Information and communication technologies (ICTs) have continuously transformed the ways that people work in organizations. Such technologies include both communication devices (e.g., smartphones, tablets, and wearable technologies) and communication platforms (e.g., email, Skype, and virtual reality). Technology’s role in the changing nature of work has been frequently on the Top 10 Workplace Trends list among industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists over the past 3 years (Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2019). Thus, it is no surprise that this changing technological landscape has driven a large amount of I-O psychology research on how employees experience these new ways of working. Additionally, researchers have introduced many new concepts and terminologies into the literature to describe technology-driven phenomena, such as telecommuting (Mokhtarian, Reference Mokhtarian1991; Nilles, Reference Nilles1988), technostress (Ragu-Nathan et al., Reference Ragu-Nathan, Tarafdar, Ragu-Nathan and Tu2008), cyber incivility (Lim & Teo, Reference Lim and Teo2009), and cyberloafing (Lim, Reference Lim2002).
Currently, the landscape of ICT research is scattered across the I-O psychology literature and beyond (e.g., management and information systems). Much like a computer that takes too long to run a program due to fragmented files, isolated streams of ICT research can also slow down the progress in understanding of the role of technology-driven issues in the workplace. In particular, the introduction of new ICT contexts and constructs raises a number of important and timely questions about how we are studying the changing nature of work. Are ICT constructs conceptually distinct from their nontechnological counterparts already in the literature, or are we just creating ICT-specific constructs by adding prefixes (e.g., “techno-,” “cyber-,” “tele,”) to existing I-O constructs? Are new constructs needed for advancing ICT theory development and practical understanding of work, or are we merely studying the same general phenomenon at work in a narrower technological context? How can we effectively use or integrate existing theories to make compelling arguments for new ICT concepts? To advance our understanding of ICTs in science and practice, what should researchers and practitioners do to balance the need and desire for new ICT concepts with the potential danger of construction proliferation (i.e., concepts that look different but likely represent similar or even identical ideas; Le et al., Reference Le, Schmidt, Harter and Lauver2010; Shaffer et al., Reference Shaffer, DeGeest and Li2016)?
As the literature around ICT use at work continues to increase, we anticipate continued interest in expanding new ICT concepts to help explain technology-related psychological experiences of employees. Thus, the goal of this paper is to bring together diffuse research areas in ICT research, similar to computer defragmentation processes (i.e., “defragging”). We categorize current themes of ICT research in the I-O psychology literature at the individual level of analysis, with a focus on understanding different ICT concepts/terminologies, theoretical perspectives, and findings. This approach allows us to “reboot” this important area of research by clarifying and extending our understanding of ICT concepts for science and practice.
To understand the overall area of ICT at work, we examine themes from the technology behavior perspective, which involves work design, work extension, and work inattention, and the technology experience perspective, which emphasizes unique psychological (as opposed to behavioral) experiences arising from the technological work context that affect individual well-being and productivity (e.g., Korunka & Hoonakker, Reference Korunka and Hoonakker2014; Rice & Leonardi, Reference Rice, Leonardi, Putnam and Mumby2014).
The technology behavior perspective
Much of the current ICT research is behavior oriented; that is, research questions tend to revolve around how use of ICTs (i.e., behaviors) have influenced employees’ psychological experiences. Within the I-O psychology literature, ICT-use research can be differentiated based on three key contextual factors: the setting in which ICTs are used (i.e., using ICTs on site or off site), the timing of ICT use (i.e., using ICT during vs. after work hours), and the purpose of ICT use (i.e., work-oriented versus nonwork-oriented ICT use). These three factors are central to the behavioral perspective, and taken together, they can be informative for predicting employee well-being and performance. Three major themes emerge from these behavioral perspective factors in terms of (a) where ICTs are used (i.e., work design), (b) when ICTs are used (i.e., work extension), and (c) what is being done with ICTs (i.e., work inattention). That is, workers experience changes in work design because technologies have enabled working in various settings and via different ICT platforms. Workers may also experience extended work, as technologies allow flexible timing of when to conduct work. Finally, new forms of work inattention have emerged, as technologies may have blurred the purposes of ICT use in various settings. We discuss each of these in more detail below, with a focus on key terminologies, theoretical explanations, and findings.
Where do we use ICT? Work design
One of the key themes of ICT use research pertains to how ICTs have opened up other settings where work can be done, which can alter the design of jobs and work, especially in the context of conducting work tasks using nontraditional work arrangements with ICTs (e.g., face-to-face interactions at a specific time, in a specific work location). Over the last 2 decades, various, and often overlapping, terminologies have been created to refer to flexible work arrangements that are reliant on technology, such as telecommuting, e-working, teleworking, remote work, and virtual teams (for reviews, see Allen et al., Reference Allen, Golden and Shockley2015; Charalampous et al., Reference Charalampous, Grant, Tramontano and Michailidis2019; Martins et al., Reference Martins, Gilson and Maynard2004). This line of research examines how work is designed such that ICTs can be used for work purposes during work hours in either a nonwork setting (e.g., communicating with coworkers and clients while away from the office) or a work setting (i.e., communicating with coworkers and clients electronically while in the office). Specifically, two subthemes have emerged in the literature: (a) an emphasis on using technology to do work away from the physical work location and (b) using technology to move away from face-to-face interactions and toward alternative forms of media for work communication purposes. These categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive in practice, although they tend to each be studied in isolation (i.e., telecommuting studies versus virtual team communication studies). We concentrate our review on research on individual ICT use and outcomes rather than research at other levels of analysis (e.g., team- and organization-level outcomes).
Working away from the workplace
The first subtheme in this area is related to how employees conduct work “away” from the physical work location using technology. A review of telecommuting has addressed the overlapping conceptualization issues of various terms and provided an overarching definition: “telecommuting is a work practice that involves members of an organization substituting a portion of their typical work hours (ranging from a few hours per week to nearly full-time) to work away from a central workplace—typically principally from home—using technology to interact with others as needed to conduct work tasks” (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Golden and Shockley2015, p. 44). Thus, we use the term “telecommuting” when referring to research in this area. Yet, it is important to note that the term “e-working” is a popular term used in Europe to refer not only to telecommuting but also to highly mobile workers (e.g., working in a client site or company’s noncentral location; Charalampous et al., Reference Charalampous, Grant, Tramontano and Michailidis2019). The use of technologies for communicating with colleagues and/or clients is acknowledged in most conceptualizations of telecommuting, which suggests the fundamental role of ICTs in preserving interactions at work while one is not physically at the organizational site.
Research in telecommuting has multiplied into different foci of key employee and organization outcomes, in which different theories have been adopted to depict proposed frameworks. Specifically, work–family conflict is one of many popular outcome measures of telecommuting research. Having the flexibility to work from home is intended to be beneficial for workers to balance their resources for family and other nonwork domains. As suggested by work–family resources allocation theory (Grandey & Cropanzano, Reference Grandey and Cropanzano1999), telecommuting practices facilitated retaining resources (e.g., from granted autonomy over one’s work schedule and space, Gajendran & Harrison, Reference Gajendran and Harrison2007; Golden & Veiga, Reference Golden and Veiga2005), which can be further allocated to either work or nonwork domain per employee’s discretion. Meta-analyses have provided evidence supporting the benefits of telecommuting in reducing work–family conflict (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Johnson, Kiburz and Shockley2013; Gajendran & Harrison, Reference Gajendran and Harrison2007)—especially with higher level of telecommuting intensity (i.e., telecommuting more than half of a week on average). Additionally, telecommuting is more helpful in alleviating work-to-family interference than family-to-work interference.
Various individual psychological experiences, work attitudes, and organizational outcomes have been investigated in relation to the presence and intensity of telecommuting. Researchers have used conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll1989) and affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, Reference Weiss, Cropanzano, Staw and Cummings1996) to explain why telecommuting allows employees to retain resources from avoiding exposure to stressful work demands (e.g., interruptions from colleagues, long commuting time to work), whereas the positive changes to work-related events induce positive affective experiences. Although employee evaluations of telecommuting as a resource are not measured directly (compared with research in a later section of this paper; see the ICT appraisals section), it is assumed to be supported when there is a positive link between telecommuting and employee outcomes. Examples include research finding that telecommuting predicts increased positive affect, job satisfaction, and objective ratings of job performance and decreased negative affect, turnover intention, and stress reaction (Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, Kaplan and Vega2015; Gajendran & Harrison, Reference Gajendran and Harrison2007; Golden, Reference Golden2006).
However, a heavy reliance on technology-mediated work environments also can come at a cost. Increased telecommuting intensity reduces the opportunities to form and strengthen social bonds with others, as technological communication becomes the primary channel for building connections. Theories in communication have been used to explain why ICTs may pose more issues than do face-to-face interactions. For example, communication media that take a longer time to establish understanding in communications (e.g., media richness theory; Daft & Lengel, Reference Daft and Lengel1986) and perceptions that someone is less real or present (social presence theory; Short et al., Reference Short, Williams and Christie1976) are more challenging for establishing and maintaining positive social relationships. This theoretical perspective led many researchers to examine links among job attitudes, performance, and social experiences (i.e., isolation). For example, workers that spend extensive amounts of time telecommuting tend to experience reductions in job performance if they report higher levels of isolation from others in the workplace (Golden et al., Reference Golden, Veiga and Dino2008), although another recent study found that telecommuting actually improved, rather than harmed, job performance (Golden & Gajendran, Reference Golden and Gajendran2019). Golden and Veiga (Reference Golden and Veiga2005) found that there was an inverted U-shaped relationship between telecommuting and job satisfaction. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the associations between the extent of telecommuting and job performance and satisfaction are contingent on various job characteristics (e.g., job complexity and task interdependence). Specifically, workers in jobs that are complex and require little social interaction tend to experience a stronger positive association between telecommuting and job performance ratings from supervisors (Golden & Gajendran, Reference Golden and Gajendran2019). Regarding affective experiences, Mann and Holdsworth (Reference Mann and Holdsworth2003) conducted a series of mixed-method studies and found potentially negative results for affective well-being. Compared with office workers, telecommuters are more likely to experience feelings of loneliness, irritation, and worry, as well as more mental health symptoms.
Working away from coworkers
The second subtheme is related to a specific work design feature that facilitates nontraditional face-to-face communication. Such a work design feature enabled by ICTs is the virtual team, which refers to a group of people who work toward the same goal or purpose across time, space, and organizations via information and communication technologies (Lipnack & Stamps, Reference Lipnack and Stamps1999; Martins et al., Reference Martins, Gilson and Maynard2004). Although the term “virtual team” is also used to refer to telecommuting practices in some contexts (e.g., Allen et al., Reference Allen, Golden and Shockley2015), the focus of electronic communications is shifted slightly. First, virtual teams appear to have a conceptual boundary around ICT use in terms of shared work tasks rather than merely communicating with various organizational stakeholders (e.g., supervisors, clients, and coworkers in organizations outside of a discrete work unit) for other independent work tasks. Additionally, this research area emphasizes the role of virtuality of interactions with other team members to conduct these shared tasks. In particular, degree of virtuality varies on a continuum of how much virtual interaction is present within an established work team (Kirkman et al., Reference Kirkman, Rosen, Gibson, Tesluk and McPherson2002). At one end, individuals may have a relatively small proportion of team communications conducted online (e.g., emails, phone, message boards) with primarily face-to-face interactions, whereas a “virtual workplace” represents fully electronic communications among people at various locations (Akkirman & Harris, Reference Akkirman and Harris2005; Cascio, Reference Cascio2000).
Similar to the nature of reduced quality of communication and social interaction with telecommuting, technical issues from ICT use in work teams create not only interruptions to communications but also challenges in developing trust and cohesiveness in virtual teams due to the perceived distance in technology-mediated environments (Kirkman et al., Reference Kirkman, Rosen, Gibson, Tesluk and McPherson2002). Another study found that the degree of virtuality in working in teams was associated with lower levels of individual positive affect and affective commitment to the team (Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Bettenhausen and Gibbons2009). Yet, research has also proposed ways to improve virtual team effectiveness. For instance, team members need to understand that various forms of ICTs differ in communication capacities (e.g., immediacy of feedback, channel capacity for transmitting multiple symbols, or allowing multiple conversations to occur simultaneously). Choosing an appropriate communication technology that fits the nature of a task that may differ in its underlying interpersonal processes (e.g., resolving conflicts, team building, and affect management) could benefit productivity and individual experiences with virtual team work (Maruping & Agarwal, Reference Maruping and Agarwal2004).
When do we use ICT? Work extension
Another key theme of technology use research explores ICT use for work purposes during after hours, or when employees are using ICTs for work regardless of the work setting. The emphasis of this line of research is on the effects of extended ICT use for work purposes outside of the typical work timing, which represents extended (or even excessive) work demands. Although these behaviors could also occur on site for workers without flexible work designs (i.e., using technology communications at work during off-work hours), most of the current research tends to focus on the nonwork setting. Systematic literature reviews in this area have described this type of research as persistent work-related technology use (Ďuranová & Ohly, Reference Ďuranová and Ohly2016) and voluntary ICT use during nonwork time (Schlachter et al., Reference Schlachter, McDowall, Cropley and Inceoglu2018). Although some studies have focused broadly on various forms of after-hours electronic communication (e.g., Butts et al., Reference Butts, Becker and Boswell2015), others have focused narrowly on specific communication media like smartphone (e.g., Ohly & Latour, Reference Ohly and Latour2014; Van Laethem et al., Reference Van Laethem, van Vianen and Derks2018) or email use (e.g., time spent on emails; Belkin et al., Reference Belkin, Becker and Conroy2016) after work hours. Below, we identify two subthemes of this research that are related to how ICT use might conflict with home demands or work recovery experiences after work hours.
Conflict with after-hours home demands
The concept of work-related ICT use after hours is often considered a behavioral manifestation of boundary management between work and nonwork domains (e.g., family, home; Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, Reference Olson-Buchanan and Boswell2006), which subsequently influences one’s perceptions of work-nonwork conflicts and nonwork domain experiences. Boundary theory (Ashforth et al., Reference Ashforth, Kreiner and Fugate2000), which posits that individuals differ in managing their boundaries and have different levels of boundary permeability that then affect their domain experiences, is the imperative ground for empirical research on how using laptops/PCs or smartphones to do work during after-work hours influences work–family experiences. Despite some evidence for positive work-related outcomes (e.g., ambition and job involvement, Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, Reference Boswell and Olson-Buchanan2007) of ICT use during nonwork hours, cross-sectional research has consistently found a positive relationship between the extent to which one uses ICT for work during nonwork hours and work–family conflict/work–home interference (e.g., Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, Reference Boswell and Olson-Buchanan2007; Fenner & Renn, Reference Fenner and Renn2010; Wright et al., Reference Wright, Abendschein, Wombacher, O’Connor, Hoffman, Dempsey, Krull, Dewes and Shelton2014) or daily diary design (e.g., Derks & Bakker, Reference Derks and Bakker2014; Derks et al., Reference Derks, van Duin, Tims and Bakker2015). This relationship also holds for studies that have focused solely on one form of ICT device (e.g., smartphone, Derks & Bakker, Reference Derks and Bakker2014; Blackberry device, Ward & Steptoe-Warren, Reference Ward and Steptoe-Warren2014), although one study examining smartphone use and laptop/PC use found that smartphone use did not link to work-to-home conflict, suggesting that the functionalities of ICTs might differ across devices (Gadeyne et al., Reference Gadeyne, Verbruggen, Delanoeije and De Cooman2018). Compared with the findings regarding telecommuting and work–family conflict, having the flexibility to work anywhere and anytime helped reduce work–family conflict in a recent study; however, the actual use during nonwork hours worsened the experiences (Gadeyne et al., Reference Gadeyne, Verbruggen, Delanoeije and De Cooman2018). In part, the relationship between ICT use during nonwork hours and work–family conflict is contingent upon employees’ individual integration/segmentation preference and organizational norms for boundary management. Specifically, having a stronger preference to integrate work and family roles could mitigate the negative effects of ICT use during nonwork hours on work–family relationships (Derks et al., Reference Derks, Bakker, Peters and van Wingerden2016). However, Gadeyne et al. (Reference Gadeyne, Verbruggen, Delanoeije and De Cooman2018) found that this moderation depended on the role of organizational integration norms such that the mitigating effect holds when organizational norms are low because there is less external pressure that could interfere with how one may be internally motivated for integration. Similarly, response expectations from supervisors moderated the link between smartphone use and work-to-home interference; however, normative pressure from colleagues did not (Derks et al., Reference Derks, van Duin, Tims and Bakker2015). People who have a stronger segmentation preference are more likely to create boundaries around ICT use, which protect them from experiencing work–home interference (Park & Jex, Reference Park and Jex2011).
The negative experiences from technological use during family time also could cross over to one’s spouse’s experiences and harm the relationships with the spouse, which ultimately increased one’s turnover intention and decreased spouse’s job satisfaction and performance (Carlson et al., Reference Carlson, Thompson, Crawford, Boswell and Whitten2018; Ferguson et al., Reference Ferguson, Carlson, Boswell, Whitten, Butts and Kacmar2016). The relationship between ICT use and work–family issues has yet to establish converging results, which warrants more future research to develop effective strategies for organizations and individuals on how to manage ICT use during nonwork hours. For instance, a qualitative study of business travelers obtained interesting findings, suggesting that organizations see ICTs as means for work-related connections or communications and tend to overlook the work–life balance needs in business travelers and that ICT devices are the primary channel for keeping in touch with family (Ladkin et al., Reference Ladkin, Willis, Jain, Clayton and Marouda2016).
Insufficient after-hours work recovery
Besides conflicting with home demands after hours, ICT use can also pose a concern for after-hours work recovery. Here, the focus of research is on the need for employees to have sufficient recovery time after work due to high effort exerted during working hours, often guided by effort-recovery theory (Meijman & Mulder, Reference Meijman, Mulder, Drenth and Thierry1998). This theory postulates that exerting effort at work causes heightened physiological reactions due to stress, which then return to baseline (or prestressor levels) when individuals take respites after work hours. Thus, recovery is an important process that allows workers to have energy and effort to face next day’s work. However, work-related ICT use during nonwork hours is considered a form of extended effort expenditure that thwarts sufficient recovery, thus leaving workers prone to both short- and long-term mental and physical health problems.
One form of recovery experiences that has been studied the most in the ICT-use context is psychological detachment, referring to individuals being mentally switched off from work while physically away from work (Etzion et al., Reference Etzion, Eden and Lapidot1998). Park et al. (Reference Park, Fritz and Jex2011) conducted a cross-sectional study on a small sample of U.S. office workers (N = 281) and found support for a negative relationship between work-related technology use at home and psychological detachment, which is similar to findings among over 2,000 employed adults in Sweden (Mellner, Reference Mellner2016). However, another cross-sectional study using over 1,700 working adults in Germany found that ICT use after work was actually associated with higher reports of psychological detachment (Ohly & Latour, Reference Ohly and Latour2014). Derks et al. (Reference Derks, van Mierlo and Schmitz2014) conducted a daily diary study on a German sample and also found evidence that the extent of work-related smartphone use after hours was negatively associated with psychological detachment. Using ICTs affects not only detachment experience but also sleep quantity, which is another way for workers to replenish resources (Lanaj et al., Reference Lanaj, Johnson and Barnes2014).
In further support of effort-recovery processes, extended ICT use has been shown to be associated with poor physical and psychological employee well-being. For instance, Arlinghaus and Nachreiner (Reference Arlinghaus and Nachreiner2014) found that employees who frequently use ICTs for work during extended hours were more likely to experience health impairments, such as headaches, stomachaches, and sleep problems. Several other studies have also supported the relationships between work-related ICT use and work exhaustion with different conditions. Specifically, the more ICT use for work during nonwork hours, the more exhaustion one may experience, and such experience could be mediated via psychological detachment (Derks et al., Reference Derks, van Mierlo and Schmitz2014) or attenuated by work–home integration preference (Xie et al., Reference Xie, Ma, Zhou and Tang2018). More importantly, these two studies were conducted with a sample from two different countries, Germany and China, which suggests that the issues of ICT use and employee health are pressing issues worldwide. Last, the relationship between ICT use and work engagement is somewhat mixed. Though some studies have found that ICT use is positively associated with work engagement in cross-sectional data (Ragsdale & Hoover, Reference Ragsdale and Hoover2016; ten Brummelhuis et al., Reference ten Brummelhuis, Bakker, Hetland and Keulemans2012), another study using experience-sampling data found that ICT use during the previous evening time was negatively related to work engagement the next work day, which was explained by self-control depletion due to poor sleep (per self-regulatory theory; Lanaj et al., Reference Lanaj, Johnson and Barnes2014).
What we are doing during ICT use? Work inattention
The third key trend in technology use research examines questions related to what kinds of tasks we are using ICT to complete. More specifically, the key question is typically whether ICTs are being used for nonwork purposes during work hours. For example, many employees reported checking or responding to personal emails or messages while on the job (Garrett & Danziger, Reference Garrett and Danziger2008). This issue is the flipside of the research presented in the previous section regarding ICT use for work purposes spilling over into the nonwork domain. In this case, ICT use essentially represents work inattention, though the nature of inattention can vary from relatively benign to problematic behaviors. In their broad review, Ivarsson and Larsson (Reference Ivarsson and Larsson2011) argued that Internet use at work for personal matters should not be strictly disciplined as a deviant issue, nor should they accepted as a normal act, because other circumstances need to be taken into consideration. For example, some uses may be perceived as being more “legitimate” than other uses (e.g., checking on a sick child versus playing games on your phone). We explore two subthemes of this topic in terms of whether behaviors are dysfunctional for achieving organizational goals (e.g., counterproductive ICT-related work behaviors) or whether they serve a positive function by sustaining employee performance and well-being over time (e.g., work breaks).
Counterproductive ICT use
Some research on ICT use during work hours for nonwork purposes views the behavior as counterproductive. That is, it is a behavior that does not contribute to work goals and can potentially harm an organization and its members (Gruys & Sackett, Reference Gruys and Sackett2003). The notion that ICT use at work for nonwork purposes is often seen as inappropriate, as evidenced by companies implementing Internet access policies that restrict nonwork-related Internet use at work (Greenfield & Davis, Reference Greenfield and Davis2002). Researchers have also developed various terminologies and measures of these types of nonwork-related ICT behaviors. On the broader side, cyberdeviancy (Weatherbee, Reference Weatherbee2010) refers to a wide collection of behaviors that qualify as forms of production deviance (online shopping), political deviance (gossiping), property deviance (web pornography), and personal aggression (identify theft). Specifically, O’Neill et al. (Reference O’Neill, Hambley and Bercovich2014) found that “cyberslacking” behaviors while telecommuting—getting more distracted and sidetracked compared with being in the office—were associated with lower levels of job satisfaction and perceived performance.
Cyberslacking is also similar to the idea of “cyberloafing” (Lim, Reference Lim2002), which falls into two broad categories related to browsing (e.g., entertainment, news, downloading nonwork-related information) versus emailing (e.g., checking, receiving, sending nonwork-related emails) behaviors while on work time. Interestingly, a meta-analysis on cyberloafing suggested that it is not significantly associated with job performance (Mercado et al., Reference Mercado, Giordano and Dilchert2017). Such mixed findings regarding the influence of cyberloafing on performance may stem from different motives in engaging these behaviors. Some employees engage in cyberloafing because of their perception of organizational injustice (Lim, Reference Lim2002) or differences in personality traits (e.g., conscientiousness, agreeableness, and self-control; Mercado et al., Reference Mercado, Giordano and Dilchert2017; O’Neill et al., Reference O’Neill, Hambley and Bercovich2014); others may simply feel bored at the moment when they have completed their work tasks (Mercado et al., Reference Mercado, Giordano and Dilchert2017), which may be less detrimental to one’s performance.
Another example of considering ICT use in the performance context is a study differentiating between beneficial (e.g., gathering information for work purposes) versus harmful (e.g., posting pictures or text that disparage others) social media-related work behaviors (Landers & Callan, Reference Landers and Callan2014). Their results suggest that most “harmful” work-related social media use dimensions were indeed associated with other measures of counterproductive work behaviors and also negatively predicted positive performance constructs (i.e., task, contextual, and adaptive job performance). Using social media to create offensive content, representing the organization poorly, and content plagiarism are all examples of behaviors with particular negative consequences. Yet behaviors that were similar to the concept of cyberloafing (time theft and multitasking) were again unrelated to any dimensions of job performance. Such findings raise concerns over whether generally using ICTs during work for nonwork purposes is truly counterproductive behavior that likely leads to poor performance outcomes.
Work break behavior
Alternatively, similar behaviors of using ICTs for nonwork purposes during work time may be conceptualized as a type of work break, which has benefits for recovering from work stress momentarily (Trougakos & Hideg, Reference Trougakos and Hideg2009). For instance, watching a funny YouTube video can help employees quickly relax and replenish resources for subsequent work tasks. Coker (Reference Coker2013) conducted an experimental study and a nationwide survey and showed that employees who engaged in workplace Internet leisure browsing, which is relatively enjoyable, were more likely to sustain attentional resources and benefit subsequent work productivity. Another study using ecological momentary assessment examined the relationship between nonwork social media use and work engagement and found interesting results (Syrek et al., Reference Syrek, Kühnel, Vahle-Hinz and De Bloom2017). Nonwork social media use was associated with lower levels of work engagement at the between-person level, but such behavior has benefits for work engagement during the next hour at the within-person level. Therefore, nonwork ICT use, if used appropriately, may have some beneficial effects for workers and organizations.
The technology experience perspective
In contrast to studies that focus on behavior-oriented conceptualization and measurement to examine ICT use, other research has taken a different approach by directly measuring users’ motives and their appraisals of ICT experiences. Rather than separately measuring the frequency or intensity of ICT use and linking it with general or work-related psychological reactions among employees, the technology experience perspective attempts to pinpoint unique psychological experiences that may arise from technological work events or situations. Whereas the technology behavior perspective addresses questions of where we use it, when do we use it, and what the purpose of technology use is, the technology experience perspective asks questions about how technology use events are viewed by workers (i.e., appraisals of demands and resources) and why workers are using technology (i.e., motives). In addition to discussing general research findings in these two major themes of “how” and “why,” we also highlight the similarities and differences in supporting theories and conceptualizations in development of new ICT concepts versus general forms of constructs.
How do we view technology use? Appraisals of ICT events
When considering the psychological experiences of ICT use, one important theme is how individuals appraise ICT events and features differently in terms of valence and degree depending on their relationship to one’s goals in a given context, such as completing a work task and spending time with family (Lazarus & Folkman, Reference Lazarus and Folkman1984). In a broader context, we consider various physical, psychological, social, and organizational factors at work that either hinder tasks accomplishment and incur well-being costs or bring benefits to work and well-being outcomes (Bakker & Demerouti, Reference Bakker and Demerouti2007). In the technological work context, ICT features and events could be appraised to be either demanding or supporting, contingent on contextual and individual factors (Day et al., Reference Day, Scott, Kelloway, Perrewe and Ganster2010). Therefore, we discuss the general I-O concepts of job demands (workload, situational constraints, interpersonal conflict) and resources (control, support), as well as how these concepts have been conceptualized with ICT-specific events.
Demanding ICT events
One subtheme of appraising ICT events is that ICTs increase the amount of demands placed on employees. These demands could be categorized as alternative forms of traditional job demands (e.g., workload), or they could be demands specific to ICT use. From a theoretical perspective, the transactional model of stress (Lazarus & Folkman, Reference Lazarus and Folkman1984) and job demands-resources model (JD-R; Bakker & Demerouti, Reference Bakker and Demerouti2007) both have been the predominant theories in guiding the development of ICT-specific constructs of demands and investigating these ICT demands and various well-being and work outcomes. According to the transactional model of stress, individuals appraise a situation or an event at workplace in terms of its significance to one’s well-being such that if it is evaluated as being stressful, it may likely elicit stress perceptions (Lazarus & Folkman, Reference Lazarus and Folkman1984). Workers could differ from each other in how they evaluate similar events due to their individual differences, and the same worker could evaluate one event differently across time/scenarios, depending on situational factors.
Job demands in the JD-R model refer to various factors and characteristics in the job that require physical and psychological effort. Extended exposure to demands at work is proposed to induce strain reactions and result in experiences of negative psychological and physical outcomes. Job demands in this theory encompass several dimensions, including workload demands, situational constraints, and interpersonal conflicts (Spector & Jex, Reference Spector and Jex1998). New concepts related to ICT demands (i.e., “any ICT factor or process at work that has the potential to be perceived as stressful by workers”; Day et al., Reference Day, Scott, Kelloway, Perrewe and Ganster2010, p. 324) also tend to fall into these three categories in a technological context.
Workload demands
First, there are a variety of new ICT concepts that are subsumed under the idea of workload. One measure of ICT demands included items related to ICT response expectation and ICT availability (Day et al., Reference Day, Paquet, Scott and Hambley2012). The need to respond quickly to work-related communications is similar to the idea of a fast working pace, whereas availability represents a concern over the need for extended work hours. Workplace telepressure is another new concept related to response expectations, which refers to the preoccupation with and urge to respond quickly to work-related ICT messages (Barber & Santuzzi, Reference Barber and Santuzzi2015).
These concepts are related to the notion that technology has altered expectations around how and when work is getting done (O’Driscoll et al., Reference O’Driscoll, Brough, Timms, Sawang, Perrewe and Ganster2010). Employees started to perceive the expectation that they must be available and respond to work-related messages even after getting off work, when they are supposed to “switch off” for recovery from work demands. For example, both response expectations and the urge to conform to them (i.e., workplace telepressure) predict negative outcomes like exhaustion and stress (Day et al., Reference Day, Paquet, Scott and Hambley2012; Santuzzi & Barber, Reference Santuzzi and Barber2018). Availability expectation during nonwork hours also increases domain permeability (i.e., allowing demands from one domain to pass into the other domain), which negatively influences recovery experiences, as indicated by psychological detachment from work and lack of control over leisure time (Dettmers, Bamberg, et al., Reference Dettmers, Bamberg and Seffzek2016; Dettmers, Vahle-Hinz, et al., Reference Dettmers, Vahle-Hinz, Bamberg, Friedrich and Keller2016; Mellner Reference Mellner2016). Availability expectation also can explain the increased use of ICT during nonwork hours, which in turn impairs employee psychological well-being (Dettmers, Bamberg, et al., Reference Dettmers, Bamberg and Seffzek2016; Fenner & Renn, Reference Fenner and Renn2010; Piszczek, Reference Piszczek2017) and induces physiological reactions (i.e., cortisol; Dettmer, Vahle-Hinz et al., Reference Dettmers, Vahle-Hinz, Bamberg, Friedrich and Keller2016).
Last, other new concepts include techno-overload (Ragu-Nathan et al., Reference Ragu-Nathan, Tarafdar, Ragu-Nathan and Tu2008), ICT workload, and learning expectations (Dayet al., Reference Day, Scott, Kelloway, Perrewe and Ganster2010, Reference Day, Paquet, Scott and Hambley2012), which involve increasing the amount of work to be done due to technologies both generally and in the context of increased learning requirements. The ICT workload concept is also captured with a narrow focus on email demands, which assess individuals’ perceptions of too much email (email overload) and how important email is to their work (email centrality to work; Brown et al., Reference Brown, Duck and Jimmieson2014; Dabbish & Kraut, Reference Dabbish and Kraut2006; Rosen et al., Reference Rosen, Simon, Gajendran, Johnson, Lee and Lin2019).
Situational constraints
Situational constraints refer to factors that might thwart individuals in performing their jobs, such as having insufficient knowledge or supplies, as well as interruptions to one’s work. New ICT concepts related to situational constraints are about individual perceptions that technology is interfering with one’s ability to effectively conduct work. One key example is ICT hassles (Day et al., Reference Day, Paquet, Scott and Hambley2012), which reference issues with computer freezes, Internet problems, and computer viruses. Additionally, Ragu-Nathan et al. (Reference Ragu-Nathan, Tarafdar, Ragu-Nathan and Tu2008) considered other similar issues, such as having insufficient knowledge about ICTs and the need to keep up with complex technological changes or upgrades (i.e., techno-complexity and techno-uncertainty) as forms of technostress creators. These hassles related to ICT use could negatively influence one’s well-being (i.e., strain) beyond non-ICT-specific job demands (Day et al., Reference Day, Paquet, Scott and Hambley2012).
Interruptions from others are unexpected incidents initiated by others that may interfere with one’s primary task and delay work progress (i.e., intrusions; Jett & George, Reference Jett and George2003). Measures that focus narrowly on intrusions at work show that they are linked to stress at work (Lin et al., Reference Lin, Kain and Fritz2013; Rogers & Barber, Reference Rogers and Barber2019; Wilkes et al., Reference Wilkes, Barber and Rogers2018). Although assessments of interruptions usually refer to in-person encounters, interruptions can also be technology mediated, such as unexpected phone calls or notifications of new emails or messages. A daily diary study examined the effects of perceived interruptions by online messages and showed that interruptions were associated with increased perceptions of time pressure, which is a common job stressor, and in turn induced more negative affect (Sonnentag et al., Reference Sonnentag, Reinecke, Mata and Vorderer2018).
Interpersonal conflict
Interpersonal conflict occurs when workers have disagreement with others at work or experience poor treatment from others both overtly and covertly (Spector & Jex, Reference Spector and Jex1998). Examples include arguing about how to proceed with a task with another team member or being insulted in person by a coworker. Though ICTs are used for asynchronous communications, miscommunications rooted in the content of emails or messages can also be a form of ICT demands. For example, the poor communication dimension of the ICT-demand measure assesses misinterpretations of email messages and receiving rude emails from others, and this measure is positively associated with ICT stress (Day et al., Reference Day, Paquet, Scott and Hambley2012). Drawing from affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, Reference Weiss, Cropanzano, Staw and Cummings1996), an extended theory from the transactional model of stress focuses on appraising work events with respect to their congruence with one’s work goals, in turn generating different emotional reactions in employees. This theory has been commonly referenced in ICT research, such as the aforementioned affective reactions regarding telecommuting experiences and the generation of a taxonomy of positively and negatively valenced ICT-related events (Braukmann et al., Reference Braukmann, Schmitt, Ďuranová and Ohly2018). The theory posits that ICT-related factors and events are evaluated by employees, subsequently eliciting affective reactions as well as downstream behavioral and attitudinal outcomes, and their appraisal could change depending on situational factors and individual differences. Given that asynchronous communications issues can arise from either misinterpreting the sender’s intent due to ambiguous wording or an objectively negative tone in emails, emotions play a critical role because they are part of the information being transmitted as well as the experiential outcome on the receiver’s end. First, miscommunications of emotions or intentions in a sender’s message can be explained by the loss of information due to a lack of nonverbal cues (Byron, Reference Byron2008). That is, a brief neutral message for reminding someone about a project deadline (e.g., “Make sure you turn in your finished project report by 5pm today”) is ambiguous enough to be perceived as an indicator of impatience/frustration or merely a routine reminder.
Second, the poor communication can be attributed to the sender who may be intentionally writing negatively charged messages to express frustration. Regardless of how these communication problems were caused, employees who perceive messages as having a negative affective tone experience lower affective well-being after work (i.e., more anger and less happiness; Butts et al., Reference Butts, Becker and Boswell2015). In addition to poor communication (Day et al., Reference Day, Paquet, Scott and Hambley2012), several other new ICT terms have been introduced to denote these communication or interpersonal stressors at a more extreme level, such as cyber incivility (Lim & Teo, Reference Lim and Teo2009) and cyberbullying (Farley et al., Reference Farley, Coyne, Axtell and Sprigg2016). Studies have shown that experiences of cyber incivility can lead to both physical and psychological distress (Park et al., Reference Park, Fritz and Jex2018) and adverse work-related outcomes (e.g., reduced organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and increased intention to quit and deviance, Lim & Teo, Reference Lim and Teo2009; work withdrawal, Park & Haun, Reference Park and Haun2018). Furthermore, in their study of 167 dual-earner couples, Park and Haun (Reference Park and Haun2018) found that cyber incivility could induce stress in employees, which then crossed over to their partners over the weekend, subsequently leading partners to withdraw from work. Cyber incivility also has been examined in experimental research: Participants who experienced cyber incivility reported more negative affect, less energy, and worse performance, with low engagement, on an effortful task compared with those in the control group (Giumetti et al., Reference Giumetti, Hatfield, Scisco, Schroeder, Muth and Kowalski2013).
Supporting ICT events
Alternatively, employees can appraise technological work events as facilitating positive outcomes, in line with the concept of job resources (Bakker & Demerouti, Reference Bakker and Demerouti2007). Drawing from the JD-R model and conservation of resources theory (Bakker & Demerouti, Reference Bakker and Demerouti2007; Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll1989), job resources refer to the positive aspects of a job that can temper perceived job demands and the negative outcomes of demands, facilitate work progress, and help retain and rebuild psychological resources, which then enhance workers’ overall psychological well-being and positive work outcomes. From this theoretical perspective, examples of job resources include performance feedback, getting rewards, having control over one’s job, job security, and supervisor support (Demerouti et al., Reference Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner and Schaufeli2001). We provide several representative adapted and new ICT concepts that either fall under the general concept of job resources or are specific to the ICT context.
In the technological work context, functions of ICTs can support positive psychological experiences in the forms of perceived control over ICT use (Day et al., Reference Day, Scott, Kelloway, Perrewe and Ganster2010) and ICT flexibility (Diaz et al., Reference Diaz, Chiaburu, Zimmerman and Boswell2012). Both of these are similar to the broader concept of autonomy, specifically control related to performing and completing one’s work (job control). Perceived control over how and where to use ICTs may facilitate one’s sense of control over other life domains and thus directly reduce work–family conflict (Diaz et al., Reference Diaz, Chiaburu, Zimmerman and Boswell2012); however, ICT flexibility was also associated with increased ICT use, which then indirectly increased work–family conflict in the same study.
Another aspect of resources that is specific to the ICT context is technical support, specifically personal assistance and technical resources. Examples include being provided with technological assistance and prompt upgrades from help desks in organizations and having access to updated information related to ICT devices (Day et al., Reference Day, Paquet, Scott and Hambley2012; Ragu-Nathan et al., Reference Ragu-Nathan, Tarafdar, Ragu-Nathan and Tu2008). These technical resources were associated with lower levels of strain and exhaustion and even moderated the negative effect of ICT hassle on strain and cynicism (Day et al., Reference Day, Paquet, Scott and Hambley2012).
Why do we use technology? Motives
Although research continues to reveal how individuals perceive and appraise ICT use differently, a new approach to studying technology experience that has not yet received much attention to date concerns the motives that drive individuals to stay connected to work via ICTs. This approach emphasizes different reasons for ICT use, which differentially predict psychological experiences and outcomes among employees. Research on ICT motives draws from the self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, Reference Ryan and Deci2000), which explains how individuals may differ in their motives for engaging in specific ICT use, in turn affecting both individual effort and well-being outcomes. People may experience autonomous motivation to engage in ICT use because they view it as enjoyable and valuable to one’s work. Though such behavior may be driven by external factors (e.g., workload), individuals’ perceptions that these factors are important and consistent with one’s values would internalize the act as intrinsically motivated. In contrast, controlled motivation is directly driven by external factors for the purposes of meeting standards, seeking rewards, and avoiding punishments. With such motivation, using ICTs in certain context may instead be obligatory for external purposes (e.g., making a good impression on managers by responding in a timely manner to their messages).
Besides distinguishing motivation and regulation of ICT use, SDT also inspired the refinement of a paradoxical framework, the “i-paradox triad” that is situated particularly in the ICT context (Day et al., Reference Day, Barber, Tonet and Landers2019). This framework explored the paradoxical nature of ICT use that mapped onto three basic psychological needs. First, the need for autonomy may be satisfied by ICT use due to the increased feeling of control over one’s job (e.g., when and where to complete task) or undermined by loss of control due to overabundance of work. Second, the need for competence may be satisfied by ICT use via increased work productivity from efficiency and innovative tools or undermined by the occurrence of ICT hassles and inability to keep up with fast upgrades and learning speed. Last, the need for relatedness or affiliation may be satisfied by ICT use via the ease of building connections with coworkers for work purposes or personal social bonds. Yet, this need can also be undermined by ICT use due to the increased physical distance, as a lack of face-to-face interactions over time can increase feelings of isolation from others in the organization.
Empirically, relevant ICT concepts have yet to proliferate in this area to date, but some research has either adapted previous general motivation concepts or created new concepts that contribute to understanding the motives of ICT use. For instance, Ohly and Latour (Reference Ohly and Latour2014) conducted a study to examine autonomous and controlled motivation for using smartphone for work at night. They found that autonomous motivation was associated with increased positive affective experiences and better recovery experiences, whereas controlled motivation was associated with lower level of positive affect and higher level of negative affect but not associated with recovery experiences. Another example is workplace telepressure, which was developed based on the JD-R model as reactions to ICT demands, but also could be relevant to the psychological experience of controlled motivation. For example, the compulsion to respond may be due to a fear of disapproval arising from neuroticism, public self-consciousness, workaholism, or perceived ICT response demands (Barber & Santuzzi, Reference Barber and Santuzzi2015; Grawitch et al., Reference Grawitch, Werth, Palmer, Erb and Lavigne2018). That is, there is little evidence to date that employees experience positive emotions or enjoyment from workplace telepressure, which would be outcomes indicative of autonomous motivation. For example, it is weakly or inconsistently associated with work engagement (especially vigor and dedication dimensions; Barber & Santuzzi, Reference Barber and Santuzzi2015; Santuzzi & Barber, Reference Santuzzi and Barber2018; Van Laethem et al., Reference Van Laethem, van Vianen and Derks2018).
Practical challenges and recommendations for future research
Information and communication technologies research drawing from the technology behavior and experience perspectives has made important contributions to our understanding of employee well-being and performance in the technological work context in terms of where and when ICT is used, what is being done with ICTs, and how and why we use them. However, there are some practical challenges that deserve closer attention. First, what is truly a new ICT concept or merely a relabeling of previous nontechnological concepts that have already received sufficient research attention, with respect to either technology-related processes or general work processes, is often unclear. This issue is likely driven by a lack of awareness of both key terms and definitions within and across disciplines. Second, there is also a need for clarity regarding theoretical mechanisms that make research in ICT contexts and concepts worth exploring. Is there something truly unique about technological experiences at work, or are we studying the same psychological or behavioral processes while putting “tech” or “cyber” in front of them? Third, it appears that technology-related research is often not sensitive to organizational needs (i.e., addressing policy and intervention implications), likely due to common issues with the scientist–practitioner gap. We discuss these challenges in more detail and provide recommendations for addressing these challenges (see Table 1 for a summary).
Practical Challenges and Future Research Directions
Facilitating intra- and interdisciplinary communications and collaboration
There is a wide range of literature on ICT use and experiences from different research fields, both within subfields of I-O psychology and other relevant fields such as human–computer interactions (e.g., Dabbish & Kraut, Reference Dabbish and Kraut2006) and information systems (e.g., Ragu-Nathan et al., Reference Ragu-Nathan, Tarafdar, Ragu-Nathan and Tu2008). Even though researchers from various fields may have different purposes for studying the role of communication technology—for example, optimizing technological software systems to better fit work contexts with increasing reliance on ICTs—they may create and use somewhat similar concepts and measures. Thus, an important challenge for future research is to increase awareness of existing ICT-related research within and across subdisciplines, which can be achieved with better intra- and interdisciplinary communication or collaboration to avoid further unnecessary construct proliferation. Below, we elaborate on examples of resolving the challenge related to interdisciplinary and intradisciplinary overlap issues in existing concepts as well as avenues for exploring new ICT concepts from outside the organizational research field.
As an example of interdisciplinary communication issues, information systems research investigates psychological experiences among employees whose work is heavily dependent on using computers and other technologies, which is often referred as “technostress” (Ragu-Nathan et al., Reference Ragu-Nathan, Tarafdar, Ragu-Nathan and Tu2008). The study on technostress did not incorporate occupational health or organizational psychology research in the development process for their measure, and vice versa for the ICT demands construct (Day et al., Reference Day, Paquet, Scott and Hambley2012), or concepts in other information systems and human–computer interaction research (Dabbish & Kraut, Reference Dabbish and Kraut2006). This has resulted in parallel measures where some dimensions in the technostress measure and ICT demands/resources measures (Day et al., Reference Day, Paquet, Scott and Hambley2012) share some constructs and items in common. Particularly, Ragu-Nathan et al.’s (Reference Ragu-Nathan, Tarafdar, Ragu-Nathan and Tu2008) characterization of constant connectivity as a creator of technostress (i.e., the Technostress-Invasion subscale) and technical support as an inhibitor of technostress provided theoretical support in justifying availability expectation from organizations as a factor of ICT demand and personal assistance as a factor of ICT support in Dayet al. (Reference Day, Scott, Kelloway, Perrewe and Ganster2010) and Day et al. (Reference Day, Paquet, Scott and Hambley2012). Although Ragu-Nathan et al.’s research was grounded in a stress theory (i.e., the transactional model of stress), it did not draw from relevant occupational health research in their construct validation process despite the emphasis on a new “stress” construct—which would require acknowledgement and inclusion of other general work demands/stressor measures (e.g., Spector & Jex, Reference Spector and Jex1998). Alternatively, although occupational health research has fleetingly acknowledged the technostress construct in measure development (e.g., Day et al., Reference Day, Paquet, Scott and Hambley2012) or included isolated dimensions (e.g., Barber & Santuzzi, Reference Barber and Santuzzi2015), there has been little effort to systematically assess the technostress construct in the organizational behavior literature. This issue has resulted in almost completely independent lines of research in ICT demands across various disciplines. Thus, examining the utility and distinction of ICT concepts from different disciplines can help guide future researchers in all disciplines to make better decisions in choosing constructs and measures. In addition, such a cross-disciplinary perspective will facilitate further verification of whether ICT concepts and measures (e.g., various ICT demands) account for unique variance beyond general I-O constructs and measures (e.g., general work demands) in predicting well-being and performance outcomes.
An intradisciplinary example from the organizational research field would use almost identical behavioral measures but measuring different constructs or functions. Nonwork-related ICT use during work hours was investigated in different contexts: cyberloafing as a counterproductive work behavior (Lim, Reference Lim2002) versus workplace Internet leisure browsing as an informal work break (Coker, Reference Coker2013). Although the names for constructs differed, many of the activities in the items were almost identical (e.g., checking personal email, online shopping, visiting nonwork websites). Future research could further specify “why” individuals engage in these behaviors and “how” different stakeholders (e.g., managers, employees) evaluate these behaviors to help us clarify the focal constructs and their nomological network. By connecting individuals’ motives to the behaviors and their outcomes at work, researchers may be able to address the construct clarity issues, improve the accuracy of the measurements, and further understand the underlying theoretical mechanisms.
One notable intradisciplinary exemplar in this area is the development of a workplace cyberbullying measure, in which Farley et al. (Reference Farley, Coyne, Axtell and Sprigg2016) reviewed and critiqued the limitations of a list of previous cyberbullying and general bullying measures. Such a review provides arguments as to why a new measure is necessary and how it could contribute to conceptual advances in the literature. However, another workplace cyberbullying measure was developed around the same time with a slightly different construct definition (Vranjes et al., Reference Vranjes, Baillien, Vandebosch, Erreygers and De Witte2018). Although the paper briefly mentioned Farley et al.’s measure and identified the distinctions between the two, the separate development work on a very similar construct around the same time suggests room for improvement in intradisciplinary communications. Such issues may be primarily driven by the time-consuming research dissemination process typical of academia. Therefore, future research remedies should include providing technological resources or platforms for helping I-O psychology researchers collaborate and share ongoing projects with associated measures. Such efforts may involve creating crowd-sourced electronic resources (or “wikis”) that have an ongoing list of current measures and associated psychometric information from published work. Additionally, large-scale measure validation collaborations across different research laboratories (including cross-cultural research) can provide sufficient replications and sample sizes for testing the added value of measures beyond existing I-O constructs.
We also encourage organizational researchers to apply an interdisciplinary approach to examining existing ICT concepts in other fields that might be appropriate for work-related contexts. In the human–computer interaction and cyberpsychology fields, many technology buzzwords have been studied empirically. For example, the fear of missing out (FoMO) is defined as “the apprehension when others might be having rewarding experiences from which one is absent” (Przybylski et al., Reference Przybylski, Murayama, DeHaan and Gladwell2013, p. 1841). In the nonwork context, FoMO has been shown to be associated with psychological need satisfaction and social media engagement. Recent work has suggested that this phenomenon may be relevant to the workplace, as it predicts work burnout and work-related message-checking behavior (Budnick et al., Reference Budnick, Rogers and Barber2020). Yet, that same work also shows that workplace FoMO does not have the same negative implications for both overall and work-related well-being as does general FoMO. Research also has studied the effects of “phubbing” (i.e., snubbing people in a social setting via a smartphone; Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, Reference Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas2016), which might be relevant to workplace interactions in meetings. Other researchers have studied how the fear of being out of contact with a mobile phone (nomophobia; Yildirim & Correia, Reference Yildirim and Correia2015) predicts stress and perceived social threat. Because smartphone use has been a focus of workplace technology use both during and after work hours in I-O psychology research (e.g., Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, Reference Boswell and Olson-Buchanan2007; ten Brummelhuis et al., Reference ten Brummelhuis, Bakker, Hetland and Keulemans2012), nomophobia and phubbing might be relevant to workplace settings. Therefore, it would be useful to see whether these concepts also add anything to I-O psychology research when translated into the work context.
Besides these constructs, it is relevant to determine the antecedents and consequences of increasing use of various social media platforms in nonwork settings (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat; Piwek & Joinson, Reference Piwek and Joinson2016; Sheldon & Bryant, Reference Sheldon and Bryant2016), especially because social media use for work purposes is growing in popularity (Leftheriotis & Giannakos, Reference Leftheriotis and Giannakos2014; Society of Human Resource Management, 2016). In addition to recognizing potential ICT-related concepts to use, researchers should pay more attention to the purposes of ICT research in other fields. For example, research in human–computer interactions focuses on designing and updating interfaces for optimal technological use experiences by drawing on concepts from cognitive and human factors psychology (Card et al., Reference Card, Moran and Newell1983), whereas research in information systems attempts to understand and evaluate end-users’ experiences with technologies (Venkatesh et al., Reference Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis2003). This focus on the rationale or purpose would not only inform researchers on how to adapt and use instruments but also help develop technology-related theoretical frameworks by considering other key outcomes.
Explaining the utility and uniqueness of ICT concepts with communication theory
As we look beyond a single discipline to study ICT concepts and contexts, another pressing question is how much each new construct contributes to the literature beyond what we have been studying in a more general context. It appears that the current literature often works from the assumption that studying the influence of a specific ICT context on broader social and work environment issues would provide us with new knowledge. However, this assumption often goes unmentioned in our literature reviews and untested in how we answer our research questions in empirical research (e.g., comparison of nontechnological processes; incremental validity testing). We also argue that common theoretical themes that are used in ICT research focus on explaining theoretical pathways between ICT concepts and employee outcomes rather than why these concepts would create a unique experience when compared with their nontechnological counterparts. Although some theoretical reviews have identified the primary features of a theoretical framework for ICT use and experiences, such as the paradoxical framework depicting the “double-edged-sword” nature of teleworking (Gajendran & Harrison, Reference Gajendran and Harrison2007), both appraisal and ICT-motive/need satisfaction explanations (Day et al., Reference Day, Scott, Kelloway, Perrewe and Ganster2010; Day et al., Reference Day, Barber, Tonet and Landers2019; Ohly & Latour, Reference Ohly and Latour2014) for technological experiences are subsumed under traditional stress and motivation theories. We elaborate on this issue by using three examples of theoretical approaches related to communication that could help make the case for both the utility and uniqueness of ICT research in I-O psychology. The first in particular has been commonly used in the work-design subtheme under the technology behavioral perspective, but it is frequently neglected in technology experience perspectives.
Media richness theory describes the differences between various forms of media in their capacity for transmitting both work-related and experiential information with clarity and accuracy, as well as immediacy of feedback (Daft & Lengel, Reference Daft and Lengel1986). Richer media (e.g., face-to-face) tend to contain more information with lower ambiguity and allow for immediate feedback with additional information exchange than less rich media (e.g., email). This theory has been adopted in supporting organizational research in specific technology-mediated work phenomena, including employment interviews (e.g., Chapman et al., Reference Chapman, Uggerslev and Webster2003), the communication of emotions among virtual teams (e.g., Driskell et al., Reference Driskell, Radtke and Salas2003), and telecommuters’ experiences (e.g., Golden, Reference Golden2006). Specifically, face-to-face interviews produce more favorable perceived fairness and expectation of interview outcomes than technology-mediated interviews (i.e., videoconferencing and telephone; Chapman et al., Reference Chapman, Uggerslev and Webster2003). Virtual teams (i.e., teams relying on communications via videoconference, telephone, text, or email) may experience reduced cohesiveness and interpersonal and instrumental bonds, which in turn may influence team performance (Driskell et al., Reference Driskell, Radtke and Salas2003). Working remotely reduces the channels for quick feedback and reception of essential nonverbal cues, which may affect the quality of exchanges with supervisors and coworkers, in turn reducing job satisfaction (Golden, Reference Golden2006). These findings provide insights in ICT research that technology-mediated communications contribute to our understanding of organizational attitudes and behaviors differently.
It is unclear whether the research is adequately comparing face-to-face communications versus technology-mediated communications to understand the uniqueness and utility of ICT concepts. Research that focuses on comparing settings (office-based work versus telework) also can face a problem in that even office workers have varying levels of reliance on technology for their communications. Such nuances in ICT-related factors also extend to exploring different types of technological media. Some ICT concepts were construed around one specific form of media (e.g., email demands, Dabbish & Kraut, Reference Dabbish and Kraut2006), whereas others reference all forms of electronic communications (e.g., Barber & Santuzzi, Reference Barber and Santuzzi2015). Other newer types of technologies are continually being adopted by organizations (e.g., using virtual reality conferencing to allow 3D interactions with members in meetings; Hills-Duty, Reference Hills-Duty2017). Therefore, it is important not only to discern the characteristics of all kinds of media but also to examine whether these characteristics may affect individuals’ psychological experiences and organizational behaviors differently. Future ICT research should evaluate whether measures specific to one medium can be translated to another medium with the same functionality or whether using general non-ICT measures may be more applicable for future research.
Although media richness theory focuses more on the presence or absence of richness characteristics of media, social information processing theory (Walther, Reference Walther1992) depicts technology-mediated communication from a relational perspective, where the passage of time and exchange of stakeholders’ information for impression formation stimulate the development of interpersonal relationships. Social information processing theory acknowledges that the lower rate of information exchange in electronic communication is due to the differences in media richness. Given sufficient time for accumulating information about others, electronic communications can be as functional and effective as face-to-face interactions (Walther, Reference Walther1995). This theory has been applied to virtual team research in supporting how trust could be slowly built for teams relying heavily or solely on asynchronous and synchronous technology-mediated communication (e.g., Jarvenpaa & Leidner, Reference Jarvenpaa and Leidner1999; Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Straus and McEvily2006). Specifically, trust developed at a slower rate in virtual teams in the beginning, but a trust level similar to that in face-to-face teams could be achieved over time (Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Straus and McEvily2006). Research on distinctions of ICT concepts and corresponding traditional concepts could be strengthened using this theory. For instance, many terminologies related to electronic negative acts at work are interpersonal and translate to face-to-face interactions (e.g., cyber incivility; Lim & Teo, Reference Lim and Teo2009). If an employee reports that someone said something that was hurtful to them over email, then the interpretation of the items measuring cyber incivility likely would change based on the understanding of the background intentions of the sender. Future research could explore whether the negative consequences of uncivil acts (and other forms of mistreatment and miscommunication) that are enacted in person versus via technologies differ over time, with the goal of determining whether negative interpretations are more likely to occur earlier in online interactional relationships, leave a greater impression when online, or linger longer than those from face-to-face communications. For example, being able to revisit the exact message phrasing could be either beneficial (i.e., reinterpretation based on a closer reading) or harmful (i.e., ruminating over emails or sharing them with others for group venting) depending on the context.
Another theory for consideration in evaluating the uniqueness and utility of new ICT concepts in interpersonal electronic communications is expectancy violation theory (Burgoon & Hale, Reference Burgoon and Hale1988). This theory depicts that individuals hold expectations about standards of interpersonal interactions, which are formed based on social norms and distinctive features of interactions among a group of individuals. Violation of expectations may be perceived as positive or negative and, in turn, elicit emotional reactions and behaviors in response. As online communications are prevalent among individuals, research has begun to consider the underlying mechanisms of nonverbal cues in technology-mediated communications for work. For example, given that nonverbal cues are often embedded in emoticons, capitalized/italicized/bolded texts, and incons/avatars (Kudesia & Elfenbein, Reference Kudesia, Elfenbein, Hall and Knapp2013; Skovholt et al., Reference Skovholt, Grønning and Kankaanranta2014; Walther & D’addario, Reference Walther and D’addario2001), individuals may form discrepant expectations based on their interpretations of the nonverbal cues in various online communications (e.g., email, text, messenger). When expectancy violations occur, it is important to consider the valence and importance of such violations to further understand the role of various expectations and social norms about ICT use in the workplace. Research has developed ICT concepts similar to the idea of expectation, including behavior (i.e., responsiveness; Sonnentag et al., Reference Sonnentag, Reinecke, Mata and Vorderer2018), perceptions of expectations (e.g., regarding availability, Dettmers, Bamberg et al., Reference Dettmers, Bamberg and Seffzek2016; response, Day et al., Reference Day, Paquet, Scott and Hambley2012), and psychological reactions to ambiguous expectations (Barber & Santuzzi, Reference Barber and Santuzzi2015). Although we are learning more about workers’ perceptions of technological expectations in their organization, we currently do not know much about the nature and effects of positive and negative violations or how these norms are developed and maintained over time. Additionally, individual characteristics (e.g., status, gender) could attenuate one’s expectation and evaluation of a violation and subsequent behavioral outcomes (Burgoon & Walther, Reference Burgoon and Walther1990). We also need to know more about how expectancy violations in technology use are altered based on additional (or prior) information we have about the person engaging in the behavior. For example, in a hypothetical scenario of evaluating job candidates, a longer email response lag (two weeks or more than a month) was seen as more surprising than a short response lag (1 day) if the candidate was described as making an initial positive impression during an interview (Kalman & Rafaeli, Reference Kalman and Rafaeli2011). This expectation violation then had a more negative influence on favorability ratings of candidates who made initially positive impressions because the long pause in communication was harshly interpreted as a social slight. Comparatively, response lags did not matter with a candidate who was initially unimpressive. Such findings have important implications for interpretations of response behavior in organizations with more explicit or ambiguous norms around communication expectations in face-to-face versus online interactions. For example, employees who normally make a good impression in person may fail to follow expectations of online behavior simply because of a lack of awareness of unwritten social norms in the workplace. In multinational virtual teams, these issues could even be informed by cross-cultural differences. Thus, the utility of ICT concepts related to expectations and even motivation might benefit from taking expectancy violation theory into account.
Addressing pressing organizational needs
The growing nature of research on ICT in the workplace largely stems from the phenomenon of ubiquitous use of ICT devices and adoptions of various new policies around electronic communications in the workplace. Although we have done an excellent job of studying employees’ experiences to test and refine traditional I-O theories (i.e., theory-driven, nonexperimental research designs), there is need for further work to increase our responsiveness to evidence-based practice issues that directly address “big picture” organizational needs (i.e., practice-driven, experimental or intervention designs). Therefore, collaborations with practitioners could inform more research into balancing the benefits and drawbacks of technology use practices, technology-related policy adoption issues, and the effects of technology-related legislation.
For instance, an emphasis on negative implications of technology use at work, such as presenting information regarding how “cyberslacking” predicts less work engagement, might lead a human resources practitioner to develop or enhance practices of minimizing nonwork ICT use at work. Yet, this perspective overlooks the importance and necessity of nonwork-related breaks that can sustain employee productivity over the long term (Coker, Reference Coker2013). Additionally, attention to only the negative effects of technology use at work neglects other research showing how technology use can generate positive subjective experiences, facilitate personal learning experiences, and improve social/interpersonal work relationships (Brivio et al., Reference Brivio, Gaudioso, Vergine, Mirizzi, Reina, Stellari and Galimberti2018). Finally, there is little systematic cross-cultural research on ICT use and employee well-being outcomes that explicitly compare how these relationships might vary based on cultural values that differ across organizations/occupational settings and nationalities. Such research could help to elucidate contradictory findings on the link between ICT use and employee well-being. Thus, research that focuses on the relative benefits and drawbacks of a given practice from both different theoretical perspectives and research settings would be most beneficial to practitioners.
Currently, there are also many policies and associated technological restrictions being adopted in organizations that have yet to receive systematic research attention with respect to intervention (i.e., experimental) research designs. For example, a “bring your own device” (BYOD) policy has been implemented among many organizations to ease the onboarding process and easier management of work tasks with flexible time and locations for employees (Lannon & Schreiber, Reference Lannon and Schreiber2016). Such a policy can lower costs for organizations and reduce technostress due to technical problems of setting up new and unfamiliar devices, yet also could pose additional legal concerns related to employee privacy, security, and overtime compensation. Another example includes policies surrounding nonwork Internet use and associated software that can be used to monitor and enforce company policies (Patrick, Reference Patrick2018). Such monitoring policies may have the intended effects of increasing engaged employee behaviors but at the cost of increasing employee stress and negative attitudes toward the organization under certain conditions (Alder, Reference Alder2001; Holman et al., Reference Holman, Chissick and Totterdell2002; Stanton, Reference Stanton2000). Relatedly, additional research on productivity management applications that are intended to block nonwork distractions may also produce mixed results. For instance, a 1-week experimental study showed that blocking nonwork-related websites helped improve work engagement but also lowered work enjoyment (Mark et al., Reference Mark, Czerwinski and Iqbal2018). Although such initial intervention work is promising, more work is needed over a longer period to help inform widespread and long-term adoption of organizational policies and practices.
In addition to autonomous organizational policy adoption, the implication of new required federal or state regulations is also a hot topic of concern that has received little attention from organizational researchers focused on individual worker well-being and performance outcomes. For instance, variations on a “right to disconnect” legislation have been proposed and passed in various other countries (e.g., France, Italy, Philippines) and are starting to receive more attention in some U.S. states (Marcum et al., Reference Marcum, Cameron and Versweyveld2018). The New York City Council introduced the “right to disconnect” bill that outlines fines for organizations who fail to provide explicit policy notices around work-related ICT use during nonwork hours, require uncompensated technology use after hours, or try to retaliate against employees who do not respond after hours (Wolfe, Reference Wolfe2018). Several important questions arise pertaining to this topic, including how workers view these legislative initiatives in terms of their own work flexibility and job control. Although these issues are informed by negative health effects of after-hour use of technology, it also overlooks situations in which after-hours work is related to positive outcomes among employees (i.e., Ohly & Latour, Reference Ohly and Latour2014; Ragsdale & Hoover, Reference Ragsdale and Hoover2016). It also is unclear as to whether these policies will ultimately benefit employees in the absence of widespread organizational culture changes, which can produce gaps between policy adoption versus effective implementation (Kossek et al., Reference Kossek, Hammer, Kelly and Moen2014; Thompson et al., Reference Thompson, Beauvais and Lyness1999). Thus, some policies or regulations might have unintended negative consequences by reducing employee control and advancement, which can ultimately undermine the purpose of the policy.
Conclusion
Technology will continue to push changes in organizational work flow by advancing diverse work arrangements and communication channels. In turn, research on psychological reactions to this changing nature of work will continue to be of interest to I-O psychology researchers and practitioners. Over the last several decades, research on ICT contexts and concepts has expanded from a basic understanding of the variations in technology use to uncovering various psychological experiences of technology use. Varying perspectives view ICT in different ways—as a flexible work design strategy, as a mechanism encouraging extended working hours, or as a behavior that might divert attention from central work tasks. Other perspectives focus on how individual experiences of workplace technology may differ based on how they appraise ICT events and their motives for ICT use. With the abundant literature on ICT use and workers’ experiences, we believe that now is a good time to step back and reflect on how to integrate these diverse perspectives to help speed up our understanding of technology-driven issues in the workplace.
This “defrag” and “reboot” process provides an opportunity to move this exciting area of research forward in three key ways. First, defragmentation of the literature helps to streamline future ICT research with empirical evidence using the most theoretically and psychometrically sound constructs. Knowing and sharing terminologies from other areas of research can also help us avoid problematic proliferation of redundant ICT-related concepts. Second, we encourage researchers to adopt theories for future research that clarify the unique role of ICT concepts in I-O psychology research, which will help make a strong case for what ICT concepts add beyond our traditional I-O psychology concepts. Last, we can improve the practical relevance of our science by better disseminating ICT-related findings to practitioners and lay audiences in a manner that is easy to understand and “actionable”—that is, ensuring that we are meeting pressing organizational needs by both exploring and sharing the effectiveness of organizational policy adoptions and intervention designs.
