Techno-Stress and Psychological Detachment in Workload and Well-Being: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Lindsay Dong and Version 1 by Marina Mondo.

Psychological detachment is a protective factor to cope with excessive job demands. It refers to the ability to psychologically disengage from work when away from the workplace to recover depleted resources. A high workload can hinder psychological detachment, especially in high autonomy and flexibility conditions, forcing workers to remain mentally tied to work.

  • workload
  • techno-stress
  • psychological detachment
  • well-being

1. Introduction

Organizations need to be increasingly “fast” to be efficient globally. The introduction of new technologies and the increase in competitiveness represent a constant challenge affecting workers’ lives and well-being (Paškvan and Kubicek 2017). People’s well-being is a social resource linked to general human progress (Delhey et al. 2018). In the workplace, well-being is represented by the subjective assessment that one’s work generates satisfaction (Maddux 2018), and it is considered one of the central aspects of subjective well-being. Subjective well-being (SWB) at work can be considered a protective factor of employees’ physical and mental health (Mondo et al. 2023; Sahai and Mahapatra 2020) and can prevent turnover intentions (Mondo et al. 2022). It is present when workers have positive emotions that outweigh the negative ones when they perceive high levels of satisfaction, and in turn, they are more performing (De Simone et al. 2022; Taris and Schaufeli 2015). In literature, subjective well-being at work is associated with numerous constructs that can predict and positively impact it (i.e., Babic et al. 2020; Bobbio et al. 2022; Garg and Singh 2020; Kumar 2020; Lee et al. 2021). However, other situations may adversely affect subjective well-being and negatively impact it, especially when workers need to adapt to new situations that they have never experienced before (Bellini et al. 2022a, 2022b, 2023).
The pandemic from COVID-19 was a sudden event that impacted the lives of millions of workers worldwide, bringing profound changes and innovations to which organizations and individuals have had to adapt (Barbieri et al. 2021a; Coulombe et al. 2020; De Simone et al. 2021; Mondo et al. 2021; De Vincenzi et al. 2022; Kniffin et al. 2021).

2. Techno-Stress and Psychological Detachment in Workload and Well-Being

2.1. The Positive Effects of Workload on Technostress and Their Impact on Well-Being

Generally, workload refers to workers’ perception of their work experience regarding pace and volume. The concept includes the uncertainty of completing the work on time and in the usual manner (Spector and Jex 1998b), “an all-encompassing term that includes any variable that reflects the amount or difficulty of one’s work” (Bowling and Kirkendall 2012, p. 222).
Workload is considered a job demand that can affect workers’ responsiveness, i.e., the resources they perceive and can use to meet these demands. A high workload does not necessarily involve stress; workloads and stress are different concepts, which can be related if the workload is perceived as overlapping.
However, Bowling et al. (2015) highlighted how the workload is positively associated with perceived stress and how this correlation brings consequences at the level of well-being (Barbieri et al. 2021b; Hernandez et al. 2021; Nguyen and Tuan 2022; Pace et al. 2021; Schaufeli and Taris 2014). Zappalà et al. (2022) identified a negative impact of the workload on well-being in a homeworkers sample. Aalto et al. (2018) achieved the same results in a sample of physicians, and they found that workload was negatively associated with well-being. Angioha et al. (2020) underlined that the workload negatively and significantly impacts the well-being of a sample of civil servants. Sadiq (2022) found that workload causes work–family conflict, job stress, and job dissatisfaction. Finally, Zinke et al. (2023) highlight how ICT workload has detrimental effects on well-being, as already noted by Barber and Santuzzi (2015) and Day et al. (2010).
Castillo et al. (2020) highlighted a positive relationship between workload and technostress in an interesting review that considers both workers in the field of technology and employees in organizations that use technology only as a tool. Effiyanti and Sagala (2018) affirmed that workload could influence technostress in a sample of teachers called to use ITC tools. Other studies have also highlighted the positive relationship between workload and techno-stress in a sample of workers subjected to increased use of technologies (Christian et al. 2020; Molino et al. 2020b; Spagnoli et al. 2020). The same results were obtained in the research by Melin et al. (2014) and by Suharti and Susanto (2014), in which workload increased techno-stress in samples composed of teachers and employees. Salanova et al. (2014) and Atanasoff and Venable (2017) highlighted how technostress impacts workers’ health and overall well-being and tends to increase the stress already present. Estrada-Muñoz et al. (2021) affirmed that technostress is a “dark side” of ICT, a factor deteriorating well-being, and Wu et al. (2022) obtained the same results: techno-stress negatively affects employee well-being and performance in a sample of employees in smart hotels. Hang et al. (2022) have shown how technological overload, technological invasion, and technological complexity negatively affected the well-being of employees in a sample of banking employees. Finally, Hurbean et al. (2022) analyzed the relationship between techno-stress and well-being in a sample of employees in smart working, detecting how the former can negatively impact the latter. The same results were obtained by Wang et al. (2023) in a sample of employees from three manufacturing companies in China.

2.2. The Positive Effect of Psychological Detachment on Resource Restoration and Well-Being and Its Moderating Role between Job Demands and Negative Work Outcomes

Technology allows people to stay connected and have up-to-date information at all times. This possibility has positive aspects, allowing them to solve real-life problems. However, this constant connection can have several disadvantages and impact on work and well-being. According to some studies in literature, psychological detachment (i.e., the ability and strategy to psychologically disengage from work) facilitates the process of resource restoration (Sonnentag 2011; Sonnentag and Bayer 2005; Sonnentag and Fritz 2015) and promotes well-being (Fritz et al. 2010; Sonnentag et al. 2017; Sonnentag 2018b); also, psychological detachment allows the recovery of a perceived technological overload (Sandoval-Reyes et al. 2019). Specifically, psychological detachment is considered the most effective individual strategy in the recovery process, able to repair the negative strain effects (Sonnentag and Natter 2004), to reduce fatigue in times of increased stress (Sonnentag and Bayer 2005) and to promote higher levels of well-being (Sonnentag and Fritz 2007, 2015). Psychological detachment is a protective factor to mitigate the harmful effects of a society in which constant connectivity is the new norm (Sonnentag and Fritz 2015). The mediating role of psychological detachment was demonstrated in previous research: the employees who managed to break away from work experienced higher levels of well-being (Sonnentag and Fritz 2007, 2015) and achieved better performance (Binnewies et al. 2010). While his role as moderator is still partly controversial, according to the meta-analysis by Wendsche and Lohmann-Haislah (2017), the moderating role of psychological detachment on the relationships between job demands and job outcomes is unclear. The study by Allen et al. (2015) also revealed an inconsistent role of psychological detachment as a moderator in the relationship between work-related stress and well-being. Conversely, other studies have shown that psychological detachment can mediate the investigated relationships (Sonnentag 2018a). Sonnentag et al. (2013) revealed that psychological detachment from work moderated the negative relationship between relational conflict and well-being in a white-collar sample. Lu and Chou (2020) underlined that psychological detachment moderates the effects of working hours on work engagement and work performance in a sample of employees working in diverse industries. In particular, psychological detachment attenuates the effects of the negative relationship between working time, work commitment, and work performance. In longitudinal research, Moreno-Jiménez et al. (2009) highlighted that psychological detachment moderates the relationship between role conflict and workplace bullying and between bullying and psychological strain in a sample of employees of three telecommunications companies. Finally, Cooper and Lu (2019) proposed the moderating role of psychological detachment in the recovery/rebuild process of resources in a condition of excessive availability for work. Information and communication technologies (ICT) are now fundamental tools for work. These tools can bring benefits to work processes, but they can also be potentially harmful to workers. They can be considered a “new” demand that represents a workload due to the massive use of technologies. Such overload can generate a stress response due to technologies that can be mitigated by protective factors that allow individuals to mentally “disconnect” from work when not in the office. In conclusion, what emerges from the research is the importance of psychological detachment in mitigating the effects of a high workload, linked to high use of ITC, on the perception of no longer having boundaries between work and private life and the consequent positive impact on well-being. From the point of view of theoretical advancement, the mediating role of technostress between the particular form of workload in smart working and well-being is interesting.

References

  1. Paškvan, Matea, and Bettina Kubicek. 2017. The intensification of work. In Job Demands in a Changing World of Work: Impact on Workers’ Health and Performance and Implications for Research and Practice. Edited by Christian Korunka and Bettina Kubicek. New York: Springer International Publishing, pp. 25–43.
  2. Delhey, Jan, Georgi Dragolov, and Klaus Boehnke. 2018. Social Cohesion and Well-Being in Europe. Available online: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2018/social-cohesion-and-well-being-in-europe (accessed on 1 May 2023).
  3. Maddux, James E. 2018. Subjective Well-Being and Life Satisfaction: An Introduction to Conceptions, Theories, and Measures. Londra: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
  4. Mondo, Marina, Gianfranco Cicotto, Jessica Pileri, Ester Cois, and Silvia De Simone. 2023. Promote Well-Being and Innovation in Sustainable Organizations: The Role of Job Crafting as Mediator. Sustainability 15: 8899.
  5. Sahai, Anjali, and Mamata Mahapatra. 2020. Subjective well-being at workplace: A review on its implications. Journal of Critical Reviews 7: 807–10. Available online: https://www.jcreview.com/admin/Uploads/Files/6204c168b65eb8.58114030 (accessed on 3 April 2023).
  6. Mondo, Marina, Jessica Pileri, Federica Carta, and Silvia De Simone. 2022. Social Support and Self-Efficacy on Turnover Intentions: The Mediating Role of Conflict and Commitment. Social Sciences 11: 437.
  7. De Simone, Silvia, Jessica Pileri, Marina Mondo, Max Rapp-Ricciardi, and Barbara Barbieri. 2022. Mea Culpa! The Role of Guilt in the Work-Life Interface and Satisfaction of Women Entrepreneur. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19: 10781.
  8. Taris, Toon W., and Wilmar B. Schaufeli. 2015. Individual well-being and performance at work. A conceptual and theoretical overview. In Well-Being and Performance at Work: Current Issues in Work and Organisational Psychology. Edited by Riccardo Peccei and Marc Van Veldhoven. Oxford: Psychology Press, pp. 15–34.
  9. Babic, Audrey, Nicolas Gillis, and Isabelle Hansez. 2020. Work-to-family interface and well-being: The role of workload, emotional load, support and recognition from supervisors. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 46: 1–13.
  10. Bobbio, Andrea, Luigina Canova, and Anna Maria Manganelli. 2022. Organizational Work-Home Culture and its Relations with the Work–Family Interface and Employees’ Subjective Well-being. Applied Research in Quality of Life 17: 2933–66.
  11. Garg, Neha, and Pankaj Singh. 2020. Work engagement as a mediator between subjective well-being and work-and-health outcomes. Management Research Review 43: 735–52.
  12. Kumar, S. Pavan. 2020. Workplace Spirituality as an Antecedent of University Teachers’ Subjective Well-being: Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction and Job Performance. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations 33: 137–146.
  13. Lee, Tzai-Chiao, Michael Yao-Ping Peng, Lin Wang, and Hao-Kai Hung. 2021. Factors influencing employees’ subjective wellbeing and job performance during the COVID-19 global pandemic: The perspective of social cognitive career theory. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 577028.
  14. Bellini, Diego, Barbara Barbieri, Marina Mondo, Serena Cubico, and Tiziana Ramaci. 2022a. An Environmental Resource within the Job Demands-Resources Model: The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy between Properties of the Learning Environment and Academic Engagement. Social Sciences 11: 548.
  15. Bellini, Diego, Serena Cubico, Piermatteo Ardolino, Marino Bonaiuto, Maria Lidia Mascia, and Barbara Barbieri. 2022b. Understanding and exploring the concept of fear, in the work context and its role in improving safety performance and reducing well-being in a steady job insecurity period. Sustainability 14: 14146.
  16. Bellini, Diego, Barbara Barbieri, Michela Loi, Marina Mondo, and Silvia De Simone. 2023. The Restorative Quality of the Work Environments: The Moderation Effect of Environmental Resources between Job Demands and Mindfulness. Social Sciences 12: 375.
  17. Barbieri, Barbara, Ilaria Buonomo, Maria Luisa Farnese, and Paula Benevene. 2021a. Organizational capital: A resource for changing and performing in public administrations. Sustainability 13: 5436.
  18. Coulombe, Simon, Tyler Pacheco, Emily Cox, Christine Khalil, Marina M. Doucerain, Emilie Auger, and Sophie Meunier. 2020. Risk and resilience factors during the COVID-19 pandemic: A snapshot of the experiences of Canadian workers early on in the crisis. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 580702.
  19. De Simone, Silvia, Jessica Pileri, Max Rapp-Ricciardi, and Barbara Barbieri. 2021. Gender and entrepreneurship in pandemic time: What demands and what resources? An exploratory study. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 668875.
  20. Mondo, Marina, Barbara Barbieri, Silvia De Simone, Flavia Bonaiuto, Luca Usai, and Mirian Agus. 2021. Measuring career adaptability in a sample of Italian university students: Psychometric properties and relations with the age, gender, and STEM/no STEM Courses. Social Sciences 10: 372.
  21. De Vincenzi, Clara, Martina Pansini, Bruna Ferrara, Ilaria Buonomo, and Paula Benevene. 2022. Consequences of COVID-19 on Employees in Remote Working: Challenges, Risks and Opportunities an Evidence-Based Literature Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19: 11672.
  22. Kniffin, Kevin M., Jayanth Narayanan, Frederik Anseel, John Antonakis, Susan P. Ashford, Arnold B. Bakker, Peter Bamberger, Hari Bapuji, Devasheesh P. Bhave, Virginia K. Choi, and et al. 2021. COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action. American Psychologist 76: 63–77.
  23. Spector, Paul E., and Steve M. Jex. 1998b. 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: 356–67.
  24. Bowling, Nathan A., and Cristina Kirkendall. 2012. Workload: A review of causes, consequences, and potential interventions. In Contemporary Occupational Health Psychology: Global Perspectives on Research and Practice. Edited by Jonathan Houdmont, Stavroula Leka and Robert R. Sinclair. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, vol. 2, pp. 221–38.
  25. Bowling, Nathan. A., Gene M. Alarcon, Caleb B. Bragg, and Michael J. Hartman. 2015. A meta-analytic examination of the potential correlates and consequences of workload. Work & Stress 29: 95–113.
  26. Barbieri, Barbara, Silvia Balia, Isabella Sulis, Ester Cois, Cristina Cabras, Sara Atzara, and Silvia De Simone. 2021b. Don’t call it smart: Working from home during the pandemic crisis. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 741585.
  27. Hernandez, Raymond, Elizabeth A. Pyatak, Cheryl L. P. Vigen, Haomiao Jin, Stefan Schneider, Donna Spruijt-Metz, and Shawn C. Roll. 2021. Understanding worker well-being relative to high-workload and recovery activities across a whole day: Pilot testing an ecological momentary assessment technique. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18: 10354.
  28. Nhung Nguyen, Thi Hong, and Luu Trong Tuan. 2022. Trust in multi-level managers and employee extra-role behavior in the US federal government: The role of psychological well-being and workload. Review of Public Personnel Administration 42: 312–37.
  29. Pace, Francesco, Giulio D’Urso, Carla Zappulla, and Ugo Pace. 2021. The relation between workload and personal well-being among university professors. Current Psychology 40: 3417–24.
  30. Schaufeli, Wilmar B., and Toon W. Taris. 2014. A Critical Review of the Job Demands-Resources Model: Implications for Improving Work and Health. In Bridging Occupational, Organizational and Public Health: A Transdisciplinary Approach. Edited by Georg F. Bauer and Oliver Hämmig. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 43–68.
  31. Zappalà, Salvatore, Erasmus Keli Swanzy, and Ferdinando Toscano. 2022. Workload and mental well-being of homeworkers: The mediating effects of work-family conflict, sleeping problems, and work engagement. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 64: e647.
  32. Aalto, Anna-Mari, Tarja Heponiemi, Kim Josefsson, Martti Arffman, and Marko Elovainio. 2018. Social relationships in physicians’ work moderate relationship between workload and wellbeing—9-year follow-up study. European Journal of Public Health 28: 798–804.
  33. Angioha, Pius U., Thomas A. Omang, Eno U. Ishie, and Mary E. Iji. 2020. Employee Stressors and Wellbeing of Healthcare Workers in Government owned Hospitals in Calabar, Nigeria. Journal of Public Administration 2: 36–43.
  34. Sadiq, Misbah. 2022. Policing in pandemic: Is perception of workload causing work–family conflict, job dissatisfaction and job stress? Journal of Public Affairs 22: e2486.
  35. Zinke, Janina, Tim Vahle-Hinz, and Annekatrin Hoppe. 2023. A longitudinal study on ICT workload in the extended stressor-detachment model: Testing moderated mediation models for extended work availability and workplace telepressure. Work & Stress, 1–17.
  36. Barber, Larissa K., and Alecia M. Santuzzi. 2015. Please respond ASAP: Workplace telepressure and employee recovery. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 20: 172–89.
  37. Day, Arla, Natasha Scott, and E. Kevin Kelloway. 2010. Information and communication technology: Implications for job stress and employee well-being. In New Developments in Theoretical and Conceptual Approaches to Job Stress. Edited by Pamela L. Perrewé and Daniel C. Ganster. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 8, pp. 317–50.
  38. Castillo, José Manuel, Edith Galy, and Pierre Thérouanne. 2020. Mental Workload and Technostress at Work. Which Perspectives and Theoretical Frameworks Can Help Us Understand Both Phenomena Together? Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics. Mental Workload, Human Physiology, and Human Energy 2: 14–30.
  39. Effiyanti, Tri, and Gaffar Hafiz Sagala. 2018. Technostress among teachers: A confirmation of its stressors and antecedent. International Journal of Education Economics and Development 9: 134–48.
  40. Christian, Michael, Edi Purwanto, and Suryo Wibowo. 2020. Technostress creators on teaching performance of private universities in Jakarta during Covid-19 pandemic. Technology Reports of Kansai University 62: 2799–809.
  41. Molino, Monica, Emanuela Ingusci, Fulvio Signore, Amelia Manuti, Maria Luisa Giancaspro, Vincenzo Russo, Margherita Zito, and Claudio G. Cortese. 2020b. Wellbeing costs of technology use during Covid-19 remote working: An investigation using the Italian translation of the technostress creators scale. Sustainability 12: 5911.
  42. Spagnoli, Paola, Monica Molino, Danila Molinaro, Maria Luisa Giancaspro, Amelia Manuti, and Chiara Ghislieri. 2020. Workaholism and technostress during the COVID-19 emergency: The crucial role of the leaders on remote working. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 620310.
  43. Melin, Marika, Wanja Astvik, and Claudia Bernhard-Oette. 2014. New work demands in higher education. A study of the relationship between excessive workload, coping strategies and subsequent health among academic staff. Quality in Higher Education 20: 290–308.
  44. Suharti, Lieli, and Agung Susanto. 2014. The impact of workload and technology competence on technostress and performance of employees. Indian Journal of Commerce and Management Studies 5: 1–7.
  45. Salanova, Marisa, Susana Llorens, and Mercedes Ventura. 2014. Technostress: The dark side of technologies. In The Impact of ICT on Quality of Working Life. Edited by Christian Korunka and Peter Hoonakker. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 87–103.
  46. Atanasoff, Lynn, and Melissa A. Venable. 2017. Technostress: Implications for adults in the workforce. The Career Development Quarterly 65: 326–38.
  47. Estrada-Muñoz, Carla, Alejandro Vega-Muñoz, Dante Castillo, Sheyla Müller-Pérez, and Joan Boada-Grau. 2021. Technostress of Chilean Teachers in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Teleworking. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18: 5458.
  48. Wu, Weilin, Wynne Chin, and Yide Liu. 2022. Technostress and the smart hospitality employee. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology 13: 404–26.
  49. Hang, Yong, Ghulam Hussain, Anam Amin, and Muhammad Ibrahim Abdullah. 2022. The moderating effects of technostress inhibitors on techno-stressors and employee’s well-being. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 821446.
  50. Hurbean, Luminita, Octavian Dospinescu, Valentin Munteanu, and Doina Danaiata. 2022. Effects of Instant Messaging Related Technostress on Work Performance and Well-Being. Electronics 11: 2535.
  51. Wang, Huatian, Hua Ding, and Xiansui Kong. 2023. Understanding technostress and employee well-being in digital work: The roles of work exhaustion and workplace knowledge diversity. International Journal of Manpower 44: 334–53.
  52. Sonnentag, Sabine. 2011. Recovery from fatigue: The role of psychological detachment. In Cognitive Fatigue: The Current Status and Future for Research and Application. Edited by Phillip L. Ackerman. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 253–72.
  53. Sonnentag, Sabine, and Ute-Vera Bayer. 2005. Switching off mentally: Predictors and consequences of psychological detachment from work during off-job time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 10: 393–414.
  54. Sonnentag, Sabine, and Charlotte Fritz. 2015. Recovery from job stress: The stressor-detachment model as an integrative framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior 36: 72–103.
  55. Fritz, Charlotte, Maya Yankelevich, Anna Zarubin, and Patricia Barger. 2010. Happy, healthy, and productive: The role of detachment from work during nonwork time. Journal of Applied Psychology 95: 977–98.
  56. Sonnentag, Sabine, Laura Venz, and Anne Casper. 2017. Advances in recovery research: What have we learned? What should be done next? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 22: 365–80.
  57. Sonnentag, Sabine. 2018b. The recovery paradox: Portraying the complex interplay between job stressors, lack of recovery, and poor well-being. Research in Organizational Behavior 38: 169–85.
  58. Sandoval-Reyes, Juan, Julio C. Acosta-Prado, and Carlos Sanchís-Pedregosa. 2019. Relationship amongst technology use, work overload, and psychological detachment from work. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16: 4602.
  59. Sonnentag, Sabine, and Eva Natter. 2004. Flight attendants’ daily recovery from work: Is there no place like home? International Journal of Stress Management 11: 366–91.
  60. Sonnentag, Sabine, and Charlotte Fritz. 2007. The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 12: 204–21.
  61. Binnewies, Carmen, Sabine Sonnentag, and Eva J. Mojza. 2010. Recovery during the weekend and fluctuations in weekly job performance: A week-level study examining intra-individual relationships. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 83: 419–41.
  62. Wendsche, Johannes, and Andrea Lohmann-Haislah. 2017. A meta-analysis on antecedents and outcomes of detachment from work. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 2072.
  63. Allen, Belinda C., Peter Holland, and Roslyn Reynolds. 2015. The effect of bullying on burnout in nurses: The moderating role of psychological detachment. Journal of Advanced Nursing 71: 381–90.
  64. Sonnentag, Sabine. 2018a. Job-Stress Recovery: Core Findings, Future Research Topics, and Remaining Challenges. Atlanta: Work Science Center Thinking Forward Report Series, pp. 1–19.
  65. Sonnentag, Sabine, Dana Unger, and Inga Nägel. 2013. Workplace conflict and employee well-being: The moderating role of detachment from work during off-job time. International Journal of Conflict Management 24: 166–83.
  66. Lu, Luo, and Chun Yi Chou. 2020. Protecting job performance and well-being in the demanding work context: The moderating effect of psychological detachment for Chinese employees. Applied Psychology 69: 1199–214.
  67. Moreno-Jiménez, Bernardo, Alfredo Rodríguez-Muñoz, Juan Carlos Pastor, Ana Isabel Sanz-Vergel, and Eva Garrosa. 2009. The moderating effect of psychological detachment and thoughts of revenge in workplace bullying. Personality and Individual Differences 46: 359–64.
  68. Cooper, Cary L., and Luo Lu. 2019. Excessive availability for work: Good or bad? Charting underlying motivations and searching for game-changers. Human Resource Management Review 29: 100682.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback