Smart Working and Well-Being before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Aim of the Review
2. Materials and Methods
- 1.
- What are the drivers of job well-being and strain?
- 2.
- How do the employees perceive smart working implications on their well-being?
- 3.
- What is the role of the pandemic situation in smart working practices, how does it impact the performance and other organizational outcomes?
- (a)
- The target population, i.e., workers and organizations in smart working.
- (b)
- The focus of the exposure, well-being, and factors of discomfort.
- (c)
- The outcomes, in terms of outcomes related to smart working.
- (d)
- The study designs, in quantitative and qualitative terms.
3. Results
3.1. Area 1: Smart Working and Work Engagement
3.2. Area 2: Smart Working and Technostress
3.3. Area 3: Mediators of the Relationship between Smart Working and Well-Being
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Eurofound and the International Labour Office. Working Anytime, Anywhere: The Effects on the World of Work; Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg and the International Labour Office: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Bonacini, L.; Gallo, G.; Scicchitano, S. Working from home and income inequality: Risks of a ‘new normal’ with COVID-19. J. Popul. Econ. 2020, 34, 303–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rapisarda, S.; Ghersetti, L.; Girardi, D.; De Carlo, N.A.; Corso, L.D. Smart working and online psychological support during the covid-19 pandemic: Work-family balance, well-being, and performance. InPACT 2021, 301–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoeven, C.L.T.; Van Zoonen, W. Flexible work designs and employee well-being: Examining the effects of resources and demands. New Technol. Work Employ. 2015, 30, 237–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tagliaro, C.; Ciaramella, A. Experiencing smart working: A case study on workplace change management in Italy. JCRE 2016, 18, 194–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zappalà, S.; Bonnato, R.; Torre, T.; Scapolan, A.; Mizzau, L.; Maggi, B.; Neri, M. Smart working e fattori psicosociali. In Smart Working. Una Prospettiva Critica; Neri, M., Ed.; Tao: Bologna, Italy, 2017; pp. 15–22. [Google Scholar]
- Bonanni, R.; Danza, M. Smart Working. Tra Crisi e Innovazione; Bertoni: Marsciano, Perugia, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Maimone, F. Change Management: Gestire il Cambiamento Organizzativo con un Approccio “Human Centered”; FrancoAngeli: Milan, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Capone, V.; Capaldo, G. La gestione organizzativa dell’emergenza COVID-19 in Ateneo: Quali relazioni con il benessere psico-sociale di docenti e personale tecnico amministrativo? In La Psicologia del Lavoro e Delle Organizzazioni ai Tempi del Coronavirus: Proposte di Ricerca e Linee di Intervento, Proceedings of the Giornate di Studio della Sezione di “Psicologia per le Organizzazioni”, AIP- Sezione di Psicologia per le Organizzazioni, online conference. Italy, 19–20 November 2020; p. 42. [Google Scholar]
- De Menezes, L.M.; Kelliher, C. Flexible Working and Performance: A Systematic Review of the Evidence for a Business Case. IJMR 2011, 13, 452–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charalampous, M.; Grant, C.A.; Tramontano, C.; Michailidis, E. Systematically reviewing remote e-workers’ well-being at work: A multidimensional approach. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2019, 28, 51–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taris, W.T.; Schaufeli, W.B. The Job Demands-Resources Model. In The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Occupational Safety and Workplace Health; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keyes, C.L.M. Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2005, 73, 539–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Warr, P. A conceptual framework for the study of work and mental health. Work Stress 1994, 8, 84–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Capone, V.; Petrillo, G. Costruzione e validazione della Health Profession Communication Collective Efficacy Scale. Gio. Ital. Psicol. 2012, 4, 903–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warr, P. Work, Unemployment and Mental Health; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- George, J.M. Personality, affect, and behaviour in groups. J. Appl. Psychol. 1990, 75, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daniels, K.; Harris, C. Work, psychological well-being and performance. Occup. Med. 2000, 50, 304–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zeike, S.; Bradbury, K.; Lindert, L.; Pfaff, H. Digital Leadership Skills and Associations with Psychological Well-Being. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. The job demands-resources model: State of the art. J. Manag. Psychol. 2007, 22, 309–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brynjolfsson, E.; Horton, J.J.; Ozimek, A.; Rock, D.; Sharma, G.; Tuye, H.Y. COVID-19 and Remote Work: An Early Look at Us Data; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Gottlieb, C.; Grobovšek, J.; Poschke, M. Working from home across countries. CEPR 2020, 1, 70–91. [Google Scholar]
- Istituto Nazionale di Statistica. Il Rapporto sul Mercato del Lavoro 2020: Una Lettura Integrata a Cura di Ministero del Lavoro; Istituto Nazionale di Statistica: Rome, Italy, 2020; ISBN 978-88-458-2040-3. [Google Scholar]
- Bolisani, E.; Scarso, E.; Ipsen, C.; Kirchner, K.; Hansen, J.P. Working from home during COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learned and issues Management & Marketing. CKS 2020, 15, 458–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osservatori.net. Smart Working. 2020. Available online: https://www.osservatori.net/it/ricerche/osservatori-attivi/smart-working (accessed on 20 May 2021).
- Giannone, D. Perfetto Stato. In Indicatori Globali e Politiche di Valutazione Dello Stato Neoliberale; Mimesis/Cartografie Sociali: Milan, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Morelli, N.; Barello, S.; Mayan, M.; Graffigna, G. Supporting family caregiver engagement in the care of old persons living in hard to reach communities: A scoping review. Health Soc. Care Community 2019, 27, 1363–1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gregory, R.L. Eye and Brain: The Psychology of Seeing; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Manica, M.; Guzzetta, G.; Riccardo, F.; Valenti, A.; Poletti, P.; Marziano, V.; Trentini, F.; Andrianou, X.; Urdiales, A.M.; Del Manso, M.; et al. Impact of tiered restrictions on human activities and the epidemiology of the second wave of COVID-19 in Italy. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 4570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbieri, B.; Balia, S.; Sulis, I.; Cois, E.; Cabras, C.; Atzara, S.; De Simone, S. Don’t Call It Smart: Working from Home during the Pandemic Crisis. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 741585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liberati, A.; Douglas, G.A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.A.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1–e34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giorgi, G.; Lecca, L.I.; Alessio, F.; Finstad, G.L.; Bondanini, G.; Lulli, L.G.; Arcangeli, G.; Mucci, N. COVID-19-Related Mental Health Effects in the Workplace: A Narrative Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, L.H.; Johnson, J.; Watt, I.; Tsipa, A.; O’Connor, D.B. Healthcare Staff Wellbeing, Burnout, and Patient Safety: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0159015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, P.; Passos, A.M.; Bakker, A.B. Empirical validation of the teamwork engagement construct. J. Pers. Psychol. 2014, 13, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaufeli, W.B.; Salanova, M.; González-Romá, V.; Bakker, A.B. The measurement of engagement and burn-out: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J. Happiness Stud. 2002, 3, 71–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakker, A.B.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Leiter, M.P.; Taris, T.W. Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work Stress 2008, 22, 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manuti, A.; Giancaspro, M.L.; Molino, M.; Ingusci, E.; Russo, V.; Signore, F.; Zito, M.; Cortese, C.G. “Everything Will Be Fine”: A Study on the Relationship between Employees’ Perception of Sustainable HRM Practices and Positive Organizational Behavior during COVID19. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demo, G.; Neiva, E.R.; Nunes, I.; Rozzett, K. Human resources management policies and practices scale (HRMPPS): Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. BAR 2012, 9, 395–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Judge, T.A.; Thoresen, C.J.; Pucik, V. Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. J. Appl. Psychol. 1999, 84, 107–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saks, A.M. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J. Manag. Psychol. 2006, 21, 600–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Moorman, R.H.; Fetter, R. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadersh. Q. 1990, 1, 107–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rana, S.; Pant, D.; Chopra, P. Work engagement and individual work performance: Research findings and an agenda for employee relationships. J. Emerg. Technol. Innov. Res. 2019, 6, 17–32. [Google Scholar]
- Koopmans, L.; Bernaards, C.M.; Hildebrandt, V.H.; Van Buuren, S.; Van Der Beek, A.J.; De Vet, H.C. Development of an individual work performance questionnaire. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2012, 62, 6–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaufeli, W.B.; Bakker, A.B. Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Preliminary Manual; Utrecht University: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Timms, C.; Brough, P.; O’Driscoll, M.; Kalliath, T.; Siu, O.L.; Sit, C.; Lo, D. Flexible work arrangements, work engagement, turnover intentions and psychological health. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 2015, 53, 83–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dikkers, J.; Geurts, S.; Den Dulk, L.; Peper, B.; Kompier, M. Relations among work-home culture, the utilization of work–home arrangements, and work–home interference. Int. J. Stress Manag. 2004, 11, 323–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brough, P.; Frame, R. Predicting police job satisfaction and turnover intentions: The role of social support and police organisational variables. N. Z. J. Psychol. 2004, 33, 8–16. [Google Scholar]
- O’Driscoll, M. Work and family transactions. In Transactions in the Mid-Life Family; Koopman-Boyden, P., Dharmalingam, A., Grant, B., Hendy, V., Hillcoat-Nalletamby, S., Mitchell, D., O’Driscoll, M., Thompson, S., Eds.; Population Association of New Zealand, University of Waikato, Hamilton: Hamilton, New Zealand, 2000; pp. 92–112. [Google Scholar]
- Allen, T.D. Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. J. Vocat. Behav. 2001, 58, 414–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalliath, T.; O’Driscoll, M.; Brough, P. Confirmatory factor analysis of the General Health Questionnaire-12. Stress Health 2004, 20, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molino, M.; Ingusci, E.; Signore, F.; Manuti, A.; Giancaspro, M.L.; Russo, V.; Zito, M.; Cortese, C.G. Wellbeing Costs of Technology Use during Covid-19 Remote Working: An Investigation Using the Italian Translation of the Technostress Creators Scale. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melin, M.; Astvik, W.; Bernhard-Oettel, C. New work demands in higher education. A study of the relationship between excessive workload, coping strategies and subsequent health among academic staff. Qual. High. Educ. 2014, 20, 290–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Simone, S.; Agus, M.; Lasio, D.; Serri, F. Development and validation of a measure of work-family interface. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2018, 34, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kristensen, T.S.; Borg, V. Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire (COPSOQ). Mental Health 2003, 5, 5. [Google Scholar]
- Oh, T.S.; Park, S. A Study of the Connected Smart Worker’s Technostress. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2016, 91, 725–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ragu-Nathan, T.S.; Tarafdar, M.; Ragu-Nathan, B.S.; Tu, Q. The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations: Conceptual development and empirical validation. Inf. Syst. Res. 2008, 19, 417–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Richardson, K.; Benbunan-Fich, R. Examining the Antecedents of Work Connectivity Behavior During Non-Work Time. Inf. Organ. 2011, 21, 142–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahuja, M.K.; Chudoba, M.K.; Kacmar, C.J.; Mcknight, D.; Hand, J.; George, F. It Road Warriors: Balancing Work-Family Conflict, Job Autonomy, and Work Overload to Mitigate Turnover Intentions. MIS Q. 2007, 31, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spagnoli, P.; Molino, M.; Molinaro, D.; Giancaspro, M.L.; Manuti, A.; Ghislieri, C. Workaholism and technostress during the covid-19 emergency: The crucial role of the leaders on remote working. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 3714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balducci, C.; Avanzi, L.; Consiglio, C.; Fraccaroli, F.; Schaufeli, W. A cross-national study on the psychometric quality of the Italian Version of the Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS). Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2017, 33, 422–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmidt, A.A. Development and Validation of the Toxic Leadership Scale; University of Maryland: College Park, MD, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Felstead, A.; Henseke, G. Assessing the growth of remote working and its consequences for effort, well- being and work—life balance. New Technol. Work Employ. 2017, 32, 195–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grant, C.A.; Wallace, L.M.; Spurgeon, P.C. An exploration of the psychological factors affecting remote e-worker’s job effectiveness, well-being and work-life balance. Empl. Relat. 2013, 35, 527–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grant, C.A.; Wallace, L.M.; Spurgeon, P.C.; Tramontano, C.; Charalampous, M. Construction and initial validation of the E-Work Life Scale to measure remote e-working. Empl. Relat. 2019, 41, 16–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ware, J.E.; Kosinski, M.; Bjorner, J.B.; Turner-Bowker, D.M.; Gandek, B.; Maruish, M.E. User’s Manual for the SF-36v2 Health Survey; Quality Metric Incorporated: Lincoln, New Zealand, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Prasad, K.D.V.; Rao, M.M.; Vaidya, R.W. Effect of occupational stress and remote working on psychological well-being of employees: An empirical analysis during covid-19 pandemic concerning information technology industry in hyderabad. IJCMSS 2020, 11, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prasad, K.D.V.; Vaidya, R.W. Causes and effect of occupational stress and coping on performance and psychological well-being among the Agricultural Research Sector: An Empirical Study using Multinomial Logistic Regression Approach. Helix 2018, 8, 2457–2470. [Google Scholar]
- Ryff, C.D.; Keyes, C.L.M. The structure of psychological well-being revisited. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1995, 69, 719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe Wellbeing Measures in Primary Health Care: The DepCare Project; Report on a WHO Meeting, Consensus meeting: Stockholm, Sweden, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Sonnentag, S.; Fritz, C. The recovery experience questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2007, 12, 204–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gastaldi, L.; Corso, M.; Raguseo, E.; Neirotti, P.; Paolucci, E.; Martini, A. Smart working. In Rethinking work practices to leverage employees’ innovation potential. In Proceedings of the 15th International CINet Conference Operating Innovation, Budapest, Hungary, 7–9 September 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Miller, V. Digital Culture; SAGE: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organization. Coronavirus (COVID-19). 2021. Available online: https://covid19.who.int/ (accessed on 17 November 2021).
- Scaratti, G. Cultura e Significati di Un’esperienza di Cambiamento Organizzativo; Editori Laterza: Bari, Italy, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Capone, V. Patient communication self-efficacy, self-reported illness symptoms, physician communication style and mental health and illness in hospital outpatients. J. Health Psychol. 2016, 21, 1271–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Converso, D.; Bruno, A.; Capone, V.; Colombo, L.; Falco, A.; Galanti, T.; Girardi, D.; Guidetti, G.; Viotti, S.; Loera, B. Working during a Pandemic between the Risk of Being Infected and/or the Risks Related to Social Distancing: First Validation of the SAPH@W Questionnaire. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Argentero, P.; Cortese, C.G. Psicologia Delle Organizzazioni; Cortina Raffaello: Milan, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- May, D.R.; Gilson, R.L.; Harter, L.M. The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2004, 77, 11–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, R.; Burke, M.; Raad, N. Exploring impact of future flexible working model evolution non-urban environment, economy and planning. J. Urban Manag. 2019, 8, 447–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sirgy, M.J.; Lee, D.J. Work-life balance: An integrative review. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2018, 13, 229–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, J.; Steele, K.; Singh, L. Combining the Best of Online and Face-to-Face Learning: Hybrid and Blended Learning Approach for COVID-19, Post Vaccine, & Post-Pandemic World. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 2021, 50, 140–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zalat, M.M.; Hamed, M.S.; Bolbol, S.A. The experiences, challenges, and acceptance of elearning as a tool for teaching during the COVID-19 pandemicamong university medical staff. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0248758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Janssen, O. Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict and less satisfactory relations with co-workers. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2003, 76, 347–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cortese, G.C. Motivare; Raffaello Cortina Editore: Milan, Italy, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Moe, K.; Shandy, D. Glass Ceilings & 100-Hour Couples: What the Opt-Out Phenomenon Can Teach Us about Work and Family; University of Georgia Press: Athens, GA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Avallone, F. Psicologia del Lavoro e delle Organizzazioni. Costruire e Gestire Relazioni nei Contesti Professionali e Sociali; Carocci: Rome, Italy, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Rennie, D.L.; Phillips, J.R.; Quartaro, G.K. Grounded theory: A promising approach to conceptualization in psychology? Can. Psychol. 1988, 29, 139–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Authors/Year | Title/Journal | Aim of Study | Participants | Type of Study/Methods | Instruments | Main Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Area 1: Smart working and work engagement | ||||||
Manuti, Giancaspro, Molino, Inguisci, Russo, Signore, Zito and Cortese, 2020 [38]. CP | “Everything Will Be Fine: A Study on the Relationship between Employees’ Perception of Sustainable HRM Practices and Positive Organizational Behavior during COVID19. Sustainability | To detect workers’ engagement in human resource management practices and their coping strategies towards organizational change. | 549 Italian employees, among them 40.3% were employed in the public sector and 49.5% in the private sector. Of whom 62% were F and 37.7% M. 76.3% were married or cohabiting and 57.2% had no children. 71.6% had open-ended employment contracts. 50.3% were employees while 12.8% were managers and executives. Regarding professional sectors: 28.6% tertiary; 16.6% education; 14.1% professional services; 10.6% secondary; 7.1% healthcare; 6% primary; 16% other sectors. 63.9% were in smart working. | Quantitative cross-sectional | Self-report questionnaire consisting of 5 items from the HRMPPS [39]; 3 items from the Coping with organizational change scale [40]; 3 items from the organizational engagement scale [41]; 2 items from the Extra role behaviour scale [42]. | Organizational changes perceived as positive increased engagement levels by improving coping strategies. Organizational commitment and positive behaviors outside the job role (extra-role) were positively correlated with the ability to involve human resources and coping strategies. Smart working showed a positive correlation with organizational commitment, extra-role behaviors, and human resources involvement, whose perception was positively correlated with organizational involvement and positively associated with organizational change. The adoption of strategies by workers to promote, disseminate, and support change depended on organizational communication and support in the change process. |
Rana, Pant and Chopra, 2019 [43]. PCP | Work engagement and individual work performance: research findings and an agenda for employee relationships. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research | To detect the association between engagement dimensions (vigor, absorption, and dedication) and task- and context-related job performance and their relationships. | 134 Indian workers (clerks and managers) in the ICT sector, of which 62.7% were M and 37.3% F, with a career seniority of M = 11 years. | Quantitative cross-sectional | Online self-report questionnaire consisting of 3 socio-anagraphic questions, the job performance scale [44], and the UWES-9 [45]. | Engagement presented significant correlations with individual and organizational performance. Vigor, absorption, and dedication presented a significant relationship with task performance and contextual performance. |
Timms, Cook, Brough, O’Driscoll, Kalliath, Siu, Sit, and Lo, 2015 [46]. PCP | Flexible work arrangements, work engagement, turnover intentions and psychological health. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources | Detect the correlation between smart working, engagement, psychological distress, and the role of organizational culture in supporting the implementation of smart working. | 823 employees from 8 Australian organizations in banking, education, public service, and social services. Of these, 72% F with age M = 43, of which 57% with family (married and/or with children). 75% full-time contract and career seniority M = 11. | Quantitative Longitudinal | Self-report questionnaire administered in 2 stages (12-month interval) consisting of the Organizational Culture Scale [47], 3 items of the turnover intention measure [48], the Supervisor Support Scale [49], the flexible work organization sub-scale (FW) [50], the UWES-9 [45], and the anxiety/depression sub-scale [51]. | A supportive organizational culture in the introduction of smart working increased levels of engagement by protecting against discomfort and turnover intentions. Being married and having children correlated with higher engagement levels. Being single and experiencing work overload (hours) was associated with turnover. |
Area 2: Smart working and technostress | ||||||
Molino, Inguisci, Signore, Manuti, Giancaspro, Russo, Zito and Cortese, 2020 [52]. CP | Well-being costs of technology use during COVID-19 remote working: An investigation using the Italian Translation of the Technostress Creators Scale. Sustainability | To test the psychometric characteristics of the Italian version of the Technostress Creators Scale (Study 1) and use it in relation to the emergence of COVID-19 (Study 2). | Study 1: 878 Italian workers, 57.7% F and 42% M, with age M = 39 years. 53.4% married/cohabiting and 55.5% without children. 56.7% permanent contract. 53.4% were in smart working. Study 2: 749 Italian workers, 58.5% F and 41.3% M, with age M = 38.6 years. 51% married/cohabiting and 57.7% without children. 52.5% had an open-ended contract. 62.6% were in smart working for M = 4.74 days during the first Italian lockdown. | Validation study, quantitative cross-sectional | Technostress creators scale Italian version [52], 3 items of the workload scale [53], 3 items of the work–family conflict scale [54], and the COPSOQ for behavioral stress assessment [55]. | The technostress creators scale was validated for the Italian context. The results of Study 2 showed a positive and significant correlation between stress, work–family conflict, technostress, and workload. Smart working was related to the dimensions of technostress and behavioral stress. Psychosocial malaise related to the pandemic was present, accentuated by smart working. |
Oh and Park, 2016 [56]. PCP | A study of the connected smart worker’s technostress. Procedia Computer Science | To investigate the effects of work–family conflict, technostress, and related mitigating factors, and the use of technology beyond working hours on job satisfaction. | 345 Korean managers, 51% M and 49% F. | Quantitative cross-sectional | Online self-report questionnaire consisting of Technostress Scale, Technical Support, Promotion of Involvement, Job Satisfaction [57], Work Continuity after Daily Work [58], and Work–Life Conflict [59]. | An indirect influence of technostress on job satisfaction, mediated by work–life conflict, emerged. |
Spagnoli, Molino, Molinaro, Giancaspro, Manuti and Ghisleri, 2020 [60]. CP | Workaholism and technostress during the COVID-19 emergency: the crucial role of the leaders on remote working. Frontiers in Psychology | To explore the role of authoritarian leadership in relation to administrative employees of a university placed in partial and/or total smart working and to examine associations with workaholism and technostress. | 339 Italian university administrators, 46.6% M and 53.4% F, with age M = 48 years. 34% held positions of responsibility and 83.5% had a career seniority of M = 10 years. 53% were partially in smart working and 47% completely. | Quantitative cross-sectional | Online self-report questionnaire composed of the 10-item Dutch Work Addiction Scale Italian version [61], 6 items of the Toxic Leadership Scale [62], and Technostress Creator Scale Italian version [52]. | Workaholism was positively correlated with authoritarian leadership style and technostress. The interaction between workaholism and authoritarian leadership was significantly correlated with technostress. Smart working was not significantly correlated with technostress, nor were the interactions between workaholism and smart working and between authoritarian leadership and smart working, but the interaction between workaholism, authoritarian leadership, and smart working was significantly correlated with technostress, which affected women more, at high levels of workaholism and in the presence of a strong authoritarian leadership. |
Area 3: Mediators of the relationship between smart working and well-being | ||||||
Felstead and Henseke, 2017 [63]. PCP | Assessing the growth of remote working and its consequences for effort, well-being, and work–life balance. New Technology, Work and Employment | To investigate which types of work are progressively adopting smart working and the implications this has on fatigue, organizational commitment, well-being, and work–life balance of workers. | 45.000 British workers over 16. | Quantitative analysis of growth trends in smart working and its implications on workers’ lives using national databases relating to periodic surveys of the UK population. | Labour Force Survey (1997–2015), and Skills and Employment Survey (1981–2012). | From 1997 to 2014, the adoption of smart working presented an increase of 5%, except for places suitable for labor (e.g., factories). Compared to traditional workers, smart workers had a better attitude toward their organization and 70% would not leave their organization for another work setting, reporting high levels of organizational commitment, job enjoyment, and high levels of job satisfaction. However, 44% feared losing their jobs, 39% experienced more fatigue from working beyond their scheduled hours, and most experienced negative effects of smart working on their work–life balance. |
Grant, Wallace and Spurgeon, 2013 [64]. PCP | An exploration of the psychological factors affecting remote e-workers’ job effectiveness, well-being, and work–life balance. Employee Relations | Highlight issues related to the impact of remote working on work effectiveness, understood as the evaluation of performance results, work–life balance, and employee well-being. Identify relevant issues about remote working and the implications for managers and employees | 3 managers, 4 employees, and 4 administrative staff from 5 public and private organizations in England, of whom 4 were M and 7 were F. Of these, 5 had children and 2 were careers of elderly/non-self-sufficient people. | Qualitative cross-sectional | Semi-structured interview (between 40 and 90 min) aimed at the three macro-areas of investigation and administered in person, by phone, and by e-mail, consisting of 7 sections: (1) biographical data sheet, (2) job role. (3) technology, (4) practices and (5) measurement of smart working, (6) life and work, and (7) further observations. | The thematic analysis identified 10 themes: (1) remote work practices (digital devices and work activities), (2) work–life balance, (3) social interactions, (4) role autonomy, (5) managing work–life boundaries, (6) decision making, (7) productivity, measurement, and performance, (8) differences, skills, and competencies, (9) adaptive behaviors, and (10) trust. With reference to well-being, support from colleagues and family members, communication, reconciliation of difficulties, and management of social networks emerged as crucial. |
Grant, Wallace, Spurgeon, Tramontano and Charalampous, 2019 [65]. PCP | Construction and initial validation of the E-Work Life Scale to measure remote e-working. Employee Relations | Develop and validate the EWL measurement scale for smart working based on the study by Grant et al., 2013. | 2 independent samples: (1) 250 workers from 11 UK public and private organizations, 63% were F and 37% M, with age range 24–54. 73% were professionals and managers with smart working experience =/> 2 years. (2) 219 English university employees, 66% F and 34% M, with age range 25–54. 77% had full-time contracts, 14% smart working experience > 10 years. | Quantitative cross-sectional | Online self-report questionnaire, consisting of biographical section, ad hoc items on job role and ICT use, open-ended questions on work–life balance, EWL Scale [66], 3 subscales (GH, VT, MH) from Health Survey SF-36v2 [50]. | The validated scale was aimed at organizations intent on promoting smart strategies by supporting employee well-being, identifying barriers and facilitators, and assessing the impact of technology on employee well-being. Four main areas emerged: work effectiveness, relationship with organizations, e-well-being, and work–life balance measured through productive effectiveness, organizational trust, flexibility, and work–life interference through 28 items on a 5-point Likert scale. |
Prasad, Mruthyanjaya Rao and Vaidya, 2020 [67]. CP | Effect of occupational stress and remote working on psychological well-being of employees: an empirical analysis during the COVID-19 pandemic concerning the information technology industry. Indian Journal of Commerce and Management Studies | To evaluate the effect of work-related stress on the psychological well-being of ICT workers during smart working imposed by COVID-19 and to analyze gender and age differences. | 400 Indian workers, 60% M and 40% F. Among them, 150 had age range 20–30, 110 age range 31–40, 75 age range 41–50, and 65 age range 51–60. | Quantitative cross-sectional | Self-report questionnaire consisting of registry section, 37 items related to work-related stress [68], and Psychological well-being scale short version [69]. | Work-related stress significantly affected psychological well-being during COVID-19. It was influenced by the presence of colleagues, role ambiguity, organizational climate, and job satisfaction. Differences in gender and age group were insignificant. Smart working had challenging aspects, such as social isolation, family interference, absence of colleagues, and lack of organizational support. Advantages included flexible working hours and the use of new technologies. |
Zeike, Bradbury, Lindert and Pfaff, 2019 [19]. PCP | Digital leadership skills and associations with psychological well-being. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health | To develop and test a measurement tool on managers’ perceived digital leadership skills and explore whether these skills were associated with psychological well-being. | 368 top managers of a German ICT organization engaged in corporate reorganization, 77% were M, 23% F. 47% range age 41–50 years. | Quantitative cross-sectional | Online self-report questionnaire consisting of WHO-5 Well-Being Index [70], Digital leadership skills scale [71] in 6 items on a 5-point Likert accord scale, and managerial experience indicator in years [72]. | The scale was tested and a significant correlation was found between psychological well-being and perceptions of digital leadership ability in managers. 78.5% experienced high levels of well-being. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Marino, L.; Capone, V. Smart Working and Well-Being before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2021, 11, 1516-1536. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11040108
Marino L, Capone V. Smart Working and Well-Being before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education. 2021; 11(4):1516-1536. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11040108
Chicago/Turabian StyleMarino, Leda, and Vincenza Capone. 2021. "Smart Working and Well-Being before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review" European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education 11, no. 4: 1516-1536. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11040108