technology
Practise technology-based self-directed learning Increase technological learning motivation Find and interact with role models Try new devices, apps and systems
Techno-invasion
Practise mindful emailing Be mindful of taking short breaks: Digital fasting and tech free zones Create boundaries for meetings
Build a supportive system
Techno-uncertainty
Pay attention and focus on understanding details of IT devices, apps, systems and software used in the organisation before using it. Have mindful conversations about technology with colleagues
Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) Gratitude for technology: recognize positive aspects of technology
Vicarious experiences of observing others Modelling or participation in technological training Social persuasion (accept encouragement from others and organisational support)
The narrative above has combined mindfulness and technology self-efficacy as buffering the effects of technostress in the hybrid work settings. It has been proven that combining technical competence with present-moment awareness and acceptance assists in navigating technostress-prone environments, overcoming technology challenges and fostering a healthier relationship with technology. The following are some key takeaways:
Technology self-efficacy provides employees with the necessary skills and confidence to navigate and troubleshoot technological challenges imposed by the hybrid work setting. Consistently, mindfulness helps individuals to approach technology-related challenges with a clear and focused mind. This enables individuals to leverage their technical competence while maintaining a calm and present mindset to solve problems and reduce technostress effectively. Therefore, combining mindfulness techniques with technology self-efficacy may aid in coping with technostress.
Mindfulness provides the principles of establishing healthy boundaries and regulating the use of technology consciously. Additionally, technology self-efficacy helps individuals to change their perspectives on stressful issues. Instead of allowing self-doubt to bother them when using new technology or new applications, individuals may be inspired to develop solutions that work better for them. Thus, combining mindfulness and technology self-efficacy can help individuals to develop a balanced approach to technology in which they optimise its benefits while reducing the negative impacts that can contribute to techno-overload, techno-complexity and techno-uncertainty.
The process of nurturing technology self-efficacy equips employees with confidence and the skills to navigate challenges related to technology, and when this is coupled with practising mindfulness it enhances resilience and facilitates adaptability in the face of technostress. Practising IT-mindfulness techniques can support one’s technology self-efficacy, and increase creativity and innovation. Therefore, combining mindfulness and self-efficacy enables individuals to manage hybrid work challenges and to cope more effectively in technostress-prone environments.
Mindfulness allows heightened self-awareness, which assists employees to recognise early signs of technostress, such as anxiety, frustration and complexity. Such awareness assists employees to apply their technology self-efficacy skills proactively to address potential techno-stressors before they escalate.
6. Recommendations for organisations and individuals
Evidence suggests that dispositional IT mindfulness is a malleable trait that can be enhanced through relevant training programmes and interventions [55]. The discourse presented above substantiates the beneficial contribution of mindfulness within the workplace, fortifying the standpoint that corporations should imbue mindfulness practices into their organisational fabric. Noteworthy entities, such as Facebook, Google and Intel [63], have been offering tailored in-house mindfulness sessions for their employees. Thus, modern organisations can create their own mindfulness programmes aligned to their technical challenges and promote stress-reduction strategies. Additionally, organisations should support the mindful use of technology, which promotes positive re-appraisal of the situation and activates positive coping mechanisms, like social support and taking breaks. Hence, developing, introducing and integrating mindfulness practices into work routines to reduce technostress and overcome challenges should be prioritised. Developing policies aimed at promoting occasional digital detoxes will encourage individuals to disconnect from technology outside of work hours. The policies should also address guidelines for the appropriate use of technology, enhancing a better work-life balance and reducing techno-invasion.
Besides the provision of IT training and support, organisations should offer detailed training aimed at enhancing technology self-efficacy. These trainings may include skills-building initiatives and mentorship opportunities addressing common technology challenges, developing digital literacy, and exploring new devices, systems and apps. It is suggested that organisations should consider adding training on developing technology self-efficacy and mindfulness in their wellness initiatives.
They should put in place open communication channels for employees to share their experiences and challenges related to technology use. For those struggling more with technostress, consideration should be given to opening forums where employees can share applicable coping strategies, seek advice and provide mutual support in dealing with techno-unreliability and other technical challenges. A strong support network should be established with a dedicated and accessible IT team as well as role models for those struggling with understanding the devices, new systems or applications.
Lastly, it is important to create a supportive hybrid work environment. This may include deploying regular surveys to assess levels of employee technostress in order to identify any potential stressors before they become detrimental. The surveys should be coupled with feedback sessions to discuss possible coping strategies. During these sessions, experts may identify areas where technology self-efficacy and mindfulness strategies can be integrated. On a regular basis, the impact of implemented coping strategies should be tracked and, where necessary, adjusted and new, proven and tested coping strategies should be introduced. Policies, training programmes and resources should be implemented to better support employees in managing technostress effectively in hybrid work models.
This chapter has indicated that the popularly adapted hybrid work setting is made possible by the use of technology, thus the digital workplace is a fundamental component of the hybrid work environment. Companies that are in the process of digitising key areas are witnessing enhanced outcomes in terms of collaboration, teamwork, data security, productivity, customer experiences and the overarching financial performance. However, the work-life boundaries have been blurred and technology seems to have its dark side affecting some employees. There is need to reconfigure the digital workplace to support hybrid work behaviours that eliminate technostress. New software, new devices and extended screen time experienced in hybrid settings can impede creativity by inducing technostress, fatigue and negatively impacting mood. On a team level, hybrid settings lack co-presence and hinder psychological safety since there is no immediate help from colleagues in case an employee encounters a technical challenge or experience technostress forcing employees to rely on themselves. Technology self-efficacy and mindfulness interventions are powerful tools that can buffer the negative consequences of technostress, enhance well-being at work and increase individual outcomes. These personal resources can counterbalance technostress conditions and improve end-user performance and satisfaction.
1.Rahmani Z. [Internet] Organizations must accelerate their digitalization efforts in four key areas to ensure a thriving hybrid work environment. 2022. Available from: https://www.ey.com/en_se/workplace-of-the-future/how-can-technology-activate-your-hybrid-work-ecosystem
2.Fischer T, Riedl R. Technostress research: a nurturing ground for measurement pluralism. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2017;40(1):17
3.Tarafdar M, Tu Q , Ragu-Nathan BS, Ragu-Nathan TS. The impact of technostress on role stress and productivity. Journal of Management Information Systems. 2007;24(1):301-328
4.Yener S, Arslan A, Kilinç S. The moderating roles of technological self-efficacy and time management in the technostress and employee performance relationship through burnout. Information Technology and People. 2021;34(7):1890-1919
5.Ali SS, Kaur R, Khan S. Identification of innovative technology enablers and drone technology determinants adoption: A graph theory matrix analysis framework. Operations Management Research. 2023;16(1):830-852
6.Ioannou A, Tussyadiah I, Marshan A. Dispositional mindfulness as an antecedent of privacy concerns: a protection motivation theory perspective. Psychology and Marketing. 2021;38(10):1766-1778
7.Tarafdar M, Pullins EB, Ragu-Nathan TS. Technostress: negative effect on performance and possible mitigations. International Surgery Journal. 2015;25(2):103-132
8.Dey BL, Al-Karaghouli W, Muhammad SS. Adoption, adaptation, use and impact of information systems during pandemic time and beyond: research and managerial implications. Information Systems Management. 2020;37(4):298-302
9.Molino M, Ingusci E, Signore F, Manuti A, Giancaspro ML, Russo V, et al. Wellbeing costs of technology use during Covid-19 remote working: an investigation using the Italian translation of the technostress creators scale. Sustainability. 2020;12(15):5911
10.Tarabay K. The impact of technostress on work engagement [Doctoral dissertation]. Beirut: Lebanese American University; 2021
11.Ioannou A, Papazafeiropoulou A. Using IT mindfulness to mitigate the negative consequences of technostress. In: 23rd Americas Conference on Information Systems; Boston, MA; 2017
12.Pflügner K, Maier C, Weitzel T. The direct and indirect influence of mindfulness on techno-stressors and job burnout: a quantitative study of white-collar workers. Computers in Human Behavior. 2021;115:106566
13.Kim S, Lee J. The mediating effects of ego resilience on the relationship between professionalism perception and technostress of early childhood teachers. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research. 2021;20(4):245-264
14.Nimrod G. Changes in internet use when coping with stress: older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 2020;28(10):1020-1024
15.Truța C, Maican CI, Cazan AM, Lixăndroiu RC, Dovleac L, Maican MA. Always connected@ work. Technostress and well-being with academics. Computers in Human Behavior. 2023;143:107675
16.Harunavamwe M, Ward C. The influence of technostress, work–family conflict, and perceived organisational support on workplace flourishing amidst COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2022;13:921211
17.Jena RK. Technostress in ICT enabled collaborative learning environment: an empirical study among Indian academician. Computers in Human Behavior. 2015;51:1116-1123
18.Ragu-Nathan TS, Tarafdar M, Ragu-Nathan BS, Tu Q. The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations: conceptual development and empirical validation. Information Systems Research. 2008;19(4):417-433
19.Tarafdar M, Tu Q , Ragu-Nathan TS, Ragu-Nathan BS. Crossing to the dark side: examining creators, outcomes, and inhibitors of technostress. Communications of the ACM. 2011;54(9):113-120
20.Ingusci E, Signore F, Giancaspro ML, Manuti A, Molino M, Russo V, et al. Workload, techno overload, and behavioral stress during COVID-19 emergency: the role of job crafting in remote workers. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2021;12:655148
21.Barber LK, Santuzzi AM. Please respond ASAP: workplace tele pressure and employee recovery. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2015;20(2):172
22.Day A, Paquet S, Scott N, Hambley L. Perceived information and communication technology (ICT) demands on employee outcomes: the moderating effect of organizational ICT support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2012;17(4):473
23.Hwang I, Cha O. Examining technostress creators and role stress as potential threats to employees’ information security compliance. Computers in Human Behavior. 2018;81:282-293
24.Dragano N, Lunau T. Technostress at work and mental health: concepts and research results. Current Opinion in Psychiatry. 2020;33(4):407-413
25.Ibrahim H, Yusoff YM. User characteristics as antecedents of techno stress towards EHRM: from experts’ views. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015;172:134-141
26.La Torre G, De Leonardis V, Chiappetta M. Technostress: how does it affect the productivity and life of an individual? Results of an observational study. Public Health. 2020;189:60-65
27.Mahapatra M, Pati SP. Technostress creators and burnout: a job demands-resources perspective. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGMIS Conference on Computers and People Research 2018. pp. 70-77
28.Tarafdar M, Stich JF. Virtual work, technology and wellbeing. In: Wall T, Cooper CL, Brough P, editors. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing. London: SAGE; 2021. pp. 159-169
29.Korzynski P, Rook C, Florent Treacy E, Kets de Vries M. The impact of self-esteem, conscientiousness and pseudo-personality on technostress. Internet Research. 2021;31(1):59-79
30.Afifi TD, Basinger ED, Kam JA. The extended theoretical model of communal coping: understanding the properties and functionality of communal coping. The Journal of Communication. 2020;70(3):424-446
31.Ayyagari R, Grover V, Purvis R. Technostress: Technological antecedents and implications. MIS Quarterly. 2011;35(4):831-858
32.Spagnoli P, Molino M, Molinaro D, Giancaspro ML, Manuti A, Ghislieri C. Workaholism and technostress during the COVID-19 emergency: the crucial role of the leaders on remote working. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020;11:620310
33.Shifrin NV, Michel JS. Flexible work arrangements and employee health: a meta-analytic review. Work and Stress. 2022;36(1):60-85
34.Vaziri H, Casper WJ, Wayne JH, Matthews RA. Changes to the work–family interface during the COVID-19 pandemic: examining predictors and implications using latent transition analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology. 2020;105(10):1073
35.Lin F, Fofanah SS, Liang D. Assessing citizen adoption of e-Government initiatives in Gambia: a validation of the technology acceptance model in information systems success. Government Information Quarterly. 2011;28(2):271-279
36.Paul N, Glassman M. Relationship between internet self-efficacy and internet anxiety: A nuanced approach to understanding the connection. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2017;33(4):147-165
37.Salanova M, Llorens S, Cifre E. The dark side of technologies: technostress among users of information and communication technologies. International Journal of Psychology. 2013;48(3):422-436
38.Yahşi Ö, Hopcan S. Reviewing the structural relationship among the technology leadership, technostress and technology acceptance of school administrators. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2021;9(6):1781-1797
39.Venkatesh V, Bala H. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences. 2008;39(2):273-315
40.Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The job demands-resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2007;22(3):309-328
41.Hobfoll SE. Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2011;84(1):116-122
42.Harunavamwe M, Nel P, Van Zyl E. The influence of self-leadership strategies, psychological resources, and job embeddedness on work engagement in the banking industry. South Africa Journal of Psychology. 2020;50(4):507-519
43.Zacher H, Rudolph CW. Big five traits as predictors of perceived stressfulness of the COVID-19 pandemic. Personality and Individual Differences. 2021;175:110694
44.Stasiła-Sieradzka M, Sanecka EA, Turska E. Not so good hybrid work model? Resource losses and gains since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and job burnout among non-remote, hybrid, and remote employees. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health. 2023;36(2):229-249
45.Wörtler B, Van Yperen NW, Barelds DP. Do individual differences in need strength moderate the relations between basic psychological need satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Motivation and Emotion. 2020;44:315-328
46.Shu Q , Tu Q , Wang K. The impact of computer self-efficacy and technology dependence on computer-related technostress: a social cognitive theory perspective. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction. 2011;27(10):923-939
47.Lunenburg FC. Self-efficacy in the workplace: implications for motivation and performance. International Journal of Business Administration and Management. 2011;14(1):1-6
48.Romppel M, Herrmann-Lingen C, Wachter R, Edelmann F, Düngen HD, Pieske B, et al. A short form of the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE-6): Development, psychometric properties and validity in an intercultural non-clinical sample and a sample of patients at risk for heart failure. GMS Psychosocial Medicine. 2013;10:1-7
49.Compeau DR, Higgins CA. Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly. 1995;19(2):189-211
50.Guoyan S, Khaskheli A, Raza SA, Khan KA, Hakim F. Teachers’ self-efficacy, mental well-being and continuance commitment of using learning management system during COVID-19 pandemic: A comparative study of Pakistan and Malaysia. Interactive Learning Environments. 2021:1-23
51.Saleem F, Malik MI, Qureshi SS, Farid MF, Qamar S. Technostress and employee performance nexus during COVID-19: training and creative self-efficacy as moderators. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12:595119
52.Saidy J, Garanti Z, Sadaka R. Technostress creators and job performance among frontliners: theorizing the moderating role of self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022;13:827027
53.Caprara G, Vecchione M, Barbaranelli C, Alessandri G. Emotional stability and affective self–regulatory efficacy beliefs: proofs of integration between trait theory and social cognitive theory. European Journal of Personality. 2013;27(2):145-154
54.Delpechitre D, Black HG, Farrish J. The dark side of technology: examining the impact of technology overload on salespeople. The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing. 2018;34(2):317-337
55.Quaglia JT, Braun SE, Freeman SP, McDaniel MA, Brown KW. Meta-analytic evidence for effects of mindfulness training on dimensions of self-reported dispositional mindfulness. Psychological Assessment. 2016;28(7):803
56.Choi E, Leroy H, Johnson A, Nguyen H. Flaws and all: How mindfulness reduces error hiding by enhancing authentic functioning. The Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2022;27(5):451-469
57.Ramiller NC, Burton Swanson E. Mindfulness routines for innovating with information technology. Journal of Decision Systems. 2009;18(1):13-26
58.Thatcher JB, Wright RT, Sun H, Zagenczyk TJ, Klein R. Mindfulness in information technology use: definitions, distinctions, and a new measure. MIS Quarterly. 2018;42(3):831-848
59.Roberts KC, Danoff-Burg S. Mindfulness and health behaviors: is paying attention good for you. Journal of American College Health. 2010;59(3):165-173
60.Sun H. Making sound adoption decisions: A longitudinal study of mindfulness in technology adoption and continued use. In: ICIS Proceedings. Vol. 2. 2011. pp. 1-20
61.Carson SH, Langer EJ. Mindfulness and self-acceptance. Journal of Rational - Emotive and Cognitive - Behavior Therapy. 2006;24:29-43
62.Hyland PK, Lee RA, Mills MJ. Mindfulness at work: a new approach to improving individual and organizational performance. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2015;8(4):576-602
63.Chaskalson M, Hadley SG. Mindfulness: Historical and contemplative context and recent developments. In: Reb J, Atkins PWB, editors. Mindfulness in Organizations: Foundations, Research and Applications. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2015. pp. 42-66
Written By
Martha Harunavamwe and Herbert Kanengoni
Submitted: 26 July 2023Reviewed: 02 August 2023Published: 16 October 2023
Open access peer-reviewed chapter
