Computers in Human Behavior 105 (2020) 106194

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Effect of work-related smartphone use after work on job burnout:

Moderating effect of social support and organizational politics
Jae-Chun Park a, Sunggeun Kim a, Hwansoo Lee b, *
a
Department of Business Administration, Dankook University, 152 Jukjeon-ro, Suji-gu, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, 16890, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Convergence Security, Dankook University, 152 Jukjeon-ro, Suji-gu, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, 16890, Republic of Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study examines not only the relationship between work-related smartphone use after work and job burnout
Smartphone use after work but also the 3-way interaction effect of social support and perceived organizational politics (POPs) on this
Organizational politics relationship. The findings of an analysis of 387 Korean workers provide various significant implications. The 3-
Supervisor support
way interaction effect of POPs was identified, while the interaction effect of social support between work-related
Peer support
Job burnout
smartphone use after work and job burnout was not confirmed. Specifically, the negative impact of work-related
smartphone use after work, which induces job burnout, was found to be mitigated when supervisor support was
high in a negative political work environment. However, in a positive political work environment, greater su­
pervisor support was actually found to increase the negative impact of work-related smartphone use after work,
while strong peer support reduced the negative impact of work-related smartphone use after work. This study
contributes to research by providing an extended research model of how work-related smartphone use after work
affects job burnout and how social support and political work environment moderate this relationship. Addi­
tional longitudinal studies including other factors of job demands and resources will facilitate more academic
and practical discussions.

1. Introduction paradox” of work-related smartphone use (Piszczek, 2017), and few

The invention of the smartphone—a major teleworking tool—has
enabled workers to work anytime and anywhere, regardless of whether
they desire to do so (K. Y. Lee, Lee, & Kim, 2017; Yuan & Zheng, 2005).
Smartphones increase organizational performance by increasing work
accessibility, which paradoxically also blurs the distinction between
work and life, functioning as a job demand factor that negatively affects
employees’ well-being and work-life balance (WLB) and increases stress
and job burnout (Adisa, Gbadamosi, & Osabutey, 2017; Jung, 2014;
Middleton & Cukier, 2006; Xie, Ma, Zhou, & Tang, 2018). In this sense,
completing work by using smartphones after regular work hours can
lead to work overload. This is particularly an issue in Korea, which re­
cords the second-longest average work time per year after Mexico
(OECD, 2018). In total, 70.3% of Korean employees work using smart
devices during non-business hours. This high penetration rate affects the
work of the employees and is becoming a serious social issue (K. H. Lee &
Kim, 2015), making it harder for them to physically and emotionally
recover and potentially leading to job burnout.
Previous studies have been limited in explaining the “flexibility
have empirically examined its effect outside of working hours. In the
current climate in which smartphone usage in work environments is
increasing, discussions on the effects of work-related smartphone use
and the factors that strengthen or mitigate them are very important (Xie
et al., 2018). Previous studies have shown that work-related smartphone
use after work hours has a negative effect on work stress, job burnout,
and WLB by increasing workload (Derks, van Mierlo, & Schmitz, 2014).
However, the results of these studies do not imply that work-related
smartphone use is always problematic and that smartphones should
not be used after work. Since some studies have indicated the positive
effects of work-related smartphone use, it is important to discuss how
smartphones should be used outside of working hours and in which
situations such use would be most effective.
According to the job demand-resource (JD-R) (Karasek, 1985) and
conservation of resources (Hobfoll, 1989) theories, the effects of
work-related smartphone use after work can be influenced by circum­
stantial factors of social support (job resource approach) and percep­
tions of organizational politics (job demand approach). With regard to
the former, mutual cooperation increases and work attitudes and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: innosapark@dankook.ac.kr (J.-C. Park), skkim7447@naver.com (S. Kim), hanslee992@gmail.com (H. Lee).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106194
Received 3 May 2019; Received in revised form 8 November 2019; Accepted 10 November 2019
Available online 11 November 2019
0747-5632/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.-C. Park et al.
organizational performance improve when relationships with superiors,
peers, and subordinates are based on trust (McAllister, 1995). In addi­
tion, the job satisfaction of new and inexperienced employees differs
depending on how long-term employees form relationships with their
superiors and peers (Haslam, 2004; Levine, Prosser, Evans, & Reicher,
2005). This can also affect the employees’ loyalty to the organization
and adaptability to organizational changes due to changes in the inter­
nal and external environments. Therefore, social support (from supe­
riors or peers) can be anticipated to act as a buffer, reducing the negative
effects of work-related smartphone use on employees’ stress or job
burnout (Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou, 2007; Law­
rence, 2006; Liu, Prati, Perrewe, & Ferris, 2008; Xanthopoulou, Bakker,
Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2007). However, Dormann and Zapf (1999) and
Wade and Kendler (2000) argued that social support does not neces­
sarily always provide a buffer against job burnout as the buffering effect
is influenced by the subject or the environment providing social support
(Im, 2007). Jimmieson, Tucker, and Walsh (2017) also argued that
human resource management limited to one job demand variable is
ineffective and the interaction effect among multiple job demand vari­
ables should be examined. Therefore, this study aims to discuss the other
factors influencing the buffer role of social support.
Social support can be influenced by the political environment of an
organization, which is a place where individual- or team-based activities
are performed to control or acquire resources internally and to respond
flexibly to changes in the environment externally to achieve organiza­
tional goals by effectively using the available resources (Dawson,
O’Brien, & Beehr, 2016). However, organizational resources are limited
in satisfying the needs of stakeholders. Therefore, the use of power be­
tween stakeholders for the benefit of the individual or team occurs
frequently. These limited organizational resources can stimulate
competition or encourage the use of devious methods to acquire and
utilize resources. Workers who fail to obtain the resources needed are
likely to face stress or job burnout. In this case, the organizational
process is dictated more by politics than by formal rules and regulations.
This negative political work environment is an unfair or unjust one
(Andrews & Kacmar, 2001) where decisions are made based on political
favor as opposed to merit or actual organizational needs. This negative
environment can result in increased conflict and stress and lead to job
burnout, negatively influencing organizational performance (Kacmar,
Bachrach, Harris, & Zivnuska, 2011). The buffer role of social support
can have different effects on this job burnout depending on the negative
work environment (Dawson et al., 2016). In other words, work-related
smartphone use after working hours, as a job demand variable, am­
plifies workers’ job burnout, thereby increasing uncertainty in an unfair
political work environment and further augmenting the need for social
support.
In this study, we first identify the relationship between job burnout
and work-related smartphone use after working hours. We then deter­
mine the buffer hypothesis of social support in the relationship between
job demands and job burnout. Finally, in order to identify the unfair
political work environment’s effects on social support’s buffer role in the
relationship between work-related smartphone use after work and job
burnout, we test the 3-way interaction effect of social support and
perceived organizational politics (POPs).
2. Literature review
2.1. Work-related smartphone use in Korea
The penetration rate of smartphones is rapidly increasing worldwide.
In Korea, 36 million people have smartphones—the fourth-highest
penetration rate in the world (C. S. Park, 2019). The high penetration
rate of smartphones also affects the work of employees. According to a
survey by the Korea Labor Institute (KLI) regarding workers with smart
devices (K. H. Lee & Kim, 2015) revealed that the rate of experience
using smart devices after business hours or on holidays was very high:
2
Computers in Human Behavior 105 (2020) 106194
70.3% of all employees worked using smart devices during non-business
hours, and the highest percentage constituted white-collar workers
(71.8%). The average duration of work during non-business hours was
over 11 h per week. Major tasks done using smart devices were receiving
and sending work-related e-mails (63.2%), writing and editing
work-related files (57.6%), as well as messaging, processing, and
instructing (47.9%) through social network service (SNS). Due to the
excessive use of smart devices for work-related purposes, Korean
workers were concerned about personal life invasion (78.8%) and
reduced time for family or leisure (70.2%). More seriously, in terms of
health impacts, 44.0% of workers experienced decreased sleep when
using smart devices for work during non-business hours. There have
been initiatives to prohibit the use of smart devices after business hours
in Korea to attempt to stay the potential social problems that could arise
as a result.
According to the survey, the majority (73.7%) of employees expected
more work using smart devices in the future, which would result in the
greater use of smart devices after business hours. This could be a factor
in accelerating employee exhaustion. However, publicizing these issues
from the viewpoint of employees presents problems due to their socially
weak standing. Moreover, it is difficult to accurately demonstrate how
smartphone use after work hours affects employees’ lives because of the
different variables. Therefore, in Korea (Taylor & Silver, 2019), where
smartphone penetration rates (95% for adults) and Internet usage rates
(90%) are among the highest in the world, it is crucial to identify the
impact of the use of smart devices after work on employee behavior.
2.2. Work-related smartphone use after work
Work-related smartphone use is perceived to be related to work
performance (Fender, 2010). Previous studies on this topic have
revealed three main research trends. The first trend has identified the
effect of work-related smartphone use on organizational progress, such
as the well-being of workers. These studies can largely be categorized
into positive and negative theories. The positive theory asserts that
smartphone use is a job resource that allows workers to perform their
jobs more effectively (Halbesleben, Neveu, Paustian-Underdahl, &
Westman, 2014). However, the negative theory asserts that smartphone
use is an influential factor of workers’ job burnout or stress (Day, Scott,
& Kevin Kelloway, 2010, pp. 317–350). In particular, many studies have
asserted that work-related smartphone use increases job stress, job
burnout, and work-family conflict by increasing the actual workload
(Derks et al., 2014), showing more negative than positive effects (Hal­
besleben et al., 2014). The second trend has identified factors that
moderate the relationship between smartphone use after work and
organizational performance (Bakker et al., 2007; Dawson et al., 2016).
These studies have emphasized the positive role of job resources in
controlling the negative effects of job demands on job burnout based on
the JD-R theory (Bakker et al., 2007; Van Woerkom, Bakker, & Nishii,
2016). Liu et al. (2008) and Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) demonstrated
the moderating effect of social support, a job resource that alleviates the
negative role of job demands. Finally, the third trend has aimed to
identify the mechanism of smartphone use after work in terms of orga­
nizational performance. Previous studies have argued that the rela­
tionship between smartphone use after work and organizational
performance is mediated by strain, motivation, and control (Brown &
Palvia, 2015; Piszczek, 2017; Xie et al., 2018). However, these studies
focused on demonstrating the indirect rather than direct effects of using
smartphones after work.
Recent studies on work-related smartphone use after work have
considered it to be a job demand or job resource based on the JD-R
theory (Day et al., 2010, pp. 317–350; Piszczek, 2017; Ragsdale &
Hoover, 2016). In other words, in the JD-R theory, the work environ­
ment that employees experience in an organization is either used as a
resource that helps with the job or as an excessive job demand that
functions as a stress factor (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti,
J.-C. Park et al. Computers in Human Behavior 105 (2020) 106194

Mostert, & Bakker, 2010). Previous studies have focused on the negative Table 1
effects of work-related smartphone use after work (Derks et al., 2014). Summary of previous research.
Xie et al. (2018) asserted that work-related smartphone use after work Effect Independent Mediator (Me.) Dependent Researcher
causes work-home conflicts because it intrudes upon the private lives of Variable and Moderator Variable
individuals, regardless of time and place. Since work-related smart­ (Mo.)
phone use after work brings about another job demand or requires Positive W_ICT Work-to-life Job Diaz, Chiaburu,
work-related information, workers are likely to experience stress or conflict (Me.) satisfaction Zimmerman,
burnout because they have to devote more time and energy to their jobs and Boswell
(2012)
in their non-work hours (Ragsdale & Hoover, 2016). Job autonomy Work Fujimoto,
However, when work-related smartphone use is required due to the (Me.) engagement Ferdous,
demands of a certain role, preventing it because of its negative effects is Sekiguchi, and
difficult. In such cases, discussions about the situations in which the Sugianto (2016)
Work-family Focus on Shi, Zhang, Xie,
negative effects of work-related smartphone use are strengthened or
centrality (Mo.) opportunities and Ma (2018)
mitigated are essential. J. Park and Kim (2018) examined the effects of Negative WRSU Perceived Emotional Derks et al.
job demand on job burnout, but only focused on the role of supervisor segmentation exhaustion (2014)
support between them. In addition, because the sample size was rela­ Norm (Mo.)
tively small, there were limitations in testing research the hypotheses Psychological
detachment
and generalizing the results. Although, as mentioned above, several (Me.)
studies on the mechanism of smartphone use after work and organiza­ WRSU Supervisor Work-home Derks, van Duin,
tional progress has been conducted recently, research on moderating expectations interference Tims, and
variables that can affect the relationship between smartphone use and (Mo.) Bakker (2015)
Colleagues’
organizational progress is still insufficient. Table 1 summarizes the re­
norms (Mo.)
sults of previous studies. Work
engagement
2.3. Social support (Mo.)
off-TAJD – Work-family Ghislieri,
conflict Emanuel,
Social support refers to relationships through which one receives Molino, Cortese,
interest, encouragement, and help from superiors or peers (Dawson and Colombo
et al., 2016). Within-organization social support refers to the informa­ (2017)
tion, resources, and emotional support from superiors or peers that W_ICT Work-home Emotional Xie et al. (2018)
integration exhaustion
reduce the negative attitudes and behaviors of the members (Halbesle­
preference
ben, 2006). Therefore, within-organization supervisor or peer support (Me.)
refers to the degree of direct and indirect support from immediate su­ Work schedule
periors or peers in terms of members’ work performance, as perceived by and location
the members themselves (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, control (Mo.)
Mixed WRSU – Emotional Ragsdale and
1986). This type of social support can largely be categorized into exhaustion Hoover (2016)
emotional and instrumental support (S. Cohen & Wills, 1985). The Work-family
former refers to the interest, consideration, and continuous trust of conflict
others, while the latter includes practical and specific support such as Work
engagement
advice, feedback, and resource provision related to the job within the
Job control Work Richardson and
organization (Halbesleben, 2006). (Me.) interference Thompson
Members obtain information on organizational goals and strategies Detachment with family (2012)
from their superiors, on whom they depend to receive not only feedback from work (Me.) Well-being
or encouragement about the job function they perform but also to help Note. W_ICT: work-related use of information and communications technologies
resolve problems that may be either internal or external to the organi­ after work; WRSU: work-related smartphone use after work; off-TAJD: off-work
zation. They expect their leaders to provide support so that they can hours’ technology-assisted job demand.
achieve the goals they set for themselves (House, 1981). On the other
hand, peer support refers to the positive relationship with and the In the JD-R theory, the buffering effect of job resources that alleviate
cooperation, interest, and consideration of peers. Peers not only work the negative effects of job demands is emphasized (Bakker et al., 2007;
together to achieve a common goal in the same workplace but also spend Van Woerkom et al., 2016). In particular, the importance of supervisor
time together; thus, they naturally influence the behaviors of their col­ or peer support is highlighted as a job resource that can alleviate various
leagues (Voorpostel, Van Der Lippe, & Gershuny, 2010). The social ex­ job demands (Dawson et al., 2016). Workers try to strengthen their
change theory (Blau, 1964) also asserts that a devoted relationship control over the work and their social support in order to minimize
among leaders, peers, and members leads not only to increased trust, possible losses, following the minimax principle (Thompson, 1981). As
admiration, and loyalty between the parties but also to the exchange of such, social support is being recognized as an important variable that
resources over time that can be used to successfully perform a job, which can alleviate their job burnout owing to job demands (Bakker &
in turn leads to increased organizational performance (Saks, 2006). Demerouti, 2007; Lawrence, 2006).
Previous studies on social support have focused on the main-effect
and buffering hypotheses of social support. The former states that so­
cial support directly affects the attitudes and behaviors of workers and 2.4. Perception of organizational politics (POPs)
alleviates job burnout, while the latter states that the negative rela­
tionship between stress factors and job burnout is alleviated by social Organizational politics refers to the unofficial, narrow-minded, and
support. In other words, social support is recognized as a resource that illegal behaviors of members who attempt to maximize their own ben­
reduces the negative effects of resource loss owing to the stressful work efits by sacrificing benefits to the organizational goal or others (Min­
situation of employees, based on the conservation of resources theory tzberg, 1985). Many researchers agree that behaviors based on
(Halbesleben, 2006; Hobfoll, Johnson, Ennis, & Jackson, 2003). organizational politics, which maximizes one’s own benefits over the

3
J.-C. Park et al.
benefits to the organization, are unethical, and negatively impact
organizational performance (Ferris & Kacmar, 1992; Ferris, Russ, &
Fandt, 1989; Kimura, 2013). Previous studies on organizational politics
have focused on POPs, or the “self-benefiting behaviors” of the mem­
bers. POPs refers to one’s perception of the political activities of mem­
bers other than oneself within an organization, and it signifies the
degree to which each member perceives the work environment as po­
litical (Kacmar & Carlson, 1997). Examples of selfish, “unfair” political
behaviors within the organization include obtaining approval by cir­
cumventing the official command system, acquiring certain equipment
or resources through devious means, or soliciting promotions from
high-ranking officials (Andrews & Kacmar, 2001).
Organizational politics is a common phenomenon and can be viewed
as a part of organizational life (Ferris & Kacmar, 1992). When members
get deeply involved in the political activities within an organization, the
POPs of other members—who have not otherwise shown interest in
organizational politics—increases. Unfair POPs induces unnecessary
political behaviors within the organization thereby potentially
increasing job anxiety or stress (Ferris et al., 1989). Workers also view
organizational politics as a source of work-related stress. As organiza­
tional politics increases, the stress of the members correspondingly in­
creases, resulting in psychological tension and an increase in job anxiety
(Ferris, Frink, Bhawuk, Zhou, & Gilmore, 1996). According to the con­
servation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989), workers with increased
job demands or reduced resources in the work environment cope with
the stress of maintaining resources by putting in additional effort to
steady the balance of job resources and demands in the job
anxiety-induced stress factor paradigm. The negative effects of POPs
have also been confirmed in Korea. For example, the results of a survey
of Korean workers revealed that organizational politics has a negative
impact on organizational performance, manifested through worker
stress, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior (Cheong,
2015; J.; Park, 2016). A cooperative organizational atmosphere and
opportunities for promotion are factors that reduce POPs (Cheong,
2015; G. W.; Park & Won, 2013).
Based on the conservation of resources theory, recent studies suggest
that work performance stress is not due to just one demand but multiple
job demand variables occurring together. It is hypothesized that the
interactions between the job demand variables increases or alleviates
the stress and job burnout of the workers. For example, Van Woerkom
et al. (2016) articulated that the negative impact of high emotional
demand on the absence rate is further worsened by work overload.
Faucett, Corwyn, and Poling (2013) stated that the combination of high
levels of role ambiguity and conflict had the most negative effect on job
satisfaction. Furthermore, in their research on the 3-way interaction
effect of job resources (e.g., support and control) that alleviate job de­
mands, Dawson et al. (2016) stated that when high job control and social
support are achieved in a highly political environment, the negative
effects of organizational politics on physical symptoms such as backache
and heartburn are alleviated.
In light of this, Jimmieson et al. (2017) stated that human resource
management limited to one job demand variable is ineffective if the
interaction effect among multiple job demand variables increases or
alleviates job burnout. They also emphasized the importance of the
interaction effect among various job demands and resource variables. In
other words, the advancement of information and communications
technology (ICT) and the global business environment necessitates more
comprehensive and creative human resource management. Therefore, in
order to effectively manage job burnout, it is important to examine not
only the buffering effect of job resources on job demands and the rela­
tionship between their variables but also the combined interaction effect
of other job demand and resource variables with respect to each job
demand. For example, by recognizing the effect on workers’ responses
(e.g., job burnout) in an unfair political work environment in which the
interaction effect of job demands and resources is another job demand
variable, a solution for more effective human resource management can
4
Computers in Human Behavior 105 (2020) 106194
be discussed.
Recent research on work-related smartphone use at home after work
has revealed that it functions as a job demand. However, similar to the
research by Piszczek (2017), which tested the moderating effect of
work-family separation preference tendencies and the work-related use
of smartphones after work, previous studies seem to have under­
estimated the impact of contextual variables by focusing on the indi­
vidual characteristics as the moderating variables in the relationship
between work-related smartphone use after work and organizational
performance.
3. Research model and hypotheses building
3.1. Work-related smartphone use after work and burnout
The research model of this study is shown in Fig. 1. The use of
smartphones to complete work-related tasks after work, regardless of
time and place, functions as a job demand variable, which is a stress
factor that requires emotional and physical effort much like work
overload, role ambiguity, and job instability. For example, many
empirical studies have reported that work-related smartphone use after
work increases the risk of psychological symptoms, such as burnout,
among workers (Naseer, Khan, & Khawaja, 2012; Ragsdale & Hoover,
2016; Xie et al., 2018). In particular, in their study on an ICT expert
group (e.g., software developer, designer, etc.) and non-expert group (e.
g., HR personnel, etc.), Maier, Laumer, and Eckhardt (2015) found that
while techno-stress leads to techno-burnout in the expert group,
techno-stress in the non-expert group more directly affects work-family
conflict and job performance. In other words, frequent work requests
during work hours and emails and various other work requests delivered
through smartphones after work hours, on weekends, and during holi­
days blur the distinction between work and rest. This work overload
induces complications such as stress and job burnout. Therefore, while
the work-related use of smartphones is a revolution that can increase
work performance in today’s technology-based work environment, it
can also function as a job demand factor that amplifies stress or job
burnout. Nevertheless, the empirical results of previous research on the
relationship between work-related smartphone use and job burnout
have not been consistent (Derks et al., 2014; Reinke &
Chamorro-Premuzic, 2014; Xie et al., 2018). Hence, the following hy­
pothesis was built to confirm the results of previous research and
generalize the analysis results by comparing the existing results with
those of Korea.
Hypothesis 1. Work-related smartphone use after work will increase
workers’ job burnout.
3.2. Moderating role of social support
Previous studies on the moderating effects of job demands and job
resources have supported the buffering hypothesis of job resources
(Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner,
& Schaufeli, 2001). Hakanen, Bakker, and Demerouti (2005) stated that
the negative relationship between job demand and work engagement is
alleviated by job resources, and Bakker, Demerouti, and Euwema (2005)
observed that job resources (e.g., autonomy and feedback) alleviate the
negative effect of job demands (e.g., excessive workload) on job
burnout. Research on effective intervention methods to mitigate the
negative effects of work-related usage of smartphones after work is
needed (Xie et al., 2018). To this end, many researchers have asserted
that social support, as a job resource, is a core variable that alleviates the
negative effects of job demands (Bakker et al., 2004; Demerouti et al.,
2001).
Social support can also provide practical assistance in employees’
company life and affect individual and organizational decision-making.
For example, because superiors not only provide emotional support (e.
J.-C. Park et al.
Fig. 1. Research model.
g., interest and encouragement) but also practical help and problem-
solving feedback, they perform an even more important role in allevi­
ating the negative psychological outcomes of workers (S. E. Park, Kim, &
Kim, 2005). Furthermore, the support of peers who offer not only
assistance on various matters but also emotional support cannot be
overlooked (Dunst, Trivette, & Deal, 1994). Cordial relationships and
cooperation with peers promote the emotional stability of workers, help
to alleviate job burnout, and help workers perform important roles
through teamwork (Berry, Parasuraman, & Zeithaml, 1994).
In East Asian countries where collectivist culture is strong, percep­
tion of social support within an organization can influence after-work
hours. For example, in a collectivist culture, unlike Western societies,
workers’ perception is that an organization provides them social status
and economic power, which tends to weaken work and family bound­
aries (Yang, Chen, Choi, & Zou, 2000). Since Korea is also an East Asian
culture with strong collectivism (Hofstede, 2001), Korean workers tend
to identify themselves with their organizations. They make great efforts
to build relationships with their bosses and colleagues who have a sig­
nificant impact on their performance evaluation and reputation.
Therefore, in Korea, where the collectivist culture is strong, the social
support of supervisors and colleagues is a manifestation of mutual trust
and is perceived as a necessary resource for carrying out work, and as
such, it continues to have effects beyond the scope of work.
In East Asia, the relationship between employers and employees is
more family-like than in Western societies (Powell, Francesco, & Ling,
2009), and employers continue to provide emotional and instrumental
support to build friendly relations with workers (Chen & Chen, 2004).
As a result, workers who receive support from their supervisors and
colleagues continue to work even after working hours, subject to the
principle of reciprocity (Shi et al., 2018). Cialdini and Trost (1998)
argued that interaction with supervisors and colleagues determines the
social norms of work-related use of smartphones after work. Generally,
since a supervisor is a role model and authority figure for a worker,
workers perceive the supervisor’s after-work job instructions after work
as pressure on them outside of work. On the other hand, workers who
emphasize their relationship with their supervisors perceive their use of
smartphones after work as behavior that meets expectations (Derks
et al., 2015). Since it has been shown that many employees want to
belong to a peer group, and because such groups and their members
become integral parts of workers’ lives (Derks et al., 2015), social sup­
port can have a lasting positive effect, regardless of work hours. In order
to confirm this, this study tests the interaction effect of social support
(supervisor support, peer support) and job demand (work-related
smartphone use after work) to increase the possibility of generalizing
the buffering hypothesis of job resources. To do this, we set the following
hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2. Social support (supervisor support, peer support) will
alleviate the impact of work-related smartphone use after work on job
5
Computers in Human Behavior 105 (2020) 106194
burnout.
3.3. Three-way moderating effect of social support and organizational
politics
While previous studies have emphasized the buffering role of social
support, there have also been claims that the buffer role of social support
is limited or not effective (Dormann & Zapf, 1999). Wade and Kendler
(2000) analyzed the existing research on the buffer role of social support
and found that the effect was not empirically confirmed in most studies.
This is because the alleviation effects of social support on job stress and
job burnout can vary depending on the subjects or circumstances that
provide social support (Im, 2007). For example, Haslam (2004) argued
that the effects of social support differ based on the social class of the
supporter. Im (2007) suggested that the buffering effect of social support
is higher in the group with high social identification. Thus, the effect of
social support varies depending on the organizational environment. In
particular, understanding the organizational environment in which so­
cial support is provided is necessary to understand the buffering effect of
social support on job burnout. Examining the moderating effects of
organizational politics that negatively impact social support can help in
better understanding the buffer role of social support.
Job demand variables can strongly and differentially affect job
burnout depending on various jobs and work situations. As such, the
necessity of research on various work environments has been suggested
(Dawson et al., 2016). For example, Fenner and Renn (2004) stated that
the organizational practice of having members perform their jobs using
their smartphones after work or outside of the workplace adds to the
burden of job pressure. This means that smartphone use after work is
largely affected by the organizational environment. In an unfair orga­
nizational atmosphere rife with organizational politics, work-related
smartphone use after work can have a negative impact on the motiva­
tion of workers. For example, Bakker et al. (2007) stated that the
negative effects of misbehavior on the dedication of students are alle­
viated by a positive school atmosphere. In particular, Song (2009) stated
that because workers anticipate that their efforts will be rewarded in the
future, even if they are not paid for the additional work after work hours,
this additional work has a positive impact on motivation. However, in an
unfair organizational atmosphere, these expectations of the workers are
not met. As such, they recognize an unfair political work environment as
a factor that has a negative impact on motivation; ultimately, an unfair
work environment functions as an important contextual variable that
affects work-related smartphone use after work. In other words, mem­
bers who are exposed to unfair political environments respond more
sensitively to the increase in the uncertainty of the work environment
depending on their expectations of fair evaluations or future rewards
from the organization. The buffering role of social support on job
burnout is more varied in an unfair environment than in a fair one. In
particular, inconsistent research results about the buffering role of social
J.-C. Park et al. Computers in Human Behavior 105 (2020) 106194

support on job demands allow the assumption that the interaction role of Table 3
social support is affected by another third variable (e.g., political work Measurement items.
environment). Furthermore, in his conservation of resources theory, Constructs Items Ref.
Hobfoll (1989) stated that a job resource not only manages job demands
Smartphone use SUW1 These days, I often use my Derks et al. (2014)
but also responds more effectively when faced with very high job de­ after work smartphone to attend to my
mands. Therefore, the interaction effect of job demand and social sup­ job even after work.
port on job burnout can respond more sensitively in terms of another job SUW2 These days, I have to
demand (organizational politics). respond to work-related
text messages even during
Hypothesis 3. The strengthening effect of work-related smartphone the evening hours.
SUW3 These days, I have to check
use after work on job burnout will be moderated by the interaction
for work-related text
between social support (supervisor support, peer support) and percep­ messages until I fall asleep.
tion of organizational politics. SUW4 When my smartphone
blinks to indicate new
messages, I cannot resist
4. Research method
checking them.
Supervisor SUS1 My supervisor helps me get (S. E. Cohen &
4.1. Research sample support the job done. Syme, 1985; Smith
SUS2 My supervisor is willing to et al., 2013)
The surveys for the empirical analysis of our study were conducted extend himself/herself to
help me perform my job.
on Korean workers working for Korean companies without any restric­
SUS3 My supervisor is willing to
tion on the type of industry. As mentioned earlier, the Korean sample is listen to my personal
suitable for generalizing the results of this study because the penetration problems.
rate of smartphones in Korea is very high, and most Korean workers Peer support PES1 My peers help me with (S. E. Cohen &
difficult tasks. Syme, 1985; Smith
have a high rate of smartphone usage after work. The research was
PES2 My peers listen to me when et al., 2013)
conducted after we explained its purpose to the companies’ human re­ I need to talk about work-
sources personnel and team leaders and obtained their consent for related problems.
participation. The purpose of the study was stated on the cover of the PES3 My peers provide a lot of
questionnaire, and the survey was conducted after the respondents were help to maximize job
performance.
also notified of the purpose of the study. A total of 500 questionnaires
Perceived POP1 There is a lot of self-serving Hochwarter,
were distributed between May 1st and 30th, 2018. A total of 397 organizational behavior going on. Kacmar, Perrewe,
questionnaires were directly retrieved. Among them, 387 responses politics POP2 Members of my and Johnson (2003)
were used for the final analysis after excluding 10 unnecessary responses organization do what is best
for them, not what is best
with missing values or a consistent Likert score. The demographic
for the organization.
characteristics of the study sample were as follows: The proportion POP3 Members of my
(68.5%) of male respondents was higher than that of females. Married organization spend too
people represented the same proportional split as gender (68.5%). Also, much time ingratiating
over 80% of respondents were between 30 and 49 years of age, and over themselves to those who
can help them.
half (58.1%) held a university degree. The job experience of respondents
POP4 Members of my
was somewhat evenly distributed across all categories (Table 2). organization are working
behind the scenes to ensure
that they get their piece of
4.2. Measurement items the pie.
POP5 Members of my
As shown in Table 3, all measurement items of this study were organization are trying to
maneuver their way into
derived from previously validated scales. In this study, we utilized the
the “in” group.
scale used by S. E. Cohen and Syme (1985) and Smith et al. (2013), POP6 Members of my
which comprised 3 measurement items each on supervisor support and organization are stabbing
each other in the back to
look good in front of others.
Table 2
Job burnout JOB1 I feel emotionally drained (Maslach & Jackson,
Demographic information of the research sample. because of my work. 1981; Shin, 2003)
Characteristics Number (N ¼ 387) Ratio JOB2 I feel exhausted at the end
of the workday.
Gender Male 265 68.5% JOB3 Working with people all
Female 122 31.5% day really is a strain for me.
Marital status Married 265 68.5% JOB4 I feel burned out from my
Unmarried 122 31.5% work.
Age 20s 37 9.6%
30s 167 43.2%
40s 147 38.0%
peer support. Job burnout was measured using items presented in the
50s ~ 34 8.8%
Missing 2 0.5% studies by Maslach and Jackson (1981) and Shin (2003). Job burnout
Education level College degree 100 25.8% can be categorized into emotional burnout, dehumanization, and
University degree 225 58.1% reduction in individual sense of achievement. In our study, 4 survey
Master’s degree ~ 61 15.8% items measured emotional burnout among the 3 subfactors presented by
Missing 1 0.3%
Job experience <5 years 102 26.4%
Maslach and Jackson (1981). All items were measured on a five-point
5–10 years 103 26.6% Likert scale. For control variables, we used the demographic variables
10–15 years 68 17.6% used in previous studies on job demands and resources, and job burnout
15 years < 113 29.2% (Chiu, Yeh, & Huang, 2015; Mellner, 2016). Thus, we controlled for
Missing 1 0.3%
gender (male group ¼ 1), marital status (married group ¼ 1), education

6
J.-C. Park et al. Computers in Human Behavior 105 (2020) 106194

level, age, and years of work in our study. Table 5

Factor analysis results.
5. Results Constructs Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor
1 2 3 4 5
5.1. Reliability and validity tests Smartphone use SUW1 .897
after work SUW2 .888
The test of reliability for this study was confirmed through Cron­ SUW3 .845
SUW4 .797
bach’s alpha. According to the results of the test of reliability (Table 4),
Supervisor SUS1 .844
the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of all the constructs exceeded 0.85, support SUS2 .837
which was greater than the 0.7 threshold, indicating satisfactory inter­ SUS3 .816
nal reliability (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). Peer support PES1 .784
PES2 .874
Exploratory factor analysis was performed to test the concept val­
PES3 .861
idity of the measurement tool. Factor analysis was conducted using an Perceived POP1 .829
orthogonal factor rotation (Varimax) through principal component organizational POP2 .798
analysis. The selection criteria for each item in our study were eigen­ politics POP3 .871
values above 1 and factor loading values above 0.4. The results of the POP4 .831
POP5 .866
factor analysis revealed that the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value,
POP6 .799
which measures the relevance of the sample, was close to 1 at 0.859, and Job burnout JOB1 .870
the value of the sphericity test was significant at 4873.255 (df ¼ 190, JOB2 .882
p < .001) (Kaiser, 1974). Thus, the correlation matrix was suitable for JOB3 .849
JOB4 .871
factor analysis. Measurement items were grouped into 5 factors and each
Eigenvalue 2.992 2.326 2.359 4.395 3.080
had eigenvalues above 1. All factor loading values were also found to be Variance (%) 14.959 11.628 11.797 21.974 15.400
above 0.4 (Table 5). Cumulative (%) 14.959 26.587 38.384 60.358 75.758
Before testing the hypotheses, we conducted a correlation analysis to
examine the direction and relationship of the interaction between the
measurement variables. The results showed significant positive (þ) re­ the correlational analysis showed the highest correlation value of 0.492
lationships between work-related smartphone use after work and POPs between supervisor support and peer support, indicating that there was
as well as job burnout. However, the relationships with supervisor and no problem. Therefore, it was judged that CMB did not severely affect
peer support were not statistically significant (Table 4). In addition, the research results for the measurement data used in our study.
POPs showed a statistically significant positive (þ) relationship with job
burnout and a negative ( ) relationship with supervisor and peer sup­
5.3. Hypotheses testing results
port. Finally, both supervisor and peer support were found to have a
significant negative ( ) relationship with job burnout.
The results of a multiple regression analysis that tested the rela­
tionship between work-related smartphone use after work and job
5.2. Common method bias (CMB) burnout (Model 2 in Table 6) showed that work-related smartphone use
after work had a statistically significant impact on job burnout (þ). In
Given that the measurement data were measured by self-reporting other words, work-related smartphone use after work was found to
from the same subjects at the same time, the possibility of common promote job burnout in workers. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was sup­
method bias (CMB) can be suggested. Therefore, to resolve CMB in our ported. However, R2 of Models 2 and 3 is relatively smaller than the
study, we tested the empirical analysis results using three methods. First, recommended effect size (J. Cohen, 1988). This implies that there are
there had to be no missing values in any of the variables, and a carefully other factors affecting burn-out and that the interaction effect with
developed measuring tool had to be used (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & smartphone use is important.
Podsakoff, 2003). Second, we performed Harman’s single-factor test Through hierarchical multiple regression analysis, we tested the 2-
presented by Podsakoff and Organ (1986). The results of Harman’s way and 3-way moderating effects of work-related smartphone use
single-factor test showed a total of 5 factors; however, no dominant after work, social support, and POPs. Control variables were entered in
factor was found, with even the factor with the greatest explanatory the first stage, independent variables in the second stage, independent
power only explaining 21.974% of the total variation. Podsakoff et al. variables and 2-way moderating variables (work-related smartphone use
(2003) stated that if a variability of variables exists between 18 and after work, social support, and POPs) in the third stage, and 3-way
32%, they are not affected by the error of CMB. In particular, through a interaction variables in the fourth stage hierarchically. The interaction
Bartlett test (significance level < 0.001), it was verified that the rela­ effects were tested by the significance of the change in R2 and the sig­
tionship among variables was not a unit matrix. The KMO measurement nificance of the 3-way interaction variables (P. Cohen, Cohen, West, &
value (0.859) was also above the minimum standard value (0.5), Aiken, 2014). In particular, to minimize the problem of multicollinearity
showing the relevance of the sample (Hutcheson & Sofroniou, 1999). of the interaction variables, we subtracted the average of the indepen­
Finally, the analysis was found to be valid only if the correlation value dent variables (work-related smartphone use after work) and moder­
among all variables was 0.9 or below in order for the problem of CMB ating variables (social support, POPs) from each of those, then
not to occur (Chang, Van Witteloostuijn, & Eden, 2010). The results of multiplied them (Aiken, West, & Reno, 1991). First, the results of

Table 4
Reliability and validity test.
Construct Mean S.D. α 1 2 3 4 5

Smartphone use after work 2.770 1.029 .882 1

Supervisor support 3.453 .748 .857 .047 1
Peer support 3.695 .631 .857 -.025 .492* 1
Perceived organizational politics 2.775 .805 .923 .109** -.346* -.332* 1
Job burnout 2.976 .861 .899 .106** -.163* -.126** .181* 1

7
J.-C. Park et al. Computers in Human Behavior 105 (2020) 106194

Table 6 Next, the analysis results through a simultaneous entering of the 3-

Hierarchical multiple regression analysis (supervisor support). way interaction variables (Model 5 in Table 6 and Model 4 in Table 7)
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 showed that the 3-way moderating effects of supervisor support and
POPs had statistically significant changes in R2 (.036, p < .001) and 3-
Constant 0.077 0 0.079 0.028 0.028
Gendera -.104 -.114 -.074 -.033 -.008 way interaction variables. Moreover, the 3-way moderating effect of
(-.056) (-.061) (-.040) (-.018) (-.004) peer support and POPs had statistically significant changes in R2 (.041,
Marital statusb -.024 -.003 .025 -.004 -.020 p < .001) and 3-way interaction variables. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was
(-.013) (-.002) (.014) (-.002) (-.011) supported. Although R2 of Model 1 in Tables 6 and 7 is relatively small,
Age .031 .039 .038 .026 .008 (.007)
(.028) (.036) (.035) (.024)
the changes of R2 in other interaction models are significant. This shows
Education .022 -.025 .024 .027 .047 (.039) that the effect of smartphone use after work is closely associated with
(.018) (-.021) (.020) (.022) other job-resource and demand factors.
Job tenure .010 .009 -.005 -.003 -.006 In interpreting the moderating effects, Aiken et al. (1991) proposed
(.015) (.013) (-.008) (-.005) (-.009)
using diagrams to accurately understand the effect of the interaction
Smartphone .094 .078 .073 .017 (.021)
use (A) (.112)* (.093) (.087) term. First, the results of a simple slope test between groups on the
Supervisor -.145 -.187 -.154 3-way moderating effects of supervisor support and POPs (Figs. 2 and 3)
support (B) (-125)* (-.162)** (-.133)* showed that levels of supervisor support moderated the effect that
POPs(C) .138 .117 .134 work-related smartphone use after work had on workers’ job burnout in
(.128)* (.109)* (.124)*
A*B -.040 .004 (.004)
an unfair political work environment. High supervisor support did not
(-.038) have much of an impact on the relationship between high job demands
A*C .039 .066 (.074) (work-related smartphone use after work) and job burnout in an unfair
(.043) political work environment (β ¼ .031, p ¼ .924). However, low super­
B*C .261 .262
visor support further strengthened the positive relationship between
(.229)*** (.230)***
A*B*C -.173 high job demands and job burnout (β ¼ .866, p ¼ .002). In other words,
(-.205)*** it was found that the workers’ job burnout was more severe when job
R2 .005 .015 .056 .109 .144 demands were high and supervisor support was low in an unfair work
△ R2 – .011* .041*** .053*** .036*** environment.
F .354 .992 2.789** 4.129*** 5.224***
In a fair work environment, job demands (work-related smartphone
use after work) had a relationship with workers’ job burnout when su­
simultaneously entering 2-way moderating variables of social support pervisor support was high (β ¼ .656, p ¼ .001). In other words, increased
on job burnout (Model 3 & 4 in Table 6, Model 2 & 3 in Table 7) showed work-related smartphone use after work strongly strengthened job
that the explanatory power (R2) was .056 when only independent var­ burnout when supervisor support was high in a fair work environment.
iables were entered to test the moderation of supervisor support, but the However, the relationship between job demands (work-related smart­
R2 increased by .053 (p < .001) to .109 when 2-way moderating vari­ phone use after work) and job burnout did not change considerably
ables were additionally entered. However, the regression of the inter­ when supervisor support was low (β ¼ .107, p ¼.762).
action term was not statistically significant. Furthermore, testing the Next, the results of a simple slope test between groups on the 3-way
moderation of peer support also showed that R2 was .048 when only moderating effects of peer support and POPs (Figs. 4 and 5) showed that
independent variables were entered, and it increased by .016 (n.s.) to there was no significant effect on the relationship between work-related
0.064 when 2-way moderating variables were additionally entered, smartphone use after work and job burnout when peer support was high
although the difference was not statistically significant. Therefore, Hy­ in an unfair political environment (β ¼ .750, p ¼ .135). However, the
pothesis 2 was rejected. relationship between job burnout and work-related smartphone use
after work when peer support was low was statistically significant
(β ¼ .905, p ¼ .005). In other words, it was found that low peer support
Table 7
in an unfair work environment further strengthened the effect of job
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis (peer support).
demands on workers’ job burnout.
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Finally, the relationship between job demands and job burnout was
Constant .077 .025 .037 .103 not statistically significant in a fair work environment, regardless of high
Gendera -.104 -.091 -.079 -.072 (-.039) (β ¼ .429, p ¼ .313) or low (β ¼ .439, p ¼ .603) peer support. However,
(-.056) (-.049) (-.043)
the group with high peer support in a fair work environment was
Marital statusb -.024 .024 (.013) -.019 -.036 (-.019)
(-.013) (-.010) generally found to have lower job burnout than the group with low peer
Age .031 (.028) .037 (.034) .029 (.027) .009 (.008) support. Overall hypotheses testing results are shown in Table 8.
Education .022 (.018) .006 (.005) .003 (.002) .008 (.007)
Job tenure .010 (.015) -.006 -.010 -.015 (-.022)
6. Discussion
(-.009) (-.014)
Smartphone use .074 (.088) .063 (.075) .006 (.008)
(A) 6.1. Findings
Peer support (B) -.102 -.143 -.063 (-.046)
(-.074) (-.104) This study tested the effect of job demands (work-related smartphone
POPs(C) .158 .128 .114 (.106)
(.147)** (.119)*
use after work) on job burnout and the buffer role of job resources (social
A*B -.014 .098 (.087) support) among Korean workers. In particular, we analyzed the 3-way
(-.012) moderating effect with another job demand (organizational politics) in
A*C .072 (.080) .148 (.166)** order to more accurately understand the buffer role of social support. To
B*C .160 .188 (.143)*
summarize the results of the analyses, first, work-related smartphone
(.121)*
A*B*C -.225 use after work as perceived by the workers had a significant positive (þ)
(-.252)*** impact on job burnout. Second, the moderating effects of social support
R2 .005 .048 .064 .105 were not found in the relationship between job demands and job
△ R2 – .043** .017 .041*** burnout. Finally, a 3-way moderating effect of work-related smartphone
F .354 2.347* 2.325** 3.651***
use after work, social support, and organizational politics was found on

8
J.-C. Park et al.
3
burnout
2
0
mobile use(L)
Fig. 2. Moderating effect of supervisor support in an unfair work environment.
3
burnout
2
0
mobile use(L)
Fig. 3. Moderating effect of supervisor support in a fair work environment.
job burnout.
The most interesting finding from our results is that the buffer role of
social support manifests differently depending on the organizational
atmosphere and the role of the supporter. According to the results, H2 is
not significant, while H3 is significant. Previous studies have explained
why social support works inconsistently; since the social support sub­
jects are diverse, the influence may be different depending on who the
subject is (Haslam, 2004). This means that previous results may differ
depending on which social members’ support impacts are mainly
measured. Thus, the results of this study show that it is necessary to
segment organizational members in order to discuss the impact of social
support. This study also shows the importance of employees’ evaluation
of a fair/unfair organizational context (POPs) for social support to have
an effect. Our results also support Haslam (2004)’s argument that the
buffer effect of social support may have different results depending on
the supporter and the organizational environment.
The buffer role of supervisor support was found in an unfair political
work environment. In other words, in an unfair political environment,
the negative impact of job demands (work-related smartphone use after
work) that induces job burnout was mitigated when supervisor support
9
Computers in Human Behavior 105 (2020) 106194
support(L)
support(H)
mobile use(H)
support(L)
support(H)
mobile use(H)
was high compared to when there was low supervisor support. However,
the buffer role of peer support was found in a fair work environment. In
other words, in a fair work environment with high peer support, the
negative impact of job demands was generally lower than in a group
without high peer support. These results indicate that the buffer role of
social support manifests differently depending on the role of the sup­
porter and the (un)fair work environment of the organization, which is a
contextual situational factor. That is, with the increasing unfairness of
the political work environment, job authority is high and the job envi­
ronment can be controlled by increasing the uncertainty of jobs; the
support of a superior who can provide practical help in decision-making
and can emotionally sympathize with workers plays an important role in
alleviating the negative impacts of job demands in an uncertain work
environment. In contrast, the emotional and social support of peers who
can share excessive job burdens owing to work-related smartphone use
after work serves to reduce the job burnout of workers in a fair work
environment. In particular, it is noteworthy that peer support plays a
buffer role in a fair rather than unfair work environment. In other words,
the support of peers who understand the job burden or the psychological
pressures (e.g., pressure to continuously respond or connect to jobs with
J.-C. Park et al. Computers in Human Behavior 105 (2020) 106194

3
burnout
support(L)
support(H)
2

0
mobile use(L) mobile use(H)

Fig. 4. Moderating effect of peer support in an unfair work environment.

3
burnout

support(L)
2
support(H)

0
mobile use(L) mobile use(H)

Fig. 5. Moderating effect of peer support in a fair work environment.

peers—who lack practical authority, unlike superiors who can practi­

Table 8
cally control the job and decision-making—as well as the fact that
Hypotheses testing results.
consideration or empathy for peers is difficult in an unfair political work
Hypotheses Result environment in which self-interest is prioritized.
H1 Work-related smartphone use after work → Job burnout Supported Meanwhile, high supervisor support in a fair work environment was
H2 Work-related smartphone use after work * Social support → Rejected actually found to increase the negative impact of job demands. These
Job burnout
results contrast the previously described buffer role of social support.
H2a Work-related smartphone use after work * Supervisor support Rejected
→ Job burnout Although previous research on the anti-buffer role of social support
H2b Work-related smartphone use after work * Peer support → Job Rejected (Blau, 1964; Kaufmann & Beehr, 1986) has supported these results as a
burnout preceding factor of stress, the argument is that social support focuses on
H3 Work-related smartphone use after work * Social support * Supported the excessive job burden or on stress on the job site rather than on of­
POPs → Job burnout
fering practical help, feedback, or emotional support on the job, and that
H3a Work-related smartphone use after work * Supervisor support * Supported
POPs → Job burnout supervisor support in this situation can actually increase workers’ job
H3b Work-related smartphone use after work * Peer support * POPs Supported burnout (Beehr, Bowling, & Bennett, 2010).
→ Job burnout Lastly, although not hypothesized, our results also confirmed that
POPs directly affect job burnout. Previous studies have extensively
discussed the negative job outcomes and performance of POPs (Vig­
smartphones even after work) that occur due to the organization or the
oda-Gadot & Talmud, 2010), and the relationship between POPs and
superior and who engage in problem-solving is possible in a fair work
job-burnout was also statistically significant in our study sample. Other
environment. It implies the limitations of the emotional support of
studies with Korean worker samples have also shown consistent results

10
J.-C. Park et al.
that POPs have a negative impact on worker stress, job satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behavior (Cheong, 2015; J.; Park, 2016).
Thus, an unfair political work environment has a negative impact on
workers, so effective organizational solutions are necessary to minimize
or eliminate this.
6.2. Contributions
The academic significance of this study can be elaborated as follows.
First, our study presented an extended research model that describes job
burnout in terms of “work-related smartphone use after work,” linked to
the “right to disconnect,” which is becoming a social issue, as a job
demand variable. Van Veldhoven, Taris, de Jonge, and Broersen (2005)
criticized previous studies that limited their focus to general job demand
variables, rather than focusing on useful and diverse job demand vari­
ables that reveal the work stress or job burnout of workers. Unlike
previous studies focusing on “perceived job demands,” our study
extended the research domain of job demand variables by theorizing the
variable of “work-related smartphone use after work” as a more prac­
tical one.
Second, this study identified the buffer role of social support in the
relationship between job demands and job burnout. The JD-R theory
argues for the buffer hypothesis of social support on various job de­
mands in a work environment. The buffer role of social support has not
been identified either in previous meta-analyses (Ha €usser, Mojzisch,
Niesel, & Schulz-Hardt, 2010) or longitudinal analyses (De Lange, Taris,
Kompier, Houtman, & Bongers, 2003). The results of this study show
that the buffer role of social support, rather than independently having
an impact, can be affected by a third moderating variable. In other
words, supporting the argument that a moderating variable is a useful
tool to understand the inconsistency in the relationship between vari­
ables for which a correlation is anticipated (Baron & Kenny, 1986), it
may be more effective to use a third variable and third-term moderation
test to understand the roles of the two moderating variables in order to
identify the limited moderating effect of social support (Lam, Chuang,
Wong, & Zhu, 2019).
Third, we identified the moderating effect of social support with
another job demand (organizational politics) between job demand and
job burnout. Existing studies have either been conducted only on the
interaction effect of social support with job resources that alleviate job
demands based on the JD-R theory or cannot effectively explain the 3-
way moderating function between various job demand and resource
variables. In particular, exploring the conditions in which the interac­
tion effect of social support occurs is significant because previous
research on the buffer role of social support is inconsistent, as discussed
earlier (De Lange et al., 2003; Ha €usser et al., 2010). Therefore, we dis­
cussed the various interaction effects of job demands and social support
(supervisor support, peer support) on job burnout depending on the
political work environment in our study for the first time.
Finally, we increased the possibility of generalizing the JD-R theory
by testing the negative impact of work-related smartphone use after
work in a different country from those studied previous research. The
fact that similar results were found in Korea, where, unlike in Western
countries, a strong collectivist and hierarchical culture is present,
strengthens the argument for the JD-R theory that workers’ job burnout
is increased.
The practical implications of this study are as follows. First, work-
related smartphone use after work should be minimized as much as
possible to benefit employees. Workers perceive smartphone use after
work as an extension of their job, which signifies that it can lead to job
burnout owing to physical and mental effects. This can lead to dissat­
isfaction with life due to workers’ work-home conflicts or lack of time
for leisure and self-improvement. In particular, in a fair working envi­
ronment, jobs that can be completed through the use of smartphones
after work and which eat into workers’ leisure time, which should be
used to spend time with family, self-develop, or recover from fatigue, are
11
Computers in Human Behavior 105 (2020) 106194
perceived to be unfair and coercive by workers; supervisor support
focusing on this can be perceived as a burdensome and coercive pressure
rather than helpful assistance and encouragement, thus increasing the
job burnout of workers. In particular, in Korean organizational culture,
where the average working hours are the second-longest among member
countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Develop­
ment (OECD), the boundaries between work and family are unclear, and
there are strong hierarchies, job performance after work that occurs in a
fair work environment is an out-of-role action based on self-sacrifice
beyond behavior that is expected from the defined role. Workers expe­
rience role, work-family, and physical and emotional conflicts, which
can function as causes that strengthen job burnout.
Second, it is necessary to establish reasonable policies at the national
or corporate level regarding work-related smartphone use after work. In
a situation where such use is linked to workers’ job burnout, the
reduction of working hours, which has recently been legislated and
enforced in Korea, is considered a timely policy. However, the important
thing is that we need to hold further discussions about creating a plan for
the “right to disconnect” after work. It is also a time for discussing
changes in organizational strategy and CEO awareness of the need to
improve the “quality” rather than the “quantity” of jobs in a business
environment in which creativity and WLB are emphasized. Therefore,
leaders need to preemptively change their human resources policies to
develop systematic human resource management by establishing ethical
guidelines for work-related smartphone use after work, evaluating work-
related smartphone use, and instituting a reward system to enhance the
effectiveness of the organization and improve ethical awareness for the
WLB of workers.
Despite its theoretical and practical implications, our study has the
following limitations. First, it is not possible to draw a clear conclusion
on causality in this study, in that it is a cross-sectional study by single
respondents. In other words, it is necessary to analyze causality among
the variables through a longitudinal study, which allows the examina­
tion of changes over time, such as the development of social support or
relationships.
Second, this study may present limitations of sampling since we
selected samples from workers in Korea (Seoul and metropolitan areas).
It may be meaningful to compare the differences in workers’ perceptions
between different countries or cultures, or to look at the differences
between industries. Therefore, diverse subjects, such as employees from
countries that are culturally different from Korea or from Western
countries and industries, are necessary in order to increase the possi­
bility of generalizing the research findings from a global perspective.
Since this study focuses on how the degree of perceived usage affects
other factors, it is also a limitation to not consider the actual degree of
usage of the sample for analysis.
Finally, in this study, the interaction effects were tested by focusing
on job demand variables related to the work environment (organiza­
tional politics, smartphone use after work) and job resources (social
support). In order to enhance the generalizability of the results of this
study, it is necessary to test the effects of the 3-way interaction effect
between job demand and job resource variables that have been tested in
previous studies, such as perceived task demands, role conflicts, and role
ambiguity.
Credit author statement
Jae-Chun Park: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Writing - original draft. Sunggeun Kim: Writing - original draft. Hwan­
soo Lee: Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
References
Adisa, T. A., Gbadamosi, G., & Osabutey, E. L. (2017). What happened to the border? The
role of mobile information technology devices on employees’ work-life balance.
Personnel Review, 46(8), 1651–1671.
J.-C. Park et al.
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, K. M. (2001). Discriminating among organizational politics,
justice, and support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(4), 347–366.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Job resources buffer the impact of
job demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(2), 170–180.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands-resources
model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43(1),
83–104.
Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources
boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(2), 274–284.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Beehr, T. A., Bowling, N. A., & Bennett, M. M. (2010). Occupational stress and failures of
social support: When helping hurts. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(1),
45–59.
Berry, L. L., Parasuraman, A., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1994). Improving service quality in
America: Lessons learned. Academy of Management Perspectives, 8(2), 32–45.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. NY: Wiley.
Brown, W. S., & Palvia, P. (2015). Are mobile devices threatening your work-life
balance? International Journal of Mobile Communications, 13(3), 317–338.
Chang, S.-J., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). In From the editors: Common
method variance in international business research. Springer.
Chen, X.-P., & Chen, C. C. (2004). On the intricacies of the Chinese guanxi: A process
model of guanxi development. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21(3), 305–324.
Cheong, J. O. (2015). An empirical research on the relationships between organizational
cultures, organizational politics and conflicts, and conflict management. Korean
Comparative Government Review, 19(4), 139–172.
Chiu, S.-F., Yeh, S.-P., & Huang, T. C. (2015). Role stressors and employee deviance: The
moderating effect of social support. Personnel Review, 44(2), 308–324.
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and
compliance. New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Cohen, P., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2014). Applied multiple regression/
correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Psychology Press.
Cohen, S. E., & Syme, S. (1985). Social support and health. Academic Press.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357.
Dawson, K. M., O’Brien, K. E., & Beehr, T. A. (2016). The role of hindrance stressors in
the job demand–control–support model of occupational stress: A proposed theory
revision. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(3), 397–415.
Day, A., Scott, N., & Kevin Kelloway, E. (2010). Information and communication
technology: Implications for job stress and employee well-being New developments in
theoretical and conceptual approaches to job stress. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
De Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A., Houtman, I. L., & Bongers, P. M. (2003).
The very best of the millennium": Longitudinal research and the demand-control-
(support) model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(4), 282–305.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512.
Demerouti, E., Mostert, K., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Burnout and work engagement: A
thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 15(3), 209–222.
Derks, D., van Duin, D., Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2015). Smartphone use and
work–home interference: The moderating role of social norms and employee work
engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(1), 155–177.
Derks, D., van Mierlo, H., & Schmitz, E. B. (2014). A diary study on work-related
smartphone use, psychological detachment and exhaustion: Examining the role of
the perceived segmentation norm. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(1),
74–84.
Diaz, I., Chiaburu, D. S., Zimmerman, R. D., & Boswell, W. R. (2012). Communication
technology: Pros and cons of constant connection to work. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 80(2), 500–508.
Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (1999). Social support, social stressors at work, and depressive
symptoms: Testing for main and moderating effects with structural equations in a
three-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 874–884.
Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Deal, A. G. (1994). Enabling and empowering families.
Brookline Books.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507.
Faucett, J. M., Corwyn, R. F., & Poling, T. H. (2013). Clergy role stress: Interactive effects
of role ambiguity and role conflict on intrinsic job satisfaction. Pastoral Psychology,
62(3), 291–304.
Fender, C. M. (2010). Electronic tethering: Perpetual wireless connectivity to the organization
(Ph. D.). Drexel University.
Fenner, G. H., & Renn, R. W. (2004). Technology-assisted supplemental work: Construct
definition and a research framework. Human Resource Management, 43(2-3),
179–200.
Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Bhawuk, D. P., Zhou, J., & Gilmore, D. C. (1996). Reactions of
diverse groups to politics in the workplace. Journal of Management, 22(1), 23–44.
Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of
Management, 18(1), 93–116.
12
Computers in Human Behavior 105 (2020) 106194
Ferris, G. R., Russ, G. S., & Fandt, P. M. (1989). Politics in organizations. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Fujimoto, Y., Ferdous, A. S., Sekiguchi, T., & Sugianto, L.-F. (2016). The effect of mobile
technology usage on work engagement and emotional exhaustion in Japan. Journal
of Business Research, 69(9), 3315–3323.
Ghislieri, C., Emanuel, F., Molino, M., Cortese, C. G., & Colombo, L. (2017). New
technologies smart, or harm work-family boundaries management? Gender
differences in conflict and enrichment using the JD-R theory. Frontiers in Psychology,
8, 1070.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate
data analysis (Vol. 6). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2005). How dentists cope with their job
demands and stay engaged: The moderating role of job resources. European Journal
of Oral Sciences, 113(6), 479–487.
Halbesleben, J. R. (2006). Sources of social support and burnout: A meta-analytic test of
the conservation of resources model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5),
1134–1145.
Halbesleben, J. R., Neveu, J.-P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014).
Getting to the “COR” understanding the role of resources in conservation of
resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334–1364.
Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London:
Sage.
H€ausser, J. A., Mojzisch, A., Niesel, M., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2010). Ten years on: A review
of recent research on the job demand–control (-Support) model and psychological
well-being. Work & Stress, 24(1), 1–35.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.
Hobfoll, S. E., Johnson, R. J., Ennis, N., & Jackson, A. P. (2003). Resource loss, resource
gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 84(3), 632–643.
Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C., Perrewe, P. L., & Johnson, D. (2003). Perceived
organizational support as a mediator of the relationship between politics perceptions
and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 438–456.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and
organizations across nations. Sage publications.
House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support: Mass. Addison-Wesley.
Hutcheson, G. D., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist: Introductory
statistics using generalized linear models. Sage.
Im, C. H. (2007). A study on buffering effect of social identity to the moderating role
social support in stress-outcomes relations. Korean Journal of Organization and
Management, 31(3), 55–78.
Jimmieson, N. L., Tucker, M. K., & Walsh, A. J. (2017). Interaction effects among
multiple job demands: An examination of healthcare workers across different
contexts. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 30(3), 317–332.
Jung, Y. (2014). What a smartphone is to me: Understanding user values in using
smartphones. Information Systems Journal, 24(4), 299–321.
Kacmar, K. M., Bachrach, D. G., Harris, K. J., & Zivnuska, S. (2011). Fostering good
citizenship through ethical leadership: Exploring the moderating role of gender and
organizational politics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 633–642.
Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1997). Further validation of the perceptions of politics
scale (POPS): A multiple sample investigation. Journal of Management, 23(5),
627–658.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36.
Karasek, R. (1985). Job content instrument: Questionnaire and user’s guide. LosAngeles, CA:
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Southern
California.
Kaufmann, G. M., & Beehr, T. A. (1986). Interactions between job stressors and social
support: Some counterintuitive results. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3),
522–526.
Kimura, T. (2013). The moderating effects of political skill and leader–member exchange
on the relationship between organizational politics and affective commitment.
Journal of Business Ethics, 116(3), 587–599.
Lam, L. W., Chuang, A., Wong, C.-S., & Zhu, J. N. (2019). A typology of three-way
interaction models: Applications and suggestions for Asian management research.
Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 36(1), 1–16.
Lawrence, S. A. (2006). An integrative model of perceived available support,
work–family conflict and support mobilisation. Journal of Management and
Organization, 12(2), 160–178.
Lee, K. H., & Kim, K. S. (2015). A study on the impact of the use of smart devices on work and
life. Retrieved from https://www.kli.re.kr/kli/rsrchReprtView.do?pblctListNo¼866
3&key¼13.
Lee, K. Y., Lee, M., & Kim, K. (2017). Are smartphones helpful? An empirical
investigation of the role of smartphones in users’ role performance. International
Journal of Mobile Communications, 15(2), 119–143.
Levine, M., Prosser, A., Evans, D., & Reicher, S. (2005). Identity and emergency
intervention: How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries
shape helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(4), 443–453.
Liu, Y., Prati, L. M., Perrewe, P. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2008). The relationship between
emotional resources and emotional labor: An exploratory study. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 38(10), 2410–2439.
Maier, C., Laumer, S., & Eckhardt, A. (2015). Information technology as daily stressor:
Pinning down the causes of burnout. Journal of Business Economics, 85(4), 349–387.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 2(2), 99–113.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59.
J.-C. Park et al.
Mellner, C. (2016). After-hours availability expectations, work-related smartphone use
during leisure, and psychological detachment: The moderating role of boundary
control. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 9(2), 146–164.
Middleton, C. A., & Cukier, W. (2006). Is mobile email functional or dysfunctional? Two
perspectives on mobile email usage. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(3),
252–260.
Mintzberg, H. (1985). The organization as political arena. Journal of Management Studies,
22(2), 133–154.
Naseer, S., Khan, M. B., & Khawaja, K. F. (2012). The impact of Big Five Personality
Traits on psychological detachment from work during off job time. Journal of Basic
And Applied Science Research, 2, 12681–12688.
OECD. (2018). Average annual hours actually worked per worker. Retrieved from https://st
ats.oecd.org.
Park, J. (2016). The moderating effects of leader-member exchange and proactive voice
behavior on the relationships between perceptions of organizational politics and
employee attitudes. Korean Journal of Organization and Management, 40(3), 31–58.
Park, C. S. (2019). Examination of smartphone dependence: Functionally and
existentially dependent behavior on the smartphone. Computers in Human Behavior,
93, 123–128.
Park, J., & Kim, S. (2018). Does job resource mitigate the negative effects of job demands
on job burnout? Journal of Human Resources Management Research, 25(2), 19–39.
Park, S. E., Kim, J. Y., & Kim, M. Y. (2005). The effects of job demand, job control and
social supports on the employee burnout. Journal of Organization and Management, 29
(2), 25–57.
Park, G. W., & Won, S. Y. (2013). Determinants of the perception of organizational
politics: Focusing on central government officials’ perceptions. Korean Public
Administration Review, 47(4), 93–120.
Piszczek, M. M. (2017). Boundary control and controlled boundaries: Organizational
expectations for technology use at the work–family interface. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 38(4), 592–611.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research:
Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.
Powell, G. N., Francesco, A. M., & Ling, Y. (2009). Toward culture-sensitive theories of
the work–family interface. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(5), 597–616.
Ragsdale, J. M., & Hoover, C. S. (2016). Cell phones during nonwork time: A source of
job demands and resources. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 54–60.
Reinke, K., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2014). When email use gets out of control:
Understanding the relationship between personality and email overload and their
impact on burnout and work engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 36,
502–509.
Richardson, K. M., & Thompson, C. A. (2012). High tech tethers and work-family conflict:
A conservation of resources approach. Engineering Management Research, 1(1), 29–43.
13
Computers in Human Behavior 105 (2020) 106194
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.
Shin, K.-H. (2003). The Maslach burnout inventory-general survey (MBI-GS): An
application in South Korea. Korean J Ind Organ Psychol, 16(3), 1–17.
Shi, Y., Zhang, H., Xie, J., & Ma, H. (2018). Work-related use of information and
communication technologies after hours and focus on opportunities: The moderating
role of work-family centrality. In Current psychology. Online first.
Smith, J., Fisher, G., Ryan, L., Clarke, P., House, J., & Weir, D. (2013). Psychosocial and
lifestyle questionnaire: Survey research center. Institute for Social Research.
Song, Y. (2009). Unpaid work at home. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and
Society, 48(4), 578–588.
Taylor, K., & Silver, L. (2019). Smartphone ownership is growing rapidly around the world,
but not always equally. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/0
2/05/smartphone-ownership-is-growing-rapidly-around-the-world-but-not-always-e
qually/.
Thompson, S. C. (1981). Will it hurt less if I can control it? A complex answer to a simple
question. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 89–101.
Van Veldhoven, M., Taris, T. W., de Jonge, J., & Broersen, S. (2005). The relationship
between work characteristics and employee health and well-being: How much
complexity do we really need? International Journal of Stress Management, 12(1),
3–28.
Van Woerkom, M., Bakker, A. B., & Nishii, L. H. (2016). Accumulative job demands and
support for strength use: Fine-tuning the job demands-resources model using
conservation of resources theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 141–150.
Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Talmud, I. (2010). Organizational politics and job outcomes: The
moderating effect of trust and social support. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40
(11), 2829–2861.
Voorpostel, M., Van Der Lippe, T., & Gershuny, J. (2010). Spending time
together—changes over four decades in leisure time spent with a spouse. Journal of
Leisure Research, 42(2), 243–265.
Wade, T. D., & Kendler, K. S. (2000). Absence of interactions between social support and
stressful life events in the prediction of major depression and depressive
symptomatology in women. Psychological Medicine, 30(4), 965–974.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of
personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress
Management, 14(2), 121–141.
Xie, J., Ma, H., Zhou, Z. E., & Tang, H. (2018). Work-related use of information and
communication technologies after hours (W_ICTs) and emotional exhaustion: A
mediated moderation model. Computers in Human Behavior, 79, 94–104.
Yang, N., Chen, C. C., Choi, J., & Zou, Y. (2000). Sources of work-family conflict: A sino-
US comparison of the effects of work and family demands. Academy of Management
Journal, 43(1), 113–123.
Yuan, Y., & Zheng, W. (2005). Identifying the differences between stationary office
support and mobile work support: A conceptual framework. International Journal of
Mobile Communications, 5(1), 107–122.