Turning Interruptions Into Engagement? a Daily Approach to the Study of Interruptions on the Employee Engagement of Knowledge Workers
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TURNING INTERRUPTIONS INTO ENGAGEMENT? A DAILY APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF INTERRUPTIONS ON THE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE WORKERS Shelby Wise A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY August 2019 Committee: Margaret Brooks, Advisor Dena Eber Graduate Faculty Representative Clare Barrett Eric Dubow © 2019 Shelby Wise All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Margaret Brooks, Advisor Workplace interruptions are a job demand that are becoming a reality of work, primarily because of advances in technology and increased connectivity. This is particularly true for knowledge workers who are constantly connected, largely autonomous, and often flexible to work anywhere, anytime. This is concerning as research shows that interruptions negatively influence employee’s satisfaction, performance, and well-being (e.g. Bailey & Konstan, 2006; Eyrolle & Cellier, 2000; Trafton, Altmann, Brock, & Mintz, 2003). However, through the evolution of the Job-Demands Resource Model, it was found that job demands may not be all bad. Demands that are perceived as challenging rather than hindering, motivate employees thus influencing performance and well-being outcomes like employee engagement. The present study examined whether task-based interruptions that have inherently motivating qualities positively affect employee engagement. Additionally, I assessed whether the context (frequency, length, and unexpectedness) of task-based interruptions negatively influence engagement. Results of this study suggested that neither the frequency with which one is interrupted nor the length of time it takes to resolve a task-based interruption influenced engagement. However, the extent to which a task-based interruption was unexpected did negatively relate to engagement in that those that were more unexpected were more detrimental to this construct. All of the job characteristics tested, positively and significantly related to engagement suggesting that the extent to which interruptions provide opportunities for challenging and interesting work may increase employee investment and motivation. Overall, this study suggests that all interruptions are not inherently negative or harmful to employees. Rather, there are conditions under which knowledge workers iv may benefit from the participation in task-based interruptions. Future research is needed to better understand the boundary conditions under which interruptions may influence other well-being and organizational outcomes. v This dissertation is dedicated to my family and friends. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to acknowledge my advisor who not only provided her invaluable expertise but also supported me extensively throughout graduate school career. Her dedication to student’s education is unparalleled and I am forever grateful for all she has taught me over the years. I would also like to thank my committee members who consistently provided helpful and insightful feedback that vastly improved this study design. In addition, I would like to thank my parents who always pushed me to work hard. Without their support, I would not have been able to accomplish this goal. My classmates at BGSU also greatly contributed to this project both through their academic expertise but also through their friendship. I am extremely grateful that I was able to go through this process with such a smart and kind group of people. I also want to thank my coworkers who were always willing to talk through my research ideas, kept me on track to finish this work in a timely manner, and suggested papers they thought would be helpful. Lastly, I want to acknowledge my fiancé who pushed me when I needed it, got me out of dissertation mode when a mental break was necessary, and brought me snacks while I was writing. Without you, this project may not have been possible. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………………………...... 1 JOB-DEMANDS RESOURCE MODEL…………………………………………………… 2 ENGAGEMENT…………………………………………………………………………… 4 THE JOB CHARACTERISTICS MODEL………………………………………………… 7 INTERRUPTIONS…………………………………………………………………………. 9 Process Characteristics and Engagement…………………………………………... 11 INTERRUPTIONS AND MOTIVATIONAL THEORIES……………………………….. 15 Interruption Content and Engagement……………………………………… .…….. 15 WHY KNOWLEDGE WORKERS…………………………………………….…………… 20 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………… 23 METHODS………………………………………………………………………………….. 24 Procedure…………………………………………………………………………… 24 Participants………………………………………………………………………… 27 Measures……………………………………………………………………………. 28 Demographics……………………………………………………………… 28 Daily Measures……………………………………………………………... 28 Employee Engagement…………………………………………………….. 28 Interruption Characteristics…………………………………………….. ...... 29 RESULTS…………………………………………………………………………………... 32 DISCUSSION………………… …………………………………………………………… 34 Limitations…………………………………………………………………………. 38 viii Future Research…………………………………………….. ................................... 39 Conclusion…………………………………………….. ........................................... 40 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………… 42 APPENDIX A. TABLES……………………………………… ..................................…… 57 APPENDIX B. RECRUITMENT SCRIPT………………………………………………… 61 APPENDIX C. QUALIFICATION SURVEY……………………………………………… 62 APPENDIX D. DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY……………………………………………… 63 APPENDIX E. DAILY SURVEY…………… ................………………………………… 65 APPENDIX F. IRB CONSENT DOCUMENT…………… ……………………………… 68 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Differential Impacts of Demands on Engagement ..................................................... 6 2 The Hypothesized Relationship Between Interruption Characteristics and Engagement ............................................................................................................... 11 Running head: INTERRUPTIONS AND ENGAGEMENT 1 LITERATURE REVIEW Interruptions are a job demand derived from “incidents or occurrences that impede or delay organizational members as they attempt to make progress on work tasks” (Jett & George, 2003, p. 494). Interruptions are an ever-increasing reality of the workplace, primarily because of advances in technology and increased connectivity (ten Brummelhuis, Bakker, Hetland, & Keulmans, 2012). As an example, a study conducted in Europe found that almost 33% of employees agree that they are interrupted numerous times throughout a typical workday (Boisard, Cartron, Gollac, Valeyre, & Besanacon, 2003). This is concerning as research confirms the detrimental effects of interruptions on work including decreases in job satisfaction (Kirkcaldy & Martin, 2000), longer completion time, and more errors (Bailey & Konstan, 2006; Eyrolle & Cellier, 2000; Trafton, Altmann, Brock, & Mintz, 2003). Additionally, research suggests that interruptions are more complicated in that the extent to which they are harmful is related to their general duration, frequency, and unexpectedness (Jett & George, 2003) which I evaluate in this study. However, largely unstudied, are the characteristics of interruptions that may provide motivating and energizing mechanisms. With this study, using both the Job-Demands Resource model and Job Characteristics Model, I test whether specific qualities of task-based interruptions (i.e. opportunities for skill variety, autonomy, feedback, task identity, and task significance) positively contribute to knowledge workers’ employee engagement -- a construct of ever- growing importance to organizations, because of its positive relation to performance and company profit (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011; Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). INTERRUPTIONS AND ENGAGEMENT 2 JOB-DEMANDS RESOURCE MODEL The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, built off of the well-known Job Demands- Control model (Karasek, 1979) and Effort Reward Imbalance (ERI) model (Siegrist, 1996), describes the process by which health and well-being are related to the combination of one’s resources and job demands (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). The general idea is that job demands drive negative well-being outcomes such as burnout or stress (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Job demands are defined as those aspects of the job that involve substantial physical, cognitive, or emotional effort. Specific examples of job demands include time pressure, work overload, and conflict with coworkers. Resources contribute to positive well-being outcomes like engagement. Resources are defined as job or company characteristics that contribute to the achievement of work goals, alleviates the stress related to job demands, or promotes stimulation or development. In addition to contributing to positive outcomes, resources may also buffer the negative effects from job demands (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). As an example, Bakker, Demerouti, and Euwema (2005), found that resources like feedback, autonomy, and the relationship with one’s supervisor did negate some of the detrimental effects of job demands on burnout. Resources may be personal (i.e. self-efficacy), related to the job (i.e. job control), or the social structure of work (i.e. social support). Since it was first developed in 2001, there has been a lot of empirical work on the JD-R model supporting its utility but also contributing to its development over time (e.g. Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004; Broeck, Cuyper, De Witte, & Vansteenkiste, 2010; Hakanen, Schaufeli, & Ahola, 2008; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2007). It was originally thought that all demands acted similarly in that they were harmful