Staying in the loop: Is constant connectivity to work good or bad for work performance?

Highlights

• We differentiate between two sides of connectivity: availability and interruptions.

• Daily availability related to higher work performance through communication effectiveness

• Daily interruptions related to less communication control and lower work performance

• Employees receive more instrumental support on days in which they are more available.

• Employees give more instrumental support on days in which they are often interrupted.

Abstract

This study addressed the question of how two sides of being constantly connected to work (i.e., availability and interruptions) affect work performance. Applying Self-Determination Theory's (SDT) three basic human needs to the communication realm, we examine how being available for others versus being interrupted by others affects feelings of communication control (autonomy), communication effectiveness (competence), and social support given to and received from coworkers (relatedness). In turn, we examine how availability and interruptions relate to work performance through those three mechanisms. The results of Study 1, a five-day diary study among 317 employees (n = 1135 days) show that daily availability is positively related to work performance through higher levels of communication effectiveness. Daily interruptions are directly negatively related to work performance. Whereas daily availability is positively related to experienced communication control, daily interruptions undermine feelings of control. Study 2, a five-day diary study among 72 employees (n = 324 days) replicates those findings. The two studies further reveal that on days on which employees are more available they provide more emotional support, and they receive more instrumental support from coworkers. On days with more interruptions, employees provide more instrumental support to colleagues. The findings advance theory by applying insights from SDT to the organizational communication literature, developing and testing a model that explains why constant connectivity has pros and cons for work performance.

Introduction

New media technology enables employees to develop intense patterns of communication, often resulting in being connected to work 24/7 (Mazmanian, 2013; Perlow, 2012; Wajcman & Rose, 2011). Connectivity is defined as the mechanisms, processes, systems and relationships that link individuals and collectives (e.g. groups, organizations, cultures, societies) by facilitating material, informational and/or social exchange (Kolb et al., 2012). The literature on connectivity generally shows a paradox in the impact of increased connectivity on employees and organizations (Sonnentag et al., 2018). On the one hand, the advantages of increased connectivity include a faster work pace (Cavazotte et al., 2014; Chesley, 2010), knowledge sharing (Choi et al., 2010), and high work engagement (Ter Hoeven et al., 2016). On the other hand, various downsides of constant connectivity have been reported, including more stress, anger, and work-life conflict (Barley et al., 2011; Butts et al., 2015; Ďuranová & Ohly, 2016), as well as reduced time to recover from work (Barber & Jenkins, 2014; Barber & Santuzzi, 2015; Cole, 2016).

In the communication literature, the opposing features of constant connectivity have often been ascribed to the autonomy paradox (Mazmanian, 2013; Mazmanian et al., 2013; Putnam et al., 2014). In short, the autonomy paradox explains that on the one hand, being able to connect to work anytime, anywhere, increases feelings of autonomy. Individually, employees supported by new media technology (e.g., email, messaging) feel that they can decide when they are available for others and believe that their availability helps them to stay on top of their work (Mazmanian et al., 2013). At the collective level, however, increased connectivity leads to more incoming messages for everyone, causing interruptions (Barley et al., 2011), which diminishes feelings of autonomy. Recently, Day et al. (2019) identified two additional paradoxes of continuous connectivity due to Information Communication Technology (ICT) use: the productivity paradox and the social connectivity paradox. The productivity paradox describes how being connected to work through ICT facilitates fast and effective communication, thereby enabling employees to work more efficiently. On the other hand, incoming messages and interruptions lower productivity because employees are overloaded with information, which not only is a risk for communication quality (e.g., miscommunication or missing messages), but also increases time required to process information and to respond to messages. The social connectivity paradox suggests that being connected to others through electronic communication might reduce feelings of isolation and fosters cooperation among coworkers (Day et al., 2019). The other side of the coin, however, is that ongoing communication throughout the day might feel as an intrusion, triggering negative emotions or misunderstandings (Puranik et al., 2020), thereby undermining relationships with others at work.

Whereas the implications of constant connectivity for employee well-being have been well-documented (Bűchler et al., 2020; Day et al., 2012; Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012), the opposing implications of being constantly connected to work make it theoretically difficult to predict what the eventual impact on work performance is. This question is, however, particularly relevant for organizations since employee performance has strong financial implications for organizations (Huselid, 1995). Based on insights from the three paradoxes, we suggest that the advantages of constant connectivity (enhanced control, efficiency, and cooperation) are due to employees' availability for others, whereas the pitfalls of constant connectivity (reduced control, inefficiency, and impaired relationships) are caused by the interruptions that are inherent to being connected via new media technology. Accordingly, we distinguish between two sides of constant connectivity – availability and interruptions, with the goal to examine their effects on work performance. We define availability as an active communication style whereby employees are accessible for others at work and respond to messages in a timely manner. Interruptions are defined as “synchronous interactions which are not initiated by the recipient, are unscheduled, and result in the recipient discontinuing their current activity” (Rennecker & Godwin, 2005, p. 250).

In line with the three paradoxes described by Day et al., (2019), we use Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Van den Broeck et al., 2016) as our guiding framework and examine how availability and interruptions affect employees' needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. More specifically, we apply SDT's insights to a communication context that fits with the three ICT paradoxes (Day et al., 2019) and examine how availability and interruptions affect work performance through their impact on communication control, communication effectiveness, and social support between coworkers. We test the proposed model (Fig. 1) in two five-day diary studies. A daily diary design captures fluctuating (i.e., availability) or episodic events (i.e., interruptions) and is thus particularly suitable to examine how availability and interruptions, which may fluctuate between days, affect daily performance.

Our study contributes to the literature in three ways. First, we complement previous research that examined the well-being implications of connectivity (Bűchler et al., 2020; Day et al., 2012; Ter Hoeven et al., 2016) with insights on the relation between connectivity and employee performance. Whereas various qualitative studies have asked employees if and how being connected to work through new media technologies helps them to be more effective at work (Cavazotte et al., 2014; Matusik & Mickel, 2011; Mazmanian et al., 2013), very little is known about the quantitatively measured impact of constant connectivity on work performance. Our study fills this gap by examining how two sides of constant connectivity (availability and interruptions) relate to work performance, thereby continuing the line of research that examines positive and negative implications of constant connectivity (Sonnentag et al., 2018). Such insights are key to employees and employers who seek to maximize the benefits of connectivity for work, while limiting its possible downsides.

Second, we expand and test the theoretical underpinnings of why constant connectivity might have both positive and negative effects on work performance. The autonomy paradox has been described in various qualitative studies (Cavazotte et al., 2014; Leonardi et al., 2010; Matusik & Mickel, 2011; Mazmanian, 2013; Mazmanian et al., 2013). However, its main assumption – that constant connectivity has two sides that are differently related to feelings of autonomy – has, to our knowledge, not yet been tested quantitatively. Similarly, we hope to contribute to the literature by testing the conceptually proposed productivity paradox and social connectivity paradox (Day et al., 2019) as mechanisms that explain why constant connectivity has opposing effects on work performance. Building on this conceptual work, we develop and test a model that specifies that availability can foster, whereas interruptions undermine feelings of autonomy (i.e., communication control), competence (i.e., communication effectiveness) and relatedness at work (i.e., social support given to and received from coworkers), thereby explaining the paradoxical implications of connectivity.

Finally, from a methodological standpoint, we solidify our contributions by using daily diary studies. Diary designs capture “life as it is lived” considering daily variability in employees' work experiences (Bolger et al., 2003). Diary studies allow for within-person comparisons and enable us to examine whether daily differences in connectivity explain why work outcomes of the same person are higher on some days than on others. This approach is particularly important because connectivity might differ per day (e.g., a day with scheduled meetings versus an ‘off the grid’ day during a work trip), and hence, feelings of control (Mazmanian et al., 2013), communication effectiveness, social support given to coworkers, and work performance may fluctuate between days. This approach fits with the recent trend in the OB literature to examine organizational phenomena at smaller units of analysis (Christian et al., 2015; Dalal et al., 2014; Parker, 2014), as those smaller units of analysis do justice to what happens in daily life.