Communication in the Digital Work Environment: Implications for Wellbeing at Work

Abstract

This article examines digital communication in the workplace and its association with wellbeing at work. The analysis is based mainly on workshop discussions and is complemented with log data (N = 36). Content analysis was applied to the workshop discussions, while the log data were analyzed by quantifying frequencies. Six themes were found to affect wellbeing at work: the volume of digital communication, expectations of constant connectivity, the quality of the messages, adaptation of new tools, technical problems, and flexibility in communication. In relation to wellbeing at work, digital communication was mostly perceived as demanding. However, some of the factors perceived as demanding could also provide flexibility, which was seen as enhancing wellbeing by increasing autonomy and control. Social factors, such as work habits, practices, and conventions in the workplace, seem to play an important role in the manifestation and management of the digital communication-induced load at work.

Full text

29
Nordic journal of working life studies Volume 8 ❚ Number S3 ❚ April 2018
1 You can nd this text and its DOI at https://tidsskrift.dk/njwls/index.
2 E-mail: laura.bordi@uta..
Communication in the Digital Work Environment:
Implications for Wellbeing at Work1
 Laura Bordi2
Researcher, University of Tampere, Faculty of Management, Finland
 Jussi Okkonen
Senior Researcher, University of Tampere, Faculty of Communication Sciences, Finland
 Jaana-Piia Mäkiniemi
Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Tampere, Faculty of Management, Finland
 Kirsi Heikkilä-Tammi
Research Director, University of Tampere, Faculty of Management, Finland
ABSTRACT
This article examines digital communication in the workplace and its association with wellbeing at
work. The analysis is based mainly on workshop discussions and is complemented with log data
(N = 36). Content analysis was applied to the workshop discussions, while the log data were ana-
lyzed by quantifying frequencies. Six themes were found to affect wellbeing at work: the volume of
digital communication, expectations of constant connectivity, the quality of the messages, adapta-
tion of new tools, technical problems, and flexibility in communication. In relation to wellbeing at
work, digital communication was mostly perceived as demanding. However, some of the factors
perceived as demanding could also provide flexibility, which was seen as enhancing wellbeing by
increasing autonomy and control. Social factors, such as work habits, practices, and conventions in
the workplace, seem to play an important role in the manifestation and management of the digital
communication-induced load at work.
KEYWORDS
Communication technology / digital work environment / information ergonomics / technostress /
wellbeing at work
Introduction
Today’s knowledge work is characterized by digital communication and constant con-
nectivity, which may have various implications for wellbeing at work. Digital tools
can, for example, provide exibility and autonomy but also lead to an increase in job
demands and unclear boundaries between work and nonwork life (Hoonakker, 2014). A
major part of the workday can be spent in asynchronous communication, which causes

30 Communication in the Digital Work Environment Laura Bordi et al.
task fragmentation (Wajcman & Rose, 2011). Previous research has shown that even in
asynchronous communication, there is often normative pressure to react immediately,
which may manifest, for example, in repeated communication activities or in the sending
of a copy of a message to other people to pressure the recipient to reply quickly (Barley
et al., 2011). This kind of telepressure has been associated with stress-related effects, such
as burnout, sleep problems, and health-related absenteeism (Barber & Santuzzi, 2015).
Asynchronous communication and telepressure also often increase spillover from work to
free time. To manage work-related matters, employees often check email at home (Barley
et al., 2011). This behavior has a negative effect on recovery and can cause work–life
conict (Barber & Santuzzi, 2015; Diaz et al., 2012). In addition, the large amount and
poor quality of email have been associated with emotional exhaustion, especially if the
workplace exerts normative pressure to reply immediately (Brown et al., 2014).
The aim of the current study is to deepen the understanding of associations between
digital communication and wellbeing at work by examining which factors in digital
communication affect employee wellbeing and how. In addition, we aim to provide a
general view on the digital communication environment in which employees operate.
In this study, communication refers to information-related actions involving either
one-to-one or one-to-many communication. These modes underscore that one worker
can simultaneously contact several others without additional effort. This effortlessness
can be a blessing and a curse. The term digital communication environment refers to
the tools and modes of communication. Tools refer to the means of communication,
for example, instant messaging (IM), email, social media, and bulletin boards. Modes of
communication refer to two aspects, spatiality and synchronicity. Communication can
be local and synchronous, local and asynchronous, or spatially dispersed and asynchro-
nous. These modes and tools can have different implications for employee wellbeing.
There are various denitions of wellbeing at work depending on viewpoint and dis-
cipline. Most studies approach the concept through positive and/or negative outcomes,
such as job satisfaction, work engagement, stress, and burnout (c.f. Orsila et al., 2011).
In this study, wellbeing at work is understood broadly, as being determined by various
aspects of work, which may function as demands or resources in various ways. Wellbeing
is understood to form in the interplay of these resources and demands (c.f. Schaufeli &
Bakker, 2004). This study focuses on the impact of digital communication on wellbeing
at work. Digital communication is viewed through the lens of information ergonomics,
which aims at increasing wellbeing and productivity through reducing information- and
technology-related loads and increasing the suitability of technology for workers and
work tasks. Information ergonomics covers a wide array of organizational factors related
to technology use, such as technology itself, infrastructure, social aspects, and individual
habits. In this study, wellbeing at work is approached as the participants’ subjective expe-
riences of wellbeing in regard to work-related digital communication.
Digital communication as a job demand and a resource
We suggest that digital communication may act as a job demand and as a resource (c.f.
Day et al., 2010). Job resources are aspects of the job that motivate, inspire, and assist in
achieving objectives, whereas demands are aspects that require extra effort and exertion
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Simply put, resources are associated with wellbeing at

Nordic journal of working life studies Volume 8  Number S3  April 2018 31
work, such as work engagement, which is an active, positive, work-related state charac-
terized by vigor, dedication, and absorption, and demands are associated with ill-being,
such as job stress and burnout (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). However, critical approaches
on the job demands-resources model suggest that the relationship between job demands
and resources is more complex. For example, although resources are often perceived
positively, they might also be experienced as threatening (e.g., performance feedback). In
addition, not all demands are associated with ill-being, and therefore, it is important to
distinguish between challenging and hindering demands. Typically, hindering demands
are perceived as negative and stressful, and therefore, more threatening to wellbeing
(Schaufeli & Taris, 2014).
More precisely, when digital communication acts as a job resource, it can, for instance,
support effective information and communication transfer, facilitate interaction between
workers, and provide exibility in location (Day et al., 2010; Demerouti et al., 2014).
Digital communication can be a job demand if it requires extra effort, creates pressure,
and disturbs workow. In addition, the constant ow of email can increase employees’
workloads and lead employees to lose control over their work (Barley et al., 2011). Asyn-
chronous communication often promotes a need for multitasking and increases interrup-
tions and stress (Mark et al., 2012). Multitasking involves not only switching between
tasks but also switching between communication channels and communication partners
(Su & Mark, 2008). In line with the notion that job demands in general are associated
with ill-being (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), we assume that digital communication, when
experienced as a hindering demand, may be associated with technostress. Technostress is
a specic type of work stress, with symptoms such as high levels of anxiety, fatigue, skep-
ticism, and inefcacy associated with technology use (Salanova et al., 2014). On the basis
of previous ndings, it seems that in the context of digital communication, technostress
symptoms may appear, for example, when employees are forced to use digital communi-
cation channels although they prefer other channels, there are expectations of constant
availability, communication technology is difcult to use, and technologies are constantly
changing (c.f. Tarafdar et al., 2011). Taken together, using communication technologies
at work may have various implications for wellbeing, depending on whether digital com-
munication acts as a positive resource or a challenging or hindering demand.
Information ergonomics as an approach to managing
information load and technostress
Information ergonomics is an emerging domain of ergonomics focusing on the manage-
ment of workload and the handling of technostress in information-intensive tasks. Thus,
information ergonomics can be seen as an approach to support performance and wellbe-
ing at work in information-heavy work settings. The concept of information ergonomics
emerged in the 1960s from industrial engineering and logistics. Several studies (Eppler &
Mengis, 2004; Franssila et al., 2015; Mark et al., 2014; Wajcman & Rose, 2011) have
since reported the benets of an information environment tailored to the individual, rather
than the reverse. Franssila et al. (2015) provided the rst Nordic attempt to apply the con-
cept in a knowledge work context and to take the digital work environment into account.
Information ergonomics is a multifaceted phenomenon (Okkonen et al., 2017).
Technology-related issues of information ergonomics consider interaction with different

32 Communication in the Digital Work Environment Laura Bordi et al.
Figure 1: Components and perspectives of information ergonomics (Okkonen et al., 2017).
digital tools, systems, and information and communication channels. As depicted in
Fig. 1, conventions, habits, and individual skills affect how one positions oneself in
the digital environment and how the digital environment affects work performance.
Moreover, the role of technology in this context is dominant, as technology denes
the framework and functional boundaries. The infrastructure-related issues of informa-
tion ergonomics consider the socio-technological system to be somewhat manageable
through applications and instructions. The infrastructure consists of the physical and
digital environments, hardware and software, and intentions about the purposeful use
of these assets. Infrastructure affects ergonomics directly as technological restraint and
through social factors. The social factors of information ergonomics have a vicarious
effect, as they are the products of interplay between individuals in the digital environ-
ment. Social factors can be seen as socially constructed conventions and sets of explicit
and implicit contracts. Social factors and infrastructure are closely related, but a distinc-
tion should be made. Individual factors of information ergonomics are the most obscure
elements, and they are also variable. The (micro)actions and decisions of individuals
during their active hours are dependent on the nature of the task and the work environ-
ment. As knowledge work involves mostly managing and analyzing information, the
most signicant factor is the digital work environment.
Based on the analysis above, information ergonomics refers to how a user interacts
with the digital environment and is affected by the digital environment. Skills and habits
are crucial factors in the user experience; thus, user experience issues explain the function-
ality of the human–computer apparatus. As knowledge work involves gathering, analyz-
ing, and disseminating information and knowledge, the digital work environment is also
a tool for cooperation and communication. Communication is a signicant information
ergonomic factor in the digital work environment. As this paper addresses communication
as an explanatory factor of work performance and wellbeing at work, the information
ergonomics approach is well suited as an analysis framework for the digital work realm.
As explained in Fig. 1, communication-related issues are visible at the organizational level,
that is, technology, infrastructure, social, and individual. However, communication also
affects user experience, social dynamics, conventions, and habits. Several work tasks are
communication-related, and therefore, information ergonomics is a suitable lens.
The research questions we aim to answer in this article are as follows: How is com-
munication in the digital work environment associated with wellbeing at work? Which
factors in digital communication affect wellbeing at work, and how? In what kind of
digital communication environment are employees operating?

Nordic journal of working life studies Volume 8  Number S3  April 2018 33
Methods
Study design
The current study was part of a larger research project (n = 36) focusing on information
ergonomics. The project was mixed-method action research, which included question-
naires, psychophysiological measures [heart rate variability (HRV)], the collection of log
data, and workshop discussions. As is characteristic of action research, the participants
were not only informants but also active participants in the research process (Somekh,
2006). The empirical data used for this article consist only of the log data and workshop
discussions. However, participants were provided with the results of the questionnaires
and measures, which they could utilize as background information for the workshops.
The questionnaires covered the organizations’ general state of employee wellbeing and
information load, while the combined results of the log and HRV data provided infor-
mation on how activities in the digital work environment affect employees’ stress levels.
These data provided useful background information for the workshops, the ultimate
goal of which was to discuss issues regarding the digital work environment and wellbe-
ing at work and develop ways to enhance information ergonomics in the workplace.
Digital communication was one of the main recurring topics in the workshops, which
is why it was chosen as a topic for this study. The project was carried out and the data
were gathered between May 2015 and May 2016.
The novelty of the current study design stems from the fact that previous research
on digital communication has often been quantitative, focused on a single communica-
tion tool (especially email) or a single outcome of the use of communication technology
(e.g., multitasking). However, little is known about how a workplace’s digital communi-
cation landscape operates as a whole and its implications for wellbeing at work. In this
study, the log data were used to provide a general view of digital communication (e.g.,
tools used and time spent on digital communication), which provides a background for
the employees’ insights into digital communication and its effects on wellbeing at work
provided during the workshop discussions.
Participants
A total of 36 participants represented three organizations: an industrial company (n = 13),
an insurance company (n = 13), and a nancial administration services company (n = 10).
The organizations had been contacted by the researchers and invited to participate in the
study. Because the research project dealt with work in digital work environments and infor-
mation ergonomics, the criterion for participation was that the employees were, by broad
denition, knowledge workers. The participating employees were recruited through con-
tact persons in the organizations. Participants signed up voluntarily with the contact per-
son, and the contact person provided the nal participant list to the researchers. Before the
study, the participants were provided with further information and asked to give consent.
Thirty-four of the participants were women. All participants in the nancial
administration services company were women, while the insurance company and the
industrial company each had one male participant. The average age of the partici-
pants was 42.5 years. The industrial company participants mostly worked in nancial

34 Communication in the Digital Work Environment Laura Bordi et al.
administration and human resources. The insurance company participants were mostly
insurance claims handlers or customer advisors. In the nancial administration services
company, most of the participants worked in payroll. In each organization, at least one
participant worked in a managerial position.
Log data
The log data were gathered during workdays by utilizing the desktop logging applica-
tion ManicTime (manictime.com 2017). The aim for the logging was to gain insight
into workers’ actions, work patterns, and applications used. As the log data were from
the digital work environment, these data provide information about most tasks carried
out by the participants. As the application contained reporting features for non-active
sequences, the logging also accounted for breaks and other non-active sequences (e.g.,
meetings and telephone conversations). All participants were logged for one workday,
and the mean duration of the log data was 7 hours 13 minutes.
Workshop discussions
Three workshops were held at each organization on their respective premises. Not
all participants were able to attend all three workshops. The number of participants
in individual workshops varied from 7 to 13; the average number of workshop par-
ticipants was nine. The duration of each workshop was approximately 3 hours. The
authors facilitated the group discussions by providing questions and themes for the
participants to engage in. Participants were divided into two to three smaller groups
in which they discussed the topics. In the discussions, participants reected on the
results of the questionnaire, log, and HRV measures presented by the authors. The
participants discussed aspects of their work in the context of the digital work envi-
ronment and wellbeing at work and reected on how to reduce information load
and promote information ergonomics. General discussions with all participants were
also carried out to summarize the matters discussed. The facilitators were not present
for the small-group discussions; the participants had the opportunity to discuss mat-
ters freely with their colleagues. However, the facilitators engaged in the summary
discussions and could ask additional questions if needed. All group discussions were
recorded and transcribed. The duration of the recorded data was 17 hours 41 minutes,
and the length of the transcription 110,006 words.
Analysis
The log data analysis was automated by using certain scripts over the whole data set.
In addition, task switches and communication-related actions were extracted from the
data by manual classication. The outcome of the analysis was the time distribution
between different applications and as derived from the use of applications for the respec-
tive task types. For the purposes of this paper, the most signicant task type is the one
related to communication. Each participant was analyzed according to the duration and

Nordic journal of working life studies Volume 8  Number S3  April 2018 35
proportion of communication-related tasks. Communication-related tasks were dened
as the use of digital communication tools or channels.
Qualitative content analysis was applied to the workshop discussions. Content
analysis was chosen for its exibility in providing a data-driven approach for analyzing
discussions and highlighting the central themes without preconceived notions from the
sometimes scattered workshop data (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005).
The transcription of the discussions was read through. It became obvious after familiar-
ization with the transcript that digital communication was one of the main factors asso-
ciated with wellbeing in the digital work environment. After that, all the text covering
communication in the digital work environment was highlighted. The transcription was
read through again, and short notes to describe digital communication and its relation
to wellbeing at work were written next to the text. Then, similar issues in the notes were
identied, grouped together, and given descriptive preliminary names. Most issues came
up repeatedly; the issues that came up very seldom were checked to see if they t into
the broader themes already recognized, and they mostly did. Single utterances that did
not reoccur in the text and could not be placed in any of the emerging categories were
excluded. The emerging categories were checked for similarities and merged together
until six main themes were identied. The themes were the volume of digital commu-
nication, expectations of constant connectivity, the quality of the messages, adaptation
of new tools, technical problems and negative user experience, and exibility in com-
munication.
Results
The digital communication landscape
Based on the log data, the communication environment of the participants was rich,
providing them with several options for synchronous and asynchronous communication
both internally and externally. The participants conducted most internal communication
(except face-to-face) via digital channels. External communication was more restrained,
with the participants expected to use formal means of communication, such as ticketing
systems or team emails. However, the demand for practicality tended to overrule the
instructions, and the participants often arranged communication according to personal
preferences and habits.
The participants used various communication channels in their day-to-day work.
The typical channels used included email, IM, ticketing tools, telephone, and Inter-
net conference calls. Based on tracking and discussions, email was the main means of
communication, and in most cases, the volume was signicant. The average time spent
engaged in email amounted to 7% of the workday. When other communication chan-
nels were added, the percentage of digital communication-related activities increased
to 18%. Most of the other communication was through IM or a ticketing tool. When
all forms of communication that occur during working hours were included, 23% of
working time was spent on communication-related activities, such as emailing, messag-
ing, discussing, or engaging in meetings. The average duration that an email inbox was
open was 15 minutes, but taking all options into account, the participants engaged in
communication-related activity every 3 minutes, on average.

36 Communication in the Digital Work Environment Laura Bordi et al.
Perceptions of digital communication and its influence on
wellbeing at work
In the analysis of the workshop data, six themes emerged as the main digital commu-
nication factors affecting wellbeing at work. Five of the six themes constituted mostly
demanding aspects of digital communication, while only one theme mostly described
resources. The ve themes covering mostly demands were the volume of digital communi-
cation, expectations of constant connectivity, the quality of the messages, the adaptation
of new communication tools, and technical problems and negative user experiences. The
resource category covered aspects of exibility in communication. The six themes are
discussed in more detail below.
The remarks made by participants during workshop discussions are marked with
identiers that include the eld of the organization (e.g., insurance company), the par-
ticipant number (p), the discussion group number (g), and the workshop number (ws).
For example, the insurance company’s participant number 2 in discussion group 3 in
workshop 1 is identied as insurance company, p2, g3, ws1. The discussion group and
workshop identiers are provided because the assignment of participant numbers dif-
fered in each discussion group. In addition, participants could have different participant
and group numbers in different workshops.
The volume of digital communication
The volume of digital communication and its effect on wellbeing were mostly addressed
from two angles: the large quantity of messages and the variety of messages, which were
also intertwined. In the workshop discussions, the participants noted that the increase
in digital communication channels had made communications easier and thus increased
the amount of communication. They discussed how colleagues and clients were reluc-
tant to seek information themselves, because, for example, emailing or IM was perceived
to be an easier way to obtain an answer. This behavior increased the amount of digital
communication and the recipient’s workload. The amount of digital communication
was perceived to be extensive, especially the amount of email. The participants were
often required to manage several inboxes, as they used team/group emails in addition
to an individual work email. The team inboxes were described as extremely large and
difcult to manage, as determining the intended recipient could be difcult: ‘[T]here’s
starting to be so much volume. And there’s like ve percent of the volume that concerns
you’ (industrial company, p3, g2, ws2). In addition, multiple email addresses increased
the risk of messages being sent to the wrong address. Sometimes email messages became
lost in the process, and the sorting took extra time and caused delays, especially if the
misplaced email was important for a certain task.
In addition to the large quantity of email, the participants also mentioned the variety in
the messages. Inboxes were lled with everything from advertisements to highly important
information. A large portion of the mail was perceived to be irrelevant, and sometimes, it
did not concern the recipient at all, largely because the messages were often sent to many
recipients. The participants discussed how the employees and managers in their organiza-
tions often sent copies of email correspondence to a wide audience to reduce the chance of
people missing information they might need or in which they might be interested:

Nordic journal of working life studies Volume 8  Number S3  April 2018 37
One of the issues regarding email that we were discussing previously is that email is sent
in such large distribution. On the other hand, we want to distribute information easily to
many, because someone could be like ‘why didn’t I get the information about something’.
(insurance company, p2, g1, ws1)
However, the wide distribution of email usually generated even more unnecessary com-
munication as the recipients often responded in equally wide distribution. This caused
workow interruptions and hindered concentration on tasks:
If you have a tight schedule for some task and you’re concentrated and then email
comes that has many recipients, and everyone’s answering in turns and the answers
come to everyone. It’s distracting when it’s bouncing back and forth because you always
must check it in case there’s something important. (nancial administration services,
p3, g2, ws2)
The volume of email was perceived to be so high that for many it was impossible to
read everything. Some participants confessed to having thousands of unread messages:
‘I have over 3,700 unread messages in my inbox’ (industrial company, h3, g2, ws1). The
piling up of email made it difcult to identify truly important and urgent messages from
the less pressing ones. The participants felt perplexed about how to prevent important
email from getting buried under the constant ow of messages. The participants had
tried various methods for managing the incoming email, such as labeling and agging,
but with large quantities of messages, they often found it too bothersome. The par-
ticipants reported feelings of anxiety because of the constant ow of messages. They
often experienced the fear of missing something important and/or falling behind on their
tasks. Replying as soon as possible was mentioned as a common way of keeping up.
The participants said that they easily forgot about the messages if they did not respond
right away, which resulted in replying to messages in various places and even while not
at work:
With Outlook […], if you don’t do it right away, I don’t know about you, but I fear I’m
going to forget the thing, it gets buried because new [mail] is coming in all the time. Even
if you ag it or something, but […] how do you remember to come back to it? That’s why
you are checking it, and if there’s that kind [of mail] that you feel you can give a quick
response to, I get it done almost anywhere, I reply with my phone then. Then it’s done and
off the load. (industrial company, p3, g1, ws1)
The need to constantly keep up with the communication ow blurred the line between
work and leisure time. Some participants discussed how they cleared their email in the
evenings and weekends by replying to easier questions or deleting older mail. The par-
ticipants felt doing this helped them to manage their work-related communication load
and thus, their overall workload. However, checking email caused work to spill over into
leisure time. A participant stated, ‘One Sunday I had my work computer at home, and I
was deleting some old email that had no function anymore, because there’s like a thou-
sand of those’ (insurance company, p2, g2, ws2). Another participant said, ‘I had done
what I typically do at home: respond to email, pretty fast-paced, I put things forward’
(nancial administration services, p4, g1, ws1).

38 Communication in the Digital Work Environment Laura Bordi et al.
In addition to email, participants discussed the constant ow of instant messages.
Some participants said they often had multiple discussions open in IM at the same time:
I had an atypical day, because I didn’t have four or ve discussions going on in Skype
simultaneously. It’s pretty typical for me to have parts of the day when I have multiple con-
versations going on in there simultaneously. (nancial administration services, p1, g3, ws1)
Some participants confessed they used IM even during meetings, which resulted in mul-
titasking and dividing their attention among multiple separate discussions. The partici-
pants also stated that the communication coming through various channels sometimes
overlapped; for example, the same information was sent via email and IM. The partici-
pants noted that there was a lack of shared practices for which communication channels
to use and how to best use them. This resulted in the overlapping use of communication
channels and increased the communication load.
Expectations of constant connectivity
Discussions about expectations of constant connectivity mostly covered two categories of
expectation, explicit and implicit. Explicit expectations had to do with, for example, set
response times and digital communication being a medium for assigning tasks. Implicit
expectations, in contrast, were less direct and had to do with subtle or not-so-subtle ways
of communicating the expectation of connectivity or a quick response.
Participants stated that the increase in digital communication had expanded the
expectations for constant connectivity in their work. They felt strong pressure to be
available and respond immediately. For some, email was the main medium for task
assignment, and therefore, they were obliged to check it all the time. As one participant
put it, ‘For me, [email] is always the starting point of all work. Every request comes
there. If I’m not checking it, I’m kind of not even at work then because it’s for every-
thing’ (industrial company, p2, g3, ws1).
The participants discussed how they had a responsibility to actively monitor email.
In every organization, tasks required checking email. The participants who constantly
checked their email described it as stress-inducing. Most of the participants noted that
it was difcult for them to control when they were reading email; they mostly felt the
need to check the messages as soon as the mail arrived because there could be an urgent
request or essential information for work tasks:
Outlook is […] the environment in which we spend most of our workday. We were dis-
cussing if it’d be possible to check email in batches, because our observation was that,
apparently, we are checking it steadily and pretty often throughout the day, so would it be
possible to check it for example once an hour. The trouble we found with that is that some-
times the messages we get are urgent and there’s this expectation that they get answered
right away. (industrial company, p1, g1, ws1)
Constantly checking email frequently interrupted and fragmented tasks. The partici-
pants also noted that the interruptions made it difcult to concentrate. The interruptions
could also disturb schedules and make it difcult to control one’s work. However, the

Nordic journal of working life studies Volume 8  Number S3  April 2018 39
participants who worked in managerial or specialized expert positions had more control
over when they were available. Some stated that they could block almost all commu-
nications if they were working with something that required their undivided attention,
and that people in their organization usually respected this decision. In contrast, the
employees who worked in direct customer service had practically no control over when
they were available. The participants described the constant connectivity in customer
service as very stressful; the situation was worst for employees who were required to be
available through various communication tools at the same time:
In a perfect world, you could do one task at a time. You wouldn’t have to be on the phone
and then there’s chat, or you have unnished email, and the chat’s going on. You could
concentrate on one thing, nish it at once, and start a new one. (insurance company,
p1, g2, ws1)
The customer service employees usually had strictly set priorities and response times.
For example, the insurance company employees were required to respond to customer
chat messages within 15 seconds. During busy periods, participants found this exhaust-
ing, especially if only a few employees were working during the shift.
In addition to performing tasks that required constant connectivity, the participants
felt an implicit pressure to react immediately. They perceived constant connectivity to
be a part of that organizational culture. The pressure was often enforced by consecutive
communication if the recipient did not reply immediately. For example, an email could
soon be followed by an IM or telephone call: ‘If you haven’t replied in half an hour,
someone will chat’ (industrial company, p3, g2, ws1). The participants also noted that
people were often used to being served right away, and this habit increased the pressure
for employees to be available:
The [sales] representatives and such contact us quite a lot through Lync because they want
[to get in touch] fast. And you pretty much have to check the email all the time because if
you haven’t responded to the representative in an hour, they are coming to you through
the lines. Because […] they want and are used to being served right away and not in ten
minutes. (insurance company, p7, g2, ws1)
The pressure to respond immediately was also communicated by marking messages as
urgent. However, messages that were not as pressing were also marked as urgent: ‘It’s
not always taken into consideration if it’s actually urgent. Because usually they’re not
really urgent matters’ (nancial administration services, p2, g1, ws1). In some organiza-
tions, marking messages as urgent had already become meaningless. In the industrial
company, there was a new category for truly pressing matters: ‘Nowadays, tickets are no
longer urgent; they’re super urgent if they need to be handled immediately. The scale’s
shifting, apparently’ (industrial company, p3, g2, ws1).
In the workshops, the participants also revealed that their need for uninterrupted
work was often not respected. Instant messages in particular were sent even when the
participants had marked their status as busy, and the employees were, for example, on
the phone or in a meeting: ‘If you’re on red, yellow, anything, people don’t respect that.
Even if it says “in a meeting” or something’ (insurance company, p1, g3, ws1). The par-
ticipants often found this lack of respect highly irritating. They said it took them more

40 Communication in the Digital Work Environment Laura Bordi et al.
time to complete tasks if they were interrupted, and interruptions also increased the risk
of mistakes:
The possibility of errors increases so much […] compared to when you’re away from the
line for a while. Ok, there may be some client waiting, but you’re doing the task at once,
it takes you a certain amount of time compared to when you have to interrupt it and start
again. That takes a lot more time […]; it basically doubles the work. (insurance company,
p1, g3, ws1)
In addition to implicit pressure, some participants wondered whether constantly check-
ing messages was related to personal preferences. Some said they were intrigued to see
what was in the mail and wondered whether they had the self-discipline to refrain from
constantly checking their email. Some also speculated that they were being too con-
siderate and providing too good a service by replying right away, suggesting that they
might be promoting the expectation of constant connectivity: ‘At least for me, one thing
regarding the managing of email is that I’m too kind. And because it’s usually a client-
related message, I react a bit too swiftly’ (insurance company, p1, g1, ws1). However,
the participants also noted that if they did not answer immediately, the lack of response
generated even more communication and thus, increased the employees’ workload.
The quality of messages
The discussions on the quality of messages mainly focused on messages that the par-
ticipants perceived to be poorly constructed. This discussion primarily addressed two
aspects of message content: inadequate information and etiquette. The participants dis-
cussed the impact of the quality of messages on their work. The discussions most often
concerned email and tickets sent through ticketing tools. The participants stated that the
messages were, at times, insufcient or open to multiple interpretations. The messages
could lack crucial information or be poorly constructed, such that even determining the
point of the message was difcult. The messages often demanded action from the recipi-
ent, which was not possible with the inadequate information received. The difculty
in proceeding with the matter generated more communication, as the recipient had to
contact the sender to ask for more information:
Some say it in thousand words and some in too few, what is the problem and what they
want. Or, depending on the other person’s communication skills, you either have to ask
for more [information] or otherwise use your time guring out what they want. (industrial
company, p1, g3, ws1)
Inadequate information in the message often resulted in longer communication chains as
employees sent follow-up messages to obtain all pertinent information. The participants
perceived inadequate information increased their workload and induced stress. However,
they perceived clearly constructed messages that included all necessary information as
streamlining the work: ‘All the information correctly and clearly; that way you don’t have
to ask additional questions, you get it done at once’ (nancial administration services,
p3, g1, ws2).

Nordic journal of working life studies Volume 8  Number S3  April 2018 41
The participants wondered if the reasons for the poor quality of messages was that
the messages were often read and written in a hurry. The participants also mentioned
that some of the clients were not procient in digital communication. Sometimes, the
participants also thought the poor quality was due to a lack of manners. This lack of
etiquette manifested, for example, in the use of excessive effects, such as writing in all
caps (i.e., yelling) or using exclamation points and bold text: ‘It’s about etiquette, the
use of the freaking exclamation points and all caps; you’re like yelling in the messages’
(industrial company, p2, g1, ws2). This behavior resulted in a loss of meaning, and the
participants perceived it as annoying and sometimes even insulting.
Adaptation of new communication tools
In the workshops, the participants talked about the frequent need to adapt to new digi-
tal tools. The discussions were mostly divided into two aspects: the often inadequate
resources for learning new technology and the increased workload caused by the addi-
tion of new tools. These new tools, intended to facilitate digital communication, were
usually quite complex, such as collaboration tools that provided features for commu-
nicating and sharing but also for other purposes. Many felt pressure to keep up to date
on new technologies but perceived the training to be lacking in their organizations. The
participants often felt that they were left to their own devices when it came to learning
new tools:
IT and SharePoints and such, the thing is that if we want to use them, there should be
resources for the team and will from the management. And seriously, the calendar should
be cleared, so that you have time to familiarize yourself. […] I’m not staying here in the
evening thinking about some SharePoint, what’s SharePoint. First I Google ‘what’s Share-
Point’, and then I look at the IT pages [to see] if there are some instructions. Though I
guess that’s how it’s supposed to be done. (industrial company, p5, g1, ws3)
The participants revealed that although instructions and training might be available in
their organizations, no time was allotted. This lack of scheduling was perceived to be
problematic, as the participants felt that they could not nd the time needed for training.
Thus, they tried to balance the, at times, contradictory-seeming needs of taking the time
to learn new technology and performing their basic tasks. The participants found that
trying to schedule training in the middle of all their other tasks was difcult and burden-
some, and for some, it even induced feelings of guilt, as taking time for training meant
that they left other tasks unattended:
Somehow, we could think […] if we could take some study time, you would be allowed
to put it in your calendar, you could arrange in your own group that there’s a study hour.
Because as soon as you take yourself away from the lines and you’re not handling the
mail, you get a feeling like… (insurance company, p1, g1, ws3) Yeah, like, ‘I’m not making
results, I’m not making decisions.’ (insurance company, p4, g1, ws3)
The new communication tools were usually intended to replace email in certain cases.
Although the participants liked the idea of receiving less email, they also pointed out

42 Communication in the Digital Work Environment Laura Bordi et al.
that the new tools had no real benet for them if they resulted in a similar or even larger
workload:
The training and informing and supporting of a new practice, in the end we’re talking
about the same amount of work as if you handled it through email. So kind of, recogniz-
ing in what cases a tool could add genuine benet, I think that’s the challenge. (industrial
company, p2, g1, ws3)
Some felt that they already had so many communication channels in use and such a large
volume of messages that they had no capacity to add a new one: ‘If at this moment you
have trouble even having time to read the team inbox, so…’ (industrial company, p2, g2,
ws3). Participants also mentioned that adapting new communication tools required that
the whole team be dedicated to learning and using the new tool, which often took more
time and effort than sticking with familiar ones.
Technical problems and negative user experience
In the workshops, the participants described regularly encountering communication-
related technical problems. The participants stressed the importance of functioning
tools, as digital communication was an integral part of their daily work:
We both listed that Skype should work more reliably. It’s such an important tool for us and
there are at times challenges […], there’s some reason why it isn’t always hundred percent
foolproof. And then there are a lot of Skype meetings going on at the same time. So it’s the
kind of program that should denitely work when you need it. (nancial administration
services, p4, g1, ws1)
Application and network problems sometimes impeded digital communication. The par-
ticipants reported experiencing delays in their work because of problems with communica-
tion tools. The delays caused by technical problems usually resulted in increased workloads
after the tools started working again. At times, technical problems also prevented clients
from getting in touch, which impeded customer service. In addition to causing delays,
problems with communication tools could result in angry communication from clients:
We’ve had network problems quite a bit, and we’re dependent on all the systems […] then
if they don’t work […] it frustrates and at least for me is a pretty hard stress-inducer. […]
And also you’re just waiting when the clients come through the phone and are yelling and
raging because nothing works. (insurance company, p1, g2, ws1)
In addition to the reliability problems with networks and communication tools, partici-
pants discussed the lack of user-friendliness of some communication tools:
We were talking about our [ticketing tool], how it’s so rigid. And it’s also a bit unclear how
it looks to the customer when I’m answering a ticket […] It’s really messy and inexible,
the whole system. (nancial administration services, p2, g1, ws1)

Nordic journal of working life studies Volume 8  Number S3  April 2018 43
The participants perceived some of the communication tools were insufcient for their
intended purpose. The tools could be difcult to use, or they could lack the functional-
ities the participants perceived to be desirable. The participants thought these problems
made work less efcient, and they caused frustration.
Flexibility in communication
The main positive attribute of digital communication described by the workshop partici-
pants was the exibility it provided in their work. Flexibility was mainly discussed in the
context of time, place, and situation or task. In addition to describing the downsides of
digital communication, participants stated their belief that asynchronous communication
was a big improvement over more traditional communication channels, especially the
telephone. Participants mentioned telephone calls as the worst form of interruption, and
for the most part, participants perceived the decreased number of phone calls positively.
The participants noted that asynchronous communication was easier to manage. Even
with the pressure to answer immediately, the participants felt that asynchronous com-
munication, such as email and ticketing tools, provided them a better opportunity to
decide when they were going to engage in communication activities: ‘When it comes to
time management, especially with email, […] you’re more of the master if you want to be’
(industrial company, p3, g3, ws1). Another stated, ‘Our [ticketing tool] makes it possible
to plan like, okay, I’m not going to answer those today, I’ll answer them tomorrow if the
schedule allows’ (nancial administration services, p2, g1, ws2).
However, the participants also stated that some problems would be easier to resolve
on the phone. A short phone call could answer a question that would require a long
email chain to resolve:
The choice of a communication tool, like if you get a question in Lync or email, sometimes
[…] it’s better to just call. It takes couple of minutes, and the case is sorted, as opposed
to when you often just write and write, and there’s no end to it. (insurance company,
p3, g1, ws1)
The participants also discussed their preference for variety in their communication chan-
nels. Some had established practices of what communication tools they used for what
purposes. Participants preferred IM when they needed to ask something quickly: ‘Some-
times, for example, if you’re on a Lync meeting, and during the meeting you have to
conrm something, then you can IM someone else’ (insurance company, p2, g1, ws1).
The participants also described using different communication tools exibly in
chains; a case could be initiated quickly through IM, then the parties could work on
their own, and later, they could follow up through email. Participants preferred email
for more signicant matters, as the messages themselves functioned as documentation:
‘[I] often use email to do summaries, as it leaves a document’ (insurance company, p1,
g1, ws1). The ease of documentation was mentioned as a simplifying feature in digital
communication.
The participants noted that digital communication had made remote work pos-
sible, as the employees could access their email accounts almost anywhere with their
phones. Teleconferencing also made it possible to attend meetings from home. However,

44 Communication in the Digital Work Environment Laura Bordi et al.
the participants stated that they usually tried to attend meetings in person, as they val-
ued face-to-face interaction, and they preferred to do more solitary work when they
worked remotely: ‘For me as a rule, if I have a meeting in my schedule, I’m not working
remotely, even if I know that I can participate through Lync’ (industrial company, p4,
g2, ws2). Interestingly, although participants often found multitasking was burdensome,
some stated that they liked to attend remote meetings and trainings because remote
attendance made it possible to do other tasks simultaneously: ‘What’s good about [Lync]
is that if there’s some […] good-to-know type of training, then I can listen and do other
work on the side’ (insurance company, p1, g1, ws1). This type of self-induced multitask-
ing was not viewed negatively, while multitasking inicted by an outside source was.
Discussion and Conclusions
The present study aimed to investigate the ways digital communication is associated
with wellbeing at work. The study provides a novel contribution to the literature, as it
adds to the limited number of studies focused on the digital communication environ-
ment as a broad phenomenon and provides a qualitative approach to the subject matter,
whereas quantitative approaches have dominated in previous studies.
The results from the log data indicate a broad digital landscape with a large num-
ber of communication activities. A distinctive characteristic of the communication land-
scape was that most activities took place in digital form, such as through email, IM, or
other digital means. The ndings are in line with those of previous studies, which have
also shown that the amount of communication has increased, and that, for example, the
diversity of tasks has increased communication (see e.g. Mark et al., 2014; Okkonen
et al., 2017). Understood in the context of previous studies, the present ndings support
the notion that employees work with multiple technologies at the same time and need to
integrate and combine them effectively. Therefore, future studies should also investigate
broad landscapes holistically rather than focusing on the use of single technologies.
In the analysis of the workshop discussions, it became obvious that digital com-
munication affects wellbeing in various ways. Six themes were identied as the main
factors of digital communication associated with wellbeing at work. The themes mostly
represented demanding aspects. Only one theme, exibility in communication, mostly
highlighted digital communication as a resource that support employee wellbeing. This
nding is in line with the ndings of Stich et al. (2015), who identied four demands
associated with ICT: response expectations, constant availability, increased workload,
and poor communication.
The participants considered the volume of digital communication one of the most
demanding aspects. This aspect included, for example, the problems of managing a large
number of messages and maintaining multiple communication channels. To manage the
amount of digital communication, the participants, for example, checked email after
work. This result is in line with the results of previous studies (Barley et al., 2011; Brown
et al., 2014; Diaz et al., 2012), which showed that a large quantity of digital commu-
nication is exhausting and often spills over from work to nonwork hours. This kind of
spillover can be highly problematic, as it may induce unpaid overtime, impede recovery,
and cause work–life conict, which hinders employees’ ability to detach from work and
takes time away from nonwork activities.

Nordic journal of working life studies Volume 8  Number S3  April 2018 45
The participants also perceived expectations of constant connectivity as demanding.
Constant connectivity included communication channels functioning as tools for task
distribution, thus requiring constant monitoring and inducing a pressure to reply imme-
diately. Previous research does not explicitly describe digital communication as a tool for
task assignment, which the participants mentioned repeatedly. However, it has been noted
that digital communication is an integral component of knowledge work, and the ow of
digital communication cannot be separated from the workow in general (Wajcman &
Rose, 2011). In addition, the expectation of availability and the implicit pressure to reply
immediately brought up in this study have also been recognized as taxing features in pre-
vious studies (Barber & Santuzzi, 2015; Barley et al., 2011; Brown et al., 2014; Wajcman
& Rose, 2011). This study, along with previous studies, shows that the expectation of
constant connectivity has multifold effects on the workow and wellbeing of employees
and that the demanding aspects of digital communication are interconnected and cannot
be understood separately. For example, some of the previous studies identied the pres-
sure to reply quickly as the reason for work–nonwork conict (e.g., Barber & Santuzzi,
2015), but in this study, the participants mainly discussed the spillover in the context of
the large number of messages. However, this does not rule out the implicit expectations
that may also lead this study’s participants to check messages during nonwork hours.
The quality of messages had a negative effect on wellbeing, especially if the messages
had inadequate information, which the participants perceived as increasing their workload.
In addition, participants found messages that were poorly constructed or lled with effects
frustrating. Previous studies (Brown et al., 2014; Day et al., 2010) also showed that digital
communication quality (e.g., emotional or ambiguous content) may affect wellbeing at
work. However, the main nding of this study regarding message quality—that inadequate
information received in asynchronous communication generated more communication and
increased workload—seems not to have occurred in other studies, although the notion of
email ambiguity (Brown et al., 2014) may in part describes the same phenomenon.
Participants perceived that the adaptation of new communication technology often
hindered wellbeing, as they perceived that the training provided was inadequate, and
there was no time allocated for learning. This made it difcult to take time away from
other tasks to learn new technology and even induced feelings of guilt when either the
training or other tasks were left uncompleted. Previous research (Day et al., 2010; Sala-
nova et al., 2014) also showed that the constant need to learn new technologies may
increase work demands, anxiety, and stress. The situation is, in some ways, discordant,
as new technologies are often intended to streamline communication ow (e.g., by
reducing the amount of email). However, if employees are left to their own devices and
the new tools are not introduced properly, they may simply add to the demands of an
already complex digital work environment.
Participants also perceived that problems and negative user experiences with commu-
nication tools had negative effects on workow. These problems included network prob-
lems hindering the use of communication tools and the tools’ lack of user-friendliness.
Previous research has shown that ICT problems, such as malfunctions and incompatible
tools, induce strain (Day et al., 2010; Tarafdar et al., 2011). As digital communication
constituted an integral part of the study participants’ workow, it seems self-evident that
they brought up the technical aspect during the discussions. However, the participants
mentioned the impact of technology functionality on wellbeing with considerably less fre-
quency and emphasis than the impact of the volume of communication, expectations of

46 Communication in the Digital Work Environment Laura Bordi et al.
connectivity, and message quality. This may indicate that the participants found that tech-
nology- and infrastructure-related factors were mostly sufcient and that the demand-
ing aspects associated with digital communication were not due to the communication
technology in itself but to the social factors related to digital communication, such as the
organizations’ and work teams’ conventions and practices.
The one theme focusing mainly on resources supporting wellbeing at work was ex-
ibility in communication, such as having different tools for different purposes, the pos-
sibility of scheduling communication activities, and the opportunity for remote work.
Previous researchers (Barley et al., 2011; Day et al., 2010; Diaz et al., 2012; Mano &
Mesch, 2010) also showed that digital communication can provide exibility but is also
a burden. In this study, even with the perceived expectations of constant connectivity, the
participants mostly preferred asynchronous communication because it provided them
more ability to control and schedule the communication ow. In addition, the participants
perceived possibility of remote work positively. When the participants saw exibility in
communication as supporting wellbeing, it mostly seemed to be related to an increased
sense of control and autonomy over one’s work. This perception indicates that although
overwhelming associations of exibility in digital communication (e.g., continuous ow
of messages) may decrease employees’ sense of control, exibility can also help increase
employees’ control and autonomy, depending on the workplace’s rules and practices.
The ndings suggest that the demanding aspects of digital communication were more
dominant. This nding is in line with the large body of research suggesting that users can
experience ICT as demanding and stressful (e.g., Salanova et al., 2013, 2014; Tarafdar
et al., 2011). There are many possible explanations for this nding. First, the current
trend of digitalization may be translated into practice as a demand for the constant
integration of new technology, which users typically experience as stressful (c.f. Tarafdar
et al., 2011). Second, the data collection context may have inuenced the results, as the
aim of the project was to develop information ergonomics, not to simply collect data
about the current state of affairs. This context made it more likely that participants
would discuss problems that they felt needed to be xed. Negativity bias, the common
tendency to focus more on negative issues, may also explain the results in part (Rozin &
Royzman, 2001). In addition, although the atmosphere of the discussion groups was con-
structive and open, the fact that the groups were organized at the workplaces likely inu-
enced how the discussions proceeded. For example, experiences of demanding aspects
of work can be quite personal, and employees want to present themselves as good and
competent workers. Therefore, at least some social desirability bias might have appeared.
The practical implications of the study stem from its main ndings—namely, that
digital communication can function as a job demand or a job resource. The demanding
aspects of digital communication can be either hindering or challenging, with varying
implications for wellbeing at work. In general, it seems that digital communication acts
as a resource when it increases a sense of control and autonomy over one’s work. On the
other hand, overwhelming and control-reducing aspects of digital communication seem
to act as demands hindering wellbeing. Reecting on the ndings in terms of the previ-
ous discussion on information ergonomics, social factors seem to stand out more than
other aspects of information ergonomics concerning digital communication and wellbe-
ing at work. While some technology- and infrastructure-related factors came up, they
did not seem to play as integral a role as social conventions and practices did. It could
either be that technology- and infrastructure-related factors were found to be mostly

Nordic journal of working life studies Volume 8  Number S3  April 2018 47
sufcient, or that these matters were seen as aspects that are out of the employees’
control, and because of that they are not discussed in as much nuance or detail. Some
individual-level aspects were also brought up, but they were still mostly connected to
social aspects of information ergonomics—for example, how to manage one’s workow
in certain types of organizational communication culture. In summary, it seems that
social factors, such as organizational and team-level practices, have an important effect
on communication-related wellbeing. The ways in which digital communication affect
wellbeing at work often seem to be tied to these practices, which indicates that from the
perspective of enhancing digital communication-related working conditions and wellbe-
ing at work, greater leverage can be gained by developing well-communicated standard
operating practices and conventions in the workplace.
References
Bakker, A. B. & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: state of the art, Journal of
Managerial Psychology 22(3): 309–328. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115.
Barber, L. K. & Santuzzi, A. M. (2015). Please respond ASAP: workplace telepressure and em-
ployee recovery, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 20(2): 172–189. doi: https://
doi.org/ 10.1037/a0038278.
Barley, S. R., Meyerson, D. E. & Grodal, S. (2011). Email as a source and symbol of stress,
Organization Science 22(4): 887–906. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0573.
Brown, R., Duck, J. & Jimmieson, N. (2014). E-mail in the workplace: the role of stress
appraisals and normative response pressure in the relationship between e-mail stressors
and employee strain, International Journal of Stress Management 21(4): 325–347. doi:
https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0037464.
Day, A., Scott, N. & Kelloway, E. K. (2010). Information and communication technology: im-
plications for job stress and employee well-being, in P. L. Perrewé & D. C. Ganster (Eds.)
New Developments in Theoretical and Conceptual Approaches to Job Stress: 317–350,
Emerald. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/s1479-3555(2010)0000008011.
Demerouti, E., Derks, D., Lieke, L. & Bakker, A. B. (2014). New ways of working: Impact
on working conditions, work–family balance, and well-being, in C. Korunka & P. Hoo-
nakker (Eds.) The Impact of ICT on Quality of Working Life: 123–141, Dordrecht:
Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8854-0_8.
Diaz, I., Chiaburu, D. S., Zimmerman, R. D. & Boswell, W. R. (2012). Communication tech-
nology: pros and cons of constant connection to work, Journal of Vocational Behavior
80(2): 500–508. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.08.007.
Elo, S. & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process, Journal of Advanced
Nursing 62(1): 107–115. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.
Eppler, M. J. & Mengis, J. (2004). The concept of information overload. A review of litera-
ture from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS and related disciplines, The
Information Society 20(5): 325–344. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240490507974.
Franssila, H., Okkonen, J. & Savolainen, R. (2016). Developing measures for information
ergonomics in knowledge work, Ergonomics 59(3): 435–448. doi: https://doi.org/10.108
0/00140139.2015.1073795.
Hasle, P. & Sørensen, O. (2013). Employees as individually and collectively acting subjects
- key contributions from Nordic working life research, Nordic Journal of Working Life
Studies 3(3): 9–30.
Hoonakker, P. (2014). Information and communication technology and quality of work-
ing life: Backgrounds, facts and gures, in C. Korunka & P. Hoonakker (Eds.) The

48 Communication in the Digital Work Environment Laura Bordi et al.
Impact of ICT on Quality of Working Life: 9–23. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-94-017-8854-0_8.
Hsien, H. F. & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis, Qualita-
tive Health Research 15(9): 1277–1288. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.
Mano, R. S. & Mesch, G. S. (2010). E-mail characteristics, work performance and dis-
tress, Computers in Human Behavior 26(1): 61–69. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2009.08.005.
Mark, G., Iqbal, S. T., Czerwinski, M. & Johns, P. (2014). Bored Mondays and focused after-
noons: the rhythm of attention and online activity in the workplace, CHI’14 Proceedings
of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: 3025–3034. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557204.
Mark, G., Voida, S. & Cardello, A. V. (2012). ‘A pace not dictated by electrons’: an empirical
study of work without email, CHI’12 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems: 555–564. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207754.
Okkonen, J., Heimonen, T., Savolainen, R. & Turunen, M. (2017). Assessing Information Er-
gonomics in Work by Logging and Heart Rate Variability, Proceedings of the AHFE2017
International Conference on Usability and User Experience: 425–436. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-60492-3_41.
Orsila, R., Luukkaala, T., Manka, M. L. & Nygård, C.-H. (2011). A new approach to meas-
uring work-related well-being, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergo-
nomics 17(4): 341–359. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2011.11076900.
Rozin, P. & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion,
Personality and Social Psychology Review 5(4): 296–320. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327957pspr0504_2.
Salanova, M., Llorens, S. & Cifre, E. (2013). The dark side of technologies: Technostress
among users of information and communication technologies. International Journal of
Psychology 48(3): 422–436. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.680460.
Salanova, M., Llorens, S. & Ventura, M. (2014). Technostress: the dark side of technologies,
in C. Korunka & P. Hoonakker (Eds.) The Impact of ICT on Quality of Working Life:
123–141, Dordrecht: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8854-0_8.
Schaufeli, W. B. & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study, Journal of Organizational Behavior
25(3): 293–315. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248.
Schaufeli W. B. & Taris T. W. (2014). A critical review of the job demands-resources model:
implications for improving work and health, in G. F Bauer & O. Hämmig (Eds.), Bridging
Occupational, Organizational and Public Health – A Transdisciplinary Approach: 43–68.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Somekh, B. (2006). Action Research: A Methodology for Change and Development, Maiden-
head: Open University Press.
Stich, J. F., Farley, S., Cooper, C. & Tarafdar, M. (2015). Information and communica-
tion technology demands: outcomes and interventions, Journal of Organizational Ef-
fectiveness: People and Performance 2(4): 327–345. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/
JOEPP-09-2015-0031.
Su, N. M. & Mark, G. (2008). Communication chains and multitasking, CHI’08 Proceedings
of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: 83–92. doi: https://
doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357069.
Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, T. S. & Ragu-Nathan, B. S. (2011). Crossing to the dark
side: examining creators, outcomes, and inhibitors of technostress, Communications of
the ACM 54(9): 113–120. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1995376.1995403.
Wajcman, J. & Rose, E. (2011). Constant connectivity: rethinking interruptions at work,
Organization Studies 32(7): 941–961. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611410829.