Rapid growth and digital transformation in the tech industry have often come at the cost of employee well-being and work-life balance. This qualitative study using thematic analysis investigates how organizations support employee well-being and work-life balance in the tech sector, guided by the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model. Data from open-ended surveys of 26 tech employees in Germany reveal that workplace demands such as high workload, unclear expectations, long hours, and constant availability significantly challenge well-being. Cultural norms and management practices that blur work-life boundaries further hinder balance. At the same time, participants value organizational initiatives such as mental health support, flexible work arrangements, and professional development opportunities as meaningful job resources. However, employees also express a need for more visible, proactive, and personalized support from organizations, including improved communication, earlier mental health interventions, and customized approaches to individual needs. These findings highlight the importance of embedding well-being into daily practices and organizational culture, rather than relying on superficial or reactive measures. The study concludes that organizational strategic involvement is crucial to balance workplace pressures with efective support structures. By fostering open dialogue and a culture of care, organizations can contribute to more sustainable and psychologically healthy work environments in the tech industry.
Employee well-being and work-life balance have become top priorities and concerns in the tech industry,
a sector known for its fast-paced environment, high expectations from upper management, and constant
change. The rise of digitalization and remote work has disrupted the boundaries between professional
and personal life, leading to increased levels of stress, burnout, and dissatisfaction among employees
[
Well-being is a state of complete physical, mental, and social wellness, not merely the absence of
illness [
This study investigates the role of tech organizations in employee well-being and work-life balance
through the framework of the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model [
The World Health Organization describes well-being as a state of complete physical, mental, and social
well-being, not merely the absence of disease [
Research consistently demonstrates that employee well-being is linked to both personal satisfaction
and organizational performance outcomes [
The COVID-19 pandemic has intensified focus on workplace well-being, as remote work
arrangements have introduced additional psychological pressures including increased isolation and reduced
opportunities for informal social connection [
Work-life balance is conceptualized as the individual perception that work and nonwork activities
are compatible and promote growth in accordance with an individual’s current life priorities [
The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model [
The technology industry presents challenges for employee well-being and work-life balance management. In technology firms, where digital transformation is both strategy and day-to-day reality, fast-paced work cycles, competitive cultures and blurred boundaries between professional and work life make it dificult to recover from work-related stress [ 25]. Many technology companies prioritize key performance indicators over humanistic outcomes, limiting organizational investment in employee wellbeing initiatives [26]. These industry-wide challenges are particularly intensified by the pervasive role of digital technology in modern work environments. Empirical reviews of digital transformation show that the push to "deploy tech at scale" alters processes and culture [27, 28], magnifying psychosocial risks if human-centred safeguards lag behind technology roll-outs [29].
Building on these foundational challenges, digital connectivity creates significant psychological challenges for employees through "techno-strain," characterized by mental and emotional efort required to navigate constant connectivity and information overload [30]. Workplace technology intensity impairs both physical and mental health through cognitive overload and afective strain [ 31]. Digital communication channels create expectations of constant availability, with employees reporting dificulty psychologically detaching from work [32]. These technological pressures are further complicated by broader organizational and structural issues within tech companies
In addition to digital connectivity challenges, technology companies frequently operate across global time zones with diverse teams facing high-pressure deadlines, intensifying employee stress [33]. Employees report unclear role expectations and performance evaluation systems that create psychological pressure [34]. Mental health concerns are particularly pronounced in the tech industry [35], with practitioner reports citing high burnout rates among IT professionals [36]. Remote and hybrid work models introduce further risks including social isolation, collaboration fatigue, and digital presenteeism [32, 37]. Organizations often tackle these issues through employee well-being programs aimed at primary preventative measures, secondary focused measures and tertiary reintegration measures [38]. And as digitalization has increased, the need to adjust the content and format of oferings has also increased [39]. Whilst preventative measures such as flu vaccinations, blood pressure testing, and gym membership [40] are useful in building employee health resources, the mere provision of such resources does not equate to resource usage. That is, organizations need to demonstrate genuine leadership support and modeling behaviors of health [41]. This can be achieved through a culture of health that values, supports and promotes employee health and safety. Given the breadth of literature portraying the technology industry as a highly stressful working environment, it is unlikely that a culture of health is present in many companies. As such, one could question the authenticity and utility of workplace well-being initiatives. To give a Macbeth analogy, can workplace well-being programs clear such companies of their overwork deeds?. Empirical evidence suggests not. For instance, [39] found that mental health was the most frequently discussed topic in digital workplace wellness programs, with anxiety, depression, and stress-related conditions being the most common mental health issues reported. As described in the JD-R model, stress and strain can result from a resource demand imbalance [42]. In such instances, it seems perverse to ofer stress well-being resources rather than fixing the root of the issue. The second most frequently discussed health domain in [39] is physical activity. Yet, fast-paced work cycles, competitive cultures, constant connectivity and expectations of constant availability, as described above, blur boundaries between professional and personal life. Indeed, organizations may ofer physical resources such as those discussed in [ 40] , but the crux of the matter is whether employees truly have time to use them. Critically, this could expose companies to allegations of "well-being washing", a new term defined as "organizational actions that appear to support employee well-being but provide little tangible benefit, leaving employees with no meaningful improvement" [ 43]. With that being said, it is important to explore how technology organizations contribute, if at all, to employee well-being and what can be improved.
A qualitative approach was applied to understand what shapes employees’ well-being and work-life balance in the tech industry. For this, an open-ended survey was designed, which consisted of 11 questions that invited participants to share their experiences, opinions, and suggestions regarding workplace demands, organizational practices, and work-life balance. After a quality check, the survey was disseminated through professional networks and social media platforms. To be included in this study, participants had to be employed in the tech industry.
A total of 26 participants completed the qualitative survey. Participants represented a range of roles and specializations within the tech industry, primarily located in Germany. Within the 26 respondents of the survey, 11 worked in software development, including roles such as backend developers and Research Question
Codes What workplace demands challenge employee well-being?
Constant deadlines, KPI stress, Multi-tasking overload, Unrealistic timelines, Feeling unable to disconnect What are the outcomes Messages after hours, Weekend work, related to these demands for Always available employees?
Unclear tasks, Shifting priorities, Processes
Lack of prioritization Theme High workload and performance pressure Work-life imbalance and blurred boundaries Flexible and Remote Work Health and Well-being
Initiatives Home ofice policy, Remote work, Flexible hours, Hybrid setup Gym memberships, Health days, Mental health support, Stress management, Events with colleagues Regular check-ins, Personalized support, Proactive and Personalized Anonymous feedback Organizational Support No work after hours, Respect boundaries, Clear performance criteria
Boundary Enforcement and
Autonomy Overtime pay, Compliance with labor laws, Compensation, Transparent overtime tracking, and Legal Fairness Extra vacation days Security, Lead by example, Value humans, Trust- Human-Centric Leadership based management, Open communication, and Organizational Culture
Listen to people How do organizations contribute to employee well-being? What should organizations improve to better support employee well-being? full-stack engineers. Four participants were from UX/UI design, mostly working as product designers in diferent tech companies. Three participants worked in project management, including positions such as agile coaches and scrum masters. Six participants specialized in DevOps or IT operations, with job titles such as cloud engineering or business intelligence. Two participants came from HR or People Operations, including roles like HR business partners and talent acquisition managers. Figure 1 shows the participant roles in our sample.
To strengthen the rigor of the qualitative analysis, we implemented a collaborative, multi-stage
coding and review procedure across all three authors. The initial round of coding was conducted by the
third author, who systematically applied Braun and Clarke’s six-step thematic analysis framework to
the dataset[
Codes were then organized into broader thematic categories, making use of visual tools such as code
maps and tables to facilitate categorization (e.g., codes such as "pressure from deadlines",
"back-toback meetings", and "unrealistic expectations" were grouped under "workload pressure"). In the final
analytical phase, the full author team discussed the emergent themes, codes, and supporting statements,
using the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model[
The aim of the first research question is to identify the specific job demands that negatively influence employee well-being in the tech industry. Based on the analysis of the responses we identified two main themes as detailed in the following.
The first theme was high workload and performance pressure, mentioned by many participants. Particularly, "high volumes of urgent tasks" (P3), "high workload" (P24), "having more work than [one] can fit in a workday" (P12) with tight deadlines (P4, P5, P17), "increasing client requests" (P3) and lack of "workforce" (P24) were highlighted. Employees felt that "unrealistic expectations from top management" (P22) and "expectations from supervisors" (P12) undermined their sense of well-being, which is related to "company culture based on pushing non stop work" (P6). Also, one respondent quoted the stress of "not hitting the targets" (P1). These demands were a consistent source of pressure across various tech roles.
A further demand mentioned in the responses was lack of prioritization. Tied to this,"multiple diferent requests from diferent person [sic] in a short time frame" (P24), "context switching" (P3), last minute change of requirements (P6) and "spontaneous events, and unannounced visits" (P16) were addressed as further issues. According to P13, such demands arise due to "not well-designed company processes". These themes highlight that job demands in the tech industry are not limited to workload alone—they also include cultural expectations, leadership, organizational design, and unclear structures. Each of these undermines employees’ well-being when left ignored.
This section explores the outcomes of the demands that tech employees face. One very important theme, work-life imbalance and blurred boundaries seems to be the central outcome in the technology industry. Quite many respondents mentioned that availability expectations violate the boundaries, leading to problems with their work-life balance. Strikingly, P9 mentions that the availability for customers is a given, P19 and P21 point toward tech employees spending more time working due to too many projects with unrealistic deadlines. P23 states "its expected to work 24/7 constant monitoring and the feeling to lose the job quickly". As a result the "overtime get[s] in the way with [private] family life and responsibility [leading] to stress and anger within the family" (P24). Coping with this is not so easy, as P12 says that it is dificult to fight the "urge to work overtime to prioritize [their] work life balance", and that one is scared "to ask for a homeofice day or something to not be noticed as "dificult, but you are trying to fit in private appointments, doctors appointments, don’t want to miss out on family stuf". In some cases, availability expectations are even extended to the weekends with the "company culture based on pushing non stop to work" (P6), where employees "still think work on the weekends" (P5).
This section of the study identifies how employees view their organization’s role in supporting wellbeing, particularly regarding current programs in their tech companies, resources, and practices. Two main themes emerged from the analysis of the qualitative data.
The first theme, flexible and remote work , was highlighted by many participants as an important resource. Several respondents described the positive impact of home ofice policies and the "ability to work from home almost anytime" (P18), with some noting that these arrangements allow them to better manage personal commitments and reduce stress (P12) or "travel to [their] home country, take one week of, and work remotely for the remaining three weeks" (P21).
The second theme, health & well-being initiatives, was also emphasized, with participants mentioning access to gym memberships (P4), sports club subscriptions (P4, P13, P22, P24), JobRad (P22) and mental health support (P25). Other initiatives mentioned in this context were " career planning, education programmes" (P8), "after-work events, team events" (P22) and "healthy day(s)" (P15). Participants reported that these initiatives contributed to their motivation, sense of growth, and overall well-being (P8, P24). However, a recurring issue across all three themes was low awareness and limited accessibility: many employees were unaware of available programs or felt that certain initiatives were not accessible to them. Accessibility is often related to working hours (e.g., P4, P14, P19, P23). For example, P4’s company provided FitX & Urban Sport membership but simultaneously failed to respect after hours disconnection and boundaries between work and personal time. P19 highlights the level of overtime work with their statement “pay for dinner after 8 pm”. Essentially, the provision of a wellbeing tool is only useful if one has free time to use it. Therefore, it is important for organizations not only to ofer well-being resources but also to ensure they are visible, communicated, and accessible to all employees.
Participants provided specific suggestions for how organizations can better support employee well-being, where we identified four main themes.
Several tech employees emphasized the importance of proactive and personalized support. For example, P3 recommended "more proactive enforcement of disconnecting after hours and regular well-being check-ins would be valuable", while P4 suggested "stress management coaching" as a way to better support employees. P5 hoped for "diferent types of events every now and then, so that the work wouldn’t become mundane", and urged HR to "be more in contact with the employees, maybe doing regular check-ins". P9 also echoed this, stating, "Well-being is very subjective but can be monitored with regular check-ups and an ability to talk freely during them (similar to therapy)".
Participants also called for improved boundary enforcement and autonomy. P4 advised "disconnect after working hours (...) and respect boundaries between work and personal time". P6 suggested "respecting that employees are no longer working after 7pm" and "enforcing extra hour pay/on call policy if management calls employees outside of working hours". P11 emphasized the role of autonomy, stating "Quality of work is much better if people can choose if and when they come to the ofice." Similarly, P12 wanted "more flexibility in working hours if the position is good for it," and added, "See the person, not the employee. See that they also have family at home, trying to get an appointment at the Bürgeramt or the doctors". P16 suggested "letting people work from home if they want to—they are not kids", while P21 noted, "Don’t pressure employees to return to the ofice—focus instead on creating clear performance appraisal criteria. This helps build trust and allows people to work in the way that suits them best, while still being accountable for results".
Compensation, security, and legal fairness were also frequently mentioned as areas for improvement. P19 proposed "pay for dinner after 8 pm" and P24 advocated for "extra days in relation of age and time in the company and for people who are married and have kids". P23 suggested "making sure that working time and overtime is recorded and people can have time of for overtime".
Finally, participants underscored the value of human-centric leadership and organizational culture. P4 encouraged leadership to "lead by example: leadership should visibly model healthy boundaries to normalize taking time to recharge". P22 recommended "more support to cover family needs", and P24 urged organizations to "give people who are working for your company all the security you can aford (...) see the humans behind the numbers you are staring at the whole day and if you can’t do that, hire robots". P20 simply stated, "Listen to people".
Based on the findings presented in Section 4, a number of job demands in the German tech industry emerged as shown in Table 2. These demands can be clustered into three types of demands using the classification framework in [ 44]. Whilst this framework was designed for academic job demands, the tech industry and academia both can be described as having an always on culture. From a JDR Organizational politics, a lack of The company culture of pushing mental health support non-stop working erodes WLB.
Application in this study Heavy workloads, expectations and tight timelines create a hindrance.
Facilitation of overwork through technology
A lack of strategy and policies creates fertile soil for an overwork climate, techno-strain and technooverload. perspective, these demands constitute hindrance demands as they thwart goal achievement [45]. Hence, their presence has real productivity implications.
Companies in the tech industry should pay close attention to psychosocial safety in their workplaces and the implications this has on staf well-being. The workplace is a known setting where health can be created or impacted, with [46] stating "health is created and lived by people within the settings of their everyday life; where they learn, work, play, and love”. The concept of Psychosocial Safety Climate (PSC) is a useful tool for tech companies to protect health through primary strategies designed to assess job demands and resources. To foster PSC, tech companies need to tackle the five aspects within the framework. Namely, management needs to support and be committed to psychosocial safety, they need to prioritize psychosocial safety, the entire organization needs to participate in psychosocial safety, and the organization needs to communicate psychosocial safety [47]. In this study, several participants cast doubt on the presence of PSC in the tech industry. Specifically, the quantitative, qualitative, and organizational demands in Table 2, through a PSC lens impair health when job resources such as supervisor support, change consultation, and decision authority are absent. The data in this study shed light on pressure from managers to work long hours, having to switch tasks, and unplanned work. That is, in the tech industry, these resources are absent, creating excessive demands impacting health. These findings speak directly to digital-transformation roadmaps: without parallel investments in psychosocial safety, initiatives aimed at agility and speed risk undermining the very human capacities they intend to amplify [48].
Building on this, the data suggests that overwork climates are common in the tech industry. Based on
the Overwork Climate Scale (OWCS), an overwork climate exists when performing overtime is expected,
when management encourages overtime working, most employees work beyond oficial work hours,
taking time of is dificult, and no policy restricting overtime work exists [ 49]. The data unpacks cultures
that push "non-stop work", where health is not prioritized over perceived productivity. The ability to
overwork is facilitated through technological tools. The tools enable tech workers to log in at any time
and enable constant contact. This exposes workers to techno-overload, defined as the extent to which
employees perceive technology-related task performance demands to be excessive[50], characterized by
feeling overwhelmed by the constant stream of information through emails, notifications, and digital
communications [51]. Techno-overload forces employees to work faster and handle larger volumes of
information than they can efectively process, leading to exhaustion [
Furthermore, when all of these factors are combined, i.e., hindrance demands, lack of PSC, overwork
climates, techno-strain, and techno overload, it is possible that the tech industry exposes employees
to technology facilitated workaholism. For example, by applying the Multidimensional Workaholism
Scale (MWS) [
Based on the issues described above we recommend five actions to address well-being threats in the tech industry. Firstly, no actions should be taken without comprehensive data collection on all of the issues raised. Namely, tech organizations should conduct quantitative and qualitative research to establish levels of PSC, overwork, job demands, techno-strain, and techno-overload (recommendation 1).
Once the specific areas of concern have been identified they should proceed to the second step,
designing workplace well-being interventions. These interventions should tackle primary, secondary
and tertiary aspects of well-being programs [
Tackling this issue will address the long working hours component of overwork climates but not the
association between working hours and promotion. If this is indeed prevalent in the tech industry, then
changes to performance and reward management policies need to be made to reduce the likelihood
of workaholism (recommendation 3). Additionally, as many tech workers referred to staf shortages,
the obvious solution is the recruitment and selection of new staf. However, we understand that this is
timely and costly. Instead, we recommend strategic talent management grounded in the principles of
employee value proposition to retain staf and reduce the shortages caused by losing staf. Moreover,
arguably, no other industry is more versed on the potential benefits of AI usage in reducing bottlenecks
[
Finally, as many participants mentioned, flexible location working is very popular and arbitrary
enforcement of ofice attendance is deemed unnecessary and counterproductive. Allowing flexible
working is not costly, rather it can save money on day to day running costs. Forcing ofice-based
work does not necessarily mean that a culture is absorbed and it does not mean that staf will feel a
belongingness. Instead, it can force employees to be in environments that do not align with their working
styles, and it can risk exclusion for some employees with care-giving responsibilities or neurodivergence
[
A key limitation of this study is that all participants were employed in the German tech industry. As a result, our findings may not be readily generalizable to other national or cultural contexts. Future research should include samples from additional regions to assess potential variations in employee wellbeing and technostress across diferent labor markets and cultural settings. Another limitation of this study is the qualitative design: The absence of systematic quantification limits statistical validation of the themes’ prevalence and relative importance. Mixed-methods approaches, such as including validated well-being scales or applying quantitative content analysis, would make it possible to empirically substantiate patterns identified in the qualitative data. Additionally, as with many survey-based studies, there is a risk of self-selection bias: Participants who are particularly interested in well-being topics or those with strong experiences may have been more likely to respond. Finally, the cross-sectional nature of our data precludes assessment of how organizational strategies and employee well-being may change or develop over time. Future research would benefit from longitudinal designs to evaluate the lasting eficacy of organizational interventions and to track changes in employee well-being and work-life balance across diferent phases of digital transformation.
The technology industry’s rapid growth and digital transformation initiatives have created unprecedented challenges for employee well-being and work-life balance. This study demonstrates that while organizations recognize the importance of supporting employee well-being through various initiatives, significant gaps remain between current practices and employee needs. High workloads, blurred temporal boundaries, and technology-driven expectations elevate techno-strain and overwork climates, especially when psychosocial safety is weak. The findings also reveal that flexible work policies, accessible mental-health resources, and growth opportunities can counterbalance these pressures. Nevertheless, such resources should be visible, supported by leadership, and tailored to individual needs.
As the tech industry continues to evolve, organizations must recognize that employee well-being is not merely a human resources concern but a strategic priority and moral responsibility. By implementing the recommendations outlined in this study, particularly focusing on boundary enforcement, personalized support, and human-centric leadership, technology organizations can create healthy work environments that support both individual well-being and organizational performance. The study concludes that sustainable organizational success in the tech sector requires moving beyond superficial well-being gestures toward embedded, strategic approaches that prioritize psychosocial safety and human-centered digital transformation.
During the preparation of this work, the authors used Grammarly to check spelling and grammar. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the publication’s content. [19] H. Gimpel, J. Lanzl, C. Regal, N. Urbach, J. Becker, P. Tegtmeier, Stress from digital work: Toward a unified view of digital hindrance stressors, Information Systems Research 36 (2025) 896–915. doi:10.1287/isre.2022.0691. [20] P. Litchfield, C. Cooper, C. Hancock, P. Watt, Work and wellbeing in the 21st century †, International journal of environmental research and public health 13 (2016). URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/27809265/. doi:10.3390/ijerph13111065. [21] E. Demerouti, A. B. Bakker, F. Nachreiner, W. B. Schaufeli, The job demands-resources model of burnout, The Journal of applied psychology 86 (2001) 499–512. [22] F. Jones, R. J. Burke, M. Westman, Work-Life Balance, Psychology Press, 2013. doi:10.4324/ 9780203536810. [23] S. Green, S. Palmer, Positive Psychology Coaching in Practice, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon and
New York, NY : Routledge, 2019., 2018. doi:10.4324/9781315716169. [24] D. Xanthopoulou, A. B. Bakker, E. Demerouti, W. B. Schaufeli, Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement, Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2009) 235– 244. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001879108001243. doi:10.1016/j. jvb.2008.11.003. [25] A. Bencsik, T. Juhasz, Impact of technostress on work-life balance, Human Technology 19 (2023) 41–61. doi:10.14254/1795-6889.2023.19-1.4. [26] K. D. V. Prasad, M. Rao, R. Vaidya, K. Sriyogi, S. Singh, V. Srinivas, The relationship between work-life balance and psychological well-being: an empirical study of metro rail travelers working in the information technology sector, Frontiers in Psychology 15 (2024) 1472885. URL: https:// www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1472885/full. doi:10.3389/ fpsyg.2024.1472885. [27] P. C. Verhoef, T. Broekhuizen, Y. Bart, A. Bhattacharya, J. Qi Dong, N. Fabian, M. Haenlein, Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda, Journal of business research 122 (2021) 889–901. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296319305478. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022. [28] S. Kraus, P. Jones, N. Kailer, A. Weinmann, N. Chaparro-Banegas, N. Roig-Tierno, Digital transformation: An overview of the current state of the art of research, SAGE Open 11 (2021) 21582440211047576. doi:10.1177/21582440211047576. [29] M. Passalacqua, R. Pellerin, F. Magnani, P. Doyon-Poulin, L. Del-Aguila, J. Boasen, P.-M. Léger, Human-centred ai in industry 5.0: a systematic review, International Journal of Production Research 63 (2025) 2638–2669. doi:10.1080/00207543.2024.2406021. [30] G. Bondanini, G. Giorgi, A. Ariza-Montes, A. Vega-Muñoz, P. Andreucci-Annunziata, Technostress dark side of technology in the workplace: A scientometric analysis, International journal of environmental research and public health 17 (2020) 8013. URL: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ articles/PMC7662498/. doi:10.3390/ijerph17218013. [31] E. Marsh, E. Perez Vallejos, A. Spence, Digital workplace technology intensity: qualitative insights on employee wellbeing impacts of digital workplace job demands, Frontiers in Organizational Psychology 2 (2024). doi:10.3389/forgp.2024.1392997. [32] M. Molino, E. Ingusci, F. Signore, A. Manuti, M. L. Giancaspro, V. Russo, M. Zito, C. G. Cortese, Wellbeing costs of technology use during covid-19 remote working: An investigation using the italian translation of the technostress creators scale, Sustainability 12 (2020) 5911. URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/15/5911. doi:10.3390/su12155911. [33] P. Singh, H. Bala, B. L. Dey, R. Filieri, Enforced remote working: The impact of digital platforminduced stress and remote working experience on technology exhaustion and subjective wellbeing, Journal of business research 151 (2022) 269–286. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.07.002. [34] K. Y. Kim, J. G. Messersmith, J. R. Pieper, K. Baik, S. Fu, High performance work systems and employee mental health: The roles of psychological empowerment, work role overload, and organizational identification, Human Resource Management 62 (2023) 791–810. doi: 10.1002/ hrm.22160. [35] A. Johnson, S. Dey, H. Nguyen, M. Groth, S. Joyce, L. Tan, N. Glozier, S. B. Harvey, A review and agenda for examining how technology-driven changes at work will impact workplace mental health and employee well-being, Australian Journal of Management 45 (2020) 402–424. doi:10. 1177/0312896220922292. [36] It trends: 60% of it professionals are experiencing burnout, 2025. URL: https://www.
securitymagazine.com/articles/101443-it-trends-60-of-it-professionals-are-experiencing-burnout. [37] A. Gaskell, New research suggests the future of work is a lfexible one, 2020. URL: https://www.forbes.com/sites/adigaskell/2020/09/08/ new-research-suggests-the-future-of-work-is-a-flexible-one/. [38] V. Singh, A. Kumar, S. Gupta, Mental health prevention and promotion-a narrative review, Frontiers in Psychiatry 13 (2022) 898009. URL: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9360426/. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.898009. [39] S. Amirabdolahian, G. Pare, S. Tams, Digital wellness programs in the workplace: Meta-review, Journal of medical Internet research 27 (2025) e70982. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ 40085840/. doi:10.2196/70982. [40] G. Spence, Workplace wellbeing programs: If you build it they may not come. . .because it’s not what they really need!, International Journal of Wellbeing 5 (2015). [41] J. Hynes, B. Crooke, Perceived drivers of engagement and disengagement in workplace wellbeing programmes; qualitative evidence from employees in the republic of ireland, Humanistic Management Journal 9 (2024) 1–32. URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41463-024-00173-z. doi:10.1007/s41463-024-00173-z. [42] A. B. Bakker, E. Demerouti, A. Sanz-Vergel, Job demands–resources theory: Ten years later, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 10 (2023) 25–53. URL: https: //www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-053933. doi:10. 1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-053933. [43] É. Ryan, N. Imbusch, M. Kinahan, R. Guilfoyle, Current understanding and theories of wellbeing washing in the context of workplace health and wellbeing: A scoping review protocol, MethodsX 15 (2025) 103452. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215016125002973. doi:10. 1016/j.mex.2025.103452. [44] M. Naidoo-Chetty, M. Du Plessis, Job demands and job resources of academics in higher education, Frontiers in Psychology 12 (2021) 631171. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34248738/. doi:10. 3389/fpsyg.2021.631171. [45] E. R. Crawford, J. A. Lepine, B. L. Rich, Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test, The Journal of applied psychology 95 (2010) 834–848. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20836586/. doi:10.1037/a0019364. [46] Quality health services, 1986. URL: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/59557/WHO_HPR_
HEP_95.1.pdf;jsessionid=1CF18F1C35D715E750435B1FCB396795?sequence=1. [47] G. B. Hall, M. F. Dollard, J. Coward, Psychosocial safety climate: Development of the psc-12,
International Journal of Stress Management 17 (2010) 353–383. doi:10.1037/A0021320. [48] A. Valtonen, M. Holopainen, Mitigating employee resistance and achieving well-being in digital transformation, Information Technology & People 38 (2025) 42–72. URL: https://www.emerald. com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/itp-05-2024-0701/full/pdf. doi:10.1108/ITP-05-2024-0701. [49] G. Mazzetti, W. B. Schaufeli, D. Guglielmi, M. Depolo, Overwork climate scale: psychometric properties and relationships with working hard, Journal of Managerial Psychology 31 (2016) 880–896. URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/jmp-03-2014-0100/full/pdf. doi:10.1108/JMP-03-2014-0100. [50] M. Tarafdar, Q. Tu, B. S. Ragu-Nathan, T. S. Ragu-Nathan, The impact of technostress on role stress and productivity, Journal of Management Information Systems 24 (2007) 301–328. doi:10. 2753/MIS0742-1222240109. [51] E. Ingusci, F. Signore, M. L. Giancaspro, A. Manuti, M. Molino, V. Russo, M. Zito, C. G. Cortese, Workload, techno overload, and behavioral stress during covid-19 emergency: The role of job crafting in remote workers, Frontiers in Psychology 12 (2021) 655148. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021. 655148. The data set for this study can be downloaded here.