ArticlePDF Available

It is Monday again: Weekend sleep differentially relates to the workweek via reattachment on Monday

March 2024
Journal of Organizational Behavior 45(6)

DOI:10.1002/job.2788

License
CC BY 4.0

Authors:

Jette Völker

University of Mannheim

Monika Wiegelmann

University of Mannheim

Theresa J. S. Koch

University of Vienna

Sabine Sonnentag

University of Mannheim

The weekend constitutes an important recovery period for employees. However, psychologically reattaching to work on Monday can be difficult because employees must transition from their private to their work role. Building on boundary theory and integrating a sleep and circadian perspective, we shed light on this transition by investigating antecedents and outcomes of Monday reattachment. We propose that three weekend sleep characteristics differentially relate to reattachment on Monday: weekend sleep quality, catch-up sleep (extended sleep duration on the weekend), and social sleep lag (differences in sleep times workweek vs. weekend). Successful reattachment on Monday should, in turn, be related to lower levels of exhaustion and higher task performance during the workweek. We conducted a weekly diary study with 310 employees (933 weeks) over four workweeks. Two-level path models demonstrated that higher weekend sleep quality was indirectly related to lower levels of workweek exhaustion via higher levels of Monday reattachment. In contrast, higher catch-up sleep was related to higher levels of workweek exhaustion via lower levels of Monday reattachment. Accordingly, we demonstrate that Monday reattachment can set the tone for the entire workweek, but the capability to reattach can depend on weekend sleep as a core recovery process.

Content uploaded by Jette Völker

Content may be subject to copyright.

RESEARCH ARTICLE

It is Monday again: Weekend sleep differentially relates to the

workweek via reattachment on Monday

Jette Völker

| Monika Wiegelmann

1,2

| Theresa J. S. Koch

1,3

Sabine Sonnentag

Department of Psychology, University of

Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

Boston Consulting Group, Munich, Germany

Department of Clinical and Health

Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna,

Austria

Correspondence

Jette Völker, Work and Organizational

Psychology, Department of Psychology,

University of Mannheim, A5 6 –C108,

D-68159 Mannheim, Germany.

Email: jette.voelker@uni-mannheim.de

Funding information

No funding was received for this research.

Summary

The weekend constitutes an important recovery period for employees. However,

psychologically reattaching to work on Monday can be difficult because employees

must transition from their private to their work role. Building on boundary theory

and integrating a sleep and circadian perspective, we shed light on this transition by

investigating antecedents and outcomes of Monday reattachment. We propose that

three weekend sleep characteristics differentially relate to reattachment on Monday:

weekend sleep quality, catch-up sleep (extended sleep duration on the weekend),

and social sleep lag (differences in sleep times workweek vs. weekend). Successful

reattachment on Monday should, in turn, be related to lower levels of exhaustion and

higher task performance during the workweek. We conducted a weekly diary study

with 310 employees (933 weeks) over four workweeks. Two-level path models

demonstrated that higher weekend sleep quality was indirectly related to lower levels

of workweek exhaustion via higher levels of Monday reattachment. In contrast,

higher catch-up sleep was related to higher levels of workweek exhaustion via lower

levels of Monday reattachment. Accordingly, we demonstrate that Monday

reattachment can set the tone for the entire workweek, but the capability to reattach

can depend on weekend sleep as a core recovery process.

KEYWORDS

exhaustion, micro-role transition, reattachment, sleep, task performance

1|INTRODUCTION

Monday is likely at the top of the list when thinking of unpopular days

of the week. While the weekend offers 2 days of leisure and thereby

constitutes a central opportunity for employee recovery (Fritz,

Sonnentag, et al., 2010), returning to work on Monday implies

refocusing on work with all its joys and sorrows. Not surprisingly,

employees' mood hits bottom on Monday—the infamous Blue

Monday effect (Hülsheger et al., 2022; Weigelt et al., 2021). From a

psychological perspective, readjusting to work on Monday can be

challenging because the transition from the weekend to the work-

week constitutes a micro-role transition (Ashforth et al., 2000). During

this micro-role transition, employees must shift their focus from their

private role during the weekend to their work role during the

workweek. Psychological reattachment describes such a transition

experience when employees mentally reconnect to work, for example,

Two changes in affiliation occurred since this research was conducted: Monika Wiegelmann

now works at the Boston Consulting Group, Germany, and Theresa J. S. Koch now works at

the University of Vienna, Austria.

Received: 11 April 2023 Revised: 15 January 2024 Accepted: 8 March 2024

DOI: 10.1002/job.2788

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,

provided the original work is properly cited.

J Organ Behav. 2024;1–18. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 1

by reflecting on work and thinking about work-related goals before

actually starting work (Sonnentag & Kühnel, 2016).

While research has emphasized that switching off from work

during the weekend is relevant for employees' well-being and

organizational behavior (Fritz, Sonnentag, et al., 2010; Steed

et al., 2021), we know little about how effectively tuning into work on

Monday (i.e., reattachment) can relate to the entire workweek in

terms of well-being and job performance. Previous research has

centered around day-level reattachment, demonstrating that morning

reattachment can shape daily behavior and experiences (Fritz

et al., 2021; Sonnentag et al., 2020; Sonnentag & Kühnel, 2016).

Building on these results, researchers have acknowledged that reat-

tachment also matters after extended nonwork periods (e.g., during

the COVID-19 pandemic, Yuan et al., 2021). However, even though

the common week schedule forces employees to transition from their

private to their work role every Monday, the way in which Monday

reattachment shapes the following workweek remains unclear.

At the same time, understanding the preconditions of Monday

reattachment is crucial to enable employees to master the transition

from the weekend to the workweek effectively. As a fundamental

recovery process, sleep during the weekend can relate to how

employees reattach to their work on Monday. While organizational

research has started to acknowledge the relevance of sleep quality for

work (Litwiller et al., 2017), the timing and consistency of sleep also

largely affect humans' health and well-being (Chaput et al., 2020;

Leger et al., 2020). Thus, to portray sleep as the multi-faceted experi-

ence it is, we draw upon circadian research (Borbély, 1982; Borbély

et al., 2016) and disentangle the unique roles of different weekend

sleep characteristics for the reattachment process.

Accordingly, combining the tenets of boundary theory (Ashforth

et al., 2000) with a circadian perspective and sleep research

(Borbély, 1982; Borbély et al., 2016; Mullins et al., 2014), this study

focuses on weekly antecedents and outcomes of Monday reattach-

ment. We investigate how three weekend sleep characteristics

differentially shape how employees reattach to work on Monday. On

the one hand, high-quality sleep during the weekend might enable

employees to restore energetic and cognitive resources (Leong &

Chee, 2023) that can be used to effectively reattach to work on

Monday. On the other hand, sleep inconsistency in terms of sleeping

longer during the weekend (catch-up sleep) and at different times

than during the workweek (social sleep lag) might hinder the transition

from the weekend to the workweek because employees' workweek

and weekend rhythms are set more widely apart (Chaput et al., 2020).

In turn, successfully reattaching to work on Monday should enable

employees to perform better on their work tasks and be less

exhausted during the workweek. Thus, we propose that weekend

sleep characteristics differentially relate to the workweek via reat-

tachment on Monday. Figure 1displays our full conceptual model.

This study offers significant contributions to both research and

practice. First, our study contributes to research on micro-role transi-

tions by focusing on the role of reattachment for the following work-

week. Building on boundary theory (Ashforth et al., 2000), we

consider a new time frame and propose that Monday reattachment

can matter for the entire following workweek because it serves as a

micro-role transition between the private role during the weekend

and the work role during the workweek. Accordingly, we suggest that

experiences on Monday set the tone for well-being and performance

during the upcoming workweek. While previous research has mainly

focused on day-level reattachment processes (Sonnentag et al., 2020;

Sonnentag & Kühnel, 2016), the transition between the weekend and

the workweek might imply an even higher need to reattach to work

because the period during which employees are disconnected from

work is longer. Thus, reattachment after a weekend might be more

complex and—at the same time—even more critical than after work-

free evenings, highlighting the need to understand the workweek

consequences of Monday reattachment.

Second, our study integrates a circadian perspective into the

recovery literature by disentangling the role of three different sleep

characteristics for employees' reattachment. While sleep quality is a

frequently examined sleep indicator in organizational research

(e.g., Barnes et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2021), sleep characteristics

focusing on circadian aspects have largely been neglected (with few

exceptions, e.g., Kühnel et al., 2016). However, building on circadian

research (Roenneberg et al., 2003), not only the quality but also the

timing and consistency of one's sleep matter. As circadian preferences

can lead to large differences in sleep behavior between the weekend

FIGURE 1 Conceptual model including within-person results from two-level path analysis. Note. Solid lines indicate direct paths (Hypotheses

1 to 3). Dashed lines indicate indirect paths (Hypotheses 4 to 6). Black and bold =significant paths that were in line with our hypotheses. Direct

paths from the predictors (sleep quality, catch-up sleep, and social sleep lag) to the outcomes (exhaustion, task performance) were specified in our

analyses but omitted from the figure for clarity reasons. *p< .05.

p< .01.

***

p< .001.

2VÖLKER ET AL.

10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2788, Wiley Online Library on [29/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

and the workweek (Leger et al., 2020; Wittmann et al., 2006), it is

relevant to better understand how these differences in sleep behavior

affect employees when returning to work on Monday. An inconsis-

tency in sleep duration and timing might decrease employees'

cognitive functioning (e.g., Chaput et al., 2020; Smevik et al., 2023)

and thus, also relate to their workweek. Using a weekly diary design

and focusing on differences between employees' workweek and

weekend sleep enables us to investigate sleep characteristics that

usually cannot be assessed in daily diary designs (i.e., weekend catch-

up sleep) or have so far mostly been operationalized as stable

between-person differences (i.e., social sleep lag, Kühnel et al., 2016;

Völker et al., 2024). Accordingly, we paint a more nuanced picture of

the role that sleep plays in organizational behavior by focusing on

weekend sleep quality as well as weekly sleep inconsistency.

Third, we contribute to reattachment research by investigating

what facilitates and hinders Monday reattachment. While initial

studies have demonstrated the relevance of daily reattachment for

employees' well-being and behavior (Fritz et al., 2021; Sonnentag

et al., 2020), knowledge on the preconditions of reattachment is

largely missing (Schleupner et al., 2023). By investigating weekend

sleep characteristics as antecedents of reattachment, our study pro-

vides a new in-depth look into reattachment processes. We suggest

that—similar to psychological detachment (i.e., mentally disconnecting

from work)—psychological reattachment also depends on energetic

and cognitive resources that employees need to have available

(Sonnentag, 2018). In this way, we illustrate more clearly how

reattachment integrates into employees' working life by shedding

light on its antecedents. Moreover, understanding the role of

different sleep characteristics as preconditions of reattachment also

matters for practice. For example, organizations might employ

interventions to improve weekend sleep quality and weekly sleep

consistency to help facilitate employees' reattachment process on

Monday because reattachment on Monday might set the tone for

the entire workweek.

2|MONDAY REATTACHMENT AS A

MICRO-ROLE TRANSITION

Boundary theory (Ashforth et al., 2000) states that humans have

different roles in their different life domains, which are separated by

boundaries. For example, an employee might have a professional role

as a leader at work that differs from their private role as a parent at

home. These different roles can be separated (i.e., segmentation),

blurred (i.e., integration), or something in between. To (psychologically)

transition from one role to another, one needs to exit one role

(i.e., role exit) and enter the other role (i.e., role entry). While these

role transitions can represent longer-term changes, such as moving

from employment to retirement (i.e., macro transitions), boundary the-

ory mainly focuses on frequent short-term transitions (i.e., micro tran-

sitions), for example, within 1 day (Ashforth et al., 2000).

Applying the tenets of boundary theory (Ashforth et al., 2000),

we characterize psychological reattachment as an experience

representing a micro-role transition. While recovery research has fre-

quently underpinned the relevance of psychological detachment,

meaning mentally disconnecting from work (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007;

Steed et al., 2021), research has started to acknowledge that also

mentally reconnecting to work matters for employees (Sonnentag &

Kühnel, 2016). Reattachment describes such an experience during

which employees mentally reconnect to their work. This reattachment

process can encompass mentally preparing for work, reflecting on the

upcoming work period, as well as thinking about work-related goals

(Sonnentag & Kühnel, 2016). Accordingly, when experiencing reat-

tachment after an off-work period, employees mentally exit their pri-

vate role and enter their work role as they refocus their attention

back to work. Thus, reattachment is a micro-role transition occurring

when crossing the boundary from the private to the work role

(Ashforth et al., 2000).

Research has primarily focused on day-level reattachment, mean-

ing mentally preparing for the workday in the morning before work

(e.g., Sonnentag et al., 2020; Sonnentag & Kühnel, 2016). However,

reattachment does not only matter on a daily basis (Yuan

et al., 2021). The common structure of the week with 5 days of work

followed by 2 days of work-free weekend presents many employees

with an even more noticeable boundary every week. Accordingly, the

beginning of the workweek plays a unique role in many employees'

weeks as Monday implies a transition from 2 days of engaging in

mainly private roles to 5 days of mainly engaging in work roles.

Because most employees experience a drop in energy and well-being

on Monday, it is often referred to as “Blue Monday”(Hülsheger

et al., 2022; Weigelt et al., 2021). However, little is known about

how this transition from the weekend to the workweek can be suc-

cessfully made. Accordingly, we apply the concept of daily reattach-

ment to the week level and suggest that successfully reattaching to

work is crucial on Monday as it covers the transition from the week-

end to the workweek. Thereby, we focus on week-level reattachment

rather than day-level reattachment. Because an entire workweek is

more complex than a single workday, we believe that week-level

reattachment processes on Monday (i.e., mentally preparing for the

entire upcoming workweek) require more in-depth and intense

cognitive preparation. For example, when reattaching to the upcom-

ing workweek, employees might need to consider different work

schedules, work locations, or even competing goals during the week.

Accordingly, because of the higher intensity of weekly reattachment,

we suggest that the effects of weekly reattachment on Monday have

the potential to persist during the entire workweek. Thus, we adopt

a weekly temporal lens and examine weekend antecedents (i.e., sleep

characteristics) and workweek outcomes (i.e., exhaustion and task

performance) of Monday reattachment as a highly relevant micro-

transition between the weekend and the workweek. To fully adopt

the weekly temporal lens, we focus on dynamic within-person

associations among sleep, reattachment, and workweek outcomes as

opposed to stable between-person associations. Accordingly, our

theoretical assumptions refer to deviations from an employee's mean

weekend and workweek experiences (e.g., higher-than-usual levels of

Monday reattachment).

VÖLKER ET AL.3

3|WEEKEND SLEEP AND MONDAY

REATTACHMENT

Put simply, sleep is a crucial recovery period during which employees

replenish the cognitive and energetic resources needed at work

(Litwiller et al., 2017). At the same time, however, sleep is a complex

physiological process. According to the two-process model of sleep

regulation (Borbély, 1982; Borbély et al., 2016), the human sleep–

wake cycle is regulated by two interacting processes. A circadian pro-

cess determines the time frame during which sleep is initiated, while a

homeostatic process leads to sleep initiation during this time frame as

soon as the physiological need to sleep reaches a threshold. While

sleeping, the need to sleep decreases until humans awake recharged

in the morning. The timing of the circadian process can vary between

individuals, such that some have a natural proclivity to wake up late

and go to bed late, while others prefer earlier daily rhythms

(i.e., human chronotypes; Roenneberg et al., 2003). However, these

circadian preferences do not only reflect differences between

individuals but also lead to variations in sleep within individuals. Due

to circadian preferences, sleep behavior during the workweek and the

weekend might vastly differ such that employees sleep longer and at

different times during the weekend (Roenneberg et al., 2003;

Wittmann et al., 2006).

Considering the complexity of sleep, different aspects of sleep

might differentially matter for employees at the workplace. Following

the framework on sleepiness at work from Mullins et al. (2014), high-

quality sleep might help prevent sleepiness at work, thus providing

energetic and cognitive resources that are needed for desirable orga-

nizational behavior. However, circadian processes and resulting incon-

sistencies in sleep might relate to increased sleepiness at work and a

lack of energetic and cognitive resources (Mullins et al., 2014).

Accordingly, certain sleep characteristics can relate to workplace

experiences via resource-building pathways (i.e., sleep quality), while

other sleep characteristics can relate to workplace experiences via

resource-draining pathways (i.e., sleep inconsistency). Combining these

insights from sleep research with research on micro-role transitions,

we propose that weekend sleep quality, catch-up sleep, and social

sleep lag differentially relate to reattachment on Monday.

First, regarding the resource-building pathway of sleep, higher

weekend sleep quality should relate to higher Monday reattachment.

Especially during the work-free weekend, sleep is often not restrained

by social schedules (e.g., work times) and employees can therefore

follow their circadian preferences of when to sleep (Roenneberg

et al., 2003). Accordingly, lower sleep regulation is needed (Borbély,

1982; Borbély et al., 2016), allowing employees to sleep well. Thus,

sleep on the weekend can be of a particularly high quality and, in turn,

of high relevance for recovery processes. Sleep quality reflects a

subjective assessment of how restful humans perceive their sleep to

be and constitutes an important facet of sleep health (Buysse, 2014).

Specifically, sleep quality can restore cognitive resources and thereby

matters for diverse aspects of cognitive functioning (Leong &

Chee, 2023; Mullins et al., 2014). Thus, thanks to high-quality sleep

during the weekend, employees should have successfully replenished

their cognitive resources and might more easily control their thoughts

and attention on Monday (Mullins et al., 2014). The goal of refocusing

back on work after the weekend might benefit from these replenished

cognitive resources as reattachment implies that attention must be

deliberately focused on the workweek. Accordingly, we assume that

high-quality sleep during the weekend facilitates employees' exit from

the private role and entry to the work role (Ashforth et al., 2000).

Previous research has started to acknowledge the interplay of sleep

quality and reattachment on the day level but has not found a direct

association. Rather, results suggest that reattachment might buffer

the effect of a bad night's sleep on employees' work engagement

(Schleupner et al., 2023). However, because of the different temporal

foci (i.e., day vs. week level), we rely on our theoretical reasoning

on the direct relationship and propose that higher-than-usual

weekend sleep quality relates to higher levels of reattachment to

work on Monday.

Hypothesis 1. After weekends with higher-than-usual

sleep quality, employees report higher levels of reat-

tachment on Monday.

Second, regarding the resource-draining pathway of sleep, we

propose that the inconsistency of timing and duration of sleep during

the week matters for reattachment. Many employees encounter a

circadian mismatch as workdays usually start early in the morning and

thereby contradict employees' circadian preferences of when to be

asleep and awake (Roenneberg et al., 2003). While work hours are

usually oriented towards the preferred timing of earlier chronotypes,

most of the population can be classified as an intermediate or late

chronotype (Roenneberg et al., 2019). Even though work impacts

employees' social rhythm (i.e., work hours structure the day), such

environmental factors are not strong enough to overrule employees'

internal circadian preferences and, thus, their internal biological

rhythm (Roenneberg et al., 2003; Wittmann et al., 2006). Specifically,

humans tend not to fall asleep outside their biologically determined

“sleep gate”because sleeping outside of biologically determined time

frames requires a high need for sleep regulation (Borbély, 1982;

Borbély et al., 2016; Lavie, 2001). Consequently, employees might fall

asleep late following their circadian preferences but must get up early

in the morning, resulting in a sleep deficit as well as a mismatch with

their circadian preferences during the workweek (Roenneberg

et al., 2003). Due to this mismatch, employees might try to compen-

sate for their sleep deficit and follow their circadian preferences on

the work-free weekend by sleeping much longer and at different

times than on workdays (Roenneberg et al., 2003; Roepke &

Duffy, 2010). Social sleep lag describes the phenomenon of differ-

ences in sleep–wake times (i.e., differences in the midpoint between

sleep onset and waking up) on workdays and non-workdays (Kühnel

et al., 2016). Resembling jetlag while traveling, social sleep lag implies

that employees live in two different time zones: a social time zone

during the workweek and a circadian time zone during the weekend

(Wittmann et al., 2006). Additionally, employees might use the week-

end to cope with their sleep deficit by extending their sleep duration,

4VÖLKER ET AL.

which is also called catch-up sleep (Leger et al., 2020). In contrast to

weekend social sleep lag, weekend catch-up sleep refers to the differ-

ence in sleep duration between the workweek and the weekend and

not to the sleep timing per se. Both weekend catch-up sleep

and social sleep lag reflect inconsistencies in sleep that have adverse

implications for employees' health and functioning. Specifically, while

weekend catch-up sleep might have short-term positive effects

(e.g., Kubo et al., 2011), it is generally not a suitable strategy to com-

pensate for a high sleep deficit (e.g., Leger et al., 2020; Taylor

et al., 2008). Moreover, research has demonstrated that sleep incon-

sistency impairs individuals' health (Chaput et al., 2020).

We assume that higher weekend catch-up sleep and social sleep

lag relate to lower levels of reattachment to the new workweek

because they both make it difficult for employees to get used to the

social rhythm of the workweek after the weekend. First, when catch-

ing up on sleep during the weekend, employees shift their sleep–wake

rhythm by extending the sleep period and, accordingly, their need to

sleep decreases. Because of the shifted sleep–wake rhythm and the

decreased sleep need, it should then require higher regulation to

readapt to their work-related sleep–wake rhythm on Monday

(Borbély, 1982; Borbély et al., 2016). While employees might get

increasingly used to the social rhythm of their workweek, because

their sleep need increases and they adapt their sleep times accord-

ingly (Kühnel et al., 2018), the transition from the weekend to the

workweek on Monday should be especially severe (van Hooff

et al., 2006). Previous research has demonstrated that sleeping in

during the weekend results in increased Monday sleepiness (Taylor

et al., 2008)—a state that makes it difficult to control thoughts and

attentional processes (Mullins et al., 2014). However, being able to

control thoughts and attention is needed to successfully reattach

to work on Monday.

Second, if employees experience social sleep lag, this implies that

they followed a different sleep–wake rhythm during the workweek

than during the weekend. Because their sleep timing is likely to be less

constrained during the weekend, employees follow their circadian

preferences during the weekend (Wittmann et al., 2006). On weeks

with high social sleep lag, these differences between the workweek

and weekend are especially pronounced. Most employees delay their

sleep–wake rhythm on the weekend to match to their circadian pref-

erences. However, when the transition back to the next workweek is

due, employees need to readjust to their earlier social rhythm. Again,

employees must sleep outside their preferred sleep gates governed by

the circadian process and, accordingly, have a high need for sleep

regulation to get used to the workweek (Borbély, 1982; Borbély

et al., 2016). Consequently, the transition from the weekend to the

workweek is compounded by the fact that employees need to invest

additional resources to adapt to the sleep–wake rhythm of the work-

week. Again, this should be associated with poor sleep behavior and a

lower ability to control thoughts and attentional processes needed to

successfully reattach to work on Monday.

Thus, this circadian perspective on sleep (Borbély, 1982; Borbély

et al., 2016) highlights that inconsistency in sleep timing and duration

can negatively relate to workplace experiences via a resource-draining

pathway. Thereby, catch-up sleep and social sleep lag should result in

limited energetic and cognitive resources (Mullins et al., 2014)

because variations in sleep timing and duration can make it difficult to

exert cognitive control and direct attention at work (Kim et al., 2011;

Smevik et al., 2023). Again, however, being able to control thoughts

and attention as well as making use of energetic and cognitive

resources is needed to exit the private role and refocus attention back

to work (i.e., enter the work role; Sonnentag & Kühnel, 2016). Thus,

we propose that higher-than-usual weekend catch-up sleep and social

sleep lag are associated with lower levels of reattachment to work on

Monday.

Hypothesis 2. After weekends with higher-than-usual

(a) catch-up sleep and (b) social sleep lag, employees

report lower levels of reattachment on Monday.

4|WORKWEEK CONSEQUENCES OF

MONDAY REATTACHMENT

We propose that higher levels of reattachment to work on Monday, in

turn, benefit employees during the workweek. First, more successful

Monday reattachment should be associated with lower levels of

exhaustion during the workweek. Exhaustion is described as a state

of physical fatigue and drained energetic resources during work.

When exhausted, employees report, for example, that they feel like

their “batteries are dead”(Melamed et al., 2006; Shirom &

Melamed, 2006). Reattachment as a micro-role transition implies a

successful role entry into employees' work role (Ashforth et al., 2000).

Accordingly, employees activate work-related goals and focus on their

work tasks (Fritz et al., 2021; Sonnentag et al., 2020). Because of

these goal-activation processes, employees will be better able to

allocate their resources to goal-striving situations during the week

(Sonnentag & Kühnel, 2016). This resource allocation should make it

easier for employees to get through their workweek without spending

additional effort, thereby decreasing exhaustion. At the same time,

Monday reattachment could also help employees to positively

approach the workweek. Reattaching to the workweek itself might

feel like a first step towards goal attainment, thus resulting in

employees approaching their workweek in a positive and confident

manner (Fritz et al., 2021; Sonnentag et al., 2020). Accordingly, by

starting their working in a positive manner, employees do not feel the

need to play catch-up during the workweek. Thus, employees should

feel more favorable and less exhausted during the workweek after

better reattaching to their work on Monday. Similarly, reattachment is

associated with work engagement which encompasses energetic

aspects of work-related well-being (Sonnentag et al., 2020; Sonnentag

& Kühnel, 2016). Hence, we propose that better-than-usual reat-

tachment relates to employees being less exhausted during the

workweek.

Second, apart from energetic aspects, reattachment should posi-

tively relate to employees' task performance during the week. Task

performance is a subjective assessment of how well an employee

VÖLKER ET AL.5

attained work-related goals and accomplished their work tasks

(Fisher & Noble, 2004). Completing and accomplishing tasks is a cru-

cial objective at work and has positive implications for employees and

organizations (Dalal et al., 2014; Ohly & Schmitt, 2015). By activating

work-related goals when reattaching to work, employees might

already think about ways to reach their goals, leaving them better pre-

pared in future goal-striving situations. Additionally, Monday reattach-

ment might feel like a first step towards goal attainment, enabling

employees to encounter their work tasks in a positive and confident

manner (Fritz et al., 2021; Sonnentag et al., 2020). These planning and

preparation processes as well as positive and confident attitudes can

enable employees to be more successful in accomplishing their goals

and tasks during the workweek (Sonnentag & Kühnel, 2016). At the

same time, successful reattachment enables employees to focus more

on their work tasks during the week (Sonnentag et al., 2020). Similarly,

Fritz et al. (2021) have demonstrated that morning reattachment is

indirectly related to leaders' task accomplishment via anticipated and

actual focus on work tasks. Accordingly, we propose that better-

than-usual Monday reattachment is associated with higher workweek

task performance.

Hypothesis 3. Higher-than-usual levels of reattach-

ment on Monday are related to (a) lower levels of

exhaustion and (b) higher task performance during the

workweek.

5|REATTACHMENT AS A MECHANISM

BETWEEN WEEKEND SLEEP AND

WORKWEEK CONSEQUENCES

Looking at the reattachment process as a whole, we assume that

weekend sleep characteristics (sleep quality, catch-up sleep, and

social sleep lag) differentially relate to workweek exhaustion and task

performance via reattachment on Monday. Building on boundary the-

ory (Ashforth et al., 2000), reattachment as a micro-role transition

links the private role during the weekend to the work role during the

workweek. On the one hand, cognitive and energetic resources that

have built up through high-quality sleep during the weekend

(Leong & Chee, 2023; Scullin & Bliwise, 2015) can transfer into the

work domain by successfully reattaching to work and, in turn,

decrease workweek exhaustion and increase task performance. On

the other hand, lower cognitive and energetic resources due to catch-

up sleep and social sleep lag (Ashforth et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2011;

Smevik et al., 2023) can hamper the transition to the workweek by

decreasing the likelihood of reattaching and consequently increase

workweek exhaustion and decrease task performance. By reducing or

increasing personal resources, private demands or resources can spill

over to the work domain (ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012).

Accordingly, we suggest that Monday reattachment serves as a con-

necting link between weekend (sleep quality, catch-up sleep, and

social sleep lag) and workweek (exhaustion, task performance) experi-

ences and behavior.

Hypothesis 4. Higher-than-usual levels of Monday

reattachment explain the relationship between higher

weekend sleep quality and (a) lower levels of exhaustion

and (b) higher task performance during the workweek.

Hypothesis 5. Lower-than-usual levels of Monday reat-

tachment explain the relationship between higher week-

end catch-up sleep and (a) higher levels of exhaustion

and (b) lower task performance during the workweek.

Hypothesis 6. Lower-than-usual levels of Monday reat-

tachment explain the relationship between higher week-

end social sleep lag and (a) higher levels of exhaustion

and (b) lower task performance during the workweek.

6|METHODS

6.1 |Study design and sample

To test our hypotheses, we conducted a weekly diary study in

Germany between September and December 2021. During this time,

the COVID-19 pandemic was still present, but no formal lockdown

was in place and pandemic control measures were substantially

weaker than at the beginning of the pandemic. Our university's ethics

committee considered this study exempt because in Germany no

ethics approval is needed for purely correlational studies. After partici-

pating in a general survey, participants answered surveys on Mondays

and Fridays over the course of 5 weeks. The diary surveys started and

ended on a Friday, resulting in nine weekly surveys in total (five Friday

surveys and four Monday surveys). During the registration process,

the participants reported when they usually wake up on Monday and

end their work on Friday. Individually tailored to these times, we sent

invitations to all surveys via e-mail (i.e., after waking up on Monday

and after work on Friday) and reminded the participants after 2 h

upon sending the invitation e-mails if the surveys were not com-

pleted. All weekly surveys were answered online and were available

for 8 h after receiving the first e-mail invitation.

We recruited the participants mainly online via social media plat-

forms (e.g., Facebook and LinkedIn) and partly offline via personal

contacts of the author group (e.g., friends and family). To be eligible to

participate, the participants had to be employed for at least 20 h per

week (excluding shift work) and work 5 days per week (from Monday

to Friday). As an incentive, the participants who completed at least

seven of the nine surveys could win one of 30 vouchers for various

online shops (with a total value of 800€). Of the 505 employees who

expressed interest in participating, 465 finished the general survey

(92.1%) and provided 1144 Monday surveys (61.5% out of 1860 pos-

sible surveys) and 1410 Friday surveys (60.6% out of 2325 possible

surveys). From those, we had to exclude 75 participants who could

not freely choose their sleep times on non-workdays (e.g., due to

children, partners, or pets living in the same household), implying

we could not calculate their social sleep lag under these

6VÖLKER ET AL.

circumstances.

We then checked for careless responding

(Goldammer et al., 2020) and excluded weekly surveys with response

invariance (e.g., always choosing the middle response on the Likert

scale) as well as extremely low response times (using an index of our

survey provider, Leiner, 2019), resulting in the exclusion of nine

weekly surveys. Additionally, we excluded 11 surveys that had been

completed on the wrong day (i.e., not on Monday or on Friday) to

ensure temporal accuracy in data collection. We then matched the

participants' Friday

week(w)-1

, Monday

, and Friday

surveys such that

each participant could provide up to four complete weekly data sets.

Of the remaining 390 participants, 315 answered at least one weekly

survey (in total: 1153 weeks). We then excluded 124 weeks (week

w-1

and week

) during which employees did not work and 77 Monday

surveys that were answered on non-workdays because the reattach-

ment items referred to Monday as a workday (see Section 6.2). Finally,

we included all weeks in which either the Monday

(784 surveys,

84.0%) or the Friday

(788 surveys, 84.5%) surveys were completed,

resulting in a final sample of 310 participants providing data on

933 weeks (75.2% out of 1240 possible weeks). The participants

included in the final sample did not differ from excluded participants

with regard to gender, χ

(1) =0.190, p=.663, or education,

t(341.32) =0.83, p=.405. However, the participants included in the

final sample were slightly older (M=41.2 years) than the participants

excluded from the final sample (M=39.3 years), t(390.11) =2.09,

p=.037.

Most of the 310 participants were female (80.6%), and their mean

age was M=41.2 (SD =11.1) years. Participating employees worked

in various industries and professions, for example, in health, social,

and educational professions (41.9%); in administrative and office pro-

fessions (25.5%); or in technical professions (10.7%). Most of them

held a university degree (55.2%) and lived without children in the

household (77.4%). Most participants worked full time, with an aver-

age of M=39.6 (SD =8.8) hours per week.

6.2 |Measures

We assessed employees' sleep times in the Friday

w-1

and Monday

surveys to calculate their weekend catch-up sleep and social sleep lag.

Additionally, we assessed their weekend sleep quality and reattach-

ment in the Monday

surveys, as well as their workweek exhaustion

and task performance in the Friday

surveys. All items were

presented in German and translated with the back-translation method

if necessary (Brislin, 1970). Descriptive statistics and two-level

Cronbach's alphas (Geldhof et al., 2014) of all variables are presented

in Table 1.

6.2.1 | Sleep quality

In the Monday

surveys, we retrospectively assessed employees'

sleep quality during the weekend using a one-item measure (Monk

et al., 1994). The participants answered the item “How do you

evaluate the overall quality of your sleep during the weekend?”on a

5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 =very bad to 5 =very good. This

one-item measure has been used in previous organizational behavior

research focusing on sleep (e.g., Hülsheger, 2016; Kühnel et al., 2016;

Liu et al., 2021) and correlates highly with a full sleep-quality index

(Hahn et al., 2011).

6.2.2 | Catch-up sleep and social sleep lag

To be able to calculate the participants' catch-up sleep and social

sleep lag, we assessed their sleep times on workdays in the Friday

w-1

surveys and their sleep times during the weekend in the Monday

surveys. The participants indicated when they went to bed, how long

it took them to fall asleep, and when they woke up (Roenneberg

et al., 2003) separately for each day (i.e., Monday to Thursday in the

Social sleep lag describes a discrepancy between employees' sleep times during the

workweek (dictated by their social rhythm) and their sleep times during the weekend

(dictated by their biological circadian preferences). However, if employees cannot freely

choose their sleep times on non-workdays, their weekend sleep times do not reflect their

biological preferences. Accordingly, we excluded these participants to increase the accuracy

of our social sleep lag measure (Roenneberg et al., 2003; Wittmann et al., 2006).

TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics, Cronbach's alphas, intraclass correlations, and intercorrelations of all variables.

MSD

ICC1234567

1. Weekend sleep quality 3.4 0.5 0.8 - - .46 - .05 .05 .15*** .02 .02 .17***

2. Weekend catch-up sleep

1.0 0.8 1.1 - - .34 .12 .05 .09*.00 .03 .04

3. Weekend social sleep lag

1.3 0.5 0.7 - - .40 .19** .21*** .02 .02 .04 .05

4. Monday reattachment 3.4 0.5 0.8 .81 .97 .56 .07 .04 .07 .09*.04 .00

5. Workweek exhaustion 2.5 0.5 0.9 .87 .97 .63 .29*** .07 .04 .04 .35*** .03

6. Workweek task

performance

3.8 0.4 0.7 .72 .93 .56 .25*** .05 .11 .08 .40*** .07

7. Monday negative affect 1.5 0.4 0.6 .80 .95 .52 .29*** .04 .08 .04 .30*** .27***

In decimal hours. L1 =week level (Level 1), L2 =person level (Level 2). Intraclass correlations (ICC) demonstrate the proportion of variance that is attributable to the

person level. Correlations below the diagonal are person-level correlations (N=310). Correlations above the diagonal are week-level correlations (N=933).

*p< .05, **p< .01, and ***p< .001.

VÖLKER ET AL.7

Friday

w-1

survey and Friday to Sunday in the Monday

survey). To

increase the accuracy of this weekly sleep data, we provided the

participants with a sleep diary in the general survey and instructed

them to keep track of their sleep times during the study period.

Weekend catch-up sleep describes the difference between work-

week and weekend sleep duration. Using the daily sleep times, we

separately calculated the mean sleep duration during the previous

workweek and during the weekend (i.e., the period between sleep

onset and waking up). We then calculated employees' catch-up

sleep as the difference between the mean workweek and the mean

weekend sleep duration. Higher values indicate higher catch-up sleep,

such that a value of 1, for example, refers to a week in which the

respective employees' sleep duration was, on average, 1 h longer per

night during the weekend than during the workweek.

Weekend social sleep lag refers to the difference between the

workweek and the weekend midpoint of sleep. Using the daily sleep

times, we separately calculated the mean of the daily midpoints of

sleep during the previous workweek (midpoint between sleep onset

and waking up) as well as the mean daily midpoints of sleep during

the weekend. We then calculated social sleep lag as the absolute

difference between the mean workweek and the mean weekend

midpoint of sleep. Thus, social sleep lag represents the difference

between actual sleep times during the workweek and biologically

preferred sleep times during the weekend (Roenneberg et al., 2012;

Wittmann et al., 2006). Higher values describe a higher weekend

social sleep lag. For instance, a social sleep lag of 1 indicates a 1-h

difference between employees' workweek midpoint of sleep and their

weekend midpoint of sleep.

6.2.3 | Reattachment

We assessed reattachment to work in the Monday

surveys using the

five-item measure from Sonnentag and Kühnel et al. (2016), which

was slightly adapted to the week level. The participants answered

items such as “Before I started my work this morning, I prepared men-

tally for the upcoming workweek”on a 5-point Likert scale ranging

from 1 =not at all true to 5 =absolutely true.

6.2.4 | Exhaustion

We assessed weekly exhaustion in the Friday

surveys using

five items from Shirom and Melamed et al. (2006). The items such

as “I felt tired”referred to the whole workweek and were answered

on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 =not at all true to

5=absolutely true.

6.2.5 | Task performance

We measured weekly task performance in the Friday

surveys with

four items used in previous research (Sonnentag, 2018), such as “I

completed my tasks successfully.”The items again referred to the

whole workweek and were answered on a 5-point Likert scale ranging

from 1 =not at all true to 5 =absolutely true.

6.2.6 | Control variables

To demonstrate the robustness of our results, we relied on two con-

trol variables. First, we controlled for employees' Monday state nega-

tive affect because we wanted to ensure that self-reports on

subsequent experiences were not driven by a bad mood at the begin-

ning of the workweek (cf. Rothbard & Wilk, 2011). We measured neg-

ative affect using six items from the German version (Krohne

et al., 1996) of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson

et al., 1988). The participants were instructed to indicate how they

currently felt and answered the items (e.g., “distressed”) on a 5-point

Likert scale ranging from 1 =not at all to 5 =absolutely. Second, we

controlled for the week of data collection (i.e., 1 =week one to

4=week four) to rule out systematic changes throughout the study

participation (Beal & Weiss, 2003).

6.3 |Analytic strategy and preliminary analyses

Because our assumptions focused on the within-person level

(i.e., deviation of week

from an employees' mean week) and to simul-

taneously take the nested data structure into account (i.e., weeks

nested within persons), we used two-level path analyses in Mplus 8.7

(Muthén & Muthén, 2017) to test our hypotheses (Preacher

et al., 2010). We used all data available and handled missing data using

full information maximum likelihood estimation as suggested by

guidelines (Newman, 2014). To correctly decompose week-level and

person-level variance, we specified our path model at both the within-

and the between-person level, even though our primary level of inter-

est was the within-person level. Thus, we modeled paths from the

sleep characteristics (sleep quality, catch-up sleep, and social sleep

lag) to reattachment (Hypotheses 1 and 2), from reattachment to the

outcomes (exhaustion and task performance, Hypothesis 3), and from

the sleep characteristics to the outcomes on both levels. Additionally,

we modeled paths from the control variables (Monday negative affect

and week of data collection) to reattachment and the two outcomes.

Lastly, we allowed correlations between (1) the three sleep character-

istics and (2) the two outcomes. Because a full random-intercept-

random-slope model was very complex and did not converge, we

analyzed a series of models (i.e., separate models with random

We also tested alternative models. First, we ran more complex models with three additional

person-level control variables (i.e., age, gender, and living with children in the same

household as additional person-level covariates, resulting in five control variables in total).

Including these additional person-level control variables did not change any of our week-level

results. Because of the week-level (and not person-level) focus of our analyses and for the

sake of parsimony, we decided to not include the three person-level control variables in our

final analyses and to keep the two week-level control variables only. Second, we ran all

analyses without any control variables. Omitting the control variables did not change the

significance or direction of any of the results.

8VÖLKER ET AL.

intercepts and only single random slopes) to test which within-person

paths varied significantly between persons. None of the within-

person paths yielded significant variation between persons. Accord-

ingly, we decided to stick with a random-intercept model for the sake

of parsimony. To calculate indirect effects from the sleep characteris-

tics to the outcomes via reattachment (Hypotheses 4 to 6), we

obtained unstandardized path estimates from Mplus 8.7 (Muthén &

Muthén, 2017) and computed confidence intervals using the Monte

Carlo method with 20,000 simulations (Selig & Preacher, 2008).

Before testing our hypotheses, we conducted a set of preliminary

analyses. Table 1displays descriptive statistics, intraclass-correlations

(ICCs), and correlations of all variables included in the path models.

With respect to consistency in employees' sleep duration, they slept,

on average, 7.3 h during the workweek and 8.3 h during the weekend.

Looking at differences between workweek and weekend sleep, the

participants' weeks ranged between sleeping 3.3 h shorter during

the weekend to 5.7 h longer during the weekend than during the

workweek. On average, employees reported M=1.0 (SD

Level 1

=0.8,

Level 2

=1.1) hours of catch-up sleep during the weekend. With

respect to consistency in employees' sleep timing, their midpoint of

sleep was, on average, at 2:36 AM during the workweek and at

3:30 AM during the weekend. Looking at absolute differences, weeks

ranged from no difference (i.e., value of 0) to 5.2-h difference

between the workweek and the weekend's midpoint of sleep.

Experiencing these 5.2 h of social sleep lag (i.e., a 5-h difference

between workweek and weekend midpoint of sleep) thereby roughly

corresponds to the jetlag experienced while traveling from London, UK,

to New York, USA—on a weekly basis. On average, employees reported

a social sleep lag of M=1.3 (SD

Level 1

=0.5, SD

Level 2

=0.7) h.

The ICCs ranged between .34 for catch-up sleep and .60

for exhaustion, indicating a considerable amount of within-person

variance. Thus, two-level analyses were suitable for our data, and

our constructs of interest yielded meaningful week-level variation.

Further, the results of a two-level confirmatory factor analysis

(CFA) with all items loading on distinct factors demonstrated the

construct validity of our measures, χ

(214) =435.771, p< .001,

RMSEA =0.042, CFI =0.950, TLI =0.936. The model with all items

loading on distinct factors fits the data better than a model with the

two outcomes (exhaustion, task performance) loading on the same

factor, χ

(224) =790.045, p< .001, RMSEA =0.066, CFI =0.862,

TLI =0.845; Satorra-Bentler Δχ

(10) =420.377, p< .001. A

two-level CFA with the three sleep characteristics (sleep quality,

catch-up sleep, social sleep lag) loading on the same factor did not

converge, thus not representing a suitable solution for the data.

Accordingly, the three weekend sleep characteristics could indeed

be distinguished.

7|RESULTS

7.1 |Hypotheses testing

The results of the two-level path models are presented in Tables 2

(direct effects) and 3(indirect effects). Figure 1gives a graphical

TABLE 2 Results of two-level path analysis: direct effects.

Monday reattachment Workweek exhaustion Workweek task performance

Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE

Intercept 3.172*** 0.404 2.848*** 0.640 3.147*** 0.435

Within person (level 1)

Monday negative affect 0.024 0.062 0.031 0.060 0.051 0.051

Week of data collection

0.019 0.019 0.007 0.022 0.007 0.017

Weekend sleep quality 0.147*** 0.042 0.012 0.045 0.018 0.038

Weekend catch-up sleep 0.055*0.024 0.003 0.029 0.005 0.026

Weekend social sleep lag 0.013 0.052 0.039 0.051 0.050 0.042

Monday reattachment 0.119*0.053 0.065 0.044

Residual variance 0.340*** 0.032 0.370*** 0.030 0.237*** 0.021

Between person (level 2)

Monday negative affect 0.093 0.105 0.619*** 0.151 0.349** 0.106

Weekend sleep quality 0.035 0.107 0.480*** 0.119 0.253** 0.083

Weekend catch-up sleep 0.080 0.106 0.118 0.107 0.089 0.079

Weekend social sleep lag 0.100 0.143 0.260 0.153 0.005 0.115

Monday reattachment 0.003 0.100 0.114 0.067

Residual variance 0.432*** 0.053 0.443*** 0.057 0.241*** 0.038

Coded 1 =first week to 4 =last week. Est. =unstandardized path estimate. N=310 employees providing data on 933 weeks. Monday negative affect

and week of data collection were included as control variables.

*p< .05, **p< .01, and ***p< .001.

VÖLKER ET AL.9

overview of the within-person results. The first hypothesis stated that

weekend sleep quality is positively related to Monday reattachment.

Supporting Hypothesis 1, the path estimate from sleep quality to

reattachment was positive and significant (unstandardized estimate

[Est.] =0.147, SE =0.042, p< .001). In Hypothesis 2, we proposed

that weekend (a) catch-up sleep and (b) social sleep lag are nega-

tively related to reattachment on Monday. Supporting Hypothesis

2a, but not Hypothesis 2b, weekend catch-up sleep was significantly

related to reattachment (Est. =0.055, SE =0.024, p=.023) while

social sleep lag was not (Est. =0.013, SE =0.052, p=.801). The

third hypothesis stated that reattachment on Monday is

(a) negatively related to exhaustion and (b) positively related to task

performance during the workweek. Indeed, reattachment was nega-

tively associated with exhaustion (Est. =0.119, SE =0.053,

p=.023), providing support for Hypothesis 3a. However, we found

no support for Hypothesis 3b as reattachment was not related to

task performance during the workweek (Est. =0.065, SE =0.044,

p=.137). To explore effect sizes, we investigated how much vari-

ance was explained in the variables of our path model by using the

approach from Raudenbush and Bryk (1992). To do so, we compared

our path model to a random-intercept null model and computed the

amount of week-level variance that was explained in our variables

(LaHuis et al., 2014). Results demonstrated that our path model

explained 4.0% of week-level variance in reattachment, 1.1% of

week-level variance in exhaustion, and 1.7% of day-level variance in

task performance.

Hypotheses 4 to 6 referred to indirect effects. In Hypothesis

4, we proposed that weekend sleep quality is indirectly (a) negatively

related to exhaustion and (b) positively related to task performance

during the workweek via reattachment on Monday. We found support

for Hypothesis 4a because the indirect effect from weekend sleep

quality to exhaustion via reattachment was significant and negative

(Est. =0.018, SE =0.009, 95% confidence interval [CI] =[0.040;

0.002]). However, Hypothesis 4b was not supported by the data

(indirect effect from sleep quality to task performance via reattach-

ment: Est. =0.010, SE =0.007, 95% CI =[0.003; 0.025]). Hypothe-

sis 5 stated that weekend catch-up sleep is indirectly (a) positively

related to exhaustion and (b) negatively related to task performance

during the workweek via reattachment on Monday. Indeed, the indi-

rect effect from catch-up sleep to exhaustion via reattachment was

positive and significant, supporting Hypothesis 5a (Est. =0.007,

SE =0.004, 95% CI =[0.0001; 0.017]). However, the indirect effect

to task performance was not significant, so Hypothesis 5b (indirect

effect from catch-up sleep to task performance via reattachment: Est.

=0.004, SE =0.003, 95% CI =[0.010; 0.001]) was not sup-

ported. Lastly, in Hypothesis 6, we assumed that weekend social sleep

lag is indirectly (a) positively related to exhaustion and (b) negatively

related to task performance during the workweek via reattachment

on Monday. Neither Hypothesis 6a (indirect effect from social sleep

lag to exhaustion via reattachment: Est. =0.002, SE =0.006, 95%

CI =[0.012; 0.016]) nor Hypothesis 6b (indirect effect from social

sleep lag to task performance via reattachment: Est. =0.001,

SE =0.003, 95%-CI =[0.011; 0.006]) was supported by the data.

Taken together, we found evidence for two indirect effects via reat-

tachment on Monday: weekend sleep quality was indirectly negatively

related to workweek exhaustion (Hypothesis 4a) and weekend catch-

up sleep was indirectly positively related to workweek exhaustion

(Hypothesis 5a).

7.2 |Additional analyses

To further strengthen our results, we ran a series of robustness checks

that are documented in detail in the online supporting information

(see robustness checks and Tables S1–S3). In short, the robustness

checks underscored the stability of the relations among weekend

sleep quality, weekend catch-up sleep, Monday reattachment, and

workweek exhaustion beyond previous-week sleep duration,

employees' work location, and other prevalent workweek experiences

(i.e., job demands and job resources). Having determined the robust-

ness of our results, we ran three additional analyses. First, we exam-

ined whether cyclical effects exist. One could assume that not only

weekend sleep characteristics relate to the workweek but also that

the workweek relates to next weekend's sleep characteristics. Accord-

ingly, we added the next weekend's sleep characteristics as outcomes

in our existing path model (see Table S4). Because the weekend sleep

characteristics now predict the next weekend's sleep characteristics,

TABLE 3 Results of two-level path analysis: within-person

indirect effects.

Path Est. SE 95% CI

Weekend sleep quality à

Monday reattachment à

workweek exhaustion

0.018 0.009 [0.040; 0.002]

Weekend sleep quality à

Monday reattachment à

workweek task

performance

0.010 0.007 [0.003; 0.025]

Weekend catch-up sleep

àMonday reattachment

àworkweek exhaustion

0.007 0.004 [0.0001; 0.017]

Weekend catch-up sleep à

Monday reattachment à

workweek task

performance

0.004 0.003 [0.010; 0.001]

Weekend social sleep lag à

Monday reattachment à

workweek exhaustion

0.002 0.006 [0.012; 0.016]

Weekend social sleep lag à

Monday reattachment à

workweek task

performance

0.001 0.003 [0.011; 0.006]

Note: Est. =unstandardized path estimate obtained from two-level path

analysis in Mplus 8.7 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017). CI =confidence interval

computed using the Monte Carlo method with 20,000 simulations (Selig &

Preacher, 2008). Confidence intervals that do not include zero are shown

in bold.

10 VÖLKER ET AL.

the results describe changes in sleep characteristics from the previous

to the next weekend. The results showed only two significant associa-

tions: both exhaustion (Est. =0.281, SE =0.068, p=.001) and task

performance (Est. =0.606, SE =0.103, p<.001) positively predicted

changes in weekend catch-up sleep. Thus, the results suggest that a

vicious cycle might exist for weekend catch-up sleep: while higher

weekend catch-up sleep was related to higher levels of exhaustion

during the workweek via lower levels of reattachment on Monday

(see Hypothesis 5a), higher levels of workweek exhaustion, in turn,

predicted an increase in weekend catch-up sleep from the previous to

the next weekend.

Second, we investigated whether Monday reattachment indi-

rectly relates to workweek task performance. For this reason, we

tested whether workweek exhaustion might explain the relationship

between Monday reattachment and workweek task performance

instead of representing a parallel outcome (see Table S5). The results

demonstrated that lower levels of workweek exhaustion indeed

related to higher workweek task performance (Est. =0.276,

SE =0.035, p< .001). Additionally, higher Monday reattachment indi-

rectly predicted higher workweek task performance via lower levels

of workweek exhaustion (Est. =0.033, SE =0.015, 95% CI =[0.005;

0.064]). Hence, the results of this additional analysis suggest that

higher Monday reattachment can indeed relate to higher workweek

task performance—but only indirectly via lower levels of

workweek exhaustion.

Third, because boundary theory highlights the role of individual

differences in transitioning between different roles (Ashforth

et al., 2000), we investigated whether person-level segmentation pref-

erences (Kreiner, 2006) change the relationships between weekend

sleep characteristics and Monday reattachment. Specifically, we

tested whether those who prefer to keep their private and work roles

separate (i.e., employees with high segmentation preferences) might

transfer fewer resources from their weekend to their workweek. To

that end, we added segmentation preferences (four items; Kreiner,

2006) as a cross-level moderator for the associations between the

three sleep characteristics and reattachment (see Table S6 and

Figure S1). Interestingly, higher weekend sleep quality was related to

higher Monday reattachment for employees with low (1SD, Est.

=0.223, SE =0.049, p< .001) and intermediate (M, Est. =0.132,

SE =0.043, p=.002), but not high (+1SD, Est. =0.004, SE =0.055,

p=.445) segmentation preferences. Accordingly, the benefits of high

weekend sleep quality for Monday reattachment were not present for

those who prefer to keep their private and work roles separate.

8|DISCUSSION

Combining the tenets of boundary theory (Ashforth et al., 2000) with

a circadian perspective and sleep research (Borbély, 1982; Borbély

et al., 2016; Mullins et al., 2014), we investigated antecedents and

outcomes of Monday reattachment to work. We proposed that higher

weekend sleep quality indirectly relates to favorable workweek out-

comes (lower levels of exhaustion, higher task performance) via higher

levels of reattachment on Monday, while higher weekend catch-up

sleep and social sleep lag indirectly relate to unfavorable workweek

outcomes (higher levels of exhaustion, lower task performance) via

lower levels of reattachment on Monday. Indeed, when employees

slept better during the weekend, they reattached better to their work

on Monday and, in turn, were less exhausted during the workweek.

Contrarily, when employees tried to catch up on sleep during the

weekend, they reattached less to their work on Monday and, in turn,

were more exhausted during the workweek. Not supporting our

assumptions, we found no relationships for weekend social sleep lag

as an antecedent and for workweek task performance as an outcome

of Monday reattachment.

8.1 |Theoretical implications

Our research suggests that reattachment on Monday can have impli-

cations for the entire workweek and thus can serve as a meaningful

micro-role transition when crossing the boundary from the private

role during the weekend to the work role during the workweek. Add-

ing to previous research on daily morning reattachment (Sonnentag

et al., 2020; Sonnentag & Kühnel, 2016; Vogel et al., 2022), our study

provides further insights that tuning into work can enable employees

to foster their work-related well-being. In particular, we emphasized

that reattachment processes can cover extended time frames (Yuan

et al., 2021) and that the accompanying benefits not only unfold at

the day level but also on a weekly basis. That is, employees were less

exhausted during the workweek, suggesting that reattachment seems

to enable employees to better allocate their energetic resources at

work. However, similar to day-level research demonstrating that

morning reattachment only indirectly benefits daily task performance

(Fritz et al., 2021), we found no direct relation between Monday reat-

tachment and workweek task performance. Instead, our second

additional analysis suggests that better reattachment is indirectly

associated with better workweek task performance via lower levels of

workweek exhaustion. We can only speculate that reattachment helps

to effectively allocate resources during the workweek. Because of this

resource allocation process, employees are less exhausted, enabling

them to perform better. Accordingly, while workweek exhaustion

might be a more proximal outcome of Monday reattachment, work-

week task performance seems to be a rather distal outcome. As such,

energetic resources may be directly related to reattachment processes

while task-related outcomes only change as a consequence of low

energetic resources. However, these findings do not depreciate the

relevance of Monday reattachment as decreasing workweek exhaus-

tion is of crucial importance for organizations to sustainably maintain

the human capital needed at work (Barnes et al., 2023). Accordingly,

our findings imply that experiences on Monday can set the tone for

the entire week, thereby underscoring the relevance of investigating

how employees can return to work after the weekend.

We further demonstrate how different facets of sleep matter for

organizational behavior. By combining boundary theory (Ashforth

et al., 2000) with sleep research (Borbély, 1982; Borbély et al., 2016),

VÖLKER ET AL.11

we integrated a circadian perspective into the recovery literature.

This circadian perspective on the work–nonwork interface is highly

needed as circadian processes strongly influence employees' lives

(Roenneberg et al., 2003). Still, circadian aspects such as timing and

consistency in sleep have been largely neglected in organizational

behavior research in general (with a few exceptions, e.g., Kühnel

et al., 2016) and in research at the work–nonwork interface in particu-

lar (Völker et al., 2023; Zijlstra et al., 2014). Concerning weekend

social sleep lag, we found none of the assumed relationships with

Monday reattachment and workweek outcomes. We can only specu-

late that circadian misalignment arising from social sleep lag is more

relevant as a person-level (Kühnel et al., 2016) or day-level (Völker

et al., 2024) boundary condition for employees' well-being and behav-

ior at work and does not critically impact the transition from one week

to another. Importantly, however, higher weekend catch-up sleep was

related to higher levels of workweek exhaustion via lower levels of

Monday reattachment, and higher weekend sleep quality was indi-

rectly related to lower levels of exhaustion throughout the workweek

via higher levels of Monday reattachment. This result pattern is in line

with previous research demonstrating the resource–restoring benefits

of high-quality sleep (Leong & Chee, 2023; Mullins et al., 2014).

Accordingly, weekend sleep can play a role in employees' entire

workweek, highlighting the relevance of sleep as a core human

recovery process.

Furthermore, we emphasize that weekend catch-up sleep relates

to employees' role transition between their private and work roles

(i.e., their reattachment). Specifically, catch-up sleep reflects a situa-

tion in which employees' cognitive and energetic resources are limited

because of needed regulation to readapt to the workweek sleep–

wake rhythm after the weekend (Borbély, 1982; Borbély et al., 2016).

While employees who experience a mismatch between their circadian

preferences and their work schedules might use catch-up sleep as a

short-term solution to overcome their sleep deficit during the previ-

ous workweek (Roenneberg et al., 2003; Roepke & Duffy, 2010), our

findings show that it can harm the next workweek via lower levels of

reattachment on Monday. This result is in line with previous research

suggesting that catching up on sleep is generally not a suitable

strategy (Leger et al., 2020; Taylor et al., 2008). Our first additional

analysis further underscored the drawbacks of catch-up sleep by

suggesting a vicious cycle: Higher levels of workweek exhaustion—as

an indirect result of weekend catch-up sleep—again predicted an

increase in catch-up sleep the following weekend. Taken together, our

findings imply that sleeping consistently long throughout the week is

crucial for employees. Accordingly, organizational behavior research

benefits from investigating circadian aspects of employees' sleep

(e.g., consistency in sleep) and not just the sheer quality or duration.

Finally, our result pattern on sleep characteristics as antecedents

of reattachment highlights that certain requirements must be met for

employees to reattach to work successfully. On the one hand,

high-quality sleep during the weekend positively related to Monday

reattachment via a resource-building pathway, implying that reattach-

ment depends on energetic and cognitive resources provided by

high-quality sleep. On the other hand, high weekend catch-up sleep

negatively related to Monday reattachment via a resource-draining

pathway, implying that lacking energetic and cognitive resources due

to inconsistency in sleep duration make reattachment more difficult

for employees. Accordingly, to be able to reattach to work, employees

need to control their attention to their work role and invest available

resources. We speculate that reattachment does not happen

automatically when starting work on Monday and can be demanding,

so it must be initiated deliberately. Similar to psychological detach-

ment, psychological reattachment might also be subject to a paradox.

As described in the recovery paradox (Sonnentag, 2018), mentally

detaching from work can recover depleted resources but, at the same

time, employees also need to invest resources for detachment to set

in. Our findings suggest a similar paradoxical pattern for reattachment.

Monday reattachment might help to efficiently allocate limited

resources to work and foster well-being throughout the week, but at

the same time also seems to depend on the availability of energetic

and cognitive resources (e.g., provided by sleep). Thus, our results sug-

gest that reattachment itself might depend on replenished energetic

and cognitive resources to reveal its benefits during the workweek,

resulting in a paradoxical pattern.

8.2 |Limitations and directions for future research

Some limitations of our study must be considered. First, we relied on

self-report data to measure our constructs of interest. Thus, our data

might be subject to common-method bias such that the shared

measurement method biased the relationship between the constructs

(Podsakoff et al., 2003). To prevent common-method bias, we fol-

lowed recommendations (Podsakoff et al., 2012) and temporally sepa-

rated the assessment of our constructs by using two weekly surveys

(i.e., measuring antecedents in the Friday

w-1

and Monday

surveys,

reattachment in the Monday

survey and outcomes in the Friday

survey). At the same time, weekend catch-up sleep and social sleep

lag were calculated based on employees' sleep times, and thus were

assessed in a different response format. However, future research

might further reduce concerns about common-method bias, for exam-

ple, by obtaining other ratings of exhaustion (e.g., ratings from signifi-

cant others, Fritz, Yankelevich, et al., 2010).

Second, we relied on difference scores to calculate weekend

social sleep lag and catch-up sleep. On the one hand, we decided on

this approach because using difference scores is common in chronobi-

ological research (e.g., Leger et al., 2020; Wittmann et al., 2006) and

its applications in organizational behavior research (e.g., Kühnel

et al., 2016). On the other hand, alternative statistical procedures to

model differences (e.g., multilevel response surface analysis; Nestler

et al., 2019) would have resulted in more complex analytical models

requiring larger sample sizes due to an extensive random-effects

structure. However, difference scores also come with important

methodological limitations that need to be acknowledged (Edwards,

2001). Difference scores have been criticized to, for example, be unre-

liable and oversimplify the notion of fit (Edwards, 1994,2001). Even

though we calculated a difference score based on clock times and

12 VÖLKER ET AL.

hours (i.e., absolute measures) and not psychological scales, the use of

difference scores can still be accompanied by these relevant psycho-

metric issues. To eliminate these concerns, future research could draw

on recent developments in multilevel response surface analyses

(Nestler et al., 2019) to model congruence between workweek and

weekend sleep characteristics better and in more complex patterns.

Third, studying week-level processes enabled us to test an inter-

esting new time frame but at the same time also yielded some limita-

tions with respect to the level of detail of assessment. On the one

hand, we retrospectively assessed employees' daily sleep characteris-

tics at the end of the workweek and the weekend instead of every

day. We chose this approach to reduce the participants' burden while

still obtaining detailed sleep data for each day of the week. However,

this retrospective assessment could be problematic if employees do

not recall their sleep times in detail. To support the participants in

reporting their daily sleep times, we provided them with a sleep diary

in the general survey (i.e., a template to note their daily sleep times).

However, we still cannot rule out recall errors when reporting sleep

times. Accordingly, we encourage future research to (a) measure

sleep objectively (e.g., using accelerometers; Kühnel et al., 2021)or

(b) employ a fine-grained assessment within daily surveys. On the

other hand, we focused on a weekly perspective and assumed that

Monday reattachment relates to workweek exhaustion and task per-

formance assessed on Friday. Accordingly, our study design resulted

in a relatively large time lag between surveys (i.e., from Monday to

Friday). Even though our robustness checks provided evidence that

our results remained stable when controlling for other highly relevant

weekly work experiences, we cannot ultimately rule out that other

events or experiences during the workweek led to a spurious associa-

tion between Monday reattachment and workweek exhaustion. Fur-

thermore, we could not take into account simultaneous day-level

reattachment processes or relevant explanatory mechanisms that

mediate the relationship between Monday reattachment and work-

week outcomes. Thus, we encourage future research to employ more

fine-grained measures to, for example, disentangle week-level vs. day-

level reattachment processes.

Fourth, the generalizability of our findings might be limited for

two main reasons. On the one hand, we assessed our data during the

COVID-19 pandemic. Research suggests that the social restrictions

during the pandemic might have changed employees' sleep behavior.

Specifically, working from home because of social restrictions

enabled some employees to better follow their circadian preferences

(Blume et al., 2020; Korman et al., 2020). At the same time, working

from home might have led to a stronger blurring of one's work and

private roles (Cho, 2020), potentially facilitating role transitions.

However, because we were interested in within-person relationships

rather than differences between persons, we suppose that these cir-

cumstances did not massively change our results. On the other hand,

our sample was rather specific with regard to demographic variables.

For example, our sample was predominantly female, possibly limiting

generalizability to other genders. Additionally, only a small proportion

of the sample lived with children in the same household. This charac-

teristic of the sample might have occurred because we focused our

research on a population that has some kind of control over their

sleep schedules to be able to reliably assess circadian sleep processes

(see Section 6). Thus, future research could employ objective mea-

sures to assess circadian processes (e.g., dim-light melatonin onset;

Kantermann et al., 2015) to avoid excluding relevant groups of partic-

ipants. Moreover, our sample only comprised employees working a

common Monday to Friday work schedule. As a consequence, we

cannot draw conclusions about employees working in shifts, with

non-standard work arrangements, or even self-employed individuals.

Finally, because we collected our data in Germany, there might also

be cultural differences at play in terms of total weekly work hours or

the rate of (not) working during the weekend (for comparisons

between Europe and the United States, see Bick et al., 2019;

Burda et al., 2006). In general, we encourage future research to

replicate our findings in other samples and research settings that are

not as strongly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and also more

representative of the entire working population to increase

generalizability.

Beyond the abovementioned approaches to address the limita-

tions of our study, we hope to inspire more research to study the

work–nonwork interface and its relation to sleep. First, future

research could dig more deeply into antecedents and mechanisms that

enable or hamper employees' reattachment to work. Our results sug-

gest that reattachment does not happen automatically and also

depends on employees' cognitive and energetic resource availability.

Future research could build on these results, for example, by more

explicitly measuring mechanisms through which sleep benefits reat-

tachment (e.g., cognitive liveliness, Shirom, 2011). Additionally,

scholars could apply our results to other recovery opportunities as a

prerequisite for reattachment. For example, future studies could

investigate whether recovery experiences during the weekend or the

previous evening matter for reattachment. While experiencing relaxa-

tion (i.e., low physiological arousal; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007) might

help increase energetic and cognitive resources similar to sleep quality

and thereby benefit reattachment, experiencing detachment might

represent higher role separation similar to catch-up sleep and thereby

hamper reattachment.

Second, scholars could further investigate the role of weekend

sleep and Monday reattachment in employees' entire workweek. We

offered a starting point by demonstrating that weekend catch-up

sleep relates to increased workweek exhaustion and weekend sleep

quality relates to decreased workweek exhaustion via reattachment

on Monday. However, going beyond our summarized measurement at

the end of the week, it might be interesting to focus on temporal

dynamics during the workweek. Similar to day-level research demon-

strating that the effects of morning reattachment slightly decrease

during the workday (Sonnentag & Kühnel, 2016), it might be that the

effects of Monday reattachment fade over the course of the week.

Consequently, it might be that the indirect effects of weekend sleep

on employees' exhaustion are stronger at the beginning than at the

end of the week. Accordingly, the benefits and drawbacks of weekend

sleep might decline over the course of the week similar to daily

fade-out effects of sleep quality (Hülsheger, 2016; Wiegelmann

VÖLKER ET AL.13

et al., 2023). Future research might thus focus on the role of weekend

sleep and Monday reattachment for exhaustion trajectories during the

workweek (see Weigelt et al., 2021, for a similar approach) instead of

using a summary assessment at the end of the week. Thereby,

research could also incorporate certain unpredictable work events

that might change these weekly trajectories or, in the case of extreme

events, even lead to discontinuous change patterns (Bliese &

Lang, 2016; Weigelt et al., 2021). Similarly, interventions could be

developed to reduce the effects of unpredictable events by forming

stable daily habits (e.g., with regard to sleep hygiene routines; Irish

et al., 2015). Finally, while day-level studies have already pointed to

mechanisms explaining why reattachment benefits employees' work

outcomes (e.g., goal activation; Sonnentag et al., 2020), we could

not provide such explanatory mechanisms at the week level. Accord-

ingly, scholars could investigate which week-level experiences

explain why Monday reattachment relates to workweek outcomes

by drawing upon day-level insights (Fritz et al., 2021; Sonnentag

et al., 2020).

Third, future research could further uncover the relevance

of weekend catch-up sleep for employees' everyday work life. On the

one hand, it would be interesting to consider weekend catch-up sleep

as a predictor of other work-related outcomes (e.g., counterproduc-

tive work behavior or organizational citizenship behavior, Barnes

et al., 2013) to further demonstrate how catching up on sleep during

the weekend might harm subsequent organizational behavior. At the

same time, it would be interesting to investigate possible short-term

effects of catch-up sleep (e.g., decreased weekend exhaustion) to bet-

ter disentangle its positive short-term and negative long-term effects.

On the other hand, scholars could build on our findings suggesting

vicious cycles for catch-up sleep by investigating which weekly

characteristics increase or decrease sleep inconsistency (e.g., sleep

hygiene, Barber et al., 2012).

8.3 |Practical implications

Besides its implications for research at the work–nonwork interface,

our study also offers practical implications. First, our results suggest

that mentally reconnecting to work on Monday matters for the entire

workweek by relating to lower levels of workweek exhaustion.

Accordingly, organizations could implement interventions or prompts

that facilitate the transition from the weekend to the workweek. Simi-

lar to previous approaches to increase psychological detachment

(e.g., Hahn et al., 2011), psychological reattachment can also be taught

(Vogel et al., 2022) or increased via conversational bots (Williams

et al., 2018). For example, employees might start the workweek by

taking the first few minutes to reflect upon goals and planning the

upcoming week. Such planning tasks might not only help increase

reattachment to work but also benefit other organizational goals

(Parke et al., 2018). Integrating psychological reattachment to work in

a fixed morning routine can further benefit employees' experiences

and behaviors (McClean et al., 2021). Accordingly, training or

interventions directly targeting an increase in reattachment might help

to foster employees' well-being during the workweek.

Second, we demonstrated that high-quality and consistent sleep

during the weekend related to lower levels of exhaustion during the

workweek via reattachment on Monday. Accordingly, organizations

could implement interventions targeted at promoting sleep that also

indirectly benefit reattachment as well as subsequent work-related

well-being. Wearing blue-light filtering glasses before sleep, for exam-

ple, constitutes a viable intervention that can increase sleep quality as

well as sleep duration (Guarana et al., 2021). However, it is important

to recognize that these interventions may not be equally effective for

all employees. For example, our additional analysis suggests that the

benefits of high-quality sleep for Monday reattachment are not as rel-

evant for those with higher segmentation preferences. Furthermore,

organizations need to recognize their employees' circadian preferences

to prevent the need for weekend catch-up sleep. By increasing flexibil-

ity to follow circadian preferences during the workweek, employees'

sleep deficit will decrease, thereby reducing the need to catch up on

sleep during the weekend (Roenneberg et al., 2003; Roepke &

Duffy, 2010). Lastly, more education on the interplay of circadian and

homeostatic processes of sleep (Borbély, 1982; Borbély et al., 2016)is

needed. Misconceptions about the relevance of timing and consis-

tency of sleep are a widespread sleep myth (Robbins et al., 2019,

2022) and can even have detrimental effects in the organizational con-

text by leading to biased supervisor ratings (Yam et al., 2014). Without

knowing about the potential downsides of catch-up sleep, employees

might mistake catch-up sleep for a viable strategy to overcome their

sleep deficit instead of working on its cause.

9|CONCLUSION

Building on the tenets of boundary theory (Ashforth et al., 2000)com-

bined with a circadian perspective and sleep research (Borbély, 1982;

Borbély et al., 2016; Mullins et al., 2014), we investigated antecedents

and outcomes of Monday reattachment to work after a work-free

weekend. Our findings suggest that high-quality sleep during the week-

end can be beneficial, but catching up on sleep during the weekend can

be detrimental to Monday reattachment and, in turn, indirectly to

workweek exhaustion. Accordingly, we demonstrate that Monday reat-

tachment can set the tone for the entire workweek, but the capability

to reattach depends on weekend sleep as a core recovery process.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

None. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

There are no conflicts of interest in conducting or reporting this

research.

ETHICS STATEMENT

This research is compliant with APA ethical standards.

14 VÖLKER ET AL.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the

corresponding author upon reasonable request.

ORCID

Jette Völker https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5369-7484

Monika Wiegelmann https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2044-7251

Theresa J. S. Koch https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4462-0095

Sabine Sonnentag https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9464-4653

REFERENCES

Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day's work:

Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management

Review,25(3), 472–491. https://doi.org/10.2307/259305

Barber, L., Grawitch, M. J., & Munz, D. C. (2012). Are better sleepers more

engaged workers? A self-regulatory approach to sleep hygiene and

work engagement. Stress and Health,29(4), 307–316. https://doi.org/

10.1002/smi.2468

Barnes, C. M., Ghumman, S., & Scott, B. A. (2013). Sleep and organizational

citizenship behavior: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology,18(1), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.

1037/a0030349

Barnes, C. M., Lucianetti, L., Bhave, D. P., & Christian, M. S. (2015). “You

wouldn't like me when I'm sleepy”: Leaders' sleep, daily abusive super-

vision, and work unit engagement. Academy of Management Journal,

58(5), 1419–1437. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.1063

Barnes, C. M., Wagner, D. T., Schabram, K., & Boncoeur, D. (2023). Human

sustainability and work: A meta-synthesis and new theoretical frame-

work. Journal of Management,49(6), 1965–1996. https://doi.org/10.

1177/01492063221131541

Beal, D. J., & Weiss, H. M. (2003). Methods of ecological momentary

assessment in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods,

6(4), 440–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428103257361

Bick, A., Brüggemann, B., & Fuchs-Schündeln, N. (2019). Hours worked in

Europe and the United States: New data, new answers. Scandinavian

Journal of Economics,121(4), 1381–1416. https://doi.org/10.1111/

sjoe.12344

Bliese, P. D., & Lang, J. W. B. (2016). Understanding relative and absolute

change in discontinuous growth models. Organizational Research

Methods,19(4), 562–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116633502

Blume, C., Schmidt, M. H., & Cajochen, C. (2020). Effects of the COVID-19

lockdown on human sleep and rest-activity rhythms. Current Biology,

30(14), R795–R797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.06.021

Borbély, A. A. (1982). A two process model of sleep regulation. Human

Neurobiology,1(3), 195–204.

Borbély, A. A., Daan, S., Wirz-Justice, A., & Deboer, T. (2016). The two-

process model of sleep regulation: A reappraisal. Journal of Sleep

Research,25(2), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.12371

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology,1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/

135910457000100301

Burda, M. C., Hamermesh, D. S., & Weil, P. (2006). The distribution of total

work in the EU and US. SSRN Electronic Journal, IZA Discussion Paper

No. 2270. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.928821

Buysse, D. J. (2014). Sleep health: Can we define it? Does it matter? Sleep,

37(1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.5665/sleep.3298

Chaput, J. P., Dutil, C., Featherstone, R., Ross, R., Giangregorio, L.,

Saunders, T. J., Janssen, I., Poitras, V. J., Kho, M. E., Ross-White, A.,

Zankar, S., & Carrier, J. (2020). Sleep timing, sleep consistency, and

health in adults: A systematic review. Applied Physiology, Nutrition,

and Metabolism,45(10), S232–S247. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-

2020-0032

Cho, E. (2020). Examining boundaries to understand the impact of

COVID-19 on vocational behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

119, 103437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103437

Dalal, R. S., Bhave, D. P., & Fiset, J. (2014). Within-person variability in job

performance: A theoretical review and research agenda. Journal of

Management,40(5), 1396–1436. https://doi.org/10.1177/

0149206314532691

Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior

research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes,58(1), 51–100. https://doi.

org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1029

Edwards, J. R. (2001). Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research

Methods,4(3), 265–287.

Fisher, C. D., & Noble, C. S. (2004). A within-person examination of

correlates of performance and emotions while working. Human

Performance,17(2), 145–168. https://doi.org/10.1207/

s15327043hup1702_2

Fritz, C., Auten, D., & Caughlin, D. (2021). Reattachment to work in the

morning and day-level leader outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

129, 103617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103617

Fritz, C., Sonnentag, S., Spector, P. E., & McInroe, J. A. (2010). The week-

end matters: Relationships between stress recovery and affective

experiences. Journal of Organizational Behavior,31(8), 1137–1162.

https://doi.org/10.1002/job.672

Fritz, C., Yankelevich, M., Zarubin, A., & Barger, P. (2010). Happy, healthy,

and productive: The role of detachment from work during nonwork

time. Journal of Applied Psychology,95(5), 977–983. https://doi.org/

10.1037/a0019462

Geldhof, G. J., Preacher, K. J., & Zyphur, M. J. (2014). Reliability estimation

in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological

Methods,19(1), 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032138

Goldammer, P., Annen, H., Stöckli, P. L., & Jonas, K. (2020). Careless

responding in questionnaire measures: Detection, impact, and reme-

dies. The Leadership Quarterly,31(4), 101384. https://doi.org/10.

1016/j.leaqua.2020.101384

Guarana, C. L., Barnes, C. M., & Ong, W. J. (2021). The effects of blue-light

filtration on sleep and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology,

106(5), 784–796. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000806

Hahn, V. C., Binnewies, C., Sonnentag, S., & Mojza, E. J. (2011). Learning

how to recover from job stress: Effects of a recovery training program

on recovery, recovery-related self-efficacy, and well-being. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology,16(2), 202–216. https://doi.org/10.

1037/a0022169

Hülsheger, U. R. (2016). From dawn till dusk: Shedding light on the recov-

ery process by investigating daily change patterns in fatigue. Journal of

Applied Psychology,101(6), 905–914. https://doi.org/10.1037/

apl0000104

Hülsheger, U. R., Uitdewilligen, S., Zijlstra, F. R. H., & Walkowiak, A.

(2022). Blue Monday, yellow Friday? Investigating work anticipation as

an explanatory mechanism and boundary conditions of weekly affect

trajectories. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,26(4), 359–376.

https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000330

Irish, L. A., Kline, C. E., Gunn, H. E., Buysse, D. J., & Hall, M. H. (2015). The

role of sleep hygiene in promoting public health: A review of empirical

evidence. Sleep Medicine Reviews,22,23–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.smrv.2014.10.001

Kantermann, T., Sung, H., & Burgess, H. J. (2015). Comparing the

Morningness–Eveningness questionnaire and Munich ChronoType ques-

tionnaire to the dim light melatonin onset. Journal of Biological Rhythms,

30(5), 449–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748730415597520

Kim, S. J., Lee, Y. J., Cho, S. J., Cho, I. H., Lim, W., & Lim, W. (2011).

Relationship between weekend catch-up sleep and poor performance

on attention tasks in Korean adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics

and Adolescent Medicine,165(9), 806–812. https://doi.org/10.1001/

archpediatrics.2011.128

VÖLKER ET AL.15

Korman, M., Tkachev, V., Reis,

It is Monday again: Weekend sleep differentially relates to the workweek via reattachment on Monday

Abstract