Digital Connectivity at Work: Balancing Benefits and Risks for Engagement, Technostress, and Performance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written paper on a timely and relevant topic, and the dataset is impressive in size. However, the contribution is limited by several issues. A few remarks to the authors are as follows:

1. The research aim is not clearly stated, and the study’s originality is limited - the combination of JD-R and technostress theory has already been explored in earlier works. So the theoretical contribution is overstated -  this study confirms established models rather than advancing them. The introduction does not indicate a precise research gap, so it is poorly explain why this study matters now.

2.  The review mainly repeats previous studies and textbook definitions of JD-R and technostress, showing little attention to contradictory findings. There is no critical synthesis of the state-of-the-art.

3. In SEM, it is more appropriate to formulate simple hypotheses clearly (e.g., WE positively influences JB, DC positively influences WE, etc.), namely, one hypothesis per relationship in the model. Then, in the results section, it should be stated clearly whether each hypothesis was confirmed or not.

4. The methods also raise concerns: all data come from self-reports within a single company, and job performance is measured with only two items, which reduces validity. This represents the main weakness of the study. The choice of the company is not explained at all. The company presentation is also insufficient: we only know that the study concerns "a multinational company across different branches with the aim of examining how digital connectivity is influencing smart working," which provides almost no meaningful information. The authors need to give a more precise justification for this choice, as well as a detailed description of the company (e.g., which branches were examined, whether the study is within one country or international, and the company’s profile - service, manufacturing, etc.). A more comprehensive explanation is also required regarding the structure of the respondent groups. This is crucial because, despite the large sample, many other factors may influence the examined relationships (e.g., organizational culture, industry characteristics, local/regional economy, cultural values). Therefore, it should be clearly stated how these factors may impact the results.

5. While the authors note that the study is limited to one company, they minimize far more serious issues: reliance on self-reports, the weak measurement of performance, and the inability to generalize across contexts. 

6. The paper suggests future directions but does not critically reflect on how current flaws undermine its conclusions.

Overall, the article has potential but needs major revisions before it can make a meaningful contribution.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Polarity of arrows in Fig. 1.

The polarity signs (+/–) are not present in the arrows of Fig. 1

 

 

 

Example items in Section 2.3.2

The Authors wrote:

"Job Performance scale [22] developed by Bal & De Lange (2015) [22], measures employee productivity and effectiveness in the workplace. It evaluates various aspects of job performance. We selected the following items:

1. How would you rate your job performance?
2. How would you rate your performance in terms of contribution to your work team?”

Therefore the Job Performance scale is made up of only the two items indicated. The Authors must justify why they selected only these two items from the Bal & De Lange (2015) scale.

 

No example items for Technostress questionnaire is provided. It is also necessary to indicate the total number of items in the Technostress questionnaire.

It is also necessary to indicate the total number of items on the Constant Connectivity Scale

 

 

 

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

The Authors have conducted a Confirmatory Factor Analysis for only three measurement scales used.

No information is provided for the following two scales: The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale; General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12).

The Author have to conduct a Confirmatory Factor Analysis also for these two scales.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is highly topical, as digital work and constant connectivity have fundamentally transformed the workplace environment in the post-COVID-19 era. Issues such as the right to disconnect and technostress are becoming increasingly important in terms of employee well-being and organizational efficiency. The research examines the effects of digital connectivity by integrating the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) and technostress models, which is theoretically relevant.

The theoretical basis of the study should be emphasized, as well as the fact that the combination of the JD-R model and the technostress model is novel and well-founded. The large sample (N = 1185) of data from a multinational corporate environment, covering various job categories (managers, white-collar and blue-collar workers), was also a good decision. The study has considerable methodological robustness due to the use of reliable scales and models. In addition, the practical recommendations are also noteworthy: specific organizational recommendations, such as the introduction of the "right to disconnect," digital breaks, and flexible working hours.

One of the shortcomings and weaknesses of the article is its limited generalizability, as the research was based on data from a single company, meaning that the results cannot necessarily be extrapolated to other industries or cultures. Another problem is that longitudinal effects (e.g., the long-term impact of digital connectivity on performance) cannot be examined. The subjective assessments of the respondents may distort the results (e.g., bias due to social expectations). The independence of technostress and commitment is also questionable, as the two mediators operate in parallel but do not interact with each other—this is theoretically interesting but may require further explanation.

I would like to ask the authors to improve the following factors:

• In terms of form, it is important to note that the structure of the study is terribly fragmented. There are subchapters consisting of a single sentence (e.g., 2.3.1.). This excessive fragmentation is completely unnecessary in this form and makes no sense. There are subchapters that have no precedent or counterpart (e.g., there is 1.2, but no 1.1).
• Longitudinal research would be necessary: in future studies, it would be worthwhile to measure changes over time.
• The inclusion of qualitative methods would further strengthen the study. Interviews and focus groups could help to gain a deeper understanding of employees' experiences.
• The same can be said for the involvement of more organizations and more industries.  Diversifying the sample would increase the generalizability of the results.
• The examination of cultural differences would also be interesting. Digital connectivity and technostress can manifest themselves differently in different cultural contexts.
• I would also suggest incorporating integrated models. In addition to the JD-R and technostress models, it would be worth incorporating Self-Determination Theory (SDT) or the Transactional Stress Model, which can better explain the role of autonomy and control.
• Additional moderator variables would also be interesting. For example, it would be worth examining how digital competence, managerial support, or workplace culture influence.
• I find the results section of the study very weak and brief, so I am not convinced by the findings. A sample and research of this size still offers numerous possibilities for investigation, even taking into account the above. 

I wish you all the best in improving the study!

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript and for the effort you have put into this work. After a thorough review, I find that the paper requires substantial improvements across all sections. While the topic is relevant and timely, the current version does not yet meet the standards of a high-quality international journal.

My decision for this manuscript is a risky major revision. This means that the paper may be reconsidered for publication only if the authors are able to address the concerns raised in detail and significantly strengthen the manuscript in terms of theoretical development, methodological rigor, clarity of reporting, and depth of discussion.

Please see my detailed comments below.

1. The manuscript requires substantial revision. Overall, it reads more like a conference paper than a full-length journal article. All sections (introduction, theoretical framework, methodology, discussion) appear incomplete and underdeveloped for the standards of an international journal.
2. The problem statement and research gap are insufficiently articulated. The authors describe the rise of digital connectivity and its potential effects but do not clearly position their study within the existing literature or justify the contribution of examining one single company.
3. The theoretical background and hypothesis development are superficial. The JD-R model and the technostress framework are only briefly summarized, without critical integration, comparative discussion, or deeper theoretical reasoning. The link between the chosen sample and these frameworks remains unclear.
4. The claimed novelty is weak. The integration of JD-R theory with the technostress framework is not new and has already been addressed in prior studies. The contribution as stated does not sufficiently advance the literature.
5. Methodological concerns:
   • The conceptual model resembles a structural equation model (SEM), yet the authors rely solely on PROCESS macro for regression-based mediation. This prevents the assessment of overall model fit and limits the rigor of the analysis. The manuscript lacks a detailed justification for why PROCESS was preferred over SEM approaches such as AMOS, SmartPLS, or Mplus.
   • There is a major inconsistency between Figure 2 and Table 2: the signs of some coefficients (e.g., DC → WE, TQ → JP) are presented in opposite directions. The manuscript does not provide any clarification on this issue, which raises doubts about the accuracy of reporting.
   • Measurement is weak for some constructs, particularly job performance, which is assessed with only two items. This severely restricts construct validity.
6. The discussion and conclusion sections require major improvement. Currently, they reiterate descriptive findings without deeper theoretical interpretation, critical reflection, or explicit links back to the research gap. Managerial implications are overly general and lack actionable insights.
7. The limitations and future research section is overly generic. It fails to address the implications of drawing data from only one company, the potential cultural/contextual biases, and the limitations of a cross-sectional design in testing mediation models.
8. The language of the manuscript, while understandable, often lacks academic rigor and precision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I appreciate your effort to improve the paper.

A few more issues still need to be addressed.

First, while the sample is impressive, the study focuses on one company. Therefore, it should be clearly stated that the paper presents evidence from India—either in the title, or at least in the Abstract and Introduction.

Second, there is still too little attention given to this fact in the discussion section, especially in points 4.1 and 4.2. The cultural differences between multinational corporations and SMEs are substantial, and it should be emphasized more clearly that the study results apply primarily to large multinational corporations.

Finally, there is still no explicit reference to the hypotheses in the results or discussion section. It should be clearly stated, for example: “Hypothesis 1 is confirmed/not confirmed” or “This demonstrates that Hypothesis 1 can be confirmed by the results.”

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for your insightful comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below are our point-by-point responses.

1. Geographic Context
• Abstract (p. 1) now reads:
  “This study utilized a sample of 1,185 employees from a multinational company operating in Italy to examine the…”
• Introduction (p. 2) now includes:
  “This study addresses this theoretical gap…using data from General Electric employees in Italy.”
2. Discussion Emphasis on Generalizability
• Section 4.1 (p. 11) now states:
  “Our findings must be interpreted within the specific context of a large multinational technology corporation operating in Italy. The organizational culture, digital infrastructure, and workforce characteristics of General Electric may differ substantially from small and medium enterprises (SMEs) or organizations in other cultural contexts. The sophisticated technological ecosystem and established digital work protocols in multinational corporations may facilitate higher levels of digital connectivity adoption compared to SMEs with limited technological resources.
• Section 4.2 (pp. 11–12) now notes:
  “This study’s practical implications are primarily applicable to large multinational corporations with similar technological infrastructure and organizational culture. Small and medium-sized enterprises and organizations in different cultural contexts may experience different patterns of digital connectivity effects due to variations in technological resources, management practices, and cultural attitudes toward technology adoption (OECD, 2023).”
3. Explicit Hypothesis References
• Results (p. 9) now include:
  “…the indirect effect through work engagement was significant (b = .042, BootSE = .012, BootCI95% = [.021, .070]), confirming Hypothesis 1.
  “The indirect effect through technostress was negative and significant (b = -.011, BootSE = .0059, BootCI95% = [-.024, -.001]) supporting Hypothesis 2.”
  “However, the serial path through both mediators (DC → WE → TQ → JP) was not significant (b = .001, BootSE = .000, BootCI95% = [-.000, .003]) confirming Hypothesis 3.”
• Discussion (p. 10) now includes references to all three hypotheses.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The novelty of the study lies in its examination of the dual role of digital connectivity (as a resource and as a burden) in a parallel mediation model. The study is interesting and noteworthy, and in my opinion, it has significant novelty value. The corrections made show that the authors took great care to improve the substance of the article. It can be said that the combined application of JD-R, technostress, and SDT theories is novel and well-justified. Another strength is the large sample size (N = 1185) used in the research and the number of statistical analyses paired with it. 

The paper still requires minimal corrections, which are as follows. I recommend that the authors consider these:

• Some sentences are too long and difficult to follow. For better readability, I recommend rewriting and refining them.
• Some symbols, e.g., "DC_TOT → UWES_TOT → TQ_TOT → JP_TOT," are not clear to all readers; it would be worthwhile to add a brief explanation.ű

The study is suitable for publication after the above corrections have been made. Congratulations to the authors on their work. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for your insightful comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below are our point-by-point responses.

1. Sentence Simplification
• We reviewed the entire manuscript, identified overly long sentences, and split them for clarity.
2. Clarification of Symbols
• We have simplified the parenthesis of page 9 in orde to be consistent to the rest of the paper: (DC → WE → TQ → JP)  
• A note has been included in Table 2 to define each abbreviation and the arrow notation (p. 9).

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your detailed revisions and point-by-point responses to the earlier review comments. I can see that the manuscript has improved in several important ways. In particular, the methodological justification for using PROCESS has been made much clearer, statistical reporting inconsistencies have been resolved, the discussion section now provides deeper theoretical integration, and both the limitations and managerial implications are presented in a more comprehensive and concrete manner. These enhancements have substantially increased the rigor and practical relevance of the paper.

That said, I believe the introduction could still be strengthened further. Specifically, the articulation of the research problem and the positioning of the study within the broader literature remain somewhat underdeveloped. While digital connectivity and technostress are timely topics, the research gap and originality of focusing on one company need to be more convincingly justified. A sharper articulation of how this study advances existing work and what precise contribution it makes would further enhance the paper’s academic value.

In summary, I acknowledge the considerable progress made and appreciate the authors’ responsiveness to reviewer feedback. With further refinement of the introduction and research gap section, the manuscript would be even stronger and better positioned for publication.

Sincerely

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate your constructive feedback. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and we believe these revisions substantially improve the manuscript.

In page 4, at the end of Introduction, we articulate better the research gap adding a closing paragraph to the literature review. Moreover, the single-organization focus has been justified in pages 4, 11 and 12.

P.4. “Focusing on General Electric Italy allows us to control for organizational culture and technological infrastructure, isolating the specific mechanisms through which dig-ital connectivity influences employee outcomes. This approach provides robust evi-dence for large multinational corporations navigating post-pandemic work arrange-ments.”

P.11. ““Our findings must be interpreted within the specific context of a large multinational technology corporation operating in Italy. The organizational culture, digital infrastructure, and workforce characteristics of General Electric may differ substantially from small and medium enterprises (SMEs) or organizations in other cultural contexts. The sophisticated technological ecosystem and established digital work protocols in multinational corporations may facilitate higher levels of digital connectivity adoption compared to SMEs with limited technological resources.

P.12. “This study’s practical implications are primarily applicable to large multinational corporations with similar technological infrastructure and organizational culture. Small and medium-sized enterprises and organizations in different cultural contexts may experience different patterns of digital connectivity effects due to variations in technological resources, management practices, and cultural attitudes toward technology adoption (OECD, 2023).”

Thank you so much.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for inviting me to revise this paper titled “Digital connectivity at work: balancing benefits and risks for engagement, technostress, and performance”. This paper referred to the well-grounded Job Demands–Resources theory to investigate the relationship between “digital connectivity at work” and “job performance”. The study considers the work engagement and technostress as mediating variables for a more nuanced understanding of the underlying relationship between connectivity at work and job performance.

While the study offers potentially valuable insights, the paper in its current form is not ready for publication. Several aspects require substantial revision in terms of theoretical framing, hypothesis development, methodological clarity, and overall findings and discussion structure.

In addition to the substantive revision of the text and its articulation, one of the main limitations of this paper is that, although it refers to JB-R theory, in reality this theory does not seem to guide the empirical research conducted by administering a survey to 1185 employees of a multinational corporation.

The paper does not sufficiently justify the use of the JD-R theory as the conceptual lens for analyzing the relationship between digital connectivity at work and job performance.

A clearer rationale for why JD-R is particularly appropriate in this context, and whether or how it has been applied in previous research on digital work environments is needed.

Specifically, I expect the study to provide insight into whether and to what degree the perception of needing to be connected to work (job demand) influences job performance and what the role of job resources (i.e., available resources) is.

Nevertheless the concept of job demand and resources remains underdeveloped.

The paper should explicitly define how digital connectivity is conceptualized and operazionalized within the JD-R framework as a job demand. Likewise, the authors should clarify how the job resource is conceptualized in this study and the constructs and measurement scales adopted in the empirical investigation.

As mentioned before, the study considers the work engagement and technostress as mediating variables. However, the mediating roles of work engagement and technostress are not sufficiently theorized or explained. While both constructs are included in the proposed model and appear central to the study, their conceptual positioning within the JD-R framework is underdeveloped. The manuscript would benefit from a clearer argumentation on why and how these variables mediate the relationship between digital connectivity and job performance. For example, is work engagement considered a resource that enhances performance? Is technostress conceptualized strictly as a job demand that impairs performance? These theoretical mechanisms should be explained more thoroughly, supported by relevant literature. Without a stronger justification for the inclusion and expected effects of these mediators, the model risks appearing ad hoc rather than theory-driven.

The lack of theoretical clarity weakens the overall argument of the paper which compromise its scholarly contribution. Overall, the paper lacks of clarity regarding the research aim within the JB-R theory (never clearly reported). The introduction outlines relevant challenges such as work pressure, technostress, and social isolation, it does not clearly explain how these issues have been addressed in the existing literature, nor does it specify what gaps the present study aims to fill.

The methodology section lacks critical details regarding the hypothesis develepment and measurement of key constructs for job demands and job resources.

The formulation of the hypotheses lacks clarity in their theoretical grounding. The link between the hypotheses and the existing literature, particularly within the framework of the JD-R theory, is not sufficiently articulated.

It is not clear how each hypothesis relate to the constructs of job demands, job resources, and their respective effects on job performance. the authors should more explicitly connect each hypothesis to the theoretical concepts previously introduced, and clearly justify their expectations based on existing research. This would help to establish a more coherent line of reasoning that supports the study’s research model.

As for measurement scale, authors do not specify which scales was used for job demand and job resources and whether the scales used were adapted to the virtual or digital work context, which is central to the study. Given the focus on digital environment, this point is particularly important for assessing the validity of the measurements. Further, The authors do not specify which scale was used to assess work engagement .T o enhance transparency and replicability, it would be advisable for the authors to include the full questionnaire as an appendix, or at least provide detailed information on the items used for each construct.

In summary, while the paper addresses a relevant topic and presents an interesting conceptual approach, substantial revisions are needed . To support the authors in refining their argumentation, I suggest consulting the following references,

Errichiello, L., & Pianese, T. (2021). The role of organizational support in effective remote work implementation in the Post-COVID era. In Handbook of research on remote work and worker well-being in the post-COVID-19 era (pp. 221-242). IGI Global.

Pianese, T., Errichiello, L., & da Cunha, J. V. (2023). Organizational control in the context of remote working: A synthesis of empirical findings and a research agenda. European Management Review, 20(2), 326-345.

Errichiello, L., & Demarco, D. (2020). From social distancing to virtual connections. TeMA-Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, 151-164.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed article explores a relevant and timely topic. It strengths include a large sample size, appropriate statistical analysis, and practical recommendations. However, there are several important weaknesses that, in my view, should be addressed before the paper can be considered for publication.

1. The literature review lacks depth and integration.  The authors "jumps"between concepts without fully developing them and explaining the relationships between them. Also,  many citations are repeated a few times ([12], [13], [14]) -  for me it suggests  a bit superficial engagement with the literature.
2. The research aim is not clearly articulated. It is implied but not explicitly and concisely formulated. The introduction would benefit from a clearly defined aim and research question(s).
3. The methodology section also need more clearity - e.g. why were only 2 items selected for job performance? - this decision should be explained and justified. The authors also do not explan why only one company was included in the study. There is no justification for this choice -  whether it was due to accessibility, relevance to the topic, or any unique characteristics of the company that might influence generalizability.
4. The figures are poorly labeled and explained in the text. Captions are incomplete, and figure placement feels abrupt. The tables (especially Table 1 and 2) are also somewhat confusing—some labels, such as “Alpha di Cronbach,” are linguistically inconsistent and should be standardized.
5. In the Discussion part, several ideas from the results are repeated. This limits the analytical depth. Also, the study mainly confirms existing findings.The paper’s originality is limited and should be better argued.
6. Additionally, the language requires careful editing. The English language throughout is understandable but needs editing for grammar, syntax, and flow.

In summary, while the  findings are consistent with existing literature, the contribution to theory is limited. The paper is promising but requires major revisions to improve structure, depth, and readability.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In section 1.2, the following references are excessively repeated: [12], [13], [14]. It is not necessary to insert them under each bullet point.

Fig. 1 (the theoretical model) in section 1.3 could be titled "the theoretical model proposed by the authors."

Insert the polarities (+ or -) into the arrows in Fig. 1.

In section 2.3.2. Instruments, insert a couple of example items for each measured variable.

Perform a Confirmatory Factor Analysis for each of the three measurement scales used.

Insert the following text as a note in Table 2: DC = Digital Connectivity, JP = Job Performance, ENG = Work Engagement, TQ = Technostress

It is not clear how it is possible that the TQ → JP effect is statistically insignificant due to the high value of β (which is reported as statistically significant in Fig. 2).

Title Fig. 2.

In section 4.1, the following references [17], [29], [30] are excessively repeated. It is not necessary to insert them under each bullet point.