The ‘always on’ workplace: opportunities, risks and how to make it work

Dr Cristina Quinones, Lecturer in Organisation Studies at The Open University Business School.

The always on workplace

Sophisticated but increasingly accessible technology is enabling many of us to work away from the office and even on the go.  There are jobs, particularly those in customer-facing roles within the hospitality industry, where this “luxury” can simply not be afforded. But for an increasing number of workers, including self-employed and a variety of professionals, it is becoming relatively common to telework for part of the working week, or at least, to reply to work-related emails out of the traditional 9 to 5 office hours and away from the physical office.

Work intensification

Traditional command and control management practices and a pervasive presenteeism culture did not sit well with the possibility of working away from the office in the early days (Felstead et al., 2003).  Against these concerns, more and more evidence began to confirm that most of those who work away from the office were becoming their own most demanding bosses.  For instance, in  a study conducted by Kelliher and Anderson (2010), the authors explored and compared the experiences of workers from large multinational IT, pharmaceutical and consulting companies who were offered remote working for a number of years and had taken the offer,  versus those who had the offer but continue working on-site. The authors found that remote workers would work harder and/or longer than their on-site counterparts.  Interestingly, this is not an isolated finding in the literature. There is in fact a strong body of evidence showing intensification of work in terms of both quantity (i.e. more hours) /or quality (i.e. more effort)  in people working away from the office  (van Echtelt et al., 2006; Hilbrecht et al., 2013).

So if this is true, why are people working longer or putting more effort whilst being away from the watchful eye of managers and peers?  First, physical monitoring is not needed in many cases as practices such as management by objectives has usefully replaced the need for this.  This is not to say that direct monitoring can-and in many ways is-being practised through smart technological developments. Interestingly though, it is not direct monitoring nor even the need to meet objectives which caused respondents in Kelliher and Anderson’s study to increase their work effort and hours whilst working from home. Some of the key reasons respondents cited in that study, and others conducted in this field, are the following:

• There is an increased energy available from removing stressful and long commutes which is in turn applied to work
• The increased time available from not engaging in frequent office distractions
• The need to address concerns from on-site colleagues, as there is often a  lower co-worker satisfaction in stronger teleworked organisations
• To reciprocate the organisation’s gesture

Explaining work-intensification through psychology

The apparent self-imposed work intensification might raise some eyebrows to the incredulous manager, but there are well established psychological theories which can explain that behaviour. Looking at the four reasons identified earlier, the respondents indicate an increase in their energy levels.  This is a rather obvious statement we might think. From classic stress theory for example, we can argue that we have a limited amount of energy to get us through the day and cope with demands placed on us. If we are able to not lose mental and physical energy in a certain task (i.e. commuting) we are able to put that energy in other tasks (i.e. get work done) (Hobfoll, 1989).

Perhaps a more controversial point is, why would we use this energy to work? One powerful reason here for many is probably the threat of job insecurity and fierce competition in the current labour market. From a psychological viewpoint, and looking at the four reasons respondents often report for increased intensification the reciprocation component towards the colleagues and towards the workplace seems to be key. Social exchange theory can explain these findings (Blau, 1965). Thus, workers feel the organisation is enabling them to exert control over their working hours and in exchange they are prepared to give back additional effort or longer hours without the organisation explicitly asking for it (Golden, 2001). Importantly, in Kelliher and Anderson’s study (2010) the authors found that in the give and take game, the winner was the organisation every time.

Work intensification has been traditionally recognised as a powerful stressor (Spector and Jex, 1998; Franke, 2015). However, in Kelliher and Anderson’s study employees were more satisfied than those who were working from the office. In the next section we will discuss this conflict and explore other advantages and risks involved for employees and employers.

Advantages of the always on workplace

Benefits

(Mazmanian, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2013; Keiller and Anderson 2010)

The common thread from the variety of advantages cited in the literature and summarised in the box above is the increased sense of control and autonomy over work and life in general. The benefits job control and autonomy bring to employee well-being and performance are definitely not “new news” in the field of Occupational Psychology and HR.  Perceived sense of control over work and autonomy have consistently been reported strongly related to job satisfaction, engagement and commitment (Spector, 1986).  In this sense, the fact that technology allows people to satisfy the need for autonomy is likely to explain why people tend to be more satisfied though working more intensely (e.g.,Wheatley, 2012).  It is also not surprising to see the links between ability to work in different times and spaces with the sought after “happiness”. Thus, using data from the US General Social Survey (1972-2012) Golden and Okulicz-Kozaryn (2015) found that setting one’s work schedule was strongly associated with greater happiness and this was true regardless of the income level and occupation. Working remotely and more broadly the choice of flexible working (which includes for instance reduced working hours) featured in the Third European Survey on working conditions with 21,505 participants as the first variable predicting job satisfaction, and amongst the top three related to physical health including heart disease, anxiety and the perception of health risk as a result of work (Costa et al.2006).

Whilst the benefits of being able to work away from the office seem to be quite powerful, the question is, how does this self-imposed work intensification impact employees’ wellbeing? This of course is not just a benevolent question for an organisation to ask, or a check point in a CSR strategy. It is also about long-term productivity and sustainable performance. Therefore, there are potential threats which should be considered. Some of the most significant ones are summarised below:

Risks

Bloom (2013; 2015); Quinones & Griffiths (2015) Quinones & Kakabadse (2014, 2015)

Living in an always on workplace and in general an “always on culture” poses particular risks for our need to recover which is paramount to prevent stress.  Whilst there is some evidence suggesting that some activities found online, such as gaming, can help us recover from work related efforts, there is also evidence suggesting that for many switching off is difficult and to the extent to which this influences meaningful relationships in our lives and our own physical health, this cannot be overlooked (Quinones & Griffiths, 2015; Quinones & Kakabadse, 2015).

What can HR do to help

As we saw earlier, those working remotely were more committed and satisfied and there is a strong element of reciprocity employees feel driven to. Thus, offering workers the possibility to work remotely can be used as part of a   commitment enhancement strategy. This offering shows the organisation understands the complexity in their lives and therefore they feel a stronger connection to them. However, this needs to be balanced with the understanding that remote working can be associated with stronger work intensification and that measures need to be put in place to avoid the long term costs associated with this:

• First and foremost understand your remote workers. Ask what support they need and what can be done to improve your support to them-if you don’t ask, you don’t know!
• Use the information above to inform health and safety guidelines beyond the traditional (and necessary) use of office equipment guidelines.  These may include recommendations on logging working hours and objectives achieved during the day. This can enable more efficient use of working time and self-checked they don’t over-reciprocate at the expense of their health (and eventually your organisation’s)
• Provide information leaflets your employees can access about potential struggles with switching off from work or from technology (they are definitely not alone!) and guidance on how to seek help if needed

What can you do for yourself

As a remote worker, mindfulness teacher in progress, and researcher psychologist in this field I have my own tips to stay afloat which may help you too:

1. Keep a log of your hours and objectives-work smarter not longer
2. Get some mindfulness in your life. Yes, it has become a bit of a fashionable thing to do but before you discard it give it a go. You don’t need an awful lot of time or preparation (of course there is plenty of reading to do if you wish).  Start by taking some conscious deep breaths for a few minutes every day perhaps before or after work.  Research suggests that those who integrate mindfulness into their lives – e.g. focusing on direct experience, being mindful or consciously aware of the present moment – experience more positive emotions, health and higher productivity.
3. Try to do fun things outside work-this helps with psychological recovery, dancing works for me!

Above all, be your own assertive but kind and compassionate boss.

References

• Blau PM (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.
• Bloom, P. (2015) 'Work as the Contemporary Limit of Life: Capitalism, the Death Drive and the Lethal Fantasy of Work - Life Balance" Organization.
• Bloom, P. (2013). Fight for your alienation: The fantasy of employability and the ironic struggle for self-exploitation. ephemera: theory & politics in organization, 13(4), 785-807
• Costa,G., Sartori, S., Akersted, T. 2006) Influence of Flexibility and Variability of Working Hours on Health and Well‐Being Chronobiology International: The Journal of Biological and Medical Rhythm Research
• Franke, F. (2015). Is work intensification extra stress? Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14, 17–27. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000120 Link
• Felstead A, Jewson N, Phizacklea A, and Walters S (2002) Opportunities to work at home in the context of work-life balance. Human Resource Management Journal 12: 54–76.
• Golden L (2001) Flexible work schedules: What are we trading off to get them? Monthly Labor Review, March, pp. 50–67.
• Golden, L. and Okulicz-Kozaryn, A.  (2015). Work Hours and Worker Happiness in the US: Weekly Hours, Hours Preferences and Schedule Flexibility
• Hilbrecht, M., Shaw, S. M., Johnson, L. C. and Andrey, J. (2013) Remixing work, family and leisure: Teleworkers' experiences of everyday life. New Technology, Work & Employment. 28(2): 130-144
• Hobfoll, S. (1989). Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. The American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-24.
• Kelliher, C., & Anderson, D. (2010). Doing more with less? flexible working practices and the intensification of work. Human Relations, 63(1), 83-106.
• Moen, P., Lam, J., Ammons, S., & Kelly, E. (2013). Time Work by Overworked Professionals: Strategies in Response to the Stress of Higher Status. Work And Occupations, 40(2), 79-114.
• Quinones, C. & Griffiths, M. (2015) Addiction to work: A critical review of the workaholism construct and recommendations for assessment. Journal of Psychiatric Nursing, 53 (10) 48-59.
• Quinones, C. & Kakabadse, N. (2015) ‘Self-Concept Clarity and Compulsive Internet Use: the role of Preference for Virtual Interactions and Employment Status in British and North-American samples’ Journal of Behavioural Addictions, vol. 4 (4), pp. 289–298.
• Quinones, C; Korak-Kakabadse, N (2014). Compulsive Internet Use in Adults: a study of prevalence and drivers within the current economic climate in the UK. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 171-180
• Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human relations, 39(11), 1005-1016.
• Spector, P.E. and Jex, S.M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, pp. 356–367.
• Van De Voorde, K., Paauwe, J., & Van Veldhoven, M. (2012). Employee Well‐being and the HRM–Organizational Performance Relationship: A Review of Quantitative Studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(4), 391-407.
• van Echtelt PE, Glebbeek AC, and Lindenberg SM (2006) The new lumpiness of work: Explaining the mismatch between actual and preferred working hours. Work, Employment and Society 20:493–512.
• Wheatley, D. (2012) Good to be home? Time-use and satisfaction levels among home-based teleworkers. New Technology, Work & Employment. 27(3): 224-241.