Paradoxical Effects of Teleworking on Workers’ Well-Being in the COVID-19 Context: A Comparison Between Different Public Administrations and the Private Sector

IF 3.1 3区 管理学 Q1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR
M. Boulet, Annick Parent-Lamarche
{"title":"Paradoxical Effects of Teleworking on Workers’ Well-Being in the COVID-19 Context: A Comparison Between Different Public Administrations and the Private Sector","authors":"M. Boulet, Annick Parent-Lamarche","doi":"10.1177/00910260221102943","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study examines workers’ well-being during the first lockdown by comparing teleworkers to on-site workers across the private sector and public administrations. Using a sample of workers (N = 471) collected online, we noted a positive association between telework and well-being. When sector is introduced, this relationship disappears, and public service workers display a higher level of well-being compared with health and social service workers. The impact of teleworking differs across sectors, highlighting the relevance of the contingent approach of human resource management (HRM). Nonetheless, our results indicated that teleworkers who prefer the segmentation of work–life boundaries display a lower level of well-being than those who prefer the integration of these boundaries. For HRM practitioners of all sectors, this finding is essential to remember after the pandemic because organizations should avoid imposing teleworking universally. Flexibility will be required to be inclusive and to preserve the well-being of all employees.","PeriodicalId":47366,"journal":{"name":"Public Personnel Management","volume":"51 1","pages":"430 - 457"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Personnel Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260221102943","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This study examines workers’ well-being during the first lockdown by comparing teleworkers to on-site workers across the private sector and public administrations. Using a sample of workers (N = 471) collected online, we noted a positive association between telework and well-being. When sector is introduced, this relationship disappears, and public service workers display a higher level of well-being compared with health and social service workers. The impact of teleworking differs across sectors, highlighting the relevance of the contingent approach of human resource management (HRM). Nonetheless, our results indicated that teleworkers who prefer the segmentation of work–life boundaries display a lower level of well-being than those who prefer the integration of these boundaries. For HRM practitioners of all sectors, this finding is essential to remember after the pandemic because organizations should avoid imposing teleworking universally. Flexibility will be required to be inclusive and to preserve the well-being of all employees.
新冠肺炎背景下远程工作对工人健康的悖论效应:不同公共行政部门和私营部门的比较
这项研究通过比较私营部门和公共行政部门的远程工作者和现场工作者,考察了第一次封锁期间工人的幸福感。使用在线收集的员工样本(N=471),我们注意到远程工作与幸福感之间存在正相关。当引入该部门时,这种关系消失了,与卫生和社会服务工作者相比,公共服务工作者表现出更高的幸福感。远程工作的影响因部门而异,突出了人力资源管理应急方法的相关性。尽管如此,我们的研究结果表明,喜欢划分工作-生活边界的远程工作者比喜欢整合这些边界的远程劳动者表现出更低的幸福感。对于所有部门的人力资源管理从业者来说,在疫情之后,这一发现至关重要,因为组织应该避免普遍实施远程工作。灵活性将被要求具有包容性,并维护所有员工的福祉。
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
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.30%
发文量
19
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信