4.5 Article

The technostress trifecta - techno eustress, techno distress and design: Theoretical directions and an agenda for research

Journal

INFORMATION SYSTEMS JOURNAL
Volume 29, Issue 1, Pages 6-42

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/isj.12169

Keywords

inter-disciplinary; IS design; review; techno distress; techno eustress; technostress

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Technostress-defined as stress that individuals experience due to their use of Information Systems-represents an emerging phenomenon of scholarly investigation. It examines how and why the use of IS causes individuals to experience various demands that they find stressful. This paper develops a framework for guiding future research in technostress experienced by individuals in organizations. We first review and critically analyse the state of current research on technostress reported in journals from the IS discipline and the non-IS disciplines that study stress in organizations (eg, organizational behaviour and psychological stress). We then develop our framework in the form of the technostress trifecta-techno-eustress, techno-distress, and Information Systems design principles for technostress. The paper challenges 3 key ideas imbued in the existing technostress literature. First, it develops the argument that, in contrast to negative outcomes, technostress can lead to positive outcomes such as greater effectiveness and innovation at work. Second, it suggests that instead of limiting the role of IS to that of being a stress creator in the technostress phenomenon, it should be expanded to that of enhancing the positive and mitigating the negative effects of technostress through appropriate design. Third, it lays the groundwork for guiding future research in technostress through an interdisciplinary framing that enriches both the IS and the psychological stress literatures through a potential discourse of disciplinary exchange.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available