Worldwide, governments have introduced novel information and communication technologies (ICTs) for policy formulation and service delivery, radically changing the working environment of government employees. Following the debate on work stress and particularly on technostress, we argue that the use of ICTs triggers “digital overload” that decreases government employees’ job satisfaction via inhibiting their job autonomy. Contrary to prior research, we consider job autonomy as a consequence rather than a determinant of digital overload, because ICT-use accelerates work routines and interruptions and eventually diminishes employees’ freedom to decide how to work. Based on novel survey data from government employees in Germany, Italy, and Norway, our structural equation modeling (SEM) confirms a significant negative effect of digital overload on job autonomy. More importantly, job autonomy partially mediates the negative relationship between digital overload and job satisfaction, pointing to the importance of studying the micro-foundations of ICT-use in the public sector.
AyyagariR.GroverV.PurvisR. (2011). Technostress: Technological Antecedents and implications. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 831–858.
2.
BaehlerK.BrysonJ. (2008). Stress, Minister: Government policy advisors and work stress. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(3), 257–270.
3.
Berg-BeckhoffG.NielsenG.Ladekjær LarsenE. (2017). Use of information communication technology and stress, burnout, and mental health in older, middle-aged, and younger workers – results from a systematic review. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 23(2), 160–171.
4.
BertelliA. M.MasonD. P.ConnollyJ. M.GastwirthD. A. (2015). Measuring Agency attributes with attitudes across time: A method and examples using large-scale federal surveys. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(2), 513–544.
5.
BrehmJ.GatesS. (1997). Working, shirking, and sabotage: Bureaucratic response to a Democratic Public. University of Michigan Press.
6.
BrodC. (1984). Technostress: The human cost of the computer revolution. Addison-Wesley.
7.
BuschP. A.HenriksenH. Z.Sæbø. (2018). Opportunities and challenges of digitized discretionary practices: A public service worker perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 35(4), 547–556.
8.
CamarenaL.FusiF. (2022). Always Connected: Technology use increases technostress among public managers. The American Review of Public Administration, 52(2), 154–168.
9.
CantarelliP.BelardinelliP.BelleN. (2016). A meta-analysis of job satisfaction correlates in the public administration literature. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36(2), 115–144.
10.
CharbonneauDobersteinC. (2020). An empirical assessment of the intrusiveness and reasonableness of emerging work surveillance technologies in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 80(5), 780–791.
11.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504.
12.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255.
13.
ChristensenT.LægreidP. (2005). Trust in government: The relative importance of service satisfaction, political factors, and demography. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(4), 487–511.
14.
ChristensenT.LægreidP. (2022). ICT use in central government: Scope, predictors and effects on coordination quality. International Journal of Public Administration, 45(3), 273–286.
15.
ClarkeA. (2020). Digital government units: what are they, and what do they mean for digital era public management renewal?International Public Management Journal, 23(3), 358–379.
16.
CorbettJ. M.MartinR.WallT. D.CleggC. W. (1989). Technological coupling as a predictor. Note of intrinsic job satisfaction: A replication study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 91–95.
17.
CordellaA.TempiniN. (2015). E-government and organizational change: Reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 279–286.
18.
DeciE. L.ConnellJ. P.RyanR. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580–590.
19.
DeciE. L.OlafsenA. H.RyanR. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The State of a Science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 19–43.
20.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A Macrotheory of human motivation, development, and Health. Canadian Psychology – Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 182–185.
21.
DolbierC. L.WebsterJ. A.McCalisterK. T.MallonM. W.SteinhardtM. A. (2005). Reliability and validity of a single-item measure of Job Satisfaction. American Journal of Health Promotion, 19(3), 194–198.
22.
EpsteinD.O’HalloranS. (1999). Delegating powers. A transaction cost politics approach to policy making under separate powers. Cambridge University Press.
23.
FischerT.RiedlR. (2017). Technostress research: A nurturing ground for measurement pluralism?Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 40(1), 375–401.
24.
FurunesT.MykletunR. J.SolemP. E. (2011). Age management in the public sector in Norway: exploring managers’ decision latitude. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(6), 1232–1247.
25.
FusiF.FeeneyM. K. (2018a). Electronic monitoring in public organizations: Evidence from US local governments. Public Management Review, 20(10), 1465–1489.
26.
FusiF.FeeneyM. K. (2018b). Social media in the workplace: Information Exchange, productivity, or waste?The American Review of Public Administration, 48(5), 395–412.
27.
FusiF.ZhangF. (2020). Social Media Communication in the workplace: Evidence from Public Employees’ Networks. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(2), 245–271.
28.
GagnéM.DeciE. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.
29.
HackmanJ. R.OldhamG. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.
30.
HackmanJ. R.OldhamG. R. (1980). Work redesign. Addison-Wesley.
31.
HöchtlJ.ParycekP.SchöllhammerR. (2016). Big data in the policy cycle: Policy decision making in the digital era. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 26(1–2), 147–169.
32.
HuberJ. D.ShipanC. R. (2002). Deliberate discretion? The institutional foundations of bureaucratic autonomy. Cambridge University Press.
33.
HuberJ. D.ShipanC. R.PfahlerM. (2001). Legislatures and statutory control of bureaucracy. American Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 330–345.
34.
HwangM.-Y.HongJ.-C.TaiK.-H.ChenJ.-T.GouldthorpT. (2020). The relationship between the online social anxiety, perceived information overload and fatigue, and job engagement of civil servant LINE users. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), 101423.
35.
JacksonT.DawsonR.WilsonD. (2001). The cost of email interruption. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 5(1), 81–92.
36.
JanowskiT. (2015). Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 221–236.
37.
JudgeT. A.WeissH. M.Kammeyer-MuellerJ. D.HulinC. L. (2017). Job Attitudes, job satisfaction, and job affect: A Century of continuity and of Change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 356–374.
38.
KarasekR. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and Mental Strain: Implications for Job Redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285–308.
39.
KarimikiaH.SinghH.JosephD. (2020). Negative outcomes of ICT use at work: Meta-analytic evidence and the role of job autonomy. Internet Research, 31(1), 159–190.
40.
Karr-WisniewskiP.LuY. (2010). When more is too much: Operationalizing technology overload and exploring its impact on knowledge worker productivity. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1061–1072.
41.
KayK.RoggerD.SenI. (2020). Bureaucratic locus of control. Governance, 33(4), 871–896.
42.
KettlD. F. (2016). Making Data Speak: Lessons for using numbers for solving public policy puzzles. Governance, 29(4), 573–579.
43.
KickertW. J. M. (2005). Distinctiveness in the study of public management in Europe. Public Management Review, 7(4), 537–563.
44.
KimS. (2005). Factors affecting state government information technology employee turnover intentions. The American Review of Public Administration, 35(2), 137–156.
45.
KuhlmannS.WollmannH. (2019). Introduction to comparative public administration: Administrative systems and reforms in Europe. Edward Elgar Publishing.
46.
LapuenteV.SuzukiK. (2020). Politicization, bureaucratic legalism, and innovative attitudes in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 80(3), 454–467.
47.
La TorreG.EspositoA.SciarraI.ChiappettaM. (2019). Definition, symptoms and risk of techno-stress: A systematic review. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 92(1), 13–35.
48.
LazarusR. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. McGraw-Hill.
49.
LeeA. R.SonS.-M.KimK. K. (2016). Information and communication technology overload and social networking service fatigue: A stress perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 51–61.
50.
LittleR. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202.
51.
LockeE. A. (1976). The nature and causes of Job Satisfaction. In DunnetteM. D. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1297–1343). Rand McNally.
52.
MarchioriD. M.MainardesE. W.RodriguesR. G. (2019). Do individual characteristics influence the types of technostress reported by workers?International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 35(3), 218–230.
53.
MergelI. (2019). Digital service teams in government. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101389.
54.
MillwardL. (2005). Understanding occupational and organizational psychology. SAGE.
55.
O’ReillyC. A. (1980). Individuals and information overload in organizations: Is More necessarily better?Academy of Management Journal, 23(4), 684–696.
56.
PerryJ. L.WiseL. R. (1990). The motivational bases of Public Service. Public Administration Review, 50(3), 367–373.
57.
PlimmerG.BermanE. M.MalinenS.FrankenE.NaswallK.KuntzJ.LöfgrenK. (2022). Resilience in Public Sector Managers. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 42(2), 338–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x20985105
58.
PollittC.BouckaertG. (2017). Public management reform: A comparative analysis - into the age of austerity (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
59.
Ragu-NathanT. S.TarafdarM.Ragu-NathanB. S.TuQ. (2008). The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations: Conceptual Development and empirical validation. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 417–433.
60.
RhodesR. A. W. (2016). Recovering the craft of Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 76(4), 638–647.
61.
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 36.
62.
SilvaP.JalaliC. (2020). Explaining perceptions of autonomy in the last chain of delegation. Public Policy and Administration, 35(4), 424–444.
63.
SpreitzerG. M. (1995). Psychological Empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465.
64.
StadinM.NordinM.BroströmA.Magnusson HansonL. L.WesterlundH.FranssonE. I. (2021). Technostress operationalised as information and communication technology (ICT) demands among managers and other occupational groups – Results from the Swedish Longitudinal Occupational Survey of Health (SLOSH). Computers in Human Behavior, 114.
65.
SteenT.WeskeU. (2016). Understanding elites: Values, attitudes, motivations and role perceptions of top public sector executives in Europe. In Public Administration Reforms in Europe (pp. 26–38): Edward Elgar Publishing.
66.
SteijnB.van der VoetJ. (2019). Relational job characteristics and job satisfaction of public sector employees: When prosocial motivation and red tape collide. Public Administration, 97(1), 64–80.
67.
SturmR. E.TaylorS. N.AtwaterL. E.BraddyP. W. (2014). Leader self-awareness: An examination and implications of women’s under-prediction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(5), 657–677.
68.
SuhA.LeeJ. (2017). Understanding teleworkers’ technostress and its influence on job satisfaction. Internet Research, 27(1), 140–159.
69.
TarafdarM.TuQ.Ragu-NathanB. S.Ragu-NathanT. S. (2007). The impact of technostress on role stress and Productivity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(1), 301–328.
70.
TarafdarM.TuQ.Ragu-NathanT. S. (2010). Impact of Technostress on End-User satisfaction and performance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(3), 303–334.
71.
TaylorJ.WestoverJ. H. (2011). Job satisfaction in the Public Service. Public Management Review, 13(5), 731–751.
72.
TramontanoC.GrantC.ClarkeC. (2021). Development and validation of the e-Work Self-efficacy scale to assess digital competencies in remote working. Computers in human behavior reports, 4, 100129.
73.
TuftsS. H.JacobsonW. S.StevensM. S. (2015). Status update: Social Media and Local Government Human Resource Practices. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35(2), 193–207.
74.
van DorpE.-J.’t HartP. (2019). Navigating the dichotomy: The top public servant’s craft. Public Administration, 97(4), 877–891.
75.
WangH.-C. (2014). Distinguishing the adoption of business intelligence systems from their implementation: The role of managers’ personality profiles. Behaviour & Information Technology, 33(10), 1082–1092.
76.
WeilM. M.RosenL. D. (1997). TechnoStress: Coping with technology @work @home @play. J. Wiley.
77.
WrightB. E.DavisB. S. (2003). Job satisfaction in the public sector: The role of the work environment. The American Review of Public Administration, 33(1), 70–90.
78.
YinP.Ou CarolX. J.Davison RobertM.WuJ. (2018). Coping with mobile technology overload in the workplace. Internet Research, 28(5), 1189–1212.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
