Personality differences as predictors of action-goal relationships in work-email activity

Abstract

Article (Accepted Version) http://sro.sussex.ac.uk Russell, Emma and Woods, Stephen A (2019) Personality differences as predictors of action-goal relationships in work-email activity. Computers in Human Behavior, 103. pp. 67-79.

The work‐habits intervention model: A 12‐month study to change work‐email habits

“…In relation to work-habits, it is important to measure both action change and changes in effectiveness of outcomes, related to goal attainment and well-being. As discussed, a workhabit that is beneficial for one person and one goal, can be detrimental to another person with another goal (Middleton & Cukier, 2006;Russell & Woods, 2020). When habitchange is associated with an improvement in goal attainment, we anticipate a corresponding and contemporaneous improvement in well-being outcomes.…”

“…Testing Stage 3 of the WhIM, with a work-email application Given the above discussion, we therefore anticipate that change in work-email actions over a longer-term intervention program will predict improvements in well-being outcomes (NA and PA, and job satisfaction) via the mediating effect of perceived goal attainment. Studies into the impact of work-email on both work and well-being goals are apparent within the research literature (Russell & Woods, 2020) and indicate that unless both outcomes are achieved, 'paradoxes' in the effectiveness of people's behaviours are apparent (Dawley & Anthony, 2003;Middleton & Cukier, 2006;Mazmanian et al, 2005).…”

“…Frequency of use of actions can be used as a proxy for 'habit' (Ouellette & Wood, 1998), with execution/instigation frequency a better predictor of behaviour change than measures that focus on automaticity (Labrecque & Wood, 2015). We examined reported changes in frequency with which 22 commonplace workemail actions (Russell & Woods, 2020) had been executed in the past month, using a 5point scale (where, 1 = never to 5 = always), from T1 to T3. Change in frequency of use was calculated by subtracting the value of each action at T1 from the values of each action at T3, and squaring the difference, to obtain a change score that did not imply change in actions in one direction to be 'better' than change in actions in another direction (because different work-email actions cannot universally be related to the satisfaction of people's goals: Russell & Woods, 2020) 2 .…”

“…: achieve goals relating to "work", "feel a sense of well-being", "feel in control", and "show consideration towards others"'. These goals are considered to be especially salient to people's work-email activity, with different goals being differently relevant to different people (Russell & Woods, 2020). As such, this variable represents an index of participants' perceptions of different goal attainment in relation to work-email, rather than a cohesive scale.…”

A Performance Analysis of Virtual Mail Server on Type-2 Hypervisors

“…In a serial propagation mode, a computing device receives the 1 st electronic mail from a sender addressed to the 1 st and 2 nd recipients, and in response, the computing device transmits the 1 st electronic mail enroot to the 1 st recipient, but not the 2 nd . In response to the 1 st e-mail, a computer device receives a 2 nd e-mail from the 1 st recipient and a computer device transmits the 1 st e-mail to the 2 nd recipient [10]. The present innovation is generally concerned with electronic mail processing and, more precisely [11], with electronic mail servers that monitor the dissemination of an email to addresses based on a sender-determined criterion as shown in Table 1.…”