By Ramandeep Bhullar (20-21)

Working full-time jobs while managing your own personal lives can sometimes become frustrating and near enough impossible for employees. However, employees may fail to understand where this frustration stems from or what contributes to this issue. The term work-life balance refers to an employee’s ability to manage work and job demands. For example, a poor work-life balance could represent an employee who has a high workload and is unable to spend time with family during the evenings and weekends as a result. Although employees may think this is not a big issue, this in fact can have detrimental impacts on an employee’s physical and mental health. Work-life balance also has major impacts on the organisation itself. A good work-life balance can lead to a more productive workforce whereas a bad work-life balance results in a higher rate of sickness absence.

Organisations and employees would benefit from understanding the antecedents of a poor work-life balance to ensure that they can be AVOIDED: 

Mobile phones

Due to digitalisation the labour market has changed significantly, and many employees are now becoming dependent on their smartphone to access work-related matters during the evening and weekends which, could be as simple as replying to a work email.

Ruminating

There has also been an increase in employees engaging in overthinking which can be described as a tendency to ruminate. Employees could experience a negative event at work such as a conflict with a colleague and find themselves replaying it repeatedly. Using smartphones for work in the evening and weekends could also increase rumination as they make you more accessible to work-related matters.

These factors need to be studied with work-life balance as findings can give a more holistic view of the determinants of a good/poor work-life balance. Therefore, this study examined the effect of rumination levels on the relationship between work-related smartphone use and work-life balance.

The need to psychologically detach is paramount when it comes to ensuring a good work-life balance. This construct is important in the workplace because employees need to be able to mentally disengage from any work-related activities as this can have a negative influence on employee well-being. Employees that are constantly thinking about work during their evenings and weekends are much more likely to be exhausted. They are also more likely to experience a poor work-life balance because they have issues fulfilling their personal goals. Psychological detachment can also have a buffering effect on work-life balance for example if employees are experiencing high job stress, they may still be able to maintain a good work-life balance if they mentally detach from work during non-working hours. This relationship between psychological detachment and work-life balance becomes more strained due to work-related smartphone use in leisure time as this contributes to a lack of psychological detachment.  

The importance of psychological detachment in work-life balance can be better understood using the boundary control theory which suggests that individuals tend to separate their work and home domains through the process of segmenting. If the work and personal domain are separate and there is no spill over between the two such as answering a work-related email in the evening, then boundaries are segmented. Hence, boundaries enable employees to keep the work aspect from intruding into home life and vice versa. Research has shown that when boundaries for home and work domains are blurred this can lead to a poor work-life balance because these boundaries enable employees to psychologically detach in leisure time. Rumination and work-related smartphone use have both been linked to low boundary control consequently, resulting in a poor work-life balance.

To recap research has highlighted the importance of attaining a good work-life balance both for the employee and the organisation. Psychological detachment and boundary control theory outline the impact work-related smartphone use after hours and the tendency to ruminate can have on work-life balance. Both factors can contribute to a poor work-life balance however, the current study explored how different levels of rumination influence the relationship between work-related smartphone use in leisure time and work-life balance. This study adopted a cross-sectional design and 135 participants were asked to complete online questionnaires that could assess these three factors.

Findings revealed a strong negative relationship between work-related smartphone use during non-working hours and work-life balance. This suggests that individuals who were more frequently using their smartphone for work during evenings and weekends were also more likely to have a poor work-life balance. This makes sense if you consider the boundary control theory and psychological detachment. Results also showed that rumination strengthened the relationship between work-related smartphone use and work-life balance. Individuals who engaged in higher levels of rumination had a very negative relationship between work-related smartphone use after hours and work-life balance. This relationship deteriorated as rumination increased. There was a change effect discovered which showed that at extremely low levels of rumination there was no negative relationship between work-related smartphone use and work-life balance. However, due to the strong negative effect of rumination on the relationship between work-related smartphone use after hours and work-life balance these findings are less influential.

The results can be useful for organisations as they demonstrate a need for employers to make employees aware of the dangers using their smartphones for work during the evening and weekends. They should also encourage a segmentation culture at work. The dangers of rumination found in this study may reflect an underlying need for organisations to implement mindfulness interventions to combat the negative effects of rumination (Lu et al., 2021). Workplace mindfulness interventions in addition to reducing rumination also has many other benefits:

• Reduces symptoms of stress
• Improves work engagement
• Increases job satisfaction

Further research could look at understanding work-life balance with various other factors. For example, individuals who have a perfectionist personality are motivated to consistently appear perfect. When considering work-life balance this could mean that they are more likely to ensure high personal standards even if this means disrupting their own work-life balance. They are also more likely to avoid discussing a poor work-life balance which is why this would be a crucial contribution to research surrounding work-life balance.

References

Lu, Y., Remond, J., Bunting, M., Ilies, R., Tripathi, N., & Narayanan, J. (2021). An App-Based Workplace Mindfulness Intervention, and Its Effects Over Time. Frontiers In Psychology, 12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.615137

By Jason Phillips (20-21)

Workplace bullying is estimated to cost the UK around £18 billion annually, due to high levels of absenteeism, employee turnover and reduced levels of productivity (ACAS, 2015). With working from home becoming the norm for approximately one in two UK individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic (ONS, 2020), it may be questioned as to whether workplace bullying has had the potential to spread through technology during this time and impact the professional and personal lives of employees.

To investigate this, student researcher Jason David Phillips recently coordinated a study looking at the impact of workplace cyberbullying on the well-being of employees, in particular on their levels of flourishing. In addition, he looked at whether engaging in the recovery method of psychological detachment was able to alleviate the effects of workplace cyberbullying on flourishing.

Prior to the study, Phillips predicted that:

• Higher levels of workplace cyberbullying would be associated with lower levels of flourishing
• Higher levels of psychological detachment would be associated with higher levels of flourishing
• Higher levels of psychological detachment would increase the levels of flourishing in participants exposed to workplace cyberbullying.

Study Background

Workplace Cyberbullying

Workplace cyberbullying is the repetitive manifestation of negative acts at work towards targets through technological platforms which they have challenges defending themselves against (Farley et al., 2017). It may take the form of negative acts such as inappropriate language, excluding others and disclosing sensitive information to others (Karthikeyan, 2020). Research investigating the consequences of workplace cyberbullying on targets appears to focus extensively on organisational consequences and job performance criteria. For instance, workplace cyberbullying has been associated with reduced levels of work efficiency and creativity (Privitera & Campbell, 2009; Kalyar et al., 2020).

Flourishing

The term flourishing was positioned by Aristotle as a virtuous achievement by humans to reach towards the highest levels of personal excellence they could achieve (Ryff et al., 2021). Modern psychological literature depicts this as being comprised of autonomy, competence, relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2001) and the overlapping six components of positive psychological functioning; self-acceptance, autonomy, purpose, growth, mastery and positive relationships (Ryff and Keyes, 1995).

Psychological Detachment

Psychological detachment is defined as a sense of mentally disengaging from work-related content during non-work time. It may include methods such as childcare, socialising, sports, volunteering and spending time in restorative environments (Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005; Sonnentag, 2012). However, it may be possible that some recovery activities act as subtle reminders of work, such as a professional copywriter journaling in their leisure time, or a sports marketeer playing tennis during their weekend.  

The Research Study

117 participants over the age of 18 and employed for at least six months participated in this study. Following full ethical approval, participants completed the Workplace Cyberbullying Measure, Recovery Experience Questionnaire and Flourishing Scale.

The results indicated that 32.5% of participants in this sample were targets of workplace cyberbullying, due to being exposed to at least one negative act weekly over the previous six-month period.

The research found that participants exposed to higher levels of workplace cyberbullying acts in the previous six months were more likely to report lower levels of flourishing. However, the results did not reveal a relationship between psychological detachment and flourishing. Additionally, participants’ degree of psychological detachment had no impact on their levels of flourishing in response to exposure to workplace cyberbullying.

It may be that workplace cyberbullying is associated with lower levels of flourishing due to its form allowing it to bypass bystanders who can intervene (Vranjes et al., 2020). Participants in this present study exposed to workplace cyberbullying may have also had higher demands to be ‘on call’ for work at unsociable times, thus impacting their time to be fully present and engage in activities that help them to flourish.

The findings that psychological detachment had no significant impact on the flourishing levels of participants or on the relationship between workplace cyberbullying and flourishing were unexpected. It may be that in this study, the infiltration of participants’ ‘safe haven’ outside of an office space (Forssell, 2016) was able to supersede the ability for them to effectively psychologically detach. In turn, this may have contributed towards a negative spiral, with those targeted by negative acts unable to replenish their resources and ‘charge their batteries’ following exposure to them (Coyne et al., 2017).

It may also be proposed that the physical technological devices themselves may have contributed towards a reduction in the ability for psychological detachment to fully take place in response to workplace cyberbullying, with participant targets able to continuously revisit a physical written or verbal copy of a negative act and therefore become ‘quasi-perpetrators’ (Farley et al., 2017). It could be that the mere physical presence of a device can act as a reminder to targets of the negative acts previously displayed on them, subsequently interfering with the participants in this study to flourish accordingly.

It must be considered that some participants may have completed the survey during working hours and could have been concerned about organisational monitoring of their devices, therefore answering questions in a guarded manner. Additionally, with predictions of an increase in hybrid working practices where technology will be used as a communication medium in both workplace and home working spaces (Pataki-Bittó & Kapusy, 2021), it raises the notion as to whether a new sub-area of ‘hybrid workplace bullying’ research may be required to reflect the complexity of workplace bullying in a new working world.

Conclusion

This research study provides evidence to suggest that those exposed to higher levels of workplace cyberbullying are more likely to have reduced levels of flourishing. Additionally, it suggests that psychological detachment does not lead to higher levels of flourishing and that psychological detachment does not improve levels of flourishing for those who are exposed to workplace cyberbullying. Future research may benefit from further emphasising the new world of working structures, reflecting societal changes in the post-pandemic landscape and how technology has seamlessly been integrated across professional and personal lives. This research may also support organisations to adapt their systems and encourage recovery methods to effectively support targets of workplace cyberbullying.

References

ACAS. (2015). Acas study reveals that workplace bullying is on the rise with many people too afraid to talk about it. Retrieved from ACAS website: https://archive.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=5543

Coyne, I., Farley, S., Axtell, C., Sprigg, C.A., Best, L., & Kwok, O. (2017). Understanding the relationship between experiencing workplace cyberbullying, employee mental strain and job satisfaction: A dysempowerment approach. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(7), 945-972. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2015.1116454

Farley, S., Coyne, I., & D’Cruz, P. (2017). Cyberbullying at work: Understanding the influence of technology. Workplace Bullying. Concepts, Approaches and Methods, 1-31. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-5334-4_8-1

Forssell, R.C. (2016). Exploring cyberbullying and face-to-face bullying in working life – Prevalence, targets and expressions. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 454-460. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.003

Kalyar, M.N., Saeed, M., Usta, A., & Shafique, I. (2020). Workplace cyberbullying and creativity: examining the roles of psychological distress and psychological capital. Management Research Review, 44(4), 607-624. doi: 10.1108/MRR-03-2020-0130

Karthikeyan, C. (2020). Workplace Cyberbullying and Its Impact on Productivity. In Salazar, L.R. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Cyberbullying and Online Harassment in the Workplace (pp.197-214). Hershey: IGI Global.

ONS. (2020). Coronavirus and homeworking in the UK: April 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/coronavirusandhomeworkingintheuk/april2020

Pataki-Bittó, F., & Kapusy, K. (2021). Work environment transformation in the post COVID-19 based on work values of the future workforce. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 23(3), 151-169. doi: 10.1108/JCRE-08-2020-0031

Privitera, C., & Campbell, M.A. (2009). Cyberbullying: The New Face of Workplace Bullying?. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(4), 395-400. doi: 10.1089=cpb.2009.0025

Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2001). On Happiness and Human Potentials: A Review of Research on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141-166. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141

Ryff, C.D., Boylan, J.M, & Kirsch, J.A. (2021). Eudaimonic and Hedonic Well-Being. In Lee, M.T., Kubzanksy, L.D., & VanderWeele, T.J. (Eds.), Measuring Well-Being: Interdisciplinary Perspectives from the Social Sciences and the Humanities (pp. 92-135). New York: Oxford University Press.

Ryff, C.D., & Keyes, C.L.M. (1995). The Structure of Psychology Well-Being Revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719-727. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.69.4.719

Sonnentag, S. (2012). Psychological Detachment From Work During Leisure Time: The Benefits of Mentally Disengaging From Work. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(2), 114-118. doi: 10.1177/0963721411434979

Sonnentag, S., & Bayer, U. (2005). Switching Off Mentally: Predictors and Consequences of Psychological Detachment From Work During Off-Job Time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(4), 393-414. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.10.4.393

Vranjes, I., Farley, S., & Baillien, E. (2020). Harassment in the digital world: Cyberbullying. In Einarsen, S.V., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C.L. (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice. Florida: CRC Press.