By Natalie Berkoff

Climate change and global warming are creating widespread and dangerous disruptions in nature and for humans throughout the world. This has been predominantly caused by human behaviour of burning fossil fuels for power generation, which releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This has led to devastating impacts on the environment, including natural disasters, extreme weather, and resource depletion. This has also led to negative impacts on human health and wellbeing, including post-traumatic stress, malnutrition, illness, and in extreme cases, injury, and death.

100 major companies have accounted for a substantial proportion of industrial greenhouse gas emissions, which has added to these climate problems. Therefore, the participation of organisations in the process of climate mitigation and adaptation is essential to combat climate change and global warming. So, it is important for organisations to encourage employees’ positive environmental behaviours at work, which often translates to positive environmental behaviours at home.

Research investigating environmental behaviour has increased substantially in recent years, prompted by the negative impacts on the environment and human well-being. Behaviour has been explored by psychologists using a multitude of different theories, but the two that influenced this study are the Theory of Planned Behaviour and the Values Beliefs Norms theory. Past research has used both theories to explain behaviours in various settings, regarding a diverse range of issues.

The Theory of Planned Behaviour has been used to examine positive environmental behaviour (Ajzen, 1985, 1991). The theory proposes that an individual’s attitude and perceived control over their behaviour, and social pressures from others influence their intention to behave in a certain way. Their intention to behave then influences their behaviour.

The Values Beliefs Norms theory indicates that if an individual believes that valued objects are threatened and believe that their actions can help to restore those valued objects, they will experience an obligation for action and support (Stern et al., 1999). This theory has been extended into the Values Beliefs Norms Theory of Environmentalism and can explain and predict positive environmental behaviours.

This study took influence from these two theories, with a focus on environmental attitudes and beliefs, which underpin both theories. This study aimed to examine if they influence environmental behaviour at home and in the workplace. Environmental behaviours including recycling, printing, and electricity use at home and in the workplace were measured. There is extensive previous research investigating environmental behaviour at home and in the workplace separately. However, relatively few studies have explored whether there are similarities or differences between the two locations. Therefore, this study examined if environmental attitudes and beliefs influence environmental behaviour at home and in the workplace and if there is a difference between the two locations.

The aims of this study:

• To discover whether individual environmental attitudes and beliefs impact environmental behaviour at home and in the workplace.
• To discover if there was a difference between environmental behaviour at home and in the workplace.

The study was conducted as a case study on the employees of an environmental sustainability consultancy. The data was collected through an online questionnaire, which was sent to employees via email, and took around ten minutes to complete. The employees who took part in the questionnaire did so voluntarily. 122 employees completed the survey (48.4% female, 49.2% male, 2.4% other). The questionnaire measured individual attitudes towards the environment, individual beliefs about the environment, general environmental behaviour at home and then in the workplace, and recycling behaviour at home and then in the workplace.

Key findings:

• Employee’s environmental attitudes predicted environmental behaviour at home and in the workplace.
• Employee’s environmental beliefs predicted environmental behaviour at home and in the workplace, but to a smaller extent than environmental attitudes.
• Employee’s environmental behaviours did not differ between the home and the workplace.

These findings demonstrated that attitudes towards the environment impact environmental behaviour, which is in line with the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Environmental beliefs also influence behaviour, but only when combined with environmental attitudes. This study found that beliefs alone had a small impact on environmental behaviour. This could indicate that combining values beliefs and norms may be a better way to examine environmental behaviour than beliefs alone. The findings have positive implications for the two theories, as it shows that they are still relevant and applicable to research over twenty years after being created. These findings also have positive implications for the host company, as they indicate that employees share the values of the company they work for.

This study found no differences in environmental behaviour between the home and the workplace, which is in line with some previous research. It is informative for organisations planning environmental interventions to improve environmental behaviour in employees in the workplace and at home. As the employee’s behaviour was consistent between the home and the workplace, the information provided to employees in interventions should be consistent too. The interventions should target improving employee attitudes and beliefs towards the environment, as well as creating a working environment that is accessible for behaving in an environmental way. This could include having recycling bins for disposing of different waste, which are clearly labelled and visible, having lights and computers that switch off automatically, or having a limit on the number of pages each employee can print per week.

Ultimately, it is down to the major companies who release copious amounts of industrial greenhouse gases to change their behaviour to create the most change. However, increased environmental behaviour within smaller organisations and at home will reduce energy use, reduce waste, and increase recycling, leading to positive impacts on the environment. If a substantial number of organisations implement behavioural interventions and the above recommendations, it could lead to increased positive environmental behaviour of employees, reducing the negative impact on the environment, and creating a better world for the future.

By Renee Rapier (21-22)

Upon the announcement of COVID-19 being declared a global pandemic in 2020, organisations and employees were left in a state of absolute chaos. Now, roughly three years later, the way business is conducted has changed forever. While before the pandemic the idea of remote work and more specifically, working from home was not an entirely new concept, the idea of enforced working from home due to a global pandemic was. Employees at every stage of their careers were forced to conduct work from home whilst bracing for the impacts of COVID-19. Employees across the globe were abruptly placed in a new evolution of working arrangements that seemed to be constantly changing. COVID-19 gave employees a new attitude toward their employers, careers, and overall relationship with work. This study analysed how employees at the early stages of their careers have embraced the trials and tribulations of the evolving working arrangements brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. While the pandemic has progressed there has been a shift from employees working fully remote to a now hybrid arrangement. This study adds new insight into understanding the experiences employees in the early stages of their careers have undergone throughout these transitions. The study was conducted with employees under thirty years old to gain awareness of a population still relatively novice in their career but have held employment at a time before the pandemic to allow for reflection. This study targeted those under thirty because although not senior in their organisation, they are the future of the organisation. Participants reflected on the past while envisaging their future concerning their relationship with work. The findings were captured from interviews of participants asking predetermined questions regarding elements relating to their experiences throughout transitioning working arrangements throughout the pandemic. The analysis of the interviews was conducted using thematic analysis with guidelines proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006). Upon analysis, three main themes were identified from the participant’s interviews: organisational support, elements of hybrid working, and accepting the present.

See Figure 1 for the main themes and subthemes.

Figure 1. Themes and subthemes. Percentages represent who provided data that contribute to each theme and subtheme. 

Organisational Support

Support from the employees’ organisations was related to the overall ease employees felt throughout their changing work arrangements throughout the pandemic. Perceptions of the organisations were swayed based on the support that was provided to the employees. It was understood that if the organisation did not supply the correct support to their employees the employees did not view them as positive. Furthermore, it did not go unnoticed when organisations went above and beyond for their employees during times of unease. As mentioned by Tyler, “it made me feel lucky I worked for a good company” (Tyler).

Elements of Hybrid Working

These elements contain the matter-of-fact components that occurred while hybrid working. These pragmatic aspects do not negate the emotions that were attached to experiences employees encountered while hybrid working such as ‘accountability’, having a ‘routine’, experiencing ‘autonomy’, and navigating ‘blurred boundaries’. Undergoing a trial and error cycle while working from home seemed to be a collective experience felt by the employees.  From understanding past mistakes, employees found what worked for them and what did not in terms of productivity, efficiency, and well-being whilst hybrid working.

Accepting the Present

An emotional shift was identified in the participant’s narratives throughout the evolution of their working arrangements. This shift allowed those to accept their working arrangements and occurred once the participants understood the positives of their new working arrangements and offered the outlook that it would not have occurred unless COVID-19 happened. Being able to appreciate COVID-19, while it was a terrible thing to happen, has some positives, “although COVID-19 was a terrible thing there’s definitely some long-term benefits from it”. 

The job demands-resources model (Demerouti et al., 2001) and paradox theory (Lewis, 2000) provide an understanding of the abovementioned findings by offering a helpful lens in interpreting the experiences employees in the earlier stages of their careers have shared in response to evolving working arrangements throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The job demands-resources model (JD-R), a widely used framework in occupational literature, explains the bearing of job resources and demands. As job resources are factors that can help buffer the stress and strain that can arise from job demands (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). The JD-R model supports the narratives involved with explaining whether or not the transitions were easy and aligned this with the availability of resources received from their organisations. The paradox theory, when applied to the context within organisations, offers a new mindset. Applying a paradox mindset can enable its users to survive and thrive during times of ambiguity in organisational life by welcoming tensions and can also provide support to them (Lewis, 2000; Smith & Lewis, 2011). The employees utilise a paradox mindset by interacting with the tensions of their everchanging work arrangements and respond by having a positive mindset when speaking about the new positives that only arrived from COVID-19. They appreciated the new outcomes and this allowed employees to take on the day with competing tensions by looking at the brighter side of the situation.

Recommendations

This study has supplied recommendations for both employees and organisations to consider  

• Organisations and their employees should have a dialogue regarding work and home boundaries
• Employers should provide ample resources to employees 
• Employees should communicate their needs or hardships to management  
• Organisations should consider paradox mindset training throughout times of uncertainty

References

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and             looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273-285.

 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research     in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. 

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-         resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. 

Lewis, M.W. (2000). Exploring paradox: toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of          Management Review, 25(4), 760-776.

Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium         model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, (36), 381-403.

By Alex Burrage (21-22)

The impact of work on employee well-being – is effective recovery the answer?

Employee well-being has received heightened interest in recent years with the risk of negative work-related outcomes including burnout, depression and anxiety becoming increasingly prominent. The Health and Safety Executive (2021) Labour Force Survey estimated that in 2021/22, 914,000 workers in the UK were suffering work-related stress, depression or anxiety, leading to a loss of approximately 17 million working days. They also found that the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic were a major contributory factor suggesting that these issues are becoming increasingly prevalent. Organisations and researchers have traditionally understood the impact of work on employee well-being by considering the balance of job demands and the resources that employs possess to cope with these stressors (JDR; Bakker & Demourouti, 2017). However, more recently, there has been a shift to consider how employees can recover effectively from work during their non-work time (e.g., evenings, weekends and vacations). Sonnentag and Fritz (2007) outlined four recovery experiences that may assist employees in counteracting stressor: Psychological detachment, not thinking about work during non-work time; relaxation, having a low activation level; mastery, facing a positive challenge to new experiences; and control, having a feeling of control over non-work time. Whilst each recovery experience manifests differently, they all reduce strain by allowing employees to adequately recover from job stressors (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2006). Effective recovery from work has been associated with an array of outcomes including employee health, stress management, and life satisfaction (Meijman & Mulder, 1998). The most widely applied theoretical explanation for this relationship between job stressors, psychological detachment and employee well-being is the stressor-detachment model (SDM; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015). This model suggests that detaching from work is a key factor in predicting strain and when we detach from work, we can weaken the relationship between stressors and strain.

How does what we think about during our non-work time impact on our recovery?

More recently, driven by the technological advancements in modern working practices, researchers have explored how we think about work during our non-work time may impact on recovery. Initially, work-related thoughts were seen as detrimental to recovery by reducing the ability for employees to detach from work. However, a study by a group of researchers suggested it is the typeof thoughts that determine any association with negative well-being impacts (Jiminez et al., 2022). For example, it has been suggested that thinking about work in a positive way or problem-solving during non-work time can benefit employee well-being (Sonnentag & Niessen 2020). This appears to make sense on the face of it, with negative thoughts such as worry likely to impact how we recover from a stressful day. However, thinking about how you will tackle a work-related problem the next day is perhaps less likely to cause harm.

‘Switching off’ and ‘leaving work at work’ – is this the best strategy?

Despite the rise in ‘always on’ culture and the ability to ‘work from anywhere, anytime’ across a wide range of organisations, there is still a general perception that you should ‘switch off’ when you leave work and not complete tasks you may have left unfinished. Researchers have become interested in how unfinished tasks may impact well-being in recent years, with emerging evidence suggesting having unfinished tasks at work can have a negative impact on sleep (Syrek & Antoni, 2014) and can decrease performance (Masicampo & Baumeister, 2011). In addition, perhaps most concerning, studies conducted with employees over weekends have shown associations between unfinished tasks and negative work-related thoughts (affective rumination) (Syrek & Antoni, 2014). This suggests that leaving tasks at work that are unfinished may increase your work-related thoughts and impact your ability to detach from work and subsequently lead to negative outcomes.

New research

There is growing interest in the role of recovery from work during non-work time and associated well-being impacts. More recent research has investigated the impact of our work-related thoughts and how many unfinished tasks we have on how we feel both physiologically and psychologically. The current study’s aim was to contribute to this emerging area of research by exploring the impact of unfinished tasks and work-related thoughts during non-work time on positive and negative affect, a distinct measure of well-being that covered depression, anxiety, comfort, and enthusiasm.

The main findings showed that:

• Negative thoughts about work during non-work time (affective rumination) predicted increases in anxiety and depression and decreases in comfort and enthusiasm.
• Positive thoughts about work during non-work time (problem-solving pondering) predicted increases in enthusiasm and did not predict negative outcomes.
• Having more unfinished tasks predicted experiencing more positive thoughts about work during non-work time (problem-solving pondering) but did not predict negative thoughts (affective rumination).
• Affective rumination completely mediated the unfinished tasks and anxiety and depression relationships. This means that these negative thoughts about work act as a complete mechanism through which unfinished tasks lead to negative affective well-being outcomes.

What are the implications for both employees and organisations?

The relationship between having a higher number of unfinished tasks and the likelihood of negative thoughts about work during non-work time suggests that planning interventions whereby employees can manage their unfinished tasks and help to self-regulate could be useful. As an organisation, you may want to encourage employees to plan their tasks prior to their weekend or when they go on vacation which could help to reduce the impact on their well-being.

In addition, the results suggest that blanket measures that prevent employees from contacting employees outside of working hours may in fact be more detrimental to well-being. Encouraging an individualised approach and equipping employees with the tools to manage their workload and tasks that may be unfinished appears a better approach whilst keeping self-care in mind throughout. 

Looking ahead to the future

The results revealed from this study further contribute to the growing understanding of the impact of both unfinished tasks when we leave work and our thoughts about work during on non-work time and the impact this can have on well-being. With the growing prevalence of work-related health issues, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s important for both organisations and employees themselves to understand how to manage their workload and recover effectively during their non-work time. It is a collective responsibility to ensure maximum performance and appropriately managed well-being to contribute to a thriving and growing workplace and wider economy. Future research exploring the multiple facets involved in this process across a range of employee well-being outcomes is required to understand this further.

References

Bakker, A., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal Of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273-285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056

Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2006). Recovery, well-being, and performance-related outcomes: The role of workload and vacation experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 936-945. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.936

Health and Safety Executive. (2022). Health and safety at work annual report. https://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/overall/hssh2122.pdf

Jimenez, W. P., Hu, X., & Xu, X. V. (2022). Thinking about thinking about work: A meta-analysis of off-job positive and negative work-related thoughts. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37, 237–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09742-7

Masicampo, E. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2011). Consider it done! Plan making can eliminate the cognitive effects of unfulfilled goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 667–683. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024192

Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In P. J. Drenth, H. Thierry, & C. J. de Wolff (Eds.), Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology (pp. 5-33). Hove: Psychology Press.

Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The recovery experience questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 204-221. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204

Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2015). Recovery from job stress: The stressor-detachment model as an integrative framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 72-103.https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1924

Sonnentag, S., & Niessen, C. (2020). To detach or not to detach? Two experimental studies on the affective consequences of detaching from work during non-work time. Frontiers in Psychology, 2502, 365-386. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.560156

Syrek, C. J., & Antoni, C. H. (2014). Unfinished tasks foster rumination and impair sleeping – particularly if leaders have high performance expectations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(4), 490–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037127