Please Respond ASAP: Workplace Telepressure and Employee Recovery

Abstract

Organizations rely heavily on asynchronous message-based technologies (e.g., e-mail) for the purposes of work-related communications. These technologies are primary means of knowledge transfer and building social networks. As a by-product, workers might feel varying levels of preoccupations with and urges for responding quickly to messages from clients, coworkers, or supervisors—an experience we label as workplace telepressure. This experience can lead to fast response times and thus faster decisions and other outcomes initially. However, research from the stress and recovery literature suggests that the defining features of workplace telepressure interfere with needed work recovery time and stress-related outcomes. The present set of studies defined and validated a new scale to measure telepressure. Study 1 tested an initial pool of items and found some support for a single-factor structure after problematic items were removed. As expected, public self-consciousness, techno-overload, and response expectations were moderately associated with telepressure in Study 1. Study 2 demonstrated that workplace telepressure was distinct from other personal (job involvement, affective commitment) and work environment (general and ICT work demands) factors and also predicted burnout (physical and cognitive), absenteeism, sleep quality, and e-mail responding beyond those factors. Implications for future research and workplace practices are discussed.

Full text

Running head: WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 1
Please Respond ASAP: Workplace Telepressure and Employee Recovery
Larissa K. Barber and Alecia M. Santuzzi
Northern Illinois University
Author Note
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Larissa K. Barber, Department of
Psychology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, 60115, USA. Email: lbarber@niu.edu.
The authors would also like to thank Sabine Sonnentag for her helpful comments on earlier
versions of this manuscript, as well as three anonymous reviewers.
© 2014 American Psychological Association. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly
replicate the authoritative document published in Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Please do not
copy or cite without authors permission. The final article 2015 is published at with the following DOI:
10.1037/a0038278

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 2
Abstract
Organizations rely heavily on asynchronous message-based technologies (e.g., email) for the
purposes of work-related communications. These technologies are primary means of knowledge
transfer and building social networks. As a by-product, workers may feel varying levels of
preoccupations with and urges for responding quickly to messages from clients, co-workers, or
supervisors—an experience we label as telepressure. This experience of telepressure can lead to
fast response times, and thus faster decisions and other outcomes initially. However, research
from the stress and recovery literature suggests that the defining features of telepressure interfere
with needed work recovery time and stress-related outcomes. The present set of studies defined
and validated a new scale to measure telepressure. Study 1 tested an initial pool of items and
found some support for a single-factor structure after problematic items were removed. As
expected, public self-consciousness, techno-overload, and response expectations were
moderately associated with telepressure in Study 1. Study 2 demonstrated that telepressure was
distinct from other personal (job involvement, affective commitment) and work environment
(general and ICT work demands) factors, and also predicted burnout (physical and cognitive),
absenteeism, sleep quality, and email responding beyond those factors. Implications for future
research and workplace practices are discussed.

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 3
Please Respond ASAP: Workplace Telepressure and Employee Recovery
Advances in technology have changed how we transfer information and maintain
relationships with others in our work environment. Technology-mediated workplace interactions
have substantial benefits to productivity, including increasing perceptions of more control over
the timing and location of work and reducing perceived conflict between the work and home
domains (Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton, 2006; Mazmanian, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2013).
Organizations have realized those benefits and are adopting more technology-based work
arrangements such as telecommuting and virtual teams (Cascio, 2000; Townsend, DeMarie, &
Hendrickson, 1998), resulting in an increasing number of employees are completing some or all
of their work using information and communications technologies (ICTs). Even onsite
employees are relying more on ICTs to facilitate interactions with coworkers through email
communications rather than real-time, face-to-face interactions (Finn 2006; Markus, 1994).
However, the anticipated benefits to productivity from using ICTs might be attenuated by
a mental and physical health cost to individual workers over the long term. The flexibility of
ICT-based communications by their very nature may blur the boundaries between work and
recovery time. Even when not “working,” individuals might feel the need to respond to work-
related messages. In this paper we introduce the construct of telepressure to conceptually
represent the combination of preoccupation and urge to immediately respond to work-related
ICT messages.
Employees often feel the need to be continuously connected to the workplace through
ICTs to meet the needs of supervisors, colleagues, and clients—a phenomenon called the
autonomy paradox (Mazmanian et al., 2013). The continuous connection to one’s work is
increasing employee stress by not allowing employees to take a substantial break from work

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 4
(Day, Scott, & Kelloway, 2010; Olson-Buchanon & Bowsweel, 2006). For example, 44% of
Americans report checking their email daily during vacation, and 54% do so even when home
sick (American Psychological Association, 2013). Thus, there appears to be a strong need to feel
connected among employees who rely on ICT communications for work purposes. As noted
above, we define telepressure as the combination of a strong urge to be responsive to people at
work through message-based ICTs with a preoccupation with quick response times. We believe
the experience of telepressure represents the psychological state that encourages continued
connection to work activities.
The purpose of this research is to distinguish workplace telepressure from other
“connection-related” reactions to job demands, explore potential personal and work environment
predictors of telepressure, and examine this construct’s relationships with stress, recovery, and
email responding outcomes. The concept of workplace telepressure is a unique construct that can
add to our understanding of why employees might prioritize ICT communications during work
time and tend to stay connected with coworkers via ICTs even during their non-work time (e.g.,
Olsen-Buchanan & Boswell, 2006; Park & Jex, 2011). In this article, we highlight the
importance of studying workplace telepressure in organizations from an occupational health
perspective. In Study 1, we present an initial validation of a workplace telepressure measure and
examine construct validity with respect to other variables associated with general and ICT-
specific work connection (workaholism, engagement, boundary and crossing), personality factors
(extraversion, self-consciousness, self-monitoring), and work environment factors (technological
work demands and norms). In Study 2, we link workplace telepressure to stress, recovery, and
email responding outcomes beyond personal and work environment factors.

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 5
Workplace Telepressure
We conceptualize telepressure as a single construct defined by thinking about ICT
messages accompanied by an overwhelming urge to respond. Asynchronous communication,
such as email, is intended to add to response flexibility and convenience by allowing workers
long spans of uninterrupted time on task to accomplish work goals or uninterrupted personal time
for recovery. The core problem with telepressure is that it has the potential to negate the intended
advantage of asynchronous communication technologies (e.g., email) that provide workers with
flexibility and control over their response times. Workplace telepressure arises when employees
start to view this mode of ICT use in the workplace as similar to synchronous forms, which
typically require an immediate response. For example, if an employee is asked in a synchronous,
face-to-face conversation to serve on a project team, the employee is expected to give some
response immediately. However, if the employee received an asynchronous email or voicemail
with the request, the employee has some time to think about a response before actually replying
to the message. If experiencing high levels of telepressure, the employee will feel pressure to
respond immediately to an asynchronous communication, similar to what is expected in a
synchronous, face-to-face request. This can lead employees to prioritize ICT communications
throughout the work day and fail to take necessary recovery periods between tasks. Beyond
designated work time, this shift in focus can transform asynchronous ICT use away from a
perception of “flexible work access” to “inescapable work.” Below, we outline its conceptual
distinction from generalized work connectivity constructs (workaholism and engagement), and
ICT-specific connectivity behaviors (work-home ICT boundary creation and work-home ICT
boundary crossing).

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 6
General work connectivity. Telepressure should be distinct from other responses to
work demands that result in greater connection to the work environment, both within and beyond
the workplace. These responses are often studied in terms of workaholism or work
engagement—both of which entail heightened connection to one’s work, but differ on
motivational orientation (Van den Broeck et al., 2011). Workaholism is often conceptualized as
two components: the motivational component representing a compulsion to think about and
perform work tasks and the behavioral component of working excessively (Schaufeli et al.,
2009). Job demands are positively associated workaholism (Kanai & Wakabayashi, 2001),
especially with the behavioral component of working excessively (Schaufeli, Taris, & van
Rhenen, 2008). Similar to workplace telepressure, the motivational component of workaholism
involves a combination of preoccupation and urge to stay connected to the work environment.
Different from workaholism, telepressure is broadly focused on maintaining social relationships
and impressions at work through computer-mediated communication. As such, the focus is on
responding to work-related messages rather than actually performing work tasks.
Workplace telepressure is also separate from work engagement (e.g., Schaufeli, Bakker,
Salanova, 2006), which is conceptualized as high vigor (high energy while working), dedication
(enthusiasm and perceived significance of one’s work), and absorption (full engrossment in work
tasks) in one’s work. Employee engagement is also positively associated with job demands,
including sometimes working long hours (Schaufeli et al., 2009). Unlike workaholics, the
increased psychological connection to one’s work tends to be positive because engaged workers
have more energy and enthusiasm for their work in the form of high vigor and dedication. Like
workaholism, work engagement has more to do with one’s actual interaction with work tasks
(and in this case, enjoying work) rather than technologically facilitated social interactions in the

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 7
workplace. Thus, telepressured employees, if they give into their responsive urges, may have the
appearance of engagement or workaholism, despite not necessarily completing actual work tasks
(i.e., they look busy with work-related tasks).
ICT connectivity. Workplace telepressure is also different from connectivity behaviors
specific to ICT use, such as ICT boundary creation and boundary crossing (Park & Jex, 2011).
Boundary creation refers to self-imposed restrictions around ICT use for work purposes, while
boundary crossing refers to using ICTs at home to perform work-related tasks (rather than the
urge or preoccupation with responding). Although telepressure should be associated with these
types of work-home boundary blurring behaviors (i.e., less boundary creation and more
boundary crossing), it a psychological state rather than and ICT behavior. Given that it is also
specific to message-based communication, it should be more closely associated with behaviors
such as email responding frequency rather than using ICTs to conduct work at home more
generally. Employees experiencing higher levels of workplace telepressure may be more likely
to give into their urges and engage in frequent email responding behaviors.
Personal Contributions to Workplace Telepressure
Telepressure may be related to a number of personal factors of the employee, especially
personality traits—psychological characteristics of the individual that are stable over time and
explain individuals’ behavior (i.e., Mount Barrick, Scullen, & Rounds, 2005). Personality traits
that may be positively associated with sensitivity to workplace telepressure include
conscientiousness and extraversion. Conscientious workers tend to be more responsive, reliable,
and achievement-oriented. Extraverted workers tend to be more sociable and have a higher
tendency to seek stimulation from others (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The descriptions of both
personality types suggest that behavior is responsive to external cues. For example, a highly

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 8
conscientious person is likely to respond quickly to an email from a coworker due to a tendency
to be responsive and diligent in pursuit of the achievement of work goals. A highly extraverted
worker will feel the need to respond quickly because they seek the social connection.
Workplace telepressure can also be conceived as a specific type of impression
management in technology-mediated interactions, and thus should be associated with general
tendencies to monitor impressions around others such as those driven by public self-
consciousness and self-monitoring (Buss, 1980; Scheier & Carver, 1985; Snyder 1974). The
general concern about one’s standing in the workplace should lead workers to actively monitor
the impressions that coworkers have of them and use self-presentation strategies to encourage
those impressions to be positive. Thus, highly self-conscious workers should feel more
compelled to respond to messages from coworkers to prevent negative impressions.
Work Environment Contributions to Workplace Telepressure
Although we expect particular personality variables to make some workers slightly more
predisposed to workplace telepressure than others, workplace telepressure should have stronger
relationships with job demands—especially related to ICT demands—and social norms around
response behavior rather than individual difference factors.
Job and ICT demands. According to the job demands-resources model (JD-R) of stress
(Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), job demands
are aspects of the work environment that require sustained mental, physical, or emotional
exertion. Traditionally, job demands are conceptualized as amount of work to be done (i.e.,
workload; Karasek, 1979), as this is the most common cost to psychological and physical
resources on the job. However, the JD-R model expands the conceptualization of job demands to
also include social demands that can lead to employee stress. This is an important addition, as

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 9
workplace telepressure may not be a response to workload per se, but rather the social demands
of the work environment.
Workplace telepressure represents a potentially maladaptive response to a particular type
of work demand—messages via ICTs. ICTs pose a unique set of demands in the workplace that
go beyond general work overload due to technological demands. These can take the form of
social demands (availability, response expectations, miscommunication over email due to lack of
face-to-face cues) and hassles related to technological malfunctions (Day, Paquet, Scott, &
Hambley, 2012). Given that ICT demands can create additional social demands beyond
workload, telepressure is considered to be a response to a specific type of ICT demand (response
expectations) that differs from work demands more broadly. As such, workplace telepressure
should be associated with more technological demands, such as technological overload, rather
than work overload more generally. Techno-overload refers to employee perceptions that the
technology they use in their environment requires them to work faster and create more work than
they can handle (Ragu-Nathan, Tarafdar, & Ragu-Nathan, 2008).
Social norms. Similar to the power of social norms in other contexts, workplace
telepressure may result from an effort to “fit in” with others at work by conforming to workgroup
norms. Social influence theories suggest that our social environment motivates us to change our
behavior to match the behavior of others (e.g., Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004), including attempts to
act according to perceptions of what is seen as the “correct behavior” in a given situation. The
perceived expectation to respond quickly can increase the urge to respond quickly to
asynchronous work communications whether perceived norms are descriptive (most people seem
to respond quickly) or prescriptive (the job explicitly requires that they respond quickly; Forsyth,

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 10
2009). In other words, workplace telepressure should be high when the perceived norm is to
respond quickly, regardless of whether such norms are explicit in organizational policies.
Despite recent research focusing on telecommunications and work-life boundary
management, little is known about social norms around technology use that may contribute to
psychological states like workplace telepressure. One exception is a study that merely adapted a
measure of personal preferences for work-home segmentation (i.e., keeping work matters out of
personal life) into perceptions about work colleagues’ segmentation preference (Park, Fritz, &
Jex, 2011). Their results showed that the perceived (descriptive) segmentation norms predicted
psychological detachment from work, and the relationship was partially explained by the use of
technology tools outside of work. More recent research has also incorporated prescriptive
norms—specifically expectations—into measures of ICT demands (Day et al., 2012).
Specifically, expectations regarding response times, availability outside of work, and learning
new technology are all forms of prescriptive norms around ICT use that can arise in the
workplace. Thus, telepressure should be associated with perceived workplace norms around
response times derived from descriptive (what most people do) and prescriptive (what is
expected) information in the workplace environment.
Study 1: Initial Scale Development and Construct Validity
Workplace telepressure was defined as a combination of preoccupation with fast response
times and the strong urge to respond to asynchronous work-related messages. Based on this
construct definition, the authors generated a pool of eight self-report items that covered both
preoccupation and urge aspects of telepressure (see Appendix). We conceptualize telepressure as
a narrow, cognitively-oriented construct, and thus avoided wording that contained affective
(anxious, worried, etc.) or behavioral (i.e., responding to messages) information to ensure that

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 11
items only referred to thinking about and urges to respond to messages. The specific focus of the
construct definition allowed us to create items that were high in face validity and accounted for
all aspects of the construct definition. We aimed to further reduce the pool of eight items to those
that were useful and necessary in order to create a brief measure that might be useful for both
academic research and as a practical assessment tool in organizations. The measure instructions
were written to be specific to work-related ICT messages, but broad in terms of who sent the
communication (see Appendix for all items and response scale). The item development followed
the assumptions for Likert scaling such that multiple items were created to represent moderate
statements that were accompanied by a bipolar response scale (strongly disagree to strongly
agree), and the average of the item scores should scale individuals on the construct (DeVellis,
2012; Hinkin, 1998).
Following standard procedures for self-report scale item development (DeVellis, 2012),
items were reviewed by subject matter experts and then evaluated by a group of raters. After
items were developed by the authors, an expert in work recovery research and an expert in
communication research (both also had expertise and experience with test development)
independently reviewed the item content and comprehension and provided suggestions for
revisions. A group of 17 undergraduate students who worked at least part-time and used ICTs for
work purposes also reviewed the items for wording clarity and content relevance in relation to
the construct definition. The items were then were distributed as part of a larger web-based
survey that included measures of expected predictors (personality and norms) and constructs
with similar definitions. The goals of this study were to test the items from the new telepressure
measure with a sample form a relevant population, identify any needed item revisions, and

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 12
examine the relationship between telepressure and existing personal factors, work environment
factors, and work connectivity constructs. Specifically, we expected the following relationships:
Hypothesis 1: Telepressure is moderately and positively associated with personality
factors, specifically (a) conscientiousness, (b) extraversion, and (c) impression
management.
Hypothesis 2: Telepressure is moderately and positively associated with work
environment factors, specifically (a) ICT demands techno-overload and (b) response
norms.
Hypothesis 3: Telepressure is moderately and positively associated with other general
work connectivity constructs, specifically (a) increased workaholism and (b) increased
work engagement.
Hypothesis 4: Telepressure is moderately associated with other ICT-specific connectivity
behaviors, specifically (a) less work-home ICT boundary creation, (b) more work-home
ICT boundary crossing, and (c) more email work-home boundary crossing.
Method
Participants and procedure. Participants were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical
Turk (MTurk). Survey data from MTurk users tends to be of comparable quality as other data
sources, and is more representative of U.S. population characteristics than undergraduate
samples (Behrend, Sharkek, Meade, & Wiebe, 2011; Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). A
total of 404 individuals agreed to continue with the study after reading the recruitment statement
approved by the Institutional Review Board at the authors’ university. Access to the survey was
limited to respondents in the United States and participants received $0.50 for completing the
survey. Only 380 met the eligibility requirements to continue with the survey (measured through

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 13
automatic disqualification items), including working part-time or full-time (15hrs or more) and
comfort with reading and understanding English. An additional 15 respondents were dropped for
missing more than one of the three quality control check items, indicating lack of attention to the
survey. Thus, 354 final cases were used for data analysis in this study. Respondents were
primarily full-time workers (69.8%), men (60.4%), Caucasian (74.6%), and married (56.2%).
Also, 28.4% of the participants were telecommuters. The average tenure in the organization was
6.5 years, and the average hours worked per week was 37 (with an average of 5 hours
telecommuting). A wide variety of occupations were reported (e.g., individuals in education,
food service, healthcare, and information technology positions), with the most frequent
occupations being engineers and employees in sales.
Measures
Conscientiousness and extraversion. Extraversion (α = .90) and conscientiousness (α =
.86) were assessed with 10 items each from the International Personality Item Pool (NEO
Domain; Goldberg, 1999; Goldberg et al., 2006). Response options ranged from 1 (Strongly
Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The measure asks to what extent each statement describes the
respondents’ typical behavior. An example extraversion item read “make friends easily” and an
example conscientiousness item read “make plans and stick to them.”
Public self-consciousness. Public self-consciousness (α = .88) was measured using the
revised Self-Consciousness Scale (Scheier & Carver, 1985). Response options range from 1
(Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Example items read “I’m concerned about the way I
present myself” and “I usually worry about making a good impression.”
Self-monitoring. Self-monitoring (α = .75) was measured using the 18-item Self-
Monitoring Scale (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). Respondents are asked to indicate whether each

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 14
statement on this measure is true (1) or false (0) for them. Example items read “I guess I put on a
show to impress or entertain others” and “I'm not always the person I appear to be.”
Techno-overload. A relevant subscale of the technostress measure was chosen for this
study (Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008): techno-overload (five items; α = .85) and techno-invasion (four
items; α = .82). An example item from techno-overload included “I am forced by this technology
to do more work than I can handle,” and an example item from techno-invasion is “I feel my
personal life is being invaded by this technology.” Response options ranged from 1 (Strongly
Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
Norms. The descriptive norm item was constructed based on instructions from Fishbein
and Ajzen (2010). The resulting item read “Most people in my workgroup respond quickly.” The
prescriptive norm item was adapted from expectancy violation measure (Afifi & Metts, 1998).
The item read, “I’m expected to respond as soon as possible.” Although developed
independently, this item had similar wording to response expectations items from the ICT
demands measure (Day et al., 2012: “I am expected to respond to e-mail messages
immediately”). Response options for both descriptive and prescriptive norm items ranged from 1
(Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
Workaholism. Workaholism was measured using the Dutch Workaholism Scale
(Schaufeli et al., 2009), which contains a five-item working excessively subscale (“I seem to be
in a hurry and racing against the clock”; α = .81) and a five-item working compulsively subscale
(“I feel that there’s something inside me that drives me to work hard”; α = .73). Response
options are on a 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) scale.
Work engagement. Work engagement was measured using the nine-item Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale (Shaufeli & Bakker, 2004), consisting of vigor (three items; “At my work, I

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 15
feel bursting with energy”), dedication (three items; “My job inspires me”), and absorption (three
items; “I feel happy when I am working intensely”) subscales. Response options were provided
on a seven-point scale ranging from 0 (Never) to 6 (Always). Because of the high intercorrelation
found in this study among variables (.70 to .81) and recommendation by the authors of the scale
development (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003), the nine items were combined into an overall measure
of work engagement (α = .81)1.
Boundary creation and crossing. Boundary creation around ICT use was measured with
seven items adapted from Olson-Buchanan (2006). Examples of boundaries include limiting
amount of time or when ICTs are used (i.e., only until 7pm) and not using ICTs during weekends
(α = .88). Response options ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).
Boundary crossing with ICTs was measured with two items that focused on performing
work tasks at home (Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2006; Park & Jex, 2011). The original scale
consisted of four items, but two items referred to “thinking about work” (i.e., closer to
psychological detachment) and were removed (α = .88). The first question asked about how often
one tries to arrange, schedule or perform job-related activities outside of normal work hours
using ICTs. The second question asked how often ICTs are used to perform one’s job when one
is at home during non-work hours. Response options ranged from 1 (Never/Almost Never) to 5
(Very Often/Almost Always).
Results
Exploratory factor analysis. For an initial examination of the original item pool, an
exploratory factor analysis using Principal Axis Factoring was conducted to identify factor
structure and items with poor contributions to the factor solution. Relying on Kaiser’s Rule for
factor extraction, the results supported a two-factor solution (50% variance explained). However,

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 16
the second observed factor compromised only two items and, thus, did not provide sufficient
evidence for a substantial factor (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Moreover, the two items did not
seem to identify an interpretable content area that uniquely added to the telepressure construct.
Thus, omitting the items would improve the factor solution without negatively affecting the
content validity of the telepressure measure. After omitting the two items, the remaining six
items fit a single factor solution with 52% variance explained and all factor loadings > .58.
Although confirming the factor structure required an additional sample (see Study 2), we
used the current data to conduct a preliminary confirmatory factor analysis to identify alternative
models to test in subsequent validation studies. Using AMOS v. 20, we examined the proposed
telepressure construct using the hypothesized one-factor model (Model 1) as well as two
alternative models: a model with two correlated subdimensions (Model 2) and a model with two
uncorrelated subdimensions (Model 3). For the two alternative models, the three items that more
closely related to preoccupation were used as indicators of one factor and the other three items
related to urge were indicators of the second factor. In the current data, Model 1 (one-factor
model), did not achieve acceptable fit, χ2 (9) = 67.70, χ2/df = 7.53, CFI = .937, TLI = .895,
SRMR = .054, RMSEA = .136 (CI90% = [.107, .167]. Model 2 (correlated two-factor model)
provided an acceptable fit to the data, χ2 (8) = 16.90, χ2/df = 2.11, CFI = .990, TLI = .982,
SRMR = .024, RMSEA = .056 (CI90% = [.016, .094], with the preoccupation and urge latent
subdimensions having a very strong intercorrelation (r = .81). The results for Model 3
(uncorrelated two-factor model) yielded unacceptable fit, χ2 (9) = 225.15, χ2/df = 25.02, CFI =
.769, TLI = .614, RMSEA = .261 (CI90% = [.232, .291]. Model 3 also had the lowest fit among
the three (AIC = 249.15) compared to Model 1 (91.70) and Model 2 (42.90), suggesting that
neither subdimension showed strong measurement properties independent of the other one.

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 17
Given that the fit of the two-factor uncorrelated model (Model 3) was unacceptable, it seems
unlikely that telepressure comprised two distinct subfactors. Although the two-factor correlated
model (Model 2) showed adequate fit, the high interfactor correlation precludes the two labeled
subfactors from being treated as separate constructs; both subdimensions cannot be used
simultaneously in analyses due to multicollinearity. Moreover, the items for telepressure were
created and tested to reflect a unified contruct. Using a subset of the items would create
deficiency if used to represent telepressure or as another related construct (e.g., preoccupation)
outside of the context of telepressure. Taken together, the preliminary set of factor analysis
results supports the use of telepressure as a single factor construct. Note, however, that the
preliminary analyses were conducted on the six telepressure items that were part of an original
pool of eight items. The preliminary results must be confirmed using a new sample and when
administering only the six items retained as a result of the revision process.
Construct validity. Correlations between the revised six-item telepressure measure and
all study variables are located in Table 1. In partial support of H1, telepressure was positively
associated with conscientious and public consciousness, with only modest correlations (.11 and
.19, respectively). Extraversion and self-monitoring were not significantly associated with
telepressure. Fully supporting H2, telepressure was positively associated with work environment
demands of the work environment, specifically, techno-overload, descriptive norms for
responding, and prescriptive norms for responding. In support of H3, telepressure was associated
with general work connectivity constructs such as workaholism and work engagement. Finally,
in support of H4, telepressure was associated with various operationalizations of ICT work
connectivity: ICT work-home boundary creation, ICT work-home boundary crossing, and email
responding in the evenings. The small to moderate correlations across all of these constructs

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 18
(highest correlation = .34) supports our expectation that telepressure is distinct from these
constructs, and that our operationalization of telepressure is not redundant with measures of
constructs with conceptual overlap.
Personal and work environment predictors of telepressure. We conducted an
exploratory hierarchical regression analyses to determine the contribution of both personal and
work environment factors to telepressure experiences. All personality variables
(conscientiousness, extraversion, public self-consciousness, self-monitoring) were entered in
Step 1 and work environment factors (techno-overload, descriptive and prescriptive norms) were
entered in Step 2. The personality factors together contributed 5.2% of variance, F(4, 349) =
4.82, p < .001, although only public self-consciousness was a significant predictor, β = .12, p =
.016. The work environment factors explained an additional 14.7% of the variance in
telepressure beyond personality, F(3, 346) = 21.19, p < .001. Both techno-overload (β = .25, p <
.001) and prescriptive norms (β = .27, p < .001)—but not descriptive norms—were significant
predictors. Comparisons between dependent coefficients (t tests) showed that both prescriptive
norms and techno-overload were significantly larger than the coefficient for public self-
consciousness (p’s < .05, one-tailed).
Discussion
The exploratory factor analysis results showed strong support for the telepressure
measure a one-factor model after two problematic items were removed. Preliminary
confirmatory factor analysis results showed some support for the solution, but also showed
support for an alternative two-factor correlated model. Further examination of the results
revealed a strong correlation between factors and similar pattern of relationships across
subdimensions. Overall, the results suggest that the distinction between the factors might be too

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 19
small to warrant treating workplace telepressure as a two-factor measure. The comparison
between the hypothesized one-factor model and alternative two-factor correlated model was
revisited in a formal confirmatory factor analysis using a second sample in Study 2.
Additionally, correlation results with work connectivity measures (both general and ICT-
specific), personal factors, and work environment factors indicated that workplace telepressure
was not redundant with conceptually similar constructs. Exploratory analyses suggested that
public self-consciousness, techno-overload, and prescriptive norms are the best predictors of
workplace telepressure, with the work environment factors (techno-overload and prescriptive
norms) having the strongest associations.
Study 2: Revised Scale Construct Validation and Criterion-Related Validity
We conducted a second study to 1) confirm the factor structure results for the revised six-
item measure using a new sample, 2) explore additional personal (i.e., job involvement and
affective commitment) and work environment factors (i.e., ICT work demands) associated with
workplace telepressure, and 3) examine the criterion-related validity for workplace telepressure
with respect to stress, recovery, and email responding behavior outcomes.
Additional Personal and Work Environment Factors
Although the results from Study 1 appeared to suggest that personal factors were not
strong predictors of telepressure (with the exception of a modest relationship with public self-
consciousness), this could be because we focused more on personality factors rather than
psychological identification or attitudes toward one’s work. Two particular relevant factors that
may be associated with telepressure are job involvement and organizational commitment.
Job involvement is described as “a cognitive or belief state of psychological
identification” with one’s work (Kanungo, 1982; p.342). Individuals with high levels of job

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 20
involvement are more likely to be intrinsically motivated to engage in work, which is why they
tend to have higher levels of both work engagement (Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006) and
workaholism (Aziz & Zickar, 2006). Additionally, organizational commitment—particularly
affective commitment—may also play a role in how connected one is to the work environment.
Employees with higher levels of affective commitment tend to have a high emotional attachment
to the organization due to shared values and interests (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Allen,
1991), and thus are more likely to exert cognitive effort on the job, attend work, and engage in
discretionary behaviors on the job (i.e., organizational citizenship behaviors; Meyer, Stanley,
Hersovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). Both job involvement and affective commitment have been
linked with ICT use after work hours (Boswell & Olson-Buchanon, 2007), and thus these may be
important factors to distinguish from workplace telepressure.
Hypothesis 5: Telepressure is positively and moderately associated with (a) job
involvement and (b) organizational commitment.
In Study 1, we also found that telepressure was predicted by technological work demands
(i.e., techno-overload) and prescriptive norms around responding. However, we did not examine
work overload more broadly, as well as a wider variety of ICT demands. Thus, it is important to
determine that workplace telepressure is linked to ICT work demands more specifically, rather
than just general perceptions of work demands. Day and colleagues (2012) recently developed a
measure that assesses eight distinct ICT demands that can arise from the work environment:
response expectations, availability, poor communication, hassles, employee monitoring, learning
expectations, and workload. The most relevant ICT demand to telepressure should be response
expectations, which is conceptually similar to prescriptive norms around message-based
responding that was assessed in Study 1 (i.e., expectations guiding what is appropriate response

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 21
behavior in the organization). Additionally, the workload subscale of the ICT demands measure
is similar to the techno-overload measure in Study 1, as it is related to additional work
requirements arising from technology use. However, there are a few additional subdimensions
that may be related to workplace telepressure. For example, availability (expectations for contact
outside of work) and poor communication (misinterpreting email tone) may be associated with
telepressure, as well as lack of control of technology use. Technological hassles (e.g., dealing
with computer glitches) and monitoring of technology use (e.g., phone calls, email, internet), and
learning expectations (expectation to learn new technology) would seem less relevant to
affecting message-based responding.
Hypothesis 6: Telepressure is positively and moderately associated with general work
demands and ICT demands relevant to message-based responding (response
expectations, availability, poor communication, and workload).
Employee Stress, Recovery, and Email Behavior
Workplace telepressure may have critical occupational health implications because has
the potential to prolong employee work stress both during designated work times and during
non-work hours. Given that workplace telepressure should lead to prolonged demand exposure
via increased ICT use (Day, Scott, & Kelloway, 2010; Olson-Buchanon & Bowsweel, 2006), it
can contribute to the health impairment process described by the JD-R model (Demerouti et al.,
2001; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Thus, continued exposure to these demands can exhaust these
resources to the point of poor psychological and physical health. This may take the form of
burnout (physical, cognitive, and emotional exhaustion; Shirom & Melamed, 2006),
presenteeism (engaging in work tasks under less than optimal health conditions; Koopman et al.,
2002) and health-related absenteeism.

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 22
Job demands that are specific to ICT use have been linked with employee stress above
and beyond regular work demands (Day et al., 2012). Interestingly, response expectations and
availability aspects of ICT demands were not good predictors of strain and burnout in past
research (Day et al., 2012), which suggests employees may acknowledge prescriptive norms
around ICT use without necessarily feeling the need to conform to them. In fact, the transactional
model of stress proposes that the perception of a particular aspect of the work environment as a
demand is needed to affect stress-related outcomes (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Day et al., 2010).
Thus, telepressure may have a distinct relationship with stress outcomes that is not accounted for
by general job or specific ICT demands because it represents an individual’s internalization of
ICT demands (i.e., response expectations and availability). Different from general work and ICT-
specific demands, telepressure may directly lead to stress because it requires the perception that
one needs to adhere to the ICT demand requirements (or prescriptive norms). As such,
employees who are actually experiencing workplace telepressure (whether the actual ICT
demands are there or not) may suffer psychological and physical costs due to the health
impairment process. In line with the JD-R model, we expect that:
Hypothesis 7: Telepressure is positively associated with negative stress-related outcomes,
namely (a) burnout, (b) presenteeism, and (c) absenteeism.
Hypothesis 8: Telepressure is positively associated with negative stress-related outcomes,
namely (a) burnout, (b) presenteeism, and (c) absenteeism beyond personality and work
environment factors.
Workplace telepressure may also be associated with recovery processes. The effort-
recovery model (Meijman & Mulder, 1998) suggests that prolonged exertion in response to job
demands cause fatigue, and thus some period of recovery is needed to be able to avoid allostatic

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 23
load (negative physiological effects due to heightened sympathetic nervous system response;
McEwen & Stellar, 1993). Work recovery activities during non-work hours are critical for
sustaining employee health and performance, as they provide a reversal of the stress process
brought on by job demands. Given employees need sufficient work recovery in order to be
engaged and productive workers (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2006; Sonnentag, 2003), it is imperative
that organizations examine how telepressure may disrupt recovery processes.
Prolonged demand exposure due to frequent ICT use may lead to the following work
recovery processes: psychological detachment and restorative sleep. Psychological detachment is
considered a critical recovery strategy in the occupational health literature. It refers to the
strategy of not thinking about work and work-related events (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). Use of
ICTs to conduct work after hours and low work-home boundaries, which are conceptually related
to workplace telepressure, are both associated with reduced psychological detachment (Park et
al., 2011; Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza, 2010). A second form of recovery needed to sustain
worker health is achieving restorative sleep. High quality sleep is needed to prevent fatigue and
achieve optimal cognitive functioning due to its role in restoring central nervous system
functions (Akerstedt, Nilsson, & Kecklund, 2009). Workplace telepressure is expected to lead to
cognitive and behavioral interference with sleep that may disrupt restorative aspects of sleep. For
example, individuals may sleep less because they are using that time to respond to work demands
instead (e.g, Barnes, Wagner, & Ghumman, 2012).
Hypothesis 9: Telepressure is negatively associated with (a) psychological detachment
and (b) restorative sleep.
Hypothesis 10: Telepressure is negatively associated with (a) psychological detachment
and (b) restorative sleep beyond personality and work environment factors.

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 24
Finally, as mentioned previously, workplace telepressure is a unique response to
interpersonal work demand due to interpersonal communication (Day et al., 2010). Employees
experiencing higher levels of workplace telepressure may be more likely to give into their urges
and engage in frequent email responding behaviors. Thus, this study also investigated email
response latency during work time (i.e., time to respond to emails) and frequency of email
responding behavior in general.
Hypothesis 11: Telepressure is positively associated with (a) responding frequency and
negatively associated with (b) email response latency.
Hypothesis 12: Telepressure is positively associated with (a) responding frequency and
negatively associated with (b) email response latency beyond personality and work
environment factors.
Method
Participants and procedures. Study 2 participants were also recruited through
Amazon’s Mechanical Turk approximately one year after Study 1. Participants who responded to
the previous studies were excluded from participation. A total of 343 individuals agreed to
continue with the study after reading the recruitment statement. Access to the survey was limited
to respondents in the United States who worked full-time and participants received $1.00 for
completing the survey. Only 326 met the eligibility requirements to continue with the survey
(measured through automatic disqualification items) and an additional 23 respondents were
dropped for missing more than one (out of three) quality control check items, resulting in a final
sample size of 303 for data analysis. Respondents were primarily full-time workers (76.6%), men
(58.4%), Caucasian (78.5%), married (51.0%), and not telecommuters (79.9%).

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 25
Measures
The six-item measure from Study 1 was used to assess workplace telepressure. The same
measures for Study 1 assessing conscientiousness (Goldberg, 1999; Goldberg et al., 2006) and
public self-consciousness (Scheier & Carver, 1985) also were included. Additional measures are
reported below2.
Job involvement. Job involvement was assessed using Kanungo’s (1982) 10-item Job
Involvement Scale (α = .74). Example items read, “I live, eat, and breathe my job” and “I
consider my job to be very central to my existence.” Response options ranged from 1 (Strongly
Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
Affective commitment. Affective commitment was assessed using Meyer and Allen’s
(1997) revised six-item subscale from the organizational commitment measure (α = .91).
Example items read, “I feel as if my organization’s problems are my own” and “I do not feel like
‘part of the family’ at my organization” (reverse-coded). Response options ranged from 1
(Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
General work demands. General work demands were measured by the five-item
Quantitative Workload Inventory (Spector & Jex, 1998; α = .86). Example items include, “How
often does your job require you to work very fast?” and “How often is there a great deal to be
done?” Responses options ranged from 1 (Less Than Once Per Month or Never) to 5 (Several
Times Per Day).
ICT demands. ICT demands were measured using a 27-item measure developed by Day
et al., (2012), which consists of eight different subscales: response expectations (two items; α =
.86; e.g., “I am expected to respond to e-mail messages immediately”), availability (four items; α
= .83; e.g., “Technology enables people I work with to contact me at any time”), poor

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 26
communication (three items; α = .84; e.g., “I have misinterpreted the tone of my incoming e-mail
messages”), lack of control (three items; α = .77; e.g., “I am expected to respond to e-mail
messages immediately”), hassles (five items; α = .83; e.g., “My computer freezes”), monitoring
(four items; α = .91; e.g., “My organization monitors my e-mails”), learning expectations (three
items; α = .72; e.g., “I am expected to stay current with technological advances related to my
work”), and workload (three items; α = .83; e.g., “Technology creates more work for me”).
Response options ranged from 0 (Never) to 4 (Almost Always).
Burnout . Job burnout is characterized by physical, cognitive, and emotional exhaustion
resulting from chronic exposure to work stress (Shirom & Melamed, 2006). The Shirom-
Melamed Burnout Measure (Shirom & Melamed, 2006) was used to measure burnout
experienced at work over the past month. This measure uses 14 items consisting of three
subdimensions: physical fatigue (e.g., “I feel tired”; α = .95), cognitive weariness (e.g., “My
thinking process is slow”; α = .96), and emotional exhaustion (e.g., “I feel I’m unable to be
sensitive to the needs of coworkers or customers”; α = .94). Responses options ranged from 1
(Never or Almost Never) to 7 (Always or Almost Always).
Absenteeism and presenteeism. Whereas absenteeism describes an employee not being
at work, presenteeism describes the act of engaging in work tasks under less than optimal health
conditions (Koopman, 2002). Absenteeism was measured using an item from the Health and
Work Performance Questionnaire (Kessler et al., 2003). This question asked the number of full
work days missed because of a physical or mental health issues. Presenteeism was measured
using the Standford Presenteeism Scale (Koopman et al., 2002). It contained six items asking to
what extent health problems interfered with productivity over the past month (e.g., “Because of

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 27
health problems, I was unable to finish hard tasks in my work”; α = .97). Response options
ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
Psychological detachment. The psychological detachment subscale from Sonnentag and
Fritz’s (2007) Recovery Experience Questionnaire was used to measure recovery. Respondents
were asked to state their agreement with four statements (e.g., “I don’t think about work at all”; α
= .78) regarding their free evenings (or non-work time), with responses ranging from 1 (Strongly
Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
Sleep recovery problems. Sleep recovery problems were measure in three different
ways: sleep quantity, sleep quality, and sleep inconsistency. Respondents were asked how many
hours they typically slept per night during a workweek. Less sleep duration represents more
recovery problems. Sleep quality was measured using a measure of chronic insomnia (Jenkins,
Standton, Niemryk, & Rose, 1988). This measure asks about four insomnia symptoms
experienced over the past month: trouble falling asleep, trouble staying asleep, waking up several
times during the night, and waking up after one’s usual amount of sleep feeling tired and worn
out (α = .84). Response options range from 0 (Never) to 5 (Nearly every night), with higher
scores indicating poorer sleep quality. Sleep consistency was measured using three items from
the Sleep Hygiene Index (Mastin, Bryson, & Corwyn, 2006) referring to going to bed at different
times, getting out of bed at different times, and staying in bed longer than one should (i.e.,
sleeping in) day to day. Response options ranged from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always) so that higher
scores represented more sleep inconsistency (α = .77)3.
Self-reported email responding frequency and latency. Respondents were asked to
report how often they typically respond to messages from work in the following five situations:
during work hours, during the evenings, during the weekend, during vacation days, and during

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 28
sick days. Response options were on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Almost
Constantly). These items were created for this study. For ease of data presentation, these items
were combined into one measure, given their moderate to strong intercorrelations (r = .23 to .82)
acceptable internal consistency (α = .77).
An additional measure of email response behavior during work hours with more exact
email response time reporting was included for this study. Respondents were asked to open their
work email account and answer questions regarding their last two work emails. This information
allowed us to analyze specific data on response time latency rather than self-reported perceptions
of general frequency in responding. For each email, respondents were asked to report the email
sender classification (e.g., supervisor, coworker, subordinate, client), day email was sent, time
email was sent, their reply day, their reply time, and whether or not their reply was during
regular work hours (Yes/No). One-hundred and three individuals indicated they had their work
email account readily accessible and reported their last response latency information. Of these
individuals, only 96 reported enough data to calculate response latencies (i.e., seven had missing
information for either the send/reply date or time sections). Given that email response latencies
showed a strong positive skew (2.89), this score were transformed using a logarithmic (base 10)
transformation before conducting analyses4.
Results
Confirmatory factor analyses. The hypothesized one-factor model showed good fit with
the exception of the RMSEA, χ2 (9) = 57.14, χ2/df = 6.35, TLI = .932, CFI = .959, SRMR = .036,
RMSEA = .133 (CI90% = [.101, .167], The alternative two-factor model for the six-item measure
demonstrated good fit with the data, also with the exception of RMSEA, χ2 (8) = 48.08, χ2/df =
6.01, TLI = .936, CFI = .966, SRMR = .033, RMSEA = .129 (CI90% = [.095, .165]). Although the

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 29
one-factor solution had a comparatively poorer fit than the two-factor model (one-factor AIC =
81.14; two-factor AIC = 74.08), the usefulness of two distinct subfactors could not be supported.
Similar to the preliminary results in Study 1, the latent correlation between urge and
preoccupation was very high (standardized estimate = .94), again suggesting high degree of
overlap between the subdimensions. Given that the construct was conceptualized with a unified
definition and the alternative two-factor model did not yield distinguishable subfactors, we find
the hypothesized one-factor solution to have the strongest support in this study.
Construct validity. Bivariate associations among Study 2 variables are presented in
Table 2. In support of H5, telepressure was significantly associated with increased job
involvement (r = .22) and affective commitment (r = .13). Contrary to Study 1,
conscientiousness was not significantly associated with telepressure in this sample, but its
significant relationship with public self-consciousness remained (r = .22). In support of H6,
telepressure was associated with increased perceptions of work demands (r = .24), and ICT
demands that are relevant for message based responding: response expectations (r = .36),
availability expectations (r = .28), poor communication (r = .11), and technological workload (r
= .20). Unexpectedly, telepressure was also linked with learning expectations (r = .18). Taken
together, these modest to moderate associations with these constructs suggest telepressure is
distinct from personal factors (job involvement, affective commitment) and work environment
factors related to general and ICT-specific work demands.
Criterion-related validity with stress, recovery, and email responding outcomes. In
partial support of H7, telepressure was associated with increased physical and cognitive burnout,
as well as absenteeism. Telepressure was not significantly associated with emotional burnout and
presenteeism. H9 was also only partially supported. Telepressure was associated with less

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 30
psychological detachment (r = -.20) and sleep quality (r = .21), but not sleep quantity or sleep
inconsistency. Finally, H11 was fully supported, as telepressure was associated with more
frequent email responding (r = .31) and shorter email response times (r = -.34).
Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to determine if telepressure
demonstrated incremental predictive validity for stress (H8), recovery (H10), and email (H12)
outcomes beyond personal and work environment factors. Results for stress outcomes are
presented in Table 3. Telepressure added incremental validity to the prediction of physical
burnout, ΔF(1,288) = 14.48, p < .05, ΔR2 = .028, and cognitive burnout, ΔF(1,288) = 9.92, p <
.05, ΔR2 = .021. Telepressure also predicted absenteeism beyond personal and work environment
factors, ΔF(1,288) = 9.43, p < .05, ΔR2 = .030. Thus, H8 was supported for these stress
outcomes, but not emotional burnout and presenteeism.
Results for recovery outcomes are presented in Table 4. H10 was only partially
supported, as telepressure did not predict additional variance in psychological detachment or
some aspects of restorative sleep (quantity and consistency) beyond personal and work
environment factors. However, telepressure did add incremental validity to the prediction of
sleep quality, ΔF(1,288) = 4.27, p < .05, ΔR2 = .012.
Results for email responding outcomes are presented in Table 5. H10 was only partially
supported, as telepressure only added incremental validity to the prediction of frequency of email
responding, ΔF(1,288) = 7.19, p < .05, ΔR2 = .013, beyond personal and organizational factors.
Telepressure did not predict additional variance in response latency with all variables. However,
the personal and work environment factors also did not contribute in the prior steps, potentially
because the sample size was so small for response latency (N = 96). Thus, although there is
theoretical justification that the personal and work environment factors in this study have

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 31
relationships with email response latency, this assumption was only supported for three work
environment factors in the bivariate correlation results: ICT demands for response expectations,
poor communication, and hassles. Thus, only these variables were used in a revised regression
model in the first step, with the second step including telepressure (see revised model in Table
5). In this model, telepressure did explain incremental variance in response latency beyond ICT
demands, ΔF(1,91) = 5.08, p < .05, ΔR2 = .045, with increased telepressure predicting shorter
response latencies.
Discussion
Based on the results from Study 2, telepressure is distinct from personal factors such as
conscientiousness, self-consciousness, job involvement, and affective commitment, as it has only
modest relationships with these constructs. Telepressure is also distinct from general perceptions
of work demands, as well as ICT demands. Employees who report more ICT demands around
response expectations, availability, poor communication, technological workload, and learning
expectations were more likely to experience telepressure, but the moderate correlations with
these constructs suggest telepressure is not redundant with perceptions of work demands.
In terms of predicting outcomes, employees reporting increased levels of telepressure
also reported less psychological detachment and poorer sleep quality (although not sleep quantity
or consistency). Also, more telepressure was associated with higher levels of burnout (physical
and cognitive only) and health-related absenteeism. Finally, employees experiencing more
telepressure were more likely to respond more frequently to emails and have shorter email
response times. Moreover, with the exception of psychological detachment, telepressure
predicted physical/cognitive burnout, health-related absenteeism, sleep quality, and email
responding outcomes beyond personal and work environment factors. Employees might feel that

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 32
staying connected longer and responding quickly will be viewed as a sign of good performance.
However, similar to other sources of work-related strain and burnout, the preoccupation and urge
to respond quickly to work communications may backfire and yield negative, rather than
positive, outcomes for the individual.
Overall Discussion
The main objectives of this series of studies were to 1) introduce the construct of
workplace telepressure and its important implications for work and health outcomes and 2)
develop and validate a brief measure of workplace telepressure that can be used in research and
practice. The results from Study 1 supported the validation of a six-item measure. Study 2
confirmed the single factor structure of the six-item measure as the most useful structure with a
new sample and showed support for telepressure predicting some stress, recovery, and email
responding outcomes beyond personal and work environment factors.
Study 1 also showed that personality factors appear to only have modest correlations
with telepressure, whereas work environment factors tended to have moderate correlations.
Prescriptive (but not descriptive) situational norms and techno-overload served as the best
predictors of workplace telepressure, followed by public-self consciousness. Thus, workplace
telepressure seems less likely to be a manifestation of personality than a response to work
environment demands. The fact that prescriptive norms emerged as better predictors of
workplace telepressure than descriptive norms suggests that perceptions about what one should
do may be more influential than perceptions of what others actually do. Past research suggests
that this should be true when prescriptive norms are more salient than descriptive norms
(Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991). Many descriptive norms can be misperceived when workers
rely extensively on technology for communication. For example, workers can carefully craft ICT

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 33
messages that convey a strong norm for fast response times by apologizing for delays in
responses. A coworker who receives such messages might infer that she or he should be
responding very quickly. Importantly, the recipient of the message can only observe the content
of an ICT message, conveying a prescriptive norm. ICT communications limit informative
nonverbal cues that can clarify the actual urgency or importance of replying to the message.
Therefore, prescriptive norms might be relatively more salient as workers have more access to
them through explicit organizational policies and formal performance feedback.
Prescriptive norms are often learned through organizational culture, including explicit
organization policies and procedures (Cialdini, Bator, & Guadagna, 1999). If prescriptive norms
are the stronger influence on telepressure, the employing organization might have more control
over those perceptions. Unlike descriptive norms among employees that arise out of habits, an
organization has the power to dictate changes prescriptive organizational norms. Organizations
should be able to address problems related to telepressure by developing workplace policies
around ICT use and expectations, or encouraging workgroups to collaboratively discuss and set
response expectation agreements independently. Examples include specific guidelines regarding
response times during the workday or during weekends (e.g., within 48 hours), training
employees on how to limit message responding and checking to certain times of day, or outlining
“blackout” days or times where employees are not expected to respond (after 6pm and before
8am). Recent research suggests setting boundaries around ICT use is helpful for employee
recovery and well-being (Olson-Buchanon & Boswell, 2006; Barber & Jenkins, 2013), and thus
organizations may consider providing training to help employees set ICT use boundaries.
Having influence via prescriptive norms over telepressure also positions an organization
to demonstrate support for a healthy workplace and work-life balance. Given that prescriptive

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 34
norms seem to be more tied to telepressure, an organization may directly intervene when high
levels of telepressure and the associated risks to health and well-being emerge among employees.
Communicating cultural values such as family-supportive work environments (i.e.,
organizational support for employees’ family lives; Allen, 2001; Thompson, Beauvais, &
Lyness, 1999), may help employees engage in more recovery time during their off-work hours
instead of responding to work-related messages. Having managerial support for helping
employees set healthy limits on accessibility is a key factor that may help reduce telepressure.
Also important to both employees and their employing organization is that higher levels
of telepressure are associated with some aspects of stress, recovery, and email responding
behavior. The results from Study 2 found that higher telepressure is associated with stress-related
outcomes such as physical and cognitive burnout and health-related absenteeism. Although
telepressure does not seem to be associated with psychological detachment beyond personal and
work environment factors or sleep quantity and consistency, telepressured employees do report
poorer sleep quality. Study 2 also indicated that telepressured employees report that they respond
more frequency to emails and have shorter email response times.
On the surface, faster response times might be interpreted as positive work performance
such that information is being communicated faster and progress toward organizational goals is
accelerated. However, responsiveness may not map on to actual work productivity, and may
actually be linked to poorer work quality at the expense of speed. Additionally, gains in
communication and information exchange might come at a cost to health and well-being if
telepressure levels are high. Given that Study 2 suggests telepressure is associated with higher
burnout and absenteeism, as well as poorer sleep quality, employers should ensure that employee
health and well-being is not compromised as a consequence of their high motivation to perform.

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 35
Organizations may want to emphasize that they value high quality work that requires extended
periods of uninterrupted time rather than high responsiveness via message-based technologies.
Study 2 also suggests that technological demands of the work environment—especially
related response expectations—seem to be significantly associated with telepressure rather than
overall workload. Thus, telepressure appears to be a unique experience arising from a growing
reliance on technological communication in the work environment. As such, organizations need
to pay more attention to how ICTs create additional demands beyond employees’ regular
workload. Specifically, employee responses to these demands (i.e., telepressure) can have an
incrementally negative effect on employee health and well-being.
Limitations and Future Research
Although the set of studies included individual differences and outcomes that were most
clearly implicated in the existing social influence and occupational health literatures, several
additional variables could be considered to be important to this examination. For example, the
manner in which information about norms is conveyed might play a large role in how workers
respond to those norms. If an organization has a strong social environment, descriptive norms
may be transmitted and more salient than prescriptive norms conveyed through formal policy
and performance feedback. Thus, our research did not find strong support for the role of
descriptive norms in telepressure, but we were unable to examine the strength or ambiguity of
those norms from the workers’ perspectives.
Future research should build upon our findings related to workplace norms to examine
whether specific job characteristics or organizational features yield more telepressure than other
characteristics among employees. For example, fast response times are rewarded in client-
oriented work such as in consulting and sales. Workers in those positions likely are susceptible to

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 36
high levels of telepressure and the associated negative health consequences. Other jobs that have
a different reward system (e.g., independent of ICT or customer responsiveness) might be less
susceptible to telepressure.
As expected, the present set of studies found only minimal evidence for a relationship
between personal factors and workplace telepressure. However, our list of personal factors was
far from exhaustive. Future research could extend the research to examine additional individual
differences and dispositional tendencies that might make some employees more susceptible to
workplace telepressure than others. Workers who have a nigh need for cognitive closure
(Webster & Kruglanski, 1994) might experience stronger urges to complete ICT communications
as they have a lower tolerance for ambiguity and “loose ends.”
Limiting generalizability across time, data from both studies were based on cross-
sectional surveys. The decision was based in part on the construct definition for workplace
telepressure indicating that the experience was situational. Thus, an employee’s report of
workplace telepressure, antecedent norms, and health recovery outcomes were collected from the
same situation. This design was limited to only a single, short-term experience reported in these
studies. Future research using longitudinal designs should consider the trajectory of telepressure
and whether it will have consequences on both performance and health over a period of time on a
job. Over short or moderate periods of time, telepressure may not negatively affect health
outcomes. However, long-term exposure to telepressure may have cumulative effects on health
through increased allostastic load (i.e., negative physiological effects of chronic stress exposure;
McEwen, 1998). This occurs because of the heighted “fight-or-flight” stress response to
workplace demands that employees may be continually exposed to due to the lack of sustained
disconnection from work. Subsequent studies may want to examine the specific time course in

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 37
which telepressure has the most detrimental impact on recovery and health, as well as how
quickly these effects can be reversed.
Also, future research should examine whether changes in telepressure occur across work
situations within the same organization. Workplace telepressure may change over time due to
various workplace characteristics, such as tenure within an organization or within a given
workgroup. Newer employees may be more susceptible to workplace telepressure given their
desire to impress new colleagues with quick responsiveness or model their behavior around the
current workgroup. Understanding the long-term trajectories and implications of telepressure can
help organizations to determine whether different interventions are required for telepressure-
related problems that are newly emerging as compared to problems that have persisted while
undetected for a period of time.
Finally, we had a few significant limitations regarding our measure of response latency.
We had a high non-response rate on this particular variable; around 68% of the sample indicated
that they did not currently have access to their work email or did not wish to complete that
information. This may have been partly driven by the longer time taken to complete the survey
(with the response latency questions at the end). In our pilot survey with this variable, we had an
82% response rate, most likely because this survey only respondents an average of seven minutes
to complete (compared to the average of 20 minutes for Study 2). Fortunately, the telepressure
relationships with this outcome for Study 2 appeared to be consistent with the pilot study, but we
cannot rule out the potential of bias due to the high proportion of missing data. Second, relying
on only the last work email to assess this measure is a small sample of behavior. This method
was chosen so that it would be less time-intrusive for participants to complete. Finding a way to
average email response times over more emails using a more comprehensive, yet less time-

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 38
intensive methodology (i.e., email monitoring software that can protect content privacy) for
future research would help to alleviate this concern. Also, future studies can move beyond work
email responding behavior to determine what effects telepressure may have on work
performance. As mentioned before, email responsiveness is not necessarily an indicator of better
job performance—thus, explorations into how telepressure may affect actual work quality and
quantity would be useful to organizations.
Conclusions
Employee health has become a central concern to organizations in their efforts to sustain
a competitive edge. Research suggests that a healthy worker is a productive worker, as job stress
leads to increased levels of absenteeism, turnover, and even medical expenditures (Cooper &
Cartwright, 1994; Goetzel, Buidon, Turshen, Ozminkowski, 2001; Mills, Kessler, Cooper, &
Sullivan, 2007). With the increased concern about employee well-being, more flexible work
arrangements that rely on technology-mediated communications have become part of many job
designs. Despite the positive health intentions of such flexibility, the increased experiences of
telepressure among employees who use technology-based communications for work purposes
might actually reduce control over work recovery (i.e., leading to an autonomy paradox;
Mazmanian et al., 2013). According to the results from three studies, telepressure involves a
heightened preoccupation and urge to respond quickly to ICT messages. More telepressure is
associated with poor physical and psychological health in employees, and is associated with
more ICT demands in the work environment. Researchers and practitioners must be prepared to
manage telepressure issues among employees to ensure that technology-mediated
communications yield their intended effects of improving employee autonomy, well-being, and
potentially performance. This includes helping employees set boundaries around their

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 39
technology use in order to preserve recovery time (Olson-Buchanon & Boswell, 2006; Barber &
Jenkins, 2013), including setting organizational norms and policies around technological
responsiveness that allows for sufficient recovery. Otherwise, employees may become burned
out, unfocused, and ineffective at work due to the burden of continuous accessibility
expectations.

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 40
References
Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational
perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414-435.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance,
and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 63, 1–18.
Åkerstedt, T., Nilsson, P. M., & Kecklund, G. (2009). Sleep and recovery. Research in
Occupational Stress and Well-being, 7, 205–247.
American Psychological Association (2013). Americans stay connected to work on weekends,
vacation, and even when out sick. American Psychological Association Press Room.
Retrieved from: http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/09/connected-work.aspx
Aziz, S., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). A cluster analysis investigation of workaholism as a syndrome.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 52–62.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328.
Barber, L. K., & Jenkins, J. S.(2013). Creating technological boundaries to protect bedtime:
Examining work-home boundary management, psychological detachment, and sleep.
Stress & Health. Published online ahead of print.
Barnes, C. M., Wagner, D. T., & Ghumman, S. (2012). Borrowing from sleep to pay work and
family: Expanding time-based conflict to the broader nonwork domain. Personnel
Psychology, 65, 789–819.

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 41
Boswell, W. R. & Olson-Buchanan, J. B. (2007). The use of communication technologies after
hours: The role of work attitudes and work-life conflict. Journal of Management 33, 592-
610.
Cascio, W. F. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace. The Academy of Management Executive,
14, 81–90.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative
review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel
Psychology, 64(1), 89–136.
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annual
review of psychology, 55, 591–621.
Cooper, C. L., & Cartwright, S. (1994). Healthy mind, healthy organization— A proactive
approach to occupational stress. Human Relations, 47(4), 455–471.
Day, A., Paquet, S., Scott, N., & Hambley, L. (2012). Perceived information and communication
technology (ICT) demands on employee outcomes: the moderating effect of
organizational ICT support. Journal of occupational health psychology, 17(4), 473–491.
Day, A., Scott, N., & Kelloway, E. K. (2010). Information and communication technology:
Implications for job stress and employee well-being. Research in Occupational Stress
and Well-being, 8, 317–350.
Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B, Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The Job Demands-
Resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-512.
Finn, J. (2006). An exploratory study of email use by direct service social workers. Journal of
Technology in Human Services, 24, 1–20.

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 42
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action
approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press (Taylor & Francis)
Forsyth, D. R. (2009). Group dynamics. In H. T. Reis & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
human relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal.
Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 530–555.
Goetzel, R. Z., Guindon, A. M., Turshen, I. J., & Ozminkowski, R. J. (2001). Health and
productivity management: establishing key performance measures, benchmarks, and best
practices. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 43(1), 10–17.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the
lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, &
F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe, Vol. 7 (pp. 7-28). Tilburg, The
Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., &
Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-
domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96.
Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). “Same same” but different? Can work engagement
be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? European
Psychologist, 11, 119–127.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey
questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104-121.
Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad.
Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420–432.

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 43
Jenkins, C. D., Stanton, B.-A., Niemcryk, S. J., & Rose, R. M. (1988). A scale for the estimation
of sleep problems in clinical research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 41, 313–321.
Kanai, A., & Wakabayashi, M. (2001). Workaholism among Japanese blue-collar employees.
International Journal of Stress Management, 8, 129–203.
Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 67, 341–349.
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job
redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 285-308.
Kelloway, E. K., & Day, A. L. (2005). Building healthy workplaces: What we know so far.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 37, 223–235.
Kessler, R. C., Barber, C., Beck, A., Berglund, P., Cleary, P. D., McKenas, D., Pronk, N., et al.
(2003). The World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire
(HPQ). Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 45(2), 156–174.
Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundary
management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work–family
effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(2), 347–367.
Markus, M. L. (1994). Electronic mail as the medium of managerial choice. Organization
Science, 5, 502–527.
Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2013). The autonomy paradox: The implications
of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organization Science. Published
online ahead of print.
McEwen, B. S. (1998). Stress, adaptation, and disease: Allostasis and allostatic load. Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences, 840, 33–44.

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 44
Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In P. J. D. Drenth &
H. Thierry (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational psychology: Vol. 2. Work
psychology (pp. 5–33). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance,
and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents,
correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Scullen, S. M., & Rounds, J. (2005). Higher-order dimensions of
the big five personality traits and the big six vocational interest types. Personnel
Psychology, 58, 447–478.
Mills, P. R., Kessler, R. C., Cooper, J., & Sullivan, S. (2007). Impact of a health promotion
program on employee health risks and work productivity. American Journal of Health
Promotion, 22(1), 45–53.
Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Boswell, W. R. (2006). Blurring boundaries: Correlates of integration
segmentation between work and family. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 432–445.
Park, Y., & Jex, S. M. (2011). Work-home boundary management using communication and
information technology. International Journal of Stress Management, 18, 133-152.
Park, Y., Fritz, C., & Jex, S. M. (2011). Relationships between work-home segmentation and
psychological detachment from work: the role of communication technology use at home.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(4), 457–467.

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 45
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). The Self-Consciousness Scale: A revised version for use
with general populations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15(8), 687–699.
Shirom, A., & Melamed, S. (2006). A comparison of the construct validity of two burnout
measures in two groups of professionals. International Journal of Stress Management,
13, 176–200.
Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C. & Mojza, E. J. (2010). Staying well and engaged when demands
are high: The role of psychological detachment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 965-
976.
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The recovery experience questionnaire: Development and
validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 204–221.
Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work–family benefits are not
enough: The influence of work–family culture on benefit utilization, organizational
attachment, and work– family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392–415.
Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and
the workplace of the future. The Academy of Management Executive, 12, 17–29.
Van den Broeck, A., Schreurs, B., De Witte, H., Vansteenkiste, M., Germeys, F. & Schaufeli, W.
(2011). Understanding workaholics' motivations: A self-determination perspective.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60, 600–621.
Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive
closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049-1062.

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 46
Footnotes
1 Using the subscales, only dedication (r = .11) and absorption (r = .14) were
significantly associated with telepressure; vigor was not (r = .03, p = .538).
2Per a reviewer’s suggestion, a longer conscientiousness measure assessing subfacets was
also included (NEO P-R Facets; Goldberg, 1999; Goldberg et al., 2006), which consisted of the
following dimensions: self-efficacy, orderliness, dutifulness, achievement-striving, self-
discipline, and cautiousnessness. However, none of these subdimensions were significantly
associated with telepressure. The same measure from Study 1 was retained for analyses for
consistency across studies. A 12-item “Dark Triad” measure (Jonason & Webster, 2010) was
also included in this study, which examines the sub-clinical traits of machiavelliasm (“I tend to
manipulate others to get my way”; α = .86), psychopathy (“I tend to be callous or insensitive”; α
= .86), and narcissism (“I tend to seek prestige or status”; α = .88). However, none of these
variables were significantly associated with workplace telepressure.
3 Stress and recovery outcomes were tested in a pilot study with 313 MTurk respondents
using the revised six-item measure. Telepressure was associated with less psychological
detachment (α = .78; r = -.25), but not other recovery activities such as relaxation (α = .89; r = -
.08, p = .239), mastery (α = .83; r = -.05, p = .362), or control (α = .83; r = -.01; p = .948). With
respective to restorative sleep, telepressure was associated with poorer sleep quality (α = .84; r =
.18) and more sleep inconsistency (α = .77; r = .19), but not sleep quantity (r = -.07, p = .242).
Telepressure was also associated with increased physical (α = .95; r = .24), cognitive (α = .96; r
= .32), and emotional (α = .94; r = .18) burnout, as well as increased presenteeism (α = .97; r =
.22) and absenteeism (r = .14). Telepressure was also related to more psychological strain (α =
.67; r = .19) and less satisfaction with work-life balance (α = .95; r = -.19; Valcour, 2007). Due

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 47
to survey length constraints for Study 2, we focused on burnout and presenteeism/absenteeism
outcomes only.
4 The email responding frequency and latency measures were tested in a pilot study with
228 MTurk respondents using the revised six-item measure. Telepressure was significantly
associated with responding across the five different situations (r = .22 to .36) and the combined
response frequency measure (r = .35; α = .84). Telepressure was also significantly associated
with shorter response latency when respondent’s reported their last (r = -.17) and second to last
(r = -.16) email response times for work purposes. Due to a high amount of positive skew (i.e.,
only a few individuals had very long response lags) response latencies were be transformed using
a logarithmic (base 10) transformation for analyses.

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 48
Table 1
Correlations and Means/Standard Deviations Among Study 1 Variables
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1. Telepressure
3.46
0.79
.86
2. Workaholism (Excessive)
3.28
0.72
.22*
.81
3. Workaholism (Compulsive)
3.22
0.72
.23*
.59*
.73
4. Work Engagement
3.32
1.09
.11*
.31*
.36*
.81
5. ICT Work-Home Boundary
Creation
2.63
0.80
-.18*
-.24*
-.30*
-.17*
.81
6. ICT Work-Home Boundary
Crossing
2.88
0.99
.20*
.39*
.42*
.34
-.34*
.88
7. Email Work-Home Boundary
Crossing
2.73
0.99
.25*
.41*
.41*
.32*
-.44*
.56*
--
8. Conscientiousness
3.79
0.62
.11*
.28*
.32*
.47*
-.16*
.12*
.16*
.86
9. Extraversion
3.07
0.78
.02
.13*
.15*
.36*
.08
.14*
.13*
.34*
.90
10. Public Self-Consciousness
1.64
0.71
.19*
.16*
.17*
.09
-.02
.12*
.11*
-.05
-.05
.88
11. Self-Monitoring
0.49
0.21
.01
.14*
.09
.16*
-.11*
.15*
.09
-.02
.51*
.14*
.75
12. Technostressors-Overload
3.16
0.87
.31*
.47*
.29*
.10
-.09
.31*
.25*
.07
.05
.17*
.04
.85
13. Norm-Descriptive (Workgroup)
3.74
0.87
.15*
.01
.03
.20*
-.05
-.05
.06
.18*
.03
.04
-.04
.07
--
14. Norm-Prescriptive (Expectations)
3.78
0.87
.34*
.17*
.23*
.19*
-.15*
.16*
.20*
.31*
.11*
-.03
.14*
.31*
.31
--
*Statistically significant (p < .05); Cronbach’s alpha is indicated in bold on the diagonal; N = 354

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 49
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Study 2 Variables
*Statistically significant (p < .05); Cronbach’s alpha is indicated in bold on the diagonal; N = 303 except for email response latency (N = 92). Raw means and standard deviations for email response
latencies in minutes are reported for better interpretation, but reported correlations are based on a logarithmic (base 10) transformations.
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1. Telepresssure
3.36
0.93
.91
2. Conscientiousness
3.94
0.59
.07
.87
3. Self-Consciousness
1.62
0.78
.22*
.01
.90
4. Job Involvement
2.79
0.61
.19*
.20*
.12*
.74
5. Affective
Commitment
4.34
1.51
.13*
.42*
.07
.58*
.91
6. General Workload
3.34
0.75
.24*
.10
.22*
.19*
-.06
.86
7. ICT-Response
3.22
0.96
.36*
.14*
.30*
.20*
.09
.32*
.85
8. ICT-Available
3.30
0.87
.28*
.21*
.24*
.34*
.21*
.42*
.62*
.83
9. ICT-Comm.
1.85
0.72
.11*
-.32*
.11
.11
-.13*
.11
.18*
.15*
.84
10. ICT-Lack of Control
2.56
0.92
.02
-.37*
-.01
-.24*
-.38*
.13*
.00
-.14*
.11
.77
11. ICT-Hassles
1.96
0.63
.04
-.36*
.05
.01
-.25*
.08
.10
-.01
.42*
.18*
.83
12. ICT-Monitor
2.32
1.25
.11
-.03
.06
-.04
-.16*
.29*
.20*
.11
.17*
.23*
.23*
.91
13. ICT-Learning
3.13
0.88
.18*
.27*
.10
.25*
.15*
.26*
.31*
.41*
.12*
-.22*
.02
.23*
.72
14. ICT-Workload
2.66
0.98
.20*
.05
.20*
.26*
.03
.49*
.38*
.44*
.30*
.05
.20*
.26*
.50*
.83
15. Detachment
3.00
0.99
-.20*
-.11
-.16*
-.43*
-.24*
-.21*
-.27*
-.41*
-.12*
-.02
.01
-.03
-.17*
-.32*
.89
16. Sleep Quantity
6.77
1.03
-.04
.04
-.06
-.10
.01
-.05
.14*
-.23*
-.08
-.06
-.05
-.05
.01
-.09
.16*
--
17. Sleep Quality (Poor)
2.81
1.72
.21*
-.15*
.15*
.07
-.06
.14*
.24*
.25*
.19*
.17*
.22*
.13*
.10
.15*
-.19*
-.44*
.86
18. Sleep Inconsistency
2.27
0.95
.10
-.28*
.05
.05
-.08
.07
.03
.00
.18*
.12*
.20*
.08
-.07
.08
-.08
-.19*
.37*
.81
19. Burnout- Physical
3.53
1.48
.19*
-.46*
.10
-.18*
-.38*
.17*
.11
.04
.23*
.40*
.33*
.20*
-.10
.09
-.03
-.32*
.54*
.44*
.95
20. Burnout-Cognitive
2.81
1.32
.14*
-.54*
.13
-.09
-.28*
.04
-.02
-.03
.26*
.33*
.32*
.14*
-.12*
.03
.01
-.25*
.45*
.41*
.78*
.96
21. Burnout-Emotional
2.50
1.44
-.01
-.48*
.04
-.03
-.34*
.05
.03
.05
.33*
.31*
.33*
.19*
-.03
.16*
-.01
-.17*
.27*
.21*
.53*
.58*
.96
22. Presenteeism
2.05
1.36
.11
-.35*
.03
.06
-.19*
.05
.14*
.07
.27*
.21*
.23*
.10
.02
.16*
-.15*
-.12*
.31*
.30*
.44*
.41*
.37*
.96
23. Absenteeism-Health
0.35
0.89
.14*
-.10
-.06
.04
-.07
-.07
.00
.01
.10
.04
.02
-.06
-.11
.01
-.02
-.05
.05
.14*
.18*
.18*
.20*
.42*
--
24. Email Response
Frequency
2.67
0.72
.31*
.17*
.14*
.45*
.31*
.23*
.43*
.58*
.19*
-.18*
.01
-.01
.28*
.41*
-.50*
-.17*
.15*
.08
-.05
-.07
-.07
.10
.03
--
25. Email Response
Latency
40.05
66.46
-.34*
.03
-.17
-.03
-.13
-.05
-.30*
-.13
-.20*
-.01
-.21*
-.09
-.07
-.11
-.02
.04
-.13
.09
-.08
.01
.18
.02
.02
-.22

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 50
Table 3
Workplace Telepressure Predicting Study 2 Stress-Related Outcomes Beyond Personal and Work environment Factors
Burnout (Physical)
Burnout (Cognitive)
Burnout (Emotional)
Presenteeism
Absenteeism
β
t
β
t
β
t
β
t
β
t
Step 1
Conscientiousness
-.31
-5.33*
-.44
-7.48*
-.32
-5.32*
-.28
-4.11*
-.03
-.37
Public Self-Consciousness
.03
.59
-.11
2.15*
.01
.25
-.04
-.67
-.09
-1.45
Job Involvement
-.07
-1.06
.02
.30
.15
2.40*
.16
2.32
.14
1.81
Affective Commitment
-.15
-2.28*
-.05
-.78
-.24
-3.49*
-.14
-1.92
-.17
-2.10*
ΔF(4, 298), ΔR2
27.90*
.263
35.44*
.322
29.75*
.285
13.99*
.158
1.94
.025
Step 2
General Workload
.08
1.34
-0.02
-.32
-.11
-1.84
-.08
-1.14
-.15
-2.06*
ICT Demands-Response Expectations
.01
.05
-0.12
-1.92
-.07
-1.09
.10
-1.41
-.36
-.46
ICT Demands-Availability
.12
1.85
.12
1.78
.16
2.38*
.16
.20
.08
.95
ICT Demands-Poor Communication
-.01
-.05
.03
.53
.10
1.68
.08
1.33
.08
1.14
ICT Demands-Lack of Control
.17
3.20*
.14
2.47*
.13
2.22*
1.37
-.01
-.05
ICT Demands-Hassles
.13
2.36*
.11
2.06*
.07
1.15
.09
.36
-.05
-.76
ICT Demands-Monitoring
.05
.99
.06
1.24
.10
1.92
.02
.20
-.04
-.64
ICT Demands-Learning Expectations
-.05
-.80
-.01
-.14
-.01
-.13
.01
.25
-.16
-2.25*
ICT Demands-Workload
-.03
-.47
-.05
-.84
.09
1.35
.02
1.12
.09
1.17
ΔF(9, 289), ΔR2
4.73*
.093
2.14*
.042
3.44*
.069
1.91
.047
1.97
.035
Step 3
Telepressure
.18
3.67*
.16
3.15*
-.02
-.37
.07
1.21
.19
3.07*
ΔF(1, 288), Δ R2
14.48*
.028
9.92*
.021
.13
.000
1.46
.004
9.43*
.030
Full Model
F(14, 288), R2
13.39*
.394
12.92*
.386
11.31*
.355
5.45*
.209
2.04
.015
* p < .05

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 51
Table 4
Workplace Telepressure Predicting Study 2 Recovery Outcomes Beyond Personal and Social/organizational Factors
Psychological
Detachment
Sleep Quantity
Sleep Quality
Sleep Consistency
β
t
β
t
β
t
β
t
Step 1
Conscientiousness
-.04
-.56
.03
.34
-.11
-1.63
-.25
-3.49*
Public Self-Consciousness
-.03
-.63
-.01
-.24
.05
.90
.01
.17
Job Involvement
-.32
-4.84*
-.11
-1.39
.01
.20
.08
1.06
Affective Commitment
-.02
-.29
.08
1.03
.00
.02
.01
.08
ΔF(4, 298), ΔR2
18.06*
.195
1.52
.020
4.29*
.054
7.78*
.095
Step 2
General Workload
.04
.61
.10
.10
-.03
-.38
.03
.45
ICT Demands-Response Expectations
.03
.40
.01
-3.75*
.04
.58
-.02
-.25
ICT Demands-Availability
-.29
-4.02*
-.30
-.15
.23
2.99*
.00
.05
ICT Demands-Poor Communication
-.03
-.45
-.01
-.93
.02
.36
.04
.66
ICT Demands-Lack of Control
-.15
-2.51*
-.06
.01
.15
2.37*
-.01
-.10
ICT Demands-Hassles
.06
.95
.00
-.68
.15
2.32*
.08
1.15
ICT Demands-Monitoring
.02
.35
-.04
1.64
.02
.28
.04
.70
ICT Demands-Learning Expectations
.08
1.34
.12
-.33
.05
.73
-.09
-1.31
ICT Demands-Workload
-.17
-2.47*
-.03
.25
-.06
-.84
.05
.67
ΔF(9, 289), ΔR2
5.11*
.111
2.33*
.066
4.19*
.109
.74
.020
Step 3
Telepressure
-.05
-.85
.02
.35
.13
2.07*
.09
1.49
ΔF(1, 288), Δ R2
.73
.002
.06
.000
4.27*
.012
2.23
.007
Full Model
F(14, 288), R2
9.13*
.307
1.95*
.086
4.28*
.176
2.85*
.122
* p < .05.

WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 52
Table 5
Workplace Telepressure Predicting Study 2 Email Behavior Outcomes Beyond Personal and Work environment Factors
Email Responding
Frequency
Email Responding
Latency
Email Responding
Latency (Modified)
β
β
β
t
β
t
Step 1
Conscientiousness
.01
.11
.12
.76
Public Self-Consciousness
-.06
-1.31
-.03
-.23
Job Involvement
.19
3.36*
-.13
.98
Affective Commitment
.07
1.08
-.27
-1.95
ΔF(4, 298), ΔR2
20.32*
.214
ΔF(4, 91), ΔR2
1.56
.064
Step 2
General Workload
-.08
-1.50
.02
.12
ICT Demands-Response
Expectations
.08
1.36
-.33
-2.23*
-.19
-1.76
ICT Demands-Availability
.38
6.15*
.08
.54
ICT Demands-Poor Communication
.07
1.36
-.18
-1.59
-.14
-1.34
ICT Demands-Lack of Control
-.06
-1.19
.09
.71
ICT Demands-Hassles
-.02
-.40
-.18
-1.38
-.13
-1.20
ICT Demands-Monitoring
-.07
-1.36
-.04
-.30
ICT Demands-Learning
Expectations
-.08
-1.37
-.03
-.19
ICT Demands-Workload
.23
3.96*
.13
.93
5.26*
.146
ΔF(9, 289), ΔR2
14.64*
.246
ΔF(9, 82), ΔR2
1.97
.166
ΔF(3, 92), ΔR2
Step 3
Telepressure
.13
2.68*
-.19
-1.54
-.24
-2.25*
ΔF(1, 288), Δ R2
7.19*
.013
ΔF(1, 81), Δ R2
2.38
.022
ΔF(1, 91), ΔR2
5.08*
.045
Full Model
F(14, 288), R2
18.50*
.473
F(14, 81), R2
1.95*
.252
F(4, 91), R2
5.39*
.192
* p < .05.

Workplace Telepressure and Employee Recovery 53
Appendix
Workplace Telepressure Measure
Instructions: For the following questions, think about how you use technology to communicate
with people in your workplace. Specifically think about message-based technologies that allow
you to control when you respond (email, text messages, voicemail, etc). Please rate how much
you agree or disagree with the statements.
When using message-based technology for work purposes…
1. I’m concerned about keeping fast response times. (Preoccupation)
2. I often think about how I need to respond more quickly. (Preoccupation)
3. It’s hard for me to focus on other things when I receive a message from someone.
(Preoccupation)
4. I can concentrate better on other tasks once I’ve responded to my messages
(Preoccupation)
5. I can’t stop thinking about a message until I’ve responded. (Preoccupation)
6. I feel a strong need to respond to others immediately. (Urge)
7. I have an overwhelming feeling to respond right at that moment when I receive a
request from someone. (Urge)
8. It’s difficult for me to resist responding to a message right away (Urge).
*Bold items are included in final revised measure.