Idle time is a common phenomenon that prevents employees from performing their core job tasks, with detrimental effects on employee well-being and performance. Drawing on affective events theory, the job demands-resources model, and action regulation theory, this dissertation addresses three main questions: First, how idle time affects employee well-being and performance; second, the mechanisms behind these effects, namely appraisals and affective reactions; and third, the conditions under which idle time may be beneficial for employees.
Study 1 (N = 338) showed indirect negative effects of objective idle time on employee well-being through the subjective experience of being idle. Age was negatively and boredom proneness positively associated with subjective idle time. Two experiments in Study 2 (N2a = 445, N2b = 597) demonstrated the detrimental effects of regulation problems on employee well-being and performance, mediated by objective and subjective idle time. Recovery activities buffered the detrimental effects of idle time. In Study 3, a 12-month, five-wave longitudinal study (N = 1,036), the associations of idle time with lower job satisfaction, higher turnover intentions, and higher counterproductive work behavior were mediated by higher boredom. Finally, the results of Study 4, based on the same data as Study 3, showed that the effects of idle time on employee exhaustion and engagement depended on boundary conditions, namely workload and autonomy. For high workload employees, idle time was positively associated with engagement, whereas when autonomy was high, idle time was associated with lower exhaustion and lower engagement. During idle time, relaxation was beneficial, whereas detachment was detrimental regarding employee exhaustion and engagement.
Idle time is detrimental to employee well-being and performance, mediated by subjective idle time, boredom, and lack of recovery, respectively. Certain conditions, like high workload or using idle time for relaxation, can make it beneficial for employees. The results provide insights for research, particular in the areas of waiting, interruptions, recovery, and well-being.:Acknowledgments i
English Abstract ii
German Abstract iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables ix
List of Figures x
1 General Introduction 1
2 Study 1: Effects of Idle Time on Well-Being – An Experimental Study 6
2.1 Abstract 6
2.2 Introduction 7
2.3 Idle Time as an Affective Event at Work 9
2.4 Method 11
2.4.1 Open Science 11
2.4.2 Study Design 11
2.4.3 Participants 12
2.4.4 Materials 13
2.4.5 Data Analysis 14
2.5 Results 15
2.5.1 Descriptive Statistics 15
2.5.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis 15
2.5.3 Manipulation Check 15
2.5.4 Hypothesis Tests 15
2.5.5 Exploratory Results 16
2.6 Discussion 17
2.6.1 Theoretical and Practical Implications 17
2.6.2 Limitations and Future Research 19
2.7 Conclusion 21
2.8 Open Data and Electronic Supplementary Materials (ESM 1) 21
3 Study 2: Idle Time, Recovery, and Work Outcomes: Results of Two Experimental Studies 26
3.1 Abstract 26
3.2 Introduction 27
3.3 Idle Time at Work 29
3.3.1 Antecedents of Idle Time 29
3.3.2 The Consequences of Idle Time 30
3.3.3 The Mechanisms Underlying Effects of Idle Time 31
3.4 Study 1 33
3.4.1 Method 33
3.4.2 Results 36
3.4.3 Discussion 37
3.5 Study 2 37
3.5.1 Method 37
3.5.2 Results 40
3.5.3 Discussion 43
3.6 General Discussion 43
3.6.1 Theoretical and Practical Implications 44
3.6.2 Limitations and Future Research 46
3.7 Conclusion 47
4 Study 3: Is it Bad Because it is Boring? Effects of Idle Time on Employee Outcomes 58
4.1 Abstract 58
4.2 Introduction 59
4.3 The Effects of Idle Time 62
4.3.1 Idle Time and Boredom 63
4.3.2 Boredom and Employee Outcomes 64
4.3.3 Idle Time and Employee Outcomes 65
4.4 Method 66
4.4.1 Participants and Procedure 66
4.4.2 Measures 68
4.4.3 Statistical Analysis 70
4.5 Results 71
4.5.1 Hypothesis Tests 71
4.5.2 Additional Analyses 73
4.6 Discussion 75
4.6.1 Theoretical and Practical Implications 75
4.6.2 Limitations and Future Research 77
4.7 Conclusion 79
5 Study 4: Can Idle Time Serve as a Resource? A Job Demands-Resources Approach 88
5.1 Abstract 88
5.2 Introduction 89
5.3 Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development 91
5.3.1 The Downsides of Idle Time 91
5.3.2 The Benefits of Idle Time 92
5.4 Method 94
5.4.1 Participants and Procedure 94
5.4.2 Measures 95
5.4.3 Data Analysis 97
5.5 Results 97
5.5.1 Hypothesis Tests 97
5.5.2 Additional Analyses 99
5.6 Discussion 99
5.6.1 Theoretical and Practical Implications 100
5.6.2 Limitations and Future Directions 102
5.7 Conclusion 103
6 General Discussion 109
6.1 Summary 109
6.2 Theoretical Contributions 110
6.2.1 The Consequences of Idle Time 110
6.2.2 The Mechanisms Underlying Idle Time 111
6.2.3 Recovery and Boundary Conditions 112
6.3 Practical Contributions 113
6.4 Limitations and Future Directions 114
6.4.1 Affective Events Theory 114
6.4.2 Event System Theory 115
6.4.3 Action Regulation Theory 116
6.5 Conclusion 117
References 118
Appendix I
Theses I
Idle Time at Work I
Study 1: Effects of Idle Time on Well-Being – An Experimental Study II
Study 2: Idle Time, Recovery, and Work Outcomes: Results of Two Experimental Studies II
Study 3: Is it Bad Because it is Boring? Effects of Idle Time on Employee Outcomes II
Study 4: Can Idle Time Serve as a Resource? A Job Demands-Resources Approach III
Conclusion IV
References IV
Thesen VI
Leerlaufzeiten bei der Arbeit VI
Studie 1: Auswirkungen von Leerlaufzeiten auf das Wohlbefinden – eine Experiment VII
Studie 2: Leerlaufzeit, Erholung und Arbeitsergebnisse: Ergebnisse von zwei experimentellen Studien VII
Studie 3: Sind sie schlecht, weil sie langweilig sind? Auswirkungen von Leerlaufzeiten auf Beschäftigte VII
Studie 4: Kann Leerlaufzeit als Ressource dienen? Ein Arbeitsanforderungen-Ressourcen-Ansatz VIII
Schlussfolgerungen IX
Literaturverzeichnis IX
Curriculum Vitae XI
Publication List XII
Selbstständigkeitserklärung XIV
Nachweise über die Anteile der Co-Autorschaft: Studie 1 XV
Nachweise über die Anteile der Co-Autorschaft: Studie 2 XVI
Nachweise über die Anteile der Co-Autorschaft: Studie 3 XVII
Nachweise über die Anteile der Co-Autorschaft: Studie 4 XVIII
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:DRESDEN/oai:qucosa:de:qucosa:89211 |
| Date | 23 January 2024 |
| Creators | Zeschke, Martin |
| Contributors | Universität Leipzig |
| Source Sets | Hochschulschriftenserver (HSSS) der SLUB Dresden |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion, doc-type:doctoralThesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis, doc-type:Text |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0029 seconds