Abstract
Due to digital connectivity, contemporary employees’ work and related experiences have changed in many ways. While connectivity can improve efficiency and well-being by enhancing workers’ autonomy and flexibility, it can simultaneously increase stress, escalate connectivity expectations, and hamper work-life boundary management. This study focuses on connectivity and its related well-being experiences, adopting and developing the conceptualization of connectivity regulation. Qualitative data were collected through an interview-diary-interview method and iteratively analyzed. The findings suggest that employees proactively and reactively regulate their connectivity depending on their boundary management, task prioritization, and role demands within the organization. Notably, employees who adopt pre-planned, proactive connectivity regulation strategies experience both digital exhaustion or digital balance similarly to those who adopt an adaptable and flexible reactive approach to connectivity regulation. The study furthers the understanding of the complexity of employees’ connectivity-related experiences and contributes to theory and practice of employee well-being and digital connectivity in organizations.
Keywords
Employees of contemporary organizations use communication technologies for connectivity (that is, digital communication and collaboration with colleagues). Connectivity is particularly prominent in knowledge-intensive organizations operating within distributed or hybrid settings. However, it has also become important in most types of contemporary work contexts, as people communicate digitally even within local settings (Sivunen et al., 2023b). The technology-induced shift to digital connectivity has fundamentally changed organizational communication and related phenomena (e.g., Winby & Mohrman, 2018). Traditional face-to-face interactions can be replaced or combined not only with asynchronous text but also with mobile, synchronous, and real-time video calls to be attended remotely (e.g., Zoom). Moreover, as work times and places no longer define work-related communication, employees can make increasingly autonomous decisions on flexible connectivity.
Despite its indisputable benefits for collaboration and work efficiency, connectivity is associated with problematic phenomena (e.g., Marsh et al., 2022). Paradoxically, the capacity for employees to flexibly (dis)connect from work through technology can result in excessive connectivity and increased working overall (e.g., Leonardi et al., 2010; Mazmanian et al., 2013; Ter Hoeven et al., 2016). Mobile connectivity can also blur the boundaries between work and other life domains (e.g., Brown & Palvia, 2015; De Alwis et al., 2022; van Zoonen et al., 2020). Thus, increased connectivity has shed light on a new dimension of malaise, digital exhaustion (Parker et al., 2023), which refers to the strain experienced due to technology use. Therefore, connectivity is related to well-being, often in complex ways.
The present study is interested in how the complex well-being implications of connectivity coexist with increasing employee autonomy in terms of work-related communication flexibility. More specifically, we aim to understand where individuals can take actions to achieve and maintain digital balance and avoid digital exhaustion by managing connectivity. In order to address the relationship between work-related connectivity and well-being, we approach connectivity from the employee perspective, with a focus on connectivity regulation (Russo et al., 2019). That is, we are interested in how and why employees plan, reflect on, and control—i.e., self-regulate (see Bandura, 1991)—their connectivity when communicating in work settings and which well-being implications employees associate with connectivity. Thus, we contribute to topical research on the self-regulation of communication technology use (Cavazotte et al., 2014; Dery et al., 2014; Matthes et al., 2022; Russo et al., 2019) by analyzing it alongside employees’ connectivity-related well-being experiences, that is, digital balance and digital exhaustion. Digital balance is our reconceptualization of Vanden Abeele's (2021) concept of digital well-being, which refers to the perceived balance between the benefits and drawbacks of connectivity. Meanwhile, digital exhaustion, a concept introduced by Parker et al. (2023), refers to the physical and psychological strain of connectivity.
Prior research has not examined the dynamics of connectivity regulation from an employee perspective alongside digital balance and digital exhaustion. For instance, Russo et al. (2019) analyzed individuals’ disconnecting decisions but overlooked the dynamic nature of connectivity and did not explicate its perceived implications in terms of well-being. Moreover, due to the rapid development of communication technologies and organizational connectivity practices, up-to-date research is required on connectivity regulation; even ten-year-old conceptualizations (e.g., Cavazotte et al., 2014) are made imminently outdated. For instance, providing an important empirical benchmark for the current study, Dery et al. (2014) furthered the discussion on the dynamic, flow-like nature of connectivity (see also Kolb & Collins, 2011). Yet, their decade-old conceptualization could not have foreseen the scale of changes that hit organizations during the Covid pandemic (Warrick & Cady, 2023), which pushed virtually all knowledge-intensive workplaces to implement digital connectivity practices.
It is evident that organizational changes—including the adoption of new communication tools or remote work practices—influence organizational members as a collective but also on an individual level, ultimately reflecting back on organizational success. Thus, this study argues that understanding the micro-level implications of connectivity through connectivity regulation and its perceived implications on employee well-being is crucial, both theoretically and practically. Comprehending contemporary employees’ connectivity-related well-being experiences alongside their approaches to connectivity regulation is particularly essential in the increasingly autonomous yet collectively interdependent organizational contexts. As workplace communication practices become increasingly individualized and heterogeneous, the complexity of perceived consequences and implications may follow. Hence, in order to develop organizational practices in a direction that supports employee well-being and organizational success, it is critical to understand the complexities of connectivity regulation from an employee perspective.
We employ a qualitative interview-diary-interview method (e.g., Pagh, 2020) to collect in-depth data on connectivity regulation and connectivity-related well-being experiences from 20 employees of a knowledge-intensive organization, who use communication technologies for work-related communication. Our findings illustrate how employees’ connectivity regulation ranges from proactive to reactive approaches and is further embedded in individual preferences for work-life boundary management, situational task-related demands, and the specific attributes of organizational roles. The findings demonstrate the multifaceted nature of employees’ connectivity-related well-being experiences, highlighting how perceived digital balance can be related to rigid and pre-planned strategies but also to adjustable flexibility with regard to connectivity habits. Drawing on the interconnections between connectivity regulation approaches and digital balance/exhaustion experiences, this illustrates the complexity of what can be experienced as appropriate or sufficient connectivity regulation in regard to perceived digital balance.
Thus, our findings contribute to the understanding of the dynamics between digital exhaustion (Parker et al., 2023) and digital balance (Vanden Abeele, 2021) from an employee perspective in the context of work-related connectivity (e.g., Cavazotte et al., 2014; Kolb et al., 2012; Ter Hoeven et al., 2016). By focusing on work-related connectivity regulation as a dynamic process, we contribute to the discussion on the flexible, flow-like nature of connectivity (e.g., Dery et al., 2014; Kolb & Collins, 2011), steering away from the dualistic approach to (dis)connection that is still implicitly assumed in some existing work (e.g., Karsay & Vandenbosch, 2021; Russo et al., 2019). Our findings on connectivity-related well-being experiences similarly stress the dynamics between digital balance and exhaustion, illustrating that well-being experiences are often not strictly positive or negative. Furthermore, our findings provide insight into the various ways employees manage their work-life boundaries (e.g., Fonner & Stache, 2012; Reissner et al., 2021; Sayah, 2013), advancing the discussion about the changing and flexible boundaries in contemporary work and further helping organizations to develop connectivity practices to support employees’ digital balance.
Theoretical Framework
Contemporary Connectivity, Digital Exhaustion, and Digital Balance
Digital connectivity has rapidly become a default, naturalized form of social connection (Kuntsman & Miyake, 2019) as technologies have eased asynchronous and synchronous work-related communication, such as accessing work instructions from colleagues, attending video conferences, or replying to emails. For instance, contemporary employees have the resources to connect with multiple communication channels via smartphones, which was not the situation during the peak of the Blackberry era just over a decade ago (e.g., Matusik & Mickel, 2011; Mazmanian, 2013; Mazmanian et al., 2013; Turel et al., 2008). As a result, the nature and boundaries of modern work are shifting (Dery et al., 2014), posing new demands for employees as they adapt to these changing work environments.
At the same time (and perhaps for these very reasons), connectivity is associated with several complexities, even paradoxes, that refer to phenomena that are simultaneously ambivalent (e.g., Vakola et al., 2021), contradictory and yet interdependent (e.g., Lang & Jarvenpaa, 2005; Leonardi et al., 2010; Ter Hoeven et al., 2016). Illustrating the complex consequences of digitalized work, connectivity has been shown to both increase and decrease employee autonomy. Employees can flexibly connect to work at any time and place, further increasing expectations around connectivity (Mazmanian et al., 2013), yet after-hours connectivity has also been shown to be related to increased autonomy (van Zoonen et al., 2023). Scholars have also reported the paradoxical well-being implications related to connectivity, including burnout and work engagement (Ter Hoeven et al., 2016). In this vein, well-being is a broad, complex construct that generally encompasses various psychological, physiological, cultural, and socio-economic dimensions (see Huppert et al., 2005). However, we focus on well-being only as it has been theorized in terms of digital connectivity and concentrate on employees’ well-being experiences.
Prior studies have suggested that connectivity has two different implications on well-being. We conceptualize the two somewhat opposing yet partially overlapping implications as connectivity-related well-being experiences. On the one hand, technology users’ well-being experiences may reflect digital balance, which refers to the maximal balance between the perceived benefits and drawbacks of connectivity (Vanden Abeele, 2021). Although Vanden Abeele (2021) used the concept of digital well-being, we find the concept of balance to be more appropriate as Vanden Abeele's definition, in fact, emphasizes balance. According to this definition, digital well-being does not refer to the nonexistence of negative aspects of connectivity, instead referring to an individual's subjective experience of balance between the positive and negative implications of connectivity (Vanden Abeele, 2021). This indicates that digital balance cannot be objectively defined, but the optimal state of connectivity “lies in the eye of the beholder” (Kolb et al., 2012, p. 270). Moreover, technology users can achieve this balance when they have a sense of control over their technology use (Vanden Abeele, 2021).
On the other hand, digital exhaustion, which refers to the psychological and physiological fatigue associated with digital connectivity, lies at the opposite end of connectivity-related well-being experiences (Parker et al., 2023). Connectivity-related strain is often conceptualized as technostress (e.g., Ayyagari et al., 2011; Tarafdar et al., 2020), but the concept of digital exhaustion is more holistic as it also includes the physiological aspects of exhaustion (Parker et al., 2023).
To conclude, connectivity can give rise to digital balance or exhaustion, which we conceptualize as opposite experiences of employee well-being. While these well-being experiences entail somewhat opposing (positive vs. negative) attributes, drawing on Vanden Abeele's (2021) conceptualization, digital balance can also be characterized by the negative aspects and drawbacks of connectivity—as long as they are optimally balanced with positive experiences. Whether connectivity is related to balance or exhaustion appears to be contingent on both the subjective experiences of the technology user (Vanden Abeele, 2021) and their capacity to control their connectivity-related decisions (Kolb et al., 2012; Parker et al., 2023). To unpack the relationship between connectivity and related well-being experiences and further understand employees’ control over connectivity, we introduce the concept of connectivity regulation.
From (Dis)connecting to Connectivity Regulation
As connectivity can be characterized by the alternating states of technologically enabled social connections (Kolb, 2008; Kolb et al., 2012), it is a process that can be strategically managed (Aljabr et al., 2022) through communication technology use. Communication technologies can be employed to support connectivity and disconnectivity. In contemporary organizations, connectivity is sometimes characterized as constant (e.g., Mazmanian, 2013) or even permanent (Karsay & Vandenbosch, 2021), but the most applicable way is to understand (dis)connectivity as changing and dependent on situational demands (Kolb et al., 2012). On the one hand, employees can make themselves available to colleagues by connecting, such as by keeping their cell phones nearby or setting their status to “online” on instant messaging systems. On the other hand, disconnecting can be characterized by limiting or avoiding technology-mediated interactions, staying “offline,” or restricting communication technology use in general.
Disconnecting is a topical trend in the broader societal context (Fast, 2021; Kuntsman & Miyake, 2019), in leisure social media use (e.g., Nguyen, 2021), and in organizational research on after-hours connectivity (e.g., Matthes et al., 2022; Russo et al., 2019). However, organizations that promote flexible working practices may afford employees full autonomy over their work-related connectivity (Viete & Erdsiek, 2020), meaning that the responsibility for managing connectivity is increasingly upon the individual (Sivunen et al., 2023a; Vanden Abeele et al., 2018). Moreover, connectivity is typically a default, non-negotiable way of communicating in contemporary organizations, particularly in hybrid or otherwise distributed settings. This presents organizational connectivity as a significantly different phenomenon than, for instance, leisure connectivity. For example, in the context of leisure, one can freely take breaks from connectivity, even taking so-called digital detoxes (while controversial in efficacy, see Radtke et al., 2022), while work-related demands make the same impossible in organizational settings. However, balanced connectivity is considered important for well-being (Vanden Abeele, 2021) and work-life balance (e.g., Von Bergen & Bressler, 2019). Thus, granting employees autonomy over their connectivity affords them a lot of individual responsibility in accomplishing organizational goals and managing their digital balance.
Connecting and disconnecting exist solely in relation to one another (Kolb, 2008), as both are efforts to manage one's connectivity. In the context of contemporary employee communication—where collaboration practices are flexible and communication occurs via multiple channels throughout the day—it is not useful to focus on (dis)connecting dichotomously as if connectivity is something to be switched on or off (Dery et al., 2014). Thus, building on the findings of Dery et al. (2014), we argue that connectivity is a dynamic and fluid process that may be situationally changing (see also Kolb & Collins, 2011; Kolb et al., 2012) rather than merely a question of two choices (i.e., to connect or to disconnect). Therefore, defining (dis)connectivity in terms of two choices can be problematic, as connecting and disconnecting behaviors may overlap; for instance, an employee may connect via one channel while disconnecting on another. Having various (a)synchronous channels may also increase the complexity of (dis)connecting; for example, a phone call might warrant an instant reaction to connect, while an email could be left waiting for a more appropriate moment even if the employee is aware the communicative request is waiting (e.g., they hear the notification alert). Moreover, due to the pervasiveness of digital connectivity in today's organizations, studying disconnectivity as the sole alternative to connectivity would likely portray the phenomenon too simplistically. Thus, we consider it crucial to approach (dis)connecting from the more dynamic phenomenon of connectivity regulation, which helps to understand the individual mechanisms behind connectivity decisions.
We define connectivity regulation as an employee's means of controlling or managing their work-related connectivity through self-regulation, which generally refers to an individual's coordination of their decisions and actions, driven by goal-directed motivations (e.g., Bayer et al., 2016; Halfmann, 2021). While several theories have built on the construct of self-regulation (see De la Fuente et al., 2022), we apply the conceptualization from Bandura's (1991) Social Cognitive Theory of Self-Regulation. According to Bandura (1991), self-regulation entails self-efficacy, which can be understood as one's agentic capacity to achieve one's goals. More specifically, self-regulation comprises forethought or intentional, proactive planning preceding actions, alongside self-monitoring, judgment, and self-reactiveness directed at actions to evaluate one's success in achieving one's goals and make reactive adjustments to one's behaviors (Bandura, 1991). Based on Bandura's (1991) conceptualization, we operationalize connectivity regulation as planning (i.e., forethought), reflecting on (i.e., self-monitoring, evaluation), and controlling (i.e., making adjustments to) one's connectivity.
Studying whether connectivity regulation takes such coordinated and planned forms is important, as prior studies have suggested that technology use can sometimes be automated and less conscious (e.g., Bayer et al., 2016). The complexity of self-regulation within organizational and collective contexts has also been noted (Bandura, 1991), as individuals can, for example, experience pressure to be technologically available (Halfmann, 2021). Accordingly, we highlight connectivity regulation as a social and relationally contingent phenomenon, although we study it through employees’ subjective self-reflection (see Cavazotte et al., 2014) to unpack the interindividual differences speculated in prior research (Matthes et al., 2022). Focusing on subjective reflections can also emphasize person-specific findings, “which might be valuable in providing personalized advice on how to manage mobile media use” (Karsay & Vandenbosch, 2021, p.786).
We combine these premises with the previously presented theories of digital balance and digital exhaustion and commence the study with the following two research questions:
Methods
Participants and Data Collection
The study was based on data collected from a nationally distributed Nordic research organization employing over 1,000 people. The organization is a state research institute operating in hybrid settings, meaning the organization and its employees are located in various sites. Its employees work on research projects that often connect researchers and other staff across the organization's various units. Moreover, certain tasks (e.g., data collection for research projects) or meetings require employees to travel to other organizational locations. A few years prior to data collection—at the time of the Covid pandemic—the organization altered its strict remote work policy (i.e., only allowing remote work when requested) to indefinitely shift to flexible, hybrid working practices that enabled employees to work from any location appropriate for their tasks (e.g., their designated offices, offices in another location, or from home). Therefore, all participants used communication technologies (e.g., email, Microsoft Teams, WhatsApp, or phone calls) for internal communication and collaboration, as they were often traveling, working from home, or located in different offices than their colleagues.
Altogether, 20 employees from the organization participated in the study (see Table A1 for participant demographics). Most participants (n = 13) were employed in roles supporting expert functions (e.g., coordinating data collection, conducting fieldwork, and completing maintenance tasks around offices). Seven of the support function employees were men, and six were women. The remainder of the participants (n = 7) held expert roles (e.g., working as researchers or team leaders), and all were women. Participants were aged between 30 and 64 (M = 49.05, SD = 12.05), and their tenure within the organization varied from six months to 43 years (M = 17.65, SD = 14.59).
We collected data in three phases: (1) an introductory interview phase, (2) a qualitative diary study phase, and (3) an in-depth interview phase. This three-phased design was selected to generate layered, in-depth data, as the phases following one another likely generated deeper, more self-reflective data as the participants were asked to report and reflect on the studied topics for a prolonged time. Moreover, the diary method was applied alongside interviewing to limit bias related to retrospective reporting, which can be common when using interviews alone (see, e.g., Langley & Meziani, 2020). Through the process-oriented approach to data collection, we could also analyze within-person fluctuations in employees’ daily connectivity regulation and related well-being experiences. However, our method was not adequate in making interpretations of long-term changes as the data collection period, including all phases, lasted only a few weeks per participant.
All the data collection phases followed semi-structured question protocols. During the brief introductory interview, the participants’ background information (e.g., role, job description, and technologies used for work) was collected, and the next phases were instructed and scheduled. The diary study was text-based and conducted on the Webropol survey platform. A link to the open-ended diary questions (Berg & Düvel, 2012; Markham & Couldry, 2007) was sent daily via email, with participants asked to answer the questions once daily (approximately at the end of the working day) for seven consecutive workdays (excluding the weekend).
The diary study structure was designed to focus on the self-monitoring and self-reflective aspects of self-regulation (see Bandura, 1991), as the questions addressed participants’ daily connectivity habits and developed throughout the diary study. On the first diary day, the questions were orienting to the topic (e.g., “How would you characterize the role of communication technologies in your work, and yourself as a technology user?”). On the following 5 days, the questions were repetitive, aiming to capture participants’ communication routines, daily acts of self-regulation (i.e., self-reactiveness; Bandura, 1991), and what was characteristic of their connectivity decisions and practices (e.g., “What communication technologies have you used since the last time you answered?”; “With whom have you communicated?”; “How would you characterize this interaction?”; “Was there any specific benefit or harm related to your technology use?”). On the final diary day, the questions summarized participants’ experiences of connectivity during the span of diary keeping (e.g., “What has been especially noteworthy or memorable to you during this diary keeping?”; “What new thoughts has the diary keeping evoked on connectivity, technology use, or communication in your organization?”).
The last phase of data collection, the in-depth interview, was anchored to the participants’ diary entries (see Pagh, 2020) and introductory interviews. Thus, prior to each interview, the semi-structured interview protocol was revised, and some questions were modified based on participants’ earlier responses. Specific questions drawing on the diary data were also added if the diary entries contained any gaps or ambiguities. The basic interview protocol comprised questions related to communication technologies (e.g., “Do you achieve what you are aiming at when using communication technologies [why/why not]?”; “What positive/negative experiences do you associate with communication technology use?”), individual strategies of (dis)connecting (e.g., “How would you evaluate your ability to control when and how you are digitally connected to your work community?”) and connectivity in the organization (e.g., “Who/what defines how you communicate in the organization?”; “Are there explicit rules for connectivity?”). Thus, the in-depth interview gave participants a final opportunity for self-reflection (or, in Bandura's [1991] terms, self-evaluation and judgment), as they could decode their whole experience of participating and discuss matters that were not directly reported in the diaries.
The interview data were collected almost entirely virtually; of the 40 interviews (the introductory and in-depth interviews combined), one was conducted face-to-face, three were telephone discussions, and 36 were arranged on Microsoft Teams or Zoom. Conducting the interviews primarily virtually was considered appropriate since virtual meetings were already a part of the participants’ daily work culture.
The interviews were audio recorded. The total duration of all interview data was 20 h and 47 min. The average duration of the introductory interviews was 15 min, resulting in a total of four hours and 54 min of audio; the final in-depth interviews lasted an average of 48 min, resulting in a total of 15 h and 53 min of audio. The written diary data totaled 127 pages of text. All interviews were transcribed and combined with the diary data, resulting in 661 pages of text (Times New Roman, 12 pt, double-spaced).
Data Analysis
The data were iteratively analyzed (Tracy, 2020); that is, we drew on previous theorizations (of connectivity regulation and connectivity-related well-being experiences) and inductive interpretations of empirical data. The data were coded into themes, and thematic co-occurrence analysis (an interpretive method for studying ambivalent experiences in the data [Scharp, 2021]) was applied to uncover the relationships between themes.
We began analysis prior to collecting the in-depth interview data, as we preliminarily analyzed each participant's introductory interview and diary data to obtain an initial understanding of their connectivity regulation. This was essential to ensure the in-depth interviews could be anchored (Pagh, 2020) to the already collected data. Hence, this preliminary analytical step—conducted through notes on initial interpretations and questions that surfaced during the first reading of the data—enabled us to ask more focused questions during the in-depth interviews. This also helped strengthening and verifying our initial interpretations through member reflection (Tracy, 2020) as participants could comment on our tentative conclusions of their previous responses.
After collecting all data, we organized them (Tracy, 2020) by source (i.e., by individual participants) in chronological order according to the phases of collection. Therefore, we treated each participant's dataset (i.e., introductory interview, diary data, and in-depth interview combined) as an in-depth entity. This was a crucial choice concerning the analysis as it enabled us to view the layered accounts produced across the data collection. Moreover, the different datasets produced distinct types of knowledge, which together contributed to rich, deep data (i.e., thick description; Tracy & Hinrichs, 2017). Inspired by Bandura's (1991) conceptualization of self-regulation, we sought to capture specific nuances of connectivity regulation through data triangulation. While the introductory interviews merely generated background data, the diaries produced reports of participants’ daily communication practices, including the connectivity decisions that were characteristic of them and their related self-reflection. Moreover, the in-depth interview discussions produced rich, detailed accounts, specifically focusing on the self-reflective aspects of self-regulation. Thus, this data triangulation generated repetitive data on the nuances of connectivity regulation, enabling us to see both single examples of employees’ connectivity experiences (e.g., from single interviews) and a more longitudinal thread of how and why employees planned, reflected on, and controlled their connectivity.
We used the qualitative analysis software ATLAS.ti to code the data. The analysis was guided by the inductive interpretations that emerged from the data, as well as theoretical suggestions from existing knowledge (Tracy, 2020), and the coding was conducted in multiple phases. Firstly, we broadly coded data segments based on the themes discussed during the interviews and in the diaries (e.g., technologies used, perceived connectivity-related benefits/challenges, communication practices of the work community, related well-being experiences, employees’ [dis]connecting strategies). This initial analytical phase was guided by the question, “How and why are employees regulating their connectivity?” which was further reformulated into RQ1.
During coding, different kinds of approaches to connectivity regulation began to emerge. There were recurring reports of employees paying close attention to their connectivity routines and appearing to have clear rules for connectivity (e.g., “Via phone, I’m connected from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. [on workdays]”), alongside less mindful, habitual connectivity decisions (e.g., “If I don’t have anything else to do [during free time], it's like well I might just check if there's anything [on work email]”). The analysis was revised according to our initial interpretations of these patterns and focused through repeated discussions between the authors. We concluded that the employees described regulating their connectivity proactively, characterized by strict decisions that were planned ahead (e.g., purposefully [dis]connecting at specific times; strategically navigating between different connectivity channels), as well as reactively, characterized by adjustable, flexible decisions on connectivity (e.g., always keeping work phone on or nearby; instantly reacting to message notifications; adjusting one's strategies situationally). These approaches were accordingly labeled “proactive” and “reactive” (see Bandura, 1991) connectivity regulation. As the participants described their proactive and reactive connectivity regulation, they also construed why they regulated their connectivity in such ways (e.g., managing boundaries, prioritizing tasks, role demands). At this stage, RQ1 was refined into its current form, emphasizing how employees construe their connectivity regulation. Example of the analytical process related to RQ1, with data examples, is compiled in Table A2.
While examining the emerging patterns of connectivity regulation more closely, we noticed that employees reported various connectivity-related well-being experiences when describing their connectivity regulation. Employees reported both positive (controllable, beneficial) and negative (uncontrollable, challenging) experiences related to connectivity. We iteratively compared these initial findings to existing literature, recognized conceptualizations of digital exhaustion (Parker et al., 2023) and balance (Vanden Abeele, 2021) as applicable frameworks resonating in our analysis, and labeled our interpretations accordingly. While uncovering both positive and negative connectivity-related well-being experiences was not necessarily surprising, what caught our attention was that some of the experiences appeared severe and uncontrollable (representing digital exhaustion and contradicting digital balance, as it entails control over one's connectivity), while others appeared highly positive but also balanced in a literal way (i.e., entailing some negative aspects while remaining controllable, thus representing digital balance). Thus, the connectivity-related well-being experiences were depicted as compellingly ambivalent.
Finally, to further comprehend how the nuanced well-being experiences were related to employee connectivity regulation, RQ2 was revised into its current form. In order to answer RQ2, we applied thematic co-occurrence analysis (Scharp, 2021) to uncover which connectivity regulation approach (proactive or reactive) was related to which well-being experience (digital balance or exhaustion). We employed the co-occurrence tool on ATLAS.ti, which showed which of the main themes (“codes”) co-occurred in the data, guiding us in finalizing the analysis through one last round of data immersion and coding. The next section presents the findings; we have removed all identifiable information, replaced participants’ names with pseudonyms, and translated relevant data excerpts.
Findings
Proactive and Reactive Connectivity Regulation
Our findings show that employees’ connectivity regulation is divided between proactive and reactive approaches. The former refers to pre-planned, controlled, and more long-term connectivity decisions during or outside of work hours, while the latter refers to more instant, flexible, and situationally changing approaches where connectivity is adaptable and fluid. That is, while both approaches may be intentional, strategic choices, they differ in their rigidity and temporal orientation; proactive strategies are typically rigid and pre-planned, while reactive strategies are adjustable and more responsive to situational demands. In order to answer RQ1, proactive and reactive connectivity regulation are presented through three subsections, illustrating how employees explained their approaches by boundary management, task prioritizing, and role demands.
Connectivity Regulation for Boundary Management
Employees regulated their connectivity both proactively and reactively to manage work-life boundaries. Proactive connectivity regulation was employed to strictly separate life domains, while reactive connectivity regulation made the boundaries permeable and was utilized if employees did not consider it necessary to separate work from other life.
Katariina's work entailed both knowledge-intensive and practical research tasks, and she primarily worked from the office. She maintained work-life boundaries through proactive connectivity regulation, as she described in the diary on day one: “After working hours, I don’t read emails or answer phone calls. If necessary, I will mute or shut down my work phone.” On day two, Katariina further specified that this was not only her personal principle but was also a common practice collectively: “People in our organization are strict that free time is free time” (Katariina, diary day 2). A similar approach was employed by Otto, whose role entailed collecting and processing data for research projects. He stressed the importance of proactively managing work-life boundaries, even though—or particularly because—he mostly worked from home: “The workstation is at home, and […] I detach very strictly, and I find it extremely important in the long run to be able to separate leisure and worktime” (Otto, in-depth interview).
However, connectivity regulation was reactive when employees’ work-life boundaries were permeable. When Alpo—whose role primarily entailed research-related fieldwork—was asked if he strategically restricted his connectivity (dairy day 1), he responded: “Not really. If I happen to hear the work phone during free time, I do answer.” Additionally, he reported checking his work emails several times each weekend and emphasized that this was his own decision. Indeed, reactive connectivity regulation through permeable work-life boundaries helped with his workload: “It is beneficial in a way, when I prepare it [work-related thing] in my thoughts during the weekend while watching TV or something. Then it isn’t that much of a burden at the beginning of the week” (Alpo, in-depth interview).
Thus, employees approached connectivity regulation proactively or reactively depending on their preferences for maintaining work-life boundaries. Proactive connectivity regulation could be viewed as a practice that is aligned with traditional organizational boundaries (i.e., work time and place), as was demonstrated in the practices of Katariina and Otto, who detached from work after hours. It appears that these employees recognized the risk in drifting toward constant connectivity, particularly when working from home, like Otto. Moreover, the practice of boundary management is also reconstituted within the communicative practices of the work community, as Katariina's experience illustrated. Conversely, reactive connectivity regulation characterizes a change in work flexibility enabled by contemporary communication technologies, as seen in Alpo's strategies. This form of connectivity regulation thus represents an overlap and a lack of separation between work and other life. Therefore, connectivity is not considered a risk to one's work-life balance but more an opportunity to contribute to one's work tasks instantly and flexibly, which is closely related to the next subsection.
Connectivity Regulation for Task Prioritizing
Employees also explained their proactive and reactive connectivity regulation through task-oriented reasons, as both approaches were employed to prioritize work-related responsibilities. Proactive connectivity regulation through task prioritizing was often demonstrated in time management during work hours.
During the in-depth interview, Marjut, a researcher, described her routinized, proactive connectivity regulation strategies: I don’t have my email notifications on. Then I have slots in my calendar reserved for focused working, so that other invitations can’t come through. Then I utilize Pomodoro technique, which means that for 25 minutes, I have to work on a specific task.
Connectivity was proactively regulated when a task had to be completed within a specific timeframe. If the task was knowledge-intensive (e.g., writing an article), connectivity was regulated to avoid interruptions; Eila, a researcher, described this in her in-depth interview: “Even if I see someone send a message, I just don’t note it in any way until I have finished what I am currently doing.” Similarly, when the task was practical (e.g., building and maintaining research equipment), connectivity was proactively regulated to avoid communicative interruptions and ensure work quality, as Esko reported: “Sometimes when the work requires precision and the phone rings, I finish the work and only after that see who called” (in-depth interview).
Proactive connectivity regulation through task prioritizing also occurred when communicating after work hours, highlighting that this form of connectivity regulation is not just about disconnecting. Employees stayed connected outside of work hours if they needed to attend to or prepare for an urgent matter. Piia deliberately kept her work phone with her after hours, as she knew that the matter was urgent if her phone rang because after-hours contact was rare: We have [machinery for storing research materials] and if it breaks, an alarm will go off. That is one reason I have my work phone at home because if it breaks, I have a great motivation to come and save the machines […]. The risk [for the aforementioned happening] is so unlikely that I take it lightly. (In-depth interview)
Piia's diary entries demonstrated the rarity of after-hours demands, as she did not report a single after-hours work connection during the seven-day diary study. Hence, in one way, employees could be both connected and disconnected at the same time.
Task prioritizing through reactive connectivity regulation, in turn, often shifted into after-hours connectivity when employees prioritized their (other than communicative) tasks during the day, leading to communication spilling over into free time. This was demonstrated with Niilo, who was interviewed via phone while driving to a work assignment early in the morning, before office hours. Niilo worked in a role that entailed fieldwork in various locations, and his experiences stressed how the task always took priority, with the concept of working time itself perceived flexibly: “If we have to go far [to work], we try to finish the job and work longer hours […] and then take it easy on another day” (Niilo, introductory interview). During the diary study, Niilo specified that “meetings must be scheduled outside work hours because fieldwork takes so much time and one must make good use of the daylight” (Niilo, diary day 2). He further noted how his reactive connectivity regulation allowed him to rapidly prioritize certain tasks over others, which would not be possible if he proactively planned his connectivity: [During the weekend] I prefer checking the email to see what's happening next week, because weather conditions are critical [for tasks]. So that way [through reactive connectivity regulation], it is possible to quickly change plans regarding tasks if the weather is favorable in one place and not in the other. (In-depth interview)
Connectivity regulation was, therefore, applied proactively to avoid communicative interruptions when working intensively during working hours, as demonstrated in Marjut and Eila's experiences, or when staying alert in case of urgent events after hours, as Piia described. Connectivity could also be reactively regulated to flexibly connect during unconventional times to ensure tasks, like those discussed by Niilo, proceeded smoothly. Both approaches were employed for the purpose of task completion, and hence, both were dependent on situational demands. What differentiated proactive and reactive connectivity regulation was the temporal span of consideration behind one's decisions on connectivity (i.e., pre-planned vs. flexible and spontaneous). However, task prioritizing was also associated with boundary management, as proactive connectivity regulation for task prioritizing primarily occurred during work hours, while the reactive approach was utilized after hours if tasks other than those related to connectivity were prioritized during the day. In other words, connectivity regulation approaches were contingent on the kinds of tasks employees prioritized and the kinds of tasks entailed by their roles, as is further unpacked in the final category.
Connectivity Regulation for Role Demands
Finally, employees explained their proactive and reactive connectivity regulation according to their organizational roles.
Proactive connectivity regulation for role-dependent reasons was evident in the experiences of Anna-Liisa, who held a managerial position. She perceived that, as a team leader, she was responsible for setting an example of healthy connectivity regulation for others; thus, she deliberately considered her connectivity practices: Sometimes it [after-hour connectivity] happens, but I consciously strive for keeping it very, like, exceptional because I experience that a manager is an example in this matter, and I want to set an example of everyone having the right to their free time, weekends, and vacations. (Anna-Liisa, introductory interview)
Conversely, employees in non-essential roles regarded proactive connectivity regulation (i.e., disconnecting outside of working hours) as easy, as they were not expected to be available. Paula's humorous, self-deprecating statement highlighted this, as she referred to herself as an unimportant worker: “We are just runts here, nobody needs us in the evening [laughing]” (in-depth interview). That is, employees who did not face expectations of after-hours connectivity found proactive connectivity regulation—which, in this case, refers to routines of disconnecting—to be a natural and easy choice.
Employees also reactively regulated their connectivity based on role-dependent reasons. Ting, who worked in an expert position as a researcher, emphasized how her role revolved around deadlines. During the diary study, she reported reactive connectivity regulation as she repeatedly communicated after hours, instantly reacting to circumstances that shifted due to deadlines. Ting recognized the challenges posed by this way of connecting for work-life boundary management but continued to specify that this was a very typical way of working in her role: I think because it is characteristic of my work as a researcher, you need to have some inspiration to write something. Then, all of a sudden, you have some inspiration that you want to write, and you just write. It doesn’t matter whether it's a week or a weekend. […] it is very difficult to separate private things from work issues. But that is a characteristic of being a researcher. (In-depth interview)
Sirpa shared similar, yet different, experiences with role-dependent reactive connectivity regulation. She reported having decades of expertise in her current role and considered her job an integral aspect of her identity. While she initially described her ambition for deliberate (dis)connecting strategies, indicating proactive connectivity regulation, she admitted to occasionally spontaneously reading emails before going to bed “out of curiosity, for hunger for information, or to stay up to date (Sirpa, in-depth interview). However, during the diary study, she did not report connecting after hours. Furthermore, Sirpa stressed the importance of her role for other, less experienced employees who may require her assistance, demanding swift, reactive connectivity from her, particularly during the day. This was why Sirpa felt that “during work hours, one has to be connected all the time. That's just how it is” (in-depth interview).
Thus, employees explained their connectivity regulation through their roles, which were used as justifications for both proactive and reactive approaches. At times, these experiences even coexisted, as illustrated by Sirpa's complex experiences. Sirpa had a proactive tendency to disconnect after hours, although she occasionally drifted to her work emails in the evenings. During work hours, she felt she was in a position to reactively regulate her connectivity, as she felt responsible for helping others. Thus, employees could regulate their connectivity differently for distinct reasons if, for example, role demands required flexibility (i.e., reactiveness) but one's boundary preferences promoted proactiveness.
The Relationships Between Connectivity Regulation and Connectivity-Related Well-Being Experiences
While describing their approaches to connectivity regulation, employees also discussed their experiences with digital balance and digital exhaustion as they associated various health-, social-, and work-related benefits and challenges with work-related connectivity. The findings demonstrate that employees who proactively regulated their connectivity experienced digital balance or exhaustion. Interestingly, however, employees who reactively regulated their connectivity also experienced digital balance or exhaustion. We will next present these interrelations in greater detail, beginning with the two well-being experiences related to proactive connectivity regulation, followed by a similar presentation of those related to reactive connectivity regulation.
Proactive Connectivity Regulation: Successfully Balancing and Desperately Strategizing
Employees who proactively regulated their connectivity experienced digital balance when successful in their connectivity regulation attempts, although this was not very common. Digital balance dominated Otto's experiences, as he had drawn very strict work-life boundaries. The reason for his proactive approach was increased free time and the resulting balance between life domains. Digital balance and proactive connectivity regulation were also prominent in the experiences of Anna-Liisa, who held a managerial role. She underscored that any negative connectivity experiences she encountered were minor and emphasized her ability to maintain control over her connectivity. Otto's and Anna-Liisa's experiences indicate that employees can successfully achieve a balance between the benefits and drawbacks of digital connectivity through proactive connectivity regulation, such as strict management of work-life boundaries.
Contradictorily, employees who proactively regulated their connectivity also experienced digital exhaustion. Marjut adopted planned, proactive strategies for connectivity regulation and prioritized tasks during busy workdays, yet experienced connectivity-related stress despite her efforts to manage it. During the diary study, Marjut repeatedly reported psychological exhaustion, which only increased toward the end of the workweek when, on a Friday, Marjut listed all her technology-mediated interactions for the day and stated that they made her “head explode.” She ended her diary entry with, “Friday. The weekend break is much needed” (diary day 5). It appeared that Marjut's strategies for overcoming digital exhaustion were failing; during her in-depth interview, she stated that “these strategies help, but they aren’t enough. […] There's just too much of those [technology-mediated interruptions]. They happen in too many channels.” Marjut also found technology-mediated communication inferior to face-to-face interactions and missed the relational aspects often lacking in digital connections, elaborating that “technologies are good for solving task-related questions, but there should be social interaction along that.” Having realized how exhausting digital connectivity is for her, Marjut revealed she was considering switching to a more human-centric field; indeed, she had already been offered a new position and was contemplating accepting it.
A similar experience of proactive connectivity regulation and digital exhaustion was shared by Eila, a researcher with decades of work experience who felt powerless when facing problems that, according to her experiences, had been caused by digitality. Eila had experienced the negative implications for well-being firsthand, as she noticed how the “machine addiction” (as she dubbed it) had harmed her health. “The sensory overload is just vast,” she shared, referring to technological interruptions, such as message notifications. She continued: “It is clearly the technology that produces it, and we aren’t restricting the use of those technologies enough” (Eila, in-depth interview). Despite regulating her connectivity proactively (e.g., by limiting her connectivity during and after work hours and turning message notifications off to avoid interruptions) and thus being increasingly cautious about letting sensory overload “get in [her] mind” (diary day 1), Eila reported worrying experiences of digital exhaustion.
To conclude, proactive connectivity regulation was related to digital balance when employees were successful in regulating their connectivity. However, despite strategic efforts to proactively manage the challenges associated with connectivity, employees could also fail desperately to achieve digital balance, instead suffering from digital exhaustion. Thus, it appears that some employees were more self-efficacious in their attempts to proactively regulate their connectivity than others. Notably, we do not know whether the employees suffering from digital exhaustion had always proactively regulated their connectivity (or if exhaustion leads to proactivity, or vice versa). Yet it is clear that the issue lies in the uncontrollability of connectivity demands, as these employees did not have adequate capacity to deal with them in a balanced manner. Moreover, Marjut's experiences suggested that one underlying cause for this issue was organizational, as face-to-face interactions had been collectively replaced with technology-mediated options.
Reactive Connectivity Regulation: Willingly Adjusting and Barely Coping
Interestingly, most instances of reactive connectivity regulation were connected to digital balance. Most employees adopted strategies for connectivity regulation that were characterized by permeable work-life boundaries and connectivity that was flexible, situationally adjustable, and—compared to the rigidity of proactive connectivity regulation—sometimes appearing to lack rules or personal principles. Nonetheless, these employees were usually satisfied with their practices and, hence, experienced digital balance. Digital balance was often portrayed with a certain neutrality in well-being experiences (i.e., a lack of digital exhaustion). Commenting on his reactive habit of checking work emails over the weekend, Alpo's toneless statement on how such behavior “doesn’t evoke any feelings” (diary day 6) demonstrated such neutrality.
Sami's descriptions further illustrated the experience of repeatedly and willingly adjusting to reactive connectivity regulation, particularly through permeable work-life boundaries. At the start of his diary entries, Sami evaluated that he does not really restrict his connectivity. This reflection proved accurate later in the diary, as he frequently received and read work-related emails in the late evening. Perhaps the most extreme example was in Sami's second diary entry: “Last night I received the last email from [colleague] at 11:30 p.m., woke up to the notification, got up, and read the message.” Despite such after-hour connections, Sami experienced digital balance by emphasizing that he reactively maintained connectivity during evenings willingly because it did not cause strain and, in fact, did not feel like work. Quite the opposite, he appreciated his freedom concerning connectivity.
In contrast to freedom, reactive connectivity regulation and digital balance also manifested in employees’ stances toward their work in general through task prioritizing and role demands. For instance, Sanna reactively regulated her connectivity as she traveled and stayed away from home for work assignments. Her diary entries illustrated how, after she had conducted fieldwork during the day, her evenings were repeatedly filled with communicative tasks. Sanna commented on her experiences: The boundary of free time is blurred […] it is normal for us, to kind of do it in your free time, but it's like, maybe this job is a way of life, it [after-hour connectivity] just comes along, and I haven’t seen any harm in it, not yet at least. (In-depth interview)
Sanna's “way of life” attitude to her role and tasks explained how she experienced digital balance despite never seeming to fully disconnect from work. Moreover, this example stresses the increasingly flexible possibilities of one's lifestyle in general, as communication technologies allow employees to keep tabs on work tasks and interactions at any time.
Finally, reactive connectivity regulation was connected to experiences of digital exhaustion. Such experiences were reported by Ting, who justified this through her role as a researcher. Her connectivity was reactive (i.e., adaptive to role demands and task-related deadlines), resulting in repeated after-hours interactions. Ting recognized a severe risk of digital exhaustion, as she had noticed that burnouts were typical for researchers: What I have learned […] researchers, we have seen so many burnouts. […] you need to finish when there's a deadline, and you need to work weekends and weekdays, day and night […] but then you know, at some point probably, the nerves couldn’t take it anymore. So then you will have a burnout problem. I think most people wouldn’t realize it until the last minute. (In-depth interview)
Ting clearly acknowledged this risk of exhaustion, although she continued to emphasize the reactivity of her connectivity regulation, as her role sometimes required her to work intensively throughout the week. Considering the risk to one's well-being, reactive connectivity regulation under these circumstances appears to be best characterized as “barely coping.”
Although what Ting described about burnout is a serious health risk, instances of reactive connectivity regulation and digital exhaustion were often qualitatively different and less serious. These less serious instances manifested, for instance, as annoyance by the distracting nature of digital interruptions; this was described by Esko, who tended to instantly react to message notifications. Such annoyances associated with technical challenges were also reported by others, including Piia and Sirpa, who approached connectivity regulation reactively.
Additionally, Veera—who characterized her role as “probably one of the most diversified in the organization” (introductory interview)—reported occasionally experiencing digital exhaustion. While flexibly maintaining connections with various team members and stakeholders, Veera reactively regulated her connectivity. Her connectivity practices were hectic due to the number of communicative demands in her diverse role. However, Veera's experiences of digital exhaustion were primarily related to the technical aspects of connectivity. Moreover, Veera's experiences of exhaustion appeared to be trivial and momentary: There are some connection problems, or the computer crashes in the middle of everything, or the computers and usernames are completely renewed. Those aren’t very nice reforms [because one has to] learn everything again and make sure all the information is there [in the systems]. Yeah, those are some stressful moments. (In-depth interview)
To conclude, reactive connectivity regulation was related to experiences of digital balance when employees were satisfied with their approach and were able to maintain preferred, permeable work-life boundaries and flexibility in work interactions. However, some employees—despite approaching connectivity regulation reactively—recognized the challenges in connectivity-related well-being (i.e., digital exhaustion). These challenges assumed various forms, and while some posed a serious risk to employee well-being, others were more trivial in nature. The triviality of these experiences with exhaustion suggests a fine line between digital exhaustion and balance. That is, if challenges to well-being are not significantly severe and are almost controllable, experiences of digital exhaustion may be very similar to digital balance.
Discussion
Theoretical Implications
Our findings indicate that employees regulate their work-related connectivity proactively and reactively, depending on their preferred work-life boundaries, work-related tasks, and role demands within the organization. Interestingly, proactive and reactive approaches to connectivity regulation are intricately related to experiences of both digital balance and digital exhaustion, illustrating the fine line that can exist between digital balance and exhaustion. It appears that, no matter how connectivity is regulated, the benefits sometimes barely outweigh the drawbacks, and vice versa.
The findings make two counterintuitive suggestions. Firstly, employees who reported struggling with digital exhaustion and sought to proactively regulate their connectivity did not—despite their pre-planned efforts—necessarily achieve digital balance. Secondly, employees who opted for reactive connectivity regulation and, thus, utilized adaptable, flexible short-term strategies did not necessarily experience or even recognize the challenges of digital exhaustion and, ultimately, experienced digital balance. Furthermore, our findings demonstrate how the benefits and challenges of work-related connectivity are complex as the implications on well-being may be minor, mundane, and trivial (e.g., annoyance resulting from technical issues) or serious and far-reaching (e.g., psychological strain resulting in turnover intentions) in terms of employee health and coping with work.
Our study makes several contributions to the research on connectivity, well-being experiences related to connectivity, and self-regulation. Emphasizing employees’ agentic and self-efficacious role (Bandura, 1991) in work-related connectivity (e.g., Cavazotte et al., 2014; Kolb et al., 2012), we further develop the concept of connectivity regulation (Russo et al., 2019) as a dynamic alternative to (dis)connecting. Thus, we empirically advance Kolb et al.'s (2012) discussion on connectivity as duality versus flow. Supporting Dery et al.'s (2014) conclusions, our findings suggest that employees’ connectivity regulation is often characterized by dynamic and fluid situational processes that are dependent on employees’ roles, tasks, and boundary preferences. Therefore, the regulation of connectivity can be characterized similarly to connective flow as “a dynamic series of moderated connects and occasional disconnects that fluctuate as circumstances, communication volumes and contexts change” (Dery et al., 2014, p. 567). Moreover, connectivity is also dynamically related to several well-being experiences. Thus, the present study adds the important, timely dimension of well-being experiences to the discussion on connectivity regulation—not only through the positive or negative implications of connectivity but from the perspective of employees’ active roles in finding an equilibrium when navigating various connectivity decisions that are characteristic to increasingly autonomous contemporary work.
Further to this, our reconceptualization of the concept of digital well-being (Vanden Abeele, 2021) as digital balance and the combination of this with digital exhaustion (Parker et al., 2023) further contributes to the literature on connectivity-related well-being experiences. Applying these concepts together empirically provided room for a broad variety of employee experiences, as we could analyze both the benefits and challenges related to connectivity, alongside the physical and psychological aspects of such experiences. Most importantly, our findings offer insight into how employees’ connectivity-related well-being experiences are interrelated with proactive and reactive connectivity regulation, indicating that digital balance is sometimes achieved through pre-planned and rigid connectivity regulation, although this is not always the case as this approach is sometimes related to digital exhaustion. Most often, digital balance appears to be a byproduct of reactive connectivity regulation exploited by employees who opt to go with the flow, so to speak.
Employees who reactively regulate their connectivity at times appeared to lack awareness and reflection over their connectivity (Bayer et al., 2016; cf. Cavazotte et al., 2014) yet perceived it positively or neutrally as a mundane aspect of their everyday work. These employees’ experiences with digital exhaustion were often trivial in nature, contrasting with the more severe experiences of exhaustion (e.g., cognitive challenges) reported by employees who proactively regulated their connectivity. Our findings thus suggest that proactive connectivity regulation is not necessarily successful for achieving digital balance, whilst reactive connectivity regulation can be. This calls for further research on the role of employees’ self-efficacy and, more specifically, their forethought, reflectivity, and self-monitoring (Bandura, 1991) of connectivity regulation combined with perceived well-being outcomes. It also suggests that sometimes ignorance, in terms of one's approach to connectivity and its perceived consequences, is bliss—at least momentarily.
Nevertheless, the conclusion that reactive connectivity regulation always demonstrates ignorance or a lack of self-reflection should be avoided. Our findings illustrate that reactive connectivity regulation could also be a strategic choice as, for some employees, instant reactiveness and short-term planning served their roles better than pre-planned, rigid proactive strategies. However, while each connectivity regulation approach can demonstrate intentional and strategic decisions, it does appear that the employees who proactively regulated their connectivity were particularly reflective and prone to evaluating the motivations and consequences of their connectivity regulation strategies. If employees who proactively regulated their connectivity indeed demonstrated higher levels of reflectiveness, this finding would indicate that greater reflectiveness is not necessarily better. Conversely, perhaps more proactive and, hence, more reflective employees who experience digital exhaustion are prone to thought cycles focused on the negative implications of connectivity (i.e., rumination; see, e.g., Eikey et al., 2021). Moreover, solely relying on pre-planned, proactive connectivity regulation may be problematic, even unattainable, in contemporary organizational communication characterized by flexibility, blurred boundaries, and an ongoing flow of connectivity (e.g., Aljabr et al., 2022; Dery et al., 2014). That is, employees who proactively regulate their connectivity may be fighting a losing battle, so to speak, while reactive connectivity regulation may be a more attainable strategy in contemporary organizational contexts.
Furthermore, our findings contribute to the conceptualization of self-regulation in digital connectivity. Our approach was inspired by how Bandura (1991) drew on human self-efficacy and forethought and conceptualized self-regulation through self-monitoring, self-judgment, and self-reactiveness. More specifically, our findings contribute to the temporality of self-regulation. Bandura (1991) noted that self-regulation entails both proactive and reactive processes, as it requires conscious forethought and planning directed at longer-term goals and actions (i.e., proactivity) alongside instant, short-term adjustments to one's behavior (i.e., reactivity). Nevertheless, our findings on reactive connectivity regulation indicate that self-regulation in this particular context may take automated, less conscious forms (Bayer et al., 2016) that do not always entail as pre-planned, proactive, and self-reflective processes as Bandura's (1991) conceptualization assumed. This further suggests that employees who adopt reactive connectivity regulation strategies may still perceive self-efficacy over their instant connectivity decisions when they successfully achieve digital balance. However, it may also be that if these employees do not experience digital exhaustion in the first place, they do not experience self-efficacy (or a lack thereof) in a similar manner to employees with more proactive strategies who deliberately seek to control their connectivity.
As connectivity regulation can fluctuate situationally and may be motivated by distinct reasons (i.e., boundary management, task prioritizing, or role demands), it is unreasonable to assume that individual employees’ approaches to connectivity regulation are fixed or permanent. For instance, it may be that employees’ strategies fluctuate in the long term, between seasons, or even over a single week, as connectivity requests and the subsequent digital exhaustion increase, and employees must strive toward (sometimes unreachable) balance through more proactive strategies. Thus, the relationships between proactive and reactive connectivity regulation and digital balance and exhaustion form a temporally embedded, dynamic web of relations rather than a dualistic, fixed either/or structure.
Moreover, it must be noted that connectivity regulation—as with self-regulation more broadly—is not merely an individual's endeavor but also a socially contingent and organizational one (Bandura, 1991). Thus, when considering employees’ proactive and reactive approaches, it is vital to notice that particularly task-related demands and employees’ organizational roles may pose external demands on an individual's connectivity regulation, either aligning with or challenging their personal preferences. Thus, our findings extend the concept of self-regulation by suggesting that connectivity regulation is a process of proactively and/or reactively planning, self-reflecting, and controlling one's connectivity, perceived and enacted from an individual's boundary preferences but ultimately in relation to one's work demands (i.e., tasks and organizational roles).
We further argue that connectivity is such an integral aspect of contemporary life (Kuntsman & Miyake, 2019) and work that the question of whether to (dis)connect is becoming outdated. Instead, connectivity regulation should not only be understood in relation to disconnectivity but also as a constant, nuanced process of its own. In other words, it is equally essential to understand employees’ efforts to balance the various, sometimes constant, and simultaneous demands of connectivity as it is to understand their disconnection. Furthermore, our findings build the understanding of the changed demands of work as contemporary employees must manage their connections in ways that have only become relevant since the introduction of mobile and smart communication technologies. Thus, while regulating their connections with coworkers, employees must also acknowledge, evaluate, and manage their relationships with the technologies that mediate these connections. Thus, it is also the technology that shapes employees’ work and related demands (Vanden Abeele, 2021; Wang et al., 2020). These demands have become increasingly emphasized following the broader utilization of the remote and hybrid work practices implemented during and after the Covid pandemic (e.g., Warrick & Cady, 2023).
When relating employees’ role descriptions (see Table A1) with their connectivity regulation approaches and well-being experiences, lower-status employees (i.e., those working in support functions) most often experienced digital balance, while their higher-status counterparts (i.e., experts or researchers) were more likely to experience digital exhaustion, despite their efforts to manage it. Therefore, proactive yet exhausting connectivity regulation may be a role-dependent phenomenon, as it was most prominent among employees whose roles entailed larger volumes of connectivity-related responsibilities. In this vein, our findings contradict Parker et al.'s (2023) speculations on employee status. They proposed that high-status employees may have greater control over connectivity and, therefore, better ability to cope with digital exhaustion; however, our findings suggest the opposite. Perhaps higher status reduces employee autonomy and perceived self-efficacy as it gives employees more responsibilities and accountability for others (e.g., peers, team members, stakeholders) than lower-status workers. Therefore, it may be that these findings cannot be attributed to individual qualities; hence, it is worth speculating whether lower-status employees might also experience digital exhaustion if their connectivity-related responsibilities became more demanding. These interrelations between employee status, connectivity regulation approach, and well-being experiences are, however, speculative, thus calling for further research.
Finally, our study develops the conception of contemporary work, as it became evident that employees perceived the boundaries of their work in complex, sometimes even contradictory, ways. This was clearly illustrated in employee preferences ranging from the strict separation of work and private life to the experience of work itself being “a way of life.” As these findings highlight, connectivity regulation does not only occur at the intersection of work and private life but is a constant, pervasive process that transcends the physical and temporal boundaries of work and nonwork (Sayah, 2013). Partially echoing the arguments of Dery et al. (2014), this conclusion raises the following question: is relying on the theoretical tradition of work-life boundary management (e.g., Cousins & Robey, 2015; Fonner & Stache, 2012) still relevant when studying connectivity within contemporary organizations, or would it be useful to conceptualize work and nonwork as completely overlapping, rather than different, domains? Technological progress and employers’ changing policies around remote work have introduced major changes to knowledge-intensive work in general (Felstead & Henseke, 2017), which—as our findings indicate—also transform into changes in employees’ experiences, as they are offered increasing autonomy in drawing the boundaries of their work.
Practical Implications
It is clear that connectivity regulation and the related well-being experiences are complex, perhaps particularly in practice. Based on our findings, we propose that as far as employees’ connectivity practices support digital balance, organizations should provide employees with the freedom to define their practices, including after-hours connectivity habits. Recent research has similarly demonstrated that after-hours connectivity can, in fact, increase employee autonomy (van Zoonen et al., 2023), thus reflecting favorably on their experiences of workload and well-being. We also determined that ignorance can be bliss when it comes to employees’ self-reflectiveness regarding their connectivity habits and related well-being experiences; as such, we propose that what is not broken does not need fixing and, therefore, organizations should not without reservations push employees to regulate their connectivity more proactively.
Nevertheless, we also uncovered the serious challenges of digital exhaustion, which must be further addressed in practice. Employees striving to regulate their connectivity yet still experiencing strain is not sustainable, as indicated by the findings on proactive connectivity regulation and digital exhaustion. Firstly, by identifying which employee groups experience digital exhaustion, including communication overload and the related physical or psychological strain, organizations (and policymakers) could develop solutions and training programs for these employee groups. For instance, developing self-regulation practices may be useful for employees with particularly demanding roles in terms of connectivity.
Secondly, organizations could critically examine collective connectivity practices and evaluate whether there are unsustainable practices at play—such as overly strict schedules, overlapping information channels, or insufficient human resources—that might be further contingent on employees’ tasks and roles. Evaluating the kind and amount of connectivity that is necessary for organizational, team, and individual success would help to recognize and adjust such unsustainable practices. Bandura (1991) noted that self-regulation is not merely an individual endeavor but a collective and organizational one. Further, team-level expectations can create social pressures for employees to maintain connectivity (e.g., van Zoonen et al., 2021); our findings indicate that such expectations similarly stem from the demands of employees’ tasks and roles; thus, it is advisable to explicitly negotiate communication expectations within teams and organizations.
Finally, organizations and policymakers could consider the potential for a policy that affords employees the right to disconnect outside of work hours (e.g., Pansu, 2018). The organization employing our participants was based in the Nordics, embedded in European values that often stress employee well-being and work-life boundaries, but it must be acknowledged that similar values do not apply in all cultural contexts, like in the US (Hurst, 2024). There have been both “corporate self-regulatory approaches” (Von Bergen & Bressler, 2019, p. 56) and legislation-level initiatives to externally control employees’ connectivity to care for employee well-being, although the reception of such initiatives has been controversial (Pansu, 2018). Our findings also demonstrate that while some employees appreciate complete disconnection outside of work hours, most perceive their autonomous and unrestricted access to work-related communication positively. Additionally, Pansu (2018) noted that restrictive approaches (e.g., shutting down organizational email servers after hours) may not be appropriate, as employees appreciate flexibility (see also van Zoonen et al., 2023) and, in this vein, suggested that the right to disconnect should be interpreted as the “right for a chosen connection” (p. 114). Drawing on our findings, we similarly suggest that organizations must be sensitive to employees’ preferences and develop organizational rights, restrictions, or recommendations flexibly and according to these preferences.
Limitations and Future Research
The study's main limitations relate to the characteristics of the chosen methods, particularly their impact on the produced knowledge. Based on fully qualitative methods, our findings are drawn from interpretive analysis. Thus, we were unable to analyze the causal relationships between proactive and reactive connectivity regulation and digital balance and exhaustion (i.e., does a specific connectivity regulation approach lead to specific well-being experiences, or vice versa?). These relationships are, therefore, a subject for future quantitative research; longitudinal, quantitative survey, or diary studies may particularly demonstrate these causalities. Moreover, longitudinal methods would address the long-term effects of one's connectivity regulation strategies on well-being experiences.
Another limitation stems from the impact of our data collection methods on the generated data. Diaries, particularly if they are text-based, require dedication, time, and linguistic orientation from the participants (Kaun, 2010). As such, it is possible that some of the very brief, neutral, and descriptive diary entries—compared to those that were lengthier, reflective, and evaluative—were, in fact, a manifestation of a lack of time or linguistic or self-reflective competence. We tackled this challenge by incorporating interview methods, ensuring that no data entities relied purely on text; thus, we were able to generate layered, in-depth datasets despite the brevity of some of the data entries. Moreover, this methodological combination holds potential for future research; for instance, similar kinds of repetitive designs could be utilized in intervention studies, which are currently necessary in the field (Marsh et al., 2022).
A further limitation, which is also an avenue for future research, is our focus on employees from a single organization. Future research would benefit from designs focused on other industries or organizations, for instance, by comparing connectivity regulation approaches across different (kinds of) companies or applying a similar research design in organizations that represent various cultures. It may be particularly interesting to analyze connectivity-related well-being experiences in contexts where policies that regulate employee connectivity are applied on an organizational level (Pansu, 2018). Future research should also consider the impact of employee status on their connectivity regulation and perceived well-being. Parker et al. (2023) speculated that higher employee status is likely related to an improved ability to autonomously regulate connectivity and avoid digital exhaustion, but our findings indicate that employees in roles with more responsibility may have less leeway in connectivity regulation than those in non-essential roles. However, due to the limitations of our methodology, this conclusion should be interpreted with caution.
Finally, in defining connectivity regulation, we relied heavily on Bandura's (1991) conceptualization of self-regulation. Other self-regulation theories would likely generate different understandings of the nuances and motivations behind connectivity regulation processes. In particular, self-determination theory (SDT; e.g., Deci et al., 2017) is shown to be helpful in explicating the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations behind one's technology use (Halfmann, 2021). As such, applying SDT when studying the motivations of connectivity decisions in the context of work could help further reveal the complex relationships between connectivity regulation and connectivity-related well-being implications.
Conclusion
We entered this qualitative study aiming to understand how and why employees regulate their work-related connectivity, and how these self-regulatory approaches relate to their experiences of digital balance and exhaustion. The findings demonstrate that employees regulate their work-related connectivity proactively and reactively depending on their preferences regarding work-life boundaries, work-related tasks, and organizational role demands. Connectivity regulation is, therefore, not only an individual's endeavor but also contingent on collective and organizational aspects (Bandura, 1991). Furthermore, proactive and reactive strategies of connectivity regulation are, in complex ways, related to experiences of both digital balance and exhaustion. Thus, our findings advance the understanding of the complex well-being implications of connectivity. Notably, we revealed that those employees in higher-status roles particularly suffer from digital exhaustion, calling for a reevaluation of contemporary work practices. Most interestingly, however, we also concluded that employees who reactively regulate their connectivity, demonstrating situational adjustability and flexibility in their connectivity strategies, typically experience balance between the benefits and drawbacks of connectivity. This indicates that when the well-being challenges of connectivity are not already imminent, going with the flow may be a viable strategy.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Liikesivistysrahasto (grant number 24-13284) and Emil Aaltosen Säätiö.
Appendix
Employees’ Approaches to Connectivity Regulation.
| Subthemesa | Main themesb | |
|---|---|---|
| Proactive connectivity regulation | Reactive connectivity regulation | |
| Boundary management | Disconnecting after work hours to maintain work-life balance. I have always been very strict about it [disconnecting during weekends]. Weekends are for other things. (Otto, in-depth interview) |
Connecting after work hours or during weekends to pass the time, to stay informed, or out of curiosity. If I don’t have anything else to do [during free time], it's like “well I might just check if there's anything [on work email]” (Alpo, in-depth interview) |
| Task prioritizing | Avoiding technological interruptions during focused work by not reacting to requests instantly. If I’m somewhere cold with my fingers freezing and the phone rings, I’m not gonna stop working. I finish what I’m doing and after getting some gloves on see who called. (Alpo, in-depth interview) |
Handling relevant or urgent work-demands outside of work hours. If there is something urgent going on, I might check the emails on my phone in the evening. (Elina, diary day 1) Prioritizing hands-on tasks during work hours and letting communication spill over to free time. I have [stayed connected afterhours], it's normal. We are used to the fact that when working in the field, “9-to-5”doesn’t apply to our worktime. (Sanna, diary day 2) |
| Role demands | Setting examples of healthy work-life boundaries as a team leader. I experience that a manager is an example in this matter, and I want to set an example of everyone having the right for their free time, weekends, and vacations. (Anna-Liisa, introductory interview). Being able to (dis)connect strictly as a non-essential worker. The role [enables disconnecting] and the work environment in general is such that nobody would criticize if I didn’t reply instantly in the evening. (Topias, in-depth interview). |
Not experiencing a need for connectivity regulation during work hours because one's role does not entail focused working. I haven’t had tasks that would demand so much focus that [communicative interruptions] would have bothered me. (Paula, in-depth interview). Feeling responsible for others in a specific role. As a janitor-type of worker, I have to be always available during work hours. (Jesse, in-depth interview). |
Explanations for connectivity regulation.
Approaches to connectivity regulation.