The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0959-3845.htm

“Technology is killing me!”: the Technostress

and home-
moderating effect of organization work interface

home-work interface on the

linkage between technostress
and stress at work Received 6 March 2022
Revised 31 December 2022
29 May 2023
Debolina Dutta and Sushanta Kumar Mishra 24 July 2023
Accepted 25 July 2023
OB and HR, Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, Bangalore, India

Abstract
Purpose – The fear of the pandemic, confinement at home and the need to work created a unique situation. The
pandemic catalyzed work-from-anywhere practice by adopting information and communication technologies
(ICT) across all industries. While ICT saved organizations, it increased technostress among the workforce.
A better understanding of the adverse effects of ICT usage might enable organizations to manage the mental
well-being of the workforce. While technostress is gaining increasing interest, scholarly work investigating the
dimensions of technostress and its impact on creating stress across various employee demographics and
industry types is missing. Contrary to the prevalent assumptions, the authors theorized and tested the adverse
moderation effect of the home-work interface on the linkage between technostress dimensions and stress. This
paper aims to discuss the aforementioned objective.
Design/methodology/approach – The study captures dimensions of technostress and the resulting stress
at work using a survey-based analysis of 881 working employees in India, representing multiple industries and
functions.
Findings – The study indicates that techno-overload, techno-complexity and techno-invasion significantly
impact employees during the pandemic. The authors further found that the home-work-interface is a powerful
factor in understanding the complex linkage between dimensions of technostress and its outcomes.
Research limitations/implications – Based on the Conservation of Resources Theory and the Job-Demand-
Resources model, this study highlights the adverse impact of this trend on employee well-being. However, the
study suffers from a cross-sectional research design. The technostress research has focused primarily on static,
at-premise environments and mostly on high ICT usage industries. Due to the pandemic, it has neglected the
impact of various technostress dimensions across employee cohorts subjected to rapid technology-enabled
working. Further, most studies focus on the voluntary choice of remote work. Employees struggle with the
unexpected and involuntary shift to technology-enabled remote work. This study contributes to the literature by
examining the consequences of technostress in the context of non-voluntary remote work. Contrary to prevailing
assumptions, this study highlights the adverse effect of organizational home-work interface in influencing ICT-
created stress.
Practical implications – The increasing use of ICT enables telecommuting across the workforce while
increasing organizational productivity. Due to the pandemic, these trends will likely change the future of work
permanently. To minimize employee stress, practitioners need to reconsider the dimensions of technostress.
Further, the study cautions against the prevalent interventions used by practitioners. While practitioners facilitate
a home-work interface, it could have adverse consequences. Practitioners may consider the adverse consequences
of home-work interface while designing organizational policies.
Social implications – This study during the pandemic is crucial as research forecasts the likelihood of other
cataclysmic events, such as future pandemics and political or climate change events, which may sustain
technology-driven remote work practices and remain a feature of the future workplace. Hence understanding
the implications of the dimensions of technostress would help organizations and policymakers to implement
necessary interventions to minimize employee stress.
Originality/value – The present study examines the dimensions of technostress across multiple industries
and job functions in an emerging market marked by a high economic growth rate and an Eastern cultural
context. This study presents the dark side of excessive ICT adoption and indicates how organizations and HRM
practices can help mitigate some of these effects.
Information Technology & People
Keywords Stress at work, Work-from-home, Technostress, COVID-19, ICT, Home-work interface © Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-3845
Paper type Research paper DOI 10.1108/ITP-03-2022-0169
ITP 1. Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic led to employment shocks and significant changes in the work
environment. There have been devastating economic, political and social impacts with
widespread unemployment, underemployment and business shutdowns. On the other hand, the
pandemic infected millions worldwide, posing severe threats to personal and work lives
(Daneshfar et al., 2022; Vachhrajani et al., 2022). Information and communication technologies
(ICT) became the savior for organizations that enabled the work structures “at home” and
facilitated business continuity without endangering employee health (Haider and Amar, 2023;
Saleem et al., 2021). Technology and new processes became the only means of survival for many
organizations, resulting in rapid ICT adoption (Haider and Amar, 2023; Marchiori et al., 2019).
The progress of ICT has positively contributed to organizations and individuals (Harris et al.,
2022; Yener et al., 2021). For example, scholars argue that ICT adoption led to 16% faster
decision-making with 5% potential additional revenue growth over three years (Harris et al.,
2022). However, adopting ICT caused organizations to experience a paradigm shift in their
practices. For example, the long tradition of discrete contextual home-work experiences has
blurred forever (Manroop and Petrovski, 2023). It enabled permanent work-practice reordering
and adaptability to dynamic environments (Chaudhuri et al., 2022; Haider and Amar, 2023).
While the ICT adoption enhanced task completion, better productivity, increased
flexibility and greater autonomy, it has adverse and unintended consequences (Shadbad and
Biros, 2022). ICT usage increased social isolation, depression, anxiety and poor sleep quality
among employees (Ca~ nibano and Avgoustaki, 2022; Saleem et al., 2021). The literature has
cautioned that the stress from adopting technology and usage can be caused before, during,
or after technology adoption (Califf and Brooks, 2020; Yener et al., 2021). However, the present
understanding of stress at work has been chiefly undertaken in relatively static environments
(aspects of work environments, increased workload, role conflicts and lack of social support)
(Saleem et al., 2021). The changing context of work due to the pandemic (Manroop and
Petrovski, 2023) and the influence of the pandemic on accelerated job demands (Afshari et al.,
2022; Haider and Amar, 2023) are fast and dynamic.
While stress and technology were conceptually separate, the stress induced by rapid
non-voluntary technology adoption has been studied sparingly (Daneshfar et al., 2022;
Marchiori et al., 2019; Tomer et al., 2022). Though technostress as a multidimensional
negative psychological state has been studied in the past (Brivio et al., 2018), extant studies
suffer from the following limitations. One, studies have examined technostress in a limited set
of employees voluntarily opting for the work-from-home modalities through ICT (Califf and
Brooks, 2020; Marchiori et al., 2019). Scholars argue that employees’ behaviors and attitudes
due to the non-voluntary transition to technology-enabled remote work may significantly
differ from voluntary telecommuting, which merits a deeper understanding (Becker et al.,
2022; Haider and Amar, 2023). Second, technology competence is central to the identity of IT
professionals (Tomer and Mishra, 2016). In normal times, organizations support only those
employees who are competent in ICT by extending work-from-home opportunities (le Roux
and Botha, 2021). In the changed context, the employees, irrespective of their ICT competence,
are forced to support organizational functioning by working from home despite difficulties.
The rapid transition to virtual work, blurring of the boundary between home and work,
rearrangement of home space (i.e. changing bedroom, kitchen, dining area to fit in the workspace
and kid’s play station), rise in working hours and intensification of the work, contributed to
individual stress (Daneshfar et al., 2022). However, a comprehensive understanding of employee
stress due to ICT usage in a critical situation such as the pandemic is limited (Daneshfar et al.,
2022; G€ erçin, 2020). This is despite organizations like WHO (World Health Organization) and
ug
ILO (International Labour Organization) expressing significant concerns about ICT’s impact on
employee health and well-being (Khedhaouria and Cucchi, 2019; le Roux and Botha, 2021). In fact,
scholars have highlighted the need to examine the effects of the systemic use of technology to
enable remote work on employee well-being (Becker et al., 2022). The present study examines the Technostress
impact of technology on employee stress when the pandemic was at its peak. This becomes and home-
important as research suggests the likelihood of other cataclysmic events, such as future
pandemics and political or climate change events, which may sustain technology-driven remote
work interface
work practices and remain a feature of the future workplace (Becker et al., 2022).
Our study makes four contributions to the literature on technostress. First, scholars argue
that the non-voluntary transition to work-from-home during the pandemic was more
challenging than at other times (Daneshfar et al., 2022). The voluntariness in selecting
work-from-home and its consequences on employees is limited in the existing literature. The
present study examines the implications of technology in the context of non-voluntary
adoption. Second, studies on technostress have focused on employees exposed to continuous
ICT as part of their regular workday (le Roux and Botha, 2021). However, after the recent
pandemic, the scope of ICT applications has expanded to employees not so habituated to
technology. In addition, work-from-home enabled by ICT will likely evolve as a permanent
phenomenon across many industries and organizations. As ICT adoption is likely to increase
(Choudhury et al., 2021), our study explaining its implications carries significant relevance.
Third, we examined the moderating effect of the home-work interface on work-related stress
due to dimensions of technostress. Understanding this will help adopt actions to counter the
negative consequences of adopting ICT within the work-from-home paradigms. This is
critical as scholars argue that “it is worthy of investigating the possible mitigating factors of
technostress” (Shadbad and Biros, 2022, p. 134) and call for research on additional moderators
on technostress and its implications (Yener et al., 2021). Lastly, our study addresses the call
for research to expand the understanding of technostress in emerging economies where the
landscape for organizations and contextual pressures is significantly different from
the developed economies (Sanders and Cieri, 2021; Thite et al., 2014). The rapid growth of
emerging economies is changing the landscape for organizations. Widespread digitalization
and technology-enabled work transformation in emerging economies are disrupting the work
content, practices and work environments more significantly than in developed countries.

2. Theoretical framework
Our study draws on the Job-demands-Resources (JD-R) model and the Conservation of Resources
(COR) theory to argue that the increasing use of ICTs creates stress at work. The JD-R model
stems from working conditions; hence the interactions between the demands and the resources
are more relevant in understanding employee stress. Moreover, the JD-R model gives a
framework for understanding employees’ perceptions of their job (Doargajudhur and Hosanoo,
2022), such as techno-overload, techno-complexity and techno-invasion. According to the JD-R
model, job demands and job resources predict employee stress. Job demands “refer to those
physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical
and/or psychological” efforts (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017, p. 274). Job resources represent the
“physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job” that reduce job demands and
thus help achieve employee goals (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017, p. 274). In a normal situation, an
employee experiences a balance between the job demands and the available resources. When job
resources are insufficient to meet the job demands, it leads to stress (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017).
According to the COR theory, employees experience stress in three ways: Potential
resource loss, actual resource loss and inadequate resource gain from resource-maximizing
investments. Further, employees experience stress in the absence of replenishment of
resource loss. The COR theory considers both positive and negative effects as resource gains
and loss (Standaert et al., 2022), which aligns with the focus of the present study, i.e. on a
condition of resource loss. The COR theory further suggests that individuals attempt to
obtain, retain and protect resources.
ITP We used the JD-R model and the COR theory for two reasons. One, the JD-R model
discusses job resources in the context of job demands. Hence, it puts job demands and job
resources in the equation to postulate that when the job resources are insufficient to balance
job demands, it leads to stress. Thus, the JD-R model focuses on job-related resources (Bakker
and Demerouti, 2017). The COR theory extends the JD-R model by expanding the resource
availability beyond the job. According to the COR theory, resources include “objects,
conditions, personal characteristics, and energies” (Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999, p. 352;
Hobfall, 1989). One relevant factor for the present study is the “condition” emanating from the
home-work interface. While the JD-R model provides the theoretical underpinning to explain
the job demands, the COR theory guides literature on resources, including the work-family
condition (Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999). Second, the JD-R model equates the available job
resources with job demands. The COR theory highlights not only the available resources but
the loss of resources (Hobfall, 1989) in explaining adverse outcomes (Mishra and Bhatnagar,
2010). According to COR theory, an individual attempts to obtain, retain and protect
resources to manage stress. In the absence of resource replenishment, employees try to
minimize resource loss. The present study focuses on job demands (techno-overload,
techno-complexity and techno-invasion) and resources anchored on role theory (home-work
interface) to explain employee stress. The JD-R model and the COR theory help us integrate
demands from the job (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017) and resources from individual roles
(Grandey and Cropanzano, 199). We used both theories to explain employee outcomes,
consistent with past studies (Lin and Wang, 2022). We examine a unique condition, i.e. the
impact of job demand on employee stress when resource depletion is high.

3. Hypotheses development
Technology played a vital role in alleviating the adverse consequences on the life and
livelihood of employees during the pandemic. Reports indicate that most organizations
believe in digitization for business success (Harris et al., 2022). However, the stress people
experience from using ICT and the demands related to ICT usage are termed technostress
(Ayyagari et al., 2011; Pirkkalainen et al., 2019). Technostress can occur with any technology
and is caused by “an inability to cope with new computer technologies in a healthy manner”
(G€ erçin, 2020, p. 824). Often referred to as the “dark side of ICT,” t.
ug
Technostress has adverse consequences for employees (Yener et al., 2021). In the present
manuscript, we have considered three critical dimensions of technostress: techno-overload,
techno-complexity and techno-invasion (Brivio et al., 2018; Califf and Brooks, 2020; Harris et al., 2022).
Techno-overload measures how much ICT forces employees to work more, longer and
faster (Harris et al., 2022). This is like role overload when work demands exceed the resources
available to perform them. Techno-overload is the “tipping point” where ICT creates
expectations that employees can accomplish more than is possible (Harris et al., 2022). The
rapidly changing environment induced by the pandemic pressurized employees to meet tight
deadlines, perform with enhanced agility and speed, reduce break time and sometimes
perform different tasks simultaneously. The pervasiveness of ICT intensified during the
pandemic and became an indispensable part of business operations and success (Adisa et al.,
2017). Employees were obliged to learn and use ICT to execute their tasks, become
“permanently available,” work faster and were compelled to deal concurrently with multiple
tasks (G€ugerçin, 2020). The JD-R model proposes that when the job resources (personal,
relational, or organizational) are insufficient to buffer job demands, it results in employee
stress (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017). Empirical evidence shows that work intensification
creates additional stress that adversely impacts employee health (Afshari et al., 2022;
Bourdeau et al., 2019). This results in employees constantly feeling the pressure, resulting in
anticipatory stress.
 Techno-complexity refers to the stress caused by users who feel inadequate about their Technostress
technical skills and need to spend more time and effort understanding technology (Califf and and home-
Brooks, 2020). Employees were required to upskill rapidly during the crisis (Afshari et al.,
2022). According to the JD-R model, the imbalance between job demands and resources leads
work interface
to stress. Techno-complexity results in unpleasant feelings as new ICTs are multi-faceted and
require effort to understand (Brivio et al., 2018). Employees devote resources (i.e. time and
energy) to learning new technologies to deliver work outputs; the resultant techno-complexity
may deplete them, leaving them too tired and overwhelmed to successfully meet family
members’ expectations (Harris et al., 2022). Employees may feel intense stress if the adaptive
capacity is low to handle the extra workload or the increased demands. The stress may be due
to work intensification, fear of not satisfying managers’ expectations, or not being able to
meet their own expectations. All of these results in burnout, a sense of insecurity, a threat to
the job, or instability due to the constantly evolving nature of work and associated processes
(Afshari et al., 2022; Tomer et al., 2022). Further, the uncertainty of learning new technologies
may also cause a sense of ineffectiveness, frustration, job insecurity and fear of job loss
(Brivio et al., 2018).
Technology blurs the boundaries of work and home, making it difficult to disconnect from
work (Harris et al., 2022). Techno-invasion indicates the extent to which employees feel that
work demands invade non-work time. Due to the ubiquitous nature of ICT today and the
blurring of work and home boundaries, employees increasingly experience techno-invasion.
The absence of fixed working hours, co-located workers, proximity to schedule discussions
and differing personal time requirements increase ICT time to deliver job role demands. The
“always-on” culture created by ICTs (G€ erçin, 2020) leads to an absence of work-life
ug
boundaries (Adisa et al., 2017; Manroop and Petrovski, 2023). Due to the invasive effect of IT,
employees can be reached anytime and feel pressured to be constantly connected, thereby
blurring work and personal contexts (Adisa et al., 2017; Califf and Brooks, 2020). According to
the COR theory, threat or actual depletion of resources lead to stress, more so when resource
replenishment is difficult (Hobfall, 1989). In the context of ICT, work-family conflict may arise
as demands of work and family become incompatible (Harris et al., 2022), depleting resources
and resulting in undesirable outcomes of stress, turnover, absenteeism and dissatisfaction
with job, family and life (Adisa et al., 2017; Kreiner et al., 2009). We, therefore, argue that each
of these dimensions of technostress contributes to and individually causes stress at work.
H1. Techno-overload is positively related to stress at work.
H2. Techno-complexity is positively related to stress at work.
H3. Techno-invasion is positively related to stress at work.
Stressors may materialize due to the interplay of the physical-technological environment, the
social-interpersonal climate and the person-system of an individual. Work and home contexts
create strong expectations about rules, attitudes and behaviors that significantly differ.
Home-Work interface (HWI) refers to the spectrum of ways workplaces and families intersect.
The home-work interface is a “socially constructed” boundary between work and home life
domains (Kreiner et al., 2009). The interface can be constraining or enabling. The present
study focused on the enabling interface between work and home. The organization’s policies
and processes may facilitate the transition between and within work and family spheres. The
existing literature argues that employees value home-work interface facilities (Kreiner et al.,
2009). These facilities provide the resources (i.e. time and energy) that help employees be more
effective at work (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Konrad and Yang, 2012). The support organizations
provide significantly influences employees’ perceptions of job demands (Afshari et al., 2022).
Technical and organizational support will likely decrease technostress and encourage greater
well-being and productivity (Brivio et al., 2018). Therefore, employees are likely to experience
ITP work-home enrichment, less likely to experience work-home conflict and less stress due to
work demands. When employees have contextual resources (managerial support, IT literary
enablers, flexibility in work scheduling), it facilitates efficient and effective coping with
home-work demands, creating a “gain spiral” (Brummelhuis and Bakker, 2012). Thus, HWI is
viewed as an enabling resource to help maintain effective performance in the face of multiple
and competing family and work demands. However, another stream of research has argued
that resources can be counter-productive in specific situations. For example, scholars found
that a positive resource (i.e. a favorable relationship with the leader) may have adverse
consequences (Anand and Mishra, 2021).
Moreover, as discussed earlier, most studies have focused on the voluntary choice of
remote work. Employees struggle with the unexpected and non-voluntary shift to
technology-enabled remote work. The present study examines whether the HWI enhances
or suppresses the linkage between technology and employee stress. We argue that HWI will
increase the effect of technology on employee stress for the following reasons. One, even
before the pandemic, consistent with signaling theory and stigmatization, remote working
was considered a career-limiting move. Employees hesitated to avail of work-life policy
benefits such as flexibility or leave due to fear of adverse career consequences, such as wage
penalties, fewer promotion opportunities and reduced career mobility (Bourdeau et al., 2019).
During the COVID-19 pandemic, most HR departments did not have well-developed policies
to govern remote working (Becker et al., 2022). Hence, employees may experience higher job
insecurity and loss of work meaning during the pandemic due to remote work (Becker et al.,
2022). Employees may perceive the positive steps organizations initiate with skepticism
leading to counter-productive behaviors. For instance, organizations’ efforts to facilitate and
encourage employees to share technology-related knowledge to handle techno-complexity
may be viewed negatively by the employees. These arrangements are often hindered by
employees’ concerns about negative career impact (Konrad and Yang, 2012).
Two, employees tend to construct a psychological boundary that exacerbates the
transition between them. Work-home conflict and boundary violations result from being
constantly available for work and family needs (Ayyagari et al., 2011). When work-home
boundaries are violated, it leads to significant work-home conflict and stress (Kreiner et al.,
2009). Techno-overload and techno-invasion refer to the stress of needing to do more due to
ICT availability and constantly connecting to work. Therefore, the fading boundary between
work-nonwork boundaries and the overlap of work-nonwork responsibilities may result in
widespread anxiety, anger, burnout, depression, tension, loss of control, frustration, anxiety,
stress and feeling overwhelmed (Manroop and Petrovski, 2023). The tools and technology,
long work hours, absence of work-life boundaries and increasing performance pressure have
emerged as common themes due to the work-from-home context created by the pandemic
(Manroop and Petrovski, 2023). Based on the above arguments, we propose the following
hypotheses.
H4. The home-work interface moderates the positive relationship between techno-
overload and stress at work, such that the relationship is stronger when the home-
work interface is high.
H5. The home-work interface moderates the positive relationship between techno-
complexity and stress at work, such that the relationship is stronger when the home-
work interface is high.
H6. The home-work interface moderates the positive relationship between techno-
invasion and stress at work, such that the relationship is stronger when the home-
work interface is high.
4. Method Technostress
4.1 Sample and home-
We collected data from 881 employees working in various organizations and sectors in India.
We contacted professionals from the respective organizations and administered the online
work interface
survey questionnaire to their employees through their HR functions. The HR functions
shared the cover letter, the study’s purpose and the researchers’ credentials and confirmed
respondent anonymity to elicit support for the study. Of the 881 respondents, 179 were
female; 655 were married. We have provided the demographic details of the sample in Table 1.
To address the issue of common method variance (CMV), we used several procedural
measures and statistical tests (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The procedural measures followed were
providing the instructions that there were no correct or incorrect answers, maintaining
respondents’ anonymity (Podsakoff et al., 2003, p. 888) and maintaining methodological
separation by keeping different anchoring points for scales measuring different variables
(Johnson et al., 2011). After data collection, we checked CMV by conducting the common
latent factor analysis. The calculated variance was 23.4% which was within the accepted
limits of 25% (Williams et al., 1989), indicating that CMV is not a significant concern in
this study.

Age (in years) Frequency Industry Frequency

21–25 90 Financial Services & Insurance 60

26–30 104 Government 6
31–35 163 Electronics, Telecommunication 215
36–40 154 Manufacturing 342
>541 370 Service 135
Gender Others 124
Male 693 Function
Female 179 Consulting 44
Non-discloser 9 Finance 60
Relationship IT 108
Single 171 Manufacturing 57
Married 655 Research 13
Widowed 5 Sales 88
Separated/Divorced 20 Services 84
In a Relationship 30 Supply Chain 36
Education Support functions 356
School-level 31 Others 35
Diploma 54 Working hours (per day)
Bachelor’s degree 310 0–3 22
Master’s degree 427 4–6 69
Doctorate degree 14 7–9 415
Others 45 10–12 293
Experience (Years) 13–15 72
0–10 294 >516 10
11–20 344 Working days (weekly)
21–30 196 1 22
31–40 44 2 69
>541 3 3 415
4 293
5 72 Table 1.
>56 10 Demographic
Source(s): Author’s own creation/work characteristics
ITP 4.2 Study variables
The study employed psychometrically valid and standard scales extensively used in previous
research. The 4-item scale measured Techno-overload (Tarafdar et al., 2007; Sample item: “I am
forced by technology to do more work than I can handle”). A 4-item scale measured Techno-
Complexity (Tarafdar et al., 2007; Sample item: “I do not know enough about technology to
handle my job satisfactorily”). A 3-item scale measured Techno-invasion (Tarafdar et al., 2007;
Sample item: “I feel my personal life is being invaded by this technology”). The 5-item scale on
Stress at Work was adapted from Van Laar et al. (2007). This scale contained items like “I often
experience more pressure at work.” We measured the home-work interface using the 3-item
version of the Organization Home-Work Interface (from the Work-related Quality of Life, Van
Laar et al., 2007). The scale included “I am able to achieve a healthy balance between my work
and home life.” All the scales used in the study are presented in the Appendix.

4.3 Control variables

Consistent with past studies, we controlled for age, experience, education, gender and
relationship status (Califf and Brooks, 2020; Harris et al., 2022; Marchiori et al., 2019; Saleem
et al., 2021). Further, average working hours infringe on home-life boundaries and result in
higher employee stress (Manroop and Petrovski, 2023). We controlled for average working
hours and the number of working days, as delivering on job demands provides less break
time, rest and recharge-depleted resources (Afshari et al., 2022). Further, we controlled for the
industry and the function of the respondents since some industries are more likely to offer
telecommuting for all employees or a few functions, as the nature of work fits better with the
use of ICT (Mayo et al., 2009). Working from anywhere is a non-pecuniary benefit that
employees can avail of only certain organizations and functions (Choudhury et al., 2021).

5. Results
5.1 Statistical analysis
We mean-centered the independent variables and used hierarchical linear regression analysis
with bias-corrected bootstrapping. To test the moderation effect, we used the Hayes (2013)
PROCESS macro (Version 2.16.3). We used Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criteria to measure
convergent and discriminant validity. The means, Cronbach Alpha, average variance extracted
(AVE) and the correlation matrix of the variables are provided in Table 2. The Cronbach alpha
and AVE were above the threshold values of 0.70 and 0.50, respectively, indicating adequate
convergent validity of the variables. The study variables’ composite reliability scores ranged
from 0.67 to 0.89, providing strong evidence for reliability (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Also, we
found that the correlations between the variables were less than the square root of the AVE (see
Table 2), ensuring adequate discriminant validity among the variables (Fornell and Larcker,
1981). We calculated the variance inflation factor (VIF) to assess multicollinearity. The VIF values
for techno-overload (TO), techno-complexity (TC), techno-invasion (TI) and home-work interface
(HWI) were 1.45, 1.38, 1.62, 1.37, respectively, indicating no multicollinearity issues in the data.

5.2 Hypotheses testing

As argued, we found that techno-overload leads to stress at work (Table 3). We found a
significant positive relationship between TO and stress at work (β TO 5 0.374, p < 0.001), even
after controlling other effects (see Model 2 in Table 3). Hence, hypothesis 1 was supported. We
also found average working hours and the number of working days are significantly related to
work stress. The average working hours and number of working days can be used as a
surrogate of techno-overload. This finding provides additional indirect support to hypothesis 1.
S.
No. Mean SD α CR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 Age 3.690 1.380 1

2 Gender 1.810 0.420 0.254*** 1
3 Relationship 2.170 2.047
0.676***
0.242*** 1
4 Education 3.230 1.076 0.184***
0.067*
0.174*** 1
5 Experience 2.000 0.887 0.768*** 0.207***
0.488*** 0.076* 1
(Years)
6 Industry 3.980 1.303
0.063y
0.140*** 0.029 0.016
0.006 1
7 Functions 6.120 3.006 0.132***
0.021
0.083* 0.158*** 0.105** 0.133*** 1
8 Working 3.400 0.883 0.140*** 0.001
0.107** 0.162*** 0.064y
0.119*** 0.030 1
hours
9 Weekly 3.800 2.121
0.105**
0.167*** 0.167*** 0.082*
0.093**
0.080*
0.070* 0.124*** 1
working days
10 TO 3.097 0.975 0.843 0.893
0.105**
0.065y 0.101**
0.027
0.097** 0.018
0.082* 0.188*** 0.156*** (0.824)
11 TC 2.255 0.813 0.785 0.730
0.189***
0.085* 0.192***
0.215***
0.143***
0.002
0.071*
0.077* 0.081* 0.307*** (0.784)
12 TI 3.304 0.909 0.707 0.668
0.151***
0.098** 0.135*** 0.032
0.166***
0.049
0.071* 0.269*** 0.177*** 0.503*** 0.280*** (0.794)
13 HWI 3.601 0.987 0.835 0.797 0.171*** 0.123***
0.170*** 0.039 0.168*** 0.045 0.128***
0.328***
0.228***
0.343***
0.255***
0.454*** (0.867)
14 SAW 2.762 0.890 0.888 0.774
0.198***
0.106** 0.173***
0.071*
0.182*** 0.012
0.115** 0.298*** 0.226*** 0.499*** 0.370*** 0.545***
0.581*** (0.83)
Note(s): N 5 881; yp < 0.1; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. CR: composite reliability; α: Cronbach alpha TO: Techno-Overload; TC: Techno-Complexity; TI: Techno-
Invasions: SAW: Stress at Work; HWI: Home-Work Interface. Values in parentheses represent the square root of AVE
Source(s): Author’s own creation/work
work interface
and home-
Technostress

Reliability, AVE and

(Mean, standard
Table 2.

deviation, Cronbach

for study variables)

Descriptive Statistics

bivariate correlations
alpha, Composite
ITP Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
B(se) B(se) B(se) B(se)

(Constant) 2.026(0.253)*** 1.110(0.236)*** 2.867(0.249)*** 3.694(0.371)***

Age
0.072(0.037)y
0.059(0.034)y
0.045(0.030)
0.039(0.030)
Gender
0.057(0.069)
0.044(0.062) 0.001(0.056)
0.006(0.056)
Relationship 0.019(0.018) 0.012(0.016) 0.001(0.015) 0.003(0.015)
Education
0.079(0.027)**
0.065(0.024)**
0.047(0.022)*
0.046(0.022)*
Experience
0.058(0.048)
0.046(0.043)
0.023(0.039)
0.027(0.039)
Industry 0.043(0.021)* 0.028(0.019) 0.029(0.018)y 0.029(0.017)y
Function
0.025(0.009)**
0.017(0.008)*
0.007(0.008)
0.007(0.008)
Working hours 0.332(0.032)*** 0.249(0.029)*** 0.130(0.028)*** 0.135(0.028)***
Weekly working days 0.062(0.015)*** 0.042(0.014)** 0.020(0.013) 0.021(0.013)y
Independent variable
TO 0.374(0.026)*** 0.287(0.024)*** 0.041(0.086)
Moderator
HWI
0.358(0.026)***
0.579(0.078)***
Interaction variable
Table 3. TO x HWI 0.066(0.022)**
Effect of techno- R2 0.195*** 0.350*** 0.467*** 0.472**
overload and home- F 21.101 42.470 63.327 59.680
work interface on Note(s): yp < 0.1; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
stress at work Source(s): Author’s own creation/work

We further found a significant linkage between techno-complexity and stress at work

(Table 4). We found a significant positive relationship between TC and stress at work
(βTC 5 0.378, p < 0.001), after controlling the effect of control variables (see Model 2 in
Table 4). Our findings support hypothesis 2.
We also found a positive association between techno-invasion and stress at work (Table 5).
Our results indicated TI is significantly related to stress at work (β TI 5 0.444, p < 0.001), after
controlling the effects of age, gender, relationship, education, experience, industry, functions,
working hours, weekly working days and preferences for WFH. We found support for
hypothesis 3 (see Table 5, Model 2). However, we did not find gender and relationship status
significant for all three types of techno-stressors. However, consistent with past studies, we
found age, education, function and type of industry are related to stress at work.
We hypothesized the moderation effect of HWI on the relationship between TO and stress at
work. We found a significant interaction effect of TO and HWI on stress after controlling the
main effect of TO, HWI and the control variables (β 5 0.066, p < 0.01). To confirm these results,
we plotted the simple regression lines separately for high and low HWI environments (see
Figure 1). The graph (see Figure 1) indicates that when HWI is high, the relationship between
TO and stress is stronger. Thus hypothesis 4 was supported. The moderation effect of HWI on
the relationship between TC on stress at work (β 5 0.1, p < 0.001) was significant. To confirm
these results further, we plotted the simple regression lines separately for high and low HWI
environments (see Figure 2). The data indicate that (see Figure 2) when HWI is high, the
relationship between TC and stress is stronger. Hence, hypothesis 5 was supported. However,
there was a weak moderation effect of HWI on the relationship between TI and stress at work
(β 5 0.041, p < 0.1). To confirm these results, we plotted the simple regression lines separately
for high and low HWI environments (see Figure 3). The data indicate that (see Figure 3) when
HWI is high, the relationship between TI and stress is stronger. Hence, we found a weak signal
of the moderation effect of HWI, at a 0.05 significance level, hypothesis 6 was not supported.
 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Technostress
B(se) B(se) B(se) B(se) and home-
work interface
(Constant) 2.026(0.253)*** 0.879(0.255)** 2.824(0.267)*** 3.698(0.355)***
Age
0.072(0.037)y
0.061(0.035)y
0.046(0.031)
0.048(0.031)
Gender
0.057(0.069)
0.021(0.064) 0.019(0.058) 0.003(0.058)
Relationship 0.019(0.018) 0.006(0.017)
0.004(0.015)
0.004(0.015)
Education
0.079(0.027)**
0.025(0.025)
0.018(0.023)
0.020(0.023)
Experience
0.058(0.048)
0.047(0.045)
0.024(0.040)
0.018(0.040)
Industry 0.043(0.021)* 0.045(0.020)* 0.042(0.018)* 0.040(0.018)*
Function
0.025(0.009)**
0.023(0.009)**
0.011(0.008)
0.011(0.008)
Working hours 0.332(0.032)*** 0.345(0.030)*** 0.196(0.029)*** 0.199(0.028)***
Weekly working days 0.062(0.015)*** 0.053(0.014)*** 0.027(0.013)* 0.026(0.013)*
Preference for WFH 0.017(0.020) 0.015(0.019) 0.021(0.017) 0.021(0.017)
Independent variable
TC 0.378(0.032)*** 0.274(0.030)***
0.086(0.102)
Moderator
HWI
0.378(0.027)***
0.606(0.067)***
Interaction variable
TC x HWI 0.100(0.027)***
Table 4.
R2 0.195*** 0.304*** 0.436*** 0.444*** Effect of techno-
F 21.101 34.536 55.814 53.326 complexity and home-
Note(s): yp < 0.1; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 work interface on
Source(s): Author’s own creation/work stress at work

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

B(se) B(se) B(se) B(se)

(Constant) 2.026(0.253)*** 0.822(0.236)** 2.553(0.260)*** 3.087(0.411)***

Age
0.072(0.037)y
0.053(0.033)
0.042(0.030)
0.041(0.030)
Gender
0.057(0.069)
0.022(0.061) 0.012(0.056) 0.011(0.056)
Relationship 0.019(0.018) 0.009(0.016)
0.000(0.015) 0.001(0.015)
Education
0.079(0.027)**
0.084(0.024)***
0.064(0.022)**
0.059(0.022)**
Experience
0.058(0.048)
0.018(0.043)
0.006(0.039)
0.005(0.039)
Industry 0.043(0.021)* 0.047(0.019)* 0.044(0.018)* 0.045(0.018)y
Function
0.025(0.009)**
0.018(0.008)*
0.010(0.008)
0.010(0.008)
Working hours 0.332(0.032)*** 0.207(0.029)*** 0.115(0.028)*** 0.119(0.028)***
Weekly working days 0.062(0.015)*** 0.040(0.013)** 0.022(0.013)y 0.022(0.013)y
Preference for WFH 0.017(0.020) 0.020(0.018) 0.024(0.016)
0.023(0.016)
Independent variable
TI 0.444(0.028)*** 0.324(0.028)*** 0.172(0.095)y
Moderator
0.229(0.101)*
HWI
0.326(0.027)***
0.474(0.092)***
Interaction variable
TI x HWI 0.041(0.025)y
Table 5.
R2 0.195 0.374 0.465 0.467 Effect of techno-
F 21.101*** 47.195*** 62.855*** 58.357*** invasion and home-
Note(s): yp < 0.1; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 work interface on
Source(s): Author’s own creation/work stress at work

6. Discussion
Guided by the tenets of the JD-R and the COR theory, our study provides a deeper understanding
of various types of techno-stressors on employee stress caused by the non-voluntary adoption of
ITP 5
HWI (Low)
4.5 HWI (High)

Stress at Work
3.5

2.5

1.5
Figure 1.
The relationship 1
between Techno- Low TO High
overload and stress at Note(s): TO: Techno-Overload and HWI: Home-
work for both high and Work Interface
low HWI environments
Source(s): Author’s own creation/work

4.5

4
Stress at Work

3.5

2.5
HWI (Low)
2
HWI (High)
1.5
Figure 2.
The relationship 1
between Techno- Low TI High
invasion and stress at Note(s): TI: Techno-Invasion and HWI: Home-
work for both high and Work Interface
low HWI environments
Source(s): Author’s own creation/work

work-from-home, which has not been adequately researched. Before the pandemic, the typical
organization constraints of organization size, age and proportion of international employees
explained the adoption of alternative work practices (Mayo et al., 2009). The ongoing effects of the
pandemic have resulted in organizations oscillating between various work models. These could
be a pure work-from-home paradigm, a hybrid model of workplace/home, to the earlier norm of a
100% back-to-workplace. Depending on the nature of the employees’ jobs, different organizations
across industries offer various models to their workforce. Increased ICT availability and
 5 Technostress
4.5 and home-
4
work interface
Stress at Work 3.5

2.5
HWI (Low)
2 HWI (High)

1.5 Figure 3.
The relationship
1 between Techno-
Low TC High complexity and stress
Note(s): TC: Techno-Complexity and HWI: at work for both high
and low HWI
Home-Work Interface environments
Source(s): Author’s own creation/work

enablement by organizations in a completely home-bound environment is clearly causing more

adverse consequences of techno-overload, techno-invasion and techno-complexity on employee
stress. We integrate recent studies on techno-stressors to demonstrate that the changing and the
possible new order of working from home have blurred work and personal contexts, with high
techno-overload, techno-complexity and techno-invasion significantly enhancing employee
stress. While organizations are seeing productivity gains, there are insidious costs and impacts
due to the invasive effect of ICT. Our study shows that the new environment forces employees to
be constantly connected, pressured to deliver more work and quickly learn and adapt to new
technologies, leading to resource depletion. Employee stress is the unintended consequence of the
organization’s productivity gain. Therefore, as the debate between organization benefits of
telecommuting, employee needs and the impact of the home-work environment continues, the
findings of our study have significant relevance for industry practitioners.
We further revealed how the home-work interface, erstwhile believed to an enabler of
maintaining boundaries of work and home, influences the strength of the relationships between
multiple techno-stressors and employee stress at work. Contrary to extant research (Brivio et al.,
2018; Kreiner et al., 2009), the results of our study show that the relationship between the techno-
stressors and stress at work is stronger when HWI is higher. For employees unable to cope with
this explicit or tacit expectation, the process of spiral loss depletes resources, resulting in the
employees experiencing significantly higher stress at work. Further, being unable to “switch
off” due to computer connectivity creates boundary violations, enhances work-home conflict,
causing resource depletion (Ayyagari et al., 2011). Our findings on the influence of HWI reveal
that organizations need to be cautious in their drive to mitigate employee stress due to techno-
overload, techno-invasion and techno-complexity that cause employee resource depletion.
Studies indicate that TI is significantly influenced by employees’ reactions to organizational
situational shocks (Afshari et al., 2022). The easy accessibility enabled by mobile information
technology devices is irreversibly blurring the boundaries of work and non-work domains, and
“the physical, emotional, temporal, cognitive” limits separating the boundaries are ceasing to
exist (Adisa et al., 2017, p. 165). This becomes important as organizations and employees may
not recognize or ignore the impacts of these techno-stressors. The danger zones are when
employees start demonstrating stress symptoms, losing self-expression, impacting
performance and exhibiting withdrawal behavior (Shaukat and Khurshid, 2021). The study,
therefore, extends the understanding of the psychological outcomes of technostress to delineate
ITP the adverse consequences of enabling systems (i.e. home-work interface). Hence, organizations
may also need to look beyond enhancing employee communication and establish feedback
mechanisms while extending support to ensure that HWI does not aggravate employee stress.
Finally, the study addresses the call for research in high collectivist orientation and
emerging market countries with unique contextual pressures that emphasize strong
interpersonal relationships and collective well-being (Thite et al., 2014). The insidious effects
of technostress are likely to be more amplified in these environments, where strong social
support is the norm and dynamic HR systems are evolving to adapt to the shocks of the
industry’s digital transformation.

6.1 Implications for research

Our study’s primary contribution focuses on the unintended consequences of greater technology
adoption through ICTs and its impact on employee stress. Further, the diversity of job demands
and ways of working created by the COVID-19 pandemic provides a richer understanding of the
technostress impact on stress at work. The uniqueness of the research context (COVID-19)
enables us to present the expected impact of the emerging and possible permanent paradigm of a
technology-enabled distributed workforce. The granular approach of the model extended the
perspective of dimensions of technostress and their impact on an important employee outcome of
stress at work. COR and JD-R theories argue that organizational support can significantly
enhance employee well-being. However, our study finds this is not always true, and a high home-
work interface may exacerbate employee stress. Our findings reinforce the need to examine a
feeble voice on this issue (see Anand and Mishra, 2021) and theorize the situational factors in
which positive resources lead to adverse consequences. Second, our study empirically validates
the “dark side of ICT” (G€ erçin, 2020) and contributes through an empirical study to examine
ug
its effect on stress at work. A growing body of research on the influence of techno-stressors
caused by ICT has focused on organizations’ contextual factors, processes and environments.
However, research has neglected to account for employee outcomes and investigate how HWI
influences this. Furthermore, the work-family literature predominantly focused on voluntary
employee choices to work virtually. Our study contributes to the literature by highlighting the
stress due to non-voluntary choice, where employees do not have any choice but to work
virtually. Finally, our study highlights its adverse consequences by exploring the moderation
effect of organizational home-work-interface.

6.2 Implications for practice

The inflection point created by the COVID-19 pandemic has substantive global implications
for the workforce. Work from home is not new to the practicing world, but “the extensity due
to the pandemic is novel” (Oksanen et al., 2021, p. 2). With the changing shift in the work
context, organizations and individuals adapt to how work is organized and jobs are designed.
With the increased likelihood of other cataclysmic events or the maturation of HR practices to
support technology-driven remote work practices, telecommuting may remain a permanent
feature of the future workplace. The potential for fracture between employee groups working
from home and those who contribute to the physical workplace has increased in different
business units and industries. Before the pandemic, 42% of the workforce was expected to be
working in an “off-premise” or work-from-anywhere model (Adisa et al., 2017). Now, ICT
adoption and working from home are becoming the norm for employees in most industries
and are not restricted to small, non-bureaucratic, or large multinational organizations where
this benefit is frequently available (Mayo et al., 2009). In addition, a non-voluntary transition
to WFH using ICT may challenge workers’ abilities to set borders between their work and
private lives (Oksanen et al., 2021). Therefore, organizations and HR functions need to explore
supportive means for reducing stress for the various demographic groups. Our study shows
that various dimensions of technostress differ in their impact on creating stress. The pressure Technostress
to do more and always “be on” is clearly creating tremendous stress within the workforce. and home-
Further, constantly needing to learn new technologies and adapt to the rapidly changing
work context creates stress, especially among the workforce and industries which are
work interface
conventionally not used to high levels of technology adoption.
Since this stress can lead to task and contextual performance, fatigue and burnout,
managers and organizations must minimize this. Studies have exhorted policy and research
to focus on mechanisms that can help reduce the increasing employee stress, especially
during disruptive situations (Chaudhuri et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022). Further, our study
indicates that organizations and managers should be cautious while formulating high work-
home interfaces. Organizations can enable positive technology to improve the employee
experience (Brivio et al., 2018). At individual levels, by allowing work processes and
technologies compatible with the employee’s role, employees perceive the work requests as
consistent with their unique ways of working and fitting their roles, thereby experiencing
reduced techno-overload. For instance, job crafting strategies can allow employees to manage
their work demands and experiment with control of duties in their personal life. With superior
technical support, increased involvement and literacy facilitation, the eudaimonic effect and
experience to reduce techno-complexity can be enabled (Brivio et al., 2018; Califf and Brooks,
2020). For even complex ICTs, considering employees’ needs makes adoption less traumatic
and requires the employee to undergo fewer training and adjustments.
Lastly, techno-invasion can be decreased by defined processes and regulations regarding
when and how ICT communication may facilitate social and interpersonal collaboration. For
instance, just enabling flexibility policies may not be sufficient and could increase technostress
if employees are expected to use their commute time to increase productivity. Further, leaders
expecting subordinates to adjust their schedules per the leaders’ convenience may enhance
techno-invasion stress. The supportive intent of the organization can be signaled when leaders
actively discourage such behaviors. While practices such as virtual employee assistance
programs, meditation, virtual coffee breaks and online reward and recognition have been
adopted by organizations to reduce stress and increase engagement (Manroop and Petrovski,
2023), some of these may continue to deplete employee resources. Studies have shown that in
remote working, leaders are “boundary spanners, bridge makers and blenders” (Panteli et al.,
2019, p. 4). The moderation findings of the influence of HWI emphasize that leadership teams
play a vital role in dry-combing messages of work-life boundaries and demonstrating and
enforcing adherence to the same. Therefore, reducing techno-invasion requires other
interventions. For example, a safety culture to define boundaries of time and ways of
communication may be embedded in the communication management system. Some instances
of this could be scheduling team meetings within working hours, creating a safe environment to
opt out of invited meetings without fear of signaling reduced commitment or stigmatization,
and encouraging employees to refrain from mass mailing colleagues. Some additional positive
and supportive initiatives include “No-Meeting” weekdays and institutionalizing a culture of
accepting personal and work time boundaries.

6.3 Limitations and directions for future research

Our study has some limitations, which may need careful consideration of the generalizability
of the results. First, due to self-report measures of the study constructs, respondents’ bias
may result in the data not being completely objective. Future studies may examine employee
stress from independent data sources such as employee absenteeism, employee assistance
program subscription and self-reported measures. We collected data from gainfully
employed full-time and permanent workforce across different industries. Hence, a second
limitation is the absence of a heterogenous sample with different employment contracts. For
ITP instance, differing employment contracts, such as contractual or gig employees,
demonstrating high job crafting and autonomy levels, may experience technostress and
HWI differently. Future studies may explore technostress and HWI impact across varying
employment contracts. Hence, a longitudinal research design could also help understand how
the techno-stressors change depending on the various employment contracts and over time.
While technostress is accepted to impact employee outcomes, scholarly work continues to
debate its dimensions. For example, Tarafdar et al. (2007) identified five techno-stressors: techno-
overload, techno-invasion, techno-complexity, techno-uncertainty and techno-insecurity. In a
recent study, Shadbad and Biros (2022) argued for another dimension, namely techno-
unreliability as a techno-stressor. In the present study, we used three technostress dimensions as
these are crucial in WFH context. Future studies may examine the implications of other
dimensions on employee outcomes, including stress.
Some studies have also indicated that configurational interactions between personality traits
and individual self-efficacy have differing impacts on stress and burnout (Khedhaouria and
Cucchi, 2019). While we did not control for the influence of personal characteristics and traits in
our study, we believe certain developable behaviors, thoughts and actions, such as resilience, can
influence how employees respond to ICT-created techno-stressors. Our study indicates that age,
education, industry, function, average working hours and the number of working days were also
significant in influencing stress at work. A significant percentage (50.05%) of our respondents
has a post-graduate or doctorate education, which makes generalizing the findings to the
population a challenge. Future studies may explore whether techno-stressors’ impact on
employees is the same or different across different age, education and industry groups.

7. Conclusion
The purpose of the present study was to demonstrate the direct effect of techno-overload,
techno-complexity, techno-invasion and the moderating effect of organizational home-work
interface on stress at work in a novel situation, having significant future implications. It
draws from COR and JD-R lens and identifies the differential impact of types of techno-
stressors on stress at work in a non-voluntary technology-enabled work-from-home
environment. Our study asserts that stress differs for varying employee demographics of
age, education, industry, function and the number of working hours and days. The study has
argued that the organization’s home-work interface can aggravate techno-stressors’ effect on
employee stress. Our study contributes to the literature and practice by highlighting the
adverse consequences of seemingly positive interventions.

References
Adisa, T.A., Gbadamosi, G. and Osabutey, E.L. (2017), “What happened to the border? The role of
mobile information technology devices on employees’ work-life balance”, Personnel Review,
Vol. 46 No. 8, pp. 1651-1671.
Afshari, L., Hayat, A., Ramachandran, K.K., Bartram, T. and Balakrishnan, B.K. (2022), “Threat or
opportunity: accelerated job demands during COVID-19 pandemic”, Personnel Review, Vol. 51
No. 9, pp. 2482-2501.
Anand, P. and Mishra, S.K. (2021), “Linking core self-evaluation and emotional exhaustion with
workplace loneliness: does high LMX make the consequence worse?”, International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 32 No. 10, pp. 2124-2149.
Ayyagari, R., Grover, V. and Purvis, R. (2011), “Technostress: technological antecedents and
implications”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 831-858.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2017), “Job demands-resources theory: taking stock and looking
forward”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 273-285.
Becker, W.J., Belkin, L.Y., Tuskey, S.E. and Conroy, S.A. (2022), “Surviving remotely: how job control Technostress
and loneliness during a forced shift to remote work impacted employee work behaviors and
well-being”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 61, pp. 449-464. and home-
Bourdeau, S., Ollier-Malaterre, A. and Houlfort, N. (2019), “Not all work-life policies are created equal:
work interface
career consequences of using enabling versus enclosing work-life policies”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 172-193.
Brivio, E., Gaudioso, F., Vergine, I., Mirizzi, C.R., Reina, C., Stellari, A. and Galimberti, C. (2018),
“Preventing technostress through positive technology”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 9 Nos 1-5,
2569, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02569.
Brummelhuis, L.L. and Bakker, A.B. (2012), “A resource perspective on the work-home interface”,
American Psychologist, Vol. 67 No. 7, pp. 545-556.
Califf, C.B. and Brooks, S. (2020), “An empirical study of techno-stressors, literacy facilitation, burnout,
and turnover intention as experienced by K-12 teachers”, Computers and Education, Vol. 157,
pp. 1-15, 103971, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103971.
nibano, A. and Avgoustaki, A. (2022), “To telework or not to telework: does the macro context
Ca~
matter? A signalling theory analysis of employee interpretations of telework in times of
turbulence”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. ahead of print, pp. 1-17, doi: 10.1111/
1748-8583.12457.
Chaudhuri, R., Chatterjee, S., Vrontis, D. and Alessio, I. (2022), “Work from anywhere and employee
psychological well-being: moderating role of HR leadership support”, Personnel Review, Vol. 51
No. 8, pp. 1967-1989.
Choudhury, P., Foroughi, C. and Larson, B. (2021), “Work-from-anywhere: the productivity effects of
geographic flexibility”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 42, pp. 655-683.
Daneshfar, Z., Asokan-Ajitha, A., Sharma, P. and Malik, A. (2022), “Work-from-home (WFH) during
COVID-19 pandemic – a netnographic investigation using Twitter data”, Information
Technology and People, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 2161-2186, doi: 10.1108/ITP-01-2021-0020.
Doargajudhur, M.S. and Hosanoo, Z. (2022), “The mobile technological era: insights into the
consequences of constant connectivity of personal devices by knowledge workers”, Information
Technology and People, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 701-733.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Grandey, A.A. and Cropanzano, R. (1999), “The conservation of resources model applied to work–
family conflict and strain”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 54, pp. 350-370.
G€
ugerçin, U. (2020), “Does techno-stress justify cyberslacking? An empirical study based on the
neutralization theory”, Behavior and Information Technology, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 824-836.
Haider, M. and Amar, I.A. (2023), “The prevalence of telework under Covid-19 in Canada”, Information
Technology and People, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 196-223.
Harris, K.J., Harris, R.B., Valle, M., Carlson, J., Carlson, D.S., Zivnuska, S. and Wiley, B. (2022),
“Technostress and the entitled employee: impacts on work and family”, Information Technology
and People, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 1073-1095.
Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-based Approach, Guilford Press.
Hobfall, S.E. (1989), “Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 513-524.
Johnson, R.E., Rosen, C.C. and Djurdjevic, E. (2011), “Assessing the impact of common method variance on
higher-order multidimensional constructs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 4, pp. 744-761.
Khedhaouria, A. and Cucchi, A. (2019), “Technostress creators, personality traits, and job burnout: a
fuzzy-set configurational analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 101, pp. 349-361.
ITP Konrad, A.M. and Yang, Y. (2012), “Is using work-life interface benefits a career-limiting move? An
examination of women, men, lone parents, and parents with partners”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33, pp. 1095-1119.
Kreiner, G.E., Hollensbe, E.C. and Sheep, M.L. (2009), “Balancing borders and bridges: negotiating the
work-home interface via boundary work tactics”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52
No. 4, pp. 704-730.
le Roux, D.J. and Botha, P.A. (2021), “Investigating the impact of technostress on productivity and
overall life satisfaction of managers working at a South African ferrochrome smelting
company”, SA Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19 No. 0, p. a1649, doi: 10.4102/
sajhrm.v19i0.1649.
Lin, Y.-L. and Wang, W.-T. (2022), “The influence of supervisor proactivity on perceived job demands
and job outcomes among information technology subordinates in IT-related service projects”,
Information Technology and People, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 2193-2218.
Manroop, L. and Petrovski, D. (2023), “Exploring layers of context-related work-from-home demands
during COVID-19”, Personnel Review, Vol. 52 No. 6, pp. 1708-1727, doi: 10.1108/PR-06-2021-0459.
Marchiori, D.M., Mainardes, E.W. and Rodrigues, R.G. (2019), “Do individual characteristics influence
the type of technostress reported by workers?”, International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 218-230.
Mayo, M., Pastor, J.-C., Gomez-Mejia, L. and Cruz, C. (2009), “Why some firms adopt telecommuting while
others do not: a contingency perspective”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 917-939.
Mishra, S.K. and Bhatnagar, D. (2010), “Linking emotional dissonance and organizational
identification to turnover intention and emotional well-being: a study of medical
representatives in India”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 401-419.
Oksanen, A., Oksa, R., Savela, N., Mantere, E., Savolainen, I. and Kaakinen, M. (2021), “COVID-19 crisis
and digital stressors at work: a longitudinal study on the Finnish working population”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 122, 106853.
Panteli, N., Yalabik, Z.Y. and Rapti, A. (2019), “Fostering work engagement in geographically-
dispersed and asynchronous virtual teams. [Fostering work engagement]”, Information
Technology and People, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 2-17.
Pirkkalainen, H., Salo, M., Tarafdar, M. and Makkonen, M. (2019), “Deliberate or instinctive? Proactive
and reactive coping for technostress”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 36
No. 4, pp. 1179-1212.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Saleem, F., Malik, M.I. and Qureshi, S.S. (2021), “Work stress hampering employee performance during
COVID-19: is safety culture needed?”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 12, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.655839.
Sanders, K. and Cieri, H.D. (2021), “Similarities and differences in international and comparative
human resource management: a review of years of research”, Human Resource Management,
Vol. 60, pp. 55-88.
Shadbad, F.N. and Biros, D. (2022), “Technostress and its influence on employee information security
policy compliance”, Information Technology and People, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 119-141.
Shaukat, R. and Khurshid, A. (2021), “Woes of silence: the role of burnout as a mediator between
silence and employee outcomes”, Personnel Review, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 1570-1586.
Standaert, W., Thunus, S. and Schoenaers, F. (2022), “Virtual meetings and well-being: insights from
the COVID-19 pandemic”, Information Technology and People, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-
print, doi: 10.1108/ITP-01-2021-0022.
Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, B.S. and Ragu-Nathan, T.S. (2007), “The impact of technostress on
role stress and productivity”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 301-328.
Thite, M., Budhwar, P. and Wilkinson, A. (2014), “Global HR roles and factors influencing their Technostress
development : evidence from emerging Indian IT services multinationals”, Human Resource
Management, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 921-946. and home-
Tomer, G. and Mishra, S.K. (2016), “Professional identity construction among software engineering
work interface
students: a study in India”, Information Technology and People, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 146-172.
Tomer, G., Mishra, S.K. and Qureshi, I. (2022), “Features of technology and its linkages with turnover
intention and work exhaustion among IT professionals: a multi-study investigation”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 66, 102518, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.
2022.102518.
Vachhrajani, M., Mishra, S.K., Rai, H. and Paliwal, A. (2022), “The direct and indirect effect of
neuroticism on work engagement of nurses during COVID-19: a temporal analysis”, Frontiers in
Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 947887, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.947887.
Van Laar, D., Edwards, J.A. and Easton, S. (2007), “The work-related quality of life scale for healthcare
workers”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 325-333.
Wang, Y., Byrne, L., Bartram, T. and Chapman, M. (2022), “Developing inclusive and healthy
organization by employing designated lived experience roles: learning from human resource
management innovations in the mental health sector”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-29, doi: 10.1080/09585192.2022.2054287.
Williams, L.J., Cote, J.A. and Buckley, M.R. (1989), “Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and
perceptions at work: reality or artifact?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 462-468.
Yener, S., Arslan, A. and Kilinç, S. (2021), “The moderating roles of technological self-efficacy and time
management in the technostress and employee performance relationship through burnout”,
Information Technology and People, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 1890-1919.

(The Appendix follows overleaf)

ITP Appendix

Construct Items Source

Techno-Overload I am forced by technology to work much faster Tarafdar et al. (2007)

I am forced by technology to do more work than I can
handle
I am forced by technology to work with very tight time
schedules
I am forced to change my work habits to adapt to new
technologies
Techno-Complexity I do not know enough about technology to handle my job Tarafdar et al. (2007)
satisfactorily
I need a long time to understand and use new
technologies
I do not find enough time to study and upgrade my
technology skills
I often find it too complex for me to understand and use
new technologies
Techno-Invasion I spend less time with my family due to technology Tarafdar et al. (2007)
I have to be in touch with my work even during vacation
due to technology
I feel my personal life is being invaded by this technology
Stress at Work I often experience more pressure at work Van Laar et al. (2007)
I am feeling excessively stressed at work
I have unachievable deadlines
I am directed to work long hours
I have unrealistic time pressures
Organization Home- My employer provides adequate facilities and flexibility From the Work-
Work Interface for me to fit work in and around my family life related
My current working hours/patterns suit my personal Quality of Life, Van
circumstances Laar et al., 2007
Table A1. I am able to achieve a healthy balance between my work
Scale items and source and home life

Corresponding author
Debolina Dutta can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]