Construction and initial validation of the E-Work Life Scale to measure remote e-working

Abstract

PurposeThe objective of the present study is to develop and provide initial validation for the new E-Work Life (EWL) Scale. This measure assesses a range of theoretically relevant aspects of the e-working experience related to four main areas: job effectiveness, relationship with the organisation, well-being and work-life balance. Design/methodology/approachStructured item development is presented. Internal validity and reliability were tested on a sample of 260 e-workers (65% female, age range 25-74). Correlations of the EWL scale with a measure of General Health were tested on as subsample of 119 e-workers to provide initial evidence of construct validity. FindingsExploratory factor analysis supported a 17-item scale assessing four factors: Work-Life Interference, Productivity, Organisational Trust and Flexibility. Individual well-being was measured and a pattern of significant correlations against four factors as indicators of general health were found, including mental health and vitality. Research limitations/implicationsA new sample would confirm the strength of the EWL scale alongside further tests of validity.Coping strategies related to the scale would aid mapping of individual competencies for eworking to promote e-workers' self-management, management style and organisational policy. Practical implicationsThe EWL scale helps organisations to evaluate and support the well-being of e-workers. It provides measurement on three levels: individual, supervisory and organisational, whereby practical strategies for improvement can be linked to the scale. Originality/valueThe EWL scale completes a gap in the research by providing a measure aiding organisations to evaluate and support e-worker well-being.

The Effect of Remote Working on Employees Wellbeing and Work-Life Integration during Pandemic in Egypt

“…Second, despite all the benefits mentioned above but other studies indicated that remote work could be challenging for many employees compared to working at the office, as stated by Grant et al (2013) in addition to Barber and Santuzzi (2015), who claimed that remote working could lead to poor wellbeing, communication overload, work overload and workplace pressure (Charalampous, Grant, Tramontano & Michailidis, 2019;Molino et al, 2020), which is justified by exchanging emails during non-working hours, a practice that has been linked to stress (Chesley, 2014) and blurred home-work boundaries (Tietze & Musson, 2005), which could subsequently affect job effectiveness and performance (Grant et al, 2019). Consequently, remote working may become unfavorable in some cases when individuals intensify their work activity (Charalampous et al, 2019) adding the feelings of being isolated and not connected with coworkers and the need for new and different skills and mindset to succeed as a remote worker (Raišienė et al 2020;Rysavy & Michalak 2020).…”

“…Remote working can also be described as 'teleworking' and 'telecommuting,' which refers to the employee's ability to work remotely using technology to facilitate communication with the workplace (Raišienė et al, 2020). Latterly, 'agile working' has been added to the terminology referring to an organization's capability to be flexible to meet changing market demands and adjust working practices accordingly (Grant, Wallace, Spurgeon, Tramontano & Charalampous, 2019). Thus, the current study will focus on working from home as a remote work strategy to offset the pandemic situation using technology to access work like Team viewer, Zoom, and Microsoft teams.…”

“…Psychological wellbeing, a ten-item scale, developed by Pradhan and Hati (2019), was used with a reliability value of α = .95, but three items were dropped owing to overlap, redundancy, the least factor loading in the interest of scale length; sample items included, "I feel I am capable of decision-making" and "I feel depressed from the stress and demands of day-to-day life." Work-Life Integration, a seven-item scale developed by Grant et al (2019), was used to assess employees' work-life integration with a reliability value of α = .93. Example of items included "I feel that work demands are much higher when I am working remotely," "Working from home takes up a lot of time that I would like to spend with my family," and "I can adjust my working hours to deal with family emergencies at the right time.…”

The impact of working from home during COVID-19 on work and life domains: an exploratory study on Hong Kong

“…WFH has been defined in various terms over the four decades, namely remote work, flexible workplace, telework, telecommuting, e-working. These terms refer to the ability of employees to work in flexible workplaces, especially at home, by using technology execute work duties (Gajendran and Harrison 2007;Grant et al 2019). Gajendran and Harrison (2007) described telecommuting as "an alternative work arrangement in which employees perform tasks elsewhere that are normally done in primary or central workplaces, for at least some portion of their work schedule, using electronic media to interact with others inside and outside the organization," notably, they indicated that "elsewhere" refers to "home" (1525).…”

“…Some studies point out that telework can reduce turnover rate and increase employees' productivity, job engagement, and job performance (Collins and Moschler 2009;Delanoeije and Verbruggen 2020). Similarly, e-working can increase productivity, flexibility, job satisfaction, WLB, including reducing work-life conflict and commuting (Grant et al 2019). Additionally, Purwanto et al (2020) argued that WFH could support employees in terms of flexible time to complete the work and save money for commuting to work.…”