Telework in Times of Crisis: Perceptions of Technostress and Job Performance

GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Antonio-Javier, M.T., Villanueva-Tostado, R., Nava-Rogel, R.M., and Gentilin, M. Vol. 13(2). 2025 1 Telework in Times of Crisis: Perceptions of Technostress and Job Performance María Teresa Antonio-Javier Cátedra COMECYT, Universidad Politécnica de Otzolotepec, México mariateresaa[email protected]du.mx Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3678-0577 Román Villanueva Tostado [email protected] Universidad Politécnica de Otzolotepec, México https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4025-8366 Rosa María Nava-Rogel [email protected] Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, México https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2611-3903 Mariano Gentilin mgentil[email protected] Universidad EAFIT, Colombia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9432-8450 Abstract Although organizations had already considered telework a viable option for several years, the COVID-19 pandemic heightened its importance, as it became the only feasible solution to maintain operations across most productive sectors. Currently, an increasing number of companies adopt this work modality. However, little is known about how levels of stress and job performance evolved during the lockdown. This article aims to describe how the forced implementation of telework influenced technostress levels and employee performance. A qualitative, descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted, drawing on ten semi-structured interviews with teleworkers from various sectors. The main findings revealed negative manifestations of technostress, yet also highlighted positive aspects such as learning and sustainability. Regarding performance, personal values, individual skills, technological proficiency, and self-management contributed to maintaining or enhancing it. The article offers recommendations for mitigating and managing technostress. Keywords: Telework, covid-19, technostress and performance. GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Antonio-Javier, M.T., Villanueva-Tostado, R., Nava-Rogel, R.M., and Gentilin, M. Vol. 13(2). 2025 2 Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic triggered profound changes in organizational structures—many of them unforeseen—such as the forced implementation of telework as an attempt to adapt to shifting environmental conditions in order to sustain operations and preserve economic activity (Belzunegui-Eraso & Erro-Garcés, 2020; Chang et al., 2020). This imposed transition to telework disrupted both organizations and individuals. According to several scholars (Blau, 1981; Tarafdar et al., 2017), when environmental demands exceed workers’ abilities and knowledge, mismatches arise that may induce stress responses, including anxiety and fatigue. Recent years have witnessed growing interest in how organizations manage transitions involving new technologies (Ayyagari et al., 2011; Tarafdar et al., 2017; Salanova et al., 2007, 2013; Borle et al., 2021). For this reason, implementing telework should not be treated as a mere shift in work modality. Instead, it requires a systemic organizational transformation that enables employees and their teams to navigate the adaptation process (Kossek et al., 2015). Although some evidence suggests that work flexibility may enhance performance (Quaglia & Gutiérrez, 2020), it remains crucial to understand how externally imposed changes, such as mandatory telework, affect technostress levels and employee performance. This inquiry calls for a closer examination of individual experiences during the mandatory adoption of telework. Against this backdrop, the present article seeks to describe how forced telework influenced technostress and job performance among teleworkers. Studies on Telework Telework refers to a flexible, subordinate, and paid work arrangement in which employees carry out tasks away from the employer’s premises, relying primarily on information and communication technologies (ICTs) to facilitate interaction and oversight between workers and employers (De Vries et al., 2019; Gálvez, Tirado & Alcaraz, 2019; Ley Federal del Trabajo, 2021: 79). For the purposes of this study, ICTs include the internet, email, telephone, chat tools, and web conferencing platforms, among others. Before the pandemic, telework had already attracted scholarly interest as a strategic response to environmental shifts. Its origins date back to the 1973 oil crisis, during which Nilles’ contributions positioned him as the father of telework (Gentilin, 2020). The study of telework intensified after the outbreak of COVID-19 (Kodama, 2020; Hodder, 2020; Katsabian, 2020). Nonetheless, previous research had examined it from a social perspective (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Blount, 2015; Messenger & Gschwind, 2016; Gentilin, 2020; Santana & Cobo, 2020), emphasizing its role in achieving work–family balance (Gálvez et al., 2020; Kossek et al., 2015) and as a driver of social innovation and inclusion (Ernesto & Bernardino, 2019). In Mexico, scholars have explored the legal and labor frameworks of telework (Jiménez & Pérez, 2018), as has occurred in countries such as Spain, Argentina, and Colombia (Sierra, 2019; Gentilin, 2020). GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Antonio-Javier, M.T., Villanueva-Tostado, R., Nava-Rogel, R.M., and Gentilin, M. Vol. 13(2). 2025 3 The COVID-19 crisis compelled firms to adopt telework as a way to ensure employee safety while maintaining economic activity. This shift stemmed mainly from the need to prevent the spread of infectious diseases among workers (Belzunegui & Erro, 2020). Baruch and Nicholson (1997) proposed four critical elements that influence the successful implementation of telework within organizations. The first centers on the organization itself and its strategic decision to adopt this modality in alignment with its corporate culture. This decision typically requires resource allocation, with the expectation of organizational returns. The second element involves the home and family environment. Establishing a proper workspace at home—equipped with a desk, chair, electricity, lighting, and internet access— proves essential. This setup must coexist with household dynamics involving partners, parents, children, or siblings (Baruch & Nicholson, 1997). The third concerns the nature of the job, which must allow remote execution through ICTs, without relying heavily on face-to-face interaction—as would be the case on a production line (Baruch & Nicholson, 1997). Lastly, the individual plays a pivotal role. Employees’ competencies, personalities, and motivation shape the outcome of telework implementation. In the absence of digital skills, teleworking may produce adverse effects, heightening stress levels as employees struggle to adapt—a phenomenon known as technostress (Baruch & Nicholson, 1997). Technostress Technostress represents an emerging, interdisciplinary research phenomenon that establishes a theoretical bridge between the literature on information systems and psychological stress. Scholars in this field examine how and why the use of information and communication systems places various demands on individuals. Defined as the stress experienced due to excessive use of information and communication technologies (ICTs), technostress triggers coping responses that often lead to physical and psychological effects detrimental to workers (Tarafdar et al., 2017; Salanova et al., 2007, 2013; Elizalde, 2021). Recently, the term “digital burnout” has gained traction, describing a condition caused by the uncontrolled, excessive, and unconscious use of ICTs (Sharma et al., 2020; Özdemir, 2020). In many organizations, the COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed the adoption of flexible work systems supported by ICTs (Elizalde, 2021; Hodder, 2020; Katsabian, 2020; Kodama, 2020). Consequently, measuring technostress levels and the performance of teleworkers poses a challenge for human resource management (Ramos-Villagrasa et al., 2019). The study of technostress among employees has gained prominence in recent years (AntonioJavier, 2025; Ayyagari et al., 2011; Borle et al., 2021; Feng, 2021; Salanova et al., 2007, 2013; Salazar-Concha et al., 2021; Villavicencio-Ayub et al., 2020; Villavicencio-Ayub & Cazares, 2021), largely due to the sustained and intensive use of ICTs (Shirish, 2021) and the demands these tools impose—such as continuous learning and intrusion into personal life. These demands often lead to negative impacts on individual performance (Borle et al., 2021; OwusuAnsah et al., 2016; Salanova et al., 2007), stemming from organizational expectations (Elizalde, 2021; Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008; Tarafdar et al., 2017). GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Antonio-Javier, M.T., Villanueva-Tostado, R., Nava-Rogel, R.M., and Gentilin, M. Vol. 13(2). 2025 4 In contrast to its negative consequences, technostress may also yield positive outcomes. Individual proficiency in digital systems can increase productivity and enhance job performance, while improving the ability to manage stress induced by technology (Shirish, 2021; Tarafdar et al., 2017). According to Blau (1981), stress arises from mismatches triggered by work overload. Ayyagari et al. (2011) identified technology-related overload as a stressor that may lead to maladjustment and hinder adaptation. Adding to this, technocomplexity refers to the effort employees must exert when they face compressed timelines for learning new technologies and adapting to changing work demands (Tarafdar et al., 2017). Salanova (2007) noted that work overload constitutes one of the main causes of technostress. This condition typically emerges when individuals must complete tasks within tight deadlines, thereby increasing cognitive demands. The author distinguishes between two types of overload: quantitative, which relates to the number of tasks expected within a limited timeframe, and qualitative, which involves the complexity of tasks that push workers to their cognitive limits. Technological overload arises from the intensive use of information and communication systems, which often flood users with information and functionalities. Employees must process this input to meet client or colleague expectations while complying with organizational security protocols (Tarafdar et al., 2017). Technoaddiction refers to the excessive and compulsive use of ICTs, often during inappropriate times, including outside standard working hours (Villavicencio-Ayub & Cazares, 2021). Srivastava et al. (2015) provided evidence of the potential benefits derived from frequent ICT use. These benefits relate to individual differences, particularly personality traits, which may moderate the relationship between technostressors and workplace outcomes such as job burnout and employee engagement. Job Performance Job performance comprises a set of integrated systems aimed at achieving organizational objectives (Bautista, Cienfuegos & Alquilar, 2020). Its evaluation remains complex, as it must estimate “the employee’s overall performance and total contribution to the company” (Werther & Davis, 2008:302). Therefore, any assessment must account for a range of key elements and performance standards—whether individual or collective—including feedback mechanisms, personnel records, and human resources decisions. Additionally, evaluators must define norms and guidelines grounded in job-related factors; otherwise, outcomes risk becoming vague or subjective, offering little value to the organization (Werther & Davis, 2008). In individual assessments for office-based positions, performance rarely lends itself to direct productivity metrics. To address this challenge, scholars such as Koopmans et al. (2012) have developed instruments to measure individual job performance in white-collar roles—those GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Antonio-Javier, M.T., Villanueva-Tostado, R., Nava-Rogel, R.M., and Gentilin, M. Vol. 13(2). 2025 5 involving coordination, management, and administrative tasks—in both traditional office settings (Ramos-Villagrasa et al., 2019) and, more recently, virtual environments (Antonio-Javier et al., 2023). This evaluation framework comprises three dimensions: task performance, contextual performance, and counterproductive work behavior (Antonio-Javier et al., 2023; Koopmans et al., 2012; Ramos-Villagrasa et al., 2019). Task performance refers to the execution of duties specific to the job itself. Contextual performance involves behaviors that support coworkers and foster a collaborative work environment. In contrast, counterproductive work behaviors encompass harmful actions that undermine individual or team performance (Antonio-Javier et al., 2023; Antonio-Javier & NavaRogel, 2023; Koopmans et al., 2012; Ramos-Villagrasa et al., 2019). Telework and Job Performance According to Apgar (1998), one of the main reasons executives opt for flexible work systems lies in cost reduction and the potential to increase productivity. Additionally, the author argued that telework strengthens organizational competitiveness and supports talent retention by fostering motivation among employees. Peters and Den Dulk (2003) attributed the slow adoption of telework to managers’ lack of trust in employees’ ability to work autonomously from home. Implementing telework systems often proves challenging due to deeply rooted behavioral norms and the complexities of managing cultural change (Apgar, 1998). Building upon the critical factors identified by Baruch and Nicholson (1997)—namely the individual, the organization, the job, the home, and the family—Berube Kowalski and Swanson (2005) emphasized trust, support, and communication as key to telework success. These elements interact across all organizational levels. Without a culture grounded in trust, trust-based relationships between managers and teleworkers rarely emerge. In practice, trust positively correlates with perceived performance and job satisfaction. A foundational element of a trust-based culture involves implementing performance management systems oriented toward results (Berube Kowalski & Swanson, 2005). Clark et al. (2012) suggested that individuals whose personality traits align with the demands of remote work tend to adopt more favorable attitudes toward telework. Their findings linked agreeableness to positive attitudes, while neuroticism showed a negative association. Smith, Patmos, and Pitts (2015) proposed that the Big Five personality traits—extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism—can help predict teleworkers’ job satisfaction. Conscientious employees typically score higher on performance evaluations due to their organization, diligence, thoroughness, persistence, and tenacity, which also foster leadership potential (Clark et al., 2012). GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Antonio-Javier, M.T., Villanueva-Tostado, R., Nava-Rogel, R.M., and Gentilin, M. Vol. 13(2). 2025 6 Bohlander, Snell, and Sherman (2001) outlined three primary factors influencing employee performance: 1. Ability: including technical, analytical, interpersonal, problem-solving, and communication skills, along with physical limitations. 2. Motivation: encompassing professional ambition, frustration tolerance, job satisfaction, perceived fairness, and goal clarity. 3. Work Environment: such as tools and materials, job design, economic conditions, union presence, rules and policies, managerial support, and legal frameworks. An employee who lacks access to proper resources or remains unaware of organizational rules and policies may struggle to perform effectively. Likewise, even with resources in place, insufficient technical knowledge or poor analytical and communication skills often result in underperformance. Conversely, employees with strong abilities and favorable conditions may still underdeliver if they lack motivation, potentially leaving the organization due to job dissatisfaction. “Talented employees with low motivation rarely succeed” (Bohlander & Snell, p. 343). Werther and Davis (2008, p. 303) noted that external factors—such as family, health, and financial circumstances—may also influence performance. However, the most critical determinants often stem from individual effort, shaped by competencies, perceived value of rewards, belief in reward-effort linkage, and the employee’s general perception of their job’s purpose (Chiavenato, 2009). Furthermore, research has shown that increasing workplace autonomy tends to improve performance outcomes (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Figure 1 summarizes the factors affecting teleworker performance, emphasizing critical elements for effective and successful telework. Based on the theoretical review, the organization emerges as the first critical factor. It assumes responsibility for initiating telework, developing a migration strategy toward more flexible arrangements, and adapting to economic and structural conditions, union presence, internal policies, regulatory frameworks, and organizational culture— particularly managerial support for remote employees (Baruch & Nicholson, 1997). The next factor influencing teleworker performance involves the nature of the job (job profile) and the skills required to fulfill it. Employees must work toward measurable, deliverable objectives and carry out their tasks with minimal supervision. The technology that enables task completion includes portable devices, laptops, mobile phones, broadband, and other tools (Baruch & Nicholson, 1997). The third critical level pertains to the individual, specifically the teleworker’s capacity, which encompasses technical, analytical, interpersonal, and communication skills, as well as problemsolving abilities and, in certain cases, physical limitations (Baruch & Nicholson, 1997). Some authors argue that the worker’s personality traits—such as extroversion, candor, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism—may influence job performance (Srivastava et al., 2015). GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Antonio-Javier, M.T., Villanueva-Tostado, R., Nava-Rogel, R.M., and Gentilin, M. Vol. 13(2). 2025 7 Figure 1. Factors influencing teleworker performance. Source: Adapted from Hackman and Oldham (1976); Baruch and Nicholson (1997); Feldman and Gainey (1997); Bohlander and Snell (2001); Berube and Swanson (2005); Chiavenato (2009); Smith, Patmos, and Pitts (2015). At the individual level, motivation also plays a key role. It reflects professional ambition, frustration, perceptions of fairness, job satisfaction, personal goals and expectations, and the perceived value of rewards. The final critical factor relates to home and family conditions (Baruch & Nicholson, 1997), including economic and familial circumstances. Whether the teleworker lives alone or with family, receives partner support, and shares spaces or responsibilities—all these elements shape job performance. Within these domains, self-efficacy, trust, support, communication, and autonomy serve as important mediating elements across all dimensions (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Berube Kowalski & Swanson, 2005). GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Antonio-Javier, M.T., Villanueva-Tostado, R., Nava-Rogel, R.M., and Gentilin, M. Vol. 13(2). 2025 8 Based on the analysis of these studies—and considering that the present research focuses on the individual as a critical factor in the proposed framework—the study formulates the grand tour question (McCaslin & Scott, 2003): How did the forced implementation of telework impact technostress levels and teleworker performance during the COVID-19 pandemic? The following section outlines the path taken to answer this question. Metod During the COVID-19 pandemic, most organizations shifted abruptly to telework in order to maintain operations. Faced with such an unforeseen decision, managers failed to assess stress levels and job performance, thus missing the opportunity to generate records that could support decision-making in the post-pandemic reality. This article examines how the forced implementation of telework affected levels of technostress and teleworker performance. The study followed a qualitative, non-experimental, cross-sectional design. Researchers applied a semi-structured interview format to a convenience sample of ten teleworkers. Data collection took place in September and October 2021. The transcription process employed the “Transcribe” tool, while the analysis and coding of qualitative data relied on ATLAS.ti 9 software. To preserve participant confidentiality, direct quotations appear under anonymized codes assigned to each of the ten respondents (Figure 2). Figure 2. Participant Codes Code Sector Job Type Number of Quotations E1T Automotive Employee 52 E2G Metalworking Manager 69 E3T Food Industry Employee 23 E4T Automotive Employee 43 E5G Logistics Services Manager 58 E6T Metalworking Employee 81 E7G Metalworking Manager 60 E8G Metalworking Manager 70 E9G Automotive Manager 45 E10T Automotive Employee 43 Source: Prepared by the authors based on data collected through interviews. Results Researchers conducted interviews with ten teleworkers from various productive sectors. In compliance with social distancing protocols during the lockdown, participants authorized the recording of phone interviews via the Recorder application. GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Antonio-Javier, M.T., Villanueva-Tostado, R., Nava-Rogel, R.M., and Gentilin, M. Vol. 13(2). 2025 9 To address the grand tour question (McCaslin & Scott, 2003), the analysis first explored manifestations of technostress. Most participants reported experiencing technostress due to the pressure to master digital tools—an outcome consistent with previous findings (Borle et al., 2021; Elizalde, 2021; Salanova et al., 2007, 2014; Tarafdar et al., 2007, 2017). A lack of preparedness in system usage and activity coordination led to excessive meetings, frequent calls, alternative connectivity attempts, and increased control mechanisms. These conditions triggered technostress, often expressed as anxiety caused by unfamiliarity with ICTs (techno-complexity), frustration masked by compulsive smartphone use (techno-addiction), and persistent work overload involving digital tools (techno-overload) as well as fatigue associated with prolonged digital engagement (techno-fatigue). The latter two emerged as the most frequently cited symptoms (see Figure 3). Figure 3. Manifestations of Technostress Techno - Complexity Techno - Addiction Techno - Overload Techno - Fatigue “Technology keeps failing—people don’t know how to use it. Some try to connect, their Internet goes down, they don’t know the platform, can’t mute the mic… all those little things. That doesn’t help and ends up reducing meeting productivity.” (E10T) “Those truly committed to their jobs will respond from anywhere. But those who get distracted, or love their phones, stay glued to them—whether at work or at home. Speaking from experience, I noticed that with the previous team. People remained chained to their phones, and honestly, you won’t change that.” (E7G) “We intruded into a space that didn’t belong to us, and that brought along certain additional responsibilities.” (E8G) “I saw colleagues— supervisors or managers—receiving sudden calls for meetings at 8 or 9 p.m., even on Saturdays. In that sense, work hours lost all boundaries. Sometimes, they expected you to be available 24/7. It didn’t happen to me, but I definitely witnessed it.” (E1T) “In terms of communication—or rather, the technology side—my Internet connection often failed unexpectedly.” (E1T) “Project follow-ups… virtual meetings became the norm.” (E3T) “They sent us support materials on how to run meetings more effectively—mainly regarding connectivity. For example, which plant servers to connect to for better performance, or tips like muting your microphone during meetings or avoiding multiple people talking at once. These guidelines emerged gradually through experience.” “Staying glued to the phone the whole time, talking just to make myself understood… I absolutely had to make the call.” (E1T) “At eight in the evening, some people still work on pending tasks. Later, the complaints follow: ‘I log in at all hours of the night… I reconnect at ten.’” (E5G) “Another key point involves explaining the importance of respecting a work schedule— meeting responsibilities and managing time, including setting clear stop-work hours.” (E5G) “Another challenge, in some cases, involved explaining when to stop working. For instance, right now, at eight in the evening, some people still handle unfinished tasks— they haven’t even made “Managing time became extremely difficult. One person called while I still talked to another.” (E8G) “I had up to eight video calls in one day—that level of intensity gets very stressful.” (E3T) “Digital tools brought endless conferences about simple issues. They “Each week, we held multiple meetings to discuss the same topic.” GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Antonio-Javier, M.T., Villanueva-Tostado, R., Nava-Rogel, R.M., and Gentilin, M. Vol. 13(2). 2025 16 Figure 9. Visual aid: exercises for the waist and back Source: Own elaboration. GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Antonio-Javier, M.T., Villanueva-Tostado, R., Nava-Rogel, R.M., and Gentilin, M. Vol. 13(2). 2025 17 Figure 10. Wrist exercises Source: Prepared by the authors. GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Antonio-Javier, M.T., Villanueva-Tostado, R., Nava-Rogel, R.M., and Gentilin, M. Vol. 13(2). 2025 18 According to Quiroz González (n.d.), proactive coping strategies become essential for fostering resilience when facing current, potential, or future stressors. These authors recommend fostering social support, generating new meanings, embracing positive beliefs, and maintaining overall well-being. At the organizational level, technostress mitigation mechanisms include educational and technical support, as well as promoting innovation (Quiroz González, n.d.). In this regard, Appendices 1 and 2 present a flowchart that organizations can use as a guide for implementing new ICT tools or telework systems, while taking into account applicable national regulations (Mexico) and available instruments for assessing technostress and individual performance in virtual environments (Antonio-Javier et al., 2023; Antonio-Javier, 2025). Limitations and Future Research The primary limitation of qualitative studies lies in their restricted generalizability. However, such studies prove valuable for exploratory purposes, offering a broad overview of the variables under examination and providing insights that often remain inaccessible through quantitative approaches. Future research may examine the variables discussed—technostress and performance—among teleworkers across various sectors, investigating the nature of their interrelation. Comparative analysis among sectors could reveal significant differences. Expanding studies in Mexico remains crucial to better understand the technostress affecting teleworkers, along with its positive and negative implications for mental health and job performance. New research avenues emerge for conducting in-depth analyses on factors influencing telework implementation that this study did not cover, such as organizational structures, job characteristics, home and family dynamics, and external conditions. Conclusions Technostress research bridges the fields of organizational psychology and information systems by originally focusing on information system users (Tarafdar et al., 2017). Today, the topic has gained relevance not only among information systems scholars but also within organizations that operate through flexible or remote work arrangements (Shirish, 2021). Scholars such as Kossek et al. (2015) warn about potential pitfalls that arise from inadequate planning and management of flexible work systems, including the erosion of organizational culture. This study provides evidence that, despite the challenges inherent in telework migration, successful implementation—accompanied by managerial support and trust—can significantly mitigate technostress and its impact on mental health. Moreover, organizations can leverage the positive aspects of technostress to improve individual and organizational performance, while fostering process innovation. At the same time, a forced implementation of telework may trigger episodes of technostress that hinder individual performance. This research offers a set of practical recommendations to help mitigate technostress and improve its management. It is worth noting that the survey used in this article also served as the basis for Antonio-Javier & Nava-Rogel (2024). GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Antonio-Javier, M.T., Villanueva-Tostado, R., Nava-Rogel, R.M., and Gentilin, M. Vol. 13(2). 2025 19 Appendix 1. Flowchart for Implementing New ICT Tools or a Telework System. Source: Adapted from Antonio-Javier (2025). GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Antonio-Javier, M.T., Villanueva-Tostado, R., Nava-Rogel, R.M., and Gentilin, M. Vol. 13(2). 2025 20 Appendix 2. Critical Factors Influencing Performance Source: Antonio-Javier (2025). GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Antonio-Javier, M.T., Villanueva-Tostado, R., Nava-Rogel, R.M., and Gentilin, M. Vol. 13(2). 2025 21 References Antonio-Javier, M. T., Nava-Rogel, R. M., & García-Contreras, R. (2023). Validación de la escala de rendimiento laboral individual en entornos virtuales (México, 2022). GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología, 11(2), 44-63. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10431420 Antonio-Javier, M.T., & Nava-Rogel, R.M (2023). Validación de la escala de conductas laborales contraproducentes de entornos virtuales en México, 2022. Revista Gestión De Las Personas Y Tecnología, 16(48), 21. https://doi.org/10.35588/gpt.v16i48.6499 Antonio-Javier, M.T. & Nava-Rogel, R.M. (2024). Implementación del teletrabajo durante la pandemia: percepciones de gerentes y trabajadores en el Estado de México, 2021. En P. Mejía-Reyes & C. Cadena-Inostrosa (Ed.), Políticas públicas y efectos socioeconómicos de la COVID-19 en el Estado de México (pp. 353-397). El Colegio Mexiquense, A.C. y Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México. Antonio-Javier, M. T. (2025). Adaptación de la escala de tecnoestrés en docentes teletrabajadores de México. GECONTEC: Revista Internacional De Gestión Del Conocimiento Y La Tecnología, 13(1), 32–53. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14872443 Apgar, M. (1998). The alternative workplace: Changing where and how people work. Harvard Business Review, 76, 121–136. https://hbr.org/1998/05/the-alternative-workplace-changingwhere-and-how-people-work?language=es Ayyagari, R., Grover, V., & Purvis, R. (2011). Technostress: Technological Antecedents and Implications. Management Information Systems Research Center, 35(4), 831–858. Bailey, D. E. y N. B. Kurland (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 383–400. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.144. Baruch, Y. y N. Nicholson (1997). Home sweet work Requirements for effective. Journal of General Management, 23(2), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/030630709702300202. Bautista, R., Cienfuegos, R., Aquilar, J. D. (2020). El desempeño laboral desde una perspectiva teórica. Revista de investigación valor agregado, 7(1), 54-60. Belzunegui-Eraso, A., & Erro-Garcés, A. (2020). Teleworking in the context of the Covid-19 crisis. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093662 Berube Kowalski, K. and Swanson, J.A. (2005). Critical success factors in developing teleworking programs. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 12(3), 236-249. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770510600357 Blau, G. (1981). An empirical investigation of job stress, social support, service length, and job strain. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27(2), 279–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(81)90050-7 Blount, Y. (2015). Pondering the Fault Lines of Anywhere Working (Telework, Telecommuting): GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Antonio-Javier, M.T., Villanueva-Tostado, R., Nava-Rogel, R.M., and Gentilin, M. Vol. 13(2). 2025 22 A Literature Review. Foundations and Trends® in Information Systems, 1(3), 163–276, http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/2900000001. Bohlander, G. Snell, S. & Sherman, A. (2001). Managing human resources. 12th ed. Australia: South-Western College South-Western Publishing. Borle, P., Reichel, K., Niebuhr, F., & Voelter-Mahlknecht, S. (2021). How are techno-stressors associated with mental health and work outcomes? A systematic review of occupational exposure to information and communication technologies within the technostress model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168673 Chang, Y., Chien, C., & Shen, L. (2020). Telecommuting during the coronavirus pandemic: Future time orientation as a mediator between proactive coping and perceived work productivity in two cultural samples. College of Management. Chiavenato, I. (2009). Gestión del talento humano. Mc graw hill. Clark, L. A., Karau, S., & Michalisin, M. (2012). Telecommuting Attitudes and the ‘Big Five’ Personality Dimensions. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 13(3), 31–46. http://www.na-businesspress.com/JMPP/clark_abstract.html Coenen, M., & Kok, R. A. W. (2014). Workplace flexibility and new product development performance: The role of telework and flexible work schedules. European Management Journal, 32(4), 564–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.12.003 De Vries, H. et al. (2019). Los beneficios del teletrabajo en el sector público: ¿Realidad o retórica?, Revista de administración de personal público. 39(4), pp. 570-593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X18760124. Elizalde, R. R. (2021). Techno-Stress: Damage Caused by New Emerging Risks. Laws, 10(3), 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws10030067 Ernesto, A. y J. Bernardino (2019). El teletrabajo como factor de innovación social para la inclusión, en I. Tonatiuh (coord.), Proyectos digitales para el desarrollo y la inclusión, México, Universidad de Guadalajara, 201-230. ERTEN, P., & ÖZDEMİR, O. (2020). The Digital Burnout Scale. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(2), 668-683. Feng, M. (2021). The Effects of Techno-Stress in the Role Stress Context Applied on the Proximity Manager Performance: Conceptual Development and Empirical Validation. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 33(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.4018/JOEUC.2021010101 Gálvez, A., Tirado, F., & Alcaraz, J. M. (2020). “Oh! Teleworking!” Regimes of engagement and the lived experience of female Spanish teleworkers. Business Ethics: A European Review, 29(1), 180-192. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12240 Gentilin, M. (2022). Pasado, presente y futuro del Teletrabajo. Reflexiones teóricas sobre un concepto de 50 años. En J. Orejuela, L. Villada, & K. Daza (Eds.), El teletrabajo como modalidad de flexibilización laboral: estudios de caso colombianos. (págs. 19-38). Medellín: GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Antonio-Javier, M.T., Villanueva-Tostado, R., Nava-Rogel, R.M., and Gentilin, M. Vol. 13(2). 2025 23 CEIPA. Groen, B. A. C., van Triest, S. P., Coers, M., & Wtenweerde, N. (2018). Managing flexible work arrangements: Teleworking and output controls. European Management Journal, 36(6), 727– 735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.01.007 Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational behavior and human performance, 16(2), 250-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7 Hodder, A. (2020). New Technology, Work and Employment in the era of COVID-19: reflecting on legacies of research. New Technology, Work and Employment, 35(3), 262–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12173 Jimenez, A. y R. Perez (2018), "El teletrabajo en América Latina: elemento innovador, alcances normativos y políticas públicas en torno a su desarrollo", en B.A. Bustos-Torres, Desarrollo, ciencia e investigación en Jalisco, México, Academia Jalisciense de Ciencias, A.C., pp. 339-379. Katsabian, T. (2020). The Telework Virus: How the COVID-19 Pandemic Has Affected Telework and Exposed Its Implications for Privacy and Equality. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1–57. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3684702 Kazekami, S. (2020). Mechanisms to improve labor productivity by performing telework. Telecommunications Policy, 44(2), 101868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2019.101868 Kodama, M. (2020). Digitally transforming work styles in an era of infectious disease. International Journal of Information Management, 2–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102172 Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C., Hildebrandt, V., Van Buuren, S., Van Der Beek, A. J., & de Vet, H. C. w. (2012). Development of an individual work performance questionnaire. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 62(1), 6–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410401311285273 Kossek, E. E., Thompson, R. J., & Lautsch, B. A. (2015). Balanced workplace flexibility: Avoiding the traps. California Management Review, 57(4), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2015.57.4.5 Ley Federal del Trabajo, publicada en el Diario de la Federación (DOF), de 1 de abril de 1970, última reforma de 27 de diciembre de 2022, [En línea], México, documento pdf disponible en:<https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFT.pdf> (consulta: 20/06/2023). Messenger, J. C. y L. Gschwind (2016). Three generations of Telework: New ICTs and the Revolution from Home Office to Virtual Office. New Technology, Work and Employment, 31(3), pp. 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12073. McCaslin, M. L., & Scott, K. W. (2003). The five-question method for framing a qualitative research study. The qualitative report, 8(3), 447-461. Nakrošienė, A., Bučiūnienė, I., & Goštautaitė, B. (2019). Working from home: characteristics and outcomes of telework. International Journal of Manpower. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11064.08961 GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Antonio-Javier, M.T., Villanueva-Tostado, R., Nava-Rogel, R.M., and Gentilin, M. Vol. 13(2). 2025 24 Owusu-Ansah, S., Quarshie, J., & Nyarko, I. (2016). Understanding the effects of techno-stress on the performance of banking staff. International Journal of Business Continuity and Risk Management, 6(3), 222–237. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBCRM.2016.079010 Peters, P., & Den Dulk, L. (2003). Cross cultural differences in managers’ support for homebased telework: A theoretical elaboration. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3(3), 329-346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595803003003005 Quiroz González, E., Ruíz Ruíz, B., Caballero, G. (s.f.). Guía para la gestión del tecnoestrés. Colegio Colombiano de Psicólogos. https://www.colpsic.org.co/wpcontent/uploads/2021/09/GUIAPARALAGESTIONDELTECNOESTRES-1.pdf Quaglia Peña, A., & Gutiérrez Marchán, C. F. (2020). Teletrabajo direccionado al desempeño laboral.Universidad Nacional de Piura. http://repositorio.unp.edu.pe/handle/20.500.12676/2407 Ragu-Nathan, T. S., Tarafdar, M., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Tu, Q. (2008). The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations: Conceptual development and validation. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0165 Ramos-Villagrasa, P. J., Barrada, J. R., Fernandez-del-Rio, E., & Koopmans, L. (2019). Assessing Job Performance Using Brief Self-report Scales : The Case of the. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 35(3), 195–205. Salanova, M., Llorens, S., & Cifre, E. (2007). Tecnoestrés: concepto, medida e intervención psicosocial. In Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higieene en el eTrabajo Notas Tecnicas de prevención, 1–6. Salanova, M., Llorens, S., & Cifre, E. (2013). The dark side of technologies: Technostress among users of information and communication technologies. International Journal of Psychology, 48(3), 422–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.680460 Salazar-Concha, C., Ficapal-Cusí, P., Boada-Grau, J., & Camacho, L. J. (2021). Analyzing the evolution of technostress: A science mapping approach. Heliyon, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06726 Santana, M. y M.J. Cobo (2020), "What is the future of work? A science mapping analysis", European Management Journal, 38(6), 846-862, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.04.010. Secretaria del Trabajo y Previsión Social [STPS]. (2003). NOM-037-STPS-2023, TeletrabajoCondiciones de seguridad y salud en el trabajo. Ciudad de México: STPS. https://sidof.segob.gob.mx/notas/5691672 Sharma, Manoj Kumar; Anand, Nitin; Ahuja, Shikha; Thakur, Pranjali Chakraborty; Mondal, Ishita; Singh, Priya; Kohli, Tavleen; Venkateshan, Sangeetha (2020). Digital Burnout: COVID-19 Lockdown Mediates Excessive Technology Use Stress. World Social Psychiatry 2(2), 171-172. https://doi.org/10.4103/WSP.WSP_21_20 Shirish, A. (2021). Cognitive-Affective appraisal of technostressors by ICT-based mobile workers and their impacts on technostrain. Human Systems Management, 40(2), 265–285. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-200979 GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Antonio-Javier, M.T., Villanueva-Tostado, R., Nava-Rogel, R.M., and Gentilin, M. Vol. 13(2). 2025 25 Sierra, E. M. (2019), "Trabajo a Distancia y el Teletrabajo", Fiscal & laboral, vol. 278, pp. 43–51. Silva, G., & Li Bonilla, F. (2018). Un método para evaluar la competitividad del teletrabajo profesional. Revista Nacional de Administración, 9(2), 105–137. https://doi.org/10.22458/rna.v9i2.2280 Smith, S. A., Patmos, A., & Pitts, M. J. (2015). Communication and teleworking: A study of communication channel satisfaction, personality, and job satisfaction for teleworking employees. International Journal of Business Communication, 55(1), 44-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415589101 Srivastava, S. C., Chandra, S., & Shirish, A. (2015). Technostress creators and job outcomes: Theorising the moderating influence of personality traits. Information Systems Journal, 25(4), 355–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12067 Tarafdar, M., Cooper, C. L., & Stich, J. (2017). The technostress trifecta ‐ techno eustress, techno distress and design: Theoretical directions and an agenda for research. Information Systems Journal, 29(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12169 Villavicencio-Ayub, E., Ibarra, D. G., & Calleja, N. (2020). Technostress in the Mexican population and its relationship with sociodemographic and labor variables. Psicogente, 23(44), 27-53. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA644278996&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it =r&linkaccess=abs&issn=01240137&p=IFME&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7E296 961c5&aty=open-web-entry Villavicencio-Ayub, E. R., & Cazares Vargas, M. A. (2021). Adaptación y validación de la escala de tecnoadicción del cuestionario red-tecnoestrés, en una población laboral mexicana. Psicología Iberoamericana (ISSN: 1405-0943), 29(1), 2021. https://doi.org/10.48102/pi.v29i1.176 Werther, William y Keith Davis. 2008. Administración de Recursos Humano. 6ta ed. México D.F.: McGraw-Hill.