During the first months of 2020, the world, and Italy at an early stage, went through the Covid‐19 emergency that had a great impact on individual and collective health, but also on working processes. The mandatory remote working and the constant use of technology for employees raised different implications related to technostress and psycho‐physical disorders. This study aimed to detect, in such a period of crisis and changes, the role of organizational communication considering the mediating role of both technostress and self‐efficacy, with psycho‐physical disorders as outcome. The research involved 530 workers working from home. A Structural Equations Model was estimated, revealing that organizational communication is positively associated with self‐efficacy and negatively with technostress and psycho‐physical disorders. As mediators, technostress is positively associated with psycho‐physical disorders, whereas self‐efficacy is negatively associated. As regards mediated effects, results showed negative associations between organizational communication and psycho‐physical disorders through both technostress and self‐efficacy. This study highlighted the potential protective role of organizational communication that could buffer the effect of technostress and enhance a personal resource, self‐efficacy, which is functional to the reduction of psycho‐physical disorders. This study contributed to literature underlying the role of communication in the current crisis and consequent reorganization of the working processes.

Does the end justify the means? The role of organizational communication among work‐from‐home employees during the covid‐19 pandemic

Ingusci E.;Cortese C. G.;Molino M.;
2021-01-01

Abstract

During the first months of 2020, the world, and Italy at an early stage, went through the Covid‐19 emergency that had a great impact on individual and collective health, but also on working processes. The mandatory remote working and the constant use of technology for employees raised different implications related to technostress and psycho‐physical disorders. This study aimed to detect, in such a period of crisis and changes, the role of organizational communication considering the mediating role of both technostress and self‐efficacy, with psycho‐physical disorders as outcome. The research involved 530 workers working from home. A Structural Equations Model was estimated, revealing that organizational communication is positively associated with self‐efficacy and negatively with technostress and psycho‐physical disorders. As mediators, technostress is positively associated with psycho‐physical disorders, whereas self‐efficacy is negatively associated. As regards mediated effects, results showed negative associations between organizational communication and psycho‐physical disorders through both technostress and self‐efficacy. This study highlighted the potential protective role of organizational communication that could buffer the effect of technostress and enhance a personal resource, self‐efficacy, which is functional to the reduction of psycho‐physical disorders. This study contributed to literature underlying the role of communication in the current crisis and consequent reorganization of the working processes.
2021
18
8
3933
3952
COVID‐19; Organizational communication; Psycho‐physical disorders; Remote working; Self‐efficacy; Technostress; Communication; Humans; Italy; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Pandemics
Zito M.; Ingusci E.; Cortese C.G.; Giancaspro M.L.; Manuti A.; Molino M.; Signore F.; Russo V.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Zito et al_2021_IJERPH.pdf

Accesso aperto

Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 864.59 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
864.59 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1788573
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 16
  • Scopus 41
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 33
social impact