Hybrid working has delivered welcome flexibility, but it has also changed our relationship with work. The traditional boundary created by leaving the office at the end of the day is often less defined when work is accessible from our kitchen table, spare room or mobile phone. Yet this challenge is not limited to those working remotely. Even employees who spend most of their time in the office now carry work with them through smartphones and constant digital connectivity.
A lot of us engage with work tasks outside office hours: replying to a quick email at 9pm, preparing for a meeting just before bed, or glancing at our weekly schedule. Many people move more fluidly between professional and personal time, making it easier for these small jobs to creep into the evening and harder to fully switch off. These tasks are fast, harmless and can even make us feel more productive. Yet researchers such as Laura Giurge at the London School of Economics have warned that flexible and remote working can contribute to an “always on” culture, making it harder for employees to disconnect from work and increasing the pressure to remain available outside working hours.
More and more research is appearing that shows that these minor after-hours tasks can have a more detrimental impact than we imagine. In our latest paper, my colleagues and I found that after-hours connectivity can trigger what we call a “resource loss spiral.” In other words, a jump in employees’ feelings of mental depletion and alienation from their work. Importantly, we found that these thoughts often lead to worse work performance the day after engaging with mini, meaningless tasks.
Companies around the world are under pressure to prevent burnout and support employee wellbeing. However, the most compelling argument may be the business case: does constant connectivity improve performance? To explore this, we tracked employees’ after-hours work behaviour and next-day performance over a ten-day period.
What we found was remarkable. On days when employees engaged in more work-related activity outside working hours, they tended to perform less well the following day. Connectivity did not help them clear their to-do lists but had the opposite effect: it made them less efficient the next day. The extra hour in the evening was effectively borrowed against the next morning.
Energy saving
An explanation for this can be found in psychology. According to the conservation of resources theory, people tend to ideate and use protective mechanisms to replenish their limited mental energy. When thinking about work, we found that after-hours connectivity increased employees’ ego depletion: the everyday experience of feeling mentally spent, with less willpower and self-control.
However bad these feelings are, depletion often feeds into a more detrimental consequence: work alienation and a growing feeling of detachment and disengagement from the job itself. In other words, constant connectivity does not just tire people out. Over time, it can change how they feel about their work, making them less engaged and, ultimately, less effective.
Importantly, companies should also note that the effects were not identical for everyone. Employees with high “core self-evaluations” (greater confidence, self-esteem, and emotional resilience) were less impacted and appeared to be better equipped to absorb the demands of after-hours contact. The effects were also weaker in roles with lower job complexity, where the mental load of switching back on is smaller.
These conclusions are important because they tell us that the impact of after-hours work is shaped by individual characteristics and by how we design jobs and set expectations, which is something managers and their companies can change.
These findings also arrive at a relevant moment in the UK. While proposals for a statutory “right to switch off” were rejected, the debate around how organisations manage after-hours communication continues. Our research suggests this is not simply a wellbeing issue, but one with measurable implications for performance.
For leaders, this is where the findings become practical. Regardless of whether governments choose to regulate the issue, organisations have an opportunity to shape healthier norms around connectivity. So, what can organisations do? First, treat the right to log off as a performance issue, not merely a wellbeing benefit. Recovery time is not lost productivity; it is what makes sustained productivity possible. Second, be deliberate about norms. When leaders email late at night, they signal an expectation, whatever the disclaimer at the bottom of the message. Setting clear boundaries, and modelling them from the top, protects the resource base that good work depends on. Third, pay attention to job design and support, particularly for employees in complex or demanding roles who are most exposed to the spiral.
None of this means rejecting flexibility. The ability to shift work when it genuinely suits us is one of the benefits of modern work. The challenge is ensuring flexibility serves employees rather than keeping them permanently on call.
The organisations that will thrive are not those where its employees are always reachable. They are the ones who understand that genuine, sustained performance depends on giving people permission to disconnect, as well as the confidence that doing so is not a sign of falling behind, but a condition of doing their best work.
August 26, 2026
Hybrid working and the hidden cost of being “always on” at work
by Dr Dirk van Dierendonck • Comment, Flexible working, Wellbeing
A lot of us engage with work tasks outside office hours: replying to a quick email at 9pm, preparing for a meeting just before bed, or glancing at our weekly schedule. Many people move more fluidly between professional and personal time, making it easier for these small jobs to creep into the evening and harder to fully switch off. These tasks are fast, harmless and can even make us feel more productive. Yet researchers such as Laura Giurge at the London School of Economics have warned that flexible and remote working can contribute to an “always on” culture, making it harder for employees to disconnect from work and increasing the pressure to remain available outside working hours.
More and more research is appearing that shows that these minor after-hours tasks can have a more detrimental impact than we imagine. In our latest paper, my colleagues and I found that after-hours connectivity can trigger what we call a “resource loss spiral.” In other words, a jump in employees’ feelings of mental depletion and alienation from their work. Importantly, we found that these thoughts often lead to worse work performance the day after engaging with mini, meaningless tasks.
Companies around the world are under pressure to prevent burnout and support employee wellbeing. However, the most compelling argument may be the business case: does constant connectivity improve performance? To explore this, we tracked employees’ after-hours work behaviour and next-day performance over a ten-day period.
What we found was remarkable. On days when employees engaged in more work-related activity outside working hours, they tended to perform less well the following day. Connectivity did not help them clear their to-do lists but had the opposite effect: it made them less efficient the next day. The extra hour in the evening was effectively borrowed against the next morning.
Energy saving
An explanation for this can be found in psychology. According to the conservation of resources theory, people tend to ideate and use protective mechanisms to replenish their limited mental energy. When thinking about work, we found that after-hours connectivity increased employees’ ego depletion: the everyday experience of feeling mentally spent, with less willpower and self-control.
However bad these feelings are, depletion often feeds into a more detrimental consequence: work alienation and a growing feeling of detachment and disengagement from the job itself. In other words, constant connectivity does not just tire people out. Over time, it can change how they feel about their work, making them less engaged and, ultimately, less effective.
Importantly, companies should also note that the effects were not identical for everyone. Employees with high “core self-evaluations” (greater confidence, self-esteem, and emotional resilience) were less impacted and appeared to be better equipped to absorb the demands of after-hours contact. The effects were also weaker in roles with lower job complexity, where the mental load of switching back on is smaller.
These conclusions are important because they tell us that the impact of after-hours work is shaped by individual characteristics and by how we design jobs and set expectations, which is something managers and their companies can change.
These findings also arrive at a relevant moment in the UK. While proposals for a statutory “right to switch off” were rejected, the debate around how organisations manage after-hours communication continues. Our research suggests this is not simply a wellbeing issue, but one with measurable implications for performance.
For leaders, this is where the findings become practical. Regardless of whether governments choose to regulate the issue, organisations have an opportunity to shape healthier norms around connectivity. So, what can organisations do? First, treat the right to log off as a performance issue, not merely a wellbeing benefit. Recovery time is not lost productivity; it is what makes sustained productivity possible. Second, be deliberate about norms. When leaders email late at night, they signal an expectation, whatever the disclaimer at the bottom of the message. Setting clear boundaries, and modelling them from the top, protects the resource base that good work depends on. Third, pay attention to job design and support, particularly for employees in complex or demanding roles who are most exposed to the spiral.
None of this means rejecting flexibility. The ability to shift work when it genuinely suits us is one of the benefits of modern work. The challenge is ensuring flexibility serves employees rather than keeping them permanently on call.
The organisations that will thrive are not those where its employees are always reachable. They are the ones who understand that genuine, sustained performance depends on giving people permission to disconnect, as well as the confidence that doing so is not a sign of falling behind, but a condition of doing their best work.
Professor Dirk van Dierendonck is Professor of Leadership and Management, Department of People and Organisations at the Rotterdam School of Management (RSM) of Erasmus University