Search

In this diary study, we contribute to research on day-level multitasking in organizations by investigating why and when multitasking impairs employees’ work-related flow and subjective job performance on a daily basis. Drawing on Lazarus and Folkman’s transactional model of stress and coping, we propose that employees’ appraisal of their daily tasks (i.e., less challenging and more hindering) may explain why multitasking has negative implications for flow and job performance. Moreover, we expect that daily work engagement can buffer the detrimental effects of multitasking on flow and job performance. A total of 33 professional workers in the food industry participated in our study and were asked to respond to 10 daily surveys at work across 4 weeks. In line with our expectations, results showed that on days when employees’ working time was highly fragmented across a high number of tasks, they experienced less flow and, in turn, their job performance was lower on that particular day. Moreover, appraisal of daily tasks as less challenging – though not more hindering – explained why multitasking impairs flow. Finally, daily work engagement buffered the detrimental impact of multitasking on flow. The results presented in this paper offer novel and ecologically valid insights into why and when multitasking may backfire for employees.

Repeated assessments in everyday life enables collecting ecologically valid data on dynamic, within-persons processes. These methods have widespread utility and application and have been extensively used for the study of stressors and stress responses. Enhanced conceptual sophistication of characterizing intraindividual stress responses in everyday life would help advance the field. This article provides a pragmatic overview of approaches, opportunities, and challenges when intensive ambulatory methods are applied to study everyday stress responses in "real time." We distinguish between three stress-response components (i.e., reactivity, recovery, and pileup) and focus on several fundamental questions: (a) What is the appropriate stress-free resting state (or "baseline") for an individual in everyday life? (b) How does one index the magnitude of the initial response to a stressor (reactivity)? (c) Following a stressor, how can recovery be identified (e.g., when the stress response has completed)? and (d) Because stressors may not occur in isolation, how can one capture the temporal clustering of stressors and/or stress responses (pileup)? We also present initial ideas on applying this approach to intervention research. Although we focus on stress responses, these issues may inform many other dynamic intraindividual constructs and behaviors (e.g., physical activity, physiological processes, other subjective states) captured in ambulatory assessment.

Repeated assessments in everyday life enables collecting ecologically valid data on dynamic, within-persons processes. These methods have widespread utility and application and have been extensively used for the study of stressors and stress responses. Enhanced conceptual sophistication of characterizing intraindividual stress responses in everyday life would help advance the field. This article provides a pragmatic overview of approaches, opportunities, and challenges when intensive ambulatory methods are applied to study everyday stress responses in "real time." We distinguish between three stress-response components (i.e., reactivity, recovery, and pileup) and focus on several fundamental questions: (a) What is the appropriate stress-free resting state (or "baseline") for an individual in everyday life? (b) How does one index the magnitude of the initial response to a stressor (reactivity)? (c) Following a stressor, how can recovery be identified (e.g., when the stress response has completed)? and (d) Because stressors may not occur in isolation, how can one capture the temporal clustering of stressors and/or stress responses (pileup)? We also present initial ideas on applying this approach to intervention research. Although we focus on stress responses, these issues may inform many other dynamic intraindividual constructs and behaviors (e.g., physical activity, physiological processes, other subjective states) captured in ambulatory assessment.