Cognitive Demands of Flexible Work: Exploring Challenge Effects on Employee Health and Motivation

This thesis investigates when and why cognitive demands of flexible work (CODEs) elicit motivational, straining, or ambivalent well-being effects on employees. CODEs encompass cognitive challenge demands related to information processing and decision-making that arise from organizational, relational, spatial, and temporal flexibility. Although such challenge demands can stimulate learning and subsequently enhance motivational outcomes (e.g., work engagement), they also require cognitive regulation that may increase job strain (e.g., fatigue). Across five empirical studies organized into three papers, this thesis examines key mediating and moderating mechanisms through temporally fine-grained study designs that span 8 and 4 weeks, weekly, and twice- to thrice-daily assessments. In Paper 1, I investigated whether demands for structuring of work tasks and demands for coordinating with others predict emotional exhaustion through self-endangering work behaviors (prolonged working hours), while simultaneously fostering work engagement through job crafting (crafting toward strengths) using a three-wave, eight-week longitudinal design (N = 179). Bayesian longitudinal structural equation modeling revealed only that demands for structuring of work tasks reduced prolonged working hours over four weeks. In Paper 2, I examined whether role stressors (role ambiguity and role conflict) amplify strain (exhaustion and impaired psychological detachment) and buffer motivational outcomes (work engagement and cognitive flexibility) in response to within-person CODEs. To investigate these assumptions, I combined a weekly diary study over 10 weeks (N = 78; n = 476) with a daily diary study across 10 days and two daily measurement points (N = 92; n = 585). Bayesian multilevel path analyses, controlling for autoregressive effects, indicated that demands for coordinating with others increased emotional exhaustion at both daily and weekly levels, reduced weekly psychological detachment, and increased weekly cognitive flexibility. Unexpectedly, weekly role ambiguity amplified not only exhaustion but also cognitive flexibility under high weekly coordination demands. In Paper 3, I analyzed how daily within-person CODEs relate to positive and negative affective states while examining stable burnout and engagement as moderators of dynamic affective reactions to CODEs. To this end, I conducted two daily diary studies (Study 1: N = 125; 1593 surveys on 626 workdays; Study 2: N = 191; 3673 surveys on 1416 workdays) with three daily measurement points across 10 days. Bayesian multilevel models demonstrated that demands for coordinating with others predicted reduced positive affect in both daily diary studies. Additionally, daily demands for structuring of work tasks reduced negative affect only in Study 2 of Paper 3. Furthermore, daily demands for structuring of work tasks were positively associated with competence satisfaction, whereas demands for coordinating with others predicted higher relatedness satisfaction alongside heightened autonomy frustration. Demands for planning of working times were positively related to autonomy frustration, with cross-level moderation analyses revealing—contrary to assumptions— this association was particularly evident for individuals with low rather than high burnout. Overall, this thesis demonstrates that demands for coordinating with others predominantly enhance strain outcomes while exhibiting limited motivational effects, such as enhanced weekly cognitive flexibility, whereas demands for structuring of work tasks primarily exert health-promotive effects. Mediators such as (mal)adaptive behavioral regulation and basic psychological needs, as well as boundary conditions such as dynamic role stressors and stable well-being, played a less prominent role, and relationships between CODEs and outcomes emerged more strongly at shorter-term within-person (daily and weekly) rather than longer-term between-person levels. Collectively, distinct facets of CODEs might operate less uniformly than previously assumed, and future studies should examine in greater detail, for example, hedonic and eudaimonic well-being outcomes that are more likely to capture the ambivalent nature of CODEs.