The advancement of technological devices in the workplace has changed the way people work. Employees are equipped with various Information and Communication Technology (ICT) tools to enhance their productivity and ensure timely completion of tasks. However, ICT also exerts pressure on employees to acclimate to these tools and meet deadlines. This adverse phenomenon is referred to as technostress.
Objective
This study aims to examine the influence of technostress on employee engagement and well-being, as well as to analyze the moderating effect of perceived organizational support between employee engagement, well-being, and technostress.
Methods
This study utilizes a quantitative research design and applied the SmartPLS program to analyze the direct, indirect, and total impacts of independent variables on the dependent variables. The study was conducted on a sample of 388 employees working in private banking organizations across Telangana state in India.
Results
The study’s findings indicate that technostress frequently entails an excessive workload and perpetual connectedness, resulting in considerable stress irrespective of organizational assistance. Elevated technostress in the workplace correlates with decreased employee engagement (−0.41) and well-being (−0.39). The research findings indicate that the role of perceived organizational support as a moderator is insignificant.
Conclusions
The findings of this study reveal substantial insights for firms to mitigate the adverse impacts of technostress on employees by developing evidence-based interventions, fostering a supportive work culture, and equipping employees with resource hubs.
IoannouALycettMMarshanA. The role of mindfulness in mitigating the negative consequences of technostress. Inf Syst Front2024; 26(2): 523–549.
2.
TarafdarMTuQRagu-NathanBS, et al.The impact of technostress on role stress and productivity. J Manag Inf Syst2007; 24(1): 301–328.
3.
ReisLMaierCPflügnerK, et al.Unintended consequences of technostress mitigation: an employee perspective on the effectiveness of mitigation measures. SIGMIS Database2024; 55(2): 72–97.
4.
BrodC. Technostress: the human cost of the computer revolution. Addison-Wesley. 1984.
5.
Ragu-NathanTSTarafdarMRagu-NathanBS, et al.The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations: conceptual development and empirical validation. Inf Syst Res2008; 19(4): 417–433.
6.
SchaufeliWBSalanovaMGonzález-RomáV, et al.The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J Happiness Stud2002; 3: 71–92.
7.
ZhongB. Social consequences of internet civilization. Computers in Human Behavior. 2020; 107C.
8.
SonnentagS. Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a new look at the interface between nonwork and work. J Appl Psychol2003; 88(3): 518–528.
9.
FredricksonBL. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Am Psychol2001; 56(3): 218–226.
10.
MaierCLaumerSWirthJ, et al.Technostress and the hierarchical levels of personality: a two-wave study with multiple data samples. Eur J Inf Syst2019; 28(5): 496–522.
11.
SunXYinHLiuC, et al.Psychological capital and perceived supervisor social support as mediating roles between role stress and work engagement among Chinese clinical nursing teachers: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open2023; 13(8): e073303.
12.
BellottiVDucheneautNHowardM, et al.Quality versus quantity: E-mail-centric task management and its relation with overload. Hum Comput Interact2005; 20(1-2): 89–138.
13.
MadduxJE. Subjective well-being and life satisfaction: an introduction to conceptions, theories, and measures. Subjective well-being and life satisfaction. Routledge, 2017, pp. 3–31.
14.
D’ArcyJGuptaATarafdarM, et al.Reflecting on the “dark side” of information technology use. Commun Assoc Inf Syst2014; 35(1): 5.
15.
TruțaCMaicanCICazanAM, et al.Always connected@ work. Technostress and well-being with academics. Comput Hum Behav2023; 143: 107–675.
16.
WangHDingHKongX. Understanding technostress and employee well-being in digital work: the roles of work exhaustion and workplace knowledge diversity. Int J Manpow2023; 44(2): 334–353.
17.
La TorreGEspositoASciarraI, et al.Definition, symptoms and risk of techno-stress: a systematic review. Int Arch Occup Environ Health2019; 92: 13–35.
18.
SrivastavaSCChandraSShirishA. Technostress creators and job outcomes: theorising the moderating influence of personality traits. Inf Syst J2015; 25(4): 355–401.
19.
SantuzziAMBarberLK. Workplace telepressure and worker well-being: the intervening role of psychological detachment. Occup Health Sci2018; 2(4): 337–363.
20.
JaiswalASenguptaSPandaM, et al.Teleworking: role of psychological well-being and technostress in the relationship between trust in management and employee performance. Int J Manpow2024; 45(1): 49–71.
21.
van DickRHaslamSA. Stress and well-being in the workplace: support for key propositions from the social identity approach. The social cure. Psychology Press, 2012, pp. 175–194.
22.
EisenbergerRHuntingtonRHutchisonS, et al.Perceived organizational support. J Appl Psychol1986; 71(3): 500–507.
23.
SunL. Perceived organizational support: a literature review. Int J Hum Resour Stud2019; 9(3): 155–175.
24.
Al RiyamiSRazzakMRAl-BusaidiAS. Work from home and workplace ostracism, beyond the COVID-19 pandemic: moderating effect of perceived organizational support. Int J Manpow2024; 45(3): 466–483.
25.
MaanATAbidGButtTH, et al.Perceived organizational support and job satisfaction: a moderated mediation model of proactive personality and psychological empowerment. Futur Bus J2020; 6(1): 21–39.
26.
GuanXSunTHouY, et al.The relationship between job performance and perceived organizational support in faculty members at Chinese universities: a questionnaire survey. BMC Med Educ2014; 14: 50.
27.
TarafdarMCooperCLStichJF. The technostress trifecta‐techno eustress, techno distress and design: theoretical directions and an agenda for research. Inf Syst J2019; 29(1): 6–42.
28.
NisafaniASKielyGMahonyC. Workers’ technostress: a review of its causes, strains, inhibitors, and impacts. J Decis Syst2020; 29(sup1): 243–258.
29.
DayAPaquetSScottN, et al.Perceived information and communication technology (ICT) demands on employee outcomes: the moderating effect of organizational ICT support. J Occup Health Psychol2012; 17(4): 473–491.
30.
TarafdarMTuQRagu-NathanAT. Impact of technostress on end-user satisfaction and performance. J Manag Inf Syst2010; 27(3): 303–334.
31.
CarlsonJRCarlsonDSZivnuskaS, et al.Applying the job demands resources model to understand technology as a predictor of turnover intentions. Comput Hum Behav2017; 77: 317–325.
32.
Bahamondes-RosadoMECerdá-SuárezLMDodero Ortiz de ZevallosGF, et al.Technostress at work during the COVID-19 lockdown phase (2020–2021): a systematic review of the literature. Front Psychol2023; 14: 1173425.
33.
NastjukITrangSGrummeck-BraamtJV, et al.Integrating and synthesising technostress research: a meta-analysis on technostress creators, outcomes, and IS usage contexts. Eur J Inf Syst2024; 33(3): 361–382.
34.
GuptaNSharmaV. Employee engagement: a structured review of antecedents and consequences. Int J Bus Innovat Res2019; 19(4): 466–489.
35.
KwonKJeongSParkJ, et al.Employee development and employee engagement: a review and integrated model. Career Dev Int2024; 29(2): 169–184.
36.
JooBKBBozerGReadyKJ. A dimensional analysis of psychological empowerment on engagement. J Organ Eff: People Perform2019; 6(3): 86–203.
37.
BakkerABDemeroutiE. The job demands‐resources model: state of the art. J Manag Psychol2007; 22(3): 309–328.
38.
HangYHussainGAminA, et al.The moderating effects of technostress inhibitors on techno-stressors and employee’s well-being. Front Psychol2022; 12: 821446.
39.
HajjamiOCroccoOS. Evolving approaches to employee engagement: comparing antecedents in remote work and traditional workplaces. European Journal of Training and Development2024; 48(3/4): 375–392.
40.
KotP. Role of technostress in job satisfaction and work engagement in people working with information and communication technologies. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research2022; 37(3): 331–349.
41.
AktanOToramanÇ. The relationship between Technostress levels and job satisfaction of Teachers within the COVID-19 period. Educ Inf Technol2022; 27(7): 10429–10453.
42.
GerdikenEReinwaldMKunzeF. Outcomes of technostress at work: a meta-analysis. Academy of management proceedings. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management, 2021, p. 11807.
43.
TrenerryBChngSWangY, et al.Preparing workplaces for digital transformation: an integrative review and framework of multi-level factors. Front Psychol2021; 12: 620766.
44.
BorlePReichelKNiebuhrF, et al.How are techno-stressors associated with mental health and work outcomes? A systematic review of occupational exposure to information and communication technologies within the technostress model. Int J Environ Res Publ Health2021; 18(16): 8673.
45.
AtrianAGhobbehS. Technostress and job performance: understanding the negative impacts and strategic responses in the workplace. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07072. 2023.
46.
LazarusRSFolkmanS. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, 1984.
47.
JeffreyRE. An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit approach to stress.
48.
HobfollSE. Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am Psychol1989; 44(3): 513–524.
49.
XuZYangF. The impact of perceived organizational support on the relationship between job stress and burnout: a mediating or moderating role?Curr Psychol2021; 40: 402–413.
50.
KurtessisJNEisenbergerRFordMT, et al.Perceived organizational support: a meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. J Manag2017; 43(6): 1854–1884.
51.
SolísPLago-UrbanoRReal CastelaoS. Factors that impact the relationship between perceived organizational support and technostress in teachers. Behav Sci2023; 13(5): 364.
52.
NgTWSorensenKL. Toward a further understanding of the relationships between perceptions of support and work attitudes: a meta-analysis. Group Organ Manag2008; 33(3): 243–268.
53.
EisenbergerRStinglhamberF. Perceived organizational support: fostering enthusiastic and productive employees. American Psychological Association, 2011.
54.
HessariHDaneshmandiFNateghT. Investigating the effect of technostress on the perceived organizational commitment by mediating role of individual innovation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07806. 2023.
55.
PanaccioAVandenbergheC. Perceived organizational support, organizational commitment and psychological well-being: a longitudinal study. J Vocat Behav2009; 75(2): 224–236.
56.
EisenbergerRRhoades ShanockLWenX. Perceived organizational support: why caring about employees counts. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav2020; 7(1): 101–124.
57.
BachtiarDSudibjoNBernartoI. The effects of transformational leadership, perceived organizational support on job and life satisfaction of preschool teachers. Int Inf Instit (Tokyo). Inf2018; 21(4): 1301–1320.
58.
LabragueLJMcEnroe-PetitteDMLeocadioMC, et al.Stress and ways of coping among nurse managers: a cross-sectional study. J Nurs Manag2020; 28(5): 1144–1154.
59.
Kristof‐BrownALZimmermanRDJohnsonEC. Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: a meta‐analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Pers Psychol2005; 58(2): 281–342.
60.
RhoadesLEisenbergerR. Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. J Appl Psychol2002; 87(4): 698–714.
61.
SaundersMLewisPThornhillA. Research methods for business students. Pearson Education2009.
62.
SchaufeliWBBakkerAB. Utrecht work engagement scale: preliminary manual. Occup Health Psychol Unit, Utrecht Univ2003; 26(1): 64–100.
63.
PradhanRKHatiL. The measurement of employee well-being: development and validation of a scale. Glob Bus Rev2022; 23(2): 385–407.
64.
HairJFRisherJJSarstedtM, et al.When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur Bus Rev2019; 31(1): 2–4.
65.
ChinWW. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern methods for business research1998; 295(2): 295–336.
66.
ChinWWMarcolinBLNewstedPR. A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Inf Syst Res2003; 14(2): 189–217.
67.
HenselerJFassottG. Testing moderating effects in PLS path models: an illustration of available procedures. In: Handbook of partial least squares: concepts, methods and applications, 2010, pp. 713–735.
68.
DardasLAAhmadMM. Coping strategies as mediators and moderators between stress and quality of life among parents of children with autistic disorder. Stress Health2015; 31(1): 5–12.
69.
HayesAFScharkowM. The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis: does method really matter?Psychol Sci2013; 24(10): 1918–1927.
70.
Gunyakti AkdenizHBayhan KarapinarPMetin CamgozS, et al.Seeking the balance in perceived task performance: the interaction of perfectionism and perceived organizational support. Curr Psychol2024; 43(16): 14712–14724.
71.
JainAKGigaSICooperCL. Perceived organizational support as a moderator in the relationship between organisational stressors and organizational citizenship behaviors. Int J Organ Anal2013; 21(3): 313–334.
72.
AbdulazizABashirMAlfalihAA. The impact of work-life balance and work overload on teacher’s organizational commitment: do Job Engagement and Perceived Organizational support matter. Educ Inf Technol2022; 27(7): 9641–9663.
73.
CaesensGStinglhamberF. The relationship between perceived organizational support and work engagement: the role of self-efficacy and its outcomes. Eur Rev Appl Psychol2014; 64(5): 259–267.
TarafdarMTuQRagu-NathanTS, et al.Crossing to the dark side: examining creators, outcomes, and inhibitors of technostress. Commun ACM2011; 54(9): 113–120.
76.
AyyagariRGroverVPurvisR. Technostress: technological antecedents and implications. MIS Q2011; 1: 831–858.
77.
PothugantiS. Technostress: a comprehensive literature review on dimension, impacts, and management strategies. Comput Human Behav Rep. 2024; 16: 100475.
