Advertisement

ICT Use as Mediator Between Job Demands and Work-Life Balance Satisfaction

  • Catherine HellemansEmail author
  • Pierre Flandrin
  • Cécile van de Leemput
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11589)

Abstract

The use of mobile technologies potentially alters the boundaries between professional and private spheres. Some studies report the negative overflow of work on private life, but also the possibility of a better work-life balance (WLB). As the results of previous studies are not homogenous, aiming some authors to speak about “double-edge sword” for ICT use for professional purpose after hours, workers’ attitudes were considered as mediator variables. The main hypothesis was that ICT use after hours and segmentation preference are sequential mediators in the relation between job demands and WLB satisfaction. The on-line survey has been completed by 142 workers from various sectors. The results showed that job demands, ICT use and segmentation preference explained WLB satisfaction for 30% of the variance. In more details, high job demands contributed to more ICT use for professional purposes after hours, which contributed to weak segmentation preference, this weak segmentation preference increasing WLB satisfaction. In other words, integration preference, explained itself by ICT use after hours, contributed to WLB satisfaction. The results, highlighting the determinant role of boundary management attitudes, are an innovative contribution in the HCI and WLB research: it allows to better understand the “double-edged sword” phenomena by supplying some first conditions under which ICT use turns negative issues into positive ones.

Keywords

Mobile technology Boundary management Quality of life 

References

  1. 1.
    Voydanoff, P.: The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family conflict and facilitation. J. Marriage Fam. 66, 398–412 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Young, L., Kleiner, B.H.: Work and family: issues for the 1990s. Women Manag. Rev. 7 (1992).  https://doi.org/10.1108/09649429210016151
  3. 3.
    Clark, S.C.: Work/family border theory: a new theory of work/family balance. https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.ulb.ac.be/doi/abs/10.1177/0018726700536001
  4. 4.
    El Wafi, W., Brangier, E., Zaddem, F.: Usage des technologies numériques et modèles de la perméabilité des frontières entre la vie personnelle et la vie professionnelle. Psychol. Trav. Organ. 22, 74–87 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pto.2015.12.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boswell, W.R., Olson-Buchanan, J.B.: The use of communication technologies after hours: the role of work attitudes and work-life conflict. J. Manag. 33, 592–610 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307302552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Derks, D., van Duin, D., Tims, M., Bakker, A.B.: Smartphone use and work-home interference: the moderating role of social norms and employee work engagement. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 88, 155–177 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Richardson, K.M., Thompson, C.A.: High tech tethers and work-family conflict: a conservation of resources approach. Eng. Manag. Res. 1 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.5539/emr.v1n1p29
  8. 8.
    Dén-Nagy, I.: A double-edged sword?: a critical evaluation of the mobile phone in creating work-life balance: impact of mobile phone use on WLB. New Technol. Work Employ. 29, 193–211 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Diaz, I., Chiaburu, D.S., Zimmerman, R.D., Boswell, W.R.: Communication technology: pros and cons of constant connection to work. J. Vocat. Behav. 80, 500–508 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.08.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ďuranová, L., Ohly, S.: Persistent Work-Related Technology Use, Recovery and Well-Being Processes: Focus on Supplemental Work After Hours. Springer, Heidelberg (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24759-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kreiner, G.E.: Consequences of work-home segmentation or integration: a person-environment fit perspective. J. Organ. Behav. 27, 485–507 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1002/job.386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nam, T.: Technology use and work-life balance. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 9, 1017–1040 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-013-9283-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Syrek, C., Bauer-Emmel, C., Antoni, C., Klusemann, J.: Entwicklung und Validierung der Trierer Kurzskala zur Messung von Work-Life Balance (TKS-WLB). Diagnostica 57, 134–145 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dumas, M.: Conflit Et Enrichissement Travail-Famille Et Implication. Rev. Gest. Ressour. Hum. 23–37, 51 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Duxbury, L.E., Higgins, C.A., Thomas, D.R.: Work and family environments and the adoption of computer-supported supplemental work-at-home. J. Vocat. Behav. 49, 1–23 (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1996.0030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    St-Onge, S., Renaud, S., Guérin, G., Caussignac, É.: Vérification d’un modèle structurel à l’égard du conflit travail-famille. Relat. Ind. Ind. Relat. 57, 491–516 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.7202/006887arCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jacobs, J.A., Winslow, S.E.: Overworked faculty: job stresses and family demands. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 596, 254–255 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1177/000271620459600105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wallace, J.E.: It’s about time: a study of hours worked and work spillover among law firm lawyers. J. Vocat. Behav. 50, 227–248 (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1996.1573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Allen, T.D., Johnson, R.C., Kiburz, K.M., Shockley, K.M.: Work-family conflict and flexible work arrangements: deconstructing flexibility. Pers. Psychol. 66, 345–376 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Batt, R., Valcour, P.M.: Human resources practices as predictors of work-family outcomes and employee turnover. Ind. Relat. J. Econ. Soc. 42, 189–220 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-232X.00287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Frone, M.R., Russell, M., Cooper, M.L.: Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: testing a model of the work-family interface. J. Appl. Psychol. 77, 65–78 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kossek, E.E., Lautsch, B.A., Eaton, S.C.: Telecommuting, control, and boundary management: correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work–family effectiveness. J. Vocat. Behav. 68, 347–367 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rothbard, N.P., Phillips, K.W., Dumas, T.L.: Managing multiple roles: work-family policies and individuals’ desires for segmentation. Organ. Sci. 16, 243–258 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kossek, E.E., Ruderman, M.N., Braddy, P.W., Hannum, K.M.: Work–nonwork boundary management profiles: a person-centered approach. J. Vocat. Behav. 81, 112–128 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.04.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jauréguiberry, F.: Déconnexion volontaire aux technologies de l’information et de la communication (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ashforth, B.E., Kreiner, G.E., Fugate, M.: All in a day’s work: boundaries and micro role transitions. Acad. Manag. Rev. 25, 472–491 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Barber, L.K., Jenkins, J.S.: Creating technological boundaries to protect bedtime: examining work-home boundary management, psychological detachment and sleep: creating boundaries to protect bedtime. Stress Health 30, 259–264 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Grady, G., McCarthy, A.M.: Work-life integration: experiences of mid-career professional working mothers. J. Manag. Psychol. 23, 599–622 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940810884559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Siegrist, J., et al.: The measurement of effort–reward imbalance at work: European comparisons. Soc. Sci. Med. 58, 1483–1499 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00351-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hu, L., Bentler, P.M.: Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 6, 1–55 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catherine Hellemans
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pierre Flandrin
    • 1
  • Cécile van de Leemput
    • 1
  1. 1.Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB)BrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations