Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Work intensification can lead to both work-related and non-work-related outcomes that positively and negatively affect the employee, organization, and job in question. The criticality of this phenomena necessitates conducting a systematic review to capture the essence of the extant literature.
OBJECTIVE:
This paper presents a systematic review of the literature on work intensification from 1989 to 2022. It reviews the conceptualization of the construct, explores the factors influencing work intensification, identifies its outcomes, moderators, and mediators, and provides a review of the theories that have been used to support the phenomena of work intensification.
METHODS:
The systematic review employed the PRISMA approach to screen 2823 records from the Web of Science database and extract 74 quantitative studies for final examination.
RESULTS:
Firstly, work intensification has primarily been conceptualized through various constructs such as workload, long work hours, and time pressure. Secondly, there are well-established positive and negative outcomes associated with work intensification, either directly or through mediators. Thirdly, both the conservation of resource theory and the job-demands resource theory are widely utilized to support models related to work intensification.
CONCLUSION:
The study urges practitioners to enhance their efforts in effectively managing employees’ intensified work demands, particularly in relation to work overload, working hours, and time pressure. By addressing these factors, organizations can minimize negative outcomes and promote positive consequences.
Introduction
Given the mounting work pressures and declining employee health, there has been an increased focus on investigating the plausible factors contributing to workplace stressors, such as work intensification. Mauno et al. [1] argue that the 21st-century globalized, digitized, efficiency-driven, and 24/7 work environment has significantly impacted the nature of work, making it more demanding in terms of effort. This phenomenon was particularly pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic when individuals faced considerable challenges in adjusting to the altered workplace environment, with intensified demands arising from the intersection of work and family conflicts [2, 3]. The pandemic presented numerous difficulties in the workplace, including the rapid advancement of digital technologies, increased email usage, and heightened expectations [4]. Adisa et al. [2] also highlighted that while flexible workplace arrangements may initially seem accommodating to employee needs, they often result in increased workloads, employer monitoring, social isolation, and blurred boundaries between work and personal life, ultimately diminishing employees’ perception of flexibility.
In manufacturing organizations, intensified work has been extensively discussed in relation to technological advancements and work changes driven by lean production [5, 6]. Lean production places higher demands on workers, requiring them to accomplish more with fewer resources, which ultimately leads to work intensification [5]. Similarly, in technology-based service firms, increased work intensification can be attributed to heightened cognitive demands (stressors) resulting from technology-enabled rapid knowledge and work process transfers. These intensified manual and cognitive demands are part of the social acceleration phenomena in society, stimulating the process of accelerated change and necessitating intensified learning and work intensification [6]. The demands for accelerated change led to different outcomes compared to conventional job demands [7], making work intensification a critical issue that requires immediate attention. In 2022, the stress indicator for employees rose to 44 percent [8], with 76 percent of employees reporting stress due to increased workloads [9]. Despite reduced working hours, improved living standards, and increased wealth, individuals have experienced intensified pressure at work and a sense of work intensification [10–12], which can potentially be attributed to heightened job demands.
Past studies have consistently highlighted the negative impact of work intensification on employee performance, well-being, and work-life balance [4, 13]. According to Granter et al. [14], extreme working conditions such as long hours, work overload, and exposure to distressful situations are unsustainable and detrimental. Employees who experience these extreme working conditions often suffer from health issues, burnout, turnover, and disorders [14]. Additionally, high-workload jobs create pressure and contribute to job-induced stress among employees [15]. Given the detrimental effects, the negative outcomes of work intensification tend to outweigh the positive outcomes. Considering the significant role of employment in people’s lives, it is not surprising that there is heightened interest in studying the phenomenon of work intensification. As a significant job stressor [1, 16], work intensification warrants further research from both organizations and academic scholars.
The literature on work intensification gained prominence in 2014 when Mariappanadar [17] developed the Stakeholder Harm Index, a critical HRM framework that examines the harmful impact and social cost of high-performance work practices. A more recent review by Mauno et al. [1] synthesized two decades of work intensification literature (2000–2020), primarily emphasizing the adverse outcomes for employees and organizations. Thus, the work intensification construct has been predominantly viewed as a phenomenon with negative consequences, often overlooking its potential positive effects.
The literature on work intensification, encompassing its various aspects (positive and negative), is relatively scarce, spanning over 30 years with significant time lapses. However, it has noticeably increased over the past decade, potentially due to the accelerated pace of technological advancements in the workplace [1]. The COVID-19 pandemic has further expedited the adoption of digital technologies, which may contribute to the acceleration of work intensification phenomena [1]. To comprehensively explore the antecedents, outcomes, mediators, moderators, theoretical foundations, and conceptual developments of this phenomenon, a systematic review is necessary. Despite some advancements, the field remains under-addressed, lacking a comprehensive study that highlights both the positive and negative consequences of work intensification at both the employee and organizational levels, including its dimensions.
This paper systematically reviews quantitative research on work intensification published from 1989 to 2022, with a focus on the conceptualization of the construct, examination of factors influencing work intensification, identification of outcomes, moderators, and mediators. Additionally, it reviews the theories that have been used to support the phenomenon of work intensification. In doing so, this systematic review offers three significant contributions. First, it presents an overarching view of debates concerning the conceptualization of work intensification by evaluating definitions, indicators, and measurement scales, providing clarity for future researchers.
Second, the review concisely explains the factors influencing work intensification, identifies its outcomes, and determines the moderators and mediators affecting relationships with other variables. This differentiation helps distinguish between indicators and outcomes, shedding light on the factors that contribute to work intensification and its resulting phenomena and influences between variables. Third, the review synthesizes theories that support the phenomenon of work intensification, providing clarity and a lens through which to understand the complex underlying processes. Lastly, the literature on work intensification is relatively underdeveloped and characterized by disparity, particularly in methodology and conceptualization. This lack of coherence has hindered scholars from studying this crucial phenomenon. The current systematic review enables the proper synthesis of past literature and provides directions for future researchers to follow.
In the following sections, we will begin by conceptualizing the work intensification construct. We will then outline the PRISMA approach adopted for data screening and extraction in the work intensification literature. Subsequently, we will present the publication trends in journals, specific regions, and sectors. This will be followed by the review’s findings and discussion regarding the conceptualization of work intensification, its antecedents, consequences, mediators, moderators, and underlying theories. Finally, we will address the limitations of the present review and suggest future research directions.
Conceptualization
Work intensification is measured through various indicators and scales, with its origins tracing back to the late 1900 s when literature on overload and time demand constructs gained momentum. In the present century, work intensification is often measured through perceived role overload and organizational demands on personal time indicators. Although work intensification literature remains underdeveloped, several scholars have attempted to explain the concept through hours worked, overload, time demands/time pressure [18], and increased effort indicators [1, 19].
There is significant debate surrounding the dimensionality of work intensification, with some considering it as a unidimensional construct [20], while others perceive it as multidimensional [21]. The unidimensional perspective primarily focuses on the quantitative aspect of work intensification, which relates to increased effort or pace of work. On the other hand, work intensification is recognized as a multifaceted phenomenon that encompasses not only a faster speed or volume of work, but also intensified demands [1]. Consequently, work intensification is currently operationalized with both quantitative and qualitative facets. In this study, considering the prevailing consensus, we view work intensification as a multidimensional construct. Mauno et al. [1] have outlined the conceptualization of work intensification, encompassing both unidimensional and multidimensional approaches. Common facets identified across these studies include long work hours, accelerated work pace, increased overload/multitasking demands, high effort levels, and time pressure/time demands.
The present systematic review focuses on three main elements of work intensification—hours worked, overload (work overload and role overload), and time demands/time pressure—used by Macky and Boxall [22] to measure the construct. While hours worked pertain to the quantitative aspect, work overload and time demands relate to the qualitative aspect of work intensification. Role overload refers to the increased amount of work relative to available time, while time demands represent the requirements managers impose on employees’ time that may conflict with personal obligations. Notably, Kubicek et al. [21] developed the intensification of job demand scale, which encapsulates all facets of work intensification. Therefore, the constructs of hours worked (long working hours), workload (work overload and role overload), and increased time pressure are considered facets of work intensification and will be examined alongside the broader construct in this review. Despite ongoing debates regarding the specifics of work intensification, there is a consensus on its detrimental outcomes for both employees and organizations.
Methodology
The two crucial steps in conducting a systematic review involve data screening and data extraction processes [23]. To ensure an unbiased approach, the present study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic literature reviews [24]. In accordance with Short’s [25] recommended best practices, we searched the Web of Science (WoS) for relevant peer-reviewed articles with a social citation index [26]. WoS is a multidisciplinary database, considered one of the most comprehensive, influential, and widely used databases [27], offering extensive coverage of journals, articles, and cited references [28]. Additionally, WoS provides a range of tools for refining search results. This database has also been employed in a previous narrative review of work intensification [1], making it the preferred choice for article retrieval.
A computer-assisted search of the WoS database for relevant papers on ‘work intensification’ was conducted. Boolean operators, particularly ‘AND’ and ‘OR’, were used to help with the search strategy [23]. Considering that work intensification has further dimensions (long work hours, work overload and time pressure), ‘Work intensification’ broadly, as well as its related facets, ‘Work overload,’ ‘Long working hours, ‘Role overload,’ ‘Time pressure,’ were used as keywords to include the articles that broadly addressed the phenomena.
Identification of relevant studies
The subsequent step in the data screening process entailed manuscript selection, which required analyzing each manuscript based on the inclusion criteria. All articles retrieved from the database using the key terms were examined. Although no time restrictions were imposed, the earliest articles published on work intensification, or its related concepts (long work hours, workload, and time pressure) appeared in 1989. As a result, an automatic boundary was established, including studies on work intensification conducted between 1989 and 2022. Eligible studies were shortlisted through a multi-step process, involving review by title, abstract, and full-paper screening. Articles discussing any aspect of work intensification and its overlapping variables, along with definitions, prevalence, factors, consequences, and future directions, were included. Additionally, we performed a backward and forward citation search and carefully screened references of the shortlisted studies to identify relevant research.
Study selection and eligibility criteria
As recommended by Macky and Boxall [23], to decrease the risk of bias, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were established prior to the review process. The research questions provided the basis for article eligibility criteria [29]. The purpose of the review paper was to study the antecedents, consequences, moderators, mediators, theoretical basis, and conceptualization of the variable; hence, only empirical research papers were considered for the review. The inclusion criteria for the review, therefore, required studies to be empirical, and quantitative, and include antecedents of work intensification, include outcomes of work intensification. We excluded working papers, thesis, and conference proceedings due to the difficulty of retrieving the reports [30]. Also, we did not include dissertations and book reviews as there is no guarantee of the extent to which they have been peer-reviewed [26]. Therefore, articles were included in the review if they described any aspect of job-related work intensification or long work hours or work overload or role overload, or intensified time pressure aspect. Other studies were excluded from the record.
Data extraction
Data was retrieved related to specific aspects of important generic, theoretical, and methodological information and future directions. The theoretical information includes the definition, antecedents, consequences, intervening variables, moderators, measurement instruments, and future directions. The generic information includes the name of the authors, year of publication, name of the Journal, the title of the article, the context, and the country of research. As outlined in the recommendations by Paradies [30], the information was put into an electronic database.
Results
Flow chart process
The 2823 records from the WoS database were identified to proceed with the shortlisting process (Fig. 1). As discussed previously, the inclusion criteria were to include quantitative papers that have addressed the construct of work intensification or its related variables. Working papers, thesis, conference proceedings, dissertations, and book reviews were excluded. Of the 2823 records, 972 were duplicates and hence, were excluded. The remaining 1852 were screened further by abstract and title reading. In the initial screening stage, 1754 records were excluded because the papers did not discuss the work intensification or long work hours or workload or intensified time pressure constructs explicitly. Hence, after applying the initial exclusion criteria, 98 articles were left. Then these were examined by full text to find the articles that included the construct of work intensification or workload or intensified time pressure. In the second screening stage, the exclusion criteria led to the exclusion of another 33 records, leaving 74 articles for review. The records were excluded because they were Systematic review papers (n = 4), National survey (n = 1), Meta-analysis (n = 1), Book chapters (n = 2), Working papers (n = 2), and Qualitative research papers (n = 23).
PRISMA flowchart of the results of the systematic review.
Before presenting the results, we first describe the trend of research over the past few years. The published work has increased over the years, starting from 1989 and observing a steady growth trend with a high jump in 2017 and 2020 (Fig. 2). The studies on work intensification were relatively less for ten years before 2000, after which there was steady growth. As per the search strategy adopted by the researchers, the studies before 1989 are either not peer-reviewed or are not retrievable. Hence, it is incontrovertible that the phenomenon of work intensification dates back to the early 1990 s. The literature on role overload existed long before the concept of work intensification was defined as a separate variable. Initially, ‘role overload’ was used in terms of work intensification, and it was not until the early 21st century that the construct of work intensification was conceptualized. In the current literature, work intensification is measured through role overload, intensified time pressure, and work overload (Fig. 3). The increased attention to the construct can be evidenced by the fact that there are relatively more reported studies to indicate the time pressure and fast-paced work context in the current years compared to previous years [31] (Fig. 2). Mauno et al. [6] also support the fact that due to the accelerating pace of life, the amount of effort that employees are required to expend at work has significantly increased.
Number of publications on work intensification in the past three decades.
Evolution of the construct in the last three decades.
Concentration of studies represented in specific regions.
Table 1 shows all journals that have published studies on work intensification. The top journals include the Journal of Applied Psychology (n = 5), Journal of Managerial Psychology (n = 5), Personnel Review (n = 4), The International Journal of Human Resource Management (n = 3), Human Resource Management Journal (n = 3), and Journal of Organizational Behavior (n = 3). Other journals, including, among others, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, European Management Journal, Human Resource Management Journal had 2 papers each. Remaining 37 journals (e.g., Archives of Sciences, Canadian journal of Administrative Sciences, Canadian Journal of Education Administration and Policy) had one article each. It is therefore evident that the studies are mainly published in psychology and management journals.
Journals and academic disciplines
Journals and academic disciplines
Sector wise published studies on work intensification
The results show that work intensification is a widely studied concept worldwide, but the studies are concentrated in specific regions. For example, North and Central America (n = 34.7 %) has the most representation and Oceania (n = 5.3%) and Africa (n = 2.7%) are relatively less represented regions.
Sector
The most represented sector is the service sector. This shows the extent to which knowledge advancement is uneven across sectors. The studies in the service sector vary from school, kindergartens, university to consulting firms, insurance companies, bank, court, police stations, and hotels. Of all service sector samples, bank employees [32], hotel managers [33], school principals [34], teachers [35], lawyers [35], and police officers [36] have been taken as samples. Furthermore, the review shows an evident contrast in studies conducted in manufacturing (n = 3) [32, 37] and service firms (n = 42). While service firms received significant attention, the manufacturing and other sectors remain under-represented.
How is work intensification conceptualized?
Operationalization
The primary research objective was to understand the conceptualization of work intensification. For this, we first analyzed the terminology “Work Intensification” and the constructs used to define work intensification, i.e., long work hours, time pressure, and workload (e.g., role overload and work overload). As evident by the historical development of the construct ‘work intensification’, the latter constructs are also found to be salient in the literature. Table 3 shows that of all 74 studies, 12 (16%) of them addressed work intensification as a construct [7, 34]. However, 8 (11%) addressed time pressure and other workplace stressors [38–40], 18 (24%) addressed role overload [41, 93], 4 (5%) addressed long working hours [43–45], and another 33 (44%) addressed work overload [46, 47].
Number of studies addressing work intensification and related constructs
Number of studies addressing work intensification and related constructs
The results of the review indicate that studies on work intensification are significantly focused on work intensification along the lines of its facets ‘role overload’, ‘work overload,’ and ‘time pressure’ and ‘long work hours’. Work intensification is measured majorly by the Role overload scale created by Beehr et al. [48], the Acceleration-related job demands scale developed by Ulferts et al. [49], work intensity scale [50] (Table 4). The systematic review, therefore, comprises studies on either ‘work intensification’ or its related constructs.
Types of Work Intensifications measurement scales used
The earlier literature on role overload and time demand constructs in the 1900 s eventually established the construct of work intensification in the literature. Kubicek et al. [21] characterize work intensification as a multifaceted construct requiring the need to perform tasks at a faster pace, complete multiple tasks simultaneously, or reduce inactive time. According to White et al. [51], it gauges how much effort is put in relation to how much pressure and high expectations are felt at work. Hence, work intensification is characterized by increased work-role overload, intensified job demands, and increased time pressure.
What are the antecedents, consequences, mediators, and moderators of work intensification?
Regarding work intensification, the antecedents are usually represented by work-related factors. Table 5 shows these factors and the frequency of their use in different studies. Mostly used as antecedent variables in different studies include working hours (n = 4, 5.3%), workload (n = 3, 4%), role conflict (n = 2, 2.6%), high-performance work practice (n = 2, 2.6%), demographic factors like age and gender (n = 7, 9.3%) and work-family conflict (n = 3, 4%). The demographics included gender, age, education, job tenure, organization tenure, marital status, and work status [7, 52]. The high involvement practices include participation enhancing (power-autonomy), communication fostering (information sharing), rewarding (reward management), and training and development (knowledge management) practices [17, 21].
Antecedents of Work intensification studied at least in two studies
Antecedents of Work intensification studied at least in two studies
The literature indicates that the outcomes of work intensification, mostly negative attributes, are of great significance. In literature, the impact of work intensification on employee-level consequences such as work intensification has a negative impact on variables such as job satisfaction (n = 6) [8, 32], creative behavior (n = 1) [53], subjective health (n = 1) [54], and general health (n = 1) [39] are widely discussed.
Unsurprisingly the positive relationship between work intensification on individuals and organizations is studied mostly with regard to negative connotations. For example, work intensification has a positive impact on turnover intention [55], job stress [38, 52], and emotional exhaustion [8, 32]. This is congruent with the existing literature that indicates that the stressors like work overload increase turnover intention by decreasing job satisfaction and increasing job strain [56].
Although indirect, there are few relationships between work intensification with positive employee outcomes, such as task performance (n = 1) [57], contextual performance (n = 1) [57], perception of justice (n = 1) [58], perceived work-life balance (n = 1) [36], OCBI (n = 1) [59], OCBO (n = 1) [59] and marital satisfaction (n = 1) [60]. The results are presented in Table 6.
Summary of outcomes and their association with work intensification
Summary of outcomes and their association with work intensification
The studies included in this systematic literature review showed that work intensification, with the exception of the work overload indicator, had not been studied as a moderator. However, many other moderators have been used that can be divided into two broad categories, i.e., individual-level and organizational-level factors (Table 7). Individual-level factors include age (n = 1) [82], working smart (n = 1) [61], career anchor (n = 1) [62], coping strategies (n = 1) [63], customer orientation (n = 1) [64], and personality traits (n = 1) [65]. On the other hand, the organizational-level factors include work engagement (n = 1) [66], leader’s psychological flexibility (n = 1) [66], feedback (n = 1) [67], and cooperative climate (n = 1) [68]. All these individual and organizational level factors have been studied once as a moderator in the articles that were considered.
Moderators in the reviewed articles
Moderators in the reviewed articles
Table 8 shows that 45 studies have examined the mediating role played by different variables while studying work intensification. The components of work intensification such as work overload (n = 4) [58, 73], emotional exhaustion (n = 3) [59, 70], role conflict (n = 2) [71, 72] and role overload (n = 2) [34, 73] have been studied as mediators too. However, other variables such as cognitive appraisal, time pressure, justice and job insecurity have also played a mediating role to study work intensification. According to Chipunza and Samuel [58], when employees perceive they have work overload, their perceptions of job insecurity increase. These negative perceptions may cause an employee to think that the organization is unfair resulting in anxiety and stress. Evidently, work intensification and its indicators have also been used as mediators in various papers. Work intensification (n = 1) [18], time pressure (n = 1) [71], work overload (n = 4) [64, 73] and role overload (n = 3) [34, 74] has been frequently used as mediators in various hypothesized frameworks.
List of Mediators used more than twice
List of Mediators used more than twice
What are the theories used to support the phenomenon of work intensification?
Many theories have been used to support the antecedents and consequences of work intensification. Table 9 shows that Conservation of Resource (COR) (n = 8, 11%) [59, 75] and Job Demand Resources (JD-R) theories (n = 7, 9.5%) [19, 82] have been widely used. According to Hobfoll’s [77] COR theory, people put in an effort to obtain a number of resources, both personal and environmental. When individuals face a risk of being deprived of such resources, they experience stress because they value them. On the other hand, when individuals obtain these resources, their stress level reduces. Work intensification is one of the stressors that can diminish the resources of individuals. Different studies confirm this [59, 78] and have shown that individuals seek to develop the coping mechanisms necessary to counteract the negative impacts of stressors like work intensification.
List of most used theories
List of most used theories
JD-R theory has also been widely used to explain work intensification. This theory differentiates two types of job characteristics, i.e., job demands that require employees to expend the effort and have a cost, while job resources help reduce the adverse effects of these job demands. Job demands cause stress to employees while job resources provide motivation. Both job demands and resources have an interactive impact on employees’ well-being. Ogbonnaya and Valizade [18] have used the JD-R theory to explain that factors of work intensification such as time pressure, workload, and emotional demands can cause reduced organizational commitment and employee satisfaction.
Other widely used theories related to work intensification include Affective Events Theory (n = 3, 4%) [41, 80] and Transactional Theory (n = 3, 4%) [32, 81].
The study systematically analyzed the literature and further clarified the conceptual developments, mediators and moderators, consequences, antecedents, and theories related to work intensification. Thus, it makes a valuable contribution to the literature on work intensification by systematically integrating the developments in the work intensification literature. The historical development of the construct shows that research on work intensification began in the 21st century, soon after the research in this field was conducted by Pluta and Rudawska [82] and later Kubicek et al. [21]. The relatively slow-paced research on work intensification gained momentum in the 21st century as workload and time pressure on employees significantly increased [65]. The review also demonstrates the evolution of the construct over the years. Currently, the widely accepted definition, combined and summarized by Paškvan et al. [32], is that work intensification is a multifaceted construct characterized by the need to work at increasing speed, perform several tasks simultaneously, or reduce idle time [20, 83].
Furthermore, this review suggests that two frequently used antecedent variables to understand the construct of work intensification are demographics and working hours. Additionally, various individual and organizational-level factors have been utilized as moderators and mediators. However, most studies have treated work intensification and its elements as mediators, while work intensification itself has not been employed as a moderator. The Job-Demand-Resources (JDR) Theory and Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory have been widely utilized as foundations to explain the concept of work intensification. These theories relate work intensification to negative consequences by explaining it as the depletion of employees’ personal resources and a job demand in the form of stress.
The review highlights that work intensification has various consequences, both work-related and non-work-related, affecting employees, organizations, and the specific job at hand. The literature primarily focuses on the adverse outcomes of work intensification, shedding light on its apparent dark side. Extensive research has established the association between work intensification and negative work-related outcomes such as increased strain and reduced job satisfaction [84]. At the organizational level, consequences include abusive supervision and OCBO, with supervisors experiencing role overload leading to abusive behavior towards subordinates [79]. Work intensification is also linked to reduced employee performance [85], increased workload [38], and diminished trust in management [18]. On an individual level, work intensification is associated with reduced job satisfaction, lower job performance, increased turnover intention, job-induced stress, burnout, and more [32]. The prevailing literature trend emphasizes the significance of the primarily negative outcomes of work intensification, warranting increased attention from both organizations and academia.
On the contrary, although the literature on the positive impact of work intensification is relatively limited, it provides opportunities for organizations to explore its potential benefits and underlying mechanisms. The systematic review has identified a few positive outcomes associated with work intensification. For instance, del Carmen Triana [67] suggests that when one team member’s workload increases significantly, other members often extend a helping hand, demonstrating cooperative behavior. Additionally, a study on couples revealed that spending more time on both domestic and paid work was positively related to higher marital satisfaction [60]. Another study indicated that long work hours can enhance an individual’s self-regulation in personal life, leading to greater relationship satisfaction and self-disclosure among couples [76].
Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Conceptualization and measurement
We recommend future studies to examine work intensification within the context of project teams and their unique dynamics. In the knowledge-based economy, where economic development is highly influenced [86], organizations, particularly those relying heavily on knowledge-intensive operations, are increasingly adopting project team-based approaches to effectively manage complex tasks [87]. While this approach offers benefits such as greater flexibility and innovation in the dynamic business environment [89], it also presents consequences, one of which is project overload. Project team members often face overload due to project fragmentation, interruptions, and inconveniences, making it challenging to work efficiently on multiple projects simultaneously, especially in a multi-project setting. Organizations, in their pursuit of cohesion, tend to have a small core team collaborating on numerous projects without fully recognizing the burden it places on team members [90]. Consequently, multiple projects are conducted concurrently, drawing resources from a common pool. Overload impacts individuals, projects, and the organization as a whole [91]. Thus, examining project teams and their unique dynamics will open new avenues for future research. Furthermore, future researchers should explore whether work intensification is a temporary condition or if employees experience changes in it over an extended period. Pluta and Rudawska [82] have suggested conducting longitudinal studies to assess whether work overload is a transient state or evolves into occupational burnout over time. Future studies should employ different research designs, including longitudinal approaches, to comprehend the nature of this construct and determine whether it becomes more detrimental to the organization or remains relatively constant over time.
Recommendation 2: Mediating mechanisms
As demonstrated in the current review, perception-based variables, with the exception of perceived work-life balance [36], have been rarely studied as mediators. Individuals respond differently to the pressures of work intensification. Consequently, future researchers should investigate the mediating role of various perception-based psychological factors that bridge the connections between work intensification and outcomes. We recommend that variables such as perceived risk, perceived psychological contract breach, and perceived exertion may serve as significant underlying mechanisms when studying the work intensification phenomenon. Individual perceptions indicate personal experiences and, therefore, serve as better intermediary mechanisms linking the role of work intensification with outcome variables.
Recommendation 3: Work intensification as a positive construct
Previous studies have primarily demonstrated the negative consequences of work intensification, such as job stress [38, 52], emotional exhaustion [8, 32], turnover intention [55], and lower job satisfaction [42]. However, the literature also indicates that work intensification may have positive effects on various employee and organizational outcomes, such as improved sales performance [81] and job satisfaction [56, 92]. Fiksenbaum et al. [52] argue that individuals working long hours may thrive at work. Intensified work can lead to increased productivity and provide employees with more rewards, meaningfulness, and challenges. Extrinsic rewards, such as recognition, compensation, and advancement, are important for employee satisfaction and performance [93]. This is in line with Herzberg’s two-factor theory, which highlights the significance of intrinsic and extrinsic factors influencing employee satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Thus, when combined, these factors serve as a source of positive reinforcement for employees, leading to positive workplace behaviors. Burke et al. [38] suggest that intensified work can satisfy employees who are motivated by pressure and the associated rewards. However, research in this area is rather limited. Future studies should explore the positive outcomes of work intensification, such as promotion and compensation outcomes [45] and other career related outcomes. This would enable scholars to identify the factors that transform work intensification into positive outcomes.
Recommendation 4: Self-determination theory
Work intensification has been widely studied within the theoretical frameworks of Conservation of Resource Theory [77] and Job Demands Resource Theory [94]. However, future researchers may consider exploring it through the lens of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) [95], which posits that individuals possess an inherent drive to fulfill their needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence. By examining the role of employee need satisfaction, future researchers could mitigate the negative impact of work intensification on employee outcomes. The SDT theory distinguishes between controlled and autonomous motivation, with autonomous motivation leading to positive affect, flexibility, and choice [95]. Therefore, researchers could further investigate the theoretical foundation of SDT to explore the relationship between work intensification and employee-level outcomes. Specifically, the SDT can provide insights into the underlying processes that contribute to positive employee outcomes.
Recommendation 5: Other contexts and settings
The results of this systematic literature review reveal that the majority of quantitative studies on work intensification are conducted in European countries, focusing on employees in the service sectors. To enhance the generalizability of findings, it is recommended that future studies encompass other unexplored sectors, particularly manufacturing, which has received relatively less attention in the literature despite the intensified work demands associated with lean production [5]. Additionally, future research should include countries that are comparatively underrepresented, such as those in Africa and Oceania, and should strive to conduct comparative analyses across different countries. Previous studies have highlighted the importance of exploring work intensification within diverse cultural contexts to enhance generalizability. For example, Luo et al. suggested examining work intensification in a cross-cultural setting. Similarly, Poulose and Dhal [36] recommended further validation of the relationship between work characteristics and work overload in other sectors and regions. Likewise, Pluta and Rudawska [82] suggested verifying results in various national contexts due to globalization and the presence of a diverse workforce. Despite work intensification being influenced by changes in the economy or institutions, there remains a lack of cross-national research. Conducting cross-national studies would enable researchers to gain a better understanding of the diverse economic and institutional factors that contribute to variations in the extent of work intensification.
Limitations and future directions
While the present study makes a significant contribution to the literature on work intensification, it is important for future researchers to acknowledge its limitations. Firstly, the study only used the WoS database for the systematic review, which may have excluded relevant studies that could have been included in a more comprehensive review. Therefore, future researchers could consider using other databases (e.g., such as SCOPUS and EBSCO) to retrieve studies relevant to work intensification. Secondly, the current review only included quantitative papers, which neglects the significant conceptual and methodological diversity in the field of work intensification research. A narrative review that includes both quantitative and qualitative studies [1] would be more appropriate. Thirdly, the current review did not incorporate indicators of work intensification that are relevant to contemporary workplaces.
Conclusion
As the literature on work intensification evolves, future researchers should explore indicators that accurately define the construct of work intensification in current workplaces. Future studies should review the relevance of work intensification to contemporary workplaces.
Ethics statement
As this is a systematic literature review and no human respondents were involved, ethical approval and informed consent were not required. However, the authors were committed to ensuring the quality and integrity of the research. The selection, evaluation, and synthesis of the literature were conducted in accordance with rigorous academic standards and best practices in the field to maintain the accuracy and reliability of the findings.
Conflict of interests
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
None to report.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for this research.