Work-Related Stress during Home-Based Remote Work: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Martin Lange
,
Ina Kayser

Remote work takes place outside a designated work location, such as corporate offices, and is often associated with working from home or working (home-based remote work) at a client’s location. In contrast, telework can be conducted remotely as well, but also focuses on the use of personal electronical devices . Ideally, job demands and job resources behave in a dynamic, balanced manner that lead to or maintain employee health. However, when work demands exceed work resources and work resources are inadequate for work demands, an imbalance occurs that leads to WRS over time.

  • self-efficacy
  • work-related stress
  • self-perceived health status
  • remote work
  • work-family conflict

1. Facets of Home-Based Remote Work and Job Stress

Despite the beneficial aspects of home-based remote work, previous literature suggests that working from home is associated with a higher level of WRS [1][2][3]. WRS is defined as a transactional construct, which describes stress as a direct product of the transaction between an individual and the environment impacting one’s resources and wellbeing [4][5][6]. Contrastingly, other scholars present previous research results indicating that working from home is linked to many positive aspects such as the reconciliation of work and family life due to flexible working hours, increased productivity of employees, higher job satisfaction and many more [7][8]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, home-based remote work was inevitable as an effective preventive measure to reduce infections [9]. Regardless of a pandemic situation and out of a corporate perspective, there are several economic aspects in favor of remote work such as lower rent expenses, lower maintenance costs of office space, less business-related travel and an increase in productivity amongst employees [7]. Employees benefit from reduced distractions in the office realm by working from home. This especially applies to office workers whose execution of work tasks must be concentrated, focused and knowledge-based. The possibility of working remotely from home is also associated with greater job satisfaction and commitment amongst employees [10][11].
On the contrary, most jobs—especially office workers—require a certain level of social interaction with superiors and/or coworkers. Working from home isolates employees physically from each other, which can be perceived as challenging for work-related activities carried out within teams [12]. The physical isolation and digital work execution thus limit the ease of addressing colleagues and superiors [10][11][13]. This claim is supported by previous research that shows that remotely working individuals felt isolated and rely on office interactions for social support [14][15][16]. Moreover, social interaction between coworkers and superiors is an important promoter of employee engagement and mental well-being [7].
A significant pillar of the ongoing discussion on the benefits of remote work is employee stress. While home-based remote work may lead to lower stress levels due to decreased commuting times and day-to-day office demands [10][11], it is at the same time linked to an “always-on” debate. This may lead to a higher number of working hours, difficulties to switch off from work [17], and to a perceived need of being constantly available [8]. These behaviors are usually set as a cultural norm in remote work settings by superiors and coworkers and can lead to an overall poor well-being and mental health problems [18][19].

2. Association between Work-Related Stress and Health Outcomes

The relationship between WRS and health has been extensively evaluated in the past. Studies show that a high level of WRS is inversely linked to health-associated outcomes [20][21][22]. In the context of remote work, evidence of an effect of WRS remains controversial. Remote work decreases psychological and physiological stress when it comes to reducing commuting times, increased flexibility, productivity or an improved balance of private and work life [23]. Simultaneously, previous studies report an increased perception of psychological WRS associated with presenteeism [23], work-family conflict [24], social isolation and declining health behaviors such as physical activity during after-work hours [21]. Additionally, the association between WRS and health is predominantly associated with psychological symptoms such as fatigue [22][25], anxiety or depression disorders [21].

3. Persistent WRS Leads to Anxiety and Depressive Disorders

If WRS exceeds a certain level and persists over a longer period of time, job anxiety can arise [26]. Job-related anxiety is a person’s response to WRS, where the stressor is either persistent or overwhelming to a person. Employees with job anxiety see themselves in a situation unable to deal with job demands such as heavy workload, long working hours, job insecurity or difficulties with co-workers. Studies reveal that employees with job anxiety or depressive symptoms show a significantly higher level of WRS [27][28][29][30] and a ’psychologically impaired well-being’ [31]. Research in the context of remote work also suggests that job anxiety is not only favored by WRS, but also by a combination with private stress [28][32][33][34][35].

4. Self-Efficacy Is a Central Factor That Reduces WRS

Personal resources are a key element of dealing with WRS during remote work. Resilience, control or competence-oriented constructs such as self-efficacy are considered important personal resources in the JDR framework [36]. Self-efficacy has evolved from Bandura’s social cognitive theory and is defined as ’a judgment of one’s ability to execute a particular behavior pattern’ [37]. The underlying mechanism is the perception of being in control when encountering a potential stress-related situation, which functions as an important buffer. This is particularly important because people with higher self-efficacy tend to take on more challenging tasks, exert more effort and show more perseverance in these tasks. [38]. Furthermore, previous studies found that self-efficacious employees are more likely to show an increased level of confidence in executing new tasks, handling new situations with a positive attitude, and they are more likely to succeed in these novel tasks [38]. In some cases, the relationship between self-efficacy and WRS has to be regarded independently, especially when challenging tasks become obstacles beyond a person’s individual control, such as caring for others. In these cases, a U-shaped relationship can emerge [39]. Evidence on the inverse relationship between self-efficacy and WRS is well established [29][30], but has not been extensively investigated in a remote work setting. Applied to the context of remote work, job demands, and thus WRS, tend to be even higher due to the cumulation of multiple stressors such as longer working hours, higher workloads or difficulties caused by the overlapping of work and private life.

5. Positive Mediating Effects on Health Associated Outcomes

The importance of self-efficacy increases when looking at health-associated outcomes. Self-efficacious employees tend to perceive less stress and feel in control of job demands. With people being at home, the support of supervisors or company resources is limited, as they cannot affect a person’s private life or certain events at an employee’s home. Employees have to manage their tasks mostly on their own and at the same time cope with the demands of their private life in addition to the professional ones. It is therefore an important skill to keep WRS at a manageable level. This, in turn, prevents prolonged stress episodes and the emergence of health-endangering risks. The lowering effect of self-efficacy on WRS leads to a higher job satisfaction, better health scores [40][41][42][43] and well-being [28]. At the same time, anxiety and depressive disorders are observed significantly less frequently with higher self-efficacy [44][45]. Employees with higher levels of job anxiety report high levels of job stress and low levels of self-efficacy [29][30][45]. Thus, it can be proposed that self-efficacy can be a crucial personal antecedent that is negatively related to WRS which in turn mediates the relationship between SE with overall health and job anxiety.

6. Remote Work Experience and Autonomy Promote Self-Efficacy

Given the inverse relationship between self-efficacy and WRS, the question arises as to which personal resources promote self-efficacy. Two concepts are directly linked to the level of self-efficacy, which are remote work experience and autonomy. Bandura [38] describes experience as one of the most crucial sources of self-efficacy alongside vicarious experience, verbal persuasion and physiological and affective states. When a person successfully completes a task, it generally has a direct positive impact on their self-esteem. A person then feels more confident to master similar tasks successfully, and self-efficacy improves. Several studies report a strong, positive relationship between work experience and self-efficacy; unfortunately, most of them were conducted in traditional work environments and not home-based remote work settings [46][47].

7. Work-Family Conflict Is a Circumstantial Factor Influencing Self-Efficacy and WRS

Lastly, the increasing blending of work and private life raises the issue of work affecting family life (work-family conflict) and, conversely, how family affects work (family-work conflict). Work-family conflict emerges when pressure in the work role prevents a person from meeting the demands of the private situation [48]. In the past, the way work affects family life was studied extensively, with particular attention to how shift work, overtime or constant accessibility affect workers’ personal lives [35]. Work-family conflict is associated with a strong gender dependency, as in most cultures women are predominantly responsible for housework and caregiving [49]. However, the understanding of work-family conflict has shifted significantly due to two major aspects. First of all, the growing acceptance of remote work as a main working concept leads to a two-way phenomenon that includes work-family conflict and family-work conflict at the same time [50]. Working from home eliminates a local distance between work and family life, leading to distractions, interruptions, sharing a workspace, double responsibilities and burdens such as preparing lunch for the family or helping with homework [51]. Second, working from home is related to a higher workload and longer working hours [8][52], leaving less time for family and other personal life activities [8]. Regardless of whether remote work is voluntarily chosen or coerced, both aspects underscore that remote work involves a number of factors that impact work and family life [48]. Evidence from previous literature clearly supports a connection to various health-related outcomes such as work-related stress, work-related depressive disorders including burnout, as well as life and marital dissatisfaction [24][51][53]. High levels of work-family conflict are linked to a higher overall level of perceived stress, physical fatigue and psychological weariness [24][51]. Hobfoll’s [54] ’Conversation-of-Resources’ theory explains that work-family conflict ties up important cognitive, emotional and physical resources, which are then no longer available for work-related performance. Over time, this loss of resource will lead to increased anxiety, psychological strain and health problems [26].

8. Self-Efficacy Mediates the Effects of Work-Family Conflict on Work-Related Stress

As described above, self-efficacy is considered an important personal resource that enhances general resistance to stress, is related to higher levels of resilience and promotes positive coping strategies with environmental demands [55]. Compared to these demands, self-efficacious individuals show a high sense of control and self-evaluation which lead to less stress in general [55][56][57][58]. This mechanism, in turn, reduces the levels of work-family conflict and WRS. The mediating effect of self-efficacy is shown in different studies, but predominantly outside the context of remote work [40][54][59][60].
Lastly, the increasing blending of work and private life raises the issue of work affecting family life (work-family conflict) and, conversely, how family affects work (family-work conflict). Work-family conflict emerges when pressure in the work role prevents a person from meeting the demands of the private situation [48]. In the past, the way work affects family life was studied extensively, with particular attention to how shift work, overtime or constant accessibility affect workers’ personal lives [35]. Work-family conflict is associated with a strong gender dependency, as in most cultures women are predominantly responsible for housework and caregiving [49]. However, the understanding of work-family conflict has shifted significantly due to two major aspects. First of all, the growing acceptance of remote work as a main working concept leads to a two-way phenomenon that includes work-family conflict and family-work conflict at the same time [50]. Working from home eliminates a local distance between work and family life, leading to distractions, interruptions, sharing a workspace, double responsibilities and burdens such as preparing lunch for the family or helping with homework [51]. Second, working from home is related to a higher workload and longer working hours [8][52], leaving less time for family and other personal life activities [8]. Regardless of whether remote work is voluntarily chosen or coerced, both aspects underscore that remote work involves a number of factors that impact work and family life [48]. Evidence from previous literature clearly supports a connection to various health-related outcomes such as work-related stress, work-related depressive disorders including burnout, as well as life and marital dissatisfaction [24][51][53]. High levels of work-family conflict are linked to a higher overall level of perceived stress, physical fatigue and psychological weariness [24][51]. Hobfoll’s [54] ’Conversation-of-Resources’ theory explains that work-family conflict ties up important cognitive, emotional and physical resources, which are then no longer available for work-related performance. Over time, this loss of resource will lead to increased anxiety, psychological strain and health problems [26].
Self-efficacy gives people the feeling that they can successfully solve tasks and challenges on their own. This, in turn, requires an appropriate framework of autonomy. In the context of remote work, methodological autonomy and decision-making autonomy are particularly important. Decision-making autonomy means that an employee can independently make decisions that lead to solving a problem, whereas work-method autonomy gives employees the power to decide how they want to solve a problem. Autonomy in general is positively associated with self-efficacy [61], which is also supported by various other studies in different occupational contexts [62][63][64]. Positive associations between job autonomy and certain indicators of psychological well-being were also reported in previous literature [65]. Not only is autonomy a ’powerful motivational tool’ [61], it also gives an employee the necessary independence to deal with heterogeneous situations or problems. Contrary to that relationship, limiting a person’s autonomy can lead to lower job satisfaction and higher job stress. The aspects of autonomy and self-efficacy were mainly considered against the background of work design in terms of motivation and performance [66], but less in the context of health. Therefore, the concepts of experience and autonomy have huge potential in promoting self-efficacy in a remote work setting.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/ijerph19094955

References

  1. Song, Y.; Gao, J. Does Telework stress employees out? A study on working at home and subjective well-being for wage/salary workers. J. Happiness Stud. 2018, 21, 2649–2668, Discussion Paper Series. IZA DP No.11993.
  2. Oakman, J.; Kinsman, N.; Stuckey, R.; Graham, M.; Weale, V. A rapid review of mental and physical health effects of working at home: How do we optimise health? BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 1825.
  3. Lunde, L.K.; Fløvik, L.; Christensen, J.O.; Johannessen, H.A.; Finne, L.B.; Jørgensen, I.L.; Mohr, B.; Vleeshouwers, J. The relationship between telework from home and employee health: A systematic review. BMC Public Health 2022, 22, 47.
  4. Cox, T.; Griffith, A. Word-related Stress: A Theoretical Perspective. In Occupational Health Psychology; Leka, S., Houdmont, J., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2010; pp. 31–57.
  5. Lazarus, R.S.; Folkman, S. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping; Springer Publishing Company: New York, NY, USA, 1984.
  6. Lazarus, R.S. Theory-Based Stress Measurement. Psychol. Inq. 1990, 1, 3–13.
  7. Charalampous, M.; Grant, C.A.; Tramontano, C.; Michailidis, E. Systematically reviewing remote e-workers’ well-being at work: A multidimensional approach. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2019, 28, 51–73.
  8. Giménez-Nadal, J.I.; Molina, J.M.; Velilla, J. Telework, the Timing of Work, and Instantaneous Well-Being: Evidence from Time Use Data 2018; Discussion Paper Series. DP No. 11271; IZA: Bonn, Germany, 2018.
  9. Corona-Datenplattform. Themenreport 02. In Homeoffice im Verlauf der Corona-Pandemie; Corona Datenplattform: Bonn, Germany, 2021.
  10. Kelliher, C.; Anderson, D. Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and the intensification of work. Hum. Relat. 2010, 63, 83–106.
  11. Fonner, K.L.; Roloff, M.E. Why Teleworkers are More Satisfied with Their Jobs than are Office-Based Workers: When Less Contact is Beneficial. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 2010, 38, 336–361.
  12. Lengen, J.C.; Kordsmeyer, A.-C.; Rohwer, E.; Harth, V.; Mache, S. Soziale Isolation im Homeoffice im Kontext der COVID-19-Pandemie: Hinweise für die Gestaltung von Homeoffice im Hinblick auf soziale Bedürfnisse (Social isolation among teleworkers in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic). Zent. Arb. Arb. Erg. 2020, 71, 63–68.
  13. Lautsch, B.A.; Kossek, E.E.; Eaton, S.C. Supervisory approaches and paradoxes in managing telecommuting implementation. Hum. Relat. 2009, 62, 795–827.
  14. Mann, S.; Holdsworth, L. The psychological impact of teleworking: Stress, emotions and health. New Technol. Work. Employ. 2003, 18, 196–211.
  15. Galea, S.; Merchant, R.M.; Lurie, N. The Mental Health Consequences of COVID-19 and Physical Distancing: The Need for Prevention and Early Intervention. JAMA Intern. Med. 2020, 180, 817–818.
  16. Giorgi, G.; Lecca, L.I.; Alessio, F.; Finstad, G.L.; Bondanini, G.; Lulli, L.G.; Arcangeli, G.; Mucci, N. COVID-19-Related Mental Health Effects in the Workplace: A Narrative Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7857.
  17. Kossek, E.E.; Lautsch, B.A.; Eaton, S.C. “Good teleworking”: Under what conditions does teleworking enhance employees’ well-being? In Technology and Psychological Well-Being; Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009; pp. 148–173.
  18. Derks, D.; van Duin, D.; Tims, M.; Bakker, A.B. Smartphone use and work-home interference: The moderating role of social norms and employee work engagement. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2015, 88, 155–177.
  19. Kompier, M.A.J.; Taris, T.W.; van Veldhoven, M. Tossing and turning—Insomnia in relation to occupational stress, rumination, fatigue, and well-being. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2012, 38, 238–246.
  20. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. J. Manag. Psych 2007, 22, 309–328.
  21. Czeisler, M.É.; Lane, R.I.; Petrosky, E.; Wiley, J.F.; Christensen, A.; Njai, R.; Weaver, M.D.; Robbins, R.; Facer-Childs, E.R.; Barger, L.K.; et al. Mental Health, Substance Use, and Suicidal Ideation During the COVID-19 Pandemic—United States, 24–30 June 2020. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2020, 69, 1049–1057.
  22. Kortum, E.; Leka, S.; Cox, T. Psychosocial risks and work-related stress in developing countries: Health impact, priorities, barriers and solutions. Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health 2010, 23, 225–238.
  23. Shimura, A.; Yokoi, K.; Ishibashi, Y.; Akatsuka, Y.; Inoue, T. Remote Work Decreases Psychological and Physical Stress Responses, but Full-Remote Work Increases Presenteeism. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 730969.
  24. Barriga Medina, H.R.; Campoverde Aguirre, R.; Coello-Montecel, D.; Ochoa Pacheco, P.; Paredes-Aguirre, M.I. The Influence of Work-Family Conflict on Burnout during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Effect of Teleworking Overload. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10302.
  25. Tennant, C. Work-related stress and depressive disorders. J. Psychosom. Res. 2001, 51, 697–704.
  26. Modaresnezhad, M.; Andrews, M.C.; Mesmer-Magnus, J.; Viswesvaran, C.; Deshpande, S. Anxiety, job satisfaction, supervisor support and turnover intentions of mid-career nurses: A structural equation model analysis. J. Nurs. Manag. 2021, 29, 931–942.
  27. Bonde, J.P.E. Psychosocial factors at work and risk of depression: A systematic review of the epidemiological evidence. Occup. Environ. Med. 2008, 65, 438–445.
  28. Fan, L.-B.; Blumenthal, J.A.; Watkins, L.L.; Sherwood, A. Work and home stress: Associations with anxiety and depression symptoms. Occup. Med. 2015, 65, 110–116.
  29. Simonetti, V.; Durante, A.; Ambrosca, R.; Arcadi, P.; Graziano, G.; Pucciarelli, G.; Simeone, S.; Vellone, E.; Alvaro, R.; Cicolini, G. Anxiety, sleep disorders and self-efficacy among nurses during COVID-19 pandemic: A large cross-sectional study. J. Clin. Nurs. 2021, 30, 1360–1371.
  30. Razavi, S.A.; Shahrabi, A.; Siamian, H. The Relationship Between Research Anxiety and Self-Efficacy. Mater. Sociomed. 2017, 29, 247–250.
  31. Siegrist, J. Chronic psychosocial stress at work and risk of depression: Evidence from prospective studies. Eur. Arch. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 2008, 258 (Suppl. S5), 115–119.
  32. Griffin, J.M.; Fuhrer, R.; Stansfeld, S.A.; Marmot, M. The importance of low control at work and home on depression and anxiety: Do these effects vary by gender and social class? Soc. Sci. Med. 2002, 54, 783–798.
  33. Grzywacz, J.G.; Marks, N.F. Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2000, 5, 111–126.
  34. Seto, M.; Morimoto, K.; Maruyama, S. Effects of work-related factors and work-family conflict on depression among Japanese working women living with young children. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 2004, 9, 220–227.
  35. Byron, K. A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. J. Vocat. Behav. 2005, 67, 169–198.
  36. Bakker, A.B.; van Veldhoven, M.; Xanthopoulou, D. Beyond the Demand-Control Model. J. Pers. Psychol. 2010, 9, 3–16.
  37. Bandura, A. Reflections on self-efficacy. Adv. Behav. Res. Ther. 1978, 1, 237–269.
  38. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 1997.
  39. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. Job demands-resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2017, 22, 273–285.
  40. Rubio, C.; Osca, A.; Recio, P.; Urien, B.; Peiró, J.M. Work-family conflict, self-efficacy, and emotional exhaustion: A test of longitudinal effects. Rev. Psicol. Trab. Las Organ. 2015, 31, 147–154.
  41. Brusso, R.C.; Orvis, K.A.; Bauer, K.N.; Tekleab, A.G. Interaction Among Self-Efficacy, Goal Orientation, and Unrealistic Goal-Setting on Videogame-Based Training Performance. Mil. Psychol. 2012, 24, 1–18.
  42. Stetz, T.A.; Stetz, M.C.; Bliese, P.D. The importance of self-efficacy in the moderating effects of social support on stressor–strain relationships. Work. Stress 2006, 20, 49–59.
  43. Schwarzer, R.; Hallum, S. Perceived Teacher Self-Efficacy as a Predictor of Job Stress and Burnout: Mediation Analyses. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 57, 152–171.
  44. Deer, L.K.; Gohn, K.; Kanaya, T. Anxiety and self-efficacy as sequential mediators in US college students’ career preparation. Educ. Train. 2018, 60, 185–197.
  45. De Clercq, D.; Haq, I.U.; Azeem, M.U. Self-efficacy to spur job performance. Manag. Decis. 2018, 56, 891–907.
  46. Ineson, E.M.; Jung, T.; Hains, C.; Kim, M. The influence of prior subject knowledge, prior ability and work experience on self-efficacy. J. Hosp. Leis. Sport Tour. Educ. 2013, 12, 59–69.
  47. Staples, D.S.; Hulland, J.S.; Higgins, C.A. A Self-Efficacy Theory Explanation for the Management of Remote Workers in Virtual Organizations. Organ. Sci. 1999, 10, 758–776.
  48. Barbieri, B.; Balia, S.; Sulis, I.; Cois, E.; Cabras, C.; Atzara, S.; De Simone, S. Don’t Call It Smart: Working from Home During the Pandemic Crisis. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 741585.
  49. Atkinson, C.; Hall, L. The Role of Gender in Varying Forms of Flexible Working. Gend. Work. Organ. 2009, 16, 650–666.
  50. Netemeyer, R.G.; Boles, J.S.; McMurrian, R. Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. J. Appl. Psychol. 1996, 81, 400–410.
  51. Galanti, T.; Guidetti, G.; Mazzei, E.; Zappalà, S.; Toscano, F. Work from Home During the COVID-19 Outbreak: The Impact on Employees’ Remote Work Productivity, Engagement, and Stress. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2021, 63, e426–e432.
  52. Ghislieri, C.; Molino, M.; Dolce, V.; Sanseverino, D.; Presutti, M. Work-family conflict during the Covid-19 pandemic: Teleworking of administrative and technical staff in healthcare. An Italian study. Med. Lav. 2021, 112, 229–240.
  53. Obrenovic, B.; Du Jianguo Khudaykulov, A.; Khan, M.A.S. Work-Family Conflict Impact on Psychological Safety and Psychological Well-Being: A Job Performance Model. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 475.
  54. Hobfoll, S.E. (Ed.) The Ecology of Stress; Hemisphere: New York, NY, USA, 1988.
  55. Mache, S.; Bernburg, M.; Vitzthum, K.; Groneberg, D.A.; Klapp, B.F.; Danzer, G. Managing work-family conflict in the medical profession: Working conditions and individual resources as related factors. BMJ Open 2015, 5, e006871.
  56. Hobfoll, S.E.; Johnson, R.J.; Ennis, N.; Jackson, A.P. Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 84, 632–643.
  57. Bernas, K.H.; Major, D.A. Contributers to stress resistance: Testing a Model of Women’s Work-Family Conflict. Psychol. Women Q. 2000, 24, 170–178.
  58. Blanch, A.; Aluja, A. Work, family and personality: A study of work–family conflict. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2009, 46, 520–524.
  59. Wang, P.; Lawler, J.J.; Shi, K. Work—Family Conflict, Self-Efficacy, Job Satisfaction, and Gender: Evidence from Asia. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2010, 17, 298–308.
  60. Carballo-Penela, A.; Varela, J.; Bande, B. The Direct and Indirect Effects of Self-Efficacy on Salespeople’s Emotional Exhaustion and Work-Family Conflict: A Study Using the Job Demands-Resources Model. Can. J. Adm. Sci. 2019, 36, 363–376.
  61. Sousa, C.M.P.; Coelho, F.; Guillamon-Saorin, E. Personal Values, Autonomy, and Self-efficacy: Evidence from frontline service employees. Int. J. Sel. Assess 2012, 20, 159–170.
  62. Marques de Macedo, T.A.; dos Santos Cabral, E.L.; Silva Castro, W.R.; de Souza Junior, C.C.; da Costa Junior, J.F.; Pedrosa, F.M.; da Silva, A.B.; de Medeiros, V.R.F.; de Souza, R.P.; Cabral, M.A.L.; et al. Ergonomics and telework: A systematic review. Work 2020, 66, 777–788.
  63. Wang, B.; Liu, Y.; Qian, J.; Parker, S.K. Achieving Effective Remote Working During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Work Design Perspective. Appl. Psychol. 2020, 70, 16–59.
  64. Cartwright, S.; Cooper, C.L.; Hislop, D.; Axtell, C.; Daniels, K. The Challenge of Remote Working; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009; Volume 1.
  65. Clausen, T.; Pedersen, L.R.M.; Andersen, M.F.; Theorell, T.; Madsen, I.E.H. Job autonomy and psychological well-being: A linear or a non-linear association? Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2021, 1–11.
  66. Morgeson, F.P.; Humphrey, S.E. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 1321–1339.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback