Introduction

The use of technological devices and Internet/cellular services has become an inevitable part of most people’s lives in this digital age. It has many positive benefits for organizations (e.g., productivity, sales, communication, training, and service) and individuals (e.g., convenience in shop**, learning, or doing work, connections with others, and information-sharing.) At the same time, these devices and services come with negative repercussions as well. Most organizational studies of such repercussions so far have focused on issues like employees using company resources and time for personal matters, not complying with confidentiality codes when dealing with electronic company information, and inappropriate social media posting that damages the company’s reputation. Although digital addiction (DA) is an emerging phenomenon whose significance for organizations is increasingly recognized by scholars (e.g., Chen et al., 2014; Goncalves et al., 2018; Vayre & Vonthron, 2019), systematic studies seldom address employee technology overuse in organizations to the point of addiction while existing DA studies have been largely confined to individual situations, such as the impact on adolescent school work, mental health and social interactions. This study is intended to fill the gap by identifying what constitutes DA, its latest trends, challenges and impacts for organizations and employees, and how DA can be measured and repercussions ameliorated at the organizational level.

What is Digital Addiction?

According to the American Psychiatric Association, DA has not been officially recognized as a mental illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the DSM-5 or DSM-V), which focuses on substance addiction. Some terms potentially interchangeable with DA are information technology addiction or computer addiction. Other terms have been used for DA, including Internet addiction, online addiction, cyber addiction, or technological addiction. However, some of these do not encompass digital addictions in an offline context as with, for example, computer gaming, while technological addiction is too broad, including addiction to any machine-human interaction not digital in nature, such as the old-style VLT machines. Although there may not be a single universally used definition for DA, for the purpose of this paper, we follow the simple definition from Goncalves et al. (2018) in which DA is a behavioural addiction involving the “the lack of autonomy or independence to perform tasks without the use of digital devices such as mobile devices, the Internet, social network and the like.” (p. 224). There are other common subcategories of DA, including addictions to social networks (or social media), email, blogging, online shop**, online gaming, online pornography (or cyber-sexual materials), etc. (e.g., Berthon et al., 2019; Gregory, 2019; Mo et al., 2020). Common characteristics across all sub-categories of digital addiction include “heightened impulsivity”, “maladaptive expectancies” and “obsessive-compulsive” behaviours (e.g., Mo et al., 2020; Pirkkalainen et al., 2020). More specifically, Ali et al. (2015, p. 1) opine that DA has “traditional” addiction components including “mood modification, salience, tolerance, withdrawal symptoms, conflict, and relapse” as originally proposed by Griffiths (2005).

Symptoms of DA have been quite well documented, including but not limited to the following:

  • increased anxiety, reduced creativity, and neglect of reality (Andreassen, 2015).

  • fear and insecurity when lacking digital access (Goncalves et al., 2018).

  • psychopathological and health issues, as well as professional and social disruptions (Kuss & Billieux, 2017).

  • depression, cravings, insomnia, and irritability on withdrawal (Alrobai et al., 2016).

  • poor time-management and academic performance (Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010; Shek, 2018).

  • worsened real life relationships (Karim & Nigar, 2014).

  • loss of interest in things previously enjoyed (Altuwairiqi et al., 2019).

These symptoms basically reflect and expand on the factors of internet addiction identified in the earliest work by Chou and Hsiao (2000) in an exploratory factor analysis, namely, addiction-related problems, compulsive behaviour and withdrawals, hours spent online, dependence on internet friendship, and replacement of daily life by the internet.

Motivations for Digital Connections and Potential Overuse

Individuals are attracted to the digital world for various reasons. Ali et al. (2015) suggest that insecurity in real life may prompt one to seek compensation in the digital context. In particular, social media offers an avenue for establishing social bonds and communication, and can help the user feel better in terms of fulfilling unmet expectations, making social comparisons, increasing popularity, engaging in satisfying mutual interactions, having constant connectedness, and passing time (Altuwairiqi et al., 2019). For some demographic groups, such as self-concealers (those who are shy, introverted, or lack communication skills), digital communications can enhance mental well-being by increasing online social capital and providing a sense of online community (Magsamen-Conrad et al., 2014). Individuals with low self-esteem may use social media to augment their self-image (Gonzales & Hancock, 2011). For working individuals, mobile digital connections allow them to improve productivity by being responsive to work issues anytime, anywhere (Cavazotte et al., 2014; Turel et al., 2011). However, excessive and indiscriminate digital technology use that blurs the line between work and leisure can lead to DA that is detrimental to quality of life, as well as employee and organizational performance (Goncalves et al., 2018). External influences and normative pressures in organizations can have a significant impact on the use of digital technology (Pirkkalainen et al., 2020), while ease of access can give rise to increased use that can lead to dependency (Vayre & Vonthron, 2019). In a literature review concerning the impacts of mobile phones on work-life balance, Dén-Nagy (2014) found evidence of both positive and negative effects caused by the permeability of the work-home boundary. However, there was no mention of addiction at all, even when feelings such as distress, anxiety, burnout, and decreased family satisfaction were noted in the studies reviewed. Den-Nagy posits that individuals’ ability to develop co** strategies to manage work-life boundaries are limited, because other factors such as corporate policies are at play. Thus, any attempts to address the negative impacts of technological over-use are an organizational responsibility, not just an individual one.

Digital Addiction Trend

Use of digital devices has become a part of everyday life, as indicated by recent statistics. For example, Statista data highlight, in January 2023, 64.4% and 59.4% of the global population were internet and social media users respectively (Petrosyan, 2023). Asurion (2019) reveals Americans checked their phones 96 times a day. A Digital 2022 Global Overview Report found a typical internet user spent almost 7 h on average a day (over 40% of waking time) on screen connect to the internet (Kemp, 2022), while a Pew Research 2021 study indicates 31% of American adults admitted to being almost online constantly (Perrin & Atske, 2021). More specifically on addiction, as early as 2012, Sodahead.com found 61% of visitors to their site admitted to addiction to the internet (Knight, 2022); Common Sense Media (2016) revealed 50% of teens surveyed felt addicted to mobile devices; and Statista showed 30% of American online users in 2019 felt addicted to social media (Dixon, 2022). As well, an Ofcom, 2016 UK study found 34% of 15 million internet users had tried a “digital detox”, complete abstinence from internet use for a period, suggestive of overuse to the point of addiction.

Increasingly, scholars and health practitioners are recognizing the overuse of digital technology as problematic. For example, Ali et al. (2015) claimed that DA “is becoming a serious issue which has a variety of consequences” (p. 1) while Shambare et al., (2012) noted that cell phone use, which is just one of many digital devices, is “possibly the biggest non-drug addiction of the 21st century” (p. 573).

DA in Organizations

Systematic research of digital addiction in an organizational setting has been limited. Nevertheless, any employee addiction can have organizational consequences. As Goncalves et al., 2018) posit: “[e]mployees’ abusive, indiscriminate use [of digital technology] in work environments may be detrimental to quality of life (QOL), individual performance, and collective organizational outcomes” (p. 224). Vayre and Vonthron (2019) found, in their study of executives’ intensive and extensive uses of the internet, including beyond work hours and the workplace, “appear to foster … permeability between work and personal life, diminish managers’ dedication and vigor at work, and favor internet addiction” (p. 1). Cavazotte et al. (2014) concluded from interviewing professionals in a law firm that respondents were fully aware of the mobile technology paradox, in providing both more flexibility and autonomy to do work anywhere, anytime, as well as the encroachment on their private time and space. However, they tended to attribute the latter to inevitable and autonomous technological trends (a way of doing business), out of their control. Despite the authors’ acknowledgement that “statements about smart phone attachment as ‘compulsive’, ‘addictive’, ‘obsessive’ and even ‘enslaving’ were frequent in [their] interviews” (p 83), the study did not explore any organizational responsibility for addressing it. In another study, Azad et al. (2016) looked at how constant connectivity mediates consulting project work practices. Although some interviewee comments were suggestive of DA behaviour, such as being on work emails at all times, even 2 a.m., neither addiction nor its associated problems were covered in that study. Pirkkalainen et al. (2020), found that IT engagement is multifaceted and when IT engagement crosses the line into maladaptive dependency or pathological behaviour addiction, there can be more serious negative outcomes with work quantity and quality. At the very least, compulsive use of digital technologies is likely to lead to wasteful use of company resources and time. Extensive digital use to the point of addiction also increases the chances of reckless errors, resulting in damage to firm reputation via inappropriate social media remarks, visiting unsafe sites, and accidental divulging of confidential company information.

Another area of future concern for organizations potentially involves accommodation. Addictions, if proven, are generally considered disabilities, which employers are legally obliged to accommodate to the point of undue hardship. Therefore, any disciplinary action for overuse or misuse of digital devices could be overturned or at least mitigated by a court or tribunal if the employer failed to take steps to reasonably accommodate it. However, a recent search of disciplinary cases in the LabourSource database (part of WestlawNext (Canada)) on April 12, 2022 did not reveal any cases involving the exact phrases “digital addiction”, “technological addiction”, or “social media addiction” under the labour law or employment law categories. “Online addiction” yielded one case unrelated to DA discipline. With the search phrase “internet addiction”, just five cases in English appeared to be relevant to DA in an organizational setting. This scarcity of cases found over 20 years in employment settings suggests it has been uncommon for DA-related disciplinary cases to advance to arbitration or court. Though there is no lack of disciplinary cases involving technology misuse, such as bad-mouthing the company or supervisor on social media, disclosing confidential company information online, and extensive use of company digital devices for non-authorized matters, neither the digital addiction argument nor the need for its accommodation have been thus far commonly considered. Unions and employees may not raise a DA addiction defence in such cases because of a fear of stigmatism, a general lack of understanding of DA, or because of the difficulty proving its existence as a medical condition. No doubt, it also reflects a lack of official recognition within organizations of the seriousness of this psychological and behavioural issue, preventing employees from seeking the help needed and discouraging employers from proactively offering assistance.

Other than lack of official DA recognition, organizations have other motivations to downplay this problem and not give it the attention it potentially deserves. Organizations are, of course, pragmatically concerned with productivity and profits, and are therefore likely to consider the negative and positive effects of DA to determine whether to address the issue. DA functional to the organization’s interests is not likely to be considered problematic. For instance, an organization is likely to be more productive if employees are writing work emails, contributing to organization-related social media, and participating in Zoom calls all outside work hours. In these scenarios, any negative impact is likely to be suffered primarily by the employee, in terms of reduced time for and attention to non-work activities and relationships. Any adverse effect on the organization is unlikely to surface until later, if employees constantly “at work” and “online” eventually burn out and become too exhausted to be productive. Adverse longer-term outcomes are predictable, especially for employees, if an organization’s culture implicitly or explicitly promotes extreme digital reliance, potentially leading to DA. Often, it is only when DA relates to unproductive activities and/ or results in declining performance that organizations start normally becoming concerned. For example, if a lot of work time was spent writing personal emails, participating in social media, or viewing non-work internet sites, the effect on the organization would be immediate and negative. In such cases, an employee would most likely be dismissed for poor performance, breach of company policies, or access/storage/distribution of illegal files (e.g., pornography).

Another reason for organizational inaction in regard to employee digital addiction concerns management views about who bears ultimate responsibility for causing it. Here, Attribution Theory can help explain how individuals make causal ascriptions, in explaining why events and behaviours happen (Heider, 1958), including in an organisational context (Martinko & Mackey, 2019). Just as Hewett et al. (2019) and Munyon et al. (2019) posit that organizations are entities to which individuals make attributions, organizations (with managers as decision-makers) also make attributions with respect to behaviours of others, including their employees. In general, attributions of causality are made on the basis of two main factors: an internal focus, relating to an individual’s personal characteristics, and an external focus, relating to situational characteristics (Heider, 1958). Skills, abilities, effort, and traits are examples of internal factors while organizational systems, luck, and social and environmental pressures are examples of external factors. As a general rule, actor-observers normally commit a fundamental attribution error in over-estimating the role of internal factors, and under-estimating the role of external factors, in explaining others’ mistakes and poor choices, while doing the opposite in explaining their own mistakes and poor choices (Jones & Nisbett, 1971). Thus, research has found that individuals tend to attribute successful outcomes to their own internal factors such as skills and efforts and failure outcomes to external factors outside their control (e.g., Snyder et al., 1976 and Stephan et al., 1976), possibly due to a motivation for rewards (intrinsic or extrinsic) and the need to advance or preserve self-esteem. A more extensive review of the Attribution Theory literature is beyond the scope of this paper, but the foundations of the theory provide an excellent framework for understanding how DA is viewed in organizational settings.

Digital Addiction: Organizational Response Model

In Fig. 1, we propose a typology, predicated on management attributions and perceived organizational impact, to classify organizational responses to DA. The typology has four categories, described further below.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Organizational DA model

Full size image

Exploitation

Organizations in this quadrant attribute DA to their own policies, practices, and culture, and their observations suggest DA has positive organizational effects, because digitally addicted employees are effectively workaholics who use digital devices to do more work during non-working hours. These organizations actively encourage employees to use digital devices, provide more than the necessary tools for digital access, deliberately cultivate a high-stress work culture that involves working after normal hours, and even develop explicit policies about expectations of prompt online communication responses at all times. Often, the extra work time is not compensated, unless the hours are officially documented and overtime compensation is required by law or collective agreement. Such practices leave the digitally addicted to languish in their addiction and pressure others to adopt work habits that risk digital addiction.

Dissociation

Organizations in this quadrant attribute DA to employees’ own dispositions and personal situations and consider DA contrary to organizational interests. These beliefs might arise from salient experiences of digitally addicted employees who shirk work responsibilities and waste work time and organizational resources in pursuing their own personal interests. Several implications follow. The first is that DA, bad as it is for the organization’s productivity and/ or profits, needs to be addressed to limit or nullify any adverse impact. The second is that, since DA is considered the employee’s fault, management determines that the organizations bears no responsibility for the employee’s treatment and rehabilitation. Indeed, any remedial organizational actions are likely to be seen as impotent in rectifying a problem thought to have arisen from the employee’s independently exercised choices. Third, and finally, it follows that the only viable way of dealing with DA involves dismissing affected employees for either poor performance or even misconduct. Such dismissals can be easily rationalized as ‘the employee brought it on himself/ herself’. Furthermore, such conclusions are unlikely to be successfully challenged via personal grievance or lawsuit, as DA is not currently a recognized addiction, let alone one causally linked to an organization’s practices. It therefore remains unlikely that they would be required to pay monetary compensation or reinstate an unjustifiably dismissed DA employee.

Non-interference

These organizations attribute DA to individual employees and believe DA has a largely positive impact on the organization, because most employees volunteer extra time and effort to work online all the time. In such situations, employees are likely to be left alone to indulge their digital activities as it is beneficial to the organization, without the need for any coercion for additional contributions. Organizations may also reward the extra time and effort expended by providing flexibility in regular work hours, offering good tools and resources for both work and personal purposes, and/or compensating employees for extra time worked by allowing the banking of hours or paid overtime.

Accommodation

Organizations that attribute DA behaviour to their own policies, procedures, and culture and also believe DA is generally detrimental to organizational performance are presumably more inclined to accommodate the needs of employees with DA. By accommodating, they recognize that addiction is a disability beyond the employee’s control and that it is beneficial to both employee and organization to offer help via employee assistance programs, clear policies and expectations regarding company-provided devices, and monitoring of digital technology use to recognize and rectify issues with digital overuse. Accommodation is provided in the hope that the employee can overcome his/ her addiction and become a productive member again in the organization.

Given the absence of a theoretical framework for DA in organizations, the model in Fig. 1 is a starting point. Organizations can determine where they fit in the typology, reflect on the factors that influence their position, and devise correspondingly suitable strategies to address DA. The model is understandably over-simplified based on the predominant organizational philosophy and perspective and so may not account for all potential combinations of factors or sufficiently acknowledge the inherent complexity of real-world organizations. Overall, we would expect the actor-observer bias to favour either Dissociation or Non-interference quadrants, and the success-failure bias to favour either Exploitation or Dissociation quadrants. Few organizations would fall in the Accommodation quadrant as managers would likely blame employees for negative outcomes associated with DA and take credit for positive ones. This helps to explain why accommodating and combating DA appears largely under-recognized in organizations and organizational studies.

What should Organizations do About DA?

Irrespective of quadrant, appropriate actions to minimize DA are needed because of its various human and welfare impacts. Even organizations experiencing positive outcomes in the top two quadrants are unlikely to reap such benefits over the long-term. Organizations experiencing negative effects in the lower two quadrants, have clearer reasons to take ameliorative actions. Organizations in the Dissociation quadrant might initially prefer to dismiss addicted employees, given their attribution bias, but they do still need to properly consider the potentially high direct and indirect costs of firing employees and compare these to a more rehabilitative approach. Dismissal costs can include, for example, the administrative costs of the dismissal procedure, hiring and training costs of replacement employees, potential legal costs of mediation / adjudication, compensation costs if a dismissal is overturned by a court or tribunal, as well as the costs of possible souring morale for other staff.For organizations inclined towards accommodation; there are still hurdles to overcome in finding the appropriate solutions. Overall, organizations need to deal with DA by first identifying and measuring it. Second, they need to be able to assess its impact. Third, they need to design a system to address DA, all of which are considered further below.

Identification of DA

The first step any organization should take involves recognizing the extent and spread of DA, as often such addictions may not be obvious in organizations, especially when fear of stigmatization encourages employees to hide such problems. Prior research has provided some insights concerning diagnostic criteria and measurement scales. For example, Beard (2005) proposes five diagnostic criteria for identifying internet addiction, namely: (1) preoccupation with the Internet, (2) increasing use of the Internet, (3) failure to control Internet use, (4) negative emotions or behaviours when trying to control Internet use, and (5) remaining online for longer than planned. Beard suggests that internet addicts must also exhibit one of the following three behaviours: (1) risking important relationships, career or education because of the Internet, (2) lying to others to hide the extent of internet use, and (3) using the internet to temporarily escape other problems. On an individual level, Ali et al. (2015) suggest DA can be identified by looking at two digital technology dimensions, the first usage related and the second consequences related. The former can include information on time spent on various software or Internet sites, the frequency of such access, and usage “bills” (e.g., mobile bills), while the latter can include effects on members’ well-being, social relationships (online or otherwise), personal image, and potential risks and effects of using social networks recklessly to self and others. Alrobai et al. (2016) propose that organizations can use similar measures to identify DA in their employees, such as tracking their screen time and the frequency of use for different software and systems (company supported or otherwise). Such monitoring can be done through computer system logs, observations by co-workers or supervisors, or self-reports by employees. A more systematic measurement scale for digital dependence in organizations has been developed by Goncalves et al. (2019), in which 19 questions were asked, with answers in frequency terms – e.g., never, rarely, often and always. Examples of areas the questions ask about include:

  • feelings of destabilization with organizational digital restrictions.

  • prioritizing personal communication at the expense of work.

  • disregarding usage norms in the organization.

  • not taking breaks between intensive digital use periods.

  • minimizing relationships with colleagues due to digital technology use.

  • feeling comfortable with the organization permitting use of own digital devices at work.

  • disregarding adverse effects of abusive digital technology use.

  • using digital devices for personal purposes when such is banned by the organization.

Another internet addiction test (not necessarily related to an organizational setting) that can be helpful to determine DA is one developed by Young (1998). It involves 20 items evaluating the frequency of internet use related behaviours, attitudes and feelings, and the negative consequences of excessive internet use.

Assessment of DA Impact

The second step in addressing DA is to do an assessment of its impact. According to our proposed model, organizational strategy and actions depend on management perception of the DA impact on the organization. Perception does not always mean reality, and so use of DA measurement tools to determine the actual situation is essential. Goncalves et al. (2019), authors of the DA questionnaire, suggest that organizations should evaluate outcomes, including work performance, and then take remedial steps. In any assessment, comparisons should be made with acceptable norms and desired goals, in terms of expected impacts associated with healthy use of digital technology. Some performance correlation data could help to validate employee-completed survey data or observational reports. As well, expert judgement may be used to provide feedback on how DA affects employee and organizational performance.

Intervention Design, Implementation and Evaluation

As with any organizational change, there are obstacles to overcome when introducing DA interventions. Especially with an issue as potentially stigmatizing as DA, interventions need to be cautiously designed with employee well-being in mind rather than just organizational performance. Alrobai et al. (2016), in develo** their Persuasive Intervention Technology to combat DA, outlined a number of design concerns, including: (1) lack of interest, (2) lack of trust, (3) low sense of self-efficacy, (4) misconceptions, (5) biased decisions, (6) negative user experiences (e.g., coercion), (7) unsustainable change (e.g., conformity effect), and (8) self-image impact. As well, they posit that the success of DA intervention largely relies on employees’ willingness to change based on acceptance they have DA and recognition of the seriousness of such. These authors consider Control Theory, Goal-setting Theory, and Social Cognition Theory in selecting appropriate DA interventions. Control Theory suggests that changes to individual behaviour are motivated by the realization that one’s actual behaviour deviates from intended/desired behaviour. Goal-setting Theory argues that, to motivate change, the employee needs goals that are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound (SMART), as well as jointly established by employee and supervisor. Social Cognition Theory recognizes that behaviour changes can result from social context by, for example, observing and learning from peers. These theories helpfully inform the design of interventions.

Framework for Designing and Implementing Intervention Measures

Below is a proposed framework for designing and implementing intervention measures to address DA issues.

Design Principles

Organizations intending to combat DA need to establish some guiding principles. An important consideration is some sharing of control and responsibility with employees, in line with Control Theory, especially since DA affects both employees and organization. Employees may view DA as a private issue and want to keep it confidential. However, larger organizations, in particular, are usually in a good position to help employees recognize the problem and offer the necessary assistance, often unavailable or unaffordable to employees individually. Also, in line with Goal-setting Theory, Cham et al. (2019) found in their research that employees prefer some control in setting their DA-related goals and that sense of involvement can help with buy-in and commitment to the goals. The degree of control and responsibility, in turn, affect the type of intervention to be offered (e.g., voluntary or compulsory programs, self or professional help), the degree of transparency in establishing and communicating the intervention system (e.g., how will employees be monitored, what are the consequences of DA), and the feedback the employee receives about his/her DA problem and progress (e.g., more feedback is needed if employees are to take a larger share of the responsibility for improvement).

The second principle to consider relates to selecting the type of positive reinforcement or even punishment to achieve the necessary behavioural change. For example, would the organization want to be more coercive (using threats of discipline or even dismissal) to prompt the change, or would it resort more to persuasion, negotiation, education, or even rewards (Alrobai et al., 2016)? For employees who see DA as a confidential matter or one meriting accommodation, threats of punishment could be viewed as infringements of freedom, privacy, and human rights, prompting complaints and legal challenges.

Another design principle to consider involves the extent to which technology is used to combat DA. This presents an interesting dilemma for the organization. On the one hand, ease of access to digital technology and intensive use of such use could contribute to DA (Harwood et al., 2014; Widyanto & McMurran, 2004). On the other, there is evidence that properly designed DA intervention using digital technology can actually help. This is because DA employees are used to, and comfortable with, digital technology. For example, software can provide educational materials on DA and provide objective, timely and interactive digital usage information (e.g., on monitoring as a predictor of DA, for evaluating progress and providing feedback) to both the organization and the individual (Cham et al., 2019). Hence, a balance must be struck concerning the role digital technology plays in addressing DA.

Infrastructure and Work Design

The second part of the framework encompasses structural elements of the workplace and the work itself. As DA can be attributed to boredom and poor self-esteem (Altuwairiqi et al., 2019; Gonzales & Hancock, 2011), providing more meaningful and challenging jobs could help stem DA. Allowing employees more flexibility to work from home would also improve work-life balance, spread workloads more evenly, and reduce overtime hours, with the overall effect of mitigating work stress, one of the leading causes of DA (Chen et al., 2014). Appropriate restrictions on access to technology infrastructure and devices would also help prevent excessive or abusive usage and promote healthier and more productive work practices.

Social Support

Research indicates a high level of social support can reduce DA (e.g., Chen et al., 2014). This is not surprising, as individuals’ behaviours are influenced by peer groups and social environment, according to Social Cognition Theory. Provision of good social support within an organization, not reliant on online media, would help prevent DA, as individuals become addicted to social media because of their needs for social connection, social comparison, and popularity (Altuwairiqi et al., 2019). Organizations can organize social events and peer groups to support employees in their pursuit of social bonds and recognition. There needs to be sharing of information about DA so that people better understand the phenomenon, associated symptoms, and issues, and are therefore in a superior position to support colleagues recovering from DA. In this situation, peer support groups, including those online, can be considered an early intervention, in addition to other treatment and counselling options (Alrobai et al., 2019).

Cultural Support

There are a number of cultural measures an organization can take to stem the DA tide. First steps could involve dispelling the myth that workaholics are valued for “loyalty, efficiency and productivity” and making DA awareness a part of the coaching, mentoring and training process (Garson, 2005, p. 20). Storytelling and other forms of symbolism can be used to encourage employees to focus on ‘working smarter’ rather than simply working hard. The organization can signal its prioritization of work-life balance to promote and protect employees’ well-being. In particular, organizational leaders could model appropriate digital use behaviours by not emailing staff after work hours, expecting an immediate response, thus alleviating any pressure on employees to constantly stay tied to digital technology. Supervisors need to stay alert to group norms so as to avoid and remedy any peer pressure to conform to DA-related behaviour. Organizations can also consider ways to encourage employees to take breaks during IT work, such as screen reminders, announcement of break times, and regular social gatherings and/or events in the staff room or cafeteria. Further, employees need to be provided with a strong message that the organization appreciates the difficulties DA employees face and that the workplace is a secure place where DA will be accommodated and assistance offered.

Programmatic and Financial Support

With program support, managers are likely to think first of employee assistance programs through which employees are referred to counsellors, psychologists, and other professionals for treatment and help. Other support programs could include training courses to raise DA awareness and educate employees about the proper use of digital technology, self-control and goal-setting. Programs that help maintain a healthy work-life balance, such as flex-time and flex-place, could contribute to DA prevention and reduction, too. Where there is general awareness of the DA problem, employee suggestion programs could also be implemented to canvass additional improvement ideas.

Rehabilitation and training programs come with a cost, of course, but financial and resource support should be provided to affected employees, as employers have a duty to accommodate employees to the point of undue hardship. Obviously, providing program assistance is likely to be a more manageable cost for the organization than for the individual, and program outcomes could benefit both the organization and individual.

Policy Reviews and Changes

A review of all current HR and IT related policies would be helpful to identify deviations from DA intervention principles and support systems. Such policies might include, but are not limited to, the use of IT infrastructure and digital devices during work and non-work hours, acceptable company roles on social media, employee code of conduct, performance goals and assessment, employee benefits programs, human rights compliance, disciplinary criteria and due processes in employee/labour grievances, remote work arrangements, etc. Competent panels of management and employee representatives should be involved in such reviews to ensure a balance of views and a high degree of reasonableness, as well as feasibility and stakeholder buy-in. Where changes to organizational policies are made, it is essential to clearly communicate these to all involved, with feedback channels and periodic monitoring, audits and evaluation of new policies to ensure expected protocols are followed and intervention is effective.

The above framework for addressing DA in organizations is summarized and illustrated in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Framework for addressing DA in organizations

Full size image

Conclusion

DA is an increasingly important issue for organizations in the current fast-pace digital age. This paper starts with a literature review of the DA definition and trends, employee motivations behind digital reliance, problems related to DA, and reasons for DA being downplayed in organizations. It then proposes an organizational DA typology based on management attribution perspectives and DA perception, followed by practical recommendations on what organizations should do with DA, including a number of considerations associated with the design and implementation of organizational DA interventions. The paper helps advance the understanding of DA, its implications, and remedial organizational actions, and contributes to both theory and practice. Future research could provide empirical evidence to further validate the rationale for the under-recognition of DA in organizations, expand on the DA organizational typology, and refine the proposed DA intervention framework by examining the effectiveness of the various intervention measures presented.