The end of boundaries: Technovation, technostress, and the rise of the neo work-life domain

IF 4.6 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
Toyin Ajibade Adisa, Gbolahan Gbadamosi, Kareem Folohunso Sani, Benjamin Laker, Opeoluwa Aiyenitaju
{"title":"The end of boundaries: Technovation, technostress, and the rise of the neo work-life domain","authors":"Toyin Ajibade Adisa, Gbolahan Gbadamosi, Kareem Folohunso Sani, Benjamin Laker, Opeoluwa Aiyenitaju","doi":"10.1177/00187267261482002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Do digital boundaries still exist, or have mobile devices permanently collapsed the threshold between office and home? In this era of pervasive technovation, the traditional separation between professional and personal lives is undergoing a qualitative ontological collapse. Moving beyond the ‘boundary-blurring’ narrative, we theorise the generative mechanism behind this collapse: the sociomaterial entanglement of technological affordances, neoliberal organisational norms, and worker habitus. Drawing on a qualitative study of 42 UK professionals that uses the Gioia methodology, we analyse how hyperconnectivity reconfigures the work-life interface into a state of indistinction. Our findings reveal that employees adopt deliberate integration not as a preference but as a structural survival strategy within a high-responsiveness culture, facilitating the neo work-life domain. We conceptualise this neo work-life domain as a unitary, nomadic space where roles are perpetually concurrent and structured by an internalised professional habitus. Living within this neo work-life domain produces deeply paradoxical outcomes: While providing vital ICT resources, it generates compounded technostress, an environment where simultaneous stressors overwhelm cognitive recovery. Because compounded technostress triggers acute psychological risks, our primary theoretical contribution proposes that contemporary labour has fundamentally shifted from boundary management to attention management. We define ‘attention management’ as the cognitive filtering of role simultaneity and argue that it represents the final contested terrain of modern work. We conclude by highlighting the UK’s institutional ‘void’ and underscoring the urgent need for structural interventions, such as a statutory ‘right to disconnect’, to protect cognitive autonomy in a borderless neo work-life domain.","PeriodicalId":48433,"journal":{"name":"Human Relations","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Relations","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267261482002","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Do digital boundaries still exist, or have mobile devices permanently collapsed the threshold between office and home? In this era of pervasive technovation, the traditional separation between professional and personal lives is undergoing a qualitative ontological collapse. Moving beyond the ‘boundary-blurring’ narrative, we theorise the generative mechanism behind this collapse: the sociomaterial entanglement of technological affordances, neoliberal organisational norms, and worker habitus. Drawing on a qualitative study of 42 UK professionals that uses the Gioia methodology, we analyse how hyperconnectivity reconfigures the work-life interface into a state of indistinction. Our findings reveal that employees adopt deliberate integration not as a preference but as a structural survival strategy within a high-responsiveness culture, facilitating the neo work-life domain. We conceptualise this neo work-life domain as a unitary, nomadic space where roles are perpetually concurrent and structured by an internalised professional habitus. Living within this neo work-life domain produces deeply paradoxical outcomes: While providing vital ICT resources, it generates compounded technostress, an environment where simultaneous stressors overwhelm cognitive recovery. Because compounded technostress triggers acute psychological risks, our primary theoretical contribution proposes that contemporary labour has fundamentally shifted from boundary management to attention management. We define ‘attention management’ as the cognitive filtering of role simultaneity and argue that it represents the final contested terrain of modern work. We conclude by highlighting the UK’s institutional ‘void’ and underscoring the urgent need for structural interventions, such as a statutory ‘right to disconnect’, to protect cognitive autonomy in a borderless neo work-life domain.
边界的终结:技术创新、技术压力和新工作生活领域的兴起
数字边界是否仍然存在,或者移动设备是否已经彻底打破了办公室和家庭之间的界限?在这个技术无处不在的时代,传统的职业生活和个人生活的分离正在经历一场定性的本体论崩溃。超越“边界模糊”的叙述,我们将这种崩溃背后的生成机制理论化:技术支持、新自由主义组织规范和工人习惯的社会物质纠缠。利用对42名英国专业人士使用焦亚方法论进行的定性研究,我们分析了超连接如何将工作-生活界面重新配置为一种不区分的状态。我们的研究结果表明,在高响应性文化中,员工采用有意识的整合并不是一种偏好,而是一种结构性的生存策略,从而促进了新工作生活领域的发展。我们将这种新工作生活领域概念化为一个统一的、游牧的空间,在这个空间中,角色永远是同步的,并由内化的职业习惯构成。生活在这种新工作-生活领域产生了非常矛盾的结果:在提供重要的信息通信技术资源的同时,它产生了复杂的技术压力,在这种环境中,同时出现的压力压倒了认知恢复。由于复合技术压力会引发急性心理风险,我们的主要理论贡献提出,当代劳动力已经从根本上从边界管理转向了注意力管理。我们将“注意力管理”定义为角色同时性的认知过滤,并认为它代表了现代工作的最终竞争领域。最后,我们强调了英国的制度“空白”,并强调了迫切需要进行结构性干预,例如法定的“断开连接的权利”,以保护无国界的新工作生活领域的认知自主权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Human Relations
Human Relations Multiple-
CiteScore
12.60
自引率
7.00%
发文量
82
期刊介绍: Human Relations is an international peer reviewed journal, which publishes the highest quality original research to advance our understanding of social relationships at and around work through theoretical development and empirical investigation. Scope Human Relations seeks high quality research papers that extend our knowledge of social relationships at work and organizational forms, practices and processes that affect the nature, structure and conditions of work and work organizations. Human Relations welcomes manuscripts that seek to cross disciplinary boundaries in order to develop new perspectives and insights into social relationships and relationships between people and organizations. Human Relations encourages strong empirical contributions that develop and extend theory as well as more conceptual papers that integrate, critique and expand existing theory. Human Relations welcomes critical reviews and essays: - Critical reviews advance a field through new theory, new methods, a novel synthesis of extant evidence, or a combination of two or three of these elements. Reviews that identify new research questions and that make links between management and organizations and the wider social sciences are particularly welcome. Surveys or overviews of a field are unlikely to meet these criteria. - Critical essays address contemporary scholarly issues and debates within the journal''s scope. They are more controversial than conventional papers or reviews, and can be shorter. They argue a point of view, but must meet standards of academic rigour. Anyone with an idea for a critical essay is particularly encouraged to discuss it at an early stage with the Editor-in-Chief. Human Relations encourages research that relates social theory to social practice and translates knowledge about human relations into prospects for social action and policy-making that aims to improve working lives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书