Impact of Long Distance Relationship on Work Performance

Introduction
Long distance relationships are getting more common than they were a generation or two ago. It
has many forms of relationships like couples married or unmarried living apart due to
educational purposes, having jobs in different cities, or due to family responsibilities. More than
people actually experiencing LDR, there are some prevelant set of beliefs which emphasized
LDR to be pessimistic and this type of partnership has no future. LDR may have positive
qualities but they are constructed in a negative way. Idealization?
Relationship satisfaction is the degree to which an individual is content and satisfied with his or
her relationship. Couples who report spending more time interacting with each other are more
satisfied than those couples who spend less time. Anderson and Emmers-Sommer found that
intimacy, trust, and communication satisfaction significantly predicted relationship satisfaction
among CMC couples. Guerrero (1994) found that relationship satisfaction affects individuals'
perceptions of their partner in terms of communication skills, attitudes, and behaviors. Therefore,
not only are there multiple variables that are associated with relationship satisfaction, but an
individual's level ofrelationship satisfaction also can greatly influence how one partner views the
other.
Most of the organization wants to achieve its aim and compete favourably in the competitive market, to
embark this employee performance play a very important role. A high performing employee depends
not only on the rewards policies but also depends on the happiness level of the individual.

Romantic relationships are a source of emotional bonding, a successful establishment and maintenance
of romantic relationships have repercussions in other areas of life like an individual’s worklife.
Review of literature

Maintaining intimate relationships over geographical distance has become common

nowadays due to the widespread prevalence of technologies and world’s increasing mobility.
Earlier romantic relationships were characterized by only physical proximity but now did the
advances this type of relationship is even continued through geographic separation. Long
distance relationships have increased steadily in both dating relationships and marriages. But it
continues to be an understudied phenomenon.
Long distance relationships are comprised of both dating as well as married couples.
Long distance relationship include some unique factors which are not commonly found in other
relationships/proximal relationships. Living apart is seen as a new norm in a form of cohabiting
relationship or even as a stage of relationship development into a stronger and committed
relation. There are several prevalent reasons leading to such geographical separation between the
partners, like due to educational demands, job opportunity, and family reasons, even from a
socioeconomic point of view commuting is seen as a middle-class phenomenon wherein both the
spouses are well educated and committed to their careers but there job locations are not the same
locality; also sometimes maintaining and commuting is not pocket friendly, (Duncan and Phillips
(2010). In context to LDR it is often said that, “the individual in modernity is somewhat
paradoxical”, which means on one hand, the individual seeks intimate relationship and on the
other hand wants to have autonomy. Both this things do not always work for every couple and
this is one of the reasons that LDR have increased so much in this decade, with increased career
opportunities, need for autonomy and increased interdependence. Thus making relationships
more complicated, (Hobein, 2015).
There are two contradictory sayings, one is absence makes the heart grow fonder.
Another is out of mind, out of sight; both are considered as two cultural views of long-distance
relationship. One indicates that living apart can be stressful, filled with uncertainty and lonely for
the partners and usually most couples prefer living in the same place. On the other hand, for
some couples the distance serves the space and growth which can be quite beneficial for the
relationship. These are two contradictory yet salient factors which reflects how distance and
proximity between partners may actually influence a relationship, (Baxter and Montgomery,
1996).
 What makes LDR challenging is the fact that the partners cannot see each other face to
face frequently, do not get much of quality time to spend together. Thus geographical separation
leads to restricted communication, increased uncertainty about the future and further complicates
the relationship, (Crystal Jiang & Hancock, 2013).
Generally the notion of a romantic relationship is frequent physical contact, quality face
to face meetings, along with relationship building like trust, commitment, and conflict resolution.
In a long distance relationship, the first two aspects that is frequent physical contact and face to
face meeting is eliminated leading LDR to go through its own set of unique challenges. One of
them is relational uncertainty, this often occurs in all types of relationship but is found more in
LDR but physical proximity is the major trigger for this uncertainty which is positively
correlated to jealousy and negatively correlated to trust and relationship maintaining behaviors,
(McCoy at al, 2013). Hence to work on the relationship the partners need to manage their
uncertainty which often lead to tensions between the relationships and their work commitments.
According to the Uncertainty management theory of Gudykunst, (1975). It states individuals in
LDR especially face more uncertainty and to manage that uncertainty they need to communicate
with each other, take out extra time and efforts for each other. To take time off and take this
effort to maintain the relationship one may have to take some time off their work or push the
deadlines to make things work, due to which it might have repercussions in the work outcomes,
the individual might miss the deadlines or due to the tension between the partners there is a shift
in his/her mood because of which they are not able to concentrate on work impacting their work
performance, (Waterman et al., 2017).
According to the attachment security theory by Bowlby, (1980) it states that partners in a
romantic relationships are assumed to function as a secure base for exploration and a safe space
to come to in difficult times. Each individual have their own way of expression of their
attachment related needs and behaviors. When the partners are proximally close, it becomes easy
for them to express their need because the partner is available in front of them and they can
spend time together. Whereas in a LDR this gets difficult due to variety of reasons, one of them
is partner’s availability and attentiveness which is the central them to fulfill the attachment
needs. The physical separation poses as a threat to the emotional wellbeing of the partners and
also to the relationship quality, (Jimenez and Asendorpf, 2010). Further research stated that
availability in the attachment security theory does not necessarily means physical presence but
rather to the perception of partner’s availability and this perception is formed through the quality
of communication between the partners, (Shaver and Mikulincer, 2002). A good communication
has the power to satisfy the attachment needs by securing availability of the partner. Here the
communication involves not just knowing about the whereabouts of the partner but daily
interaction is the essence over here, (Jimenez and Asendorpf, 2010). Along with communication
the partner’s behavior and actions should also show congruency with what they are
communicating. As one cannot always communicate for longer periods of time so along with
communication some actions, healthy behavior, small gestures would help to create a sense of
togetherness with the partner, (Sigman, 1991).
Partner’s unavailability and lack of attentiveness can also lead to the feeling of
loneliness. After the period of the reunion ends, the happiness and excitement which was felt
earlier now gradually converts into feeling of sadness and sense of loss, creating emotional
dysregulation, (McCoy et al., 2013). Long distance relationship is a huge change in an
individual’s life and environment around and sometimes these significant changes can gradually
lead to distressing mood characterized by emotional deprivation and lack of social
companionship. It has also been found to interfere with the concentration abilities, focus and
attentional demands reducing the working abilities which impacts an individual’s job
performance, also blocking his chain of thoughts hence reducing creativity and also accompanied
by negative emotions like anxiety, helplessness, sadness, (Akçit & Barutçu, 2017).
Long distance relationship can also lead an individual to feel anxious, depressed, and
empty; a person struggling through mental problems cannot simply turn off their symptoms
when they sit to work. A research done on 52 MDD patients, whose work productivity was
measured it was found to have a significant difference in the work productivity due absenteeism.
Depressed workers rated their own work productivity to be 32.3% lower than earlier, (Woo et al.,
2011b). There symptoms accompany them wherever they go and whatever they do. They lack
the motivation to work or to do anything which takes a toll on their work performance.
Another most important factor that is affected in LDR is relationship satisfaction, this is
the most widely known and important aspect in the study of intimate relationships. Relations
with spouse or partners represent a core aspect of an individual’s social life. For some such
relations would be a source of support, love, wellbeing; while for many this may also represent a
troubling factor in their life, (intro)
 According to Merolla’s (2012) theory of long-distance relationship maintenance, stated
that the partners go through periods of physical co-presence and non-co presence and the way in
which couples maintain the continuity over time have implications on their relationship
satisfaction. There are three key periods in the cycle, first is prospective (period of separation),
introspective (while separated), and third is retrospective (after separation). While in the
introspective phase it’s most important to have good quality of communication to maintain
relationship satisfaction amongst the couple. To keep a relationship on-going quality of
interactions between the couple is one of the strongest predictors of relationship satisfaction.
Not just communicating with the partner but also perceived responsiveness is another
dimension. Perceived responsiveness is the way of responding that reflects understanding,
validation and warmth. Couples expect a high degree of responsiveness from their partner as
compared to any other close relationship and in case of long distance couples it plays even more
crucial part. But due to the time constrains, work commitment, and other commitments it creates
a conflicting situation for long distance couple with regards to how they perceive their partners
to be responsive, (Holtzman et al., 2021).
Relationship satisfaction is also closely related to relationship security which defined as a
sense of trust and faith one has in one’s partner and their relationship. Achieving a secure
relationship needs constant effort, motivation, intimacy, commitment and appreciation for the
small things, (Jiang & Hancock, 2013). Trust have a reciprocal relationship with commitment
which means, higher levels of trust is correlated with higher levels of commitment and thus
higher levels of relationship satisfaction, (Ladd, 2017). Betrayal of trust is the most common
reason for relationship failure. When the partners cannot meet each other frequently and not able
to see what the other person is doing, they just have one option to trust their partner and believe
in what they are saying. Trust is the pillar for a relationship to sustain.
Also commitment is a predictor of relationship satisfaction and persistence, a study
conducted by Lyndon, Pierce, and O’regan (1997) investigated the relation between commitment
and relationship satisfaction, the results found that commitment which is referred as a desire to
commit to a relationship; was highly correlated with relationship satisfaction. Commitment is
also correlated with other important interpersonal factors like willingness to sacrifice, infidelity,
accommodation. Commitment also have a reciprocal relationship with trust, hence higher levels
of trust increases the level of commitment and altogether indicates relationship satisfaction,
(Gonzalez, C.C, 2011).
Relationships and work have been considered two significant life domains that predict
overall satisfaction and well-being of an individual. Since late adolescence these two domains
have become more crucial because people experience commitment in both of these domains in
their future lives. But both are interdependent on each other, a problem in the relationship aspect
can disrupt an individual’s work affecting the performance. Thao and Hwang (2015), described
performance is associated with the quality and quantity of output, timeliness of output, presence
and absence of the employee, and how efficiently the work is done.
Having relationship difficulties with the partner can dramatically impact one’s work
performance. Long distance relationship often turn out to be stressful which take a toll on their
mental health. This stress not only affect the couple’s intimate relationship but also their ability
to work. Stress has a strong curvilinear relationship with performance, as stress decreases
performance, (Falola et al., 2016). A disturbing relationship also affect an individual’s overall
well-being.
Working has its own set of challenges and adjustments and it amplifies if the individual is
in LDR. Working, meeting the deadline and providing quality work along with managing a LDR,
the challenges are classified in 2 sections by Trionfo and Alexis (2020); first is time allotment,
already both the partners have a lot work commitments, family commitments and other
commitments to meet. So sometimes it gets difficult to choose between their relationship and
other commitments. Second is energy and effort, not being able to connect or provide the support
needed can become frustrating, sometimes it may come across as one partner is putting in more
effort than the other. This also leads to draining their energy and then it cannot put much energy
on the other areas especially work which requires constant focus and time.
An individual other than being a spouse or a partner is also an employee having
responsibilities. The tension between the work life and commitments to the LDR may make the
individual hesitant to participant actively in the organizational activities. Frequent visits to
maintain the LDR may limit the opportunities for work involvement, taking initiative, missing
out on colleague bonding and difficulty in meeting the deadline. Thus impacting the overall work
performance, (Azim M.T. et al,. 2013).
Rationale

Long distance relationship is a new norm seen flourishing in romantic relationships,

while reading about romantic and intimate relationships, this genre drew my interest. I came
across many papers which discussed and proved how long distance romantic relationship impacts
various aspects of their life. Many papers pointed out how long distance relationships is
deteriorating individual’s relationship by creating feelings of uncertainty, dissatisfaction,
loneliness, thus impacting the overall well-being including mental health, self-esteem, happiness.

Three things which surrounds a person’s life is family, romantic relationship and friends,
and their work. When one of these 3 areas is dampened there are high chances that it would also
impact the other areas. Another reason for studying the impact of long distance relationships on
work performance that there is a scarcity of information around this topic in general and
especially with its relation with its effect on work performance. To my knowledge there is no
statistics available about this topic because usually long distance relationship are connected with
the general wellbeing, happiness and relationship satisfaction that too in a comparative study
with proximal relationships.
Aims and objective:

The aim of this paper is to study the impact of Work performance and Relationship
satisfaction in Long distance relationships.

Variables:

Independent variable: Long distance relationship

Dependent variable: 1. Work performance

2. Relationship satisfaction

Operational definitions of the variables:

1. Long distance relationship

An intimate relationship between partners where both of them are geographical separated
from each other in different places and cannot meet each other for at least 2 weeks at a
stretch.

2. Work performance
How effectively the individual is performing the task assigned to him/her. Individual’s
job performance is measured on the scale of individual work performance scale, higher
scores indicate higher job performance.

3. Relationship satisfaction

Hypothesis:

1. Null hypothesis:

There is no impact of long distance relationship on an individual’s job performance i.e., people
in long distance relationship do not show any difference or show higher on the work
performance scale.
Alternate hypothesis:

There is impact of long distance relationship on an individual’s job performance i.e., couples in
long distance relationship show difference or lower scores on the work performance scale.

2. Null hypothesis:

There is no relation between the scores of relationship satisfaction scale and

3.
Method

Sample

The sample recruited for this study should currently be in a long distance relationship or should
have experienced a long distance relationship. The relationship could be marriage or dating. At
least one of the participant should be working. The age criteria is 22 to 35 years.

The sampling method used is snowball sampling

Measures

The variables are measured through two scales,

1. The Ps relationship status and long distance check will be done through demographic
details questions.
Inclusion criteria for the participants:
a. Age between 22-35
b. Must be staying in different places (preferably different cities) where it’s no possible
to meet frequently
c. Atleast one of the partners should be working

2. Relationship assessment scale

RAS is an instrument used to measure general relationship satisfaction. This instrument is
appropriate for individuals who are in an intimate relationship like married couples,
engaged couples, dating couples, or cohabiting couples. This is a 7-itemed scale, the
findings are correlated with marital satisfaction, self-disclosure, commitment, investment
in a relationship.

3. Individual work performance scale

The IWPQ consists of 18 questions in three scales: task performance (5 items), contextual
performance (8 items), and counterproductive work behaviour (5 items). The IWPQ has a
recall period of 3 months and a rating scale from 0 ("seldom") to 4 ("always") for task
 and contextual performance, and 0 ("never") to 4 ("often") for counterproductive work
behaviour. The psychometric properties of the IWPQ have been tested and results
indicated good to excellent internal consistency for task performance (α = 0.78),
contextual performance (α = 0.85) and counterproductive work behaviour (α = 0.79). The
IWPQ has shown good face and structural validity as well as sufficient convergent
validity and good discriminative validity.

Procedure

The research uses survey method for collection of data. An online questionnaire through google
forms was developed. A link to the google form containing the item pool was sent to the
participants and they were asked to fill the forms and they were further asked to pass on the
forms to their friends and acquaintances. Before filling the responses, each participant was asked
their permission to go further and were also informed about the aim of the study and how their
participation would contribute to reach their results. Also they were assured about the
confidentiality norm and informed that they can withdraw any time if they felt uncomfortable.

Statistical analysis

The statistical tool used for analyzing the data is ANOVA and were carried out on R software.
References

Akçit, V., & Barutçu, E. (2017). The Relationship Between Performance and Loneliness at
Workplace: A Study on Academicians. European Scientific Journal.
Arielle C. Butler, & Wind Goodfriend. (2015). Long distance vs proximal romantic
relationships: Predicting commitment, investments, and bias. Modern Psychological
Studies, 20(2), 4. https://scholar.utc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1344&context=mps
Anastasios D. Diamantidis, Prodromos Chatzoglou, (2019) "Factors affecting employee
performance: An empirical approach", International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 68 Issue: 1, pp.171-193, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-
01-2018-0012
Azim, M. T., Haque, M. M., & Chowdhury, R. A. (2013). Gender, marital status and job
satisfaction an empirical study. International Review of Management and Business
Research, 2(2), 488.
Crystal Jiang, L., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Absence Makes the Communication Grow Fonder:
Geographic Separation, Interpersonal Media, and Intimacy in Dating Relationships.
Journal of Communication, 63(3), 556–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12029
Falola, H. O., Salau, O. P., Oyafunke, O., & Olokundun, A. M. (n.d.). effects of marital
instability on employee performance in selected commercial banks in nigeria. Medwell
Journal, 2016.
Gonzalez, C. C. (2011). Personal and perceived partner commitment and trust as predictors of
relationship satisfaction in long-distance and proximally close dating relationships of
graduate students.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information,
Communication & Society, 8(2), 125–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180500146185
Holtzman, S., Kushlev, K., Wozny, A., & Godard, R. (2021). Long-distance texting: Text
messaging is linked with higher relationship satisfaction in long-distance relationships.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(12), 3543–3565.
https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211043296
HOBEIN, I. J. (2015). I Imagine You Here Now : Relationship Maintenance Strategies in Long-
Distance Intimate Relationships. ACTA UNIVERSITATIS UPSALIENSIS UPPSALA
2015. https://sh.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:793275
Ivandic, I., Kamenov, K., Rojas, D., Cerón, G., Nowak, D., & Sabariego, C. (2017).
Determinants of Work Performance in Workers with Depression and Anxiety: A Cross-
Sectional Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
14(5), 466. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14050466
Jimenez, F. V., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2010). Shared everyday decisions and constructive
communication: Protective factors in long-distance romantic relationships. Interpersona:
An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 4(2), 157 182.
https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.v4i2.47
Kornblum, A., Unger, D., & Grote, G. (2021). How romantic relationships affect individual
career goal attainment: A transactive goal dynamics perspective. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 125, 103523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103523
Merolla, A. J. (2010). Relational maintenance and noncopresence reconsidered: Conceptualizing
geographic separation in close relationships. Communication Theory, 20(2), 169–193.
https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01359.x
McCoy, M., Hjelmstad, L. R., & Stinson, M. (2013). The Role of Tele-Mental Health in Therapy
for Couples in Long-Distance Relationships. Journal of Couple &Amp; Relationship
Therapy, 12(4), 339–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2013.836053
Sahlstein, E. M. (2004). Relating at a distance: Negotiating being together and being apart
in long-distance relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(5), 689–
710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407504046115
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics. Attachment and
Human Development, 4, 133-161.
Skinner, B., & VanVoorhis, C. W. (2005). Perceptions of College Students in Long Distance
Relationships. UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research VIII (2005).
http://www.uwlax.edu/urc/jur-online/pdf/2005/skinner.pdf
Sigman, S. J. (1991). Handling the discontinuous aspects of continuing social relationships:
Towards research of the persistence of social forms. Communication Theory, 1, 106–127.
Stafford, L., & Merolla, A, J. (2007). Idealization, reunions, and stability in long-distance dating
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 37-54.
Taneja, S., & Goyal, P. (n.d.). Impact of Physical Proximity in Romantic Relationships on Trust,
Commitment and Relationship Satisfaction among Young Adults. Indian Journal of
Mental Health 2020;7(1).
Thao, & Hwang. (2015). FACTORS AFFECTING EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE–

EVIDENCE FROM PETROVIETNAM ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY J.S.C.

Meiho University. http://ir.meiho.edu.tw/ir/handle/987654321/2774

Trionfo, Alexis, "Long-Distance Relationships in the First Year of College" (2020). Psychology:
Student Scholarship & Creative Works. 6. https://jayscholar.etown.edu/psycstu/6 
Waterman, Emily & Wesche, Rose & Leavitt, Chelom & Jones, Damon & Lefkowitz, Eva.
(2017). Long-Distance Dating Relationships, Relationship Dissolution, and College
Adjustment. Emerging Adulthood. 5. 216769681770411. 10.1177/2167696817704118. 
Woo, J. M., Kim, W., Hwang, T. Y., Frick, K. D., Choi, B. H., Seo, Y. J., Kang, E. H., Kim, S.

J., Ham, B. J., Lee, J. S., & Park, Y. L. (2011b). Impact of Depression on Work

Productivity and Its Improvement after Outpatient Treatment with Antidepressants.

Value in Health, 14(4), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.006

Zmyslinski, Anne Nicole, M.S., Department of Communication, College of Arts, Humanities,

and Social Sciences, North Dakota State University, August 2011. Online or Face-to-
Face? Relationship Satisfaction and Attraction in Romantic Relationships Across Two
Media. Major Professor: Dr. Judy C. Pearson.
 Add the scales references
 APPENDIX
Demographic details
1. Name
2. Age
3. Occupation
4. Gender
5. Are they married or unmarried
6. Are they in any romantic/intimate relationship? (if yes, then only eligible for the test)
7. Are they currently or ever been in a long distance relationship? (if yes, then only the can
give the test)
8. Since how long are they in the relationship?
9. Since how long are they in a long distance relationship or for how long were they in a
long distance relationship?
 Individual work performance questionnaire

1. I managed to plan my work so that I finished it on time

2. I kept in mind the work result I needed to achieve
3. I was able to set priorities
4. I was able to carry out my work efficiently
5. I managed my time well
6. On my own initiative, I started new task when my old tasks were completed
7. I took on challenging tasks when they were available
8. I worked on keeping my job-related knowledge up-to-date
9. I worked on keeping my work skills up-to-date
10. I came up with creative solutions for new problems
11. I took on extra responsibilities
12. I continually sought new challenges in my work
13. I actively participated in meetings and/or consultations
14. I complained about minor work-related issues at work
15. I made problems at work bigger than they were
16. I focused on the negative aspects of situation at work instead of the positive aspects
17. I talked to colleagues about the negative aspects of my work
18. I talked to people outside the organization about the negative aspects of my work

Individual work performance was measured using the Individual Work Performance

Questionnaire (IWPQ). The IWPQ consists of 18 questions in three scales: task performance (5
items), contextual performance (8 items), and counterproductive work behaviour (5 items). The
IWPQ has a recall period of 3 months and a rating scale from 0 ("seldom") to 4 ("always") for
task and contextual performance, and 0 ("never") to 4 ("often") for counterproductive work
behaviour.
For the IWPQ subscales, a mean score is calculated by adding the item scores, and dividing their
sum by the number of items in the subscale. Hence, the IWPQ yields three subscale scores that
range between 0 and 4, with higher scores reflecting higher task and contextual performance, and
higher counterproductive work behaviour.

The psychometric properties of the IWPQ have been tested and results indicated good to
excellent internal consistency for task performance (α = 0.78), contextual performance (α = 0.85)
and counterproductive work behaviour (α = 0.79). The IWPQ has shown good face and structural
validity,as well as sufficient convergent validity and good discriminative validity.
 Relationship assessment scale

1. How well does your partner meet your needs?

2. In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship?
3. How good is your relationship compared to most?
4. How often do you wish you hadn’t gotten into this relationship?
5. To what extent has your relationship met your original expectations?
6. How much do you love your partner?
7. How many problems are there in your relationship?

Scoring

A=1, B=2, C=3, D=4, E=5. Items 4 and 7 are reverse scored.  To calculate the total score, add up
all of the items. The scores range from 7 to 35 and Greenspace has provided the following ranges
for guidance based on the answer key.
Title

Introduction

Brief ROL

Hypothesis

Aims and objective

Research design

Proposal sample

Proposal tools

Proposal statistical analysis and proposed plan for results and discussions