Applied Psychology - 2022 - Uhlig - A Two Wave Study On The Effects of Cognitive Demands of Flexible Work On Cognitive

Received: 14 September 2021 Accepted: 19 April 2022
DOI: 10.1111/apps.12392
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
A two-wave study on the effects of cognitive

demands of flexible work on cognitive
flexibility, work engagement and fatigue
Lars Uhlig1,2 | Christian Korunka2 | Roman Prem1 |

Bettina Kubicek1
1
Institute of Psychology, University of
Graz, Graz, Austria
Abstract
2
Faculty of Psychology, University of Cognitive demands of flexible work are the specific cog-
Vienna, Vienna, Austria nitive demands of planning of working times, planning
of working places, structuring of work tasks and coor-
Correspondence
Lars Uhlig, Institute of Psychology, dinating with others that arise from flexible work orga-
University of Graz, Universitätsplatz nisation. Although these demands have become
2/DG, 8010 Graz, Austria.
Email: lars.uhlig@univie.ac.at
increasingly widespread, their consequences are not
well understood. We propose that cognitive demands of
Funding information flexible work are challenge stressors that can benefit
Austrian Science Fund, Grant/Award
Number: P29408-G29
employees, by adding to their cognitive flexibility and
work engagement, but also impair employees by caus-
ing fatigue. Hypotheses were tested using a two-wave
study design in a sample that recently switched to a
more flexible work organisation (N = 279). Data were
analysed using structural equation modelling. We
found that planning of working times and planning of
working places were related to increases in cognitive
flexibility, and coordinating with others was related to
increases in work engagement. No significant relations
with fatigue were found. Thus, the results suggest that
cognitive demands of flexible work helped employees
Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 13th European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology
Conference in September 2018 in Lisbon and the 13th Alps-Adria Psychology Conference in September 2018 in
Ljubljana.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2022 The Authors. Applied Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Association of Applied
Psychology.
Applied Psychology. 2023;72:625–646. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/apps 625

14640597, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apps.12392 by Indian Institute Of Management Ranch, Wiley Online Library on [22/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
626 UHLIG ET AL.
to personally develop and feel motivated at work. How-

ever, effects on work engagement were rather small.
Future research should control potential confounding
variables more thoroughly and examine effects on
short-term strain outcomes.
KEYWORDS
cognitive demands, engagement, flexible work, personal
development, strain
INTRODUCTION
Today, intense competition and highly dynamic markets have forced organisations to imple-
ment flexible organisational structures in order to adapt to rapidly changing environmental
demands. This trend is further promoted by technological developments such as information
and communication technologies that both enable and drive organisations to become more flex-
ible (Cascio & Montealegre, 2016; Rosa, 2013). For example, information and communication
technologies allow for remote collaboration and therefore greater spatial flexibility. Moreover,
they increase the speed of communication and the rate of change in markets, hence they also
push organisations to implement more flexible organisational structures, which ultimately
results in a higher flexibility for employees (Grant & Parker, 2009).
These changes have been largely recognised in the literature (Allvin et al., 2011;
Cascio, 2003; Cascio & Montealegre, 2016), and a variety of studies have examined the effects
of different aspects of flexible work such as the availability or use of flexible work arrange-
ments (ter Hoeven & van Zoonen, 2015; Vander Elst et al., 2017) or employee autonomy
(De Spiegelaere et al., 2016). However, as noted in a recent review on remote work, most stud-
ies on flexible work have not yet considered the cognitive dimensions of such work arrange-
ments (Charalampous et al., 2019). This is an important omission, given that new demands
stemming from flexible work are largely of a cognitive nature (Allvin et al., 2011). In a flexible
work regime, employees are responsible for deciding and planning when, where, how and
with whom they work1 (Allvin et al., 2011; Grant & Parker, 2009; Kubicek et al., 2017; Prem
et al., 2021). They are expected to organise their work in a self-reliant manner and in a way
that they can perform effectively in a flexible and dynamic work environment (Allvin
et al., 2011; Kubicek et al., 2015, 2017). As these new demands draw largely on cognitive oper-
ations such as planning, decision-making and problem-solving (Grant & Parker, 2009; Hertel
et al., 2006; Schulze & Krumm, 2017; Väänänen et al., 2020), they can be described as cogni-
tive demands of flexible work (Prem et al., 2021). Being a central aspect of flexible work, it is
crucial to investigate these demands and their consequences to advance scholarly knowledge
on flexible work.
Building on the challenge-hindrance stressor framework (Crawford et al., 2010; LePine
et al., 2005), we argue that cognitive demands of flexible work are challenge stressors. Chal-
lenge stressors are stressors that hold the potential to affect employees positively, for example,
by contributing to their personal development or increasing their work engagement (Crawford
et al., 2010; LePine et al., 2005). Both of these outcomes are likely for cognitive demands of flex-
ible work. On the one hand, cognitive demands of flexible work could contribute to the
COGNITIVE DEMANDS OF FLEXIBLE WORK 627
personal development of employees by increasing their cognitive flexibility. Employees could

learn to adapt to changing environments, consider and integrate others' perspectives, and flexi-
bly solve problems (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010; Kohn & Schooler, 1983). Various scholars have
acknowledged that flexible work offers opportunities for such personal development (Allvin
et al., 2011; Hertel et al., 2006; Wang & Haggerty, 2011), but there is still a lack of empirical
studies on this matter. On the other hand, cognitive demands of flexible work could also
increase employees' work engagement through their challenging and stimulating nature. Cogni-
tive demands of flexible work require frequent adaptation to a dynamic and complex environ-
ment and can be mentally challenging (Allvin et al., 2011; Prem et al., 2021). Coping with these
demands could give employees a sense of achievement and satisfy their need for competence
and so increase their work engagement (Gagné & Deci, 2005; LePine et al., 2005; Ryan &
Deci, 2017).
However, the gains of challenge stressors do not come without a cost (Crawford et al., 2010;
LePine et al., 2005). The planning, structuring and coordinating that are linked to cognitive
demands of flexible work are likely effortful (Frese & Zapf, 1994; Sjåstad & Baumeister, 2018)
and could increase fatigue in employees (McEwen, 1998). Taking the positive (cognitive flexibil-
ity and work engagement) and negative (fatigue) aspects together, cognitive demands of flexible
work would show ambivalent effects: On the one hand, they could allow employees to person-
ally develop and foster their work engagement. On the other hand, they could cause employees
to suffer from strain. So far, only few studies have investigated both beneficial and detrimental
outcomes of flexible work in a single study (ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012; ter Hoeven & van
Zoonen, 2015). Doing so is however important as it allows us to understand potential trade-offs
between outcomes (Parker et al., 2017).
Most studies on flexible work examining beneficial and detrimental outcomes so far used
cross-sectional designs (Charalampous et al., 2019), which have various limitations. Most
importantly, as they measure all variables at the same time, they do not allow to examine
changes in the variables of interest. In addition, cross-sectional studies are more susceptible to
methodological artefacts, such as common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Both of these
limitations can be mitigated by using a two-wave study design and so provide stronger indica-
tions for causal effects (Podsakoff et al., 2003, 2012). To address these issues, this study will
investigate the effects of cognitive demands of flexible work on cognitive flexibility, engagement
and fatigue using a longitudinal study design. We will investigate these effects in an
organisational sample that has recently relocated to a new activity-based flexible office. The
organisational sample stems from the headquarter of an organisation in the logistics sector.
With the sample having recently relocated to a new, activity-based flexible office, we expect that
the hypothesised effects will be strongest, as employees will not yet have developed routines in
managing cognitive demands of flexible work. Further, as the sample stems from the headquar-
ter of the organisation, participants in this study were working in a broad variety of depart-
ments with many occupations that can be found outside the logistics sector, such as marketing,
HR, IT or accounting. Thus, our findings should be less confined to the logistics sector of the
sample.
Our study adds to the literature in at least two ways. First, it will improve scholarly under-
standing of the cognitive demands of flexible work and their consequences. Shedding light on
this issue is important as these demands are a central aspect characterising flexible work. Using
a two-wave study design, we answer Charalampous et al.'s (2019) call for more advanced
research designs in examining the relationships between flexible work and employee outcomes.
Second, we extend knowledge on the potential outcomes of flexible work by examining effects
628 UHLIG ET AL.
on cognitive flexibility. Increases in cognitive flexibility would represent a form of personal

development that is an under-researched, but highly relevant outcome of work, both for
employees and organisations (Parker, 2014). Moreover, by examining the effects on cognitive
flexibility, engagement and fatigue in parallel, our study may inform scholars and practitioners
on potential trade-offs between these outcomes.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND A ND HYPOTHESES
Defining cognitive demands of flexible work
Flexibility in organisations can be observed along the dimensions of time, place, performance
and coordination (Allvin et al., 2011), meaning that employees are flexible in deciding when
and where they work, how they perform their work, and with whom and how they collaborate.
The flexibility along these four dimensions places specific cognitive demands on employees,
with which employees have to deal in addition to their other demands (Prem et al., 2021). These
cognitive demands of flexible work comprise planning of working times, planning of working
places, structuring of work tasks and coordinating with others (Allvin et al., 2011; Grant &
Parker, 2009; Kubicek et al., 2017; Prem et al., 2021).
Regarding employees' flexibility in deciding when to work, the introduction of flexible work
schedules and collaboration across different time zones often requires organisation members to
vary and adapt when they work, for how long they work and on which days they work (Höge &
Hornung, 2015; Prem et al., 2021). Work hours have become more scattered throughout the day
(Eurofound and the International Labour Office, 2017), and the task of managing these working
hours has shifted from central management to the employees (Allvin et al., 2011). Employees
must decide when to work in light of their work role, task deadlines, scheduled meetings and
opportunities to collaborate with colleagues. Moreover, employees must incorporate time for
their private needs, such as having time for family, friends, and leisure activities and being able
to recover sufficiently between working days. This requires that employees plan their working
time in terms of when they work, how long they work and when they take breaks.
Flexibility along the dimension of place can be observed in various ways in contemporary
organisations. First, there is mobile work: This refers to employees working from home, in cafés
and coworking spaces, on the road, or while with a client, typically using ICT (Eurofound and
the International Labour Office, 2017). Second, higher flexibility can also be observed inside
office buildings. Activity-based office concepts, in which employees choose among different
work areas depending on their work tasks, are becoming increasingly widespread (Wohlers &
Hertel, 2017). The working places from which employees have to choose in mobile work and
activity-based offices tend to differ with regard to how well they fit certain tasks and employees'
needs. For example, a quiet desk at home might be well suited for tasks requiring intense con-
centration, whereas a workplace in an open office might better fit tasks requiring frequent con-
sultations with colleagues (Hoendervanger et al., 2021). As employees are responsible for
planning and deciding where they work according to their tasks and needs, they face cognitive
demands arising from planning their working place (Prem et al., 2021).
Flexibility in performance refers to the shift in organisations from predefined, structured
tasks to a more decentralised management. This requires from employees to take an autono-
mous, self-reliant approach to their work tasks and goals (Allvin et al., 2011; Griffin
et al., 2007). As uncertainty and dynamics of change increase in the work environment,
organisations rely on their employees to define their work tasks, make decisions about appro-
priate work methods, plan work steps ahead of time and monitor their work progress (Grant &
Parker, 2009; Griffin et al., 2007). These demands can be summarised as cognitive demands of
structuring work tasks (Prem et al., 2021).
Finally, higher organisational flexibility also involves demands related to coordinating with
others. As many businesses and tasks are highly complex and require people with diverse abili-
ties and knowledge, interdependence in organisations has increased substantially (Allvin &
Movitz, 2017; Grant & Parker, 2009; Wegman et al., 2018). On the other hand, teams and pro-
jects are put together for the short term and often on short notice. In addition, the members of
these teams often work flexibly, choosing independently when and where to work. With greater
interdependence and fewer shared routines, employees must invest more time and effort in
organising collaborations (e.g., scheduling meetings), finding a common approach to tasks and
problems and exchanging information (Grant & Parker, 2009; Prem et al., 2021). Thus,
employees in flexible work organisations also face cognitive demands related to coordinating
with others.
Consequences of cognitive demands of flexible work
We draw on the challenge-hindrance stressor framework to develop and test a model of the
consequences of cognitive demands of flexible work. The challenge-hindrance stressor frame-
work categorises work stressors into hindrance stressors and challenge stressors (Crawford
et al., 2010; LePine et al., 2005; O'Brien & Beehr, 2019). Hindrance stressors are such stressors
that obstruct employees in their goal achievement and are therefore mainly related to detrimen-
tal outcomes in employees (LePine et al., 2005). Challenge stressors, on the other hand, are
thought to also benefit employees: Overcoming these stressors gives employees the opportunity
to learn and gain a sense of accomplishment (LePine et al., 2005). Hence, they allow employees
to personally develop and foster their engagement (Frese & Zapf, 1994; LePine et al., 2005).
Nonetheless, because of their demanding nature, coping with challenge stressors requires effort,
which can subsequently cause strain in employees (LePine et al., 2005). As we will argue, this
should also apply for cognitive demands of flexible work.
Cognitive flexibility
Cognitive flexibility refers to individuals' capabilities to be efficacious in a changing environ-

ment, consider different perspectives and being able to come up with solutions to new or diffi-
cult problems (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010). The complexities of a flexible work environment
give employees many possibilities to practice these skills. For example, when planning their
working times and working places, employees will have to consider and integrate different
demands stemming from their work tasks, their colleagues and supervisors, as well as their pri-
vate life and personal needs. Similarly, being responsible for coordinating with others will
require employees to engage in perspective-taking. Further, as employees structure their work
tasks in a dynamic environment, they could face unforeseen problems, which then require flexi-
ble problem-solving (Parke et al., 2018). Constantly applying certain skills, competencies and
behaviours at work may cause these skills to become automatised, form a general tendency in
630 UHLIG ET AL.
employees' behaviour and so increase employees' cognitive flexibility (Frese & Zapf, 1994;
Zacher & Frese, 2018).
The idea that job demands can trigger such processes of personal development can be found
in many influential theories of work design, including the job characteristics model
(Hackman & Oldham, 1976), the job demand–control model (Karasek & Theorell, 1990) and
action regulation theory (Frese & Zapf, 1994; Zacher & Frese, 2018), but only few studies have
examined such effects. One of the first longitudinal studies on this topic was conducted by
Kohn and Schooler (1983), who found positive effects of job complexity on individuals' cogni-
tive flexibility. Evidence for such effects in the context of flexible work was reported by Nurmi
and Hinds (2016). Participants in their study reported that collaborating with people from
diverse backgrounds taught them new perspectives and the challenging nature of the work
required them constantly to learn how to tackle new problems (Nurmi & Hinds, 2016). Thus,
we expect that facing cognitive demands of flexible work will increase the cognitive flexibility of
employees over time.
Hypothesis 1. Cognitive demands of flexible work are positively associated with

increases in cognitive flexibility.
Work engagement
Being engaged at work can be described as a state of vigour, dedication and absorption
(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). This means that employees are motivated to invest effort, feel
enthusiastic about their work and can be immersed in their work (Bakker, 2011). The results of
the meta-analysis of Crawford et al. (2010) on the challenge-hindrance stressor framework
show that an intellectually stimulating work, as for example represented by high job complex-
ity, is a strong predictor of work engagement. Intellectually stimulating work can be a motivator
in itself as it makes work more interesting (Hackman & Oldham, 1976), but it also allows
employees to satisfy their need for competence (Gagné & Deci, 2005; van den Broeck
et al., 2016). The need for competence refers to the basic need for experiences of competence,
mastery and accomplishment, which is often a central motive for individuals to engage in activ-
ities and invest effort (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Planning, structuring and coordinating work self-
reliantly and adapting flexibly to changing work conditions, activities necessary for coping with
cognitive demands of flexible work, should also be intellectually stimulating and could there-
fore increase work engagement in employees. In line with this argument, Prem et al. (2021)
found positive relationships between cognitive demands of flexible work and work engagement.
Thus, we expect that cognitive demands of flexible work increase work engagement in
employees over time.

increases in work engagement.
Fatigue
Besides their beneficial effects, challenge stressors should also be demanding and coping with
them should be effortful (LePine et al., 2005). This also applies for cognitive demands of flexible
work. Engaging with these demands involves the cognitive operations of planning, decision-
making, organising and problem-solving (Hertel et al., 2006; Parke et al., 2018; Schulze &
Krumm, 2017). Working flexibly means operating in a changing environment with low levels of
structure (Allvin et al., 2011; Parke et al., 2018). Both together makes it necessary for employees
to constantly analyse their environment and its demands and to adapt their plans, decisions
and procedures accordingly (Bäcklander et al., 2018; Jett & George, 2003; Parke et al., 2018).
Doing so requires conscious attention and effort and could result in fatigue in employees
(Frese & Zapf, 1994; Sjåstad & Baumeister, 2018; Zacher & Frese, 2018). In line with this argu-
ment, various studies have found that demands resulting from flexible work can exhaust
employees (Bäcklander et al., 2018; Höge & Hornung, 2015; Pérez-Zapata et al., 2016; Schmitt
et al., 2012; Väänänen et al., 2020). Moreover, repeated or prolonged elevated levels of fatigue
are assumed to lead to stabilised symptoms of exhaustion (Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006;
McEwen, 1998; Hockey, 2013). Chronically high levels of cognitive demands of flexible work
may therefore lead to long-term accumulation of fatigue. Hence, we expect that cognitive
demands of flexible work are positively associated with increases in fatigue over time.

increases in fatigue.
METHOD
Participants and procedure
All participants provided informed consent prior to participating in the study. They participated
voluntary and anonymously and were free to withdraw from the study at any point. As we
followed standard procedures in applied psychological research and did not touch on sensitive
topics, the procedure and the materials of the study were not reviewed by an ethics committee.
Concerning the ethical standards for research, the protocol fully complied with the ethical prin-
ciples of psychologists and the code of conduct of the American Psychological
Association (2017).
Data were collected from employees working at the headquarters of a large company in the
logistics sector. The employees worked in various departments responsible for the main busi-
ness activities of the company, including strategy, communication, human resources and
IT. Their tasks included administrative, professional and managerial work. Participants had to
work full time (at least 35 h/week) to be included in the study.
The study was conducted in the context of a scientific evaluation of a relocation of the orga-
nisation's headquarter. With the relocation, a new office design was implemented. Previously,
the office had been designed with fixed desks in small to medium-sized conventional offices
shared by two to three people or small open office spaces. At the new location, a flexible office
with desk sharing was implemented. Here, employees had to choose their desk each day or
multiple times per day depending on their task and the colleagues with whom they needed to
coordinate. The office design was intended to foster and facilitate cooperation between
employees and their colleagues within and across teams. Thus, the participants in this study
were expected to face a recent increase in cognitive demands of flexible work. Such circum-
stances are well suited to examining our hypotheses, as increases in cognitive flexibility, engage-
ment and fatigue should be highest immediately after an increase in workplace flexibility and
632 UHLIG ET AL.
before adaptation processes have taken place. When planning the timing of the first measure-
ment, we consulted with the organisation to find a time point that was as close as possible to
the relocation, but after most disorganisation from the process of relocating was resolved. The
data used in this study were collected in the surveys conducted 2 (T1) and 6 months (T2) after
the relocation.2 Thus, the time lag between the two measurement points was 4 months. Time
lags should be chosen based on the stability of the constructs and considering enough time for
the effects of interest to unfold (Dormann & Griffin, 2015). Cognitive flexibility, engagement
and fatigue should be relatively stable constructs (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010; Garst
et al., 2000; Gillet et al., 2019: Seppälä et al., 2009) and the underlying mechanisms learning,
achievement and exhaustion of resources, that we expect to drive the changes in these con-
structs, require repeated exposure to the stressors. Thus, we chose a time lag of 4 months that is
on the upper end regarding the recommendation by Dormann and Griffin (2015) to conduct
‘shortitudinal’ studies, but still substantially shorter than most time lags in studies examining
similar processes (Guthier et al., 2020; Lesener et al., 2018; Li et al., 2014). According to talks
with the organisation and people on the ground most disorganisation from the process of the
relocation was resolved at T1.
Employees were contacted and invited to participate in the online survey by company repre-
sentatives. The invitation to the survey explained the research purpose and emphasised that
participation was voluntary and anonymous. At each measurement point, the survey was sent
to all employees working at the headquarters (approximately 1000 at the time). Of these,
501 filled out the survey at T1 and 438 at T2. The final sample comprised of 660 participants, of
which 279 participants had filled out the survey at both T1 and T2. The majority of participants
were male (59.0%), average age was 44.01 years (SD = 9.74 years) and average job tenure was
14.06 years (SD = 13.57 years). Over 48.2 per cent of participants had a degree from a univer-
sity, 31.8 per cent had a high school degree and 15.5 per cent had finished an apprenticeship or
had received secondary education.
We tested for differences in sample characteristics between respondents who participated
only at T1 and those who participated at both T1 and T2. We found no significant differences in
relevant variables. We concluded that participants who dropped out between T1 and T2 did not
differ meaningfully from the final sample and that study attrition was not a concern. Details on
the analysis and the results can be found in the supporting information.
Measures
For all measures at T1, participants were asked to refer in their answers to the preceding
2 months (the time after the relocation). At T2, participants were asked to refer in their answers
to the preceding 4 months (i.e., the time between T1 and T2). By asking participants about a
shorter timeframe rather than their general experiences at work, we aimed to reduce bias from
earlier experiences in their work careers and assess more accurately short-term change pro-
cesses in the timeframe of our study. Further, by asking for experiences during specific time-
frames, we avoided that participants referred in their answers at both time points to the same
or an overlapping set of experiences (Dormann & Griffin, 2015).
Cognitive demands of flexible work were measured at T1 with the scale developed by Prem
et al. (2021), which contains four subscales measuring planning of working times, planning of
working places, structuring of work tasks and coordinating with others. Participants responded
to each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (‘does not apply at all’) to 5 (‘fully
applies’). Each subscale comprised three items. Example items are ‘Due to my flexible schedule,
I had to decide how long I work on which weekdays’ (planning of working times, α = .77), ‘At
work, I had to plan where to work on certain tasks, because I do not have the same work mate-
rials available everywhere’ (planning of working places, α = .83), ‘My job requires me to deter-
mine the sequence of my work steps on my own’ (structuring of work tasks, α = .92) and ‘My
job often required me to come to an agreement with other people regarding a common
approach’ (coordinating with others, α = .83).
Cognitive flexibility was measured with a shortened version of Dennis and Vander
Wal (2010) scale. We used four items, which asked whether participants had considered differ-
ent perspectives and approaches when facing difficult situations or interacting with other peo-
ple. Participants responded to each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (‘does not
apply at all’) to 5 (‘fully applies’). A sample item is ‘I often looked at a situation from different
viewpoints’. Cronbach's alphas for the subscale were .85 at T1 and .87 at T2.
Work engagement was measured with an ultra-short version of the Utrecht Work Engage-
ment Scale, which was also used by Eurofound (2017) in the 6th European Working Conditions
Survey (Schaufeli, 2017). The scale was very similar to the UWES-3 (Schaufeli et al., 2017),
which was published after planning this study. Like the UWES-3, the scale used in this study
had one item each to measure the dimensions vigour, dedication and absorption (Schaufeli
et al., 2017). However, the item to measure absorption was different than in the UWES-3:
Instead of using the item ‘I am immersed in my work’, we used the item ‘Time flies when I
was working’. As Schaufeli et al. (2017) notes, both items correlate highly. The two other items
were the same as in the UWES-3. Participants responded to each item on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (‘does not apply at all’) to 5 (‘fully applies’). A sample item of the scale is ‘I felt
bursting with energy at my work’. Cronbach's alphas for the scale were .83 at T1 and .82 at T2.
Fatigue was measured with four items from the Profile of Mood Scales (McNair et al., 1971;
German translation by Sonnentag et al., 2008). Participants indicated how often they had felt
‘fatigued’, ‘tired’, ‘spent’ and ‘exhausted’ after a day of work. Answers were given on a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (‘never’) to 5 (‘always’). Cronbach's alphas for the subscale were
.90 at T1 and .91 at T2.
Analytic strategy
We used structural equation modelling (SEM) to test the hypotheses that the four cognitive
demands of flexible work, planning of working times, planning of working places, structuring
of work tasks and coordinating with others, positively predict changes in cognitive flexibility,
work engagement and fatigue. A graphical depiction of the specified model can be found in
Figure 1. All measured constructs were specified as latent factors, resulting in a model with
10 latent factors in total. Cognitive flexibility, work engagement and fatigue at T2 were
regressed on the four cognitive demands of flexible work, as well as on their respective mea-
sures at T1. For all variables that were measured at the same time point, covariances were spec-
ified, leading to a just-identified structural model. Based on the recommendations from Cole
and Maxwell (2003), residual covariances were specified for indicators of cognitive flexibility,
work engagement and fatigue at T1 with their corresponding indicators at T2 to account for
shared method variance.
All analyses were conducted using Mplus 8.5 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017) and a maxi-
mum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors. To assess model fit, we considered
UHLIG ET AL.
Cognitive flexibility, engagement and fatigue were controlled for their respective T1 measurements
F I G U R E 1 Structural equation model of the relationships of the four cognitive demands of flexible work with cognitive flexibility, engagement, and fatigue. Note:
634
various parameters, including chi-square goodness of fit statistic (χ2), comparative-fit indices
(CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), using
the suggested cut-off criteria by Hu and Bentler (1999). Because all hypotheses were directional,
one-tailed testing was used. As the effects of cognitive demands of flexible work could be con-
founded by job autonomy, we also executed an additional analysis in which we controlled for
the effects of job autonomy. Details of the analysis and the results can be found in the
supporting information.
RESULTS
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations and intercorrelations of all study variables.
Cognitive flexibility, work engagement and fatigue showed a high stability in the mean
levels from T1 to T2, as well as high autocorrelations. We first specified and tested a model
that only included the stability paths of the dependent variables and in which the effects of
all four cognitive demands of flexible work on the three dependent variables were fixed to
zero. In the final model, we would then include the effects of the four cognitive demands of
flexible work to examine if this improves model fit and contributes to explained variance in
the dependent variables. Improvement in model fit was assessed using chi-square difference
test, as well as the Akaike information criteria (AIC), for which lower values indicate a bet-
ter model fit.
The model that only included the stability paths showed a good fit (χ 2 = 744.319, df = 485,
CFI = .969, TLI = .964, RMSEA = .028, AIC = 33,689.83). For all three dependent variables,
measurements at T1 strongly predicted measurements at T2, that is, cognitive flexibility
(β = .68, p < .001), work engagement (β = .84, p < .001) and fatigue (β = .69, p < .001). Mea-
surements at T1 explained large amounts of variance in measurements at T2, that is, cognitive
flexibility (R2 = .468, p < .001), work engagement (R2 = .709, p < .001) and fatigue (R2 = .477,
p < .001). These results indicate a high stability in all three constructs over the two
measurements.
The final model in which the effects of the cognitive demands of flexible work were freely
estimated showed a good fit (χ 2 = 714.23, df = 473, CFI = .971, TLI = .966, RMSEA = .028,
AIC = 33,680.83). Compared with the model that only included the stability paths, the final
model resulted in an improvement in model fit (Δχ 2 = 30.089; Δdf = 12; p = .003;
ΔAIC = 9.00). Hypothesis 1 stated that cognitive demands of flexible work will be positively
related to increases in cognitive flexibility. We found significant positive relationships of plan-
ning of working times (β = .20, p = .001), and planning of working places (β = .15, p = .008)
with cognitive flexibility, and no positive relationships for structuring of work tasks (β = .15,
p = .990) and coordinating with others (β = .13, p = .973). The results therefore showed that
higher demands of planning of working times and planning of working place were related to
increases in cognitive flexibility at T2, but no such relationship was found for structuring of
work tasks and coordinating with others. Compared to the model that only included the stabil-
ity paths, the final model resulted in an increase of 7.2 per cent in explained variance in cogni-
tive flexibility at T2. Hypothesis 1 was partly supported.
Due to the negative estimates for the relationship between structuring of work tasks and
coordinating with others with cognitive flexibility, we did an exploratory analysis in which we
examined these relationships using two-tailed testing. This analysis revealed a negative
636
T A B L E 1 Intercorrelations of all variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Planning of working times (PWT) —
2. Planning of working places (PWP) .15 —
3. Coordinating with others (CO) .24 .33 —
4. Structuring of work tasks (ST) .31 .15 .23 —
5. Cognitive flexibility T1 .16 .20 .35 .33 —
6. Engagement T1 .20 .04 .22 .31 .18 —
7. Fatigue T1 .18 .18 .06 .10 .01 .53 —
8. Cognitive flexibility T2 .25 .26 .19 .14 .72 .24 .04 —
9. Engagement T2 .21 .06 .25 .23 .26 .88 .51 .33 —
10. Fatigue T2 .19 .15 .11 .14 .06 .42 .72 .07 .56 —
11. Gender .02 .01 .03 .05 .06 .09 .07 .01 .09 .08 —
12. Age .09 .13 .33 .07 .08 .09 .01 .09 .03 .03 .17 —
13. Tenure .09 .19 .36 .04 .21 .08 .01 .19 .07 .06 .09 .74 —
14. Education .18 .17 .36 .09 .26 .05 .01 .20 .07 .02 .08 .41 .55 —
M 3.75 2.73 3.71 4.12 4.08 3.66 2.96 4.11 3.69 2.98 1.41 44.01 14.06 4.2
SD 0.96 1.11 0.85 0.75 0.58 0.75 0.85 0.58 0.71 0.83 0.49 9.74 13.57 1.07
Note: For bold values, p < .05.

UHLIG ET AL.
relationship for structuring of work tasks (β = .15, p = .021) and a non-significant relation-
ship for coordinating with others (β = .13, p = .054).
Hypothesis 2 stated that cognitive demands of flexible work will be positively associated
with increases in work engagement. We found no significant relationships for planning of
working times (β = .04, p = .759), planning of working places (β = .05, p = .824) and struc-
turing of work tasks (β = .06, p = .852). Coordinating with others showed a significant posi-
tive relationship with work engagement (β = .10, p = .049). Our results therefore showed that
higher demands to coordinate with others was positively related to increases in work engage-
ment, but none of the other cognitive demands of flexible work showed such a relationship.
Compared with the model that only included the stability paths, the final model resulted in an
increase of 0.7 per cent in explained variance in work engagement at T2. Hypothesis 2 was
partly supported.
Hypothesis 3 stated that cognitive demands of flexible work are positively associated with
increases in fatigue. We found no significant effects for planning of working times (β = .05,
p = .812), planning of working places (β = .07, p = .875), structuring of work task (β = .06,
p = .876) or coordinating with others (β = .06, p = .846) on fatigue. Compared with the
model that only included the stability paths, the final model resulted in an increase of 1.7 per
cent in explained variance in fatigue at T2. Hypothesis 3 had to be rejected (Table 2).
DISC USS I ON
To summarise, we found that planning of working times and planning of working places but
not structuring of work tasks and coordinating with others positively predicted increases in cog-
nitive flexibility. Regarding work engagement, we found that only coordinating with others
predicted increases in work engagement, but none of the other cognitive demands of flexible
work. No positive effects for any of the cognitive demands of flexible work on fatigue were
found. Thus, cognitive demands of flexible work in part showed relationships with beneficial
outcomes, but showed no relationships with detrimental outcomes.
T A B L E 2 Results of the structural equation modelling
Cognitive flexibility Engagement Fatigue
Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE

Planning of working times .20** .07 .04 .05 .05 .05
Planning of working places .15** .06 .05 .06 .07 .06
Structuring of work tasks .15 .07 .06 .06 .06 .05
Coordinating with others .13 .07 .10* .06 .06 .05
Cognitive flexibility (T1) .72*** .06
Engagement (T1) .83*** .05
Fatigue (T1) .66*** .04
2
R .540*** >.716*** .494***
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

638 UHLIG ET AL.
Theoretical implications
Our study shows that cognitive demands of flexible work are a relevant aspect of flexible work
arrangements (Allvin et al., 2011; Charalampous et al., 2019). Working flexibly is characterised
by specific cognitive demands to plan, structure and coordinate work along the dimensions of
time, place, performance and coordination (Allvin et al., 2011; Prem et al., 2021). Cognitive
demands of flexible work proved to predict increases in cognitive flexibility and engagement,
two outcomes that are both relevant for employees and organisations.
Our results suggest that flexible work could contribute to the personal development of
employees as they were positively related to increased cognitive flexibility. However, an inter-
esting pattern appeared in the results: Only planning of working times and planning of working
places were related to increases in cognitive flexibility, but no such effects were found for struc-
turing of work tasks or coordinating with others. Whereas structuring of work tasks and coordi-
nating with others are demands that only relate to the work sphere, planning of working times
and planning of working places are often related to managing demands stemming from differ-
ent spheres of life, such as leisure time and work. For example, employees might adapt their
working times flexibly in order to run private errands, or they may decide in a busy week to
work from home allowing them to have lunch with their family. This means that employees
with high demands to plan working times and working places probably switch more often
between different life spheres during a day. To avoid and resolve conflicts between spheres, they
will also have to consider different perspectives when planning their working times and work-
ing places (de Janasz & Behson, 2007; Parker et al., 2008). Both, switching often between differ-
ent life spheres and perspective-taking could be beneficial for cognitive flexibility. Further, as
both demands involve life spheres outside of work, learning processes may be less limited to
work-related skills and also influence employees' behaviour outside of work (Frese &
Zapf, 1994). As cognitive flexibility is not specifically related to the work sphere, this could
make effects on cognitive flexibility more likely. Structuring of work tasks and coordinating
with others, on the other hand, are only related to the work sphere and learning processes
linked to these demands may therefore be less likely to affect cognitive flexibility. Even more,
the results of an exploratory analysis suggest that structuring of work tasks could be negatively
related to cognitive flexibility. Research on convergent and divergent thinking has shown that
switching often between different tasks can benefit the cognitive flexibility of employees (Lu
et al., 2017). Following from this, high demands to structure work tasks could harm cognitive
flexibility as high structuring could be linked to less task switching. In addition to these theoret-
ical explanations, methodological issues could have also been relevant. Participants in our sam-
ple scored very high on structuring of work tasks. Thus, range restriction could have reduced
the power to find an effect or biased the effect (Rousseau & Fried, 2001). We discuss this issue
in more detail in Section 5.3.
Activity-based offices are often implemented hoping to improve collaboration and save costs
(Wohlers & Hertel, 2017). Whereas the particular consequences of such an implementation
seem to depend on the execution of the implementation and the design of the new office
(Bergsten et al., 2021; Gerdenitsch et al., 2018), activity-based offices often fall short of the
expected benefits (Kim & De Dear, 2013; Haapakangas et al., 2019). Instead, disadvantages
regarding distractions or loss of privacy seem to prevail (Kim & De Dear, 2013; Hodzic
et al., 2021). Our findings, however, hint at a potential pathway via which activity-based offices
could still benefit employees: by increasing cognitive demands of flexible work, they could sub-
sequently also benefit the cognitive flexibility of employees. However, having no data on
cognitive demands of flexible work before the relocation, we cannot draw any conclusion on
this matter. Instead, we want to encourage future research to examine this empirically.
Regarding work engagement, we found that only coordinating with others was related to
increases in work engagement over time. High demands to coordinate with others could affect
employees work engagement positively as they can be a constant source of stimulation, both
intellectually and socially. This should hold especially true in a dynamic work environment, in
which employees have multiple team memberships and teams also change often. Coordinating
with others often involves collaborating with professionals and experts who have different skills
and knowledge meaning that employees can profit from new information and knowledge shar-
ing (van de Brake et al., 2018). And as employees bring their own unique skills and knowledge
to the collaboration, they could satisfy their need for competence. Besides satisfying the need
for competence, working together in a team or project could also allow employees to satisfy
their need for relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2017; van den Broeck et al., 2016).
However, it is important to note that the found relationship with work engagement should be
interpreted with caution. The additional variance explained of cognitive demands of flexible work
beyond the autoregressive effect of work engagement was only 0.7 per cent. Further, as can be
seen in the supporting information, the relationship was no longer significant after including job
autonomy as a control variable. A potential explanation for this could be the very high stability of
work engagement in our sample of r = .88 between T1 and T2. This left little additional variance
to be explained and likely reduced the power to find a substantial effect (Adachi &
Willoughby, 2015). Nonetheless, one should consider that the effect of coordinating with others
on changes in work engagement could be rather small or non-existent. Future research, prefera-
bly in samples with a lower stability in work engagement, is necessary to clarify this.
Considering the missing link with a strain outcome our study revealed an interesting pat-
tern of relationships for cognitive demands of flexible work. Apparently, cognitive demands of
flexible work seem to stimulate employees, but without putting a toll on them as challenge
stressors are believed to do (LePine et al., 2005). Although it could be tempting to then catego-
rise cognitive demands of flexible work as a resource, there still remain important differences.
Most importantly, resources should be positively related to well-being (Van den Broeck
et al., 2010). Further, they should be functional in coping (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Van den
Broeck et al., 2010). In this regard, cognitive demands of flexible work still share more charac-
teristics with a challenge stressor, as they should require problem-focused coping (LePine
et al., 2005; Prem et al., 2021; Van den Broeck et al., 2010). Interestingly, our study is not the
first to show that some cognitive demands might not be related to strain (Meyer & Hünefeld,
2018; Van den Broeck et al., 2010). As Van den Broeck et al. (2010) suggest, it could be that cer-
tain challenge stressors require some expenditure of effort, but without leading to strong and
stable exhaustion. Such a differentiation between short-term and long-term exhaustion caused
by challenge stressors would represent an important refinement of the challenge-hindrance
stressor framework. To move forward in this matter, we suggest that future research examines
whether cognitive demands of flexible work cause more short-term forms of fatigue, for exam-
ple, by using diary studies.
Practical implications
Our results add to the notion that flexible work arrangements can offer many advantages for
employees and organisations. If employees plan their working times and working places self-
640 UHLIG ET AL.
reliantly, this may not only help them to improve their work-life balance, as earlier studies have
already shown (Allen et al., 2013; Casey & Grzywacz, 2008; Hill et al., 2001), but could also con-
tribute to their personal development. To foster such effects, organisations should offer
employees flexibility regarding their working times, but also regarding the place from which
they work, for example by implementing flexible trust-based working hours, remote work or an
activity-based flexible office design. Further, our results suggest that organisations should put
the task of coordinating with others in the hand of the employees as this could have motiva-
tional effects. Matrix and network organisations, flat hierarchies and a project-based structure
of the organisation could be suitable frameworks for this (Grant & Parker, 2009).
Limitations
Various limitations of this study should be mentioned. First, we did not measure cognitive
demands of flexible work before the relocation. Although it is a plausible explanation that the
observed changes in the outcomes variables result from changes in cognitive demands of flexi-
ble work due to the relocation, our results only inform us on the influence of the level of cogni-
tive demands of flexible work at T1. Thus, we suggest that future research examines how
changes in cognitive demands of flexible work affect outcomes in employees.
Second, we did not control for general cognitive demands. Cognitive demands of flexible
work likely correlate with general cognitive demands, and some of the here described effects
could also play a role for general cognitive demands. However, in the initial validation of the
cognitive demands of flexible work scale by Prem et al. (2021), the authors found evidence for
divergent validity of cognitive demands of flexible work to other cognitive demands such as
problem-solving or information processing. Nevertheless, future research should control for
general level of cognitive demands and investigate whether cognitive demands of flexible work
explain additional variance in the outcomes.
Third, all measures were self-reported, meaning that common method variance could have
biased the results (Podsakoff et al., 2003, 2012). However, this was probably diminished by
using a time lag between independent and dependent variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003, 2012).
Nonetheless, future research should assess cognitive demands of flexible work using objective
measures to verify our results. Variability in working times and working places, expert or super-
visor ratings of structuring of work tasks, and the number of multiple team memberships could
serve as objective indicators for cognitive demands of flexible work.
Fourth, our results allow for no causal interpretation of the results. Although a two-wave
study design was an important step forward from earlier cross-sectional studies, it does not
allow us to rule out that third variables confounded the effects. To do so, a field- or quasi-
experimental design would be necessary.
Finally, range restrictions could have biased the results. Participants in our sample scored
very high on structuring of work tasks (M = 4.12 on a 5-point Likert scale), and the demand
showed a left-skewed distribution. Such a range restriction in an independent variable reduces
the power to find effects and may bias estimates strongly (Rousseau & Fried, 2001). Moreover,
range restriction could have been aggravated as our sample stemmed from a single organisation
and showed a high educational level with more than 48 per cent of the participants having at
least a university degree (Rousseau & Fried, 2001). Future research should draw on more
diverse samples, preferably recruiting participants from various organisations and sectors to
reduce bias through range restriction.
Conclusion
Rising flexibility in the world of work has given employees more freedom, but it has also put
new demands on employees. These demands are largely of a cognitive nature as they consist of
planning, structuring and coordinating along the dimensions of time, place, performance and
coordination. Using a two-wave study design, we examined whether these cognitive demands
of flexible work can be understood as challenge stressor, which are related to both beneficial
(cognitive flexibility and work engagement) and detrimental (fatigue) outcomes. We found that
cognitive demands of flexible work were only associated with beneficial outcomes: Planning of
working time and planning of working places were related to increases in cognitive flexibility,
suggesting that flexible work environments can be beneficial for the personal development of
employees. Coordinating with others were positively related to increases in work engagement,
further underlining the motivational potential of flexible work arrangements. As none of the
cognitive demands of flexible work were related to increases in fatigue, we found no evidence
that these demands act as stressors. We suggest that future research controls for confounding
variables, such as general levels of cognitive demands and common method variance, and
examines whether cognitive demands of flexible work lead to strain on shorter time scales.
A C K N O WL E D G M E N T
This work was supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) (P29408-G29).
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors report no potential conflict of interest.
E TH IC S ST A T EME N T
The authors did not obtain formal ethical committee statements for this study, as the research
did not touch on sensitive topics and the procedures were deemed non-invasive.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data used in this research are not readily available, as the participants have not been asked
for consent to share the data publicly. Requests to gain access to the data should be directed to
the corresponding author.
ORCID
Lars Uhlig https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1927-2888
Christian Korunka https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9027-2840
Roman Prem https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6147-2069
Bettina Kubicek https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0725-1657
E N D N O T ES
1
It is important to differentiate between employee- and employer-oriented flexibility as both refer to vastly dif-
ferent forms in the organisation of work and have different consequences (Uglanova & Dettmers, 2018). In this
study, we solely refer to the former.
2
The scientific evaluation consisted of four online surveys, conducted 2 months before the relocation and 2, 6
and 12 months after the relocation. Data from this project were reported in two earlier studies (Hodzic et al.,
2021; Prem et al., 2021). Both studies differed substantially from the present study in their research focus and
hypotheses. There was no overlap with the data of the dependent variables or the relationships examined here.
642 UHLIG ET AL.
Detailed descriptions of the studies and their variables can be found in the data transparency table in the
supporting information.
R EF E RE N C E S
Adachi, P., & Willoughby, T. (2015). Interpreting effect sizes when controlling for stability effects in longitudinal
autoregressive models: Implications for psychological science. European Journal of Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 12(1), 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2014.963549
Allen, T. D., Johnson, R. C., Kiburz, K. M., & Shockley, K. M. (2013). Work-family conflict and flexible work
arrangements: Deconstructing flexibility. Personnel Psychology, 66(2), 345–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.
12012
Allvin, M., Aronsson, G., Hagström, T., Johansson, G., & Lundberg, U. (2011). Work without boundaries. Psycho-
logical perspectives on the new working life. Wiley-Blackwell.
Allvin, M., & Movitz, F. (2017). Whose side is technology on, really? On the interdependence of work and tech-
nology. In N. Chmiel, F. Fraccaroli, & M. Sverke (Eds.), An introduction to work and organizational psychol-
ogy: An international perspective (pp. 121–136). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/
9781119168058.ch7
American Psychological Association (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002,
amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017). Available online at: https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/
Bäcklander, G., Rosengren, C., & Kaulio, M. (2018). Managing intensity in knowledge work: Self-leadership prac-
tices among Danish management consultants. Journal of Management & Organization, 1–19. https://doi.org/
10.1017/jmo.2018.64
Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
20(4), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411414534
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: state of the art. Journal of Manage-
rial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
Bergsten, E. L., Haapakangas, A., Larsson, J., Jahncke, H., & Hallman, D. M. (2021). Effects of relocation to
activity-based workplaces on perceived productivity: Importance of change-oriented leadership. Applied
Ergonomics, 93, 103348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103348
Cascio, W. F. (2003). Changes in workers, work, and organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J.
Klimoski (Eds.), Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 401–422). John Wiley & Sons.
Cascio, W. F., & Montealegre, R. (2016). How technology is changing work and organizations. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 349–375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
orgpsych-041015-062352
Casey, P. R., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2008). Employee health and well-being: The role of flexibility and work-family
balance. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 11(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/10887150801963885
Charalampous, M., Grant, C. A., Tramontano, C., & Michailidis, E. (2019). Systematically reviewing remote e-
workers' well-being at work: A multi-dimensional approach. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 28(1), 51–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1541886
Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in
the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(4), 558–577. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0021-843X.112.4.558
Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement
and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 834–848.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019364
de Janasz, S. C., & Behson, S. J. (2007). Cognitive capacity for processing work-family conflict: An initial exami-
nation. Career Development International, 12(4), 397–411. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430710756771
De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., & Van Hootegem, G. (2016). Not all autonomy is the same. Different dimen-
sions of job autonomy and their relation to work engagement & innovative work behavior. Human Factors
and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 26(4), 515–527. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20666
Dennis, J. P., & Vander Wal, J. S. (2010). The cognitive flexibility inventory: Instrument development and esti-
mates of reliability and validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34(3), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10608-009-9276-4
Dormann, C., & Griffin, M. A. (2015). Optimal time lags in panel studies. Psychological Methods, 20(4), 489–505.
https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000041
Eurofound. (2017). Sixth European working conditions survey—Overview report (2017 update ed.). Publications
Office of the European Union.
Eurofound and the International Labour Office. (2017). Working anytime, anywhere: The effects on the world of
work. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, and the International Labour Office.
Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. In H. C. Triandis, M. D.
Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 4,
pp. 271–340). Consulting Psychologists Press.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322
Garst, H., Frese, M., & Molenaar, P. C. M. (2000). The temporal factor of change in stressor-strain relationships:
A growth curve model on a longitudinal study in East Germany. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 417–
438. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.85.3.417
Gerdenitsch, C., Korunka, C., & Hertel, G. (2018). Need–supply fit in an activity-based flexible office: A longitu-
dinal study during relocation. Environment and Behavior, 50(3), 273–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013916517697766
Geurts, S. A. E., & Sonnentag, S. (2006). Recovery as an explanatory mechanism in the relation between acute
stress reactions and chronic health impairment. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health,
32(6), 482–492. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.1053
Gillet, N., Caesens, G., Morin, A. J. S., & Stinglhamber, F. (2019). Complementary variable- and person-centred
approaches to the dimensionality of work engagement: A longitudinal investigation. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(2), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1575364
Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive per-
spectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317–375. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520903047327
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in
uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327–347. https://doi.org/10.
5465/amj.2007.24634438
Guthier, C., Dormann, C., & Voelkle, M. C. (2020). Reciprocal effects between job stressors and burnout: A con-
tinuous time meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 146(12), 1146–1173. https://doi.
org/10.1037/bul0000304
Haapakangas, A., Hallman, D. M., Mathiassen, S. E., & Jahncke, H. (2019). The effects of moving into an
activity-based office on communication, social relations and work demands—A controlled intervention with
repeated follow-up. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 66, 101341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.
101341
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.
Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Voss, K. (2006). Competencies for virtual teamwork: Development and validation of a
web-based selection tool for members of distributed teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 15(4), 477–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320600908187
Hill, E. J., Hawkins, A. J., Ferris, M., & Weitzman, M. (2001). Finding an extra-day a week: The positive influ-
ence of perceived job flexibility on work and family life balance. Family Relations, 50(1), 49–58. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2001.00049.x
Hockey, R. (2013). The psychology of fatigue: Work, effort and control. Cambridge University Press.
Hodzic, S., Kubicek, B., Uhlig, L., & Korunka, C. (2021). Activity-based flexible offices: Effects on work-related
outcomes in a longitudinal study. Ergonomics, 64(4), 455–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2020.
1850882
Hoendervanger, J. G., Van Yperen, N. W., Mobach, M. P., & Albers, C. J. (2021). Perceived fit and user behavior
in activity-based work environments. Environment and Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916521995480
Höge, T., & Hornung, S. (2015). Perceived flexibility requirements: Exploring mediating mechanisms in positive
and negative effects on worker well-being. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 36(3), 407–430. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0143831X13511274
644 UHLIG ET AL.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Jett, Q. R., & George, J. M. (2003). Work interrupted: A closer look at the role of interruptions in organizational
life. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 494–507. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.10196791
Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life.
Basic Books.
Kim, J., & De Dear, R. (2013). Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.06.007
Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. (1983). Work and personality: An inquiry into the impact of social stratification. Ablex
Publishing.
Kubicek, B., Paškvan, M., & Bunner, J. (2017). The bright and dark sides of job autonomy. In C. Korunka & B.
Kubicek (Eds.), Job demands in a changing world of work: Impact on workers' health and performance and
implications for research and practice (pp. 45–63). Springer.
Kubicek, B., Paškvan, M., & Korunka, C. (2015). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing job
demands arising from accelerated change. The intensification of job demands scale (IDS). European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 898–913. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.979160
LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor-hindrance
stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 48(5), 764–775. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.18803921
Lesener, T., Gusy, B., & Wolter, C. (2018). The job-demands resources model: A meta-analytic review of longitu-
dinal studies. Work and Stress, 33(1), 76–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2018.1529065
Li, W. D., Fay, D., Frese, M., Harms, P. D., & Gao, X. Y. (2014). Reciprocal relationship between proactive per-
sonality and work characteristics: A latent change score approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 948–
965. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036169
Lu, J. G., Akinola, M., & Mason, M. F. (2017). “Switching on” creativity: Task switching can increase creativity
by reducing cognitive fixation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 139, 63–75. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.01.005
McEwen, B. S. (1998). Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. New England Journal of Medicine,
338, 171–179. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3077.003.0079
McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Droppelman, L. F. (1971). Edits manual for the profile of mood states. Educational
and Industrial Testing Service.
Meyer, S.-C., & Hünefeld, L. (2018). Challenging Cognitive Demands at Work, Related Working Conditions, and
Employee Well-Being. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(12), 2911.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122911
Nurmi, N., & Hinds, P. J. (2016). Job complexity and learning opportunities: A silver lining in the design of global
virtual work. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(6), 631–654. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2016.11
O'Brien, K. E., & Beehr, T. A. (2019). So far, so good: Up to now, the challenge–hindrance framework describes a
practical and accurate distinction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40, 962–972. https://doi.org/10.1002/
job.2405
Parke, M. R., Weinhardt, J. M., Brodsky, A., Tangirala, S., & DeVoe, S. E. (2018). When daily planning improves
employee performance: The importance of planning type, engagement, and interruptions. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 103(3), 300–312. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000278
Parker, S. K. (2014). Beyond motivation: Job and work design for development, health, ambidexterity, and more.
Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 661–691. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115208
Parker, S. K., Atkins, P. W. B., & Axtell, C. M. (2008). Building better workplaces through individual perspective
taking: A fresh look at a fundamental human process. In G. Hodgkinson & K. Ford (Eds.), International
review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 149–196). Wiley.
Parker, S. K., Morgeson, F. P., & Johns, G. (2017). One hundred years of work design research: Looking back and
looking forward. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 403–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000106.supp
Pérez-Zapata, O., Pascual, A. S., Álvarez-Hernandez, G., & Collado, C. C. (2016). Knowledge work intensification
and self-management: the autonomy paradox. Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation, 10(2), 27–49.
https://doi.org/10.13169/workorgalaboglob.10.2.0027
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and
recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-psych-120710-100452
Prem, R., Kubicek, B., Uhlig, L., Baumgartner, V., & Korunka, C. (2021). Development and initial validation of a
scale to measure cognitive demands of flexible work. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 3632. https://doi.org/10.
3389/fpsyg.2021.679471
Rosa, H. (2013). Social acceleration: A new theory of modernity. Columbia University Press.
Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational research. Jour-
nal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 1–13. 10/dcvv7s
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development,
and wellness. Guilford Publications.
Schaufeli, W. B. (2017). Work engagement in Europe: Relations with national economy, governance, and culture.
Research Unit Occupational & Organizational Psychology and Professional Learning (internal report).
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10491.31520
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engage-
ment: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248
Schaufeli, W. B., Shimazu, A., Hakanen, J., Salanova, M., & De Witte, H. (2017). An ultra-short measure for work
engagement: The UWES-3 validation across five countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment,
35(4), 577–591. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000430
Schmitt, A., Zacher, H., & Frese, M. (2012). The buffering effect of selection, optimization, and compensation
strategy use on the relationship between problem solving demands and occupational well-being: A daily
diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(2), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027054
Schulze, J., & Krumm, S. (2017). The “virtual team player”: A review and initial model of knowledge, skills, abili-
ties, and other characteristics for virtual collaboration. Organizational Psychology Review, 7(1), 66–95.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386616675522
Seppälä, P., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., Hakanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Tolvanen, A., & Schaufeli, W. (2009). The construct
validity of the Utrecht work engagement scale: Multisample and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 10, 459–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-008-9100-y
Sjåstad, H., & Baumeister, R. F. (2018). The future and the will: Planning requires self-control, and ego depletion
leads to planning aversion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jesp.2018.01.005
Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2008). “Did you have a nice evening?” A day-level study on recovery
experiences, sleep, and affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 674–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.93.3.674
ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., & Keulemans, L. (2012). Do new ways of working foster work
engagement? Psicothema, 24(1), 113–120.
ter Hoeven, C. L., & van Zoonen, W. (2015). Flexible work designs and employee well-being: Examining the
effects of resources and demands. New Technology, Work and Employment, 30(3), 237–255. https://doi.org/
10.1111/ntwe.12052
Uglanova, E., & Dettmers, J. (2018). Sustained effects of flexible working time arrangements on subjective well-
being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(6), 1727–1748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9894-6
Väänänen, A., Toivanen, M., & Lallukka, T. (2020). Lost in autonomy—Temporal structures and their implica-
tions for employees' autonomy and well-being among knowledge workers. Occupational Health Science, 4,
83–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-020-00058-1
van de Brake, H. J., Walter, F., Rink, F. A., Essens, P. J. M. D., & van der Vegt, G. S. (2018). The dynamic rela-
tionship between multiple team membership and individual job performance in knowledge-intensive work.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39, 1219–1231. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2260
Van den Broeck, A., De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). Not all demands are equal: Differ-
entiating job hindrances and job challenges in the Job Demands-Resources model. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 19(6), 735–759. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320903223839
646 UHLIG ET AL.
van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C. H., & Rosen, C. C. (2016). A review of self-determination theory's
basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1195–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206316632058
Vander Elst, T., Verhoogen, R., Sercu, M., Van den Broeck, A., Baillien, E., & Godderis, L. (2017). Not extent of
telecommuting, but job characteristics as proximal predictors of work-related well-being. Journal of Occupa-
tional and Environmental Medicine, 59(10), 180–186. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001132
Wang, Y., & Haggerty, N. (2011). Individual virtual competence and its influence on work outcomes. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 27(4), 299–344. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222270410
Wegman, L. A., Hoffman, B. J., Carter, N. T., Twenge, J. M., & Guenole, N. (2018). Placing job characteristics in
context: Cross-temporal meta-analysis of changes in job characteristics since 1975. Journal of Management,
44(1), 352–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316654545
Wohlers, C., & Hertel, G. (2017). Choosing where to work at work—Towards a theoretical model of benefits and
risks of activity-based flexible offices. Ergonomics, 60(4), 467–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2016.
1188220
Zacher, H., & Frese, M. (2018). Action regulation theory: Foundations, current knowledge, and future directions.
In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, C. Viswesvaran, & H. K. Sinangil (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work & organiza-
tional psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 80–102). SAGE Publications Ltd.. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2011.613223
S UP PO RT ING IN FOR MAT ION

Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of the article at the pub-
lisher's website.
How to cite this article: Uhlig, L., Korunka, C., Prem, R., & Kubicek, B. (2023). A
two-wave study on the effects of cognitive demands of flexible work on cognitive
flexibility, work engagement and fatigue. Applied Psychology, 72(2), 625–646. https://doi.
org/10.1111/apps.12392

Applied Psychology - 2022 - Uhlig - A Two Wave Study On The Effects of Cognitive Demands of Flexible Work On Cognitive

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applied Psychology - 2022 - Uhlig - A Two Wave Study On The Effects of Cognitive Demands of Flexible Work On Cognitive

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 14 September 2021 Accepted: 19 April 2022

A two-wave study on the effects of cognitive

Lars Uhlig1,2 | Christian Korunka2 | Roman Prem1 |

Applied Psychology. 2023;72:625–646. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/apps 625

to personally develop and feel motivated at work. How-

personal development of employees by increasing their cognitive flexibility. Employees could

on cognitive flexibility. Increases in cognitive flexibility would represent a form of personal

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND A ND HYPOTHESES

Defining cognitive demands of flexible work

Consequences of cognitive demands of flexible work

Cognitive flexibility refers to individuals' capabilities to be efficacious in a changing environ-

Hypothesis 1. Cognitive demands of flexible work are positively associated with

Hypothesis 2. Cognitive demands of flexible work are positively associated with

Hypothesis 3. Cognitive demands of flexible work are positively associated with

Participants and procedure

T A B L E 1 Intercorrelations of all variables

Note: For bold values, p < .05.

T A B L E 2 Results of the structural equation modelling

Cognitive flexibility Engagement Fatigue

Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

S UP PO RT ING IN FOR MAT ION

You might also like

p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.