Journal of Business Research 167 (2023) 114190

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

The future is now but is it here to stay? Employees’ perspective on working

from home
Xiu-Ming Loh a, Voon-Hsien Lee a, Jun-Jie Hew a, Garry Wei-Han Tan b, c, d, e, Keng-Boon Ooi b, c, f, *
a
Faculty of Business and Finance, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kampar, Malaysia
b
UCSI Graduate Business School, UCSI University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
c
Faculty of Business, Design, and Arts, Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Campus, Sarawak, Malaysia
d
College of Business Administration, Adamson University, Manila, Philippines
e
Department of Business Administration, IQRA University, Karachi, Pakistan
f
FORE School of Management, New Delhi, India

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

Keywords: The COVID-19 pandemic has compelled the implementation of work from home (WFH) on a global scale. While
Protection Motivation Theory initial responses to the WFH arrangement have been mixed, a majority of them are negative. However, much is
Transactional Theory of Stress still unknown about the antecedents of work productivity and continuance intention associated with WFH.
Status Quo Bias
Hence, this study developed a multi-dimensional research model that comprises of the Protection Motivation
Work from home
Theory, Transactional Theory of Stress, and Status Quo Bias to look into this matter. The responses were collected
COVID-19
Work productivity from employees with WFH experience and analyzed via the Structural Equation Modeling-Artificial Neural
Continuance intention Network (SEM-ANN). Interestingly, perceived vulnerability and perceived severity had no significant relation­
ship with continuance intention. Besides, self-efficacy to handle work tasks from home was found to facilitate
work productivity. In contrast, technostress was found as an inhibitor of work productivity and continuance
intention to WFH. Overall, the employees’ perspective on WFH captured in this study provides great value to
organizational stakeholders. This is because companies with good WFH arrangements have a powerful
competitive advantage in employee recruitment and retention.

1. Introduction
In view of the rapid transmissibility of the COVID-19 virus, countries
around the world have implemented varying degrees of lockdown re­
strictions in efforts to curb its spread. As a result, it has undoubtedly
changed how all of humanity carry out a wide variety of activities. This
is mainly attributed to the rapid digitalization that was forced upon the
general public when it came to conducting daily activities under the new
normal (Dwivedi et al., 2020). One of which involves remote work, or
commonly referred to as work from home (WFH). Before the COVID-19
pandemic, WFH was merely an abstract concept to many employers and
employees as it was not widely practiced. However, this situation has
since changed since the COVID-19 pandemic as WFH quickly became the
norm (Vyas & Butakhieo, 2021).
With that said, the implementation of WFH following the COVID-19
pandemic garnered mixed responses (more negative ones) as this was
the first time for many companies to execute such an arrangement
(Escudero & Kleinman, 2022). Unfortunately for many employees, WFH
was not the dream experience that they were expecting. This is because
they had to deal with a variety of issues and challenges inherent to WFH.
More precisely, employees did not only find it difficult to balance be­
tween home and work tasks but were also stressed by the excessive
amount of time spent dealing with underlying technological complex­
ities (Saura et al., 2022). This can be attributed to the lack of resources,
knowledge, and skills when utilizing technology for work-related pur­
poses. Hence, many employees felt the pressure of needing to regularly
equip themselves to effectively WFH (Lund et al., 2020). It is therefore
not shocking that many employees complained about having to work
longer hours, attend more virtual meetings, as well as the blurring of
lines between work and personal life (Laker, 2020). With that said, a
number of companies have decided to permanently adopt the WFH
arrangement (Stoller, 2021). Following the novelty of this situation,

* Corresponding author at: UCSI Graduate Business School, UCSI University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
E-mail addresses: lohxiuming96@gmail.com (X.-M. Loh), leevoonhsien@gmail.com (V.-H. Lee), hew.jun.jie@gmail.com (J.-J. Hew), garrytanweihan@gmail.com
(G.W.-H. Tan), ooikengboon@gmail.com (K.-B. Ooi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114190
Received 15 October 2021; Received in revised form 19 July 2023; Accepted 21 July 2023
Available online 5 August 2023
0148-2963/© 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
X.-M. Loh et al.
such companies will need to develop strategies to encourage their em­
ployees to continue working from home.
Theoretically, the present study is closely related to several recent
studies. For example, George et al. (2022) looked into the perceived
stress, health challenges, work productivity, and well-being of em­
ployees that have transitioned to WFH as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic. Moreover, Prodanova and Kocarev (2022) assessed the pro­
ductivity, satisfaction, and intention to continue with remote work
among employees during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the
uniqueness of the present study is based on its situational contextuali­
zation. More precisely, while recent studies were carried out during the
early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, this study was conducted during
the preparational period of transitioning to the endemic stage (Bernama,
2021). Hence, this study is significant as it looks to capture the temporal
issues influencing the employees’ sentiments towards WFH (Venkatesh
et al., 2021).
Overall, this study looks to ascertain the antecedents that affect
employees’ continuance intention to WFH. In order to achieve this goal,
a multi-dimensional model was developed by integrating the Protection
Motivation Theory, Transactional Theory of Stress, and Status Quo Bias.
Overall, many companies have decided to implement the WFH
arrangement permanently (Stoller, 2021) with even more considering
implementing such an arrangement. Thus, the insights from this study
will offer great value to the top management of these companies in
developing effective WFH arrangements for their employees. In addi­
tion, this study serves as an extension to the existing literature on
organizational management as it looks into the effects of health risks,
self-efficacy, stress, and resistance to change on employees’ work pro­
ductivity and continuance intention to WFH.
2. Literature review
2.1. Protection Motivation Theory (PMT)
The PMT was established by Rogers (1975) which theorized that
when an individual is confronted with a threat, he/she carries out two
appraisal processes. The first appraisal focuses on the threat itself while
the other emphasizes the ability to act against that threat (i.e., threat and
coping appraisal respectively). Following both appraisals, the person
will then decide whether to act in an adaptive or maladaptive manner. In
particular, adaptive behaviours are responses intended to protect
someone from a threat, whereas maladaptive responses include a variety
of behaviours in which the threat recipient avoids conducting a rec­
ommended response (Verkoeyen & Nepal, 2019). During the threat
appraisal stage, an individual will determine how serious the conse­
quences of the threat are (i.e., perceived severity) as well as the prob­
ability of the threat materializing in a way that will directly affect them
(i.e., perceived vulnerability).
Consequently, individuals will assess their ability to deal with the
threat (van Bavel et al., 2019) as well as their level of confidence to carry
out the protective action (i.e., self-efficacy) during the coping appraisal
(Shafiei & Maleksaeidi, 2020). This evaluation would result in a person’s
decision to engage in protective or adaptive behaviours (Verkoeyen &
Nepal, 2019). The PMT has been utilized in several recent empirical
studies to investigate the relationships between PMT components on
attitude (Zhang et al., 2020) and protective behaviors (Wang et al.,
2019). As the PMT focuses on predicting how people will react to health
threats, it is suitable for this study in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Thus, it is used to explain the salient behavioral beliefs and their influ­
ence on employees’ intention to continue working from home.
2.2. Transactional Theory of stress (TTS)
The TTS has been widely utilized to capture the procedural forma­
tion of stress (Lazarus, 1966). Very simply, this approach posited that
the development of stress is due to the interplay between an individual
2
Journal of Business Research 167 (2023) 114190
with his/her environment (Ayyagari et al., 2011). More precisely, when
the pressures from the environment are considered to have surpassed a
person’s abilities, he/she experiences stress. Thus, the formation of
stress is highly contextual as it is dependent on both the individual’s
abilities and environmental situation (Tarafdar et al., 2019). With that
said, the TTS has been utilized to conceptualize the stress experienced
from technology usage known as technostress (Tarafdar et al., 2010).
The term “technostress” is broadly defined as “a modern disease of
adaptation caused by an inability to cope with new information and
communication technologies (ICTs) in a healthy manner” (Brod, 1984,
p.16).
Technostress is more pervasive and amplified in today’s digital era
given the rapid pace of technological advancements and diffusion. More
recently, employees had to abruptly adopt WFH practices for extended
periods of time because of the COVID-19 pandemic. For many, this is
aggravated by the fact that it is their first experience working from home
and were offered minimal preparation (Yuen, 2021). As such, this situ­
ation has led to an increase in the level and severity of technostress as
employees would have to quickly upgrade their technical knowledge
and skills given the higher exposure to complicated systems. Therefore,
technostress has been linked with numerous negative outcomes such as
decreased continuance commitment (Tarafdar et al., 2010), organiza­
tional performance (Tarafdar et al., 2015)and work productivity (Pirk­
kalainen et al., 2019).
2.3. Status Quo Bias (SQB)
The SQB provides a theoretically driven conceptualization in
capturing the preference of individuals for the status quo instead of
trying new things. According to the SQB, when making an actual deci­
sion, people tend to keep with their current selection. This phenomenon
is more prevalent when someone is confronted with a decision that in­
volves something new. In such a situation, the SQB postulates that in­
dividuals are likely to continue with their current behaviors and past
decisions (Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988). This has been confirmed by
several past studies which found that users tend to adhere to the status
quo rather than consider the available alternatives (Li et al., 2021; Gong
et al., 2020; Polites & Karahanna, 2012; Kim & Kankanhalli, 2009).
With that said, SQB is frequently manifested in the form of inertia
which refers to “staying with the current course of action” (Samuelson &
Zeckhauser, 1988, p.23). More precisely, it is the attachment to and
persistence of established behaviors despite the availability of superior
options and incentives to change. In other words, inertia reflects the
unwillingness to shift to present or future alternatives that may be
relatively advantageous when compared to the status quo. In this study,
although many employees have been compelled to WFH, most of them
may be inertial towards the traditional work arrangement. This can be
attributed to longer working hours, more work-related meetings, as well
as the blurring of lines between work and personal life following the
WFH implementation (Laker, 2020). Therefore, this study incorporates
the construct of inertia to account for the employees’ preference towards
the incumbent (i.e., traditional work arrangement) as a possible reason
for their aversion to continue working from home (see Fig. 1).
3. Hypotheses development
3.1. Perceived vulnerability (PV) and perceived severity (PS)
According to Zhang et al. (2020), perceived vulnerability is defined
as the employees’ probability evaluation regarding their exposure to the
COVID-19 disease, whereas perceived severity is defined as the severity
of consequences that arises from the infection of COVID-19 disease. With
regard to the COVID-19 pandemic, perceived vulnerability is based on
the high transmissibility of the virus which has infected over 217 million
individuals whereas perceived severity is based on the 4.5 million lives
lost due to the virus as of 1 September 2021 (Myers, 2021). In view of
X.-M. Loh et al.
Fig. 1. Proposed Conceptual Model.
this, the general public has taken many preventive measures to prevent
getting infected by the virus such as hygienic behavior (Kim et al., 2022)
and travel avoidance (Zheng et al., 2021). Particularly in the context of
the workforce, one of the main protective measures implemented is in
the form of WFH arrangements. Overall, as employees are concerned
about the transmissibility of the COVID-19 virus and perceive it as a
serious health risk, they would have a higher intention to continue with
WFH arrangements. This is based on the employees’ motive to eliminate
physical contact with their colleagues and prevent the possibility of
getting infected by others in the workplace. However, Sreelakshmi and
Prathap (2020) found no direct relationship between perceived health
threat from the COVID-19 pandemic with continuance intention. In an
effort to further ascertain this, the following hypotheses were
developed:
H1: Perceived vulnerability has a significantly positive relationship
with continuance intention.
H2: Perceived severity has a positive relationship with continuance
intention.
3.2. Self-Efficacy (SE)
This study defines self-efficacy as the level of confidence a person has
in carrying out the relevant protective action for self-preservation
(Fischer-Preßler et al., 2022). Self-efficacy was discovered to be an
important factor that drives mitigation behavior (Shafiei & Maleksaeidi,
2020). Therefore, if employees are highly confident in carrying out the
protective action (i.e., WFH), they would have a higher tendency to
continuously perform the behavior (Fischer-Preßler et al., 2022; War­
kentin et al., 2016). Furthermore, Villotti et al. (2018) established that
self-efficacy is positively linked with work productivity. Similarly, if
employees are confident in handling their work-related tasks while
working from home, this would result in better work productivity.
However, a survey revealed that employees who WFH during the
pandemic have a desire to continue doing so since they had become
accustomed to the WFH lifestyle (Saad & Wigert, 2021). Besides, in the
technological context, it was reported that a higher level of computer
self-efficacy would reduce technostress to a certain extent (Shu et al.,
2011). This is especially true given that a higher level of self-efficacy will
help individuals feel confident in executing their work-related tasks,
making them more adaptive even under stressful situations (Yener et al.,
2021). Therefore, it is expected that employees with a high level of self-
3
Journal of Business Research 167 (2023) 114190
efficacy with WFH would experience lesser technostress. However,
studies in the COVID-19 context have scarcely looked into the effect of
self-efficacy on continuance intention, work productivity, and techno­
stress (Loh et al., 2022a; Straus et al., 2022). Following the above-
mentioned, this study hypothesized that:
H3: Self-efficacy has a positive relationship with continuance
intention.
H4: Self-efficacy has a positive relationship with work productivity.
H5: Self-efficacy has a negative relationship with technostress.
3.3. Technostress (TS)
In addition, extant information systems literature suggests that when
individuals are experiencing technostress , they would have the inten­
tion to discontinue their technology use (Maier et al., 2015; Mak et al.,
2018). In the workplace, it was found that the technostress experienced
by employees would affect their intentions to extend the use of tech­
nology (Fuglseth & Sørebø, 2014). Furthermore, past studies have found
that technostress has negative impacts on employees’ performance and
productivity (da Silva Cezar & Maçada, 2021; Tarafdar et al., 2007).
Besides, given the technostress experienced by employees, they may
prefer to maintain the status quo (i.e., traditional working arrangement)
instead of switching to the alternative (i.e., WFH) which would help in
reducing the likelihood of contracting the COVID-19 virus from the
workplace. There are many antecedents to inertia such as the external
pressure experienced by the individual (Polites & Karahanna, 2012).
Given that technostress is considered to be a form of pressure for em­
ployees (Fuglseth & Sørebø, 2014), it is normal for employees experi­
encing high levels of technostress to have inertia towards the status quo
(i.e., traditional working arrangement). From the above-mentioned, the
following hypotheses were developed:
H6: Technostress has a negative relationship with work productivity.
H7: Technostress has a negative relationship with continuance
intention.
H8: Technostress has a positive relationship with inertia.
3.4. Inertia (IN)
Polites and Karahanna (2012) stated that inertia is the person’s un­
willingness to leave the status quo even if there are alternatives present.
X.-M. Loh et al.
It is synonymous with resistance to change which has been revealed to
be a significant determinant for the failure of change initiatives in the
organizational (Amarantou et al., 2018; Lenka et al., 2018) and personal
(Loh et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2020) settings. This desire to continue
with the status quo has also been found to reduce employees’ intention
to use new technology (Sillic, 2019). Particularly with the WFH initia­
tives that were implemented due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many
employees across the board were affected. This is because working in the
office has been the norm for countless years. Furthermore, employees
were required to make technological and personal changes in order to
optimize their WFH arrangements (Vyas & Butakhieo, 2021). Hence,
employees may develop high levels of inertia towards traditional work
arrangements which would result in their unwillingness to continue
with WFH arrangements. With that said, the hypothesis below was
developed:
H9: Inertia has a negative relationship with continuance intention.
3.5. Work productivity (WP)
Work productivity is a vital element to all companies as it affects
their overall business performance (Farooq & Sultana, 2022; Ooi et al.,
2007). More specifically, it denotes the employee’s ability to accomplish
their work-related tasks (Yunus & Ernawati, 2018). With reference to
George et al. (2022), they distinctly examined the productivity and
continuance intention of remote workers during the COVID-19
pandemic. In other words, they did not propose a relationship be­
tween both constructs. In contrast, Prodanova and Kocarev (2022) hy­
pothesized that when employees are getting better work productivity
when working from home, it is likely that they will develop the intention
to continue working from home even after the pandemic has ended.
However, the said hypothesis was not supported by the results. This is
surprising given that the study by Eom et al. (2016) found that increased
work productivity is one of the drivers for smart work usage among
public sector employees. Particularly in this study, the scope of work
productivity is in the context of working from home. In general, em­
ployees’ work productivity would be affected by the inherent differences
between traditional and WFH arrangements. Hence, only employees
who are able to work productively from home would want to continue
with this arrangement. From the above-mentioned, this study looks to
further extend the discussion on the relationship between work pro­
ductivity and continuance intention with the following hypothesis:
H10: Work productivity has a positive relationship with continuance
intention.
4. Research methodology
The target respondents were current employees with WFH experi­
ence in Malaysia. This is because the country was still in a nationwide
state of emergency with lockdown restrictions implemented in mid-
2021 (Lee, 2021). Besides, non-probability sampling was chosen as
there was no sampling frame available. In this case, purposive sampling
was selected as it would better ensure the right selection of participants
(Lew et al., 2020). In this study, the responses were filtered out if the
participants indicated that they were unemployed or had no experience
with WFH when the responses were being collected. In line with recent
studies (e.g., Lau et al., 2021; Yan et al., 2021), G*Power was used to
determine the minimum sample size. With the settings of 0.05 for
margin error, 0.80 for statistical power, 0.15 for effect size, and 8 pre­
dictors, the minimum sample size was calculated to be 109 responses.
Appendix A lists all questionnaire items that were gauged with a
seven-point Likert scale together with the corresponding sources. A pre-
test and pilot test were carried out prior to the actual data collection to
ensure content validity and reliability respectively. More specifically,
two academicians were approached for the pre-test whereas 30
4
Journal of Business Research 167 (2023) 114190
respondents were solicited for the pilot test. For the actual data collec­
tion, a professional data collector was employed to assist with the data
collection due to the complex situation in Malaysia. Overall, 271 re­
sponses were collected but only 231 responses were valid after the
filtering process. The descriptive statistics of the 231 respondents were
reported in Appendix B.
In addition, a dual-stage Structural Equation Modeling-Artificial
Neural Network (SEM-ANN) approach was utilized for the data anal­
ysis. In particular, the Partial Least Squares-SEM (PLS-SEM) which has
been widely employed by past information systems research (e.g., Loh
et al., 2023; Tew et al., 2021) was utilized in this study given its suit­
ability to analyze complex models (Hair et al., 2022). Besides, the ANN
was supplemented to capture the non-linear and non-compensatory re­
lationships between predictors and target constructs which better re­
flects the complex processes in human decision-making (Loh et al.,
2022b).
5. Data analysis
5.1. Common method bias (CMB)
As this study only utilized the survey method to collect data, CMB
may be present. Therefore, this study adhered to the guidelines sug­
gested by Podsakoff et al., (2003) to procedurally use brief and simple
language as well as assure respondents of confidentiality and anonym­
ity. In addition, the unmeasured latent constructed method by Liang
et al. (2007) was also used to assess CMB. As most of the method factor
loadings (Rb) shown in Table 1 are not significant with a majority of
them recording negative values, CMB is not a concern in this study.
5.2. Outer measurement model
Subsequently, the reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant
validity of all first-order constructs were ascertained. The thresholds for
these assessments were based on Hair et al. (2019). As shown in Table 2,
reliability was determined from the values of Cronbach’s alpha, com­
posite reliability, and rho_A which were all above 0.7. Furthermore, all
outer loadings and average variance extracted were above 0.7 and 0.5
respectively, thereby verifying convergent validity. Besides, Table 3
shows that discriminant validity was established by the values of the
HeteroTrait-MonoTrait which were all below 0.85 (Cham et al., 2023).
As technostress is postulated as a second-order construct in this
study, multicollinearity was assessed at the first-order level. With
regards to Table 4, multicollinearity was not an issue as the values of the
Variance Inflation Factor for techno-complexity, techno-invasion, and
techno-overload were below 3.3 (Chong et al., 2014; Sarstedt et al.,
2019). Moreover, all outer weights for the first-order constructs were
significant except for techno-overload.
5.3. Inner Structural model
With regards to Table 5., H1, H2, and H3 were not supported as
perceived vulnerability, perceived severity, and self-efficacy have no
significant relationship with continuance intention. Besides, self-
efficacy has a significantly positive relationship with work productiv­
ity; thereby providing support for H4. In contrast, H5 was not supported
as self-efficacy was found to have no significant relations with techno­
stress. Furthermore, the hypotheses with technostress as the antecedent
(H6, H7, and H8) were supported. In particular, technostress was
discovered to have a significantly negative relationship with both work
productivity and continuance intention but a significantly positive one
with inertia. Moreover, inertia was revealed to have a significantly
negative relationship with continuance intention which supports H9.
Lastly, support was found for H10 as work productivity was revealed to
have a significant relationship with continuance intention. Moreover, Q2
was used to assess the model’s predictive relevance. As shown in
X.-M. Loh et al. Journal of Business Research 167 (2023) 114190

Table 1
Common Method Factor Analysis.
Latent Construct Indicators Substantive factor loading (Ra) Ra2 Method factor Rb2

loading (Rb)

Perceived Vulnerability PV1 0.816*** 0.666 − 0.085NS 0.007

PV2 0.847*** 0.717 0.014NS 0.000
PV3 0.831*** 0.691 0.070NS 0.005
Perceived Severity PS1 0.904*** 0.817 − 0.013NS 0.000
PS2 0.894*** 0.799 0.013NS 0.000
Self-Efficacy SE1 0.799*** 0.638 0.035NS 0.001
SE2 0.843*** 0.711 − 0.100** 0.010
SE3 0.843*** 0.711 0.068NS 0.005
Techno-Overload TO1 0.707*** 0.500 0.002NS 0.000
TO2 0.817*** 0.667 0.025NS 0.001
TO3 0.796*** 0.634 − 0.121NS 0.015
TO4 0.687*** 0.472 0.084NS 0.007
Techno-Invasion TI1 0.882*** 0.778 − 0.247* 0.061
TI2 1.047*** 1.096 − 0.332*** 0.110
TI3 0.561*** 0.315 0.282** 0.080
TI4 0.567*** 0.321 0.244* 0.060
Techno-Complexity TC1 0.913*** 0.834 − 0.015NS 0.000
TC2 0.891*** 0.794 0.027NS 0.001
TC3 0.924*** 0.854 − 0.012NS 0.000
Inertia IN1 0.707*** 0.500 0.162* 0.026
IN2 0.891*** 0.794 − 0.022 NS 0.000
IN3 0.956*** 0.914 − 0.105* 0.011
IN4 0.883*** 0.780 − 0.029 NS 0.001
Work Productivity WP1 0.802*** 0.643 − 0.023NS 0.001
WP2 0.844*** 0.712 − 0.012NS 0.000
WP3 0.828*** 0.686 0.033NS 0.001
Continuance Intention CI1 0.775*** 0.601 − 0.086NS 0.007
CI2 0.860*** 0.740 − 0.086* 0.007
CI3 0.847*** 0.717 0.038NS 0.001
CI4 0.845*** 0.714 0.126** 0.016
Average 0.827 0.694 ¡0.002 0.014
NS
Note: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05, insignificant.

Table 2
Outer Loadings, Reliability, and Convergent Validity.
Constructs Items Outer Loadings Cronbach’s Alpha Composite Reliability Average Variance Extracted

Perceived Vulnerability PV1 0.934 0.776 0.851 0.659

PV2 0.746
PV3 0.739
Perceived Severity PS1 0.777 0.763 0.873 0.777
PS2 0.975
Self-Efficacy SE1 0.827 0.771 0.865 0.682
SE2 0.803
SE3 0.846
Techno-Overload TO1 0.715 0.741 0.838 0.565
TO2 0.835
TO3 0.686
TO4 0.761
Techno-Invasion TI1 0.652 0.747 0.839 0.567
TI2 0.753
TI3 0.811
TI4 0.787
Techno-Complexity TC1 0.900 0.895 0.935 0.827
TC2 0.914
TC3 0.914
Inertia IN1 0.847 0.883 0.919 0.739
IN2 0.871
IN3 0.866
IN4 0.855
Work Productivity WP1 0.795 0.765 0.863 0.678
WP2 0.810
WP3 0.863
Continuance Intention CI1 0.786 0.851 0.900 0.692
CI2 0.855
CI3 0.839
CI4 0.845

5
X.-M. Loh et al. Journal of Business Research 167 (2023) 114190

Table 3
Discriminant Validity.
Latent Construct CI IN PS PV SE TC TI TO WP

CI
IN 0.213

[0.099,0.374]
PS 0.087 0.278

[0.047,0.257] [0.109,0.458]
PV 0.094 0.080 0.494

[0.056,0.274] [0.069, 0.259] [0.233, 0.671]

SE 0.273 0.212 0.101 0.478

[0.176, 0.425] [0.085,0.355] [0.068,0.249] [0.333,0.642]

TC 0.151 0.597 0.222 0.234 0.204

[0.091, 0.255] [0.461,0.709] [0.093,0.372] [0.095,0.439] [0.109,0.337]

TI 0.172 0.557 0.435 0.110 0.145 0.647

[0.110,0.313] [0.422,0.689] [0.265,0.599] [0.085,0.268] [0.108,0.300] [0.528,0.767]

TO 0.151 0.421 0.460 0.132 0.124 0.560 0.832

[0.092,0.336] [0.251,0.577] [0.268,0.659] [0.101,0.263] [0.079,0.313] [0.413,0.691] [0.723,0.933]

WP 0.400 0.265 0.180 0.090 0.326 0.262 0.299 0.223

[0.219,0.587] [0.111,0.457] [0.061,0.371] [0.059,0.275] [0.150,0.500] [0.116,0.444] [0.158,0.489] [0.121,0.457]

Notes: a. PV = Perceived Vulnerability; PS = Perceived Severity; SE = Self-Efficacy; TO = Techno-Overload; TI = Techno-Invasion; = TC = Techno-Complexity; IN =

Inertia; WP = Work Productivity; CI = Continuance Intention. b. The values in the brackets represent the lower and the upper bounds of the 95 % confidence interval.

work productivity.
Table 4
Assessing the Second-Order Construct (Technostress).
5.4.2. Moderation analysis
Indicators Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) Outer Weight Subsequently, a moderation analysis was carried out to obtain
Techno-Overload 1.681 0.005NS further in-depth findings. With regard to past studies, only the moder­
Techno-Invasion 1.906 0.434** ation effects of self-efficacy (Fan et al., 2020) and technostress (Verki­
Techno-Complexity 1.494 0.688***
jika, 2019) were assessed. As shown in Table 8, self-efficacy was found
Note: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05, NS
insignificant. to serve as a positive moderator between work productivity and
continuance intention as well as technostress and work productivity.
Table 6, the Q2 values for inertia, work productivity, and continuance However, it had no moderating effect between technostress and
intention are>0. This indicates that the research model is relevant for continuance intention. On the other hand, technostress was revealed to
assessing the three earlier-mentioned constructs (Hair et al., 2022). have no moderating effect between inertia and continuance intention as
well as work productivity and continuance intention.
5.4. Post-hoc analysis
Table 6
5.4.1. Mediation analysis Predictive Relevance.
A mediation analysis was conducted to further assess the dynamic Construct SSO SSE Q2
interactions among constructs. Based on Table 7, the relationship be­
Inertia 231.000 164.025 0.290
tween self-efficacy and continuance intention can be fully mediated by Work Productivity 231.000 205.260 0.111
work productivity. On the other hand, technostress has no mediating Continuance Intention 231.000 194.044 0.160
effect between self-efficacy with work productivity and continuance
Note: SSO = Sum of Squares of Observation, SSE = Sum of Squares of Error, Q2
intention. In addition, the relationship between technostress and
= 1 – (SSE/SSO).
continuance intention can be partially mediated by both inertia and

Table 5
Structural Model Analysis.
Hypothesis Relationship Original Sample Sample Mean Standard Deviation T Statistics (|O/ P Significant (t > 1.65 / p < Remark
(O) (M) (STDEV) STDEV|) Values 0.05)

H1 PV → CI 0.038 0.041 0.068 0.560 0.288 No Reject

H2 PS → CI 0.040 0.037 0.074 0.542 0.294 No Reject
H3 SE → CI 0.073 0.069 0.073 0.996 0.160 No Reject
H4 SE → WP 0.273 0.273 0.078 3.505 0.000 Yes Accept
H5 SE → TS − 0.036 − 0.032 0.075 0.479 0.316 No Reject
H6 TS → WP − 0.264 − 0.265 0.068 3.859 0.000 Yes Accept
H7 TS → CI − 0.190 − 0.191 0.091 2.080 0.019 Yes Accept
H8 TS → IN 0.552 0.551 0.054 10.274 0.000 Yes Accept
H9 IN → CI − 0.353 − 0.351 0.082 4.291 0.000 Yes Accept
H10 WP → CI 0.328 0.332 0.078 4.218 0.000 Yes Accept

Note: PV = Perceived Vulnerability; PS = Perceived Severity; SE = Self-Efficacy; TS = Technostress; IN = Inertia; WP = Work Productivity; CI = Continuance Intention.

6
X.-M. Loh et al. Journal of Business Research 167 (2023) 114190

Table 7
Mediation Analysis.
Direct t- p- Significant (t > 1.65 / Specific t- p- Significant (t > 1.65 / Mediation Type
Effect statistics value p < 0.05) Indirect Effect statistics value p < 0.05)

SE → CI 0.073 0.996 0.160 No 0.090 2.317 0.010 Yes Full Mediation (Indirect
via WP only)
SE → CI 0.073 0.996 0.160 No − 0.007 0.424 0.336 No No Mediation (Direct
via TS Only)
SE → WP 0.273 3.505 0.000 Yes − 0.009 0.468 0.320 No No Mediation (Direct
via TS Only)
TS → CI − 0.190 2.080 0.019 Yes − 0.195 3.630 0.000 Yes Partial Mediation
via IN (Complementary)
TS → CI − 0.190 2.080 0.019 Yes 0.087 2.741 0.003 Yes Partial Mediation
via WP (Competitive)

Note: SE = Self-Efficacy; TS = Technostress; IN = Inertia; WP = Work Productivity; CI = Continuance Intention.

Table 8
Moderation Analysis.
Relationship Original Sample (O) Sample Mean (M) Standard Deviation (STDEV) T Statistics (|O/STDEV|) P Values Significant (t > 1.65 / p < 0.05)

WP*SE → CI − 0.168 − 0.161 0.064 2.640 0.004 Yes

TS*SE → CI 0.074 0.068 0.082 0.905 0.183 No
TS*SE → WP − 0.127 − 0.126 0.076 1.665 0.048 Yes
IN*TS → CI − 0.010 − 0.004 0.081 0.123 0.451 No
WP*TS → CI − 0.023 − 0.028 0.085 0.277 0.391 No

Note: SE = Self-Efficacy; TS = Technostress; IN = Inertia; WP = Work Productivity; CI = Continuance Intention.

5.4.3. Robustness check: unobserved heterogeneity 6. Discussion

It is essential to look into the data structure when evaluating the PLS-
SEM results as failing to check for unobserved heterogeneity will lead to
Type 1 and Type 2 errors (Sarstedt et al., 2022; Becker et al., 2013).
Thus, this study adopted finite-mixture PLS (FIMIX-PLS) to check for
unobserved heterogeneity in the data. The results in Table 9 show that
the 3-segment and 6-segment models have the greatest optimum solu­
tions. With that said, this study adopted the 3-segment model as it
represents a higher proportion of the data as shown in Table 10. In
addition, since the weighted average R2 figures of the 3-segment model
are all greater than the full dataset as shown in Table 11, heterogeneity
is not an issue in this study.
5.5. Artificial Neural Network (ANN)
Figs. 2 and 3 show the ANN models for work productivity and
continuance intention respectively whereby only significant antecedents
from the PLS-SEM results were retained. A ten-fold cross-validation
approach was applied in which 90% of the data was used for training
while the remaining 10% was allocated for testing to avoid over-fitting.
With reference to Table 12, the sensitivity analysis revealed that tech­
nostress was the most important predictor for work productivity fol­
lowed by self-efficacy. In addition, work productivity was the most
important predictor for continuance intention followed by inertia and
technostress. Moreover, Table 13 revealed that the ANN analysis
calculated an R2 of 58.0% for work productivity and 65.5% for contin­
uance intention.
Overall, the key results from the PLS-SEM and ANN were compared
in Table 14. There were minor differences that are attributed to the
capability of the ANN analysis to capture non-linear effects among
variables.
More specifically, it was surprising that perceived vulnerability and
perceived severity were found to have no relationship with continuance
intention. These outcomes contradict the general belief that perceived
vulnerability and perceived severity are important for the adoption of
technologies in view of health-related matters (Zhang et al., 2020). This
indicates that employees’ continuance intentions to WFH are not based
on their perceived health threat arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, this is aligned with George et al. (2022) which indicated that
WFH will continue in the future even though it will not be because of
health concerns. In other words, the intention to continue with WFH
arrangements will not be heavily linked with health concerns but with
other factors instead. This can be attributed to the benefits that em­
ployees experienced while working from home such as flexible working
hours without any loss of productivity.
Besides, in contradiction with the proposed H3 and H5, self-efficacy
does not have a relationship with continuance intention and techno­
stress. Nonetheless, self-efficacy is revealed as a facilitator of work
productivity which offers support to H4. Moreover, it is noteworthy to
discover that work productivity has a positive relationship with
continuance intention, thereby confirming H10. Although the insignif­
icant direct effect of self-efficacy is in contrast with the proposed

Table 9
FIMIX-PLS Results.
Fit indices Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Segment 6

AIC (Akaike’s Information Criterion) 2462.992 2360.578 2303.893 2288.182 2271.055 2248.533
AIC3 (Modified AIC with Factor 3) 2476.992 2389.578 2347.893 2347.182 2345.055 2337.533
AIC4 (Modified AIC with Factor 4) 2490.992 2418.578 2391.893 2406.182 2419.055 2426.533
BIC (Bayesian Information Criteria) 2511.185 2460.408 2455.359 2491.284 2525.794 2554.908
CAIC (Consistent AIC) 2525.185 2489.408 2499.359 2550.284 2599.794 2643.908
HQ (Hannan Quinn Criterion) 2482.430 2400.843 2364.984 2370.100 2373.800 2372.105
MDL5 (Minimum Description Length with Factor 5) 2815.961 3091.728 3413.225 3775.695 4136.750 4492.409
LnL (LogLikelihood) − 1217.496 − 1151.29 − 1107.95 − 1085.09 − 1061.530 ¡1035.270

7
X.-M. Loh et al. Journal of Business Research 167 (2023) 114190

Table 10
Relative Segment Size.
Number of Segments Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Segment 6

% 0.371 0.359 0.142 0.051 0.039 0.038

is also associated with continuance intention in a negative manner,

Table 11
thereby supporting H9. Although these results are consistent with the
R2 Values for the 3-Segment Solution.
proposed hypotheses, the post-hoc multiple mediation analysis has
Construct Full FIMX- FIMX-PLS FIMX- FIMIX-PLS discovered that inertia partially mediates the influence of technostress
Dataset PLS PLS
on continuance intention while work productivity suppresses the influ­
Segment2 Weighted
Segment Segment Average R2 ence of technostress on continuance intention. In other words, inertia
1 3 aids technostress in diminishing employees’ continuance intention
TS 0.009 0.005 0.072 0.060 0.204
whereas work productivity combats technostress by reducing its nega­
IN 0.333 0.317 0.284 0.418 0.374 tive effect on continuance intention. Such findings are reasonable since
WP 0.149 0.422 0.186 0.874 0.464 the technostress experienced by employees would cause them to think
CI 0.209 0.421 0.569 0.999 0.747 that the traditional work arrangement is better. Subsequently, their
Note: TS = Technostress; IN = Inertia; WP = Work Productivity; CI = Contin­ unwillingness to continue working from home would be increased .
uance Intention. Conversely, when employees achieve better work productivity while
working from home, they would be more willing to continue to do so in
hypothesis, it is in agreement with the recent study by Loh et al. (2022c) the future (George et al., 2022).
which found self-efficacy to be a significant antecedent to users’ inten­
tion in the presence of a mediator. This is corroborated in this study
6.1. Managerial implications
which ascertained the full mediating effect of work productivity be­
tween self-efficacy and continuance intention. As such, it reveals the
Based on the findings, the enhancement of employees’ work pro­
crucial role of work productivity in encouraging WFH over the long run.
ductivity is crucial as it encourages their continuance intention to WFH.
Sensibly, even if employees are confident in executing their work-
Particularly in this study, work productivity is influenced by one facil­
related tasks while working from home, they would not continue WFH
itator (i.e., self-efficacy) and one inhibitor (i.e., technostress). As such,
if there is a decrease in work productivity. In other words, employees
practitioners (e.g., top management and policymakers) who wish to
would only continue to WFH if they were to experience high work
implement WFH over the long run should strive to improve their em­
productivity (Prodanova & Kocarev, 2022). With that said, self-efficacy
ployees’ self-efficacy in addition to minimizing their technostress.
in the WFH setting is crucial when it comes to executing work-related
Furthermore, minimizing technostress would lead employees out of
tasks and being productive (Villotti et al., 2018). Moving on, the lack
their inertial state towards traditional work arrangements and eventu­
of association between self-efficacy and technostress can be attributed to
ally embrace WFH as a new norm.
the novel technical issues (Sutarto et al., 2022) that are beyond the
When it comes to increasing employees’ competence with working
employees’ proficiencies while working from home. As the integration
from home, top management should focus on the aspects of knowledge
of industry-specific skills and technology utilized for WFH is inherently
and resource. Firstly, it is undeniable that employees would need to have
complex and invades the employees’ personal lives, the proposed miti­
certain skills in order to competently handle the digital aspect of WFH
gating effect of self-efficacy on technostress could be greatly minimized.
compared to traditional work arrangements. This includes the technical
Furthermore, the results have confirmed that technostress serves as a
aspects of online collaborations, virtual meetings, and other digitalized
deterrent for work productivity and continuance intention but a facili­
industry-specific tasks. Hence, it is vital for top management to provide
tator for inertia, thereby confirming H6, H7, and H8 respectively. Inertia
training for employees who struggle to learn this new set of skills rather

Fig. 2. ANN Model A Note: SE = Self-Efficacy; TS = Technostress; WP = Work Productivity.

8
X.-M. Loh et al. Journal of Business Research 167 (2023) 114190

Fig. 3. ANN Model B. Note: IN = Inertia; TS = Technostress; WP = Work Productivity; CI = Continuance Intention.

Table 12 Table 14
Sensitivity Analysis. Comparison between PLS-SEM and ANN results.
Neural network Model A Model B Path Path Normalised relative Ranking Ranking
Coefficient importance (%) (PLS-SEM) (ANN)
SE TS IN TS WP
(PLS-SEM) (ANN)
ANN1 0.533 0.467 0.279 0.259 0.462
SE → 0.273 95.313 1 2
ANN2 0.528 0.472 0.325 0.264 0.412
WP
ANN3 0.465 0.535 0.318 0.289 0.393
TS → − 0.264 100.000 2 1
ANN4 0.610 0.390 0.294 0.259 0.447
WP
ANN5 0.429 0.571 0.258 0.113 0.629
TS → − 0.190 51.521 3 3
ANN6 0.552 0.448 0.290 0.207 0.502
CI
ANN7 0.385 0.615 0.334 0.243 0.422
IN → − 0.353 56.813 1 2
ANN8 0.444 0.556 0.283 0.239 0.479
CI
ANN9 0.525 0.475 0.027 0.390 0.583
WP 0.328 100.000 2 1
ANN10 0.409 0.591 0.319 0.210 0.471
→
Average relative 0.488 0.512 0.273 0.247 0.480
CI
importance
Normalized relative 95.313 100.000 56.813 51.521 100.000 Note: SE = Self-Efficacy; TS = Technostress; IN = Inertia; WP = Work Produc­
importance (%) tivity; CI = Continuance Intention.

with telecommunication companies to offer better internet connectivity

Table 13 (e.g., 5G). Besides, policymakers should allow employees to claim tax
Predictive Power. deductions for expenses on WFH-related training and resources. This
Model A (WP) Model B (CI) would motivate employees to increase their overall self-efficacy to WFH
SSE 0.037 0.040
which is in line with human capital development initiatives.
RMSE 0.088 0.116
R2 0.580 0.655

Note: SSE = Sum of Squares of Error, RMSE = Root Mean Square Error, R2 = 1 – 6.2. Theoretical implications
(SSE/RMSE).
Following the dawn of the COVID-19 pandemic, the concept of WFH
has become a reality for many. Although the concept of WFH is not
than merely leaving them to figure it out on their own. Secondly, em­
something new, literature on WFH has been limited, especially on em­
ployees also need to be equipped with the relevant resources (e.g.,
ployees’ continuance intention towards it. Therefore, this study con­
hardware, software) to complement their skills and knowledge. Without
tributes to the literature on WFH and COVID-19 by ascertaining the
the right equipment present, employees cannot competently execute
antecedents that influence employees’ continuance intention to WFH. In
their tasks when working from home. Thus, to ensure that employees are
spite of increasing research on employees’ work productivity and
better equipped, top management should provide relevant allowances
continuance intention, past studies have generally examined them
for the purchase of relevant WFH resources.
separately (e.g., Bai et al., 2019; Villotti et al., 2018). In other words,
Moreover, governmental agencies can support employees who WFH
they would have also overlooked the possible association between both
by enhancing the digital infrastructure. This can include collaborating
of them. As such, this study serves to further the understanding of this

9
X.-M. Loh et al. Journal of Business Research 167 (2023) 114190

relationship by providing empirical support for the significant impact of
work productivity on continuance intention to WFH. Besides, the cur­
rent study also looked into the antecedents of work productivity and
continuance intention to WFH. In particular, this study utilized a multi-
dimensional research model with factors from the health, resistance, and
personal facets. This was achieved by integrating the Protection Moti­
vation Theory, Transactional Theory of Stress, and Status Quo Bias.
Hence, this study is positioned to fill the existing gaps by extending the
literature on WFH and broadening the applicability of the above-
mentioned theories.
Furthermore, the results of this study imply that the Protection
Motivation Theory might not be able to predict protective or adaptive
behaviours at different stages of a threat especially when individuals are
getting used to the threat itself. Therefore, as suggested by Venkatesh
et al. (2021) further studies should be carried out to establish the effect
of time on this matter. In addition, this study advances the Transactional
Theory of Stress by revealing that the negative effect of technostress
could be suppressed by other factors in play. Following this, it is posited
that scholars should put more emphasis on the mitigators to advance the
current understanding of technostress. Finally, given that past studies
utilizing the Status Quo Bias tend to be focused on the direct or
moderating effect of inertia (e.g., Balakrishnan et al., 2021; Gong et al.,
2020), the current study enriches the literature on Status Quo Bias by
highlighting the mediating role of inertia when it comes to facilitating
the negative effect of technostress.
should be conducted multiple countries. This can be done by including
emerging and developing countries or high and low-context cultures
(Hall, 1976). In addition, the type of responses collected can be
expanded to include qualitative data such as text analytics (Sharma
et al., 2020). These recommendations would allow future studies to
attain more in-depth insights into the subject matter. Moreover, not all
the variances for work productivity and continuance intention were
captured in the current study. In other words, this indicates the presence
of other significant variables. Thus, future studies can further extend the
research model with other variables such as satisfaction (Loh et al.,
2022d; Ooi et al., 2018) and task-technology fit (Howard & Rose, 2019).
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Xiu-Ming Loh: Writing – original draft, Project administration,
Methodology, Investigation, Data curation, Conceptualization. Voon-
Hsien Lee: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Super­
vision, Project administration, Investigation, Data curation, Conceptu­
alization. Jun-Jie Hew: Visualization, Validation, Supervision,
Investigation, Conceptualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - re­
view & editing. Garry Wei-Han Tan: Writing – review & editing,
Validation, Supervision, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation,
Conceptualization. Keng-Boon Ooi: Writing – review & editing, Vali­
dation, Supervision, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation,
Conceptualization.

6.3. Limitations and future directions Declaration of Competing Interest

The current study has its own set of limitations which includes the The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
generalizability of findings. This is because of the dissimilar situations in interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
different countries. In view of this, the data collection of future studies the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A:. Questionnaire items

Perceived vulnerability (Zhang et al., 2020)

• Anyone can get infected by the COVID-19 virus.

• It is possible for me to get infected by the COVID-19 virus.
• There is the risk that I might get infected by the COVID-19 virus.

Perceived severity (Zhang et al., 2020)

• If I get infected by the COVID-19 virus, then it would be severe.

• If I get infected by the COVID-19 virus, then it could cause me to die.

Self-Efficacy (Thompson et al., 2017)

• I am confident in my abilities to work from home.

• I have the resources (e.g., computer, smartphone) needed to work from home.
• I have the skills (e.g., communication, task management) needed to work from home.

Technostress (Califf & Brooks, 2020)

Techno-Overload

• I am forced by technology to do more work than I can handle when working from home.
• I am forced by technology to work with very tight time schedules when working from home.
• I am forced to change my work habits to adapt to new technologies when working from home.
• I have a higher workload because of increased technology complexity when working from home.

Techno-Invasion

• I have to be in touch with my work even after office hours due to technology when working from home.
• I have to be in touch with my work even during my off days (e.g., holidays, weekends) due to technology when working from home.

10
X.-M. Loh et al. Journal of Business Research 167 (2023) 114190

• I spend less time with my family due to technology when working from home.
• I feel my personal life is being invaded by technology when working from home.

Techno-Complexity

• I need a long time to understand and use new technologies.

• I cannot find enough time to study and upgrade my technology skills.
• I often find it too complex for me to understand and use new technologies.

Inertia (Polites & Karahanna, 2012)

• I prefer traditional work arrangements (e.g., work in office) because working from home is more stressful.
• I prefer traditional work arrangements (e.g., work in office) because it is more comfortable for me.
• I prefer traditional work arrangements (e.g., work in office) because it is how I have been working for so long.
• I prefer traditional work arrangements (e.g., work in office) because I’ve done it so regularly in the past.

Work productivity (Palvalin, 2017)

• I am capable of handling my work-related tasks while working from home.

• I can satisfactorily achieve my work-related goals while working from home.
• The work-related tasks I complete while working from home are of high quality.

Continuance intention (Bai et al., 2019)

• I would like to work from home on a regular basis.

• I would like to continue working from home in the near future.
• I expect to continue working from home in the near future.
• It is likely that I will continue to work from home in the near future.

Appendix B:. Descriptive statistics

Demographic Characteristics Count Percentage (%)

Gender
Male 106 45.89
Female 125 54.11
Age
16 to 20 years 4 1.73
21 to 25 years 60 25.97
26 to 30 years 68 29.44
31 to 35 years 55 23.81
36 to 40 years 24 10.39
41 to 45 years 9 3.90
46 to 50 years 5 2.16
51 years and above 6 2.60
Level of Education
Primary/ Secondary Education 18 7.79
Diploma / Advanced Diploma 59 25.54
Bachelor Degree / Professional Qualification 127 55.00
Postgraduate (e.g., Master, Ph.D.) 27 11.69
Personal income (per month)
Less than RM2,000 45 19.48
RM2,001 to RM4,000 90 38.96
RM4,001 to RM6,000 66 28.57
RM6,001 to RM8,000 16 13.25
RM8,001 to RM10,000 8 6.93
RM10,001 and above 6 2.60
Employment Status
Part-time employee 17 7.36
Full-time employee 194 83.98
Self-employed 20 8.66
Working Experience
5 years and below 103 44.59
6 to 10 years 78 33.77
11 to 15 years 29 12.55
16 to 20 years 8 3.46
>20 years 13 5.63

11
X.-M. Loh et al. Journal of Business Research 167 (2023) 114190

References Lenka, S., Parida, V., Sjödin, D. R., & Wincent, J. (2018). Exploring the microfoundations
of servitization: How individual actions overcome organizational resistance. Journal
of Business Research, 88, 328–336.
Amarantou, V., Kazakopoulou, S., Chatzoudes, D., & Chatzoglou, P. (2018). Resistance to
Lew, S., Tan, G. W. H., Loh, X. M., Hew, J. J., & Ooi, K. B. (2020). The disruptive mobile
change: An empirical investigation of its antecedents. Journal of Organizational
wallet in the hospitality industry: An extended mobile technology acceptance model.
Change Management, 31(2), 426–450.
Technology in Society, 63, Article 101430.
Ayyagari, R., Grover, V., & Purvis, R. (2011). Technostress: Technological antecedents
Li, A., Sun, Y., Guo, X., Guo, F., & Guo, J. (2021). Understanding how and when user
and implications. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 831–858.
inertia matters in fitness app exploration: A moderated mediation model. Information
Bai, B., Wang, J., & Chai, C. S. (2019). Understanding Hong Kong primary school English
Processing & Management, 58(2), Article 102458.
teachers’ continuance intention to teach with ICT. Computer Assisted Language
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007). Assimilation of enterprise systems: The
Learning, 34, 528–551.
effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS
Balakrishnan, J., Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., & Boy, F. (2021). Enablers and inhibitors of
Quarterly, 31(1), 59–87.
AI-powered voice assistants: a dual-factor approach by integrating the status quo
Loh, X. M., Lee, V. H., Leong, L. Y., Aw, E. C. X., Cham, T. H., Tang, Y. C., & Hew, J. J.
bias and technology acceptance model. Information Systems Frontiers. https://doi.
(2023). Understanding consumers’ resistance to pay with cryptocurrency in the
org/10.1007/s10796-021-10203-y
sharing economy: A hybrid SEM-fsQCA approach. Journal of Business Research, 159,
Becker, J. M., Rai, A., Ringle, C. M., & Völckner, F. (2013). Discovering unobserved
Article 113726.
heterogeneity in structural equation models to avert validity threats. MIS Quarterly,
Loh, X. M., Lee, V. H., Tan, G. W. H., Ooi, K. B., & Wamba, S. F. (2022a). Embracing
37(3), 665–694.
mobile shopping: What matters most in the midst of a pandemic? Industrial
Bernama. (2021). Malaysia to move to Covid-19 endemic in October: Khairy. Retrieved from
Management & Data Systems, 122(7), 1645–1664.
https://www.thesundaily.my/home/malaysia-to-move-to-covid-19-endemic-in-
Loh, X. M., Lee, V. H., & Leong, L. Y. (2022b). Mobile-lizing continuance intention with
october-khairy-DK8279027.
the Mobile Expectation-Confirmation Model: An SEM-ANN-NCA approach. Expert
Brod, C. (1984). Technostress: The human cost of the computer revolution. Addison-Wesley.
Systems with Applications, 205, Article 117659.
Califf, C. B., & Brooks, S. (2020). An empirical study of techno-stressors, literacy
Loh, X. M., Lee, V. H., Tan, G. W. H., Hew, J. J., & Ooi, K. B. (2022c). Towards a cashless
facilitation, burnout, and turnover intention as experienced by K-12 teachers.
society: The imminent role of wearable technology. Journal of Computer Information
Computers & Education, 157, Article 103971.
Systems, 62(1), 39–49.
Cham, T. H., Cheng, B. L., Aw, E. C. X., Tan, G. W. H., Loh, X. M., & Ooi, K. B. (2023).
Loh, X. M., Lee, V. H., & Leong, L. Y. (2022d). A multi-dimensional nomological network
Counteracting the impact of online fake news on brands. Journal of Computer
of mobile payment continuance. Journal of Computer Information Systems. https://
Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2023.2191350
doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2022.2125102
Chong, A. Y. L., Ooi, K. B., Bao, H., & Lin, B. (2014). Can e-business adoption be
Loh, X. M., Lee, V. H., Tan, G. W. H., Ooi, K. B., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2021). Switching from
influenced by knowledge management? An empirical analysis of Malaysian SMEs.
cash to mobile payment: What’s the hold-up? Internet Research, 31(1), 376–399.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(1), 121–136.
Maier, C., Laumer, S., Weinert, C., & Weitzel, T. (2015). The effects of technostress and
da Silva Cezar, B. G., & Maçada, A. C. G. (2021). Data literacy and the cognitive
switching stress on discontinued use of social networking services: A study of
challenges of a data-rich business environment: An analysis of perceived data
Facebook use. Information Systems Journal, 25(3), 275–308.
overload, technostress and their relationship to individual performance. Aslib Journal
Mak, B., Nickerson, R. C., & Sim, J. (2018). Mobile technology dependence and mobile
of Information Management, 73(5), 618–638.
technostress. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 15(4),
Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, D. L., Coombs, C., Constantiou, I., Duan, Y., Edwards, J. S., …
1–17.
Upadhyay, N. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on information management
Myers, J. (2021). COVID-19: What you need to know about the coronavirus pandemic on
research and practice: Transforming education, work and life. International Journal of
1 September. World Economic Forum. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/
Information Management, 55, Article 102211.
agenda/2021/09/covid19-coronavirus-pandemic-1-september-2021/.
Eom, S. J., Choi, N., & Sung, W. (2016). The use of smart work in government: Empirical
Ooi, K. B., Arumugam, V., Safa, M. S., & Bakar, N. A. (2007). HRM and TQM: Association
analysis of Korean experiences. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 562–571.
with job involvement. Personnel Review, 36(6), 939–962.
Escudero, C., & Kleinman, M. (2022). How did working from home during COVID-19
Ooi, K. B., Hew, J. J., & Lee, V. H. (2018). Could the mobile and social perspectives of
impact productivity? A literature review. Work/Place, April 2022, 1-20.
mobile social learning platforms motivate learners to learn continuously? Computers
Fan, A., Wu, L., Miao, L., & Mattila, A. S. (2020). When does technology
and Education, 120, 127–145.
anthropomorphism help alleviate customer dissatisfaction after a service failure? –
Palvalin, M. (2017). How to measure impacts of work environment changes on
The moderating role of consumer technology self-efficacy and interdependent self-
knowledge work productivity–validation and improvement of the SmartWoW tool.
construal. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 29(3), 269–290.
Measuring Business Excellence, 21(2), 175–190.
Farooq, R., & Sultana, A. (2022). The potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
Pirkkalainen, H., Salo, M., Tarafdar, M., & Makkonen, M. (2019). Deliberate or
work from home and employee productivity. Measuring Business Excellence, 26(3),
instinctive? Proactive and reactive coping for technostress. Journal of Management
308–325.
Information Systems, 36(4), 1179–1212.
Fischer-Preßler, D., Bonaretti, D., & Fischbach, K. (2022). A Protection-Motivation
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
Perspective to explain intention to use and continue to use mobile warning systems.
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
Business & Information Systems Engineering, 64, 167–182.
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Fuglseth, A. M., & Sørebø, Ø. (2014). The effects of technostress within the context of
Polites, G. L., & Karahanna, E. (2012). Shackled to the status quo: The inhibiting effects
employee use of ICT. Computers in Human Behavior, 40, 161–170.
of incumbent system habit, switching costs, and inertia on new system acceptance.
George, T. J., Atwater, L. E., Maneethai, D., & Madera, J. M. (2022). Supporting the
MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 21–42.
productivity and wellbeing of remote workers: Lessons from COVID-19.
Prodanova, J., & Kocarev, L. (2022). Employees’ dedication to working from home in
Organizational Dynamics, 51(2), Article 100869.
times of COVID-19 crisis. Management Decision, 60(3), 509–530.
Gong, X., Zhang, K. Z., Chen, C., Cheung, C. M., & Lee, M. K. (2020). Transition from web
Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change.
to mobile payment services: The triple effects of status quo inertia. International
The Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93–114.
Journal of Information Management, 50, 310–324.
Saad, L., & Wigert, B. (2021). Remote work persisting and trending permanent. Retrieved
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on Partial Least
from https://news.gallup.com/poll/355907/remote-work-persisting-trending-
Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage: Thousand Oaks.
permanent.aspx.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of
report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24.
Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor Press.
Sarstedt, M., Radomir, L., Moisescu, O. I., & Ringle, C. M. (2022). Latent class analysis in
Howard, M. C., & Rose, J. C. (2019). Refining and extending task–technology fit theory:
PLS-SEM: A review and recommendations for future applications. Journal of Business
Creation of two task–technology fit scales and empirical clarification of the
Research, 138, 398–407.
construct. Information & Management, 56(6), Article 103134.
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Jr, Cheah, J. H., Becker, J. M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). How to
Kim, J., Yang, K., Min, J., & White, B. (2022). Hope, fear, and consumer behavioral
specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM. Australasian
change amid COVID-19: Application of protection motivation theory. International
Marketing Journal, 27(3), 197–211.
Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(2), 558–574.
Saura, J. R., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Saldaña, P. Z. (2022). Exploring the challenges of
Kim, H. W., & Kankanhalli, A. (2009). Investigating user resistance to information
remote work on Twitter users’ sentiments: From digital technology development to a
systems implementation: A status quo bias perspective. MIS Quarterly, 33(3),
post-pandemic era. Journal of Business Research, 142, 242–254.
567–582.
Shafiei, A., & Maleksaeidi, H. (2020). Pro-environmental behavior of university students:
Laker, B. (2020). Working from home is disliked by and bad for most employees, say
Application of protection motivation theory. Global Ecology and Conservation, 22,
researchers. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/benjaminlaker/
e00908.
2020/08/24/working-from-home-is-disliked-by-and-bad-for-most-employees/.
Sharma, A., Adhikary, A., & Borah, S. B. (2020). Covid-19′ s impact on supply chain
Lau, A. J., Tan, G. W. H., Loh, X. M., Leong, L. Y., Lee, V. H., & Ooi, K. B. (2021). On the
decisions: Strategic insights from NASDAQ 100 firms using Twitter data. Journal of
way: Hailing a taxi with a smartphone? A hybrid SEM-neural network approach.
Business Research, 117, 443–449.
Machine Learning with Applications, 4, Article 100034.
Shu, Q., Tu, Q., & Wang, K. (2011). The impact of computer self-efficacy and technology
Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. McGraw-Hill.
dependence on computer-related technostress: A social cognitive theory perspective.
Lee, Y. N. (2021). Malaysia’s daily new Covid cases per million people is now one of the
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 27(10), 923–939.
highest globally. CNBC. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/30/covid-
Sillic, M. (2019). Critical impact of organizational and individual inertia in explaining
malaysia-daily-cases-per-million-people-among-highest-globally.html.
non-compliant security behavior in the Shadow IT context. Computers and Security,
80, 108–119.

12
X.-M. Loh et al.
Sreelakshmi, C. C., & Prathap, S. K. (2020). Continuance adoption of mobile-based
payments in Covid-19 context: An integrated framework of health belief model and
expectation confirmation model. International Journal of Pervasive Computing and
Communications, 16(4), 351–369.
K. Stoller Never want to go back to the office? Here’s where you should work 2021
Forbes Retrieved from.
Straus, E., Uhlig, L., Kühnel, J., & Korunka, C. (2022). Remote workers’ well-being,
perceived productivity, and engagement: Which resources should HRM improve
during COVID-19? A longitudinal diary study. The. International Journal of Human
Resource Management.. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2022.2075235
Sutarto, A. P., Wardaningsih, S., & Putri, W. H. (2022). Factors and challenges
influencing work-related outcomes of the enforced work from home during the
COVID-19 pandemic: Preliminary evidence from Indonesia. Global Business and
Organizational Excellence, 41(5), 14–28.
Tarafdar, M., Cooper, C. L., & Stich, J. F. (2019). The technostress trifecta-techno
eustress, techno distress and design: Theoretical directions and an agenda for
research. Information Systems Journal, 29(1), 6–42.
Tarafdar, M., Pullins, E. B., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2015). Technostress: Negative effect on
performance and possible mitigations. Information Systems Journal, 25(2), 103–132.
Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2010). Impact of technostress on end-user
satisfaction and performance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(3),
303–334.
Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2007). The impact of
technostress on role stress and productivity. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 24(1), 301–328.
Tew, H. T., Tan, G. W. H., Loh, X. M., Lee, V. H., Lim, W. L., & Ooi, K. B. (2021). Tapping
the next purchase: Embracing the wave of mobile payment. Journal of Computer
Information Systems, 62(3), 527–535.
Thompson, N., McGill, T. J., & Wang, X. (2017). “Security begins at home”: Determinants
of home computer and mobile device security behavior. Computers & Security, 70,
376–391.
van Bavel, R., Rodríguez-Priego, N., Vila, J., & Briggs, P. (2019). Using protection
motivation theory in the design of nudges to improve online security behavior.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 123, 29–39.
Venkatesh, V., Sykes, T. A., Aljafari, R., & Poole, M. S. (2021). The future is now: Calling
for a focus on temporal issues in information system research. Industrial Management
& Data Systems, 121(1), 30–47.
Verkijika, S. F. (2019). Digital textbooks are useful but not everyone wants them: The
role of technostress. Computers & Education, 140, Article 103591.
Verkoeyen, S., & Nepal, S. K. (2019). Understanding scuba divers’ response to coral
bleaching: An application of Protection Motivation Theory. Journal of Environmental
Management, 231, 869–877.
Villotti, P., Corbière, M., Dewa, C. S., Fraccaroli, F., Sultan-Taïeb, H., Zaniboni, S., &
Lecomte, T. (2018). A serial mediation model of workplace social support on work
productivity: The role of self-stigma and job tenure self-efficacy in people with
severe mental disorders. Disability and Rehabilitation, 40(26), 3113–3119.
Vyas, L., & Butakhieo, N. (2021). The impact of working from home during COVID-19 on
work and life domains: An exploratory study on Hong Kong. Policy Design and
Practice, 4(1), 59–76.
Wang, J., Zheng, B., Liu, H., & Yu, L. (2020). A two-factor theoretical model of social
media discontinuance: Role of regret, inertia, and their antecedents. Information
Technology & People, 34(1), 1–24.
Wang, J., Liu-Lastres, B., Ritchie, B. W., & Mills, D. J. (2019). Travellers’ self-protections
against health risks: An application of the full Protection Motivation Theory. Annals
of Tourism Research, 78, Article 102743.
Warkentin, M., Johnston, A. C., Shropshire, J., & Barnett, W. D. (2016). Continuance of
protective security behavior: A longitudinal study. Decision Support Systems, 92,
25–35.
Yan, L. Y., Tan, G. W. H., Loh, X. M., Hew, J. J., & Ooi, K. B. (2021). QR code and mobile
payment: The disruptive forces in retail. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
58, Article 102300.
Yener, S., Arslan, A., & Kilinç, S. (2021). The moderating roles of technological self-
efficacy and time management in the technostress and employee performance
relationship through burnout. Information Technology & People, 34(7), 1809–1919.
13
Journal of Business Research 167 (2023) 114190
Yuen, M. (2021). Making it work from home. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com.
my/news/focus/2021/03/28/making-it-work-from-home.
Yunus, E. N., & Ernawati, E. (2018). Productivity paradox? The impact of office redesign
on employee productivity. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 67(9), 1918–1939.
Zhang, X., Liu, S., Wang, L., Zhang, Y., & Wang, J. (2020). Mobile health service adoption
in China: Integration of theory of planned behavior, protection motivation theory
and personal health differences. Online Information Review, 44(1), 1–23.
Zheng, D., Luo, Q., & Ritchie, B. W. (2021). Afraid to travel after COVID-19? Self-
protection, coping and resilience against pandemic ‘travel fear’. Tourism
Management, 83, Article 104261.
Lund, S., Madgavkar, A., Manyika, J., & Smit, S. (2020). What’s next for remote work: An
analysis of 2,000 tasks, 800 jobs, and nine countries. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved
from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/whats-next-for-
remote-work-an-analysis-of-2000-tasks-800-jobs-and-nine-countries.
Xiu-Ming Loh is a Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Business and Finance, Universiti
Tunku Abdul Rahman. His research interests include the impacts of innovative technol­
ogies and services to consumers as well as specific applications of digital and mobile
technology in the business sector. His work has been published in international refereed
journals such as Internet Research, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Technology in Society, etc.
Voon-Hsien Lee is an Associate Professor and a Chairperson of the Center for Business and
Management at the Faculty of Business and Finance, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman. Her
research interest includes quality management, supply chain management, mobile, and
social commerce. To date, she has published her work in leading academic journals such as
Business Strategy and the Environment, Information & Management, International Journal of
Production Economics, International Journal of Production Research, Internet Research, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Technological Forecasting & Social Change,
Tourism Management, etc.
Jun-Jie Hew is currently a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Business and Finance, Uni­
versiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia. His research areas include mobile commerce,
social commerce, information technology adoption and continuance. For the single years
of 2020 and 2021, he was named among the world’s Top 2% Scientists in a report pub­
lished by the Stanford University. To date, he has published some of his works in several
renowned journals, such as International Journal of Information Management, Expert Systems
with Applications, Tourism Management, Computers in Human Behavior, Industrial Manage­
ment & Data Systems, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Behavior & Information
Technology, and Computers & Education.
Garry Wei-Han Tan is a Professor at the Graduate Business School, UCSI University. He
has been acknowledged as one of the World’s Most Productive Authors in Social Com­
merce and Mobile Commerce in 2018 and 2019 respectively. His current research interests
are in tourism, mobile commerce, consumer behavior, and supply chain management. To
date, he has published over 50 refereed papers in leading academic journals such as
Computers in Human Behavior, Expert Systems with Applications, International Journal of In­
formation and Management, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Technological Fore­
casting and Social Change, Telematics and Informatics, Tourism Management, etc.
Keng-Boon Ooi is a Distinguished Professor of Information Systems and Industrial Man­
agement. He is Dean of the Graduate Business School, UCSI University. He has published
over 100 papers in international refereed journals such as Business Strategy and the Envi­
ronment, Decision Support Systems, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Informa­
tion and Management, International Journal of Information Management, International Journal
of Production Economics, International Journal of Production Research, Internet Research,
Journal of Business Research, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Techno­
logical Forecasting & Social Change, Tourism Management, etc.