Eustress and Distress in the Context of Telework

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic brought numerous changes, including changes in work arrangements. Many organizations turned to telework as a means of maintaining operations during COVID-19 related restrictions. In some cases, employers mandated telework; if employees wanted to maintain their positions, they often had little choice in the matter. For many workers, the shift to telework was jarring and abrupt. The effects of this shift were vast and many will be long-lasting, with some employers going so far as claiming that telework is the new conventional workplace (Sinclair et al., 2020). Because of these changes, it is important to understand the effects of telework on workers. Humanistic effects, such as job satisfaction, are especially important given the relative paucity of information systems research concerning humanistic outcomes (Sarker et al., 2019).

Telework presents numerous challenges for workers; some are related to the physical (and sometimes temporal) separation from coworkers and managers. The resulting difficulties are not limited to instrumental problems, such as functioning technology and finding new ways to complete work tasks. Social difficulties also exist; for instance, social isolation is often cited as a negative aspect of telework (Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Norman et al., 1995).

These challenges are exacerbated when telework is forced, rather than a matter of choice. In these cases, teleworkers are especially subject to stress. Stress is a matter of enduring interest among telework researchers and practitioners (Fonner & Roloff, 2012; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Weinert et al., 2015; Weinert et al., 2014) and is increasingly important as telework becomes part of a “new normal.” In this paper, we use the stressor–stress response–outcome framework (Simmons & Nelson, 2001) to investigate the antecedents and outcomes of two distinct types of telework stress subprocesses, namely, telework distress, which results in negative responses to stressors, and telework eustress, which results in positive responses.

As indicated previously, not all stress is detrimental to workers’ well-being. Eustress, which is a response to a stressor that is seen as beneficial in achieving goals, enhances well-being, whereas distress responses reduce well-being (Califf et al., 2020; Selye, 1974; Simmons & Nelson, 2007; Tarafdar et al., 2017). To date, telework stress research has not adequately considered the possibility of beneficial stress. This focus on harmful stress and stress responses resulted in emphasizing how to reduce harmful stress (e.g., Song & Gao, (2020), Weinert et al., (2014)), rather than enhance beneficial stress. Although our conceptual logic draws on prior research into stress in other contexts, such as technostress, the context of telework is conceptually distinct from technostress due to the stresses brought about by the distance element of telework, and the need to negotiate work-family boundaries.

The lack of research into telework eustress is unfortunate given the resurgence in interest in telework due to COVID-19. The dramatic, sudden shift in the importance of telework and in the number of teleworkers provides an interesting opportunity to study telework stress and its effects. Understanding the effects of stress in this context is especially interesting because abrupt changes in work routines are likely to be stress-inducing.

We contend that understanding the nature, causes, and consequences of telework-related stress is a matter of societal importance. Telework represents a distinct confluence of social and technical challenges with clear societal consequences related to telework’s impact on workers and their families.

We undertake three research objectives:

• 1.

  Establish that eustress and distress responses are different stress responses in the context of telework.

• 2.

  Examine the effects of eustress and distress on telework outcomes.

• 3.

  Investigate antecedents of eustress and distress.