The idea of a “right to disconnect” from work is gaining traction worldwide, with countries like France and Spain enacting laws to protect workers from the demands of the digital age. The UK government has also indicated it will do the same.

In Australia, recent legislation aims to give employees in large- or medium-sized businesses the right to switch off from attempts to contact them outside work hours. And the same law will be applied to small businesses (fewer than 15 employees) in August 2025. But is it enough?

We conducted a research study into how employees perceive and respond to the demands of constant connectivity. We focused on academics from Australia, using in-depth interviews about their experiences.

Our findings reveal that our ability to disconnect from work is complicated, and depends on our psychology. The way workers perceive constant connectivity significantly influences their ability to disengage.

Among our participants, we found three distinct models of thinking about constant connectivity. These models affected how workers felt about making themselves available to work, and as such had a bearing on how good they were at unplugging. This suggests that being able to disconnect goes beyond just work demands. Our psychology plays a big part too.

Three perceptions of constant connectivity

1. Constant connectivity as a resource

A number of employees perceive constant connectivity as a tool that empowers them, making it easier to collaborate with colleagues, respond quickly to work tasks, access real-time data, and work flexibly from different locations.

2. Constant connectivity as a challenge

Others view constant connectivity as a burden, leading to increased workload, pressure to respond immediately and a sense of being overwhelmed by the need to always be available.

3. Constant connectivity as a balance

This group recognises both the benefits and drawbacks. They mainly experience the mental challenge of balancing the advantages of flexibility and access with the struggles of distraction and overload. However, they often find it difficult to maintain this balance.

Managing the boundaries

The model that you most closely align with significantly influences how you manage the boundaries between work and personal life.

The first group, which perceives constant connectivity as a resource, reported that they can manage it by regulating their availability. By setting personal boundaries and being disciplined about when and how they connect, they are able to maintain productivity without letting work overwhelm their personal time.

However, there’s still a risk of work-life conflict if they don’t uphold the boundaries.

The second group, which views it as a challenge, may experience stress and anxiety. They may feel unable to escape work demands. This group feels that the system itself and the unwritten norms put pressure on them to remain connected outside work hours.

Such pressure can make people feel obliged to be constantly available. This makes it even more challenging for workers to disengage and maintain a healthy balance between their professional and personal lives.

The third group faces a unique struggle, navigating the tension between the benefits and drawbacks of constant connectivity. While they may recognise the importance of setting boundaries, they often find it challenging to maintain them.

Strategies like turning off notifications at home or setting specific times for checking emails are helpful, but the underlying pressure to stay connected can make these difficult to stick to. This pressure is often reinforced by workplace norms and expectations, which can make employees feel guilty or anxious about disconnecting, even outside of work hours.

These findings have important implications for the right-to-disconnect movement. While legislation is a crucial step, it’s not a silver bullet. The right to disconnect is essential, but simply implementing policies and laws isn’t enough to change entrenched behavior and unwritten norms.

For meaningful change, companies must encourage a culture that supports and enforces these rules, ensuring that employees feel that it’s acceptable to set boundaries without fear of repercussions.

This means valuing work-life balance and supporting employees in setting boundaries for themselves. It also means providing training not only for employees but also for managers, who can play a big part in influencing unwritten norms. And it involves providing resources, like contingency cover for when someone is off or flexible working if they have an unforeseen domestic situation, for example.

The right to disconnect is not just about legal protections. It’s about changing managers’ mindsets and empowering employees to take control of their work-life boundaries. By understanding the complexities of constant connectivity, organizations can create a healthier and more sustainable work environment for everyone.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A new study by Zahra Sharifonnasabi, Senior Lecturer in Marketing and Co-Director of the MINDS Research Group at Queen Mary University of London, sheds light on the link between “home” and psychological well-being for people who frequently move across countries. The work is published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology.

The study, “Home and Psychological Well-being in Global Consumer Mobility,” explores how individuals who travel or relocate often—like expatriates, digital nomads, or frequent international travelers—create and experience different types of “home.” These findings offer important insights into how this impacts their mental well-being, sense of ownership, and identity.

Global consumer mobility refers to a lifestyle where individuals frequently move across borders for work, study, or personal reasons. This group often faces unique challenges, such as adjusting to new cultures and living environments, which can affect how they feel about “home” and their psychological well-being.

Different types of home

The study identified four main types of home, each with its own psychological benefits. These challenge the traditional idea of home as just one place:

• Emotional Home: A place that provides a deep sense of belonging and stability.
• Home Away from Home: Temporary comfort through familiar rituals and routines.
• Base of Operation: A location that supports work productivity and provides professional stability.
• Home on the Road: A flexible, temporary setup that offers a sense of groundedness while traveling.

These types of home reflect the fragmented and ever-changing nature of home in the lives of globally mobile individuals.

How people cope with global mobility

The study also looked at how people manage the challenges of constantly moving. Many rely on resources in the marketplace—like services, brands, or even local businesses—to help make different places feel like home. These “commercial friendships” and familiar consumption habits play a crucial role in easing the mental strain of mobility.

One study participant, Adam, a consultant, shared his experience: “I have a flat in London, which is my primary home. I spend about 60-70% of my time there. In Berlin, we have a house built in 1966 where my wife lives, and that’s my emotional home, where I want to retire. Dubai, where I work part-time, is just a place to get the job done. It can be challenging… It’s an isolated life in London or Dubai, as everyone is so focused on work. I’ve tried to connect more, like having coffee with a colleague or joining a choir. It helps.”

What HR professionals can learn

This research offers valuable takeaways for HR professionals managing internationally mobile employees:

• Understanding Needs: Recognizing the different types of homes and their benefits can help HR understand the diverse needs of globally mobile workers.
• Support Systems: Providing resources that help employees manage multiple homes and offering access to local services can improve well-being.
• Flexible Work Policies: Offering remote work or short-term assignments that fit employees’ mobile lifestyles can boost productivity and satisfaction.
• Cultural Sensitivity: Promoting an inclusive environment where cultural differences are valued can help internationally mobile employees feel more at home.
• Mental Health Support: Offering mental health resources tailored to the unique challenges of global mobility can help employees maintain well-being.

Zahra Sharifonnasabi explains, “Our study challenges the traditional idea of home. It shows that home is more complex and multifaceted, especially for people who move frequently. These insights are crucial for understanding their well-being and helping HR professionals manage a mobile workforce.”

The study redefines what “home” means in today’s world of constant mobility and offers practical ways to help people cope with the challenges it brings.

Boeing said Wednesday it would start temporary furloughs of professional and white-collar staff as it seeks to conserve cash amid a labor strike that has shuttered Seattle manufacturing plants.

The furloughs, which pertain to executives, managers and employees, will be initiated in the coming days and affect tens of thousands of Boeing employees, company officials said.

Boeing plans for “selected employees to take one week of furlough every four weeks on a rolling basis for the duration of the strike,” said a message to employees from CEO Kelly Ortberg.

The new Boeing boss added that he and the rest of the leadership team “will take a commensurate pay reduction for the duration of the strike.”

Boeing had said that furloughs were on the table earlier in the week when it announced a hiring freeze, travel budget austerity measures and a reduction of supplier expenditures.

About 33,000 Seattle area Boeing workers with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District 751 walked off the job Friday after overwhelmingly rejecting a contract renewal.

The two sides resumed talks Tuesday with the assistance of mediators from the Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service.

The IAM blasted Boeing in a bargaining update posted late Tuesday.

“We are frustrated,” the IAM said. “The company was not prepared and was unwilling to address the issues you’ve made clear are essential for ending this strike: Wages and Pension. The company doesn’t seem to be taking mediation seriously.”

Ortberg’s message to employees reiterated his commitment to “resetting our relationship with our represented employees and continuing discussions with the union to reach a new agreement that is good for all of our teammates and our company as soon as possible.”

© 2024 AFP