Examining conscientiousness as a key resource in resisting email interruptions: Implications for volatile resources and goal achievement

Abstract

Within the context of the conservation of resources model, when a resource is deployed, it is depleted – albeit temporarily. However, when a ‘key’, stable resource, such as Conscientiousness, is activated (e.g., using a self‐control strategy, such as resisting an email interruption), we predicted that (1) another, more volatile resource (affective well‐being) would be impacted and that (2) this strategy would be deployed as a trade‐off, allowing one to satisfy task goals, at the expense of well‐being goals. We conducted an experience‐sampling field study with 52 email‐users dealing with their normal email as it interrupted them over the course of a half‐day period. This amounted to a total of 376 email reported across the sample. Results were analysed using random coefficient hierarchical linear modelling and included cross‐level interactions for Conscientiousness with strategy and well‐being. Our first prediction was supported – deploying the stable, key resource of Conscientiousness depletes the volatile, fluctuating resource of affective well‐being. However, our second prediction was not fully realized. Although resisting or avoiding an email interruption was perceived to hinder well‐being goal achievement by Conscientious people, it had neither a positive nor negative impact on task goal achievement. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.Practitioner points It may be necessary for highly Conscientious people to turn off their email interruption alerts at work, in order to avoid the strain that results from an activation‐resistance mechanism afforded by the arrival of a new email.Deploying key resources means that volatile resources may be differentially spent, depending on one's natural tendencies and how these interact with the work task and context. This suggests that the relationship between demands and resources is not always direct and predictable.Practitioners may wish to appraise the strategies they use to deal with demands such as email at work, to identify if these strategies are assisting with task or well‐being goal achievement, or whether they have become defunct through automation.

Neural substrates of self‐ and external‐preoccupation: A voxel‐based morphometry study

“…The strong positive correlation suggests that self-preoccupation and neuroticism have similar properties. On the other hand, EPS showed a strong positive correlation with conscientiousness, the level of hardworking (Russell, Woods, & Banks, 2017 Note. Labeling of brain areas is conducted using custom Matlab scripts and labels_Neuromorphometrics.nii in SPM12.…”

“…The strong positive correlation suggests that self‐preoccupation and neuroticism have similar properties. On the other hand, EPS showed a strong positive correlation with conscientiousness, the level of hardworking (Russell, Woods, & Banks, ). Because EPS is associated with burnout, it is reasonable that EPS is positively correlated with conscientiousness.…”

Measuring affective well-being at work using short-form scales: Implications for affective structures and participant instructions

“…In these contexts, researchers require measures of AWB to be short, to minimize disruption to normal tasks and memory ( Fisher et al, 2016 ; Ohly et al, 2010 ), and to avoid irritating participants to the extent that response protocols are impacted ( Hofmans et al, 2008 ; Robins et al, 2001 ; Stanton et al, 2002 ). This may be especially pertinent in field settings where the participant is also expected to undertake their usual work tasks ( Russell et al, 2017 ). Capturing the causal and proximal influences on affective experiences in a quick, clear, time-bound manner ( Miner et al, 2005 ; Ouweneel et al, 2012 ; Xanthopoulou et al, 2012 ) is also central to many current theoretical models that focus on people’s emotional experiences of work in an applied setting (including Affective Events Theory: Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996 ; Job-Demands Resources Theory: Bakker and Demerouti, 2007 ; and the Episodic Process Model: Beal et al, 2005 ).…”

“… Daniels’ (2000) five-factor model of affective well-being (D-FAW) was originally devised as a 30-item scale but has been shortened to 10 items for use in organization studies ( Daniels and Harris, 2005 ; Harris and Daniels, 2005 ; Russell et al, 2017 ). Figure 2 (available online as supplementary material) represents how the 10-item measure would map onto the best-fitting factor structure of the long-form D-FAW (also outlined below).…”

“…The breadth of discrete factors, representing the broad structure of affect, and the availability of a shorter – but equivalently balanced – 10-item form, means that the D-FAW is suitable for addressing our research question. Further, in its short form, the D-FAW has been used to identify relationships between job stressors, demands, goal progress and beliefs ( Daniels and Harris, 2005 ; Harris and Daniels, 2005 ; Harris et al, 2003 ; Russell et al, 2017 ) across a range of occupational contexts. As such, the criterion-related validity of the short-form D-FAW does not require elucidation in this article.…”