家庭远程工作者角色间干扰的“什么”、“为什么”和“谁”。

IF 1.6 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Occupational Health Science Pub Date : 2021-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-10-09 DOI:10.1007/s41542-021-00084-7
Claire E Smith, Susannah Huang, Kristin A Horan, Clare L Barratt
{"title":"家庭远程工作者角色间干扰的“什么”、“为什么”和“谁”。","authors":"Claire E Smith,&nbsp;Susannah Huang,&nbsp;Kristin A Horan,&nbsp;Clare L Barratt","doi":"10.1007/s41542-021-00084-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many employees are drawn to work-from-home arrangements based on expectations that such arrangements will help them manage both work and home life more effectively. Yet, mixed empirical findings suggest that telework arrangements do not uniformly result in less interrole interference (i.e., work-home and home-work interference). Applying and extending a border theory perspective, the present research offers insight into what factors may predict interrole interference, mediating mechanisms that may explain why such interference occurs, and a moderator that tests for whom interference is most damaging when employees work from home. Specifically, we test cross-role interruption behaviors as a predictor of interrole interference, with recovery experiences as a mediator of this relation and work-life border segmentation preference as a moderator. A sample of 504 home-based teleworkers recruited through Amazon's Mechanical Turk participated in a three-wave survey. Results from a structural equation modeling approach support our overall model. However, the extent <i>and</i> valence of the impact of cross-role interruption behaviors had on teleworkers' interrole interference depended on the direction of the interruption, type of recovery experience, and personal work-life border preference. These findings provide theoretical and practical insights that may help explain the gap between expected and actual occurrence of interrole interference in home-based telework arrangements.</p>","PeriodicalId":29938,"journal":{"name":"Occupational Health Science","volume":"5 4","pages":"519-540"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8502093/pdf/","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The \\\"What\\\", \\\"Why\\\" and \\\"Whom\\\" of Interrole Interference Among Home-Based Teleworkers.\",\"authors\":\"Claire E Smith,&nbsp;Susannah Huang,&nbsp;Kristin A Horan,&nbsp;Clare L Barratt\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s41542-021-00084-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Many employees are drawn to work-from-home arrangements based on expectations that such arrangements will help them manage both work and home life more effectively. Yet, mixed empirical findings suggest that telework arrangements do not uniformly result in less interrole interference (i.e., work-home and home-work interference). Applying and extending a border theory perspective, the present research offers insight into what factors may predict interrole interference, mediating mechanisms that may explain why such interference occurs, and a moderator that tests for whom interference is most damaging when employees work from home. Specifically, we test cross-role interruption behaviors as a predictor of interrole interference, with recovery experiences as a mediator of this relation and work-life border segmentation preference as a moderator. A sample of 504 home-based teleworkers recruited through Amazon's Mechanical Turk participated in a three-wave survey. Results from a structural equation modeling approach support our overall model. However, the extent <i>and</i> valence of the impact of cross-role interruption behaviors had on teleworkers' interrole interference depended on the direction of the interruption, type of recovery experience, and personal work-life border preference. These findings provide theoretical and practical insights that may help explain the gap between expected and actual occurrence of interrole interference in home-based telework arrangements.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":29938,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Occupational Health Science\",\"volume\":\"5 4\",\"pages\":\"519-540\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8502093/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Occupational Health Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-021-00084-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/10/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Occupational Health Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-021-00084-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

许多员工被在家工作的安排所吸引,因为他们期望这样的安排能帮助他们更有效地管理工作和家庭生活。然而,混合的实证研究结果表明,远程工作安排并不总是导致更少的角色间干扰(即工作-家庭和家庭-工作干扰)。本研究运用并扩展了边界理论的视角,深入探讨了哪些因素可以预测角色间干扰,哪些中介机制可以解释为什么会发生这种干扰,以及当员工在家工作时,测试谁的干扰最具破坏性的调节机制。具体而言,我们测试了跨角色干扰行为作为角色间干扰的预测因子,恢复经验作为这种关系的中介,工作-生活边界分割偏好作为调节因子。通过亚马逊的土耳其机器人(Mechanical Turk)招募的504名在家办公的远程工作者参加了一项三波调查。结构方程建模方法的结果支持我们的整体模型。然而,跨角色干扰行为对远程工作者角色间干扰的影响程度和效价取决于干扰的方向、恢复体验的类型和个人的工作生活边界偏好。这些发现提供了理论和实践的见解,可能有助于解释家庭远程工作安排中预期和实际发生的角色间干扰之间的差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The "What", "Why" and "Whom" of Interrole Interference Among Home-Based Teleworkers.

Many employees are drawn to work-from-home arrangements based on expectations that such arrangements will help them manage both work and home life more effectively. Yet, mixed empirical findings suggest that telework arrangements do not uniformly result in less interrole interference (i.e., work-home and home-work interference). Applying and extending a border theory perspective, the present research offers insight into what factors may predict interrole interference, mediating mechanisms that may explain why such interference occurs, and a moderator that tests for whom interference is most damaging when employees work from home. Specifically, we test cross-role interruption behaviors as a predictor of interrole interference, with recovery experiences as a mediator of this relation and work-life border segmentation preference as a moderator. A sample of 504 home-based teleworkers recruited through Amazon's Mechanical Turk participated in a three-wave survey. Results from a structural equation modeling approach support our overall model. However, the extent and valence of the impact of cross-role interruption behaviors had on teleworkers' interrole interference depended on the direction of the interruption, type of recovery experience, and personal work-life border preference. These findings provide theoretical and practical insights that may help explain the gap between expected and actual occurrence of interrole interference in home-based telework arrangements.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
9.70%
发文量
20
期刊最新文献
The Effects of Workplace Substance Use Programs, Policies, and Practices on Current Substance Use Among A National Sample of Low-Income Workers: Differences by Race/Ethnicity and Education Level An Evaluation of Indoor Sex Workers’ Psychosocial Occupational Health and Safety in Metro Vancouver, Canada Office Openess Affects Stress Regulation and Teamwork: A Neurophysiological Field Study Identifying Different Patterns of Citizenship Motives: A Latent Profile Analysis Methodological and Demographic Variation in Estimates of Economic Dependence Across Two Types of Gig Work
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1