The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0959-3845.htm

ITP
34,7 The moderating roles of
technological self-efficacy and
time management in the
1890 technostress and employee
Received 5 October 2019
Revised 11 January 2020
performance relationship
26 April 2020
7 June 2020
17 July 2020
through burnout
Accepted 20 September 2020
Serdar Yener
Business Administration, Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
Aykut Arslan
International Business and Trade, Piri Reis University,
Istanbul, Turkey, and
Sebahattin Kilinç
Department of Management, Army Academy, National Defense University,
Ankara, Turkey

Abstract
Purpose – The ongoing dispute as to whether using technology extensively at work may cause harm
continues to gain momentum. Thus, the need for more research on the harmful effect of using technology at
work and on the indirect effects on work performance is needed. The call for additional moderators in
technostress research is still ongoing. The research contributes to the abovementioned gaps in the literature by
analyzing a model with two moderators.
Design/methodology/approach – The sample population was chosen randomly from the lists provided by
civil-servant unions and the chamber of commerce subsidiaries in the northwest region of Turkey. The
employees received letters that explained the purpose of the study; the questionnaires sent to them. Out of 500
forms, 328 were returned. PLS-SEM technique was selected for hypothesis testing.
Findings – The results revealed support for all the hypotheses, and proposed moderators can be used
to mitigate the harms of technostress and burnout. The findings have implications for both theory and practice.
Research limitations/implications – The limitation of this research is its sample characteristics. Due to the
cross-sectional nature of the data set, it is difficult to claim causality. Therefore, readers should use caution
when extending generalizations to a broader population. As for the theoretical implications, the interest in the
challenges posed by various technologies in the workplace on human psychology and health over the long term
is quite new. And there is still room for other mediating and moderating mechanism for the interplay between
technostress and related outcomes.
Practical implications – One of the practical implications is that technology at work might have the
potential to create stress, sometimes greater than its benefits. The effects that might be created by other sources
of stress when combined with stress related to technology in the workplace should also be taken seriously.
There are tools to reduce the harm caused by technostress that practitioners could make use of such as time-
management interventions.
Originality/value – The dispute whether using technology extensively at work may cause harm rather than
advantage continues to confuse people, and with time it is gaining momentum. Thus, there is necessity for
more research on the harms of technology, and especially on the indirect effects on work performance.
Second, the vast technostress literature seems to neglect to discern task performance from contextual one as
the dependent variable. Lastly, the call for additional moderators in technostress research is still prevailing.
Information Technology & People The research contributes to the abovementioned gaps in the literature by analyzing a model with two
Vol. 34 No. 7, 2021 moderators.
pp. 1890-1919
© Emerald Publishing Limited Keywords Technological self-efficacy, Technostress, Time management, Burnout, Employee performance
0959-3845
DOI 10.1108/ITP-09-2019-0462 Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction Technostress
Societies are increasingly becoming addicted to technology and technology-related tools (e.g. and time
smartphones) (Tams et al., 2018a). They have become essential components of both working
environments and our daily lives (Korunka and Vartiainen, 2017). People now use technology
management
extensively to help them complete many activities, such as banking transactions, shopping,
health procedures, travel, education and transportation. Similarly, the widespread use of
technologies in the workplace can increase work performance (as workers can become
efficient, effective and productive) (Ayyagari et al., 2011) and work processes (Korunka and 1891
Vartiainen, 2017). So, some aspects of work depend now intensively on information and
communication technologies (ICTs), and they have become an indispensable part of our jobs.
However, along with the advances, their complexity and demanding nature started to
surpass their usefulness, and the hassles they cause can be sometimes overwhelming. For
example, systems that run on information technologies could decelerate or, even worse, break
down without notice. When this happens, the disruption in getting routine tasks can be
devastating. This can leave some people, particularly those in ICT-intensive jobs, with
anxiety and a feeling of hopelessness (Shu et al., 2011). Moreover, other issues such as
“unpredictable delays in program reaction times, poorly designed interfaces which may be
difficult to utilize, time lost due to unclear error messages, excessively long download times,
features being difficult to locate, and lost connections” can also be claimed to be sources of
stress for the employees in sectors operating in an ICT-dependent industry (O’Driscoll et al.,
2009, p. 118).
This so-called “dark side” of technology (Salanova et al., 2014; Riedl, 2013, p. 18; Tarafdar
et al., 2015; Agogo and Hess, 2018, p. 1) has initiated new studies. For example, some researchers
such as Ayyagari et al. (2011), Speier et al. (2003) and Tarafdar et al. (2015) emphasize the need
for more research on the harms of technology, and especially the direct effects on work
performance. Based on an American Psychological Association study conducted in 2010,
Ioannou and Papazafeiropoulou (2017, p. 1) argue that the enduring results of workplace stress
(i.e. technostress) cost “more than 300 billion dollars every year to US businesses due to
decreased employee productivity, absenteeism, staff turnover, and insurance.” Previous
research cited the effects of exposure to stress from work-related technology on turnover
/retention, productivity, commitment, job satisfaction and technology-supported performance
(Ahuja et al., 2007; Jex and Beehr, 1991; Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008; Tarafdar et al., 2007, 2010;
Fuglseth and Sørebø, 2014; Maier et al., 2015; Fischer and Riedl, 2017).
The negative psychological state experienced by employees as a result of these failures
while performing their work is called “hourglass syndrome” in popular literature and
“technostress” in the academic literature (Cao and Sun, 2018, p. 10; Ayyagari et al., 2011).
Technostress is a phenomenon that looks for “how and why the use of ICTs causes various
demands on the individual” (Tarafdar et al., 2017, p. 2). It is a kind of “stress creator” rather
than the feeling of stress itself. Traditional view deals with stress as a “response,” a
dependent variable, whereas recent studies prefer a “processual approach” to stress. Stress is
not generally seen as being located in a specific spot but is considered to be an ongoing
process of individuals interacting with their environments. Thus, technostress refers to a
situation where stress is induced by the use of ICTs at work (Tarafdar et al., 2017). The
continuity of this stress and attempts at coping through one’s own means, coupled with the
failure of these attempts due to a lack of resources, can lead to burnout. This burnout is
associated with feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, nervousness, exhaustion and fatigue
(Salanova et al., 2014; Korunka and Vartiainen, 2017, p. 110).
The literature on technostress causing harm at the workplace contains unanswered
questions and inconclusive answers. Technostress is not well understood (Tarafdar et al.,
2015). The need to clarify the influencing variables remains a hot topic. Agogo and Hess
(2018) point the importance of negative affective responses caused by the dark side of
ITP technology. They also criticize and call attention to the lack of constructive definitions of
34,7 these negative affective responses and the fact that there are no clearly defined relationships.
Being a multidimensional concept, technostress has different psychological, physiological
and cognitive implications (Chen and Muthitacharoen, 2016). The stress could be caused by
deprivation of technology or by being exposed to uncontrollable factors resulting from the
use of technology (Tams et al., 2018a). Alternatively, it can also be “security-related” (Hwang
and Cha, 2018) or resulting from the overuse of technology (Yuvaraj and Singh, 2015).
1892 Different scholars agree that there is a need for further research on the topic. For example,
career researchers call for studies that investigate the effects across different industries and
on career decision-making, as well as “to help clients develop personal coping resources, and
to determine strategies for career professionals to collaborate with workplace managers”
(Atanasoff and Venable, 2017, p. 326). There are also calls for better integration and
theoretically grounded research on the topic (Tams, 2015; Agogo and Hess, 2018). Also, most
of the studies on this topic focus on direct relationships and their moderators. The lack of
indirect relationships (mediators) and other appraisal and coping processes (moderators or
interventions) call for new theoretical models.
Among the rare but most investigated ones, findings regarding the computer or
technology self-efficacy’s moderator influence seem inconsistent. We argue that the reason
for this inconsistency may be the shortcomings of theoretical models that were designed
with one moderator. To handle a stressful event at work, one should control first, then
attenuate or eliminate it. To control the stress, self-efficacy appears resourceful, but to get rid
of it, it requires another tool. We introduced an easily applicable but at the same time an
effective intervention, that is, the time management, as the second moderator. In some
studies, it has been proven useful in decreasing stress (Hafner and Stock, 2010; Aeon and
Aguinis, 2017) and powerful enough to reduce the risks of burnout (Sabelis, 2001) at work.
A detailed discussion can be found in Section 1.8.2. By addressing all these concerns and by
introducing a complex model, we aim to contribute to the development of the theory in the
technostress literature.

2. Literature review and hypothesis development

2.1 Theoretical rationale
Lack of empirical studies focusing on theoretical models as well as identifying solid
consequences in organizations highlights the need for management strategies to “reduce the
impact of this new labor reality” (Carabel et al., 2017, p. 18). The “predominant” theoretical
framework of technostress mostly depends on transactional theory of stress (Tarafdar et al.,
2017, pp. 3, 8) or “the job demands-resources model” (see Wang et al., 2017; Tams, 2015;
Salanova et al., 2014). Tarafdar et al. (2017) criticize the fragmented literature in its
shortcoming concerning coping and appraisal responses. Derived from the appraisal theory,
this study uses the problem-based coping strategy to explain the relationships. Appraisal
theory defines emotions as the results of evaluations (appraisals) of events that cause specific
reactions and acknowledges that reactions may differ for every individual (Scherer, 2001).
The concept is broken up into two classifications: primary and secondary appraisals. The
primary appraisal posits two approaches: the first is the relevancy of the event to one’s well-
being; if this is the case, then, the situation elicits a more intense emotional response (Smith
and Kirby, 2009) such as stress. The second emotional response is motivational congruence.
Individuals experience different emotions when they view a situation as being consistent
with their goals than when they view it as inconsistent. For example, if an employee cannot
solve an ICT problem on time at workplace because of lack of skills or technical failure
(sometimes skills may not be useful), and if he/she knows that finishing the task on time
depends on the effective use of ICTs, then he/she may suffer intense stress. Moreover, if the
same employee knows that his/her progress at work depends on it, the intensity of the stress Technostress
will continue to increase. and time
Their secondary appraisal of events may also influence individuals as it involves people’s
evaluation of their resources and options for coping (Lazarus, 1991). Unlike primary
management
appraisal, this concept has four approaches. The first is an individual’s evaluation of who
should be held accountable in case of a problematic situation. The second is the chance factor
when an event is occurring. The third is future expectancy (a belief in change and motivation
being congruent). This study draws on the coping potential of an individual that explains 1893
how he/she handles an emotional experience. Coping potential consists of two strategies:
problem-focused or emotion-focused coping (Dewe et al., 2013; Carroll, 2013). One’s ability to
take action and to change a situation to make it more suitable to one’s purpose or need is
defined as problem-focused coping (Gomes, 2014). Thus, the belief about one’s ability to
control the situation influences the emotions experienced in the situation. Otherwise, the
feeling of having no control and helplessness may lead to emotion-focused strategies
(Pirkkalainen et al., 2017). The control notion has been discussed and studied in a variety of
studies through job demand-control-support approaches (Gomes, 2014; Dewe et al., 2013). If
someone perceives that they have control over the stressor(s), he/she can reduce and manage
the stress (Carroll, 2013). Here, in this study, we propose a dual moderator mechanism. To
eliminate the sources of stress as discussed above, one should control it first. Thus, we
designed a model with two control mediums: technology self-efficacy and time management.
They can enhance the perception of control by decreasing the intensity of felt stress. Bandura
(1997) himself once called the self-efficacy as “the exercise of control.” It works by assisting
individuals in controlling their emotional reactions and adapting to the elevating pressures
(Caprara et al., 2013). And the time-management ability has been proven to be resourceful in
controlling one’s time, thus diminishing perceived stress (Hafner and Stock, 2010).

2.2 A quick glance at technostress literature

The causes of technostress have been studied via three main research themes: addiction to
technology, technology user characteristics and organizational contexts that harbor
technology. Addiction to technology is categorized either as social network (Salo et al.,
2019; Tarafdar et al., 2020) or smartphone use (Lee et al., 2014; Tams et al., 2018a). To
investigate the technology user characteristics, personality seems to be the most often
searched concept (Marchiori et al., 2019; Maier et al., 2019), followed by age (Berg-Beckhoff
et al., 2018; Nimrod, 2018; Tams et al., 2018b; Marchiori et al., 2019; La Torre et al., 2019) and
gender (Riedl et al., 2013; Marchiori et al., 2019; La Torre et al., 2019). The last theme deals with
the question of how different organizational contexts (e.g. health: Yan et al., 2013; Califf et al.,
2015; La Torre et al., 2019; leadership and competitive climate: Turel and Gaudioso, 2018) with
different technologies (e.g. e-mail: Stich et al., 2019; telemedicine-Yan et al., 2013; ICTs: Berg-
Beckhoff et al., 2018; La Torre et al., 2019) could cause technostress. Within the same theme,
studies also focus on how technostress inhibits employees’ performance (e.g. innovation:
Chandra et al., 2019; behaviors: Mahapatra and Pillai, 2018; burnout and engagement:
Srivastava et al., 2015) in organizations. This theme is may be the most common research
topic in technostress literature. Contrary to common belief which accepts technostress as the
dark side of technology, recent studies claim that stress may not be the only effect. The same
scholars argue that through appropriate system design, technostress potentially can lead to
positive outcomes (eustress) which can be translated into greater effectiveness and
innovation at work (Califf et al., 2015; Tarafdar et al., 2020). There are also emerging issues
such as how online labor markets of GIG-economy can cause technostress (Umair et al., 2019).
The literature also criticizes certain issues. For example, there are criticisms regarding
some methodological issues (e.g. lack of theories: Carabel et al., 2017; neglected multi-method
ITP research designs: Fischer and Riedl, 2017; deficiencies in generating psychometrically robust
34,7 instruments: Wang et al., 2020).
Lastly, the suggestions to mitigate or prevent technostress vary in amount but seem
fragmented. These approaches have also been criticized due to their insufficiency to provide
enough evidence regarding conceptualization and testing of relevant research models based
on moderating effects. Earlier studies (Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008) argued a variety of business
context changes such as job redesigning, role restructuring and counseling/assistance.
1894 Recent studies propose positive technology use (Brivio et al., 2018), social support (Ragu-
Nathan et al., 2008; Weinert et al., 2020), technical support and taking a break during a
malfunction (Fischer and Riedl, 2017). This issue will be discussed in detail during
hypotheses development phases.

2.3 Conceptualizing work performance

Being one of the most important output in organizations, work performance (a.k.a. job
performance) has been defined as behaviors (i.e. formal role) that are tied to certain expected
targets of organizations (Jex and Britt, 2014; Pradhan and Jena, 2016) or core tasks of the
employees at work which are related to reward systems (Zacher et al., 2010). It refers to
knowledge, skills and other competencies and qualities required to perform one’s job
successfully (Sonnentag et al., 2008). But the concept has been criticized that it is limited to the
core task activities based solely on job analyses (Campbell, 1990; Jex and Britt, 2014). Jex and
Britt (2014) asserted that work performance could not be confined only to behaviors directly
associated with task performance. So, work performance was mostly related to the tasks
described in job analyses, and thus named as task performance. Some scholars argued that
this term should be defined in a broader and more integrative way (Zacher et al., 2010). Since
early 1990s, the performance has evolved and become a multidimensional concept
(Koopmans et al., 2014). It has been conceptualized in various ways – sometimes as
effectiveness and productivity (Jex and Britt, 2014), sometimes as adaptive performance and
counterproductive work behavior (Koopmans et al., 2014). Most agreed that the larger “social”
aspect of work performance was often neglected and claimed that it plays an important role
(Jawahar, 2007; Koopmans et al., 2014; Jex and Britt, 2014). At last, the literature distinguished
task performance from contextual performance (Borman and Motowidlo, 1997). Contextual
performance is defined as discretionary individual efforts that are not directly related to an
employee’s main task functions at work. It includes elements from organizational citizenship
behavior as well as from prosocial organizational behaviors (e.g. conforming to the rules,
working hard, taking the initiative, helping a peer voluntarily and not taking frequent breaks)
(Borman and Motowidlo, 1997). These behaviors are important because they shape the
organizational, social and psychological aspects of workers and serve as the critical catalyst
for task activities and processes. Consequently, both aspects of work performance are crucial
to achieve organizational objectives.

2.4 Technostress and work performance

The effect of technostress on work performance is well documented, and so is on the burnout
(Tarafdar et al., 2015). However, the distinction between task and contextual performance is
almost nonexistent in technostress literature (See Table 1). Therefore, one of the focuses of
this study is to cover this gap.
2.4.1 Technostress and task performance. Highlighting the confusion of definitions of
technostress as a concept in literature, Salanova et al. (2014, p. 88) proposed a more
operational definition. It is defined as “a negative psychological state” that could be
associated with the use or abuse of technology as well as the threat of technology use in the
future. It is also related to the individual’s respond to and mismatch of their resources to the
demands of the technology. Technostress is usually made up of five factors: techno-overload,
 Type of
Technostress
research and time
Review source Performance is conceptualized as: paper Further considerations management
Riedl (2013) (1) Individual performance and Review (1) Technostress and genetics/
productivity enhancements EGG/ neuroergonomics/. . .
(2) Work performance and
productivity 1895
(3) ICT user performance and
productivity
(4) Performance as productivity and
innovation in computer-mediated
tasks
(5) Behavioral performance
(6) Task performance
(7) Performance and productivity in
_
human–computer Interaction
(8) Business performance
(9) Organizational performance
Tarafdar et al. (1) Task performance Review (1) Techno-eustress: positive
(2017) (2) Individual performance stress
(2) IS is designed to reduce
distress
Salanova et al. (1) Task performance Review
(2014)
Atanasoff and (1) Work/workplace performance Review (1) Individual job decisions
Venable (2017) and organizational
performance
Fischer and (1) Technlogy-supported Review
Riedl (2017) performance
(2) Task performance
(3) Individual performance
(4) Objective performance measures
(e.g. time taken to complete tasks
and/or error rates. . .)
Lei and Ngai (1) Task and work performance Review/ Technostress challenge and Table 1.
(2014) conceptual threat appraisals The concept of
Wang et al. (1) Job performance (psychological Review/ Technological and non- performance in
(2017) and physical) conceptual technological stressors technostress literature

techno-invasion, techno-complexity, techno-insecurity and techno-uncertainty (Tarafdar

et al., 2007). The majority of technostress literature refers to task performance when it
discusses technostress–work performance relationship. The use of ICTs and other office
technologies at work has become one of the dominant KSAOs (knowledge, skills and other
abilities) today. It was once believed that these technologies would eventually help employees
ease their job load, and enhance and assist them to become more productive. Yet, excess work
and attentional demands, ergonomic stresses, the pace of work (less is desirable), poorly
defined tasks associated with ICTs, monotony, the notion of unchallenging work (Atanasoff
and Venable, 2017) and boring and repetitive tasks (Salanova et al., 2014) made this almost
impossible. Techno-uncertainty and techno-complexity also complicate individuals’ roles
relating to their work and also interfere with their family lives. Studies carried out by
Tarafdar et al. (2010), Tarafdar et al. (2017) and later by Ioannou and Papazafeiropoulou
(2017) revealed the negative effects of technostress on end-user performance; Chen and
Muthitacharoen (2016) found that technostress experienced by employees using ICTs for the
sake of duty severely decrease performance.
ITP 2.4.2 Technostress and contextual performance. Ennis (2005) claims that technostress
34,7 results in physical, emotional, behavioral and psychological harms. Whereas conditions such
as acute pain in different parts of the body and high blood pressure represent physical
ailments, the development of depression and anxiety in individuals due to increasing angst
and fear are emotional conditions (Fischer et al., 2017). Affected employees might develop the
perception that they will not be able to meet the ever-increasing and ever-changing
expectations as a result of high techno-work load, uncertainty and complexity of work-related
1896 tasks (Ayyagari et al., 2011; Tarafdar et al., 2017). The time for discretionary effort will be
scarce, and effort will be diverted to monotonous tasks. The time for socializing will also be
insufficient, and the spirit of being a member of a team will also deteriorate. Due to their
negative psychological state, individuals may become more irritable, have constant mood
changes and have poor communication both at work as well as in their personal lives
(Salanova et al., 2014, p. 94). Moreover, absenteeism may increase (opposite of
conscientiousness, one of the prominent examples of contextual performance); instead of
helping their co-workers, deviant behaviors (opposite of altruism, again one of the prominent
examples of contextual performance) may emerge.
These might have a negative effect on the motivation of individuals, which will, in turn,
affect their work performance. Accordingly, our first hypothesis was posited as follows:
H1a. Technostress affects task performance in a negative and significant way.
H1b. Technostress affects contextual performance in a negative and significant way.

2.5 Technostress and burnout

The ongoing discussion of how technostress affects burnout is not yet settled in literature
(Tarafdar et al., 2015, 2017). Hence, the direct association between ICT use and burnout is
unclear, and the evidence of a linkage between the two is inconclusive (Berg-Beckhoff et al.,
2018). Referring to the decrease in individuals’ energy under stressful conditions for a long
period, burnout might emerge in different phases of working life (Maslach et al., 2001;
Devereux et al., 2009; Srivastava et al., 2015; Berg-Beckhoff et al., 2018). It is largely
attributable to health problems caused by stress (Yeh et al., 2009). Koeske and Keoske (1993,
p. 107) asserted earlier that “exhaustion is the essence of burnout,” and it should be kept in
mind that although other factors of burnout, that is, “accomplishment and
depersonalization,” are related variables, they could not be treated as elements of burnout.
In line with this approach, this study utilized only one dimension of burnout, namely, the
emotional exhaustion of Maslach et al.’s (2001) inventory.
Maslach et al. (2001, p. 398) define burnout as “a prolonged response to chronic emotional
and interpersonal stressors on the job” and also claim that employees might experience
emotional exhaustion along with cynicism and perception of inefficacy due to inadequate
coping strategies. In cases in which the determinants of technostress – namely, techno-
workload, techno-uncertainty, techno-complexity, techno-insecurity and techno-invasion
(Tarafdar et al., 2007) – are experienced constantly, individuals’ expectations about having a
normal work life and balanced work and family life, which they feel they need, might
decrease. The disappearance of borders and the evaporation of the balance between
individuals’ private lives and work lives might also lead to a failure for individuals to find the
resources and social support necessary to eliminate the detrimental effects to which they are
exposed (Khedhaouria and Cucchi, 2019). In these circumstances, a decline might occur in
individuals’ job-related efficiencies. Declines in job-related efficiencies are another feature of
burnout. Accordingly, our second hypothesis is as follows:
H2. Technostress affects burnout in a positive and significant way.
2.6 Burnout and task performance Technostress
As mentioned above, burnout refers to a negative state of hopelessness, frustration, tiredness and time
and carelessness in individuals behaviorally, emotionally and psychologically (Salanova
et al., 2014; Korunka and Vartiainen, 2017). Existing studies argue that work performance
management
cannot be improved with a simple job design alone and that psychological and other factors
play an active role in the performance of employees (Sonnentag et al., 2008). Technostress
studies agreed on the negative effects of burnout on work performance (Tarafdar et al., 2014,
2017; Hwang and Cha, 2018). Those individuals who experience burnout syndrome will not be 1897
able to fulfil their duties and responsibilities in a manner that satisfies expectations, which
will, in turn, have a negative effect on the performance of the business as a whole. By the use
of their secondary appraisal of events, employees evaluate their sources (e.g., KSAOs) and
options for coping (Lazarus, 1991). As discussed in earlier sections, one of the two basic
strategies of coping, problem-focused coping, enhances one’s ability to take action and to
change a situation to make it more suitable to one’s desired results (Gomes, 2014). However,
the feeling of exhaustion may lead to a feeling of having no control and helplessness, and
eventually a decline in accomplishing one’s tasks.

2.7 Burnout and contextual performance

According to the appraisal theory, the problem-based coping strategies take various forms
(cognitive and behavioral) (Gomes, 2014) depending on the working environment, for
example, social support at work (Dewe et al., 2013) either from co-workers or supervisor, or
from seeking information or assistance in handling the problematic situation (Carroll, 2013).
To alter the environment that causes stress, or at least to control it, problem-based coping
strategies are more resourceful than emotional ones. However, burnout may lead to
deprivation of resources, and this feeling may wear down employees’ feeling of control,
which will eventually cut off their desire to initiate, for example, prosocial behaviors. The
recent burnout literature has reported lower association with task and contextual
performance, and prosocial behaviors (Bang and Reio, 2017). Our third hypothesis are as
follows:
H3a. Burnout affects task performance in a negative but significant manner.
H3b. Burnout affects contextual performance in a negative but significant manner.

2.8 The mediating role of burnout

Although burnout has been thoroughly investigated as an outcome variable (Tarafdar et al.,
2017; Khedhaouria and Cucchi, 2019), it has rarely been treated as a mediator in technostress
literature. This is contradictory because a vast literature has been treating it as a mediator
between its causes and consequences (Halbesleben and Buckley, 2004). Tams (2015, p. 2)
argues that “past research has merely speculated about potential mediating factors but has
not formally conceptualized mediating variables and tested research models concerned with
indirect effects.” To explain the process of stress–burnout interaction, a salient model (stress-
strain/burnout-outcome framework) has been introduced and has become popular among
stress-related studies (Koeske and Koeske, 1993). In this model, stress is conceptualized as an
environmental stimulus (objective events), and the actors perceive and interpret it as
troublesome and potentially disruptive. Strain is the mediating element entailing “disruptive
impacts on actor concentration, physiology, and emotion, i.e. negative reactions tied to
situational stimuli” (p. 111). Strain is visualized by burnout referring to emotional exhaustion.
It is the mediator that transfers the effects of perceived stress on attitudinal and behavioral
outcomes. In our model, the effects on task and contextual performances are taken as
outcomes. The model posits further that stress could have an indirect effect on outcome. This
ITP could depend on, to some extent, how long burnout is experienced. But if a moderator
34,7 intervenes, the intensity of the experienced burnout may vanish or at least cease.
In its simplest meaning, burnout occurs when the demands of a job exceed a person’s
ability to cope with stress (Michel, 2016). Research also shows that individuals who are under
constant stress display behaviors associated with burnout (Berg-Beckhoff et al., 2018).
Additionally, it is argued that burnout could weaken “the gain cycle of daily job resources,
daily work engagement, and daily job crafting” (Bakker and Costa, 2014). And stress (role
1898 stress, stressful events) seems to be one of the most important job demands (role ambiguity,
role conflict, workload and work pressure) that cause burnout.
Technology’s features of practicality, dynamism and involuntariness are a source of
stress for some employees. Additionally, increased work–home conflicts and workload, and
the elimination of borders between work life and private life, have led to role conflict.
Combined, these all take away job security from people. Since technostress may be fueled up
by other stress-related events at work, and if employees cannot cope with that, and if these are
constantly experienced, burnout seems inevitable. Accordingly, our fourth hypothesis is as
follows:
H4a. Burnout has a mediating role between technostress and task performance.
H4b. Burnout has a mediating role between technostress and contextual performance.

2.9 The moderators in technostress literature

Tams (2015) claims that technostress literature lacks the moderating factors needed to
explain conditions where ICT-resulted stress could be alleviated. He also criticizes the studies
in that they do not provide enough evidence regarding conceptualized moderation effects and
for not testing relevant research models. Most of the studies use moderators (a.k.a.
technostress inhibitors) such as “technical support provision, literacy facilitation and
involvement facilitation,” all of which are IT-related (Sarabadani et al., 2018). Unfortunately,
techniques and interventions that seek to mitigate or eliminate technostress are also absent or
rare in some studies (Maier, 2014). The extant literature suggested some potential
moderators, such as:
(1) Leadership and computer self-efficacy (Berg-Beckhoff et al., 2018)
(2) Technology self-efficacy (Delpechitre et al., 2019; Tarafdar et al., 2015)
(3) Technology competence (Tarafdar et al., 2015)
(4) Personality orientations of neuroticism, agreeableness and extraversion (Srivastava
et al., 2015)
(5) The individual’s task-related control (timing, method and resource controls) over
information access allows his/her ability to take a break from the task (Galluch et al.,
2015) and
(6) Organizational mechanisms and technology competence (Tarafdar et al., 2014).
Although the literature reports the moderator influence of domain-specific self-efficacy
(e.g. computer or technology self-efficacy), the results are also inconsistent. For example,
Tarafdar et al. (2015) found no moderation effect for technology self-efficacy, whereas
Delpechitre et al. (2019) found some level of moderation.
2.9.1 Moderating effect of technology self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is based on Bandura’s
social learning theory, which refers to adaptation and change in individual’s behaviors
according to their environment (Shu et al., 2011). High self-efficacy helps individuals be
consciously determined, feel confident and fulfil their responsibilities in those domains in
which they have self-efficacy (Lunenburg, 2011). It is also positively related to physical and Technostress
mental health, social support and active problem-focused coping. Additionally, it is and time
negatively correlated with depression, vital exhaustion, anxiety and depressive coping
(Romppel et al., 2013, p. 5).
management
When confronted with challenging situations that can lead to stress, the skills that assist
individuals in controlling their emotional reactions and adapting to the elevating pressures
become important (Caprara et al., 2013). This so-called “adaptive functioning” could help
them to experience a positive effect in negative situations. Otherwise, the exposure to 1899
negative feelings in these types of circumstances could end up with undesirable outcomes
like anxiety and strain. One of those adoptive functioning skills could be due to self-efficacy
beliefs. It is believed that “the capacity to appropriately manage different negative
emotions rests on different abilities and self-efficacy beliefs” (Caprara et al., 2013, p. 105).
Self-efficacy is the leverage that people depend on while dealing successfully with
challenging situations. Because the stress is triggered by ICTs, we propose that the domain-
specific self-efficacy, a.k.a. technological self-efficacy, might act as the first moderator to
extenuate the technostress’ effect on burnout. Previous research has shown how
technology self-efficacy can play a positive role in the use of technology (Shu et al., 2011;
Salanova et al., 2014; Delpechitre et al., 2019). However, there are also studies that reported
adverse effects regarding the moderating influence of technological self-efficacy (e.g.
Tarafdar et al., 2015). Taking into consideration the fact that technostress represents
individual responses to technology-based expectations, individuals who possess efficiency
in this domain might reduce their technostress levels. Accordingly, our fifth hypothesis is
as follows:
H5. Technological self-efficacy has a moderating role between technostress and burnout.
2.9.2 The moderating effect of time management. The relationship between burnout and time
management is well documented. This relationship is frequently covered in popular literature
(Claessens et al., 2007). Time management issue at work is not a new concept (Claessens et al.,
2007). One of the main reasons employees are trained in time management is to increase job
performance (Sabelis, 2001; Claessens et al., 2007; Hafner and Stock, 2010). Some studies
argue that time management interventions are useful in decreasing stress at work as well
(Hafner and Stock, 2010; Aeon and Aguinis, 2017). Other studies state the need for time
management training is to reduce the risks of burnout (Sabelis, 2001).
The writers of this paper did not think time management could act as a moderator
between technostress and burnout in place of technological self-efficacy. As described
above, due to the close emotion–stress relationship, the “adaptive functioning” skills require
individuals to control their emotional reactions and to adapt to the elevating pressures
through their self-efficacy beliefs. Someone may have high technological self-efficacy but
may not know how to arrange their daily workload by setting priorities and realistic
deadlines to avoid stress (Joyce et al., 2019). Some studies reveal that technostress is even
higher among professionals who are good at using technology (Ahmad et al., 2014).
Computerization at work is “associated with increased required effort levels and a rise in the
work exhaustion rate” (Felstead et al., 2019, p. 735). It is obvious that computerization has led
to higher tech training and utilization of technological skills at work, but still it does not
resolve the time pressure issues (O’Driscoll et al., 2009). Some studies have examined time
management as a moderator between stressor–strain relationship but found no interaction
effects (Jex and Elacqua, 1999). Although time management training is useful in contributing
to employees’ time management skills, it does not automatically improve performance
outcomes (Claessens et al., 2007; Hafner and Stock, 2010). Therefore, the researchers believe
that it is only after controlling stress that time management can become handy. This process
is explained in detail below.
ITP While managing their workload, workers (individuals) can reduce their feelings of stress
34,7 and burnout caused by a heavy workload. Time management behavior gives the notion of
controllability (Sabelis, 2001; Claessens et al., 2007; Hafner and Stock, 2010).
The ability of individuals to differentiate between their primary and supporting
responsibilities relating to the job makes time management easier (e.g. technological self-
efficacy beliefs). This also diminishes the negative effects caused by burnout by increasing
the perception of having control of one’s own time by reducing uncertainty. The reason why
1900 different employees with similar workloads in any workplace are affected by the process
differently and have different performance levels may be attributable to different time
management skills. These differences could also be explained by the differences in their
problem-focused coping skills. During the problem-coping process, employees rely on their
abilities to take action and to change a situation to make it more suitable to their purpose.
Some employees are more successful in doing this than the others (i.e. they set priorities based
on their primary and supporting responsibilities; thus, they get more done based on these
priorities). Their ability to control the situation influences the emotions they experience in
each situation. These types of people also have the capacity to control their emotions,
particularly “during and after encountering a stressor” (Kinner et al., 2014, p. 1). Additionally,
this ability of controlling a situation can be closely related to higher technological self-efficacy
which acts as the first buffer. These individuals may have the right knowledge and skills to
do their tasks. They could also have difficulty adjusting their priorities and meeting their
deadlines due to an increasing workload. Time management can act as another buffer in this
situation and help them to adjust their time control skills to avoid burnout. Based on their
schedule, they can set their own pace for a task. And gradually, this will allow them to gain
experience in managing their time.
Once they have seen and experienced the positive effects of good time management skills,
they will develop strategies to help them become more efficient. Individuals who employ time
management skills are effective enough to eliminate, for example, their work overload (Ennis,
2005). They can then harmonize their responsibilities to enable them to effectively reduce the
negative effects of ICTs on work performance. Accordingly, our sixth hypothesis is as follows:
H6a. Time management has a moderating role between burnout and task performance.
H6b. Time management has a moderating role between burnout and contextual
performance.

3. Data collection
3.1 Participants
The sample population was randomly chosen from the lists provided by civil-servant unions
and the chamber of commerce subsidiaries in the northwest region of Turkey. The employees
received letters that explained the purpose of the study, and the questionnaires was sent to
them. Out of 500 forms, 328 were returned. Nine were not used because of missing data and
low factor loadings. In total, 48% percent of the participants were male and 52% were female.
The ratio of public employees, which was the most prevalent occupational group, was 47%.
This was followed by the private sector with 39% and self-employed persons with 14%,
respectively. The respondents were asked about their use of ICTs at work. In all, 37.7%
accounted for non-intensive use, 34.2% answered that they used ICTs intensively and 28.1%
reported very intensive use. Additionally, 67% of the respondents were high school
graduates, 26% were university graduates and 7% had postgraduate degrees. The incidence
of unmarried participants was 55%, while married participants comprised 45% of the sample
size. With regard to age, young people aged 26–32 represented the highest percentage at
45%, followed by respondents aged 41–49 at 20% (Table 2).
Characteristics
Technostress
Gender M 5 152, F 5 167 M 5 48%, F 5 52% and time
Age N % management
18–25 32 10.0
26–32 145 45.0
33–40 53 16.5
41–49 64 19.9
>50 25 7.8 1901
Occupational positions
Public sector employees 151 47
Private sector employees 124 39
Self-employed 44 14
Intensive use of ICTs at work
Non-intensive 120 37.6
Intensively 109 34.2
Very intensively 90 28.2
Education
High-school degree 215 67
Graduate degree 82 26
Postgraduate degree 22 7 Table 2.
Marital status Married 5 144, Unmarried 5 175 Married 5 45, Unmarried 5 54 Sample characteristics

3.2 Measures
Scales, the reliability and validity of which have been tested in the Turkish context before,
were used for data collected for this research. The data were evaluated on a five-point scale,
with options ranging from 1 5 totally disagree to 5 5 totally agree.

3.3 Technostress scale

The scale, adapted to Turkish by T€ uren et al. (2015) and developed by Tarafdar et al. (2007),
was employed to measure individuals’ technostress levels. The scale consists of four factors
and 17 items (e.g. “I am forced by this technology to work much faster,” and “I do not know
enough about this technology to handle my job satisfactorily”). After a confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA), satisfactory values were obtained for a three-factor structure (χ 2(113) 5 219,
p < 0.001; χ 2/df 5 1.94; TLI 5 0.942; CFI 5 0.952; RMSEA 5 0.0537).

3.4 Work performance scale

The scales developed for measuring work performance (both task and contextual) are based
on employees’ or their supervisors’ subjective perceptions. The relevant literature often
criticized researchers’ usage of subjective instead of objective measures such as sales’
volumes, budget reports and customer complaints (Pransky et al., 2006). It should also be kept
in mind that both performance dimensions used in this study are subjective. Firstly,
supervisors were not asked to evaluate their subordinates; secondly, we did not use objective
criteria in our surveys. Instead, we rely on subjective evaluations of the employees.
Nevertheless, the studies (e.g. Dawes, 1999) that investigated the relationship between
objective and subjective criteria report strong correlations between these two performances.
Besides, the performance literature encourages separating task from contextual performance
while measuring (e.g. Bormon and Motowidlo, 1997).
Task (nine-point) and contextual (seven-point) performance scales developed by Goodman
and Svyantek (1999) and Jawahar and Carr (2007) were employed to measure work
ITP performance. The task performance scale consisted of nine items (e.g., “I meet the
34,7 performance criteria of my work,” and “I carry out all the requirements my work”). The
contextual performance scale consisted of seven items (e.g., “I help other employees with their
work when they have been absent,” and “I do not spend a great deal of time in idle
conversation”). The CFA revealed acceptable results for a two-factor scale (χ 2(103) 5 232,
p < 0.001; χ 2/df 5 2.25; TLI 5 0.961; CFI 5 0.966; RMSEA 5 0.0624).
1902
3.5 Burnout scale
Only the exhaustion part of the Maslach burnout inventory was adapted to Turkish by Çapri
(2006). The burnout scale consisted of nine items (e.g., “I feel emotionally drained from my
work,” and “I feel fatigued when I get up in the morning and face another day on the job”).
After a CFA, satisfactory values were obtained for a three-factor scale (χ 2(186) 5 549,
p < 0.001; χ 2/df 5 2.95; TLI 5 0.890; CFI 5 0.902; RMSEA 5 0.0776).

3.6 Technology self-efficacy scale

The self-efficacy perception of online technologies scale by Horzum and Çakır (2009) was
employed for the techno-self-efficacy test. The technology self-efficacy scale consists of four
factors and 29 items (e.g., “I trust myself in creating e-mail address book online,” and “I trust
myself in replying to a message for all the members sent through an asynchronous
conference system”). Following a CFA analysis, we achieved acceptable values for a four-
factor scale (χ 2(269) 5 724, p < 0.001; χ 2/df 5 2.69; TLI 5 0.926; CFI 5 0.933;
RMSEA 5 0.0722).

3.7 Time management scale

Finally, a time management scale for nurses developed by Bahçecik et al. (2004) was
employed for time management. The time management scale consists of five factors and 33
items (e.g. “Although it takes some time, I can make plans,” and “I set the agenda of the
meeting before it starts”). The last CFA analysis revealed acceptable results for a five-factor
scale (χ 2(142) 5 584, p < 0.001; χ 2/df 5 4.11; TLI 5 0.907; CFI 5 0.940; RMSEA 5 0.0683).

3.8 Validity of scales

CFAs were run through Jamovi v. 0.9.6.9. CFA values of the scales were at acceptable levels.
We used PLSc technique with warpPLS 6.0 for the model testing by applying a bootstrapping
method with 990 samples. Convergent validity, discriminant validity and composite
reliability were also surveyed. The composite reliability values above 0.7 show internal
validity, and both the Fornell-Larcker criterion (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), where the square
root of the AVE is larger than the associated correlations and the heterotrait-monotrait ratio
(HTMT) is below 0.9 indicate that both types of validity are met (Table 3). Additionally, we
looked for R2 (coefficient of determination) and Q2 (cross-validated redundancy) ratios as
well. These criteria are used to assess the model’s quality, that is, the model’s ability to predict
the endogenous constructs (Hair et al., 2014). Technostress accounted for 18% of the variance
in task performance and 15% in contextual performance. It could also explain 15% of the
variance in burnout. The results of the Q2 were close to R2 ratios, which means the closer, the
better.
Lastly, we checked the cross-loadings of the items, which is another way of assessing
discriminant validity. Cross-loadings of an item should be lower than the loading of the item
for the relevant factor (Henseler et al., 2014). Consequently, they are greater than 0.50 (Table 4)
which meet the required criteria.
 Results of convergent validity,
Technostress
discriminant validity and The collinearity and time
Scale name Sources composite reliability statistics R2 Q2 management
Technostress Tarafdar et al. (2007), (AVE 5 0.53; CR 5 0.93; α 5 0.93) 1.154
Alam (2016), T€ uren et al.
(2015)
T. Performance Goodman and Svyantek (AVE 5 0.65; CR 5 0.94; α 5 0.94) 1.797 0.18 0.18 1903
(1999)
C. Performance Jawahar and Carr (2007) (AVE 5 0.67; CR 5 0.93; α 5 0.93) 0.15 0.15
Burnout Maslach and Jackson (AVE 5 0.55; CR 5 0.95; α 5 0.94) 1.550 0.18 0.18
(1981), Çapri (2006)
Techno-self- Horzum and Çakır (2009) (AVE 5 0.59; CR 5 0.97; α 5 0.97) 1.765
efficacy
Time Bahçecik et al. (2004) (AVE 5 0.52; CR 5 0.93; α 5 0.92) 1.912 Table 3.
management Fit indices, sources and
Note(s): Calculated by warpPLS 6.0 validity of the scales

To check the presence of a common method bias, we run an unrotated first factor
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) test (a.k.a. Harman single factor test) that examines how
much common variance might exist in a single dimension (Fuller et al., 2016), and the result
revealed 30.18%, which is below the recommended threshold (<50%) by Podsakoff and
Organ (1986).
Together, these factors indicate that the proposed model’s convergent validity,
discriminant validity and composite reliability are ensured.

3.9 Data analyses

Whether there was a difference in technostress based on age was tested using a one-way
ANOVA test. The main effect of technostress on the 18–25 age group was found to be
significant using a critical α of .05 (F (4, 314) 5 2.896, p < 0.05). This indicates that people
within the 18–25 age group had significantly lower technostress levels (X 5 2.60, SD 5 0.96)
than the age group 33–40 (X 5 3.24, SD 5 0.86). We also checked whether there was a
difference by gender, which revealed no difference (males (M 5 3.05, SD 5 0.88) and females
(M 5 3.01, SD 5 0.83)).
Before running the path analysis, summary statistics were calculated (Table 5). Each
variable is seen to be correlated significantly; particularly negative significance is
observed among technostress-performance and burnout-performance as expected. We
added gender, age and monthly income as control variables. Except for the monthly
income, none of these variables appeared to be related. It was found that both technostress:
r (317) 5 0.16, p < 0.01, and burnout: r (317) 5 0.17, p < 0.01 negatively and
significantly correlated with monthly income. The rest was positively and significantly
correlated.

3.10 Results
3.10.1 PLS-SEM analyses. Following this, the PLS-SEM technique was selected for
hypothesis testing. PLS-SEM is an alternative to covariance SEM that has gained
popularity in recent years. It is used with abnormally small or non-normally distributed
samples (Kock, 2017). Results of the analysis carried out with the WarpPLS 6.0 software are
given in Figure 1.
ITP TS Burn Task Context Technostress Time
34,7
TSF1 (0.917)
TSF2 (0.997)
TSF3 (0.985)
TSF4 (0.900)
BURN 1.000
1904 PERF1 (0.966)
PERF2 (0.975)
PERF3 (0.977)
PERF4 (0.994)
PERF5 (0.952)
PERF6 (0.970)
PERF7 (0.984)
PERF8 (0.700)
PERF9 (0.828)
PERF10 (0.972)
PERF11 (0.965)
PERF12 (0.977)
PERF13 (0.982)
PERF14 (0.982)
PERF15 (0.977)
PERF16 (0.993)
SEF1 (0.993)
SEF2 (0.995)
SEF3 (0.995)
SEF4 (0.989)
TM1 (0.975)
TM2 (0.968)
TM3 (0.995)
Table 4. TM4 (0.993)
Item factor loadings TM5 (0.945)
and cross-loadings Note(s): Loadings and cross-loadings shown after oblique rot and Keiser norm

The model fit and quality indices for the theoretical model, as stated in Figure 1, are within the
acceptable levels (Kock, 2017, p. 61). Moqbel et al. (2013, p. 253) suggested that the model fit
should be “assessed through the following measures: average path coefficient (APC), average
R2 (ARS) and average variance inflation factor (AVIF).” Furthermore, the values for both the
APC and ARS are expected to be significant at least at the 0.05 level, while the AVIF could be
lower than 5. As seen in Figure 1, all the above-mentioned as well as additional indices
suggest a good fit of the proposed model with the data.
Table 6 exhibits the overall results of the hypothesis tests along with T-ratios and
confidence intervals. For the first hypothesis, it was predicted that technostress would
significantly and negatively affect task and contextual performances; the path’s standardized
coefficients were β 5 0.25, p < 0.001 (95% CI, 0.383 to 0.112) and β 5 0.19, p < 0.001
(95% CI, 0.326 to 0.054), respectively. These results indicate that H1a and H1b are
supported. Then, we predicted that technostress would also affect burnout positively. The
path’s standardized coefficient was β 5 0.38, p < 0.001 (95% CI, 0.262 to 0.504). H2 is also
supported. Next, we assumed that burnout would significantly and negatively influence task
and contextual performances. The test results are supporting both H3a (β 5 0.23, p < 0.001
(95% CI, 0.348 to 0.116)) and H3b (β 5 0.18, p < 0.001 (95% CI, 0.298 to 0.065)).
3.10.2 Mediation and moderation effects. We found proof of the full mediating effect of
burnout between technostress-task performance (β 5 0.022; SE 5 0.056 p 5 n.s.) and
technostress-contextual performance (β 5 0.023; SE 5 0.056 p 5 n.s.) as is shown in
Variables Min Max Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Gender (1 5 male; 2 5 female) 1 2 – – 1

Age 18 58 3,007 6.23 0.01 1
Income (Monthly) 160 6,100 2556.48 1274.05 0.01 0.10 1
Task performance 1 5 2.73 1.07 0.06 0.07 0.19** 1
Contextual performance 1 5 2.79 1.06 0.08 0.05 0.16** 0.68*** 1
Technostress 1 5 2.98 0.86 0.03 0.04 0.16** 0.19*** 0.15** 1
Techno-self-efficacy 1 5 2.61 1.04 0.09 0.09 0.24** 0.58*** 0.55*** 0.20*** 1
Burnout 1 5 3.13 0.99 0.05 0.01 0.17** 0.22*** 0.17** 0.33*** 0.26*** 1
Time management 1 5 3.06 0.83 0.04 0.06 0.15** 0.56*** 0.55*** 0.31*** 0.51*** 0.42***
Note(s): **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 and n 5 319
1905
management
Technostress

Summary statistics of
and time

Table 5.

observed variables
ITP
TM
34,7 (F)18i
R2 = 0.18
TSE
(F)25i β = 0.14**

β = –0.022 NS T_PERF
1906 (R)9i
β = –0.26***
β = –0.23**

TS BO β = 0.13*
(F)17i (F)8i
β = 0.38***
R2 = 0.18 R2 = 0.15
Model fit and quality indices β = –0.18***
Average path coefficient (APC) = 0.183, p < 0.001
Average R-squared (ARS) = 0.168, p < 0.001 β = –0.023 NS
C_PERF
Average adjusted R-squared (AARS) = 0.161, p < 0.001
(R)7i
Average block VIF (AVIF) = 1.272, acceptable if <= 5, ideally <= 3.3
Average full collinearity VIF (AFVIF) = 2.314, acceptable if <= 5, ideally <= 3.3
Tenenhaus GoF (GoF) = 0.283, small >= 0.1, medium >= 0.25, large >= 0.36
Sympson’s paradox ratio (SPR) = 0.875, acceptable if >= 0.7, ideally = 1
R-squared contribution ratio (RSCR) = 0.993, acceptable if >= 0.9, ideally = 1
Statistical suppression ratio (SSR) = 1.000, acceptable if >= 0.7
Nonlinear bivariate causality direction
= 0.688, acceptable if >= 0.7
ratio (NLBCDR)

Standardized root mean squared

= 0.099, acceptable if <= 0.1
residual (SRMR)
Standardized mean absolute
= 0.079, acceptable if <= 0.1
residual (SMAR)
Standardized chi-squared with 4752
= 241.823, p < 0.001
degrees of freedom (SChS)

Figure 1. Note(s): *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; NS statistically non-significant; TS: Technostress;
PLS-SEM analysis
results TSE: Techno-self-efficacy; BO: Burnout; TM: Time management; T_PERF: Task Performance;
C_PERF: Contextual Performance

Table 6. For the mediation robustness checks, Sobel tests were performed. It was determined
through the Sobel test that the reduction in the effect of the independent variable, after
controlling for the mediator, was significantly reduced (Sobel, 1982).
Firstly, the mediation effect was tested for burnout between technostress and task
performance. The results indicated a significant full mediation (z 5 3.64, p < 0.000).
Secondly, mediation effect was tested for burnout between technostress and contextual
performance. The results again indicated a significant full mediation (z 5 3.49, p < 0.000).
Consequently, H4a and H4b are supported.
As seen in Figures 2–4, the graphical presentations reveal the results of moderating
effects. In Figure 2, techno-self-efficacy has a moderating role between technostress and
burnout (β 5 0.26; SE 5 0.044). This means, when techno-self-efficacy is high against the
high technostress, burnout seems to be dropping. Alternatively, when techno-self-efficacy is
low during the high technostress periods, burnout seems to be escalating.
In figure three, the moderating effects of time management between burnout and task
performance (β 5 0.14; SE 5 0.052) are exhibited. Time management skills could decrease the
burnout rates and increase task performance.
In Figure 4, the moderating effects of time management between burnout and contextual
performance (β 5 0.13; SE 5 0.054) are shown. Time management skills have the potential to
decrease burnout rates while increasing contextual performance. The results provide
evidence that H5, H6a and H6b are true.
 Path Standard
Technostress
Hypothesis coefficient error T Ratio CI (95%) Supported? and time
management
H1a Technostress affects β 5 0.25*** 0.069 3,594 0.383 0.112 Yes
task performance in a
negative and significant
way
H1b Technostress affects β 5 0.19*** 0.069 2,756 0.326 0.054 Yes 1907
contextual performance in a
negative and significant
way
H2 Technostress affects β 5 0.38 *** 0.062 6.218 0.262 0.504 Yes
burnout in a positive and
significant manner
H3a Burnout affects task β 5 0.23 *** 0.059 3,929 0.348 0.116 Yes
performance in a negative
and significant manner
H3b Burnout affects β 5 0.18*** 0.059 3,059 0.298 0.065 Yes
contextual performance in a
negative and significant
manner
H4a Burnout has a β 5 0.022 0.056 0.367 0.132 0.087 Yes
mediating effect between NS
technostress and task
performance
H4b Burnout has a β 5 0.023 0.056 0.409 0.089 0.13 Yes
mediating effect between NS
technostress and contextual
performance
H5 Technological self- β 5 0.26*** 0.044 3,738 0.252 0.106 Yes
efficacy has a moderating
role between technostress
and burnout
H6a Time management has β 5 0.14** 0.052 2,635 0.036 0.248 Yes
a moderating effect between
burnout and task
performance
H6b Time management has β 5 0.13* “ 2,515 0.029 0.241 Yes
a moderating effect between
burnout and contextual Table 6.
performance Results of the
Note(s): NS, not statistically significant; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 hypothesis tests

4. Discussion
The study sought answers to determine if technological self-efficacy mitigates the direct
harms of technostress and if perceived better time management decreases the negative
effects of burnout on the work performance of employees. Five hundred employees were
chosen randomly from the lists provided by civil-servant unions and the chamber of
commerce subsidiaries in the northwest region of Turkey.
The correlation analyses revealed a significant relationship between monthly income and
other variables. The positive relationships between income-techno-self-efficacy and income-
time-management skills could point out two things. Higher education levels could lead to the
attainment of advanced technological and time-management skills; thus, the higher
education level, the higher is the income (X2 (20, N 5 319) 5 73.34, p < 0.000). Or, the
higher income could be result of a position at a company where advanced technological and
ITP
34,7

1908

Figure 2.
Graphical presentation
of moderation analysis
for techno-self-efficacy

Figure 3.
Graphical presentation
of moderation analysis
for task performance

Figure 4.
Graphical presentation
of moderation analysis
for contextual
performance
time-management skills could be attained through training. Additionally, the positive Technostress
correlations of income with the two performance indicators may have been due to the same and time
reasons discussed above. Having advanced skills combined with low levels of technostress
could end up with high levels of both performances. Interestingly, in path model tests,
management
monthly income revealed no relation. The studies regarding socioeconomic status (e.g.
general income) and work stress/illness are rich with significant findings. However, most of
these studies report low income as one of the main causes of work stress or illness (e.g.,
Williams and Lawler, 2001; Virtanen et al., 2008). This issue was outside the realm of 1909
this study.
Lastly, we also looked if there were significant differences with the technostress felt
among occupational groups (private vs public). One-way ANOVA tests revealed no
differences. There were meaningful differences, however, with ICT usage (non-intensive,
intensive, very intensive) and technostress. For example, while non-intensive users (M 5 2.95
SD 5 0.82) were feeling less technostress than very intensive users (M 5 3.20 SD 5 0.91),
intensive users felt (M 5 2.89 SD 5 0.79) less technostress than very intensive users
(M 5 3.20 SD 5 0.91). These results also confirm the view that more computerized the work,
the more effort is needed and work exhaustion is also greater (Felstead et al., 2019).
The model introduced a dual moderator mechanism. As discussed earlier, the domain-
specific self-efficacy is resourceful to control the stress, but to mitigate or eliminate it, other
tools are required. In this dual mechanism, by training and enhancing employees’ technology
self-efficacy, the sources of technostress can be controlled. However, to get rid of its harms,
time-management techniques might be fruitful. If techno-self-efficacy is not enough to cope
up with technostress, eventually it will lead to burnout, and thus time management may not
suffice to prevent its harm on the performance. The literature indicates that with
computerization, workplaces have started to provide higher-tech training for their
employees, but still, it does not resolve the time pressure issues (O’Driscoll et al., 2009).
Interestingly, time management might not always work as a moderator between stressor–
strain relationships (Jex and Elacqua, 1999). This may particularly be true when the level of
felt stress is high and results in burnout. Additionally, although scholars accept that time
management training may enhance time management skills, it does not automatically
transfer to better performance too (Claessens et al., 2007). Anyway, the model exhibited that
our assumptions were true. Additional analyses showed that the time management skills for
the high techno-self-efficacy group was better (Xhi-SE 5 3.39, SDhi-SE 5 0.73, n 5 173) than the
low techno-self-efficacy group (Xlo-SE 5 2.73, SDlo-SE 5 0.74, n 5 148) and the results were
significant, t(319) 5 7.996, p < 0.000. But to generalize our findings, further research is
required. As we claimed, both moderators seem to function together. What is more,
contextual moderators (i.e. job redesigning, role restructuring and counseling/assistance)
suggested in earlier studies should also be revisited and checked whether they work with
time management.
As revealed by the results, disruptions and drawbacks in the technology used in the
workplace can lead to stress, regardless of gender, and the continuation of this stress might
evolve into a feeling of burnout. In this scenario, it is obvious that stress has both a direct and
an indirect negative effect on employee work performance. It was also determined that when
technological self-efficacy and time management – the moderating effects of which were
investigated in the study, and which were observed to reduce the negative effects in question –
are put to good use by the employer, the negative effects on task and contextual
performances can be reduced. Moreover, interventions such as time-management tools are
practical and easy to implement. It is interesting that time management has already been
coined as a stress-reducing strategy by the literature, but only conceptually (e.g. Ayyagari
et al., 2011). Another interesting point of view from stress literature (Dewe et al., 1993)
distinguishes coping behaviors (or strategies) from coping styles. Coping behaviors are
ITP strategies directed towards specific stressors that help employees to reduce them. Time
34,7 management and task delegation are considered as examples of such coping strategies.
Recent studies suggest additional interventions as well. For example, drawing from positive
psychology stream, Brivio et al. (2018; par. 10) propose to use positive technology. It contains
scientific and applied ways of technology to foster well-being and personal growth through
three domains: “hedonic” (technology is used to generate positive experiences); “eudaimonic”
(technology is designed to support individuals in reaching “engaging and self-actualizing
1910 experiences”); and “social/interpersonal” (technology helps improve connectedness between
individuals or groups). In another study (Ioannou and Papazafeiropoulou, 2017), researchers
discuss how the IT mindfulness could be used to attenuate technostress. Their study revealed
that IT mindfulness has the potential not only to reduce technostress but also enhance user
satisfaction and improve task performance. IT mindfulness has been conceptualized as “a
dynamic IT-specific trait, evident when working with IT whereby the user focuses on the
present, pays attention to detail, exhibits a willingness to consider other uses, and expresses
genuine interest in investigating IT features and failures” (pp. 3–4). It is obvious from all these
attempts that there is still some room for further interventions as the use and intensity of
technology utilization is increasing with each day.
These days, human beings live with all kinds of technology, and technology has now
become an integral component of working life. However, it is understood that technology,
which is designed to make life and work easier, also has the potential to create stress that is
equal to, or perhaps greater than, its benefits. It should be kept in mind that the demand for
“always connected-employees” may end up with the blurring of the line between work and life
and consequently follows a law of diminishing returns (Joyce et al., 2019, p. 2). Although our
model proves that problem-based coping strategy (techno-self-efficacy) works with time
management alongside, some studies found that problem-based coping strategy might reveal
reverse effects (Cheng et al., 2014), particularly in high work stress contexts where, for
example, time pressure might be unbearable.
The issue of technostress as a phenomenon is being investigated in the extant literature;
however, most of this research is taking place primarily in Western developed countries.
Because the number of studies carried out to date is small, this study might encourage
additional research on the topic, especially in developing countries and in different cultures.
Some studies open a new explorable pathway with regards to cultural differences and
whether they play a role in technostress development. For example, a recent one by Ma and
Turel (2019) found that employees higher in power distance and masculinity felt
technostress more intensely and the impact was more amplified for them in a Chinese
sample. In another one, Krishnan (2017) investigated personality and espoused cultural
differences as technostress creators and found both affect technostress levels of Indian
workers. However, we did not check for the cultural differences. We only looked for the
effect of the intensity of IT use among certain work groups (private, public and self-
employed).
Although the focus of this study is to investigate the dark side of technology as a cause of
stress and its effects on task-contextual performances at work, it should be borne in mind
that without technology, we would not have today’s advanced societies. With the progress of
ICTs, we are witnessing unprecedented opportunities and efficiency increases (Cardona
et al., 2013) which have contributed to an increase in both business and individual wealth.
ICTs also enable businesses to accelerate the amount and the quality of tasks they produce.
Yet, like most of the advancements in world history, side effects are inevitable. The hardship
of sustaining the new and complex technologies, the lack of skills to keep up with them and
the time pressures required to meet the continuous demands at work have created an
imbalance resulting in a stressful working environment (Wang et al., 2017; Tarafdar
et al., 2017).
5. Practical implications Technostress
There are practical solutions that can be done during the employee selection process. This and time
includes choosing employees who have technological self-efficacy and time management
skills. During the recruitment process, realistic job previews (RJP) could be administered. The
management
notion behind RJP is to expose a clear and explicit picture of the job (tasks, job environment,
competencies, etc.) and what is expected from the candidate with regard to how to do the job
(Burt, 2015a). The RJP allows the candidate to determine if the job sounds more demanding
than they are capable of doing. Also, by revealing that job is done with and through 1911
computers and includes time pressure as well as a stressful environment will prepare the
candidates beforehand. This will allow the candidate to leave whenever he/she likes during
the recruiting process. Studies have shown that “those candidates that continue with the
application process and are hired are likely to have a higher level of role clarity, more trust in
the organization, more commitment to the organization and job, more job satisfaction, and are
likely to stay in the job longer” (Burt, 2015b, p. 61).
Other tools available to help reduce the harm caused by technostress include time
management interventions or organizational support such as online assistance services when
confronted with a technical problem at work. These strategies are advantageous to both the
employees and the employers.

6. Theoretical implications
This study’s contribution to the technostress literature is threefold. First, it addresses calls for
more rigorous theory-driven research to overcome the so-called “immaturity” caused by a
theoretical approach in the field and thus improve the understanding of the technostress
phenomenon (Tams, 2015, p. 2; Agogo and Hess, 2018). It is also a response to the calls that
emphasize the need to study the appraisal and coping mechanism in understanding this
concept (Tarafdar et al., 2017; Carabel et al., 2017). By introducing a model derived from
appraisal theory, recent studies use the problem-based coping strategy to explain the
relationships in the proposed model. Secondly, it introduces a new moderator, time
management, along with the most used but least understood moderator (Ayyagari et al.,
2011), technological self-efficacy. By this, it aims to fulfil the “missing moderators’ gap” that
technostress research has neglected to date (Tams, 2015). Additionally, it answers the call for
research models with conditional effects based on sound and well-conceptualized theories.
Thirdly, although the interplay between technostress and performance in working life is well
constructed, this study investigates performance by dividing the concept into two types (task
and contextual performances). The concept of performance in technostress literature is
evaluated generally as task performance/individual productivity or end-user performance/
productivity (see Table 1). This approach is also congruent with the view that argues that the
multidimensionality of the employee work performance and its importance for organizational
success (Campbell, 1990).

7. Limitations and future research

One major limitation of this research is its sample size and characteristics. Due to the cross-
sectional nature of the data set, it is difficult to claim causality. Therefore, readers should be
careful when using generalizations to apply the study results to a wider population. For
example, participants in this research were primarily young and middle-aged adults.
Although we provided some information on the extent of their use of technology,
unfortunately, the type of work they did and the type of technology used were both outside
the researchers’ control. Additionally, as argued in previous research, the literature is rich in
terms of the investigation of sources of stress in the workplace (Ayyagari et al., 2011, p. 835).
ITP However, interest in the kinds of challenges posed by the various technologies used in the
34,7 workplace on human psychology and health over the long term is new. In addition, the effects
caused by other sources of stress when combined with technology-related stress in the
workplace are worth further investigation. The use of work-related technological resources at
home can also lead to problems with creating a work–family balance. Although our study
addresses the significance of time management, the issue as to whether the effect of time
management is higher in employees with a personality disorder, especially procrastination
1912 (Steel, 2007), is also worth investigating. The effect of time management, which is one of the
variables in this study, was small, but it points to the fact that personality might have an
effect on technostress.
Other work stressors that interplay with technostress have not been addressed by the
present study. Consideration of this issue in future research would be highly useful. Although
gender difference was not found to be significant in this study, the development of models
looking at gender should be done in additional studies. Studying gender would help
determine if there are any differences in technostress between men and women.
The study of the “time theft” phenomenon, which is still quite new, should be done. This
phenomenon ranks among counterproductive organizational deviant behaviors, from the
perspective of technostress. This issue presents a significant field of study for researchers as
well. The existence of different moderating variables resembling those in this study is also
worthy of consideration (e.g. technical support speed). However, the study could be repeated,
taking into consideration the fact that technology, other than information technologies, such
as fax machines and photocopiers, is also used in the workplace.
There is an interesting study (Farrish and Edwards, 2019) that looked at whether
technostress is an illness and requires accommodation under the terms of the American with
Disabilities Act. However, they claim that there is currently no legal definition for
technostress. Thus, it is up to the courts to decide on its classification. Similar research could
also be set on different country contexts. Lastly, due to the recent developments with regards
to the coronavirus epidemic, billions of people have to work remotely and students need to be
educated online. Majority was not prepared. Organizations, lecturers, students, managers
and employees found themselves in a situation where they must organize and continue both
working and studying instantaneously. As far as we have observed, this has caused a great
deal of strain. Through a different dimension, a new outlook could be gained by modeling new
technostress models that investigate this new and recent development and its effects on
people.

8. Conclusions
Srivastava et al. (2015) argue how the technostress literature made significant advances on
cause and effect relationships including relevant moderators and mediators. But still, as other
scholars put it, there are gaps that needed to be explored more, and the generalizability of
older studies is a necessity. We have been witnessing, like the last epidemic’s effects, that the
use of ICTs is going to increase and widespread into our lives in an unprecedented pace. Even
countries with best infrastructure could not foresee this surge of complex and vast use of
ICTs. There were examples of telecommuting before as well as synchronous/asynchronous
e-learning practices. But this new situation requires not only a sound and solid technical
infrastructure but also a new working and education mentality and adaptation period.

References
Aeon, B. and Aguinis, H. (2017), “It’s about time: new perspectives and insights on time management”,
Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 309-330.
Agogo, D. and Hess, T.J. (2018), “How does tech make you feel? A review and examination of negative Technostress
affective responses to technology use”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 27 No. 5,
pp. 570-599. and time
Ahmad, U.N.U., Amin, S.M. and Ismail, W.K.W. (2014), “Moderating effect of technostress inhibitors
management
on the relationship between technostress creators and organisational commitment”, Journal
Teknologi (Sciences and Engineering), Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 51-62.
Ahuja, M.K., Chudoba, K.M., Kacmar, C.J., McKnight, D.H. and George, J.F. (2007), “IT road warriors:
balancing work– family conflict, job autonomy, and work overload to mitigate turnover 1913
intentions”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Alam, M.A. (2016), “Techno-stress and productivity: survey evidence from the aviation industry”,
Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 50, pp. 62-70.
Atanasoff, L. and Venable, M.A. (2017), “Technostress: implications for adults in the workforce”, The
Career Development Quarterly, Vol. 65, pp. 326-338.
Ayyagari, R., Grover, V. and Purvis, R. (2011), “Technostress: technological antecedents and
implications”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 831-858.
€ urk, H. and Şerbetçi, G.A. (2004), “Time management scale for nurse managers, and
Bahçecik, N., Ozt€
effecting factors”, Y€onetim, Vol. 15 No. 49, pp. 67-78.
Bakker, A.B. and Costa, P.L. (2014), “Chronic job burnout and daily functioning: a theoretical
analysis”, Burnout Research, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 112-119.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Henry Holt, New York.
Bang, H. and Reio, T.G. Jr (2017), “Examining the role of cynicism in the relationships between
burnout and employee behavior”, Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 217-227.
Berg-Beckhoff, G., Nielsen, G. and Larsen, E.L. (2018), “Use of information communication technology
and stress, burnout, and mental health in older, middle-aged, and younger workers – results
from a systematic review”, International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 160-171.
Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1997), “Task performance and contextual performance: the
meaning for personnel selection research”, Human Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 99-109.
Brivio, E., Gaudioso, F., Vergine, I., Mirizzi, C.R., Reina, C., Stellari, A. and Galimberti, C. (2018),
“Preventing technostress through positive technology”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 9, p. 2569.
Burt, C.D. (2015a), “Types of new employee: experience and pre-entry safety expectations”, in New
Employee Safety, Springer, Cham, pp. 23-40.
Burt, C.D. (2015b), “The influences of recruitment processes and selection predictors on new employee
safety”, in New Employee Safety, Springer, Cham, pp. 55-73.
Califf, C., Sarker, S., Sarker, S. and Fitzgerald, C. (2015), “The bright and dark sides of technostress: an
empirical study of healthcare workers”, in Proceedings of the International Conference on
Information Systems (ICIS)”.confproc.
Campbell, J.P. (1990), “Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational
psychology”, in Dunnette, M. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 2nd ed., Vol. 1, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 687-731.
Cao, X. and Sun, J. (2018), “Exploring the effect of overload on the discontinuous intention of social
media users: a S-O-R perspective”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 81, pp. 10-18.
Caprara, G.V., Di Giunta, L., Pastorelli, C. and Eisenberg, N. (2013), “Mastery of negative affect: a
hierarchical model of emotional self-efficacy beliefs”, Psychological Assessment, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 105-116.
Çapri, B. (2006), “Turkish adaptation of the burnout measure: a reliability and validity study”, Mersin
University Faculty of Education Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 62-77.
ITP Carabel, T.C., Martinez, N.O., Garcia, S.A. and Suarez, I.F. (2017), “Technostress in communication and
technology society: scoping literature review from the web of science”, Archivos de Prevenvion y
34,7 Riesgos Laborales, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 18-25.
Cardona, M., Kretschmer, T. and Strobel, T. (2013), “ICT and productivity: conclusions from the
empirical literature”, Information Economics and Policy, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 109-125.
Carroll, L. (2013), “Problem-focused coping”, in Gellman, M.D. and Turner, J.R. (Eds), Encyclopedia of
Behavioral Medicine, Springer, New York, pp. 1540-1541.
1914
Chandra, S., Shirish, A. and Srivastava, S.C. (2019), “Does technostress inhibit employee innovation?
Examining the linear and curvilinear influence of technostress creators”, Communications of
the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 44 No. 1, p. 19.
Chen, L. and Muthitacharoen, A. (2016), “An empirical investigation of the consequences of
technostress: evidence from China”, Information Resources Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 14-36.
Cheng, T., Mauno, S. and Lee, C. (2014), “The buffering effect of coping strategies in the relationship
between job insecurity and employee well-being”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 35
No. 1, pp. 71-94.
Claessens, B.J.C., van Eerde, W., Rutte, C.G. and Roe, R.A. (2007), “A review of the time management
literature”, Personnel Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 255-276.
Dawes, J. (1999), “The relationship between subjective and objective company performance measures
in market orientation research: further empirical evidence”, Marketing Bulletin, Vol. 10,
pp. 65-75.
Delpechitre, D., Black, H.G. and Farrish, J. (2019), “The dark side of technology: examining the impact
of technology overload on salespeople”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 34
No. 2, pp. 317-337.
Devereux, J.M., Hastings, R.P., Noone, S.J., Firth, A. and Totsika, V. (2009), “Social support and coping
as mediators or moderators of the impact of work stressors on burnout in intellectual disability
support staff”, Research in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 367-377.
Dewe, P.J., Cox, T. and Ferguson, E. (1993), “Individual strategies for coping with stress at work: a
review”, Work and Stress, Vol. 7, pp. 5-15.
Dewe, P.J., O’Driscoll, M.P. and Cooper, C.L. (2013), “Theories of psychological stress at work”, in
Gatchel, R.J. and Schultz, I.J. (Eds), Handbook of Occupational Health and Wellness, Springer,
New York, pp. 23-38.
Ennis, L.A. (2005), “The evolution of technostress”, Computers in Libraries, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 10-12.
Farrish, J. and Edwards, C. (2019), “Technostress in the hospitality workplace: is it an illness requiring
accommodation?”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 83-92.
Felstead, A., Gallie, D., Green, F. and Henseke, G. (2019), “The determinants of skills use and work
pressure: a longitudinal analysis”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 730-754.
Fischer, T. and Riedl, R. (2017), “Technostress research: a nurturing ground for measurement
pluralism?”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 40 No. 1,
pp. 375-401.
Fischer, T., Halmerbauer, G., Meyr, E. and Riedl, R. (2017), “Blood pressure measurement: a classic of
stress measurement and its role in technostress research”, Information Systems and
Neuroscience - Gmunden Retreat on NeuroIS, Volume: Lecture Notes in Information Systems
and Organisation, Vol. 25, pp. 25-35.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fuglseth, A.M. and Sørebø, Ø. (2014), “The effects of technostress within the context of employee use
of ICT”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 40, pp. 161-170.
Fuller, C.M., Simmering, M.J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y. and Babin, B.J. (2016), “Common methods variance
detection in business research”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 3192-3198.
Galluch, P.S., Grover, V. and Thatcher, J.B. (2015), “Interrupting the workplace: examining stressors in Technostress
an information technology context”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 16
No. 1, pp. 1-47. and time
Gomes, A.R. (2014), “Positive human functioning in stress situations: an interactive proposal”, in
management
Gomes, A.R., Resende, R. and Albuquerque, A. (Eds), Positive Human Functioning from a
Multidimensional Perspective: Promoting Stress Adaptation, Vol. 1, Nova Science, New York,
pp. 165-194.
Goodman, S.A. and Svyantek, D.J. (1999), “Person–Organization fit and contextual performance: do 1915
shared values matter?”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 254-275.
Hafner, A. and Stock, A. (2010), “Time management training and perceived control of time at work”,
Journal of Psychology, Vol. 144, pp. 429-447.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L. and Kuppelwieser, G.V. (2014), “Partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research”, European Business
Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 106-121.
Halbesleben, J.R. and Buckley, M.R. (2004), “Burnout in organizational life”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 859-879.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity
in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43, pp. 115-135.
Horzum, M.B. and Çakır, O. € (2009), “The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the
online technologies self-efficacy scale”, Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, Vol. 9 No. 3,
pp. 1343-1356.
Hwang, I. and Cha, O. (2018), “Examining technostress creators and role stress as potential threats to
employees’ information security compliance”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 81,
pp. 282-293.
Ioannou, A. and Papazafeiropoulou, A. (2017), “Using IT mindfulness to mitigate the negative
consequences of technostress”, Twenty-third Americas Conference on Information Systems,
Boston.
Jawahar, I.M. (2007), “The influence of perceptions of fairness on performance appraisal reactions”,
Journal of Labor Research, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 735-754.
Jawahar, I.M. and Carr, D. (2007), “Conscientiousness and contextual performance the compensatory
effects of perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22, pp. 330-349.
Jex, S. and Beehr, T. (1991), “Emerging theoretical and methodological issues in the study of work-
related stress”, in Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, JAI Press,
Stamford, pp. 311-365.
Jex, S.M. and Britt, T.W. (2014), Organizational Psychology: A Scientist-Practitioner Approach, 3rd ed,
John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.
Jex, S.M. and Elacqua, T.C. (1999), “Time management as a moderator of relations between stressors
and employee strain”, Work and Stress, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 182-191.
Joyce, C., Fisher, J., Guszcza, J. and Hogan, S.K. (2019), “Positive technology: designing work
environments for digital well-being”, Deloitte Insights, available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/
content/dam/insights/us/articles/4146_BEM-Positive-technology/DI-Positive-technology.pdf.
Khedhaouria, A. and Cucchi, A. (2019), “Technostress creators, personality traits, and job burnout: a
fuzzy-set configurational analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 101, pp. 349-361.
Kinner, V.L., Het, S. and Wolf, O.T. (2014), “Emotion regulation: exploring the impact of stress and
sex”, Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, Vol. 8, pp. 1-8.
Kock, N. (2017), WarpPLS User Manual: Version 6.0, ScriptWarp Systems, Texas.
ITP Koeske, G.F. and Koeske, R.D. (1993), “A preliminary test of a stress-strain outcome model for
reconceptualizing the burnout phenomenon”, Journal of Social Service Research, Vol. 17 Nos 3-4,
34,7 pp. 107-135.
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C.M., Hildebrandt, V.H., de Vet, H.C. and van der Beek, A.J. (2014),
“Measuring individual work performance: identifying and selecting indicators”, Work, Vol. 48
No. 2, pp. 229-238.
Korunka, C. and Vartiainen, M. (2017), “Digital technologies at work are great, aren’t they? The
1916 development of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and their relevance in the
world of work”, in Chmiel, Fraccaroli, F. and Sverke, M. (Eds), An Introduction to Work and
Organizational Psychology: An International Perspective, John Wiley & Sons, NJ, pp. 102-120.
Krishnan, S. (2017), “Personality and espoused cultural differences in technostress creators”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 66, pp. 154-167.
La Torre, G., Esposito, A., Sciarra, I. and Chiappetta, M. (2019), “Definition, symptoms and risk of
techno-stress: a systematic review”, International Archives of Occupational and Environmental
Health, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 13-35.
Lazarus, R.S. (1991), “Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of Emotion”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 46 No. 8, pp. 819-834.
Lee, Y.K., Chang, C.T., Lin, Y. and Cheng, Z.H. (2014), “The dark side of smartphone usage:
psychological traits, compulsive behavior and technostress”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 31, pp. 373-383.
Lei, C.F. and Ngai, E.W.T. (2014), “The double-edged nature of technostress on work performance:
a research model and research agenda”, in ICIS 2014: Thirty Fifth International Conference on
Information Systems, Auckland, pp. 1-8.
Lunenburg, F.C. (2011), “Self-efficacy in the workplace: implications for motivation and performance”,
International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-6.
Ma, Y. and Turel, O. (2019), “Information technology use for work and technostress: effects of power
distance and masculinity culture dimensions”, Cognition, Technology and Work, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 145-157.
Maslach, C. and Jackson, S.E. (1981), Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual, Consulting Pscychologist
Press, Paulo Alto, CA.
Mahapatra, M. and Pillai, R. (2018), “Technostress in organizations: a review of literature”, Research
Papers No. 99, available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2018_rp/99.
Maier, C., Laumer, S. and Eckhardt, A. (2015), “Information technology as daily stressor: pinning
down the causes of burnout”, Journal of Business Economics, Vol. 85 No. 4, pp. 349-387.
Maier, C., Laumer, S., Wirth, J. and Weitzel, T. (2019), “Technostress and the hierarchical levels of
personality: a two-wave study with multiple data samples”, European Journal of Information
Systems, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 496-522.
Maier, C. (2014), “Technostress: theoretical foundation and empirical evidence”, Unpublished
dissertation, Fakult€at Wirtschaftsinformatik und Angewandte Informatik der Otto-Friedrich-
Universit€at.
Marchiori, D.M., Mainardes, E.W. and Rodrigues, R.G. (2019), “Do individual characteristics influence
the types of technostress reported by workers?”, International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 218-230.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2001), “Job burnout”, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 52, pp. 397-422.
Michel, A. (2016), “Burnout and the brain”, available at: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/
observer/burnout-and-the-brain (accessed 22 June 2018).
Moqbel, M., Nevo, S. and Kock, N. (2013), “Organizational members’ use of social networking sites and Technostress
job performance: an exploratory study”, Information Technology and People, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 240-264. and time
Nimrod, G. (2018), “Technostress: measuring a new threat to well-being in later life”, Aging and Mental
management
Health, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 1086-1093.
O’Driscoll, M.P., Biron, C. and Cooper, C.L. (2009), “Chapter 4: work-related technological change and
psychological well-being”, in Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (Ed.), Technology and Psychological Well-
Being, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 106-139. 1917
Pirkkalainen, H., Salo, M., Makkonen, M. and Tarafdar, M. (2017), “Coping with technostress: when
emotional responses fail”, ICIS 2017: Proceedings the 38th International Conference on
Information Systems, Association for Information Systems (AIS), pp. 1-17.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12, pp. 69-82.
Pradhan, R.K. and Jena, L.K. (2016), “Employee performance at workplace: conceptual model and
empirical validation”, Business Perspectives and Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 69-85.
Pransky, G., Finkelstein, S., Berndt, E., Kyle, M., Mackell, J. and Tortorice, D. (2006), “Objective and
self-report work performance measures: a comparative analysis”, International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 390-399.
Ragu-Nathan, T.S., Tarafdar, M., Ragu-Nath, B.S. and Tu, Q. (2008), “The consequences of
technostress for end users in organizations: conceptual development and empirical validation”,
Information Systems Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 417-433.
Riedl, R., Kindermann, H., Auinger, A. and Javor, A. (2013), “Computer breakdown as a stress factor
during task completion under time pressure: identifying gender differences based on skin
conductance”, Advances in Human–Computer Interaction, Vol. 2013, p. 7.
Riedl, R. (2013), “On the biology of technostress: literature review and research agenda”, The DATA
BASE for Advances in Information Systems, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 18-55.
Romppel, M., Herrman-Lingen, C., Wachter, R., Edelmann, F., D€ungen, H.-D., Pieske, B. and Grande, G.
(2013), “A short form of the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE-6): development, psychometric
properties and validity in an intercultural non-clinical sample and a sample of patients at risk
for heart failure”, GMS Psycho-Social-Medicine, Vol. 10, pp. 1-7.
Sabelis, I. (2001), “Time management paradoxes and patterns”, Time and Society, Vol. 10 Nos 2/3,
pp. 387-400.
Salanova, M., Llorens, S. and Cifre, E. (2014), “The dark side of technologies: technostress among users
of information and communication technologies”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 48
No. 3, pp. 422-436.
Salo, M., Pirkkalainen, H. and Koskelainen, T. (2019), “Technostress and social networking services:
explaining users’ concentration, sleep, identity, and social relation problems”, Information
Systems Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 408-435.
Sarabadani, J., Carter, M. and Compeau, D.R. (2018), “10 Years of research on technostress creators
and inhibitors: synthesis and critique”, in AIS (Ed.), Proceedings of AMCIS, 2018 [online].
Scherer, K.R. (2001), Appraisal Processes in Emotion: Theory, Methods, Research, Oxford University
Press, New York, NY.
Shu, Q., Tu, Q. and Wang, K. (2011), “The impact of computer self-efficacy and technology dependence
on computer-related technostress: a social cognitive theory perspective”, International Journal
of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 27 No. 10, pp. 923-939.
Smith, C.A. and Kirby, L.D. (2009), “Putting appraisal in context: toward a relational model of
appraisal and emotion”, Cognition and Emotion, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 1352-1372.
Sobel, M.E. (1982), “Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation
models”, Sociological Methodology, Vol. 13, pp. 290-312.
ITP Sonnentag, S., Volmer, J. and Spychala, A. (2008), “Job performance”, in Micro Approaches, Sage
Handbook of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 1, pp. 427-447.
34,7
Speier, C., Vessey, I. and Valacich, J.S. (2003), “The effects of interruptions, task complexity, and
information presentation on computer-supported decision-making performance”, Decision
Sciences, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 771-797.
Srivastava, S.C., Chandra, S. and Shirish, A. (2015), “Technostress creators and job outcomes:
theorising the moderating influence of personality traits”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 25
1918 No. 4, pp. 355-401.
Steel, P. (2007), “The Nature of Procrastination: a meta analytic and Theoretical review of
quintessential self-regulatory failure”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 133 No. 1, pp. 65-94.
Stich, J., Tarafdar, M., Stacey, P.K. and Cooper, C.L. (2019), “Email load, workload stress and desired
email load”, Information Technology and People, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 430-452.
Tams, S., Legoux, R. and Leger, P. (2018a), “Smartphone withdrawal creates stress: a moderated
mediation model of nomophobia, social threat, and phone withdrawal context”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 81, pp. 1-9.
Tams, S., Thatcher, J.B. and Grover, V. (2018b), “Concentration, competence, confidence, and capture:
an experimental study of age, interruption-based technostress, and task performance”, Journal
of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 9, p. 2.
Tams, S. (2015), “Challenges in technostress research: guiding future work”, Emergent Research
Forum papers, Twenty-first Americas Conference on Information Systems, Puerto Rico, pp. 1-7.
Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, B.S. and Ragu-Nathan, T.S. (2007), “The impact of technostress on
role stress and productivity”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 301-328.
Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q. and Ragu-Nathan, T.S. (2010), “Impact of technostress on end-user satisfaction
and performance”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 303-334.
Tarafdar, M., Pullins, E.B. and Ragu-Nathan, T.S. (2014), “Examining impacts of technostress on the
professional salesperson’s behavioural performance”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 51-69.
Tarafdar, M., Pullins, E.B. and Ragu-Nathan, T.S. (2015), “Technostress: negative effect on
performance and possible mitigations”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 103-132.
Tarafdar, M., Cooper, C.L. and Stich, J.-F. (2017), “The technostress trifecta - techno eustress, techno
distress and design: theoretical directions and an agenda for research”, Information Systems
Journal, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 6-42.
Tarafdar, M., Maier, C., Laumer, S. and Weitzel, T. (2020), “Explaining the link between technostress
and technology addiction for social networking sites: a study of distraction as a coping
behavior”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 96-124.
uren, U., Erdem, H. and Kalkın, G. (2015), “Techno-stress at work scale: a research in aviation and
T€
banking sectors”, Journal of Labour Relations, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Turel, O. and Gaudioso, F. (2018), “Techno-stressors, distress and strain: the roles of leadership and
competitive climates”, Cognition, Technology and Work, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 309-324.
Umair, A., Conboy, K. and Whelan, E. (2019), “Understanding the influence of technostress on
workers’ job satisfaction in GIG-economy: an exploratory investigation”, Proceedings of the
27th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Stockholm and Uppsala, Sweden,
June 8-14, 2019, ISBN 978-1-7336325-0-8, Research-in-Progress Papers, available at: https://aisel.
aisnet.org/ecis2019_rip/34.
Virtanen, M., Koskinen, S., Kivim€aki, M., Honkonen, T., Vahtera, J., Ahola, K. and L€ohnqvist, J. (2008),
“Contribution of non-work and work-related risk factors to the association between income and
mental disorders in a working population: the Health 2000 Study”, Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, Vol. 65, pp. 171-178.
Wang, W., Kakhki, M.D. and Uppala, V. (2017), “The interaction effect of technostress and non- Technostress
technological stress on employees’ performance”, Twenty-third Americas Conference on
Information Systems, Boston, pp. 1-5. and time
Wang, X., Tan, S.C. and Li, L. (2020), “Measuring university students’ technostress in technology-
management
enhanced learning: scale development and validation”, Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 96-112.
Weinert, C., Christian, M., Laumer, S. and Weitzel, T. (2020), “Technostress mitigation: an
experimental study of social support during a computer freeze”, Journal of Business 1919
Economics, Vol. 90, pp. 1199-1249.
Williams, D. and Lawler, K.A. (2001), “Stress and illness in low-income women: the roles of hardiness,
John Henryism, and race”, Women and Health, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 61-75.
Yan, Z., Guo, X., Lee, M.K. and Vogel, D.R. (2013), “A conceptual model of technology features and
technostress in telemedicine communication”, Information Technology and People, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 283-297.
Yeh, W.Y., Cheng, Y. and Chen, C.J. (2009), “Social patterns of pay systems and their associations with
psychosocial job characteristics and burnout among paid employees in Taiwan”, Social Science
and Medicine, Vol. 68 No. 8, pp. 1407-1415.
Yuvaraj, M. and Singh, A.K. (2015), “Effects and measures of technostress among librarians in
selected University libraries of Delhi”, Library Philosophy and Practice, Vol. 1, pp. 1-11.
Zacher, H., Heusner, S., Schmitz, M., Zwierzanska, M.M. and Frese, M. (2010), “Focus on opportunities
as a mediator of the relationships between age, job complexity, and work performance”, Journal
of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 374-386.

Corresponding author
Aykut Arslan can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]