The Stressful Implications of Remote E-Working: Evidence from Europe

Abstract

This paper investigates the importance of different modes of spatial flexibility as well as of the distinction between autonomy and discretion to find plausible explanations of the so-called autonomy paradox, which maintains that the more the job autonomy that remote e-workers have the greater the effort they put into their work with adverse effects on work-related stress. Using multiple regressions, we test the hypotheses regarding the direct influence of autonomy, discretion and work intensification as well as their interaction effects on occupational stress in two subsamples of 1.380 home-based e-workers and 2.574 mobile ones drawn from the 2015 European Working Conditions Survey. The main findings are as follows. Home-based e-workers perceive that autonomy (namely over work goals) directly decreases occupational stress and buffers work intensification (i.e. autonomy over work goals and in the organizational choices of their department/company). In the context of remote e-work, discretion is more likely to boost the stressful impact of work intensification when work is mobile. At the same time, we do not find that autonomy increases work intensification, neither among mobile e-workers, nor among home-based e-workers (for whom it buffers the adverse impact of work intensification). In summary, this study does not confirm the existence of an autonomy paradox associated with remote e-work. Contrarily, it suggests that such a paradox is more likely to surface when research relies on conceptual frameworks that ambiguously define autonomy in terms of what should be more properly conceptualized as discretion.

Job Quality and Work—Life Balance of Teleworkers

“…On the other hand, telework can lead to unclear boundaries between work and personal life, increased work demands, the depersonalization of relationships at work, a lack of clarity in job roles, and adverse effects on individual wellbeing. Several studies highlight that teleworkers experience greater work intensification, frequent work interruptions, long working hours, lack of recovery time, and more demands to work during one’s free time, at high speed and to tight deadlines, inducing stress and diminishing teleworkers’ wellbeing [ 5 , 14 ]. According to border theorists, the achievement of work–life balance is more difficult where the borders between home and work are intentionally blurred, as is the case for teleworkers [ 23 ].…”

“…In sum, although an extensive body of research discussing this autonomy paradox associated with telework already exists, potential explanations are still limited [ 29 ]. The literature suggests that one way to engage more thoroughly with the autonomy paradox is to distinguish between different types of teleworkers based on the location from where they work [ 31 ], yet few studies attempt to test this hypothesis [ 6 , 14 , 17 , 32 ]. Therefore, our investigation takes the variability among the various types of remote workers as a main dimension of analysis, as recent research has shown that the level of mobility and the intensity of ICT use varies across telework arrangements, and it has a significant influence on working conditions.…”

“…Finally, several studies advocate the use of discretion, instead of autonomy, to provide a more nuanced picture of the autonomy paradox and the implications of telework on wellbeing. According to these studies, the possibilities for the individual to choose where, when, and how to work should be more appropriately defined in terms of discretion rather than of autonomy [ 14 , 36 ]. Therefore, we included in our study composite indices of job quality, which allow us to distinguish distinct features of the multidimensional aspects of work organization, working conditions, and impacts on work–life balance, stress, and wellbeing.…”

“…Thus, studies on the association between flexible working practices, job quality, and work–life balance are still scarce and inconclusive [ 12 ]. One possible explanation for these contradictory findings is that existing studies do not usually distinguish between different groups of teleworkers, neglecting that the consequences of telework may greatly differ depending on the kind of remote location [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Hence, the aim of this article is to contribute to this debate, exploring the consequences that working remotely or telework has for several dimensions of job quality and work–life balance, focusing on two crucial axes of analysis: First, the differences by type of remote work, depending on place and frequency of flexible arrangements, and second, gender differences.…”

“…A second reason for the autonomy paradox may be due to an ambiguous definition of autonomy [ 14 ]. To avoid that, we examined the differences for our subgroups of teleworkers through quantitative multivariate analysis of five dimensions of job quality indices from the Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Work intensity, working time quality, skills and discretion, prospects, and earnings.…”