00 Demerouti2023 Effective Employee Strategies For Remote Working An Online Self-Training Intervention (Q1)

Journal Pre-proof
Effective employee strategies for remote working: An online self-

training intervention
Evangelia Demerouti
PII: S0001-8791(23)00017-9
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2023.103857
Reference: YJVBE 103857
To appear in: Journal of Vocational Behavior
Received date: 17 March 2022

Revised date: 9 December 2022
Accepted date: 3 February 2023
Please cite this article as: E. Demerouti, Effective employee strategies for remote working:
An online self-training intervention, Journal of Vocational Behavior (2023),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2023.103857
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such
as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is
not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting,
typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this
version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production
process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers
that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2023 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Journal Pre-proof
SELF-TRAINING INTERVENTION 1
RUNNING HEAD: SELF-TRAINING INTERVENTION
Effective employee strategies for remote working: An online self-training intervention
Evangelia Demerouti
Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
of
ro
-p
March 15, 2022
re
This research was financed by NWO with a Corona Fast Track Grant.
lP
na
ur
Correspondence address: Prof. Dr. Evangelia Demerouti, Eindhoven University of

Jo
Technology, Department of Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences, PO Box 513, 5600
MB Eindhoven, Netherlands, Email: e.demerouti@tue.nl, Phone: +31 40 247 5669

Journal Pre-proof
RUNNING HEAD: SELF-TRAINING INTERVENTION
Abstract
This paper examines whether employees' strategies to recognize (through self-
recognition) and regulate (through job crafting, work-family management, and recovery) their
internal and external demands and resources help them retain their well-being and
performance during the COVID-19 pandemic. It also examines whether an online self-
training intervention can stimulate the use of these strategies. A randomized control trial with
a waitlist control group and pre-post measure (N intervention group = 62, N control group =
of
77) was executed, consisting of four modules with videos, exercises, and three assignments.
ro
Participants of the intervention group reported improved self-recognition (noticing, self-
-p
focused emotional intelligence), job crafting (seeking resources and challenges), recovery
re
(psychological detachment and relaxation), and reduced work-family conflict. Moreover, the
intervention group reported reduced fatigue and increased happiness with life and task
lP
performance after the intervention. Improvements in self-focused emotional intelligence,

na
relaxation, and reduced work-family conflict could explain the progress of these distal
outcomes. This study reveals the strategies that can help employees to maintain high levels of
ur
well-being and performance while working from home and how to improve them using an
Jo
evidence-based self-training intervention.
Keywords: happiness with life, job crafting, recovery, self-training, self-regulation,
task performance, work-family conflict

Journal Pre-proof
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, at the beginning of March 2020, employees spent
approximately 30.2 working hours per week in an office in the Netherlands and 3.8 working
hours at home. This situation changed drastically by April; by then, they had spent 13.1
working hours per week at an office and 14.6 hours at home (Statista, 2022). Not only did
employees experience anxiety due to high infection rates, but many had to change their
working methods to using online, virtual means and reduced social contact. Private life also
heavily changed as families had to work or study from home without sufficient space and
other facilities. Thus, although employees experienced high pressure due to the COVID-19
of
pandemic, the imposed working from home hindered the provision of support, such as
ro
training that could help them deal with the challenging situation.
-p
Remote working seems to become the 'new normal' (Fouad, 2020) even after the
re
pandemic. Therefore, the question remains whether employees can use effective tactics or
strategies to improve their well-being and performance and whether there are ways to train
lP
these strategies remotely. The study builds on Allen et al.'s (2003) theoretical framework on
na
remote work. It suggests that working from home (WFH) influences individual outcomes by
challenging individuals' self-concept and social identity, as well as their self-regulatory

ur
opportunities and requirements, and by changing work-nonwork boundaries. Due to the

Jo
reduced direct supervision when WFH, employees experience more opportunities and higher
standards to organize their work autonomously and flexibly (Allen et al., 2003). Hence, WFH
provides control over the extent to which work and family influence each other while also
increasing the extent to which these life domains overlap. This situation may deplete the
energetic resources of employees. Therefore, the use of strategies to recognize and regulate
external (e.g., work, family, and their interface) and internal (e.g., energetic) requirements (or
demands) and opportunities (or resources) become essential to improve individuals' well-
being and performance during WFH. The context of remote work makes the following
Journal Pre-proof
strategies relevant: (a) recognition of own physical, emotional, and cognitive signals to act
before they completely collapse (Ekstedt, & Fagerberg, 2005), or self-recognition, (b)
adjustment of work tasks and conditions so that the prevailing changing demands and
resources fit individuals' preferences, or job crafting (Demerouti & Peeters, 2018; Petrou et
al., 2012), (c) managing demands and resources of work and nonwork roles so that conflict
decreases and facilitation increases or work-family management (Clark et al., 2014) and (d)
regulating their resources after being exposed to external demands to return to the pre-stressor
level or recovery (Bennett, et al., 2018; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). A recent meta-analysis of
of
intervention studies indicated that interventions that trained similar strategies effectively
ro
improved employees' detachment from work (Karabinski et al., 2021). Whether these
-p
strategies are effective in increasing well-being and performance during remote work is
re
unknown, as interventions among remote workers are scarce.
The study aims to examine the following: whether employees' strategies to recognize
lP
(through self-recognition) and regulate (through job crafting, work-family management, and
na
recovery) their internal and external demands (i.e., aspects that require effort and, therefore,
are associated with psychophysiological costs) and resources (i.e., aspects that are functional
ur
for achieving work goals and can eliminate the costs of the demands) help them to retain their
Jo
well-being (i.e., fatigue severity, motivation, and happiness with life) and task performance
during the pandemic and whether a fully automated online self-training intervention can
stimulate the use of these strategies. By doing this, the study makes several contributions.
First, it contributes to the literature on remote working by uncovering whether the
hypothesized self-recognition and self-regulation strategies effectively increase well-being
and task performance when people work from home. This contribution is essential as the
effectiveness of these strategies under the worker's control to retain these results for remote
workers is unknown; uncovering their impact would explain why favorable outcomes
Journal Pre-proof
deteriorate during remote work. Second, it contributes to the intervention research by finding
ways to effectively train various behaviors and improve favorable outcomes among remote
employees. The scarce training research among remote workers has focused on reducing
stress or improving mood by motivating them to keep a healthy lifestyle (e.g., Barone Gibbs
et al., 2021) or to use Yoga (Garcia et al., 2021) instead of using self-regulating strategies that
supposedly help them improve their psychological well-being and functioning, both affected
by remote work and the pandemic (e.g., Allen et al., 2021). There is an urgent need to provide
access to remote workers from various sectors to evidence-based interventions to improve
of
effective strategies while WFH. Third, organizational interventions are generally time-
ro
consuming, requiring individuals to invest several working hours, often in another location,
-p
making them reluctant to participate (Bardus et al., 2014). The current study is unique as it
re
introduces a new way to design interventions based on self-regulation theory and the model of
user involvement (Short et al., 2012) via an online self-training format. This format enables
lP
the scaling of the intervention and the possibility of reaching remote workers when they are in
na
need, with minimal intrusion into their daily life. The study reports a field experiment with a
pre-post measure and waitlist control group among employees who participated in the online
ur
self-training intervention between June - December 2020.

Jo
Effective Strategies to Work from Home
While WFH, employees collectively implement new ways of working or telework.
They have more autonomy over their workday (e.g., timing) and more flexibility in using
high-tech communication technologies that facilitate information flow and contact with
colleagues and clients (Allen et al., 2003; Demerouti et al., 2014). A transfer of risks and
responsibilities from the company and its management to the individuals at work accompanies
WFH (Taskin & Devos, 2005). According to Allen et al.'s (2003) framework, the most
important and direct way WFH affects work design is by providing more significant
Journal Pre-proof
opportunities for autonomy and self-management. At the same time, this requires personal
control and self-management effort, as telecommuters work outside the traditional office and
away from personal supervision. Thus, WFH increases both opportunities and requirements
for self-regulating behavior. Therefore, improving individuals' self-regulating behavior in
managing the increased requirements/demands and opportunities/resources is vital to
enhancing well-being and performance during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Allen et al.'s (2003) framework suggests that WFH influences individual-level work-
related outcomes through three mechanisms: (a) the understanding of the self with the social
of
context, (b) the self-regulatory opportunities and requirements, and (c) work-family
ro
management. Self-recognition is essential for self-regulation, development, and enhanced
-p
levels of well-being (Zimmerman, 2002). Self-recognition (or self-insight, self-observation,
re
self-focused emotional intelligence) can be understood as the degree to which individuals can
perceive and understand their thoughts, feelings, and behavior (Grant et al., 2002). Such self-
lP
reflective processes strengthen the person's well-being and functioning by developing their
na
insight into already-present capacities to deal with stressors (Padesky & Mooney, 2012) and
the limitations of these capacities and by stimulating the search for person-driven alternative
ur
approaches to stressors or coping, increasing the potential for better future outcomes (Crane et
Jo
al., 2019).
Second, supporting individuals in their self-regulatory attempts to balance their work,
family, and own requirements/demands and opportunities/resources is essential to
understanding and improving the impact of WFH (Allen et al., 2003). It can occur when
employees adjust their job demands and job resources to balance them with their abilities and
needs (Petrou et al., 2012). This adjustment is called job crafting and refers to voluntary, self-
initiated employee behaviors. It includes seeking resources (i.e., asking colleagues for
advice), seeking demands/challenges (i.e., asking for more responsibilities), and

Journal Pre-proof
optimizing/reducing demands (i.e., making work actions more efficient) (Demerouti &
Peeters, 2018; Petrou et al., 2012). Evidence suggests that job crafting strategies improve job
characteristics and, consequently, well-being and performance (Demerouti et al., 2015;
Rudolph et al., 2017). Ingusci et al. (2021) found that using job crafting in remote work
during the pandemic could reduce the positive impact of perceived workload on behavioral
stress by 17.53%. Self-regulation is not only directed to obtain 'behavioral goals' (Carver &
Scheier, 1998), but regulating one's state may also be viewed as a goal in which a person
needs to exert control over their psychophysiological state (Zijlstra et al., 2014). According to
of
Zijlstra et a. (2014), recovery represents the process of restoring and expanding the energetic
ro
resources that occur continuously throughout the day. The individual can actively control it by
-p
altering (or stopping) emotions and arousal levels, overriding thoughts (rumination), and
re
regulating attention. Down-maintaining the actual arousal level (i.e., psychophysiological
state) seems appropriate, as a sustained level of arousal leads to allostatic load problems
lP
(McEwen, 2000). Demerouti (2015) concluded that the most effective recovery experiences
na
for diminishing burnout risk were: detachment from work (i.e., stop thinking about work and
disengaging oneself mentally from work) and relaxation (i.e., low-effort activities that hardly
ur
require any effort and pose no demands on the psychobiological system). In telework,
Jo
enacting control over leisure time (the degree to which a person can decide which activity to
pursue during leisure time as well as when and how) can be an essential aspect of recovery, as
suggested by Sonnentag and Fritz (2017). In support of this, Dolce et al. (2020) found that
cognitive demands and demands to use technology for work during nonwork hours during the
COVID-19 pandemic were negatively related to recovery strategies, which decreased the risk
of emotional exhaustion.
Third, WFH shifts work and family roles from high segmentation to high integration,
with the expectation to produce easier role transitions but also more significant role blurring
Journal Pre-proof
and conflict (Allen et al., 2003; Ashforth et al., 2000). The transition from employee to parent
role when a child cries is easier when WFH than working in the corporate office. By blurring
the distinction between work and family space and time, WFH may increase work-family
conflict (Allen et al., 2003) (i.e., the experience that expectations of one role are incompatible
with the fulfillment of expectation of the other role; Geurts et al., 2005). At the same time,
when individuals control the interactions between both life domains, the spillover effects tend
to be positive (Zedeck, 1992). Thus, WFH can potentially increase work-family conflict and
work-family facilitation (defined as positive load effects built up at work that facilitate
of
functioning at home; Geurts et al., 2005). Allen et al. (2003) and Ashforth et al. (2000)
ro
suggest that to manage the potential interruptions and conflict between work and family
-p
domains, employees who WFH need to increase segmentation by creating and defending
re
boundaries between these roles, which can happen in terms of physical space and equipment
but also by scheduling work and domestic activities. Ahrentzen (1990) found that teleworkers
lP
who kept separate workspaces in the home, restricted access from others, rescheduled work
na
and domestic activities, and added work-family transition rituals, such as exercise,
experienced less role overlap and less work-family conflict. Allen et al. (2021) also showed
ur
that employees during COVID-19 used segmentation strategies to reduce conflict. Moreover,
Jo
employees can use strategies to maximize work-family facilitation by reflecting and
capitalizing on positive work experiences and accomplishments and sharing them with people
at home (Daniel & Sonnentag, 2016).
Interventions to Improve Effective Strategies to Work from Home
Organizations must create a healthy and safe work environment for remote workers
exposed to various challenges while working isolated (Chang et al., 2021). A recent literature
review on interventions among remote workers found only fifteen studies that focused on
reducing stress and improving mood (via Yoga, mindfulness, behavioral and coping
Journal Pre-proof
interventions), physical well-being (via work gymnastics, smartphone application-based cues
for exercises), and health safety (ergonomics, remote workstation audits) (Fontecilla
Galleguillos, 2022). Participants valued interventions with an online format, including the
ability to advance through the materials at their own pace. However, the interventions have
several drawbacks, including small duration, small populations, non-random allocation to
experimental conditions, and unjustified dosage. Also, there is a lack of multicomponent
interventions and interventions that teach organizational strategies relevant to remote workers.
The focus of this study is to overcome these weaknesses of the intervention research.
of
Specifically, the basic approach of the intervention is to improve individuals' skills to
ro
self-regulate their resources and demands in the work and nonwork domains. Self-regulation
-p
enables people to function effectively and to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to
re
succeed and explains why adults are willing to exert mental effort to learn. According to the
social cognitive model of Zimmerman (2002, p. 65), self-regulation ‘refers to self-generated

lP
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that are oriented to attaining goals’. Self-regulated learning
na
occurs proactively. Individuals become aware of their strengths and limitations and are guided
to setting personally relevant goals and use task-related strategies. Self-regulatory processes
ur
are cyclical and include the forethought, performance, and reflection phases of learning
Jo
(Zimmerman, 2002). The forethought phase prepares trainees for learning by analyzing the
situation and setting goals that individuals are motivated and interested in achieving. The
performance control phase occurs during learning and affects trainees' attention and action,
including attention focusing, self-monitoring, and self-experimentation. Self-reflection
happens after the performance as trainees evaluate whether they performed the standards they
set and their beliefs about the causes of their errors or success.
The first reason the current training is expected to be effective in boosting the trained
behaviors is that it integrates the regulatory mechanisms and appraisals suggested by the
Journal Pre-proof
model of Zimmerman (2002) and confirmed by the meta-analysis of Sitzmann and Ely
(2011). After being exposed to new information about the strategies, individuals reflect on the
needs/preferences and the effectiveness of past behavior to set goals they are motivated and
intrinsically interested in achieving. The training tool (see Appendix) stimulates them to set
specific and proximal goals (to be completed the same or another day of that week). Such
goals help participants to direct attention and mobilize energy to promote goal attainment
(Locke & Latham, 2002). Moreover, participants strategically plan, i.e., reflect on possible
barriers that may hinder them from achieving their goals and plan strategies that they can use
of
to be more effective, including time management (Sitzmann & Ely, 2011). During the
ro
performance phase, participants focus on achieving their personal, relevant goals while self-
-p
experimenting with the new behavior. The tool supports the self-reflection phase as
re
participants are asked to indicate the degree to which they achieved their goal (based on self-
set standards) and to understand the reasons for their success or failure (Zimmerman, 2002).
lP
Such self-reflection helps them to experience mastery and positive affect regarding their
na
performance (when they achieve goals) or to adaptive reactions to increase the effectiveness
of their strategies (when they do not achieve goals) (Zimmerman, 2002).

ur
The second reason the intervention should be effective is that it uses techniques to
Jo
train strategies found effective in earlier (intervention) research. Specifically, the recognition
of the arousal and the cues of emotions are important to emotion regulation (Gross, 1998),
focusing on altering their impact to facilitate mood or social interaction (Pekaar et al., 2018a).
Specifically, individuals should be able to recognize their physical symptoms (noticing;
Mehling et al., 2012) and appraise their own emotions (self-focus emotional intelligence;
Pekaar et al., 2018a). Individual stress management interventions aim to provide employees
with skills to understand and cope with pressure and stress (Giga et al., 2003). Interventions
that target the recognition of symptoms and emotions effectively reduce stress because they
Journal Pre-proof
improve the emotion regulatory capacity. For instance, Can et al.'s (2020) eight-day training
combined physiological measures and biofeedback with yoga and mindfulness exercises to
teach participants how to manage their stress before a training event (give a presentation). The
intervention further integrates the principles of traditional job crafting interventions (review in
Demerouti et al., 2019). Individuals analyze their work characteristics regarding job demands,
resources, and factors jeopardizing the successful execution of tasks. They formulate actions
to make their work characteristics fit their preferences: by specifying individual job crafting
goals based on (past) experiences (Kolb et al., 2000), helping them direct their attention,
of
effort, and persistence toward goal-relevant activities and to experience mastery (Locke &
ro
Latham, 2002). Such interventions stimulate crafting behavior (Oprea et al., 2019). Still, they
-p
are labor intensive because they require a trainer who teaches a small group of participants
re
(maximal 20) how to job craft in several hours (Demerouti et al., 2019). The intervention
should effectively increase recovery because it integrates methodologies used in recovery

lP
research. Such interventions target what participants do with their "free time" and their
na
recovery experiences. They typically involve a one-day session or a module on recovery as
part of a more extensive intervention program. They can include education, exercises, and
ur
goal-setting designed to enable recovery experiences (review in Sonnentag et al., 2022). For
Jo
instance, Hahn et al.'s (2011) intervention was found to increase recovery experiences and
decrease perceived stress and negative effect by asking participants to (a) reflect on activities
that can help them to cognitively separate work and nonwork time and reduce distractions
from work-related stimuli during their leisure time, (b) reflect on activities during which they
can relax most and identify their conditions for relaxation and (c) plan work breaks in their
agenda so that they are in control of their work and nonwork time. The current intervention
integrated these in a concise and online way. To improve work-family management, the
intervention helped participants create borders between work and private life: (a) by inviting
Journal Pre-proof
them to reflect on transition rituals that can help them to separate work and nonwork time
(Ashforth et al., 2000) and to physically and cognitively separate work and nonwork (e.g.,
having a separate space for working at home) (Kreiner et al., 2009), (b) by specifying time in
their schedule devoted to work, family and personal activities as time management techniques
are an effective intervention to enable spending time on activities one wants to pursue
(Macan, 1996). Based on examples from Geurts et al. (2005) and Greenhaus and Powell
(2006), participants were asked to reflect on the positive influences between the two domains
to increase work-family facilitation. Thus, the intervention focuses on inter-role management
of
instead of typical aspects of work-family interventions, e.g., alternative work arrangements,
ro
family-supportive supervisor behavior training, work redesign to increase schedule control,
-p
and the provision of dependent care supports (Hammer et al., 2016).
re
Third, the intervention follows best practices in designing self-training formats
(Hülsheger et al., 2015). The intervention tool was designed in line with the user engagement
lP
model (Short et al., 2015). Accordingly, engagement and effectiveness of e-interventions

na
depend on factors related to the individual's environment, the individual, and the intervention.
COVID-19 has forced individuals to work online (cf. environmental factor; cf. Ritterband et
ur
al., 2009). Learning how to do this effectively is personally relevant to them (cf. individual
Jo
factor; Dijkstra & Ballast, 2012). Furthermore, engagement in the e-intervention is most likely
to occur when the intervention is aesthetically appealing, offers ongoing learning of novel and
credible information and interacting opportunities, and includes reminders, self-monitoring,
and praise cues. The current tool integrated all these elements. It included professionally made
videos to provide evidence-based knowledge on the various strategies, combined reflective
and interactive exercises to deepen the new understanding, and prompted participants to
participate in the training by sending them an email every Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday
morning, reminding them of the self-set goals and checked their achievement. Participants
Journal Pre-proof
received praising words and information on how far they were in the intervention when they
completed an assignment. Therefore, the first hypotheses are:
Hypothesis 1: Employees participating in the online intervention will report higher
levels of self-recognition [(1a) noticing, (1b) self-focused emotional intelligence] at the
follow-up and, in comparison with employees in the control group.
levels of job crafting [(2a) seeking resources, (2b) seeking challenges, and (2c) optimizing
demands] at the follow-up and, in comparison with employees in the control group.
of
ro
levels of recovery [(3a) psychological detachment, (3b) relaxation, and (3c) control over
-p
recovery] at the follow-up and, in comparison with employees in the control group.
re
Hypothesis 4: Employees participating in the online intervention will report lower
levels of (4a) work-family conflict and higher levels of (4b) work-family facilitation at the
lP
follow-up and, in comparison with employees in the control group.

na
Effectiveness of the Intervention to Improve Distal Outcomes
Individuals who can recognize (through self-recognition) and regulate their internal
ur
demands and resources (through recovery), as well as the external demands and resources
Jo
(through job crafting and work-family management), are expected to have improved well-
being (in the form of motivation, fatigue severity and happiness with life) and task
performance, representing two distinct though overlapping phenomena (Sonnentag, 2002).
Self-regulation is suggested to improve well-being and performance by reducing uncertainty
and ambiguity and supporting individuals to successfully deal with stressors and, therefore,
engage in more favorable coping behaviors (Sonnentag, 2002). Indeed, empirical evidence
suggests that self-focused emotional intelligence is negatively related to stress (Pekaar et al.,
2018b) and positively related to customer satisfaction (Pekaar et al., 2017) and life
Journal Pre-proof
satisfaction (Palmer et al., 2002). In contrast, recovery is positively associated with work
engagement, happiness with life, and job performance and negatively with exhaustion
(overview in Bennett et al., 2018). Moreover, job crafting is negatively related to exhaustion
and job strain and positively related to work engagement, task performance (Rudolph et al.,
2017), and life satisfaction (Pan et al., 2021). Finally, work-family conflict is positively
related to exhaustion (Demerouti et al., 2005) and negatively to task performance (Demerouti
et al., 2016) and life satisfaction (Demerouti et al., 2005). Thus:
Hypothesis 5: Employees participating in the online intervention will experience lower
of
levels of (5a) fatigue severity and higher levels of (5b) motivation, (5c) happiness with life,
ro
and (5d) task performance at the follow-up and, in comparison with employees in the control
-p
group.
re
Hypothesis 6: The intervention will affect (6a) fatigue severity and (6b) motivation,
(6c) happiness with life, and (6d) task performance through self-recognition, job crafting,
lP
recovery, and work-family management.

na
Method
Procedure and Participants

ur
Participants were recruited through a communication item distributed with other

Jo
COVID-19-related news among university employees and an occupational health service
organization in The Netherlands. They could subscribe via a website to follow the training
when they were (i) 18 years or older and (ii) employed at least 50%. After subscription, they
completed the pre-measure questionnaire, including demographics and the proximal and distal
outcomes. Participants were then randomly assigned to the intervention group or the control
group. Participants of the intervention group received an explanation about what the training
looked like. Participants of the control group were informed that they would have to wait until
they could follow the training to support science. After six weeks, during which the
Journal Pre-proof
intervention group completed the training, and the control group received no training, the
control group completed the pre-measure again. After completing these two pre-measures, the
control group was invited to follow the training and complete the post-measure. Compared to
a placebo group, waitlist control reduces recruitment costs and dropout rates and does not
require two 'treatment' arms, while both methods control for the expectancy of improvement
(Hart et al., 2008). All participants completed an informed consent form and were assured that
their data would be treated confidentially. The university's ethical committee approved the
study.
of
The consort diagram (Figure 1) illustrates the composition of the sample. Of
ro
the 99 participants that completed the pre-measure and were assigned to the intervention
-p
group, 39 completed the post-measure (39%). Of the 99 participants assigned to the waitlist
re
control group, 77 completed the post-measure (77.8%). Of the 77 participants in the waitlist
control group, 23 completed daily assignments, and the post-measure. This way, the (merged)
lP
intervention group comprised 62 participants. One hundred sixteen participants completed the
na
pre- and post-measure once (n = 39 in the intervention group and n = 77 in the control group),
excluding the n = 23 waitlist intervention group. This group completed three measures: a pre-
ur
measure as waitlist control, a post-measure as waitlist control (also, the pre-measure as

Jo
intervention group), and a post-measure. Collecting pre–post-treatment data from the
waitlisted participants and adding them to the data from the initially treated group increases
power while saving on recruitment costs (Hart et al., 2008). These 116 employees had a mean
age of 41.7 (SD = 11.1) years. The sample consisted of 80% women and 17% men. The
majority lived with their partner and children (53.8%), only with their partner (29.9%), or
alone (10.3%). Further, 58.9% and 31.6% had university and college education. Most
participants were employed in the education sector (31.6%), the healthcare or educational
sector (21.4%), the financial/business services (14.5%), and the public sector (14.5%). Their
Journal Pre-proof
average working hours per week were 34.7 (SD = 6.3) hours, their average tenure was 18.5
(SD = 11.4) years, and only 13.7% of the participants had a supervisory role.
A dropout analysis tested whether those who completed the post-measure (N = 139)
differed from those who completed only the pre-measure, i.e., the dropouts (N = 79). The
completers were more often women (χ2 (3 df) = 98.01, p = .001), married with children (χ2 (4
df) = 99.36, p = .001), and had university or college education (χ2 (5 df) = 104.70, p = .001).
T-tests showed that the dropouts reported significantly lower levels of optimizing demands (t
= -2.83, p = .005), detachment from work (t = -2.02, p = .04), relaxation (t = -2.03, p = .04),
of
work-family facilitation (t = -3.07, p = .002) and motivation (t = -2.55, p = .01) compared to
ro
the completers. Finally, the intervention and the control groups did not differ significantly
-p
regarding their sociodemographic characteristics or the study variables at T1.
re
The intervention
The intervention was in a self-help format where people could choose when to watch
lP
the short video lectures, answer the reflection questions of the tool, and specify and fulfill
na
self-set assignments (see Appendix). It consisted of four modules representing the four weeks
of training plus one exercise. Every Monday morning at 8 o'clock, participants received an
ur
email with the link to a video with a mini-lecture on the strategy that they would train that
Jo
week. During the mini-lecture reflection, questions were asked. The day's assignment was
then introduced either with a video or text. The invitation to the second and third assignments
was sent on Tuesday and Thursday mornings. Modules included several worksheets the
participants needed to complete about themselves, examples of each strategy tailored for
working adults, and an overview of where exactly one is in the training and how much is
remaining so that they were encouraged to be actively engaged. At the beginning of each
assignment, participants indicated whether they managed to fulfill the previous assignment
and, if not, why. Moreover, they were reminded about each specified goal via email. Each
Journal Pre-proof
module and assignment could be followed independently without assuming that the previous
one had been completed. Each mini-lecture lasted, on average, 3 min, whereas each
assignment lasted about 5 min., excluding the time needed to achieve each goal.
Measures
Participants used last month as a time frame to answer the items.
Noticing. Awareness of own bodily signals was measured with three items of
the noticing dimension of the Multidimensional Assessment of Introspective Awareness scale
(Mehling et al., 2012). Validation studies showed that the scale differs from anxiety (Mehling,
of
2016). Participants rated their body awareness on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
ro
(never) to 5 (always). An example item is: "When I am tense, I notice where the tension is in
-p
my body". The scale was reliable (T1 α =.74 and T2 α =.76).
re
Emotional intelligence was measured with four items from the dimension self-focused
emotional intelligence of the Rotterdam Emotional Intelligence Scale by Pekaar et al. (2018a).
lP
The structural validity of the scale has been shown by Wang et al. (2022) using the item
na
response theory. An example item is: "I am aware of my own emotions". Participants
indicated the level of agreement on a 5-point scale that ranged from 1 (totally disagree) to 5
ur
(totally agree). Cronbach's alpha was α =.89 and α =.90, at T1 and T2, respectively.
Jo
Recovery was measured with three items from the psychological detachment,
relaxation, and control subscales of the Recovery Experience Questionnaire (Sonnentag &
Fritz, 2007). The measure's factorial validity has been confirmed with Dutch populations on
the person- and state-level (Bakker et al., 2015). Items were measured on a 5-point scale
ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Example items are: "I forget about work" (psychological
detachment; T1 α =.84 and T2 α =.87), "I kick back and relax" (relaxation; T1 α =.85 and T2
α =.86) "I decide my own schedule" (control; T1 α =.91 and T2 α =.91).
Work-family conflict and facilitation were measured with three items, each from the
Journal Pre-proof
negative and positive work-home interference subscales of Geurts et al. (2005). Its construct
validity has been confirmed by studies in various cultural contexts (e.g., Ispas & Iliescu,
2019). Items were measured on a 5-point scale (1 = never to 5 always). Example items are:
"Your work schedule makes it difficult for you to fulfill your domestic obligations" (conflict;
T1 α =.74 and T2 α =.74) "You feel more in the mood to engage in activities with your
spouse/family" (facilitation; T1 α =.75 and T2 α =.78).
Job crafting was measured on three dimensions, i.e., seeking resources, challenges,
and optimizing demands. Seeking resources and challenges were measured with three items
of
from the Job Crafting Scale (Petrou et al., 2012). Three items proposed by Demerouti and
ro
Peeters (2018) measured optimizing demands. Costantini et al. (2021) provide evidence for
-p
the construct validity of this job-crafting measure. Answer categories ranged from 1 (never) to
re
5 (always). Example items are: "I ask others for feedback on my job performance" (seeking
resources; T1 α =.51 and T2 α =.50), "I ask for more responsibilities" (seeking challenges; T1
lP
α =.76 and T2 α =.76), and "I improve work processes or procedures to make my job easier"
na
(optimizing demands; T1 α =.84 and T2 α =.86).
The dimensions of fatigue severity and motivation of the Checklist Individual Strength
ur
(CIS:Bültmann et al., 2000) measured well-being. Worm-Smeitink et al. (2017) proved its
Jo
factorial validity, convergent validity (using fatigue scales), and a validated cut-off score for
severe fatigue based on Dutch clinical populations. Example items are: "I am very tired
quickly" (fatigue severity, 3 items; T1 α =.82 and T2 α =.90) and "I am full of plans"
(motivation; 3 items; T1 α =.90 and T2 α =.79). Participants could indicate on a 7-point Likert
scale (1 = 'Yes, it is true' to 7 = 'No, that is not true') how they felt during the last month.
Happiness with life was measured with a single item. Respondents were asked to rate
their overall happiness on a 0-10 self-anchoring scale, in which 1 is defined as the "not happy
at all" and 10 is defined as "very happy". Happiness research often uses a one-item happiness
Journal Pre-proof
scale (see Lyubomirsky et al., 2005) with proven convergent validity (e.g., positive affect)
and discriminant validity (e.g., depression) (Fordyce, 1988).
Task performance was measured with four items of Williams and Anderson's (1991)
scale, which is distinct from other performance dimensions (Werner, 1994) and has been
validated in Dutch populations (e.g., Breevaart et al., 2014). Participants rated the degree to
which they met the formal requirements of their job using a Likert-scale ranging from 1 (not
true at all) to 5 (totally true). An example item is "The employee performs the tasks expected
from him/her". Cronbach's alpha was α =.90 and α =.90, at T1 and T2, respectively.
of
Results
ro
Preliminary analysis -p
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations for both groups at both measurement
re
points, and paired sample t-tests for all study variables for the intervention group. Table 2
shows the correlations between the study variables. Participants of the intervention group
lP
completed an average of 10 assignments (SD = 3.6), with one completing zero assignments.
na
This participant was kept in the analysis as there is a possibility that he/she watched the
videos without completing the reflection questions (when an assignment is considered

ur
completed). The number of completed assignments was positively related to T2 task

Jo
performance. In contrast, the presence of children under the age of 13 was correlated to
several variables at both measurement points. Therefore, the presence of children under 13
was included as a control variable in all analyses, and the number of completed assignments
in the test of the indirect effects. In the thirteenth assignment, participants indicated that the
self-recognition (46%) and the recovery (28%) assignments stood out and that they would
continue using the recovery strategies (55%), followed by work-family management (28%).
To make this possible, they should better plan the day or week's activities, while workload or
pressure from others represented the most significant obstacles to using the strategy.
Journal Pre-proof
Hypothesis testing
The effects of the online intervention on the outcomes of interest (Hypotheses 1-5)
were tested with repeated measures GLM, to evaluate the effects of group (experimental vs.
control) and time (pre vs. post-measure) and the time by group interaction. After the
intervention, and in comparison with participants in the control group (see Table 3), results
revealed that participants in the intervention group reported higher levels of seeking resources
[F (1, 137) = 11.48, p = .001], seeking challenges [F (1, 137) = 5.68, p = .01], noticing [F (1,
137) = 6.89, p = .01], emotional intelligence [F (1, 137) = 5.25, p = .02], psychological
of
detachment [F (1, 137) = 11.10, p = .001], and lower work-family conflict [F (1, 137) = 8.10,
ro
p = .01]. Further, GLM analyses showed that compared to the control group, the intervention
-p
group reported higher levels of task performance [F (1, 137) = 7.98, p = .01] and happiness
re
with life [F (1, 137) = 4.80, p = .03] and lower levers of fatigue severity [F (1, 137) = 3.88, p
= .05] after the intervention. However, the intervention group did not show any improvements
lP
in optimizing demands [F (1, 137) = 1.28, p = .26], relaxation [F (1, 137) = 3.47, p = .07],
na
control [F (1, 137) = 3.04, p = .08], work-family facilitation [F (1, 137) = .30, p = .58] and
motivation [F (1, 137) = 3.13, p = .08] after the intervention. Importantly, these results
ur
remained significant after controlling for the presence of children under the age of 13 years.
Jo
Interestingly, after including this control variable, the effect of the intervention was also
significant for relaxation and control. Thus, results provide support for hypothesis 1a, 1b, 2a,
2b, 3a, 4a, 5a, 5c, and 5d, whereas hypotheses 2c, 3b, 3c, 4b and 5b were rejected.
The data have a repeated measures design in which time points (Level 1) are nested
within individuals (Level 2). Multilevel analyses were performed to test the mediation effects
suggested in Hypothesis 6. These used measurement time [coded as T1 = 0 (pre-intervention)
and T2 = 1 (post-intervention)] and group membership (coded as control group = 0 and
intervention group = 1) as dummy variables and their interaction. Multilevel analyses have the
Journal Pre-proof
following advantages: correct variance distribution to the different analysis levels and more
robust results for violations of sphericity and homoscedasticity. These lead to a more accurate
estimation of the effects and lower rates of Type 1 error (Snijders & Bosker, 2003). Intra-class
correlations (in Table 4) showed that enough variance could be explained at the within-person
level (ranging between 38% for motivation and 19% for task performance), justifying
multilevel analyses. All continuous mediator variables were centered on the grand-mean mean
to allow the cross-level interaction effect to carry over to the outcome variables. The tests
concerned (a) the interaction of measurement time x group membership is related to the
of
mediators, (b) the mediators are related to the distal outcomes while controlling for the
ro
interaction effect, and (c) the indirect effect of the interaction through the mediator on the
-p
outcome is significant (Mathieu & Taylor, 2006). The Monte Carlo method for assessing
re
mediation tested the significance of the indirect effects (Selig & Preacher, 2008).
The interaction was significantly related to all possible mediators except for
lP
optimizing demands (estimate = .196, t = 1.83, p <.10), control (estimate = .226, t = 1.90, p <
na
.10), and to work-family facilitation (estimate = .090, t = .83, p >.10). Since these results are
in line with the results of the repeated measures GLM, these three variables were eliminated
ur
from further analysis. The results for the second step (i.e., mediators should relate to the
Jo
outcome variables while controlling for the main effects of time, group, and their interaction
effect) are presented in Table 4. Of the hypothesized mediators, emotional intelligence was
significantly related to all distal outcomes, whereas relaxation was significantly related to
fatigue severity, motivation, and happiness with life. Moreover, work-family conflict was
significantly and positively related to fatigue severity and negatively related to happiness with
life and task performance, whereas seeking resources and challenges was related to
motivation. The Monte Carlo test supported the negative and indirect effect of the time x
group interaction on fatigue severity via emotional intelligence (LL -.187 UL -.012) and
Journal Pre-proof
work-family conflict (LL -.361 UL -.065). Results supported the positive and indirect effect
of the time x group interaction on motivation via emotional intelligence (LL .010 UL .161),
relaxation (LL .004 UL .221), psychological detachment (LL .029 UL .122), and seeking
challenges (LL .001 UL .71). Positive indirect effects of the time x group interaction on
happiness were found via emotional intelligence (LL .009 UL .161) and relaxation (LL .005
UL .207). The time x group interaction positively and indirectly affects task performance via
emotional intelligence (LL .003 UL .072) and work-family conflict (LL.000 UL .096).
However, the indirect effect of the intervention on fatigue severity via noticing (LL-.002 UL
of
.147) and relaxation (LL -.143 UL .001), as well as on motivation via seeking resources (LL -
ro
.109 UL .242) and on happiness via work-family conflict (LL-.000 UL .149) were not
-p
significant because they contained zeros. These results partially support Hypothesis 6a-d.
re
Discussion
This field experiment provides evidence-based solutions for increasing employee well-
lP
being and performance during (forced) remote working due to and after the COVID-19
na
pandemic. The experiment taught employees to use strategies suggested to support them in
effectively recognizing and regulating external and internal demands and resources. The
ur
design of the training intervention integrated the framework of remote work of Allen et al.
Jo
(2003) to uncover the relevant strategies, the social cognitive model of Zimmerman (2002) on
how to stimulate learning, and the principles of the user engagement model (Short et al.,
2015) to design the online tool. The training effectively increased self-recognition strategies,
job crafting, recovery, and work-family management. It improved distal outcomes affected by
remote working, i.e., fatigue, motivation, happiness with life, and task performance. The
strategies trained during the intervention explained the effectiveness of the intervention in
improving distal outcomes. Of the taught strategies, self-recognition (i.e., self-focused
emotional intelligence), recovery (i.e., relaxation), and work-family management proved to be

Journal Pre-proof
the most effective way to improve the distal outcomes during remote work. This study is,
therefore, innovative because it uncovers what works during (forced) working from home. It
also advances our knowledge of intervention research by showing how to design employee
training interventions following high-quality standards to adequately produce proximal and
distal outcomes requiring the minimum time investment by participants. This study provides
evidence-based solutions to organizational problems while solving ongoing societal issues
during their occurrence.
Effectiveness of the intervention
of
The intervention is one of the first to apply a self-training or e-learning format, using a
ro
randomized control trial intervention with a waitlist control group and pre- and post-measure,
-p
including four modules of three assignments, each representing one strategy. The intervention
re
helped individuals to acquire new knowledge (via short Videos), reflect on their situation (via
exercises), apply this knowledge - by setting daily goals (via assignments) that are personally
lP
relevant using attractive and easy-to-follow material -, and to reflect on goal achievement.
na
The intervention combined various components that were properly aligned such that the
effects of one component do not interfere with another component and the desired outcome
ur
(Tetrick & Winslow, 2015). The current intervention was effective in training at least one
Jo
strategy per module for several reasons. First, the intervention addressed the current problem
of collective forced remote working, increasing participants' motivation to learn skills that
would help them in this specific situation. Such interventions should be more effective
because they teach participants to improve behaviors that enable them to solve their problems
(Martin et al., 2016). Next, the training stimulated participants to change specific daily
behaviors instead of broader ones, challenging them to practice behavioral patterns.
Interventions that help employees incorporate new behaviors into their daily lives can reap
continuing benefits (Tetrick & Winslow, 2015). By setting daily goals, the intervention
Journal Pre-proof
stimulated participants to try out new behaviors and experience mastery and a better balance
of demands and resources (Demerouti et al., 2019). Third and in line with Tetrick and
Winslow (2015), the training followed theoretical frameworks that guided the realization of
improvements in essential aspects of well-being. Recognizing the importance of multiple
domains and different resources and demands is essential for improving remote workers' well-
being regarding energy, motivation, and effective functioning at work.
Although the intervention followed a self-training or e-learning format, it was at least
as effective as conventional face-to-face training, if not more effective. It is not surprising as
of
the intervention integrates the best practices of web-based interventions for self-management
ro
(Murray, 2012). Its design integrates a theoretical perspective that can explain the use of the
-p
new strategies, i.e., self-regulation theory (Zimmerman, 2002). It includes an adequate dose,
re
i.e., a sufficiently high level of engagement needed by the users to learn new behaviors and to
benefit from the intervention. Moreover, the intervention had high personal relevance to the
lP
user and high perceived credibility due to the presentation of scientific knowledge and its
na
professional design. It included periodic prompts, i.e., emails inviting participation and
reminding self-set goals (Murray, 2012). Finally, the training desterilized the most effective
ur
and concrete behaviors that should help employees to retain their well-being and performance
Jo
during forced remote working based on the literature (Allen et al., 2003).
The intervention would improve employee well-being and performance by enhancing
self-recognition and self-regulation strategies to balance external and internal demands and
resources. Uncovering the explaining mechanisms of the intervention is essential as it
excludes the alternative explanation that the intervention was effective by mere participation
(Holman et al., 2010). Suppose the intervention is designed to cause changes in the strategies
and the distal outcomes. In that case, it is essential to determine whether there is empirical
support for the proposed action pathway of the intervention (Murray, 2012), i.e., analysis of
Journal Pre-proof
indirect effects. All four modules explained the intervention effects on the distal outcomes,
which further justifies the choice of these strategies as essential for the well-being and
performance of remote workers. As Allen et al. (2003) suggest, improving individuals' self-
regulating behavior on how to deal with increased demands and resources due to working
from home was the key to improving well-being and performance. However, not all proximal
outcomes could significantly explain the effect of the intervention on the distal outcomes.
Effective strategies
Self-focused emotional intelligence was the only proximal outcome that transmitted
of
the effect of the intervention to all distal outcomes. Recognizing one's emotions was an
ro
essential first step of the intervention to provide participants insight into their coping
-p
capacities and limitations and to be open to alternatives (Padesky & Mooney, 2012).
re
Similarly, Pekaar et al. (2018b) found that the more employees appraised their own emotions,
the more they were engaged in regulating these emotions and searched for more help/advice
lP
from their colleagues, which positively influenced their energy level. Surprisingly, relaxation
na
and work-family conflict were the other two proximal outcomes that acted as mediators in
two of the four distal outcomes. Whereas relaxation explained the effects of the intervention
ur
on well-being outcomes (motivation and happiness), work-family conflict explained the

Jo
effects on task performance and fatigue. Due to the forced WFH, employees tended to work
more hours (Britt et al., 2021) and deal with blurred boundaries between work and nonwork
(Wang et al., 2021). Planning relaxing activities during the day and actively creating
boundaries between work and nonwork were helpful strategies for effectively dealing with
this situation (Allen et al., 2021). It again highlights the importance of training individuals to
use techniques that can help them deal with the prevailing situation and problem because they
are more receptive and eager to learn (cf. Varekamp et al., 2008).
Job crafting only explained the indirect effect of the intervention on motivation.
Journal Pre-proof
Contrary to the expectation that job crafting would help employees to optimize the design of
job demands and resources in the physical absence of the supervisor or employer due to the
pandemic, it had little explaining value for the distal outcomes. Meta-analytical results also
based on intervention studies show that job crafting is stronger related to work engagement (a
motivational outcome) and contextual performance than strain-related outcomes and task
performance (Oprea et al., 2019; Rudolph et al., 2017). In the current study, the urgency and
the difficulty of combining various life domains, i.e., work and family, with the personal
needs for rest could have masked the importance of job crafting. Lastly, two other indirect
of
effects are worth noting. Noticing one's physical state/symptoms was positively instead of
ro
negatively related to fatigue severity, perhaps because one becomes aware of the signs.
-p
Focusing on symptoms increases the availability of somatic information that could be
re
interpreted as symptoms, likely leading to an increase in negative affect and momentary
fatigue (Maher‐ Edwards et al., 2012). To the extent that the training increased psychological
lP
detachment, it also improved motivation. This indicates that keeping a mental distance from
na
work helps people regain energy to initiate action as they are not continually preoccupied with
job-related problems and thoughts that drain energy resources and increase negative affect
ur
(Sonnentag et al., 2008).

Jo
The empirical findings about the essential mediators agree with the participants'
preference for specific assignments and the strategy they would continue to use. Participants
indicated that the strategies of recovery, self-recognition, and work-family management stand
out for them, and they would continue using them, which is not surprising. The main
challenges teleworkers face are an intensification of work and high time management
requirements placed on them to manage work and family domains, next to social isolation and
low trust by employers (Taskin & Devos, 2005). The current intervention helped participants
to find ways to solve the first ambivalence.

Journal Pre-proof
Limitations and Future Research
Notwithstanding the considerable value of the findings, the study has several
limitations. First, all measures are self-reports that are susceptive to common method biases.
Although several of the constructs are individual in nature, e.g., self-recognition,
psychological detachment, or happiness with life, acquaintances (e.g., partners, colleagues)
might also have been able to observe several of them, e.g., job crafting, task performance, and
work-family management. However, if common method biases were a problem, there would
be positive relationships between all variables in general and a similar change pattern in both
of
the control group and the intervention group that would mask any mediation effects (Holman
ro
et al., 2010). Second, the time lag of post-intervention measurement was short, i.e., two weeks
-p
after finishing the intervention, which might be too expeditious to capture all behavioral
re
changes and to show long-term use of the trained strategies. Similar types of interventions
often use this time lag, e.g., Verelst et al. (2021), as there is no clear indication of the ideal
lP
time to examine the effects (Demerouti et al., 2019). Future intervention studies should use
na
time lags longer than two weeks. Third, since only pre- and post-measures were conducted, it
is impossible to test each module's effect on the distal outcomes separately. Having weekly
ur
measures of each specific group of strategies would have enabled testing of such
Jo
relationships, but it would have overloaded the participants in terms of required time
investment. Therefore, it was chosen to use the participants' valuable time to stimulate
behavioral change rather than to document it. Although a power analysis using G*Power
showed sufficient power between-group and within-group comparisons (respectively 64
participants with an effect size of d = 0.5 and 85 participants with statistical power at the
recommended .80 level), and participants worked in various jobs and sectors, the response
rate is relatively low. Of the 302 participants who agreed to participate, only 116 completed
the study (i.e., 38.4%). This is not an uncommon limitation of e-interventions (Verelst et al.,
Journal Pre-proof
2021) but requires some caution in interpreting the findings.
Moreover, despite the intervention and control groups not differing at T1, there was
systematic attrition of the completers of the intervention. Of the subscribed participants,
highly educated, married females with children and those who initially experienced lower
positive outcomes (i.e., recovery, motivation, work-family facilitation, and optimizing
demands) were more likely to complete the intervention. This pattern is often found in similar
types of interventions, such as Ahola et al.'s (2012) resource-enhancing intervention aimed to
reduce job strain and depression which also showed a similar pattern of attrition/dropout.
of
Results seem to agree with the suggestion of Hobfoll et al. (2018) that "resource gain spirals
ro
do gain in saliency in high-loss settings and conditions, which means that the motivation to
-p
build a resource gain cycle will increase when losses occur and will have higher payoff under
re
high-stress conditions (pg. 117)". The lower-educated could be motivated to participate in an
adjusted intervention form with less workload and more guidance and support from the
lP
trainer. Conversely, males' participation could increase through more appropriate and timely
na
information about the treatment duration (Meulenbeek et al., 2018). Thus, the generalizability
of the results needs to be replicated in various samples.

ur
Practical implications and Conclusion

Jo
The study presented a cost-effective and time-efficient intervention to improve various
strategies and, consequently, well-being outcomes and task performance among employees
who worked from home. Since remote work gained momentum and may even become the
norm in many organizations after the pandemic (Verelst et al., 2021), such e-interventions
might gain popularity and even replace traditional face-to-face interventions. The current
intervention can be a valuable e-learning tool that organizations can offer to improve the well-
being and functioning of their employees. To maximize the effectiveness and sustainability of
the effects of such interventions, it would be wise to provide them and support their use
Journal Pre-proof
within organizations and to combine them with other top-down intervention approaches, such
as reducing nonfunctional demands (like bureaucracy) and workload and increasing
psychosocial resources such as social support, feedback, and development. In this way,
employees become aware that their organizations care about them and offer them various
opportunities for improvement with some degree of flexibility.
The training taught employees to recognize and regulate their internal and external
demands and resources through an online training tool. It improved their self-recognition
(noticing, self-focused emotional intelligence), job crafting (seeking resources and
of
challenges), and recovery (psychological detachment and relaxation), and it reduced their
ro
work-family conflict. Consequently, it reduced their feelings of fatigue and increased their
-p
motivation, happiness in life, and task performance. By doing this during the COVID-19
re
pandemic, this study is an excellent example of work and organization psychology in action.
It shows how we can develop evidence-based solutions to real organizational problems by

lP
providing clear answers on how to improve employees' quality of working life.

na
References
Ahola, K., Vuori, J., Toppinen-Tanner, S., Mutanen, P., & Honkonen, T. (2012).
ur
Resource-enhancing group intervention against depression at workplace: who benefits? A

Jo
randomised controlled study with a 7-month follow-up. Occupational and environmental
medicine, 69(12), 870-876.
Ahrentzen, S. B. (1990). Managing conflict by managing boundaries: How
professional homeworkers cope with multiple roles at home. Environment and Behavior,
22(6), 723- 752.
Allen, D. G., Renn, R. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The impact of telecommuting
design on social systems, self-regulation, and role boundaries. In Research in personnel and
human resources management (pp. 125-163). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Journal Pre-proof
Allen, T. D., Merlo, K., Lawrence, R. C., Slutsky, J., & Gray, C. E. (2021). Boundary
management and work‐ nonwork balance while working from home. Applied
Psychology, 70(1), 60-84.
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day's work: Boundaries
and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472-491.
Bakker, A. B., Sanz-Vergel, A. I., Rodríguez-Muñoz, A., & Oerlemans, W. G. (2015).
The state version of the recovery experience questionnaire: A multilevel confirmatory factor
analysis. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(3), 350-359.
of
Bardus, M., Blake, H., Lloyd, S., & Suggs, L. S. (2014). Reasons for participating and
ro
not participating in a e-health workplace physical activity intervention: A qualitative
-p
analysis. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 7(4), 229-246.
re
Barone Gibbs, B., Kline, C. E., Huber, K. A., Paley, J. L., & Perera, S. J. O. M.
(2021). COVID-19 shelter-at-home and work, lifestyle and well-being in desk

lP
workers. Occupational Medicine, 71(2), 86-94.

na
Benner, P., Hooper Kyriakidis, P. & Stannard, D. (2011). Clinical wisdom and
interventions in acute and critical care: A thinking-in-action approach. Springer Publishing

ur
Company, New York, NY, US.

Jo
Bennett, A. A., Bakker, A. B., & Field, J. G. (2018). Recovery from work‐ related
effort: A meta‐ analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 262-275.
Bigham, E., McDannel, L., Luciano, I., & Salgado-Lopez, G. (2014). Effect of a brief
guided imagery on stress. Biofeedback, 42(1), 28-35.
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Sleebos, D. M., & Maduro, V. (2014).
Uncovering the underlying relationship between transformational leaders and followers' task
performance. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 13(4), 194.
Britt, T. W., Shuffler, M. L., Pegram, R. L., Xoxakos, P., Rosopa, P. J., Hirsh, E., &
Journal Pre-proof
Jackson, W. (2021). Job demands and resources among healthcare professionals during virus
pandemics: A review and examination of fluctuations in mental health strain during COVID‐
19. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 120-149.
Bültmann, U., de Vries, M., Beurskens, A. J., Bleijenberg, G., Vercoulen, J. H., &
Kant, I. (2000). Measurement of prolonged fatigue in the working population: determination
of a cutoff point for the checklist individual strength. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 5(4), 411- 416.
Can, Y.S., Iles-Smith, H., Chalabianloo, N., Ekiz, D., Fernández-Álvarez, J., Repetto,
of
C., Riva, G., & Ersoy, C. (2020). How to relax in stressful situations: A smart stress reduction
ro
system. Healthcare.; 8(2):100. Doi:10.3390/healthcare8020100
-p
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2002). Control processes and self-organization as
re
complementary principles underlying behavior. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 6(4), 304-315.

lP
Chang, C. H., Shao, R., Wang, M., & Baker, N. M. (2021). Workplace interventions in
na
response to COVID-19: An occupational health psychology perspective. Occupational Health
Science, 5(1), 1-23.

ur
Clark, M. A., Michel, J. S., Early, R. J. & Baltes, B. B. (2014). Strategies for coping
Jo
with work stressors and family stressors: Scale development and validation. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 29, 617-638.
Costantini, A., Demerouti, E., Ceschi, A., & Sartori, R. (2021). Evidence on the
hierarchical, multidimensional nature of behavioural job crafting. Applied Psychology, 70(1),
311-341.
Crane, M. F., Searle, B. J., Kangas, M. & Nwiran, Y. (2019) How resilience is
strengthened by exposure to stressors: the systematic self-reflection model of resilience
strengthening, Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 32(1), 1-17, DOI: 10.1080/10615806.2018.1506640

Journal Pre-proof
Daniel, S., & Sonnentag, S. (2016). Crossing the borders: The relationship between
boundary management, work–family enrichment and job satisfaction. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(4), 407-426.
de Macêdo, T. A. M., Cabral, E. L. D. S., Silva Castro, W. R., de Souza Junior, C. C.,
da Costa Junior, J. F., Pedrosa, F. M., ... & Másculo, F. S. (2020). Ergonomics and telework:
A systematic review. Work, (Preprint), 1-11.
Demerouti, E. (2015). Strategies used by individuals to prevent burnout. European
Journal of Clinical Investigation, 45(10), 1106-1112.
of
Demerouti, E., & Peeters, M. C. (2018). Transmission of reduction-oriented crafting
ro
among colleagues: A diary study on the moderating role of working conditions. Journal of
-p
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(2), 209-234.
re
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Gevers, J. M. (2015). Job crafting and extra-role
behavior: The role of work engagement and flourishing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91,
lP
87-96.
na
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). Spillover and crossover of
exhaustion and life satisfaction among dual-earner parents. Journal of Vocational

ur
Behavior, 67(2), 266-289.

Jo
Demerouti, E., Derks, D., ten Brummelhuis, L., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). New ways of
working: Impact on working conditions, work–family balance, and well-being. In The impact
of ICT on quality of working life (pp. 123-141). Springer, Dordrecht.
Demerouti, E., Peeters, M. C., & van den Heuvel, M. (2019). Job crafting
interventions: do they work and why?. In Positive psychological intervention design and
protocols for multi-cultural contexts (pp. 103-125). Springer, Cham.
Demerouti, E., Sanz-Vergel, A. I., Petrou, P., & van den Heuvel, M. (2016). How
work–self conflict/facilitation influences exhaustion and task performance: A three-wave

Journal Pre-proof
study on the role of personal resources. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21(4),
391-402.
Dijkstra, A., & Ballast, K. (2012). Personalization and perceived personal relevance in
computer‐ tailored persuasion in smoking cessation. British Journal of Health
Dolce, V., Vayre, E., Molino, M., & Ghislieri, C. (2020). Far away, so close? The role
of destructive leadership in the job demands–resources and recovery model in emergency
telework. Social Sciences, 9(11), 196.
of
Ekstedt, M., & Fagerberg, I. (2005). Lived experiences of the time preceding burnout.
ro
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49(1), 59-67. -p
Fontecilla Galleguillos, M. R. (2022). Evidence-based strategies and interventions to
re
promote the health of workers teleworking from home: Scoping review (Doctoral dissertation,
Universidad del Desarrollo. Facultad de Medicina).

lP
Fordyce, M. W. (1988). A review of research on the happiness measures: A sixty

na
second index of happiness and mental health. Social Indicators Research, 20(4), 355-381.
Fouad, N. A. (2020). Editor in chief's introduction to essays on the impact of COVID-

ur
19 on work and workers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 119, 103441.

Jo
Garcia, M. G., Estrella, M., Peñafiel, A., Arauz, P. G., & Martin, B. J. (2021). Impact
of 10-Min daily yoga exercises on physical and mental discomfort of home-office workers
during COVID-19. Human Factors, 00187208211045766.
Geurts, S. A., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A., Dikkers, J. S., Van Hooff, M. L., &
Kinnunen, U. M. (2005). Work-home interaction from a work psychological perspective:
Development and validation of a new questionnaire, the SWING. Work & Stress, 19, 319-
339.
Giga, S. I., Cooper, C. L., & Faragher, B. (2003). The development of a framework for
Journal Pre-proof
a comprehensive approach to stress management interventions at work. International Journal
of Stress Management, 10, 280–296. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.10.4.280
Grant, A. M., Franklin, J., & Langford, P. (2002). The self-reflection and insight scale:
A new measure of private self-consciousness. Social Behavior and Personality: An
International Journal, 30(8), 821-835.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory
of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72-92.
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative
of
review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271-299.
ro
Hahn, V. C., Binnewies, C., Sonnentag, S., & Mojza, E. J. (2011). Learning how to
-p
recover from job stress: effects of a recovery training program on recovery, recovery-related
re
self-efficacy, and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(2), 202.
Hammer L. B., Demsky C. A., Kossek E. E., & Bray J. W (2016). Work–family
lP
intervention research. In T. D. Allen & L.T. Eby (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Work and
na
Family, (pp. 349). New York: Oxford Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199337538.013.27
Hart, T., Fann, J. R., & Novack, T. A. (2008). The dilemma of the control condition in
ur
experience-based cognitive and behavioural treatment research. Neuropsychological

Jo
rehabilitation, 18(1), 1-21.
Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of
resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their
consequences. Annual review of organizational psychology and organizational behavior, 5,
103-128.
Holman, D. J., Axtell, C. M., Sprigg, C. A., Totterdell, P., & Wall, T. D. (2010). The
mediating role of job characteristics in job redesign interventions: A serendipitous quasi‐
experiment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(1), 84-105.

Journal Pre-proof
Hülsheger, U. R., Lang, J. W., Schewe, A. F., & Zijlstra, F. R. (2015). When
regulating emotions at work pays off: a diary and an intervention study on emotion regulation
and customer tips in service jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 263.
Ingusci, E., Signore, F., Giancaspro, M. L., Manuti, A., Molino, M., Russo, V., ... &
Cortese, C. G. (2021). Workload, Techno Overload, and Behavioral Stress During COVID-19
Emergency: The Role of Job Crafting in Remote Workers. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1141.
Ispas, S. A., & Iliescu, D. (2019). The Romanian Adaptation of the Survey Work–
Home Interaction, NijmeGen. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 42(2), 196-218.
of
Karabinski, T., Haun, V. C., Nübold, A., Wendsche, J., & Wegge, J. (2021).
ro
Interventions for improving psychological detachment from work: A meta-analysis. Journal
-p
of Occupational Health Psychology, 26(3), 224-242.
re
Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory:
Previous research and new directions. In R. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on
lP
cognitive learning, and thinking styles (pp. 228-247). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
na
Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2009). Balancing borders and
bridges: Negotiating the work-home interface via boundary work tactics. Academy of
ur
Management Journal, 52(4), 704-730.

Jo
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal
setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive
affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803.
Macan, T. H. (1996). Time-management training: Effects on time behaviors, attitudes
and job performance. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied, 130, 229 –236.
Maher‐ Edwards, L., Fernie, B. A., Murphy, G., Nikcevic, A. V., & Spada, M. M.
(2012). Metacognitive factors in chronic fatigue syndrome. Clinical Psychology &

Journal Pre-proof
Psychotherapy, 19(6), 552-557.
Martin, A., Karanika‐ Murray, M., Biron, C., & Sanderson, K. (2016). The
psychosocial work environment, employee mental health and organizational interventions:
Improving research and practice by taking a multilevel approach. Stress and Health, 32(3),
201-215.
Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2006). Clarifying conditions and decision points for
mediational type inferences in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
27(8), 1031-1056.
of
McEwen, B. S. (2000). The neurobiology of stress: from serendipity to clinical
ro
relevance. Brain Research, 886(1-2), 172-189. -p
Mehling, W. (2016). Differentiating attention styles and regulatory aspects of self-
re
reported interoceptive sensibility. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 371(1708), 20160013.

lP
Mehling, W. E., Price, C., Daubenmier, J. J., Acree, M., Bartmess, E., & Stewart, A.
na
(2012). The multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness (MAIA). PloS
One, 7(11), e48230.

ur
Meulenbeek, P., Seeger, K., & Peter, M. (2015). Dropout prediction in a public mental
Jo
health intervention for sub-threshold and mild panic disorder. The Cognitive Behaviour
Therapist, 8, 1-15. doi:10.1017/S1754470X15000057
Murray E. (2012). Web-based interventions for behavior change and self-management:
potential, pitfalls, and progress. Medicine 2.0, 1(2), e3. https://doi.org/10.2196/med20.1741
Oprea, B. T., Barzin, L., Vîrgă, D., Iliescu, D., & Rusu, A. (2019). Effectiveness of
job crafting interventions: A meta-analysis and utility analysis. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 28(6), 723-741.
Padesky, C. A., & Mooney, K. A. (2012). Strengths‐ based cognitive–behavioural

Journal Pre-proof
therapy: A four‐ step model to build resilience. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 19(4),
283-290.
Palmer, B., Donaldson, C., & Stough, C. (2002). Emotional intelligence and life
satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(7), 1091-1100.
Pan, J., Chiu, C. Y., & Wu, K. S. (2021). Leader-member exchange fosters nurses' job
and life satisfaction: The mediating effect of job crafting. Plos One, 16(4), e0250789.
Pekaar, K. A., Bakker, A. B., van der Linden, D., & Born, M. P. (2018a). Self-and
other-focused emotional intelligence: Development and validation of the Rotterdam
of
Emotional Intelligence Scale (REIS). Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 222-233.
ro
Pekaar, K. A., Bakker, A. B., van der Linden, D., Born, M. P., & Sirén, H. J. (2018b).
-p
Managing own and others' emotions: A weekly diary study on the enactment of emotional
re
intelligence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 109, 137-151.
Pekaar, K. A., van der Linden, D., Bakker, A. B., & Born, M. P. (2017). Emotional
lP
intelligence and job performance: The role of enactment and focus on others'
na
emotions. Human Performance, 30(2-3), 135-153.
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M. C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Hetland, J. (2012).
ur
Crafting a job on a daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement.
Jo
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1120-1141. 7.
Richardson, K. M., & Rothstein, H. R. (2008). Effects of occupational stress
management intervention programs: a meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 13(1), 69.
Ritterband, L. M., Thorndike, F. P., Cox, D. J., Kovatchev, B. P., & Gonder-Frederick,
L. A. (2009). A behavior change model for internet interventions. Annals of Behavioral
Medicine, 38(1), 18-27.
Rudolph, C. W., Katz, I. M., Lavigne, K. N., & Zacher, H. (2017). Job crafting: A
Journal Pre-proof
meta-analysis of relationships with individual differences, job characteristics, and work
outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 102, 112-138.
Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An
interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software].
Short, C. E., Rebar, A. L., Plotnikoff, R. C. & Vandelanotte C. (2015). Designing
engaging online behaviour change interventions: a proposed model of user engagement The
European Health Psychologist, 17(1):32-38
Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-
of
related training and educational attainment: what we know and where we need to
ro
go. Psychological Bulletin, 137(3), 421 – 442. -p
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2003). Multilevel Modeling. London: Sage.
re
Sonnentag, S. (2002). Performance, well-being, and self-regulation. Psychological
Management of Individual Performance, 405-423.

lP
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The Recovery Experience Questionnaire:

na
development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from
work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 204-221.

ur
Sonnentag, S., Cheng, B. H., & Parker, S. L. (2022). Recovery from work: Advancing
Jo
the field toward the future. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 9, 33-60.
Sonnentag, S., Mojza, E. J., Binnewies, C., & Scholl, A. (2008). Being engaged at
work and detached at home: A week-level study on work engagement, psychological
detachment, and affect. Work & Stress, 22(3), 257-276.
Statista (2002). Number of hours worked from home Netherlands 2020. Retrieved
from https://www.statista.com/statistics/1278946/netherlands-hours-worked-from-home.
Taskin, L., & Devos, V. (2005). Paradoxes from the individualization of human
Journal Pre-proof
resource management: The case of telework. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(1), 13-24.
Tetrick, L. E., & Winslow, C. J. (2015). Workplace stress management interventions
and health promotion. Annual Review of Organisational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 2(1), 583-603.
Trougakos, J. P., Hideg, I., Cheng, B. H., & Beal, D. J. (2014). Lunch breaks
unpacked: The role of autonomy as a moderator of recovery during lunch. Academy of
Management Journal, 57, 405-421.
Varekamp, I., de Vries, G., Heutink, A., & van Dijk, F. J. (2008). Empowering
of
employees with chronic diseases; development of an intervention aimed at job retention and
ro
design of a randomised controlled trial. BMC Health Services Research, 8(1), 1-9.
-p
Verelst, L., De Cooman, R., Verbruggen, M., van Laar, C., & Meeussen, L. (2021).
re
The development and validation of an electronic job crafting intervention: Testing the links
with job crafting and person‐ job fit. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
lP
Psychology, 94(2), 338-373.

na
Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J., & Parker, S. K. (2021). Achieving effective remote
working during the COVID‐ 19 pandemic: A work design perspective. Applied

ur

Jo
Wang, X., Cai, Y., & Tu, D. (2022). The application of item response theory in
developing and validating a shortened version of the Rotterdam Emotional Intelligence
Scale. Current Psychology, 1-16.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational
commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of
Management, 17(3), 601-617.
Werner, J. M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in-
role and extrarole behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of applied psychology, 79(1), 98-
Journal Pre-proof
107.
Worm-Smeitink, M., Gielissen, M., Bloot, L., Van Laarhoven, H. W. M. ,... & Knoop,
H. (2017). The assessment of fatigue: Psychometric qualities and norms for the Checklist
individual strength. Journal of psychosomatic research, 98, 40-46.
Zedeck, S. E. (1992). Work, families, and organizations. Jossey-Bass.
Zijlstra, F. R., Cropley, M., & Rydstedt, L. W. (2014). From recovery to regulation:
An attempt to reconceptualize 'recovery from work'. Stress and Health, 30(3), 244-252.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory
of
into Practice, 41(2), 64-70.
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Journal Pre-proof
Table 1: Means, standard deviations and paired sample t-tests and Morris' effect sizes for the
Study Variables at the pre- and post-measurement points (n intervention = 62 and n control = 77).
Variable Intervention Control t-testa Morris
M SD M SD tb p d
3.55 .59
Seeking Resources pre 3.71 0.58 2.74 0.008
0.56
Seeking Resources post 3.75 .54 3.58 0.64
3.00 .99
Seeking Challenges pre 3.22 0.90 1.59 0.117
0.33
Seeking Challenges post 3.14 .90 3.05 0.81
3.83 .73
of
Optimizing Demands pre 3.57 0.746 2.51 0.015
0.16
Optimizing Demands post 4.00 .65 3.62 0.74
ro
3.63 .91 0
Noticing pre 3.78 0.70 1.45 0.151
.42
-p
Noticing post 3.79 .68 3.60 0.80
re
4.21 1.05
Emotional Intelligence pre 4.28 0.99 2.45 0.017
0.25
lP
Emotional Intelligence post 4.41 .98 4.22 0.99

2.97 .98
Psychological Detachment pre 3.00 0.93 5.53 0.001
0.49
na
Psychological Detachment post 3.49 .84 3.05 1.01

3.64 .81
ur
Relaxation pre 3.52 0.88 4.03 0.001

0.22
Relaxation post 3.95 .69 3.64 0.82
Jo
3.78 .94
Control pre 3.60 0.99 2.63 0.011
0.23
Control post 4.01 .81 3.61 0.92
2.35 .66 -
Work-family conflict pre 2.3 0.74 3.42 0.001
0.40
Work-family conflict post 2.16 .64 2.44 0.77
3.51 .78 0
Work-family facilitation pre 3.37 0.78 0.63 0.530
.09
Work-family facilitation post 3.56 .71 3.35 0,85
4.10 1.73 -
Fatigue severity pre 4.32 1.65 2.48 0.016
0.27
Fatigue severity post 3.68 1.57 4.35 1.62
Journal Pre-proof
Variable Intervention Control t-testa Morris

M SD M SD tb p d
4.62 1.26 0
Motivation pre 4.52 1.25 2.76 0.008
.25
Motivation post 4.97 1.11 4.55 1.24
7.27 1.50 0
Happiness pre 7.42 1.29 1.14 0.257
.33
Happiness post 7.45 1.13 7.14 1.62
4.40 .59 0
Task performance pre 4.31 0.63 1.60 0.114
.42
Task performance post 4.50 .44 4.15 0.75
of
Note. Paired sample t-tests for the intervention group, post-pre measurement b df =
a
ro
61.
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Journal Pre-proof
Table 2: Correlations and Cronbach's alpha (on the diagonal) of the study variables (N = 139).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
1.Completed assignments
2.N Children <13 -
.03
f
3.SR_T1 . - (
01 .09 .51)
4.SC_T1
.01 .03
-
25
-
.76)
. (
o o
5.OD_T1
08 .12
.
19
-
29
.
.84)
. (
p r
6.Noticing_T1
.07 .06
-
08
-
03
.
18
.
.74)
. (
e -
7.Emot. Intell._T1
8.Detachment_T1
01 .02
.
.
04
-
-
02
.
.
16
.
.
44
.
.
.89)
.
.
(
. (
P r
9.Relaxation _T1
05 .08
.
04
-
16
.
17
.
13
.
19
.
.84)
. . (
a l
rn
11 .27 10 18 22 19 37 50 .85)
10.Control_T1 . - . . . . . . . (
u
02 .42 02 12 20 23 38 37 70 .91)
11.WFC_T1 - . . - - . - - - - (
12.WFF_T1
13. Fatigue_T1
.04
07
16
.17
.
-
01
22
-
.
.11
19
.
.
.05
27
.
-
01
24
J
.
-
.24
38
o.
.
.50
29
.
-
.39
48
.
-
.36
44
.
-
.74)
.30
.
-
.75)
-
.
(
- (
.06 18 00 .01 .16 02 .38 .31 .41 .31 49 .38 ,82)
14. Motivation_T1 . - . . . . . . . . - . - (
03 .16 20 19 36 21 45 33 51 41 .28 64 .53 .90)
15.Happiness_T1 . - . . . . . . . . - . - . -
10 .11 11 11 27 29 48 31 47 41 .31 44 .45 59
16.Performance_T1 . - . . . . . . . . - . - . . (
08 .01 18 10 18 22 29 12 19 23 .18 20 .18 27 34 .90)
17.SR_T2 . - . . . . - - . . . . . . - . (
16 .02 50 19 11 09 .02 .03 06 07 08 14 09 00 .04 03 .50)
Journal Pre-proof
18.SC_T2 . . . . . - . . . . - . . . . . . (
04 07 21 64 23 .02 00 06 10 14 .04 22 16 02 01 07 45 .76)
19.OD_T2 - - . . . . . . . . - . - . . . . . (
.02 .07 09 06 61 29 21 11 13 25 .02 27 .16 15 26 12 25 25 .86)
20.Noticing_T2 . - . . . . . . . . - . - . . . . . . (
00 .19 03 02 32 51 50 18 31 30 .11 22 .16 32 30 14 12 08 31 .76)
21.Emot. Intell,_T2 - - . - . . . . . . - . - . . . . - . . (
.03 .04 07 .12 27 40 79 19 36 38 .22 33 .36 45 47 23 07 .07 34 55 .90)
22.Detachment_T2
14 .02
.
.02
-
00
-
14
.
12
.
16
.
59
.
34
.
29
.
.34
.
16
-
.25
.
14
-
26
.
05
.
06
.
16
.
31
.
o f 20
.
22
.
.87)
. (
o
23.Relaxation_T2 . - - . . . . . . . - . - . . . . . . . . . (
r
08 .19 .03 08 27 22 30 36 70 55 .35 46 .36 32 35 09 11 21 32 29 34 56 .86)
p
24.Control_T2 - - - . . . . . . . - . - . . . . . . . . . . (
-
.02 .32 .07 05 20 20 29 27 51 69 .26 43 .27 27 29 05 06 14 35 34 39 44 67 .91)
e
25.WFC_T2 - . . . - . - - - - . - . - - - - - - - - - - - (
r
.07 15 01 06 .06 02 .24 .36 .39 .36 66 .26 47 .19 .40 .21 .07 .09 .19 .08 .21 .51 .48 .43 .74)
26.WFF_T2 - - . . . . . . . . - . - . . . . . . . . . . . - (
27.Fatigue_T2
.06 .13
-
12
.
11
.
22
.
13
-
23
.
25
-
47
-
40
-
.28
-
l
66
.
.43
P-
49
.
47
-
15
-
12
-
17
-
32
.
20
-
32
-
25
-
55
-
46
-
.35
-
.78)
. - (
a
.16 18 09 08 .11 06 .36 .37 .41 .38 46 .25 68 .36 .48 .17 .01 01 .19 .16 .31 .44 .42 .35 58 .36 .90)
28.Motivation_T2 . - . . . . . . . . - . - . . . . . . . . . . . - . - (
rn
04 .09 12 06 24 07 36 27 36 41 .24 47 .40 61 56 13 13 17 28 26 42 41 46 42 .35 51 .58 .79)
29.Happiness_T2 . . . . . . . . . . - . - . . . . . . . . . . . - . - . -
30.Performance_T2
10 02
.
06
.
02
.
16
-
08
.
44
o
.
u 10
.
34
.
25
.
.26
.
32
-
.46
.
38
-
62
.
16
.
07
.
11
.
28
.
21
.
34
.
33
.
37
.
28
.
.39
.
38
-
.55
.
57
- . . (
19 01 09 .08 21 01
J 23 05 14 09 .13 16 .16 16
Note. Correlations |.16| ≤ r ≤ |.22|) are significant at the p < .05 level (2-tailed). Correlations r ≤ |.23| are significant at the p <.01 level (2-tailed).
SR = Seeking resources; SC = Seeking challenges; OD = Optimizing demands; WFC = Work-family conflict; WFF = Work-family facilitation
16 59 08 10 21 14 28 16 23 16 .32 17 .19 26 28 .90)
Journal Pre-proof
Table 3: Results of Repeated Measures GLM (n intervention= 62 and n control = 77) without
control variable and with control variable (number of children in age 0-12) in a grant-mean
centred form (in the parenthesis).
Variables SS Fa p partial η2
Seeking Resources 1.91 (1.91) 11.48 (11.42) .001 (.001) .077 (.077)
Seeking Challenges 1.64 (1.85) 5.68 (6.45) .019 (.012) .040 (.045)
Optimizing Demands .27 (.31) 1.28 (1.47) .260 (.227) .009 (.011)
1.96 (1.91) 6.89 (6.68) .010 (.011) .048 (.025)
of
Noticing
Emotional Intelligence 1.07 (1.12) 5.25 (5.50) .023 (.011) .037 (.039)
Psychological Detachment 3.86 (3.97)

ro
11.10 (11.36) .001 (.001) .075 (.077)
-p
Relaxation .68 (.84) 3.47 (4.37) .065 (.039) .025 (.031)
re
Control .81 (1.06) 3.04 (4.07) .084 (.046) .022 (.029)
lP
Work-family Conflict 1.36 (1.30) 8.10 (7.72) .005 (.006) .056 (.054)
Work-family Facilitation .065 (.10) .30 (.48) .584 (.492) .002 (.003)
na
Fatigue Severity 3.34 (3.48) 3.88 (4.02) .051 (.047) .028 (.029)
Motivation 1.80 (1.59) 3.13 (2.81) .079 (.096) .022 (.020)

ur
Task Performance 1.26 (1.23) 7.98 (7.76) .005 (.006) .055 (.054)
Jo
Happiness with Life 3.48 (3.82) 4.80 (5.28) .030 (.023) .034 (.037)
Note. a For all analyses, df = 1

Journal Pre-proof
Table 4: Multilevel Analyses Examining the Indirect Effects of the Intervention (N = 139).
Fatigue Severity Motivation Happiness Task Performance

Variables Estimate SE t Estimate SE t Estimate SE t Estimate SE t
Intercept 4.242 .134 31.42*** 4.509 .103 43.78*** 7.230 .128 56.49*** 4.281 .066 64.86***
Presence children <13 .168 .088 1.91 -.045 .069 .65 .016 .084 .19 .033 .045 .73
Completed assignments -.016 .017 -.94 .001 .013 .08 .029
o f
.016 1.81 .011 .008 1.38
ro
Time .061 .152 .40 .041 .106 .39 -.169 .138 -1.22 -.120 .063 -1.90
Group .012 .182 .07 .019 .140 .14 -.085 .172 -.49 .088 .089 .99
Time x Group -.185 .225 -.82 .025 .158 .16
- p .000 .205 .00 .120 .094 1.28
Noticing
Emotional Intelligence
.197
-.368
.098 2.01*
.085 -4.33***
-.029
.327
r e
.072 -.40
.064 5.11***
.154
.311
.091 1.69
.080 2.78**
.059
.132
.044 1.34
.040 3.30**
Seeking Resources -.001 .120 -.01
l
.188
P.090 2.09* .068 .112 .61 .061 .056 1.09
Seeking Challenges
Psychological Detachment
.041
-.119
.084 .49
.095 -1.25
n a
.130
.154
.064 2.03*
.071 2.17*
.081
.161
.089 .91
.089 1.81
.070
-.007
.040 1.75
.044 -.16
Relaxation -.248
u
.113 -2.19*
r .442 .085 5.20*** .373 .106 3.52** .025 .053 .47
Work-family Conflict
- 2 x log (df)
Δ–2 x log; Δdf = 7

.686
J o
.112 6.13***
1158.03
99.51***
-.090 .085 -1.06
952.33
132.73***
-.209 .106 -1.97*
1111.34
89.03***
-.157 .053 -2.96**
616.70
43.92***
Level 1 Variance .906 .107 .434 .052 .736 .087 .150 .018
Level 2 Variance .771 .145 .560 .087 .715 .131 .255 .036
Note. Time: 0 =Pre and 1 = Post, Refer. Category = Pre; Group: 0 = Control and 1 = Experimental, Refer. Category = Control; *** p < .001, ** p
< .01, * p < .05.
ICCs are: fatigue severity ρ = .673; motivation ρ = .620, happiness ρ = .657, task performance ρ = .807; noticing ρ = .530; emotional intelligence
ρ = .800; seeking resources ρ = .526; seeking challenges ρ = .648; optimizing demands ρ = .629; psychological detachment ρ = .566; relaxation ρ
Journal Pre-proof
= .685; control ρ = .681; Work-family conflict ρ = .700; work-family facilitation ρ = 670.
o f
r o
- p
r e
l P
n a
u r
J o
Journal Pre-proof
Enrollment Assessed for eligibility
Excluded (n= 24)
 Not meeting inclusion criteria (n= 6)
of
Randomized (n=
ro
-p
Allocation
Allocated to intervention (n= 124) Allocated to waiting-list control (n=
re
 Failed to complete pre-measure (n= 25) 123)
lP
T1 Intervention group (n= 99) T1 Control group (n= 99)

 Failed to complete any assignment (n= 19)  Failed to complete post-measure (n= 22)
na
Follow-Up T2 Control group (n= 77)

T2 Intervention group (n= 39)
 Failed to complete any assignment (n= 54)
 Failed to complete post-measure (n= 41)
ur
T1 Waitlist intervention group (n= 23)

Jo
 23 completed assignments
T2 Waitlist intervention group (n= 23)
 23 completed post-measure
Analysis
(Merged) Intervention group (n= 62) Control group (n= 77)
 Initial intervention group (n= 39)
Waitlist intervention group (n= 23)
Figure 1: Consort flow diagram

Journal Pre-proof
Appendix Overview of the training assignments

Module Provided information and exercises per Assignment
day
Introduction The training started with an introduction
video introducing the following issues: the
goal of the intervention (learn strategies to
deal with the stress due to COVID-19), the
four strategies (self-recognition, job crafting,
recovery, and work-family management),
and the setup of the training (short video's
and exercises).
Self- 1. The video explained that COVID-19 caused Look at yourself in the mirror
recognition tension and stress. A way to reduce it is to and say: how do you feel today?
of
recognize the way that they experience stress Name the physical, emotional,
which can have various symptoms, i.e., cognitive, or behavioral
physical, emotional, cognitive, or behavioral
ro
symptoms when you experience
(Bigham et al., 2014).
stress.
-p
2. Then participants learned the importance of Zoom in on a negative emotion
recognizing the events that caused the arousal that you experienced on the
of negative emotions and doing this early same or previous day
re
enough before the emotions escalate and Specify what you felt and when
become more intense. The importance of the symptoms arose.
symptom awareness was emphasized.
lP
3. The symptoms of tension and stress can be Ask an acquaintance that knows
observed from one's perspective and from the you well about what they notice
perspective of others who might also be able when you experience stress.
na
to observe the signals.

Job crafting 1. The video explained the meaning of job Participants are asked to
demands and resources and the importance of formulate a specific, proximal
ur
having sufficient job resources and affordable goal to optimize demands on the
demands. At the end of the video, participants same or the following working
were asked to note their own job demands
Jo
day and to think of how they

and resources and to reflect on a memorable
plan to overcome possible
situation in their work during which they
successfully made substantial change in their barriers.
job (i.e., narrative; Benner et al, 2011). Next,
job crafting was introduced to adjust their job
demands and resources to improve their
balance. The first job crafting strategy that
was zoomed in on was optimizing demands.
2. The video provided more information about Set a specific, proximal goal to
seeking resources. seek resources
3. The video provided more information about Set a specific, proximal goal to
seeking challenges seek challenges
Recovery 1. The video introduced the recovery (daily, Specify a recovery activity you
weekly, and yearly), the recovery want to pursue on that day or
activities (e.g., sleep, relaxation, breaks), another day that week to relax.
Journal Pre-proof
and the importance of controlling the

recovery activities. Then, participants had
to reflect on the physical, mental, or social
activities they prefer for recovery after
work, name and rate the top five activities
and indicate which activities were
hindered due to COVID-19.
2. Next, the importance of detachment from Specify an activity that helps
work was introduced. Detachment is an you to detach from your work.
active process, and examples were
provided. Then participants reflected on
the activities that they do to detach from
work.
of
3. Then participants learned that research Plan breaks in your agenda for
suggests taking a 10 min. break every 90 min. the same or another day.
of work (Trougakos et al., 2014) to reduce
ro
fatigue effects.
Work- 1. The video introduced work-family relations Specify a new ritual for the
family
-p
and how to create resources in one domain transition from work to nonwork
management that can be used in another domain, e.g., time
through setting borders, making transparent
re
agreements with people in each domain, or
transition rituals. Participants had to reflect
lP
on a negative thing they take from work to

private life or from private life to work and
how to reduce it. Then the video focused on
the importance of transition rituals (e.g., tidy
na
desk after work).

2. Next, the importance of setting borders to Specify in your agenda work,
safeguard time for work, family, and personal family, and personal time.
ur
activities was explained.

3. The last video explained that work and Specify a way to maximize
Jo
private life could influence each other positive impact from work to
positively, e.g., mood, emotions, skills or nonwork and indicate with
other resources (like money). Then whom you will communicate it.
participants reflected on the top three positive
things they exchanged between life domains.
Self-chosen The final assignment was provided Which assignment would you
assignment on week 5 and asked participants which like to continue using in your
assignment they would like to continue daily work?
using in their daily work and to indicate how
to deal with potential obstacles.
Journal Pre-proof
Credit author statement
The author confirms sole responsibility for the following: study conception and
design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of results, and manuscript preparation.
of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Journal Pre-proof
Declaration of interests
☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or
personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be
considered as potential competing interests:
of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Journal Pre-proof
Highlights
1. Self-recognition and self-regulation lead to better well-being and performance during
crisis
2. Recovery, self-focused emotional intelligence, work-family management and job
crafting are vital strategies in remote work
3. An individualized, self-training intervention is effective to improve employees’
strategies to deal with remote work
of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

00 Demerouti2023 Effective Employee Strategies For Remote Working An Online Self-Training Intervention (Q1)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

00 Demerouti2023 Effective Employee Strategies For Remote Working An Online Self-Training Intervention (Q1)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal Pre-proof

Effective employee strategies for remote working: An online self-

To appear in: Journal of Vocational Behavior

Received date: 17 March 2022

© 2023 Published by Elsevier Inc.

RUNNING HEAD: SELF-TRAINING INTERVENTION

Effective employee strategies for remote working: An online self-training intervention

Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Correspondence address: Prof. Dr. Evangelia Demerouti, Eindhoven University of

MB Eindhoven, Netherlands, Email: e.demerouti@tue.nl, Phone: +31 40 247 5669

RUNNING HEAD: SELF-TRAINING INTERVENTION

This paper examines whether employees' strategies to recognize (through self-

performance after the intervention. Improvements in self-focused emotional intelligence,

evidence-based self-training intervention.

Keywords: happiness with life, job crafting, recovery, self-training, self-regulation,

task performance, work-family conflict

challenging individuals' self-concept and social identity, as well as their self-regulatory

opportunities and requirements, and by changing work-nonwork boundaries. Due to the

First, it contributes to the literature on remote working by uncovering whether the

hypothesized self-recognition and self-regulation strategies effectively increase well-being

access to remote workers from various sectors to evidence-based interventions to improve

self-training intervention between June - December 2020.

Effective Strategies to Work from Home

While WFH, employees collectively implement new ways of working or telework.

for self-regulating behavior. Therefore, improving individuals' self-regulating behavior in

managing the increased requirements/demands and opportunities/resources is vital to

enhancing well-being and performance during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Second, supporting individuals in their self-regulatory attempts to balance their work,

family, and own requirements/demands and opportunities/resources is essential to

advice), seeking demands/challenges (i.e., asking for more responsibilities), and

characteristics and, consequently, well-being and performance (Demerouti et al., 2015;

employees can use strategies to maximize work-family facilitation by reflecting and

at home (Daniel & Sonnentag, 2016).

Interventions to Improve Effective Strategies to Work from Home

interventions), physical well-being (via work gymnastics, smartphone application-based cues

several drawbacks, including small duration, small populations, non-random allocation to

experimental conditions, and unjustified dosage. Also, there is a lack of multicomponent

social cognitive model of Zimmerman (2002, p. 65), self-regulation ‘refers to self-generated

including attention focusing, self-monitoring, and self-experimentation. Self-reflection

of their strategies (when they do not achieve goals) (Zimmerman, 2002).

Specifically, individuals should be able to recognize their physical symptoms (noticing;

should effectively increase recovery because it integrates methodologies used in recovery

recovery experiences. They typically involve a one-day session or a module on recovery as

to increase work-family facilitation. Thus, the intervention focuses on inter-role management

model (Short et al., 2015). Accordingly, engagement and effectiveness of e-interventions

credible information and interacting opportunities, and includes reminders, self-monitoring,

videos to provide evidence-based knowledge on the various strategies, combined reflective

completed an assignment. Therefore, the first hypotheses are:

Hypothesis 1: Employees participating in the online intervention will report higher

levels of self-recognition [(1a) noticing, (1b) self-focused emotional intelligence] at the

follow-up and, in comparison with employees in the control group.

Hypothesis 2: Employees participating in the online intervention will report higher

follow-up and, in comparison with employees in the control group.

Effectiveness of the Intervention to Improve Distal Outcomes

performance, representing two distinct though overlapping phenomena (Sonnentag, 2002).

Self-regulation is suggested to improve well-being and performance by reducing uncertainty

et al., 2016) and life satisfaction (Demerouti et al., 2005). Thus:

Hypothesis 5: Employees participating in the online intervention will experience lower

recovery, and work-family management.

Procedure and Participants

Participants were recruited through a communication item distributed with other

COVID-19-related news among university employees and an occupational health service