eustress on telework-2022

Information Resources Management Journal
Volume 35 • Issue 1
Eustress and Distress in the

Context of Telework
Craig Van Slyke, Louisiana Tech University, USA*
Jaeung Lee, Louisiana Tech University, USA
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9869-050X
Bao Q. Duong, Louisiana Tech University, USA

T. Selwyn Ellis, Louisiana Tech University, USA
ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic brought about a surge in telework, with many organizations using telework
to continue operations. Teleworkers are subject to stress due to the demands of working from home.
Despite the common view of stress as being detrimental, stress can also be beneficial. In this paper,
the authors investigate two forms of stress, eustress (beneficial stress) and distress (detrimental stress),
using a theoretically-derived model that includes antecedents and outcomes of eustress and distress.
They test the model using data from a survey of 525 American teleworkers. Results indicate that job
resources (autonomy, managerial support, and technical support) and personal resources (resilience
and self-efficacy) affect eustress while job demands (work overload, social isolation, and resource
inadequacies) affect distress. Eustress is positively associated with job and telework satisfaction and
negatively associated with telework exhaustion. Distress has the opposite effects. The findings hold
implications for researchers and practitioners.
Keywords
Business Management, Distributed Management, Human Resource Management, Organizational Aspects,
Telecommuters, Telecommuting, Telework, Teleworkers
INTRODUCTION
The COVID-19 pandemic brought numerous changes, including changes in work arrangements.
Many organizations turned to telework as a means of maintaining operations during COVID-19
related restrictions. In some cases, employers mandated telework; if employees wanted to maintain
their positions, they often had little choice in the matter. For many workers, the shift to telework
was jarring and abrupt. The effects of this shift were vast and many will be long-lasting, with some
employers going so far as claiming that telework is the new conventional workplace (Sinclair et al.,
2020). Because of these changes, it is important to understand the effects of telework on workers.
Humanistic effects, such as job satisfaction, are especially important given the relative paucity of
information systems research concerning humanistic outcomes (Sarker et al., 2019).
DOI: 10.4018/IRMJ.291526 *Corresponding Author

Copyright © 2022, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

1
Telework presents numerous challenges for workers; some are related to the physical (and
sometimes temporal) separation from coworkers and managers. The resulting difficulties are not
limited to instrumental problems, such as functioning technology and finding new ways to complete
work tasks. Social difficulties also exist; for instance, social isolation is often cited as a negative
aspect of telework (Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Norman et al., 1995).
These challenges are exacerbated when telework is forced, rather than a matter of choice. In
these cases, teleworkers are especially subject to stress. Stress is a matter of enduring interest among
telework researchers and practitioners (Fonner & Roloff, 2012; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Weinert
et al., 2015; Weinert et al., 2014) and is increasingly important as telework becomes part of a “new
normal.” In this paper, we use the stressor–stress response–outcome framework (Simmons & Nelson,
2001) to investigate the antecedents and outcomes of two distinct types of telework stress subprocesses,
namely, telework distress, which results in negative responses to stressors, and telework eustress,
which results in positive responses.
As indicated previously, not all stress is detrimental to workers’ well-being. Eustress, which is
a response to a stressor that is seen as beneficial in achieving goals, enhances well-being, whereas
distress responses reduce well-being (Califf et al., 2020; Selye, 1974; Simmons & Nelson, 2007;
Tarafdar et al., 2017). To date, telework stress research has not adequately considered the possibility
of beneficial stress. This focus on harmful stress and stress responses resulted in emphasizing how to
reduce harmful stress (e.g., Song & Gao, (2020), Weinert et al., (2014)), rather than enhance beneficial
stress. Although our conceptual logic draws on prior research into stress in other contexts, such as
technostress, the context of telework is conceptually distinct from technostress due to the stresses
brought about by the distance element of telework, and the need to negotiate work-family boundaries.
The lack of research into telework eustress is unfortunate given the resurgence in interest in
telework due to COVID-19. The dramatic, sudden shift in the importance of telework and in the
number of teleworkers provides an interesting opportunity to study telework stress and its effects.
Understanding the effects of stress in this context is especially interesting because abrupt changes in
work routines are likely to be stress-inducing.
We contend that understanding the nature, causes, and consequences of telework-related stress
is a matter of societal importance. Telework represents a distinct confluence of social and technical
challenges with clear societal consequences related to telework’s impact on workers and their families.
We undertake three research objectives:
1. Establish that eustress and distress responses are different stress responses in the context of
telework.
2. Examine the effects of eustress and distress on telework outcomes.
3. Investigate antecedents of eustress and distress.
Through these objectives, we aim to contribute to the telework literature by, 1) providing a clear
understanding of the differences between eustress and distress responses, 2) identifying antecedents
of both stressors responses and, 3) investigating the consequences of two different types of stressor
responses on both positive and negative telework outcomes, in the context of telework.
BACKGROUND
Telework is a specific type of alternative work arrangement in which employees use information
and communication technologies to work from locations not provided by employers (e.g., home)
(Bélanger et al., 2001). Telework has experienced a resurgence due to COVID-19 (Belzunegui-Eraso
& Erro-Garcés, 2020). Employers are expanding the scope of teleworking opportunities as a means
of maintaining operations while complying with regulations directed at mitigating the public health
2
effects of the pandemic (OECD, 2020). The percentage of workers allowed to work from home
increased substantially during the early days of the pandemic (Carman & Nataraj, 2020). According
to one report (Carman & Nataraj, 2020), in April 2020, 55.7% of respondents from a large-scale
survey of American workers were permitted to work from home, compared with 44% in February.
During the same period, the mean number of days working from home increased from 3.0 to 4.5 in
a week (Carman & Nataraj, 2020).
Proponents of telework have claimed that telework leads to numerous benefits for organizations
and workers, including increased worker satisfaction, well-being, and productivity, and reduced work–
family conflict and turnover (Charalampous et al., 2019; Fonner & Roloff, 2010; Khalifa & Davison,
2000; Pinsonneault & Boisvert, 2001; Virick et al., 2010). Unfortunately, the empirical support for
these claims is often lacking, leading to uncertainties regarding whether telework is beneficial or
harmful for employees (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). In addition, researchers have identified a
“telecommuting paradox” (Westfall, 1997) resulting from “mutually incompatible consequences for
employees” (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007, p. 1562), p. 1562]. One aspect of this paradox concerns
telework’s impact on stress, in which some telework effects (e.g., increased autonomy) are thought
to reduce stress, while others (e.g., reduced social contact) are likely to increase stress. One possible
resolution to this paradox comes from the recognition that different kinds of stress can lead to different
outcomes, as described below.
Situations that are novel, but not completely new, are thought to bring about stress responses
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Because of this, the relative novelty of telework is stress-inducing
because it is novel, but not completely new. Even new teleworkers may have some knowledge of
what it is like to work from home through secondary exposure (conversations with others, reading,
etc.). The relatively novel nature of telework for many workers may also bring about stress due to the
associated uncertainty. Uncertainty is associated with elevated stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) .
However, in some cases, the novel, uncertain event may be seen as a challenge rather than a threat
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), which may bring about a different sort of stress response, one that is
beneficial rather than harmful.
As noted earlier, telework research has treated stress as a negative factor for workers (Stich,
2020). More broadly, however, there is a growing recognition of the existence of “good” stress (e.g.,
O’Sullivan, 2011; Tarafdar et al., 2017). This beneficial stress is known as eustress (Selye, 1974)
and represents a positive appraisal of demands based on the potential for the demands to result in
personal benefits (Simmons & Nelson, 2007; Tarafdar et al., 2017).
Stress is a response to the presence of stimuli commonly called stressors (Califf et al., 2020;
Hargrove et al., 2013). Stressors are stimuli that occur in the environment that are perceived as
influencing one’s routine, psychological or physical health (Van Dijkhuizen, 1980; Winnubst et al.,
1982). Common work stressors include job demands, role and interpersonal conflicts, ambiguity,
work overload, time pressure, job complexity, and resource inadequacies, among others (Hargrove
et al., 2016).
Stressors may produce stress responses (Hargrove et al., 2013; Koeske & Koeske, 1993)
depending on the individual and circumstances. Moreover, stressors are assessed in the context of an
individual’s environment. In the context of work, individuals base their appraisal of stressors in light
of how the stressor benefits or harms the accomplishment of work tasks (Califf et al., 2020) or work
achievements. Stressors that are viewed as beneficial result in positive stress responses associated
with eustress, whereas those that are seen as a detrimental result in negative stress responses, which
is part of the distress subprocess.
The language around distress and eustress is somewhat inconsistent, with some authors using the
terms to refer to processes (e.g. Califf et al., 2020; Tarafdar et al., 2017), and others using them to
refer to responses to or outcomes of the associated processes (e.g. Hargrove et al., 2013; O’Sullivan,
2011; Simmons & Nelson, 2001). In this paper, we use the terms eustress and distress to refer to
3
the responses to the eustress and distress processes. When we wish to refer to the processes, we will
specify eustress process or distress process.
Stress responses result in outcomes, which may be positive or negative (Hargrove et al.,
2016; Podsakoff et al., 2007). In this study, we are interested in two positive telework outcomes
(job satisfaction and telework satisfaction) and one negative telework outcome (exhaustion). Prior
research has indicated that these are relevant outcomes for telework. We discuss these, along with
their relationships to eustress and distress in the next section.
One area of research related to stress responses concerns factors that lead to these responses. We
examine two categories of eustress and distress antecedents, stressors, and individual characteristics.
We focus on work-related stressors, although nonwork stressors may also be relevant. Three of the
included stressors, namely, autonomy, managerial support, and technical support, can be considered
challenge stressors, which are environmental elements that are appraised as facilitating personal growth
or achievement (Podsakoff et al., 2007). As described in the following section, we expect these factors
to positively influence eustress. Our study also includes three hindrance stressors (work overload,
social isolation, and resource inadequacies). Hindrance stressors are elements of the environment
that are viewed as interfering with or inhibiting one’s achievement of important goals (Cavanaugh
et al., 2000; Demerouti & Bakker, 2011).
In addition, we include two personal characteristics (i.e., resilience and self-efficacy) representing
resources that reflect one’s abilities to overcome challenges and take advantage of opportunities.
Resilience is the ability to rebound from adverse events (Luthans et al., 2004), whereas self-efficacy
is an individual’s confidence in their ability to handle difficult problems or tasks (Rigotti et al., 2008).
Teleworkers who are high in resilience and self-efficacy are more likely to view the uncertainties of
telework as being opportunities for growth and achievement. We discuss the relationship between
these personal characteristics and eustress and distress in the next section.
THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT
Figure 1 presents the model guiding this research. According to the model, telework eustress and
distress will affect telework outcomes. We also expect that job resources and personal resources will
affect telework eustress, and that job demands will affect telework distress. In the remainder of this
section, we provide the reasoning behind the relationships shown in the model, and state hypotheses
related to these relationships.
Outcomes of Telework Eustress and Distress Responses

One goal of our research is to understand the consequences of telework eustress and distress responses,
which are, respectively, positive and negative psychological responses to telework stressors. Numerous
outcomes of telework have been studied. In this study, we include three outcomes that are especially
relevant to a study of eustress and distress responses. Two of these, job satisfaction and telework
satisfaction, are beneficial outcomes, and one is a harmful outcome (exhaustion).
We expect telework eustress response to be positively related to job satisfaction and telework
satisfaction. Job satisfaction is the extent to which an employee perceives a job as fulfilling (Venkatesh
& Morris, 2000). Job satisfaction has been widely studied with respect to telework (Fonner & Roloff,
2010), with some scholars claiming that job satisfaction is the most commonly reported telework
outcome (Pinsonneault & Boisvert, 2001). The findings related to telework and job satisfaction are
somewhat equivocal (Golden & Veiga, 2005; Suh & Lee, 2017). Some empirical studies have found
that teleworkers are more satisfied than their coworkers (Allen et al., 2015; Fonner & Roloff, 2010;
Gajendran & Harrison, 2007), whereas others have found a decrease in job satisfaction as telework
increases beyond a certain point (Golden & Veiga, 2005). Another study found no significant
differences in job satisfaction between teleworkers and non-teleworkers (Morganson et al., 2010), and
another reports no relationship between the extent of telework and job satisfaction (Vega et al., 2015).
4
Figure 1. Research Model and Hypotheses
When studies of telework have considered worker satisfaction, they typically investigate job
satisfaction. However, satisfaction with telework is also important. An individual may be satisfied
with telework, but not with their job, or vice versa. As a result, we also include telework satisfaction,
which we define as the extent to which a teleworker perceives telework to be fulfilling, as a potential
outcome of telework eustress.
Telework eustress, as a positive response to telework, is likely to have positive relationships with
both job satisfaction and telework satisfaction. Prior research has demonstrated empirically a positive
relationship between positive psychological responses to work-related stressors and job satisfaction
(Califf et al., 2020) . Other research has found similar relationships in other contexts such as life
satisfaction (O’Sullivan, 2011).
When workers feel positive about their work environments, they are more likely to be satisfied.
Telework eustress responses are characterized by positive feelings toward elements of the telework
environment, which includes elements of their jobs and of telework. Therefore, we expect telework
eustress to have positive relationships with job satisfaction and work satisfaction. Similarly, negative
psychological responses to telework stressors are likely to negatively affect job satisfaction and
telework satisfaction as indicated in the hypotheses below.
We also expect telework eustress and distress to impact a negative outcome of telework, exhaustion.
Exhaustion, the main component of burnout (Golden, 2006), occurs when workers resources at their
5
disposal are no longer sufficient for dealing with job demands. In contrast, workers who feel that
they have adequate job resources to deal with job demands will not experience exhaustion (Bakker
& Demerouti, 2017; Crawford et al., 2010; Tarafdar et al., 2007). However, when circumstances
change and they no longer believe that their resources are sufficient to meet demands, they are likely
to experience distress and, subsequently, exhaustion (Avey et al., 2011; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007,
2017). Empirical research indicates that job resources and personal resources lower feelings of
exhaustion (Van den Broeck et al., 2010; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007), whereas job demands and stress
(Ayyagari et al., 2011; Maier et al., 2019; Weinert et al., 2015) increase exhaustion. These findings
may be because effects are mediated by telework eustress and distress.
Few studies have examined exhaustion in the context of telework (Sardeshmukh et al., 2012),
despite its importance to telework (Golden, 2006). Moreover, prior studies contend that distress is
positively related to negative outcomes while eustress is positively related to positive outcomes (Little
et al., 2007) and technostress (Califf et al., 2015).
To summarize, we expect telework eustress to have a positive impact on positive telework
outcomes (job satisfaction and telework satisfaction), and a negative impact on negative telework
outcomes (e.g., telework exhaustion). Telework distress, in contrast, should have a negative impact
on positive outcomes and a positive impact on negative outcomes. These relationships are formally
stated in the following hypotheses.
H1a: Telework eustress is positively related to job satisfaction.

H1b: Telework eustress is positively related to telework satisfaction.
H1c: Telework eustress is negatively related to telework exhaustion.
H2a: Telework distress is negatively related to job satisfaction.
H2b: Telework distress is negatively related to telework satisfaction.
H2c: Telework distress is positively related to telework exhaustion.
Antecedents of Telework Eustress and Distress Responses

The job demands and resources perspective (JD-R) (Demerouti et al., 2001) offers a useful way
to consider the antecedents of telework eustress and distress. JD-R was originally developed to
study employee burnout, but has subsequently been applied to numerous positive and negative
psychological responses and work outcomes, including disengagement (Demerouti et al., 2001),
organizational commitment, absence behaviors, work engagement, work enjoyment, exhaustion,
and job performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, 2014, 2017). Essentially, JD-R proposes that
work has two general categories of factors that affect job stress, those are job demands and job
resources. Job demands are characteristics of the job that are associated with psychological or
physiological costs. Job resources are aspects of the job that assist in achieving work goals or
stimulating personal development (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). More recent versions of JD-R
add the concept of personal resources, which are beliefs about how much control an individual
has over their environment. Personal resources include, but are not limited to self-efficacy,
optimism, and self-esteem (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014, 2017).
JD-R has been applied to telework. For example, Sardeshmukh et al., (2012) found that job
demands (specifically time pressure, role ambiguity, and role conflict) impacted exhaustion, while job
resources (autonomy, feedback, and social support) affected both exhaustion and engagement. Another
study (Nakrošienė et al., 2019) applied JD-R to a study of telework satisfaction and productivity.
However, to our knowledge, no studies have investigated how job demands and resources influence
distress and eustress in the context of telework. Nevertheless, we contend that JD-R offers a useful
framework for identifying telework stressors, as discussed below. Note that in all cases, the individual
worker’s perceptions of the extent to which the demands or resources exist is the important factor
affecting telework eustress or distress.
6
Because of the relative lack of research on telework eustress and distress, some of the discussion
that follows relates to prior research into relationships between JD-R components and telework
outcomes. We believe that it is likely that these relationships may be mediated by the effect of JD-R
components on eustress and distress. Because of this, we offer these findings as partial support for
the hypotheses discussed in this section.
Job resources allow workers to complete work-related tasks. Job resources should increase
eustress by providing the resources employees need to pursue the stimulating aspects of their jobs.
We include three job resources that may be especially relevant to telework – autonomy, managerial
support, and technical support.
Autonomy is frequently included as an example of a job resource (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). It
is defined as the degree of discretion one has in structuring and controlling when and how job tasks are
performed (Crawford et al., 2010; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Spector, 1986). Autonomy is generally
thought to be an advantage of telework (Nakrošienė et al., 2019). The flexibility of telework (Weinert
et al., 2015) allows employees more choice over where, when, and how they perform work tasks
(Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Sardeshmukh et al., 2012; Suh & Lee, 2017). More generally, autonomy
impacts numerous work-related factors, including work exhaustion, organizational commitment (Ahuja
et al., 2007), employee engagement (Crawford et al., 2010), motivation, and performance confidence
(Deci & Ryan, 2000), among others. Autonomy also positively impacts job satisfaction (Crawford
et al., 2010; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Kompier & Taris, 2005; Spector, 1986) including in the context of
telework (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Nakrošienė et al., 2019; Suh & Lee, 2017). It may be that
this affect operates through autonomy’s impact on stress. In addition, autonomy has been empirically
demonstrated to be positively related to eustress (Diller et al., 2016).
Our study also includes two support-related resources, namely, managerial support and technical
support. Support from one’s manager or supervisor is important in reducing worker stress by aiding
the worker in coping with job demands (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Such support helps shield
individuals from the consequences of stress-inducing experiences (Cohen & Wills, 1985) and has been
linked to positive work outcomes such as engagement (Crawford et al., 2010). Managerial support is
especially important for teleworkers because this support can help counteract some of the negative
effects of social isolation. In addition, telework differs from conventional work arrangements and
therefore requires different management approaches (Bentley et al., 2016; Bosua et al., 2013), making
management support important to telework success (Allen et al., 2015; Kowalski & Swanson, 2005).
Empirical research indicates that managerial support is positively associated with telework outcomes
(Haines et al., 2002), including satisfaction (Bentley et al., 2016; Hartman et al., 1992). In addition,
managerial support has been found to reduce work-related stress (Babin & Boles, 1996), including
stress among teleworkers (Bentley et al., 2016).
Technical support is also important to telework outcomes (Baker et al., 2006; Bélanger et al.,
2013), especially as the amount of telework increases. Increased telework leads to greater assistance
seeking, which is associated with a need for increased formal technical support (Baker et al., 2006).
Technical support has also been linked to job satisfaction among teleworkers (Allen et al., 2015;
Bentley et al., 2016). Technical support can also inhibit stress (Bentley et al., 2016; Ragu-Nathan
et al., 2008) and help reduce the negative aspects of stress (Califf et al., 2020; Ragu-Nathan et al.,
2008). In addition, technical support can have a positive impact on positive psychological responses
to stressors (Califf et al., 2020).
Based on the above, we expect the job resources discussed above to be positively related to
telework eustress, as reflected in the following hypotheses:
H3a: Perceived autonomy is positively related to telework eustress.

H3b: Perceived managerial support is positively related to telework eustress.
H3c: Perceived technical support is positively related to telework eustress.
7
The concept of personal resources as a component of JD-R has not been as well developed as
job resources. Personal resources are positive self-evaluations about one’s ability to successfully
control and exert impact on their circumstances (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; Xanthopoulou et al.,
2009). Like job resources, personal resources are thought to help workers deal with job demands,
which affects job-related stress. We include two personal resources in our study, self-efficacy, and
resilience. Both are thought to serve as psychological capital that can be tapped to help individuals
deal with adversity (Luthans et al., 2006). We believe that these personal resources will enhance
telework eustress.
Self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) has been widely studied in the context of work. Workers who
are high in self-efficacy believe that they have the capability to deal with unexpected circumstances
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2017) Self-efficacy is highly correlated with performance (Luthans et al.,
2007; Simmons & Nelson, 2007) and work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; Xanthopoulou
et al., 2007, 2009). In addition, workers with higher self-efficacy are more likely to find their jobs
satisfying (Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge et al., 2005; Luthans et al., 2007; Shirom, 2007). Self-efficacy is
positively related to eustress (O’Sullivan, 2011) and is thought to partially account for the relationship
between challenge stressors and motivation (LePine et al., 2005).
Self-efficacy is an important determinant of telework success. Individuals who are high in self-
efficacy believe that they are well equipped to deal with the challenges and uncertainties presented
by telework. The home working environment is often more fluid and unstructured than an office
environment (Raghuram et al., 2003). In addition, non-work-related demands may be stronger
when working from home, leading to further environmental uncertainty. When facing unexpected
circumstances, workers who are high in self-efficacy take a task-focused approach to deal with
difficulties. Moreover, they have confidence that they can take control of circumstances when facing
environmental threats (Raghuram et al., 2003). Taken together, self-efficacy acts as a resource that
can be called upon when facing demands related to telework, leading to more productive adjustments
(Raghuram et al., 2003) and improved telework outcomes, such as intentions to telework in the future
(Khalifa & Davison, 2000). It may be that the benefits of self-efficacy are due, in part, to its positive
relationship with eustress.
Resilience is one’s ability to rebound from adverse events (Luthans et al., 2004). When facing
significant risk or adversity, resilient individuals respond with positive coping and adaptation (Burns
et al., 2017; Luthans et al., 2007). One way in which resilience exhibits these effects is by buffering
the negative impacts of past losses or failures (Burns et al., 2017). When facing challenging situations,
resilient individuals accept reality and tend to find creative ways to adapt to significant changes in
their environment. They approach stress pragmatically and strategically, leading to resilient individuals
being well equipped to deal with and overcome stress. Given the increased uncertainty of telework,
which may lead to stress, resilience may be especially important for teleworkers.
Resilience serves as an important personal resource for dealing with stress. Resilience provides
increased access to positive emotions, which strengthens resistance to stress (Luthans et al., 2004; Ong
et al., 2006; Quick et al., 2010), leading some to believe that resilience to stress is more important than
experience or training in determining success (Coutu, 2002) . One way in which resilience is thought
to help one deal with stress is through the resilient individual’s tendency to find adaptive ways in
which stressors are encountered and managed (Ong et al., 2006), perhaps to the point at which negative
stress is transformed into a growth experience. Resilient people often experience positive emotions
even when encountering stressful circumstances (Ong et al., 2006). Empirical evidence supports the
positive effect of resilience on satisfaction (Avey et al., 2011; Luthans et al., 2007). Overall, it is
likely that resilience will be important factor in how teleworkers view and deal with stressors. Both
self-efficacy and resilience are expected to positively impact telework eustress, as expressed below:
H3d: Perceived self-efficacy is positively related to telework eustress.

H3e: Perceived resilience is positively related to telework eustress.
8
We include three job demands representing telework stressors: work overload, resource
inadequacies, and social isolation. Work overload is the belief that the amount of effort required to
complete work tasks exceeds the individual’s capacity (Ayyagari et al., 2011; Maier et al., 2015;
Weinert et al., 2015; Weinert et al., 2014). Perceptions of work overload have been demonstrated to
impact psychological outcomes such as technology-related strain (Ayyagari et al., 2011), telework
strain (Suh & Lee, 2017; Weinert et al., 2014), telework exhaustion (Weinert et al., 2015), and work
exhaustion (Ahuja et al., 2007). The similar concept of techno-overload has been shown to influence
negative psychological responses to techno-stressors (Califf et al., 2020).
Feelings of resource inadequacies occur when individuals perceive that they lack the resources
required to complete work tasks. Perceived resource inadequacies have been included as a stressor
in numerous studies (Crawford et al., 2010; Hargrove et al., 2016; LePine et al., 2005; Parasuraman
& Alutto, 1981; Podsakoff et al., 2007). Meta-analyses have linked resource issues to psychological
responses, such as burnout and engagement (Crawford et al., 2010), stress, and job satisfaction
(Podsakoff et al., 2007). We believe that resource inadequacies may be particularly important in
the context of telework. Teleworkers at remote sites may lack access to critical resources such as
specialized technologies and information sources. When this occurs, the worker will likely view this
lack of access as inhibiting the accomplishment of work tasks.
Social isolation has been a concern with telework for some time (Cooper & Kurland, 2002;
Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Norman et al., 1995). In the context of telework, social isolation is
the perception that a teleworker lacks social connectedness with coworkers. Social interaction is an
important element of the workplace. These social interactions may be casual, friendship-related, or
more focused and job-related. Whether friendship or job-focused, interactions with co-workers are
important sources of information, feedback, and support. Despite advances in digital communication
technologies, teleworkers still miss out on much of the social interaction that occurs naturally when
workers are co-located, leading to feelings of isolation and information impoverishment (Gajendran
& Harrison, 2007). Social isolation has been shown to affect telework-related strain (Bentley et al.,
2016; Weinert et al., 2014), teleworker productivity (Nakrošienė et al., 2019), and teleworker job
satisfaction (Bentley et al., 2016).
We expect these job demands to have positive relationships with telework distress, as described
in the following hypotheses:
H4a: Perceived work overload is positively related to telework distress.

H4b: Perceived social isolation is positively related to telework distress.
H4c: Perceived resource inadequacies are positively related to telework distress.
METHODOLOGY
To test our research model, we developed a self-report survey and received appropriate institutional
approval to collect data. (See Table A.1 for scale items.) We used a panel provider (Qualtrics) to solicit
respondents for the survey. To be eligible to complete the survey, respondents needed to be working
adults residing in the United States who engage in telework (work from home for an employer other
than themselves). Qualtrics invited individuals that matched our requested criteria via email. After
fifty responses, we paused data collection to check for problems of survey administration. Finding
none, we proceeded with the remainder of the data collection.
We applied three filters to improve data quality. First, we included two attention check questions
in the survey. Respondents who did not pass both attention checks were removed from our sample.
Second, we eliminated “straight line” responses, which we defined as selecting scale end-points
or scale mid-points more than 67% of the time. Finally, we examined responses to open-ended
questions; respondents who provided nonsense responses were also eliminated. Sixty-four responses
were removed and replaced. Our final sample size was 511. Descriptive statistics for the sample are
9
presented in Table 1. The sample was relatively gender-balanced, with 51.5% female and 48.5%
male respondents. No respondent indicated that they were gender non-binary. 54.5% of the sample
reported having telework experience prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. In a typical
week, respondents reported teleworking an average of approximately thirty hours. Work experience
and telework experience were 18.25 years and 16.09 months, respectively. Respondents worked in
21 different industries. The most frequently reported industry was information technology (18%).
Table 2 provides relevant information about our scales. Most of the items were adapted (for the
telework context) from the published literature and were measured using a 7-point scale, although the
scale anchors varied according to item wording. We developed a new scale for resource inadequacies.
To empirically test our research model, we applied the partial least squares (PLS) method (Chin,
1998). There are two widely applied Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) techniques, namely PLS and
Table 1. Sample Demographics
Standard
Characteristic Mean/Frequency
deviation
Age 29.56 14.28
Female – 263 (51.5%)
Gender
Male – 248 (48.5%)
Yes – 278 (54.4%)
Telework prior to COVID-19?
No – 233 (45.6%)
Work experience (years) 18.25 14.35
Telework hours per week 29.56 13.20
Telework experience (months) 16.09 31.21
Table 2. Scale Information including Reliability and Internal Consistency
Scale Items Sources Alpha C.R. AVE

Autonomy 4 (Ahuja et al., 2007) 0.829 0.886 0.661
Telework distress* 4 (O’Sullivan, 2011) (adapted) 0.923 0.942 0.766
Telework eustress 5 (Cohen et al., 1983) (adapted) 0.719 0.821 0.537
Telework exhaustion 4 (Suh & Lee, 2017) 0.949 0.963 0.868
(Fonner & Roloff, 2010; Morris & Venkatesh,
Job satisfaction 5 0.715 0.840 0.637
2010)
Managerial support 3 (Cole et al., 2006) 0.897 0.929 0.765
Resource inadequacies 3 New 0.889 0.931 0.818
Resilience 4 (Burns et al., 2017) 0.770 0.853 0.591
Self-efficacy 4 (Rigotti et al., 2008) 0.832 0.887 0.662
Social isolation* 2 (Weinert et al., 2014) 0.745 0.883 0.791
Telework satisfaction 3 (Sørebø & Eikebrokk, 2008) 0.950 0.968 0.909
Technical support 3 (Lee & Choi, 2003) (adapted) 0.890 0.932 0.819
(Ayyagari et al., 2011; Moore, 2000; Weinert et
Work overload 4 0.853 0.901 0.696
al., 2014)
Notes: Alpha – Cronbach’s alpha, C.R. – Composite reliability, AVE – Average variance extracted, * - one item dropped due to negative impact on reli-
ability – the number represents the number of retained items
10
Covariance Based SEM). These two SEM techniques are different with respect to their philosophies,
distribution assumptions, and estimation objectives (Gefen et al., 2011). There are many advantages
of using PLS. First, PLS is well suited for exploratory research such as validating a research model
and theory development because the estimation objective of PLS is minimizing error terms of the
endogenous constructs (Gefen et al., 2000; Hair et al., 2014). In addition, PLS can be applied when
investigating a complex research model with many constructs and indicators (Hair et al., 2014). Finally,
PLS is free from distribution assumptions, which means that PLS does not require any particular data
distribution. We believe PLS is an appropriate method in this research because 1) we are seeking to
predict the relationships among constructs in a complex research model, and also to build a theory
in the context of the telework, 2) we test a relatively complex research model with many indicators,
and 3) we test our research model using a survey data of 525 which exceeds the minimum sample
requirements of PLS (Hair et al., 2014, p.20). Therefore, we analyzed our research model using
SmartPLS 3.0 (Ringle et al., 2015), following the guidelines suggested by Hair et al. (2017).
PLS analysis consists of two stages: (1) an assessment of the measurement model and (2) the
assessment of the structural model. For measurement model assessment, we tested internal reliability
by using factor loadings and composite reliability values. All the factor loadings for our constructs
were higher than 0.7 and were significant at p < 0.001. Composite reliability values of all constructs
were above 0.7, confirming internal reliability. We also tested internal consistency by checking the
Cronbach’s alpha – the values for all scales were higher than 0.7.
Discriminant validity was tested by comparing the square root of average variance extracted
(AVE) to the correlations among the constructs, as reported in the Appendix. For all scales, the
square root of the AVE was larger than the highest correlation for that scale. The highest inter-scale
correlation was 0.69 for social isolation and resource inadequacies. The square root AVE values for
the two scales (0.89 for social isolation and 0.90 for resource inadequacies) both exceeded the inter-
scale correlation. The inter-scale correlation is sufficiently high to warrant caution when interpreting
results related to resource inadequacies and social isolation.
Convergent validity was assessed by checking the AVE. AVE values for all scales were higher
than 0.5, indicating acceptable convergent validity. In addition, all scale items had significant loadings
on their intended factors (p < 0.001).
We assessed common method variance (CMV) using the marker variable technique (Lindell &
Whitney, 2001). We included in our survey a theoretically unrelated variable, blue attitude (Miller &
Chiodo, 2008). We assessed common method variance by examining the correlations between this
marker variable and all other variables because they are assumed to have no relationship with each
other. If the average correlation coefficient is less than 0.1, CMV is not a substantial threat (Malhotra
et al., 2006; Son & Kim, 2008); our result was 0.0794.
RESULTS
Before analyzing the structural model that reflected our research model, we tested whether four
control variables (age, gender, telework experience, and the average number of hours per week
spent teleworking) had significant relationships with telework eustress, distress, or any of the
outcome variables. Gender significantly impacted eustress and distress, and telework experience
had significant relationships with all three outcome variables. These paths were included in the
structural model analysis.
The research model provided greater predictive efficacy for distress (r2a = 0.447) than eustress (r2a
= 0.212). Similarly, the r2a value was higher for telework exhaustion (0.440) than for job satisfaction
(0.185) and telework satisfaction (0.206).
Table 3 shows results related to the hypotheses. Results indicate general support for the research
model, with ten of fourteen hypotheses strongly supported (p < 0.001), one with weak support (p
< 0.10), and three not supported. With respect to the control variables, gender had a significant
11
Table 3. Hypothesis Test Results
Hypothesis Path coefficient p-value Support?

H1a: Eustress to Job satisfaction 0.280 <0.001 Strong
H1b: Eustress to T/W satisfaction 0.351 <0.001 Strong
H1c: Eustress to T/W exhaustion −0.149 <0.001 Strong
H2a: Distress to Job satisfaction −0.333 <0.001 Strong
H2b: Distress to T/W satisfaction −0.301 <0.001 Strong
H2c: Distress to T/W exhaustion 0.656 <0.001 Strong
H3a: Autonomy to Eustress 0.054 0.307 No
H3b: Managerial support to Eustress 0.008 0.884 No
H3c: Technical support to Eustress 0.217 <0.001 Strong
H3d: Resilience to Eustress 0.203 0.001 Strong
H3e: Self-efficacy to Eustress 0.117 0.091 Weak
H4a: Work overload to Distress 0.536 <0.001 Strong
H4b: Social isolation to Distress −0.002 0.966 No
H4c: Resource inadequacies to Distress 0.161 0.003 Strong
Note: T/W = Telework, Eustress = Telework eustress response, Distress = Telework distress response
relationship with telework distress (b = −0.080, p = 0.019), but not with eustress. Telework experience
had significant relationships with job satisfaction (b = 0.079, p = 0.023) and telework satisfaction (b
= 0.073, p = 0.039), but not with exhaustion.
The nonsignificant results were surprising, so we investigated further by examining the inter-
scale correlations reported in the Appendix. This allowed us to consider the presence of suppression
(sometimes called masking) confounding effects. These effects exist “when the apparent absence of
a relationship and outcome is spurious” (Johnston et al., 2018). Such confounding effects can occur
when predictor variables are correlated. VIF statistics may not effectively capture such effects (Johnston
et al., 2018). Autonomy is correlated with resilience (0.37), self-efficacy (0.51), managerial support
(0.46), and technical support (0.29). Self-efficacy is correlated with resilience (0.68), managerial
support (0.51), and technical support (0.43). Similarly, resource inadequacies are highly correlated
with social isolation (0.69) and work overload (0.68).
When such evidence of potential suppression effects exists, reconsidering the structure of
the research model, such as considering the presence of higher-order latent variables, may be
useful (Johnston et al., 2018). Given that we have conceptualized groups of antecedent variables
corresponding to job resources, personal resources, and job demands, we reconceptualized our
eustress and distress antecedents as formative second-order latent variables, as represented by the
dashed rectangles in Figure 1. All first-order latent variables had significant loadings to their intended
second-order latent variable.
We analyzed the revised structural model. All first-order latent variables were significant to
their corresponding second-order latent variable (p < 0.001). To test the hypotheses, we assessed
the significance of the effects of each first-order latent variable on either eustress or distress. For
example, to test H3a, we examined the significance of the effect of autonomy on eustress. Results are
provided in Table 4. All three second-order latent variables had significant effects on their respective
stress response (p < 0.001). Job resources and personal resources had effects of 0.215 and 0.281 on
eustress, respectively. Job demands had an effect of 0.620 on distress.
12
Table 4. Hypothesis Test Results – Revised Model
Hypothesis Effect size p-value Support?

H1a: Eustress to Job satisfaction 0.280 <0.001 Strong
H1b: Eustress to T/W satisfaction 0.352 <0.001 Strong
H1c: Eustress to T/W exhaustion −0.150 <0.001 Strong
H2a: Distress to Job satisfaction −0.333 <0.001 Strong
H2b: Distress to T/W satisfaction −0.300 <0.001 Strong
H2c: Distress to T/W exhaustion 0.656 <0.001 Strong
H3a: Autonomy to Eustress 0.077 <0.001 Strong
H3b: Managerial support to Eustress 0.122 <0.001 Strong
H3c: Technical support to Eustress 0.081 <0.001 Strong
H3d: Resilience to Eustress 0.141 <0.001 Strong
H3e: Self-efficacy to Eustress 0.163 <0.001 Strong
H4a: Work overload to Distress 0.311 <0.001 Strong
H4b: Social isolation to Distress 0.137 <0.001 Strong
H4c: Resource inadequacies to Distress 0.258 <0.001 Strong
Notes: Results based on effect sizes; T/W = Telework, Eustress = Telework eustress response, Distress = Telework distress response
Table 4 confirms that all hypotheses were supported. We discuss the ramifications of our analysis
in the next section.
DISCUSSION
The first message from our study is that stress is not always bad, but bad stress (distress) is bad.
Although this has been studied in other contexts, to date there is relatively little research into beneficial
stress in the context of telework. Distress (“bad” stress) had negative impacts on positive outcomes
(job satisfaction and telework satisfaction), and a positive impact on a negative outcome (telework
exhaustion). In contrast, eustress (“good” stress) was positively associated with positive outcomes and
seemed to reduce telework exhaustion. These differential effects validate the importance of considering
stress more holistically and establish that eustress and distress are different stress responses in the
context of telework.
Conceptually, eustress is “good” stress because it leads to positive outcomes related to well-being.
Our results show that, in the context of telework, eustress does in fact lead to positive outcomes.
This noteworthy finding is contrary to the common conception that stress is bad. Eustress should
be viewed as a positive condition that both increases positive outcomes and decreases negative
outcomes. In contrast, distress reduced positive outcomes and increased negative outcomes. In all
cases, these results were highly significant. Interestingly, the effects of telework eustress and distress
on job satisfaction and telework satisfaction were similar in magnitude (in opposite directions). So,
taking measures that increase eustress or decrease distress will have similar effects on telework and
job satisfaction. In contrast, the magnitude of the effect of telework distress on telework exhaustion
is substantially higher than that of eustress (0.656 vs. −0.149). These results imply that reducing
perceptions of telework exhaustion is better done by decreasing distress than increasing eustress,
although both should have an effect.
13
Once the effects of telework eustress and distress are established, it makes sense to examine
factors that affect these responses. Our model was more effective at accounting for the variance in
distress than eustress despite having more antecedents for eustress than distress. This is not entirely
surprising given that the causes of negative stress are better understood than those for beneficial stress.
That being said, our research does establish that both job and personal resources can have beneficial
effects on eustress, and by extension, on job satisfaction, telework satisfaction, and telework exhaustion.
Our findings also indicate that job demands affect distress, which in turn affect job satisfaction,
telework satisfaction, and telework exhaustion. The findings related to telework exhaustion are
especially noteworthy due to the large effect size of distress.
Thus, measures intended to increase eustress and/or decrease distress are likely to yield benefits
with respect to important telework outcomes. Personal resources had a stronger effect on eustress than
job resources, although the difference is small. Interestingly, the effect of job demands on distress
was substantially larger than the effects of job or personal resources on eustress.
The level of support for our research model indicates that it may be a useful starting point
for additional investigations of telework eustress and distress. For example, future research could
investigate additional factors that may affect telework eustress. For example, additional job resources
such as performance feedback and growth opportunities could be added to our model, as could personal
resources such as optimism and self-esteem. Additional job demands such as perceived bureaucracy
and inadequate workspaces could also be added.
Future research could also investigate coping strategies related to eustress and distress. Problem-
focused coping, such as through task or technology experimentation, may be a response to eustress
that mediates the effect of eustress on outcomes. In the case of distress, avoidance coping, such as
venting or withdrawal, may mediate the effects of distress on telework outcomes.
We also contribute to research by bringing to light the concept of confounding effects. Researchers
commonly ignore potential confounding effects when VIF values are within commonly accepted
values. Unfortunately, confounding effects can substantially affect results even when VIF values
indicate low collinearity (Johnston et al., 2018). Had we followed the common practice, we would
have erroneously concluded that autonomy, managerial support, and social support were unimportant
to telework eustress and distress. Our supplemental analysis clearly indicates that these factors do
affect eustress and distress, and by extension, important telework outcomes. Future researchers should
explore potential confounding effects to determine whether important relationships are masked by
interrelationships among antecedent variables (Johnston et al., 2018).
Failing to do so could negatively affect research and practice. Future research could ignore or
omit suppressed predictor variables erroneously. Practitioners could easily write off suppressed
variables as unimportant, which could rob them of useful managerial levers. For example, if we had
stopped our analysis with the results shown in Table 3, managers might conclude that the effects of
autonomy, managerial support, and resource inadequacies can be ignored.
Our results also have several practical implications. First, we demonstrate the benefits of telework
eustress. Enhancing eustress should have beneficial effects on job satisfaction, telework satisfaction,
and telework exhaustion. We also provide guidance on how managers can promote eustress by
providing adequate support and giving teleworkers some freedom to decide how best to perform
their work while at home. Building feelings of resilience and self-efficacy among teleworkers is more
difficult, although it is possible (Crane & Searle, 2016). When selecting candidates for telework,
managers may find it useful to select those who are relatively high in self-efficacy and resilience.
This study’s findings also show the detrimental effects of telework distress, which reduces job
and telework satisfaction and increases telework exhaustion. The effect sizes for job and telework
satisfaction are similar for eustress and distress. However, distress has a substantially larger effect
on telework exhaustion than eustress (0.656 vs. −0.150). The results reveal that managers wishing
to mitigate feelings of exhaustion among teleworkers should take measures to reduce perceptions of
work overload, resource inadequacies, and social isolation. These factors are not unrelated. Perceptions
14
of resource inadequacies may lead to a need to overcome those constraints, which would increase
workload. Further, social isolation may exacerbate perceptions of resource inadequacies, leading to
the belief that one does not have ready access to individuals who possess some of the information
necessary to complete one’s job. Searching for this information may increase perceptions of work
overload. Although we cannot make definitive statements about the nature of these relationships based
on our results, the likelihood of interrelationships among these job demands makes it reasonable for
managers to consider reducing social isolation and resource inadequacies.
Limitations and Future Research

Our research is subject to numerous limitations. A clear limitation is that our sample consisted only
of teleworkers in the United States. Results may be different in other countries and cultures. It may be
interesting to replicate our study in other countries and to compare the results of those studies with our
findings. In addition, we used a cross-sectional approach by collecting data at a single point in time.
This limits our ability to make definitive claims about causality. Future longitudinal research may be
able to strengthen our knowledge of the relationships in our model. Although the resources, demands,
and outcomes represented in our model are all relevant to telework, other resources, demands, and
outcomes are also relevant. Future research should consider investigating other variables.
CONCLUSION
Understanding stress among teleworkers is an area of interest to both researchers and practitioners.
Despite this interest, there is relatively little empirical research into antecedents and consequences
of teleworker stress, especially with respect to beneficial stress (eustress). Our research represents an
early step towards better understanding the causes and effects of the different kinds of stress among
teleworkers. As our findings indicate, clear differences exist between harmful stress (distress) and
beneficial stress (eustress) as demonstrated by their different relationships with antecedents and
outcomes. The findings related to eustress are especially important due to the relative lack of research
into beneficial stress in the context of telework, and the common misconception of stress as being
universally harmful. That being said, researchers and managers should still pay attention to finding
ways to reduce distress, which is associated with lower satisfaction and increased telework exhaustion.
If, as some suggest, increases in telework persist in a post-COVID-19 world, better understanding
the role of distress and eustress will be increasingly important.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research was partially funded by the Balsley–Whitmore Endowed Professorship at Louisiana
Tech University.
15
REFERENCES
Ahuja, M. K., Chudoba, K. M., Kacmar, C. J., McKnight, D. H., & George, J. F. (2007). IT road warriors:
Balancing work-family conflict, job autonomy, and work overload to mitigate turnover intentions. Management
Information Systems Quarterly, 31(1), 1–17. doi:10.2307/25148778
Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our
scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(2), 40–68. doi:10.1177/1529100615593273
PMID:26403188
Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H. (2011). Meta‐analysis of the impact of positive
psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 22(2), 127–152. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20070
Ayyagari, R., Grover, V., & Purvis, R. (2011). Technostress: Technological antecedents and implications.
Management Information Systems Quarterly, 35(4), 831–858. doi:10.2307/41409963
Babin, B. J., & Boles, J. S. (1996). The effects of perceived co-worker involvement and supervisor support on
service provider role stress, performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Retailing, 72(1), 57–75. doi:10.1016/
S0022-4359(96)90005-6
Baker, E., Avery, G. C., & Crawford, J. (2006). Home alone: The role of technology in telecommuting. Information
Resources Management Journal, 19(4), 1–22. doi:10.4018/irmj.2006100101
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands‐resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. Advance online publication. doi:10.1108/02683940710733115
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job demands–resources theory. Wellbeing: A complete reference guide,
1-28. 10.1002/9781118539415.wbwell019
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. doi:10.1037/ocp0000056 PMID:27732008
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2),
191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 PMID:847061
Bélanger, F., Collins, R. W., & Cheney, P. H. (2001). Technology requirements and work group communication
for telecommuters. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 155–176. doi:10.1287/isre.12.2.155.9695
Bélanger, F., Watson-Manheim, M. B., & Swan, B. R. (2013). A multi-level socio-technical systems telecommuting
framework. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32(12), 1257–1279. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2012.705894
Belzunegui-Eraso, A., & Erro-Garcés, A. (2020). Teleworking in the Context of the Covid-19 Crisis.
Sustainability, 12(9), 3662. doi:10.3390/su12093662
Bentley, T., Teo, S., McLeod, L., Tan, F., Bosua, R., & Gloet, M. (2016). The role of organisational support in
teleworker wellbeing: A socio-technical systems approach. Applied Ergonomics, 52, 207–215. doi:10.1016/j.
apergo.2015.07.019 PMID:26360212
Bosua, R., Gloet, M., Kurnia, S., Mendoza, A., & Yong, J. (2013). Telework, productivity and wellbeing: An
Australian perspective. Telecommunications Journal of Australia, 63(1), 11.11-11.12. 10.7790/tja.v63i1.390
Burns, A., Posey, C., Roberts, T. L., & Lowry, P. B. (2017). Examining the relationship of organizational insiders’
psychological capital with information security threat and coping appraisals. Computers in Human Behavior,
68, 190–209. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.018
Califf, C., Sarker, S., & Sarker, S. (2020). The Bright and Dark Sides of Technostress: A Mixed-Methods
Study Involving Healthcare IT. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 44(2), 809–856. Advance online
publication. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2020/14818
Califf, C., Sarker, S., Sarker, S., & Fitzgerald, C. (2015). The bright and dark sides of technostress: An empirical
study of healthcare workers. ICIS Proceedings 2015.
Carman, K. G., & Nataraj, S. (2020). American Life Panel Survey on Impacts of COVID-19: April 2020 Results.
Rand Corporation.
16
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self-
reported work stress among US managers. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 65–74. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.85.1.65 PMID:10740957
Charalampous, M., Grant, C. A., Tramontano, C., & Michailidis, E. (2019). Systematically reviewing remote
e-workers’ well-being at work: A multidimensional approach. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 28(1), 51–73. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2018.1541886
Chin, W. W. (1998). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. JSTOR.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health
and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396. doi:10.2307/2136404 PMID:6668417
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin,
98(2), 310–357. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310 PMID:3901065
Cole, M. S., Bruch, H., & Vogel, B. (2006). Emotion as mediators of the relations between perceived supervisor
support and psychological hardiness on employee cynicism. The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational
and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 27(4), 463–484. doi:10.1002/job.381
Cooper, C. D., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee development
in public and private organizations. The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational
Psychology and Behavior, 23(4), 511–532. doi:10.1002/job.145
Coutu, D. L. (2002). How resilience works. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 46–56. PMID:12024758
Crane, M. F., & Searle, B. J. (2016). Building resilience through exposure to stressors: The effects of challenges
versus hindrances. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21(4), 468–479. doi:10.1037/a0040064
PMID:26784690
Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement
and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834–848.
doi:10.1037/a0019364 PMID:20836586
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The” what” and” why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-
determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2011). The job demands-resources model: Challenges for future research. SA
Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(2), 1-9. 10.4102/sajip.v37i2.974
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of
burnout. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499 PMID:11419809
Diller, H., Jeffrey, S., & Fiedler, M. (2016). Searching for the silver linings of techno-invasion. Academic Press.
Fonner, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (2010). Why teleworkers are more satisfied with their jobs than are office-based
workers: When less contact is beneficial. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(4), 336–361. doi:1
0.1080/00909882.2010.513998
Fonner, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (2012). Testing the connectivity paradox: Linking teleworkers’ communication
media use to social presence, stress from interruptions, and organizational identification. Communication
Monographs, 79(2), 205–231. doi:10.1080/03637751.2012.673000
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-
analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6),
1524–1541. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524 PMID:18020794
Gefen, D., Rigdon, E. E., & Straub, D. (2011). Editor’s comments: An update and extension to SEM guidelines
for administrative and social science research. Management Information Systems Quarterly, (2). Advance online
publication. doi:10.2307/23044042
Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for
research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(1), 7. doi:10.17705/1CAIS.00407
17
Golden, T. D. (2006). Avoiding depletion in virtual work: Telework and the intervening impact of work exhaustion
on commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1), 176–187. doi:10.1016/j.
jvb.2006.02.003
Golden, T. D., & Veiga, J. F. (2005). The impact of extent of telecommuting on job satisfaction: Resolving
inconsistent findings. Journal of Management, 31(2), 301–318. doi:10.1177/0149206304271768
Haines, V. Y., St-Onge, S., & Archambault, M. (2002). Environmental and person antecedents of telecommuting
outcomes. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 14(3), 32-50. 10.4018/joeuc.2002070103
Hair, J. F. Jr, Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2017). Advanced issues in partial least squares
structural equation modeling. Sage Publications.
Hargrove, M. B., Hargrove, D., & Becker, W. S. (2016). Managing stress: Human resource management interventions
for distress and eustress. Journal of Human Resources Education, 10(2), 25–38. doi:10.1177/1534484315598086
Hargrove, M. B., Nelson, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2013). Generating eustress by challenging employees: Helping
people savor their work. Organizational Dynamics, 42(1), 61–69. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.12.008
Hartman, R. I., Stoner, C. R., & Arora, R. (1992). Developing successful organizational telecommuting
arrangements: Worker perceptions and managerial prescriptions. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 57(3),
35.
Johnston, R., Jones, K., & Manley, D. (2018). Confounding and collinearity in regression analysis: A cautionary
tale and an alternative procedure, illustrated by studies of British voting behaviour. Quality & Quantity, 52(4),
1957–1976. doi:10.1007/s11135-017-0584-6 PMID:29937587
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-
efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis.
The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80–92. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80 PMID:11302235
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction:
The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 257–268.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.257 PMID:15769236
Khalifa, M., & Davison, R. (2000). Exploring the telecommuting paradox. Communications of the ACM, 43(3),
29–31. doi:10.1145/330534.330554
Koeske, G. F., & Koeske, R. D. (1993). A preliminary test of a stress-strain-outcome model for reconceptualizing
the burnout phenomenon. Journal of Social Service Research, 17(3-4), 107–135. doi:10.1300/J079v17n03_06
Kompier, M. A., & Taris, T. W. (2005). Psychosocial risk factors and work-related stress: State of the art and
issues for future research. In C. Lc (Ed.), Research companion to organizational health psychology (Vol. 2, pp.
59–69). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. doi:10.4337/9781845423308.00009
Kowalski, K. B., & Swanson, J. A. (2005). Critical success factors in developing teleworking programs.
Benchmarking, 12(3), 236–249. Advance online publication. doi:10.1108/14635770510600357
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational performance: An
integrative view and empirical examination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1), 179–228. do
i:10.1080/07421222.2003.11045756
LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–hindrance
stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy
of Management Journal, 48(5), 764–775. doi:10.5465/amj.2005.18803921
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research
designs. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114 PMID:11302223
18
Little, L. M., Simmons, B. L., & Nelson, D. L. (2007). Health among leaders: Positive and negative affect,
engagement and burnout, forgiveness and revenge. Journal of Management Studies, 44(2), 243–260. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-6486.2007.00687.x
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement
and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 541–572. doi:10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2007.00083.x
Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., & Luthans, B. C. (2004). Positive psychological capital: Beyond human and social
capital. 10.1016/j.bushor.2003.11.007
Luthans, F., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Lester, P. B. (2006). Developing the psychological capital of resiliency.
Human Resource Development Review, 5(1), 25–44. doi:10.1177/1534484305285335
Maier, C., Laumer, S., Weinert, C., & Weitzel, T. (2015). The effects of technostress and switching stress on
discontinued use of social networking services: A study of Facebook use. Information Systems Journal, 25(3),
275–308. doi:10.1111/isj.12068
Maier, C., Laumer, S., Wirth, J., & Weitzel, T. (2019). Technostress and the hierarchical levels of personality:
A two-wave study with multiple data samples. European Journal of Information Systems, 28(5), 496–522. doi
:10.1080/0960085X.2019.1614739
Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of
alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science, 52(12), 1865–1883. doi:10.1287/
mnsc.1060.0597
Miller, B., & Chiodo, B. (2008). Academic entitlement: Adapting the equity preference questionnaire for a
university setting. Southern Management Association meeting. St. Pete Beach.
Moore, J. E. (2000). One road to turnover: An examination of work exhaustion in technology professionals.
Management Information Systems Quarterly, 24(1), 141–168. doi:10.2307/3250982
Morganson, V. J., Major, D. A., Oborn, K. L., Verive, J. M., & Heelan, M. P. (2010). Comparing telework locations
and traditional work arrangements: Differences in work‐life balance support, job satisfaction, and inclusion. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 25(6), 578–595. Advance online publication. doi:10.1108/02683941011056941
Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2010). Job characteristics and job satisfaction: Understanding the role of
enterprise resource planning system implementation. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 34(1), 143.
Advance online publication. doi:10.2307/20721418
Nakrošienė, A., Bučiūnienė, I., & Goštautaitė, B. (2019). Working from home: Characteristics and outcomes
of telework. International Journal of Manpower, 40(1), 87–101. Advance online publication. doi:10.1108/
IJM-07-2017-0172
Norman, P., Collins, S., Conner, M., Martin, R., & Rance, J. (1995). Attributions, Cognitions, and Coping Styles:
Teleworkers’ Reactions to Work‐Related Problems 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(2), 117–128.
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01587.x
O’Sullivan, G. (2011). The relationship between hope, eustress, self-efficacy, and life satisfaction among
undergraduates. Social Indicators Research, 101(1), 155–172. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9662-z
OECD. (2020). COVID-19: Protecting people and societies. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/
policy-responses/covid-19-protecting-people-and-societies-e5c9de1a/#contactinfo-d7e5176)
Ong, A. D., Bergeman, C. S., Bisconti, T. L., & Wallace, K. A. (2006). Psychological resilience, positive emotions,
and successful adaptation to stress in later life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 730–749.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.730 PMID:17014296
Parasuraman, S., & Alutto, J. A. (1981). An examination of the organizational antecedents of stressors at work.
Academy of Management Journal, 24(1), 48–67. doi:10.5465/255823
Pinsonneault, A., & Boisvert, M. (2001). The impacts of telecommuting on organizations and individuals: A
review of the literature. In Telecommuting and virtual offices: Issues and opportunities (pp. 163–185). IGI
Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-878289-79-7.ch010
19
Podsakoff, LePine, & LePine. (2007). Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job
attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92(2), 438. 10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.438
Quick, J. C., Cooper, C. L., Gibbs, P. C., Little, L. M., & Nelson, D. L. (2010). Positive organizational behavior
at work. International review of industrial and organizational psychology: Vol. 25. International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 253–291.
Raghuram, S., Wiesenfeld, B., & Garud, R. (2003). Technology enabled work: The role of self-efficacy in
determining telecommuter adjustment and structuring behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(2), 180–198.
doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00040-X
Ragu-Nathan, T., Tarafdar, M., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Tu, Q. (2008). The consequences of technostress for end
users in organizations: Conceptual development and empirical validation. Information Systems Research, 19(4),
417–433. doi:10.1287/isre.1070.0165
Rigotti, T., Schyns, B., & Mohr, G. (2008). A short version of the occupational self-efficacy scale:
Structural and construct validity across five countries. Journal of Career Assessment, 16(2), 238–255.
doi:10.1177/1069072707305763
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH.
Sardeshmukh, S. R., Sharma, D., & Golden, T. D. (2012). Impact of telework on exhaustion and job engagement:
A job demands and job resources model. New Technology, Work and Employment, 27(3), 193–207. doi:10.1111/
j.1468-005X.2012.00284.x
Sarker, S., Chatterjee, S., Xiao, X., & Elbanna, A. (2019). The sociotechnical axis of cohesion for the IS discipline:
Its historical legacy and its continued relevance. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 43(3), 695–720.
doi:10.25300/MISQ/2019/13747
Selye, H. (1974). Stress without distress. J.B. Lippincott Co.
Shirom, A. (2007). Explaining vigor: On the antecedents and consequences of vigor as a positive affect at work.
Positive Organizational Behavior, 86-100.
Simmons, B. L., & Nelson, D. L. (2001). Eustress at work: The relationship between hope and health in hospital
nurses. Health Care Management Review, 26(4), 7–18. doi:10.1097/00004010-200110000-00002 PMID:11721311
Simmons, B. L., & Nelson, D. L. (2007). Eustress at work: Extending the holistic stress model. Positive
Organizational Behavior, 40-53.
Sinclair, R. R., Allen, T., Barber, L., Bergman, M., Britt, T., Butler, A., Ford, M., Hammer, L., Kath, L., Probst, T.,
& Yuan, Z. (2020). Occupational Health Science in the Time of COVID-19: Now more than Ever. Occupational
Health Science, 1(1-2), 1–22. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s41542-020-00064-3 PMID:32838031
Son, J.-Y., & Kim, S. S. (2008). Internet users’ information privacy-protective responses: A taxonomy and a
nomological model. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 32(3), 503–529. doi:10.2307/25148854
Song, Y., & Gao, J. (2020). Does telework stress employees out? A study on working at home and subjective well-
being for wage/salary workers. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(7), 2649–2668. doi:10.1007/s10902-019-00196-6
Sørebø, Ø., & Eikebrokk, T. R. (2008). Explaining IS continuance in environments where usage is mandatory.
Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2357–2371. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.011
Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and
participation at work. Human Relations, 39(11), 1005–1016. doi:10.1177/001872678603901104
Stich, J.-F. (2020). A review of workplace stress in the virtual office. Intelligent Buildings International, 1-13.
Suh, A., & Lee, J. (2017). Understanding teleworkers’ technostress and its influence on job satisfaction. Internet
Research, 27(1), 140–159. Advance online publication. doi:10.1108/IntR-06-2015-0181
Tarafdar, M., Cooper, C. L., & Stich, J. F. (2017). The technostress trifecta‐techno eustress, techno distress
and design: Theoretical directions and an agenda for research. Information Systems Journal, 29(1), 6–42.
doi:10.1111/isj.12169
20
Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Ragu-Nathan, T. (2007). The impact of technostress on role stress and
productivity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(1), 301–328. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222240109
Van den Broeck, A., De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). Not all job demands are equal:
Differentiating job hindrances and job challenges in the Job Demands–Resources model. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(6), 735–759. doi:10.1080/13594320903223839
Van Dijkhuizen, N. (1980). From stressors to strains: research into their interrelationships. Swets & Zeitlinger.
Vega, R. P., Anderson, A. J., & Kaplan, S. A. (2015). A within-person examination of the effects of telework.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(2), 313–323. doi:10.1007/s10869-014-9359-4
Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence,
and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 24(1),
115–139. doi:10.2307/3250981
Virick, M., DaSilva, N., & Arrington, K. (2010). Moderators of the curvilinear relation between extent of
telecommuting and job and life satisfaction: The role of performance outcome orientation and worker type.
Human Relations, 63(1), 137–154. doi:10.1177/0018726709349198
Weinert, C., Maier, C., & Laumer, S. (2015). Why are teleworkers stressed? An empirical analysis of the causes
of telework-enabled stress. Wirtschaftsinformatik.
Weinert, C., Maier, C., Laumer, S., & Weitzel, T. (2014). Does teleworking negatively influence IT professionals?
An empirical analysis of IT personnel’s telework-enabled stress. Proceedings of the 52nd ACM conference on
computers and people research.
Westfall, R. D. (1997). The telecommuting paradox. Information Systems Management, 14(4), 15–20.
doi:10.1080/10580539708907070
Winnubst, J. A., Marcelissen, F. H., & Kleber, R. J. (1982). Effects of social support in the stressor-strain
relationship: A Dutch sample. Social Science & Medicine, 16(4), 475–482. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(82)90056-9
PMID:7079802
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of personal resources in the
job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(2), 121–141. doi:10.1037/1072-
5245.14.2.121
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Reciprocal relationships between
job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 235–244.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.11.003
21
APPENDIX
Table 5. Scale Items
Construct Items Scale source(s)

Autonomy I have control over the content of my job. Ahuja et al. (2007)
I have a lot of freedom to decide how I perform assigned tasks.
I set my own schedule for completing assigned tasks.
I have the authority to initiate projects at my work.
How often do you effectively cope with stressful changes that occur
Telework eustress O’Sullivan (2011) (adapted)
while teleworking?
How often do you deal successfully with irritating telework hassles?
How often do you feel that stress positively contributes to your ability
to handle your telework problems? (Never … very often)*
In general, how often do you feel motivated by your stress?
In general, how often are you able to successfully control the irritations
in your telework life?
How often have you been upset because of something that happened
Telework distress unexpectedly while teleworking? (never, almost never, sometimes, Cohen et al. (1983) (adapted)
fairly often, very often)
While working from home how often have you felt nervous and
“stressed”?
How often have you felt that you were unable to control the important
things related to working from home?
How often have you felt that difficulties related to working at home
were piling up so high that you could not overcome them?
While working from home, how often have you found that you could
not cope with all of the things that you had to do?
Telework Suh & Lee (2017), adapted
I feel drained from my telework activities.
exhaustion from Ayyagari et al. (2011)
I feel tired from my telework activities.
Teleworking all day is a strain for me.
I feel burned out from my telework activities
Job satisfaction Overall, I am satisfied with my job. Morris & Venkatesh (2011)
I would prefer another, more ideal job.
I am satisfied with the important aspects of my job.
All things considered, how satisfied are you with your current job?
Fonner & Roloff (2010)
(not at all satisfied’ … completely satisfied’)
In general, how much do you like your job?
Fonner & Roloff (2010)
(not at all … a great deal)
Managerial
Management shows active concern for my feelings. Cole et al. (2006)
support
Management provides intensive support in order to help me accomplish
important priorities.
Managements assures us that help is available if it is needed.
continued on following page
22
Table 5. Continued
Construct Items Scale source(s)

Resource Some of the resources I need to work at home are not readily available
New
inadequacies to me.
While working from home, it is difficult to access the information I
need to do my job.
While working from home, sometimes I need resource that I do not
have.
Resilience I usually manage difficulties one way or another at work. Burns et al. (2017)
I usually take stressful things at work in stride.
I can get through difficult times at work because I’ve experienced
difficulty before.
I feel I can handle many things at a time at this job.
When I am confronted with a problem in my job, I can usually find
Self-efficacy Rigotti et al. (2008)
several solutions.
Whatever comes my way in my job, I can usually handle it.
I feel prepared for most of the demands in my job.
I remain calm when facing difficulties in my job because I can rely on
my abilities.
Social isolation I feel less integrated with my co-workers when working at home. Weinert & Maier (2014);
I feel poorly informed about relevant work issues when working at
home.
I have a lot of contact with my work colleagues when working at
home.*
Telework
How do you feel about your overall experience of telework? Sørebø et al. (2009)
satisfaction
Very dissatisfied/very satisfied
Very displeased/very pleased
Very frustrated/very contented
Technical support Adequate technical support is available from my organization. Lee & Choi (2003) (adapted)
The technical support provided by my employer is good.
When I need technical support, I am able to get it.
Working at home creates many more requests, problems or complaints Moore (2000); Ayyagari et al.
Work overload
in my job than I expected. (2011)
The amount of work I do interferes with how well it is done.
I feel rushed when working at home. Weinert & Maier (2014);
I frequently feel pressured when working at home.
Working at home creates many more requests, problems or complaints Moore (2000); Ayyagari et al.
Work overload
in my job than I expected. (2011)
* Item dropped due to its negative effect on reliability
23
Table 6. Scale Validity Statistics
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1 0.81
2 −0.04 0.88
3 0.27 0.08 0.73
4 −0.22 0.65 −0.10 0.93
5 0.37 −0.32 0.26 −0.42 0.80
6 0.46 0.01 0.30 −0.16 0.47 0.87
7 −0.08 0.53 −0.05 0.55 −0.22 −0.06 0.90
8 0.37 −0.20 0.37 −0.23 0.37 0.37 −0.06 0.77
9 0.51 −0.23 0.39 −0.29 0.47 0.51 −0.15 0.68 0.81
10 −0.09 0.41 −0.04 0.46 −0.21 −0.11 0.69 −0.02 −0.13 0.89
11 0.38 −0.28 0.33 −0.48 0.49 0.41 −0.42 0.31 0.44 −0.36 0.95
12 0.29 −0.07 0.36 −0.25 0.40 0.55 −0.22 0.31 0.43 −0.22 0.44 0.91
13 −0.10 0.66 −0.01 0.63 −0.30 −0.02 0.68 −0.19 −0.19 0.54 −0.35 −0.13 0.83
Notes:
Diagonal, boldface elements are square root of the average variance explained (AVE)
1-Autonomy, 2-Distress, 3-Eustress, 4-Exhaustion, 5-Job satisfaction, 6 - Managerial support, 7 - Resource inadequacies, 8 - Resilience, 9 - Self-effica-
cy, 10 - Social isolation, 11 - Telework satisfaction, 12 - Technical support, 13
Craig Van Slyke is the Mike McCallister Eminent Scholar Chair in Information Systems at Louisiana Tech University. Prior
to joining Tech, he was professor and dean of the W.A. Franke College of Business at Northern Arizona University, and
before that professor, associate dean and department chair at Saint Louis University. He has also held faculty positions
at the University of Central Florida, and Ohio University. He holds a Ph.D. in Information Systems from the University
of South Florida. His current research focuses on behavioral aspects of information technology, cyber security, and
privacy. Dr. Van Slyke has published over forty articles in respected academic journals including Communications of
the AIS, Decision Sciences, Communications of the ACM, European Journal of Information Systems, The Data Base
for Advances in Information Systems, and Journal of the Association for Information Systems. The fourth edition of
his fourth co-authored textbook, Information Systems in Business: An Experiential Approach, was published in 2021.
Jaeung Lee is an Assistant Professor (Clifford Ray King Endowed Professor) of Computer Information Systems,
college of business at the Louisiana Tech University. He is also a co-director of the center for information assurance.
His primary area of research interests includes information security, privacy, and emergency response management.
He earned his Ph.D in MIS from The State University of New York at Buffalo. He is a member of the International
Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) Working Group 8.11/11.13 (Information Systems Security Research). His
research appeared in multiple journals including Decision Support Systems (DSS), Information and Management (I&M),
Information Systems Frontiers (ISF), International Journal of Information Management (IJIM), Internet Research (IR)
and conference proceedings such as International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), and Americas Conferences in Information Systems (AMCIS).
Bao Q. Duong is currently a doctoral candidate in Computer Information Systems at College of Business, Louisiana Tech
University. He earned his Master’s in Business Administration from the Missouri State University with emphasis on Data
Analytics, and his Bachelor’s in Business Administration from Troy University. His research has been presented at several
national and international conferences including the Americas’ Conference on Information Systems, Southern Management
Association, Decision Sciences Institute, and Royal Bank International Research Seminar. His current research interests
include an examination of behavioral privacy and security, organization resource base, and research methods.
T. Selwyn Ellis is an Associate Professor of Computer Information Systems in the College of Business at Louisiana Tech
University. He received his BS in Computer Science and Mathematics from Mississippi College, MBA from Mississippi
College, and DBA in 1993 from Louisiana Tech University. His primary research interests are privacy, security, telework,
and ethics in the information systems domain. Dr. Ellis’ work is published in Information Resources Management Journal,
Communications of the ACM, European Journal of Information Systems, and several others. He is the director of the Center
for Information Assurance and Chair of the Department of Computer Information Systems at Louisiana Tech University.
24

eustress on telework-2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

eustress on telework-2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Information Resources Management Journal

Eustress and Distress in the

Bao Q. Duong, Louisiana Tech University, USA

DOI: 10.4018/IRMJ.291526 *Corresponding Author

Outcomes of Telework Eustress and Distress Responses

Figure 1. Research Model and Hypotheses

H1a: Telework eustress is positively related to job satisfaction.

Antecedents of Telework Eustress and Distress Responses

H3a: Perceived autonomy is positively related to telework eustress.

H3d: Perceived self-efficacy is positively related to telework eustress.

H4a: Perceived work overload is positively related to telework distress.

Table 1. Sample Demographics

Table 2. Scale Information including Reliability and Internal Consistency

Scale Items Sources Alpha C.R. AVE

Table 3. Hypothesis Test Results

Hypothesis Path coefficient p-value Support?

Table 4. Hypothesis Test Results – Revised Model

Hypothesis Effect size p-value Support?

Limitations and Future Research

Table 5. Scale Items

Construct Items Scale source(s)

continued on following page

Construct Items Scale source(s)

Table 6. Scale Validity Statistics

You might also like