2004
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsvraagstukken
  4. Volume 39, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 39, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 0169-2216
  • E-ISSN: 2468-9424

Abstract

Samenvatting

De impact van gedwongen thuiswerken en vervolgens hybride werken op universitaire medewerkers is groot. Maar het is de vraag hoe de bevlogenheid en mentale belasting van universitaire medewerkers over de periode 2019-2022 te verklaren zijn vanuit de impact van (gedwongen) thuiswerken. Dit artikel geeft op basis van zeven vragenlijstonderzoeken in de periode 2019-2022 antwoorden op deze vraag. De bevindingen wijzen uit dat de bevlogenheid en mentale belasting van universitaire medewerkers over deze jaren opmerkelijk constant zijn gebleven. Ook in de door universitair medewerkers beleefde taakeisen en hulpbronnen, gebaseerd op het JD-R-model, zien we een grotendeels constant beeld. De thuiswerkpraktijken en -voorkeuren lijken niet de bevlogenheid en mentale belasting te verklaren. Het lijkt dat enkele onderliggende structurele oorzaken dit constante beeld in bevlogenheid en mentale belasting meer kunnen verklaren, zoals de competitieve academische omgeving, de bureaucratie en de financiële druk.

© Jan de Leede & Sandra L. Fisher
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVA2023.2.008.LEED
2023-06-01
2024-12-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21, 254-285. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9602161572
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The Measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Andrulli, R., & Gerards, R. (2023). How new ways of working during COVID-19 affect employee well-being via technostress, need for recovery, and work engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107560
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Ashencaen Crabtree, S., Esteves, L., & Hemingway, A. (2021). A ‘new(ab)normal’? Scrutinising the work-life balance of academics under lockdown. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(9), 1177-1191. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2020.1853687
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Baane, R., Houtkamp, P., & Knotter, M. (2010). Het nieuwe werken ontrafeld: Over bricks, bytes & behavior. Koninklijke Van Gorcum.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). “The job demands-resources model: state of the art”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader-Member exchange and transformational leadership: An empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(6), 477-499. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00643.x
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bijl, D. (2009). Aan de slag met Het Nieuwe Werken. Par CC.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Blok, M., Groenesteijn, L., Schelvis, R., & Vink, P. (2012). New ways of working: does flexibility in time and location of work change work behavior and business outcomes?. Work41(1), 5075-5080. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-1028-2605
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Costa, P., Passos, A. M., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). Team work engagement: A model of emergence. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(2), 414-436.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. De Boer, H. (2021). COVID-19 in Dutch higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 46(1), 96-106, https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1859684
     [Google Scholar]
  13. De Leede, J., & Schafheitle, S. (2023). Well-being 2022: balancing in challenging times. Results of the well-being study among UT employees Wave 1 and 2. Universiteit Twente.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. De Leede, J. (2017). New Ways of Working Practices: Antecedents and Outcomes (Advanced Series in Management, Volume 16) Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. De Leede, J.(2021a). Engaged at a distance. Results of the 2021 well-being study among UT employees Wave 1 (April 2021). Universiteit Twente.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. De Leede, J.(2021b). Still engaged at a distance. Results of the 2021 well-being study among UT employees Wave 2 (July-August 2021). Universiteit Twente.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. De Leede, J., & Fisher, S. (2022a). Well-being in the second Covid-19 year. Results of the 2021 well-being study among UT employees Wave 1, 2 and 3. Universiteit Twente.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. De Leede, J., & Fisher, S. (2022b). Hybrid working and well-being. Results of the well-being study among UT employees Wave 1 (of 2) 2022. Universiteit Twente.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. De Leede, J., De Jager, J., & Torka, N. (2020). Working at home alone? A Well-being study among UT employees under Covid-19. Universiteit Twente.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. De Leede, J., Meijerink, J. G., & Torka, N. (2019). Work engagement and work pressure: still in balance? A well-being study among UT employees. Universiteit Twente.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Demerouti, E., Derks, D., Brummelhuis, L. L. T., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). New ways of working: Impact on working conditions, work–family balance, and well-being. In C.Korunka & P.Hoonakker (Reds.), The impact of ICT on quality of working life (pp. 123-141). Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Felstead, A., & Henseke, G. (2017). Assessing the growth of remote working and its consequences for effort, well-being and work-life balance. New Technology, Work, & Employment, 32(3), 195-212. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12097
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Fernandes, D. (2021). Pandemic sends almost half EU employees into remote working, Euractiv, 8March. www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/pandemic-sends-almost-half-eu-employees-into-remote-working/
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 15-24. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Galanti, T., Guidetti, G., Mazzei, E., Zappalà, S., & Toscano, F. (2021). Work from home during the COVID-19 outbreak: The impact on employees’ remote work productivity, engagement, and stress. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63(7), e426-e432. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002236
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Gerards, R., De Grip, A., & Baudewijns, C. (2018). Do New Ways of Working increase work engagement?. Personnel Review. 47(2), 517-534. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2017-0050.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Gerards, R., Van Wetten, S., & Van Sambeek, S. (2021). New Ways of Working and intrapreneurial behaviour: The mediating role of transformational leadership and social interaction. Review of Managerial Science, 15(4), 2075-2110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-020-00412-1
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multilevel multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Graham, M., Lambert, K. A., Weale, V., Stuckey, R., & Oakman, J. (2023). Working from home during the COVID 19 pandemic: A longitudinal examination of employees’ sense of community and social support and impacts on self-rated health. BMC Public Health, 23(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14904-0
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Hirsch, P.B. (2021). Sustaining corporate culture in a world of hybrid work. Journal of Business Strategy, 42(5), 358-361. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-06-2021-0100
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Huo, W., Gong, J., Xing, L., Tam, K. L., & Kuai, H. (2022). Voluntary versus involuntary telecommuting and employee innovative behaviour: A daily diary study. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2022.2078992
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Kniffin, K. M., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., Antonakis, J., Ashford, S. P., Bakker, A. B., Bamberger, P., Bapuji, H., Bhave, D. P., Choi, V. K., Creary, S. J., Demerouti, E., Flynn, F. J., Gelfand, M. J., Greer, L. L., Johns, G., Kesebir, S., Klein, P. G., Lee, S. Y., … & Van Vugt, M. (2020, 10augustus). COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action. American Psychologist. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000716
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Kovacs, H., Zufferey, J. D., Tormey, R., & Jermann, P. (2022). Teaching under lockdown: The change in the social practice of teaching. Higher Education, 5, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00863-3
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Manpower (2017). Thuiswerken hoog op wensenlijst werknemer. PWnet.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Microsoft. (2022). Work trend index. Great expectations: Making hybrid work work. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-index/greatexpectations-making-hybrid-work-work
  36. McGaughey, F., Watermeyer, R., Shankar, K., Suri, V. R., Knight, C., Crick, T., Hardman, J., Phelan, D., & Chung, R. (2021). ‘This can’t be the new norm’: Academics’ perspectives on the COVID-19 crisis for the Australian university sector. Higher Education Research & Development 2021, 41(7), 2231-2246. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1973384
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Mohr, G., Müller, A., Rigotti, T., Aycan, Z., & Tschan, F. (2006). The assessment of psychological strain in work contexts. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 198-206. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.22.3.198
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Moll, F., & De Leede, J. (2017). Fostering innovation: The influence of New Ways of Working on innovative work behavior. In J.de Leede (Red.), New Ways of Working Practices (pp. 95-143); Advanced Series in Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Volume 16.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Nag, D. (2021). Enhancing work engagement in diverse employees via autonomy: Acknowledging introversion and extroversion workspace preferences. In P.Kumar, A.Agrawal, & P.Budhwar, (Reds.), Work from home: Multi-level perspectives on the new normal. (pp. 131-146) Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80071-661-220210008
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Niebuhr, F., Borle, P., Börner-Zobel, F., & Voelter-Mahlknecht, S. (2022). Healthy and happy working from home? Effects of working from home on employee health and job satisfaction. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), 1122-1135. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031122
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Nijp, H. H., Beckers, D. G. J., Van de Voorde, F. C., Geurts, S. A. E., & Kompier, M. A. J. (2016). Effects of New Ways of Working on work hours and work location, health and job-related outcomes. Chronobiology International, 33(6), 604-618. https://doi.org/10.3109/07420528.2016.1167731
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Peters, P., & Wildenbeest, M. (2010). Telewerken als hulpbron? ‘Flow’ en uitputting onder twee telewerkcategorieën vergeleken. Gedrag en Organisatie, 23(2), 97-117. https://doi.org/10.5117/2010.023.002.001
     [Google Scholar]
  43. PetersP., PoutsmaE., Van der HeijdenB. J., BakkerA. B., & De Bruijn, A. T. D. (2014). Enjoying new ways to work: An HRM-process approach to study flow. Human Resource Management, 53, 271-290. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21588
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Purcell, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Front-line managers as agents in the HRM-performance causal chain: theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resource Management Journal, 17, 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2007.00022.x
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391486
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Robson, L., Gardner, B., & Dommett, E. J. (2022). The post-pandemic lecture: Views from academic staff across the UK. Education Sciences, 12(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12020123
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Rogelberg, S. G., Luong, A., Sederburg, M. E., & Cristol, D. S. (2000). Employee attitude surveys: Examining the attitudes of noncompliant employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 284-293. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.284
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Rudolph, C. W., Allan, B., Clark, M., Hertel, G., Hirschi, A., Kunze, F., Shockley, K., Shoss, M., Sonnentag, S., & Zacher, H. (2020). Pandemics: Implications for research and practice in industrial and organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 14, 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2020.48
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Sargent, L. D., & Sue-Chan, C. (2001). Does diversity affect group efficacy? The intervening role of cohesion and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 32(4), 426-450. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640103200403
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire. A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701-716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465. https://doi.org/10.5465/256865
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Stoker, J. I., Garretsen, H., & Lammers, J. (2021). Leading and working from home in times of COVID-19: On the perceived changes in leadership behaviors. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 30(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518211007452
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., & Keulemans, L. (2012). Do new ways of working foster work engagement? Psicothema, 24(1), 113-120.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Van Egmond, H. (2010). Het Nieuwe Werken, van visie naar praktijk. Kluwer.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Van Engen, M., Peters, P., & van de Water, F. (2023). Perceived lockdown intensity, work-family conflict and work engagement: The importance of family supportive supervisor behaviour during the COVID-19 crisis. In S.Bergum, P.Peters & T.Vold, (Reds). Virtual Management and the New Normal: New Perspectives on HRM and Leadership since the COVID-19 Pandemic (pp. 359-381). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06813-3_18
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Veldhoen, E. (2005). The Art of Working. Academic Service.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Watermeyer, R., Shankar, K., Crick, T., Knight, C., McGaughey, F., Hardman, J., Suri, V. R., Chung, R., & Phelan, D. (2021). ‘Pandemia’: A reckoning of UK universities’ corporate response to COVID-19 and its academic fallout. British Journal of Sociology of Education42(5-6), 651-666. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2021.193705
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/TVA2023.2.008.LEED
Loading
Bevlogenheid en mentale belasting van universitaire medewerkers 2019-2022: Hybride werken als verklaring schiet tekort
TA 39, 244 (2023); https://doi.org/10.5117/TVA2023.2.008.LEED
/content/journals/10.5117/TVA2023.2.008.LEED
/content/journals/10.5117/TVA2023.2.008.LEED
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Keyword(s): academic context; engagement; hybrid working; strain

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error