Introduction 2003 1998 2006 2006 2006 2001 2005 2005 2004 1998 2001 The present study 2006 2006 1992 2006 2001 2006 1995 1988 2001 2005 1995 2006 2005 2001 2005 1994 2005 2001 2006 2005 2003 How is work-related effort associated with (a) time spent on work activities, (b) experiences of work activities, and (c) health and well-being during the workday? How is work-related effort associated with (a) time spent on home activities, (b) experiences of home activities, and (c) health and well-being in-between successive workdays? 2001 2005 How is work-related effort associated with (a) time spent on home activities, (b) experiences of home activities, and (c) health and well-being during the weekend days? Research question 2 Method Participants and procedure M age In the second stage of this study starting about ten days after the completion of the general questionnaire, the daily variables of interest were assessed by means of short questionnaires that were completed three times a day, from Monday to Sunday: (1) a morning questionnaire (to be completed after awaking in the morning, between 7:30 and 8:30 a.m.), (2) an afternoon questionnaire (to be completed around 6 p.m.), and (3) an evening questionnaire (to be completed before bedtime, between 10 and 11 p.m.). Only diaries that were completed within an acceptable time range around the requested time were included in the final database. We thus removed morning questionnaires that were completed more than 2 h after awakening; afternoon questionnaires that were completed before 4:30 p.m., after 8 p.m., or less than 3 h after the morning questionnaires; and evening questionnaires that were filled in less than 2 h after the afternoon questionnaire or after 3 a.m. This procedure resulted in 76.2% valid morning diaries, 73.4% valid afternoon diaries, and 72.5% valid evening diaries. Variables derived from the general questionnaire (general measures) Job types included “assistant professor”, “associate professor”, “full professor”, and “other”, such as researcher and teacher. Age was measured in years; Gender was coded as “0” for “male” and “1” for “female”. Parental status was coded as “0” for having no children living in the household and “1” for having at least one child living in the household. The last three variables are potential confounders in the relationships of interest and are therefore included as covariates in further analyses. 2003 2001 1985 2002 1999 1988 2001 Life events Participants could report for ten events (e.g., birth of a child, financial troubles, change of job) whether or not they had experienced this event during the past year. The number of events experienced was summed. Measures derived from the daily questionnaires (daily measures) To limit the participants’ burden, the questionnaires contained a combination of validated scales as well as single-item report-marks. Work-related effort In the afternoon questionnaire, participants were requested to indicate with a report mark the extent to which they considered the preceding workday as effortful (1 “not at all”, 10 “extremely”). Activities Time spent daily on work activities Participants received a list of 13 major work activities and indicated the time (0 “none”, 1 “<1 h”, 2 “1–2 h”,..., and 7 “>6 h”) they had spent on each activity during regular work time, i.e., until 6 p.m. (afternoon questionnaire), and during nonwork time, i.e., after 6 p.m. (evening questionnaire). We recoded this time range to obtain an estimate of the actual time in hours by assuming that the actual time spent on an activity would lie halfway the two extremes (e.g., the category “<1 h” was recoded as “0.5”). Time spent on research activities by day comprised the time spent on “conducting research”, “data-analysis”, “reading specialist literature”, and “writing papers” (until 6 p.m.). Time spent on teaching activities by day included the time spent on “preparing a lecture”, “giving a lecture”, “reading (Ph.D.) students’ assignments”, and “appointments with (Ph.D) students” (until 6 p.m.). Time spent on administrative activities by day consisted of time spent on “preparing a meeting”, “attending a meeting” and “e-mail/phone”. The category “informal contact with colleagues” was entered in the analyses separately. A 13th activity, “other”, was not incorporated in further analyses, as on average only 0.42 h were devoted daily to these activities. All work activities are potentially relevant to all participants as in the Netherlands lecturers also have some research time, and researchers will usually also teach. Overtime work was computed by summing the time spent on all 13 work activities after 6 p.m. (this university did not offer evening classes) during weekdays, and by summing the total time spent on work activities before and after 6 p.m. on Saturday and on Sunday. Time spent daily on home activities 2001 Experiences Participants indicated for each engaged work and home activity, the extent to which they considered it as effortful and as pleasant (1 “not at all”, 10 “extremely”). An estimate of the average daily effort and pleasure for each category of activities was obtained by computing a weighted mean score. Thus, the summed product of hours spent on each activity within a category and the effort (pleasure) experienced while executing the activity was divided by the total hours spent on the activities in the respective category. By employing such a weighted score, the time spent on an activity is controlled for, assuring that the effort (pleasure) score really reflects effort (pleasure). Health and well-being 2002 Fatigue was measured in the morning, afternoon and evening questionnaires. Participants rated their current state of fatigue (“How fatigued do you currently feel?”) with a report mark varying from “1” (“not at all”) to “10” (“extremely”). 2002 Sleep time (each morning questionnaire) was computed by calculating the self-reported number of hours in-between the time they went to sleep last night (“what time did you go to sleep last night?”) and the time they woke up this morning (“what time did you wake up this morning?”). Again, each day’s values for this scale refer to the previous night. Preoccupation with work (each morning questionnaire) was assessed with one self-developed item: “I am already mentally involved with the things I have to do at work today [next week]” (1 “not at all”, 5 “extremely”). Work motivation (each morning questionnaire) regarding the upcoming workday (during weekdays) or the next workweek (during weekend-days) was assessed with one self-developed item: “I feel like starting the next workday [workweek]” (1 “not at all”, 5 “extremely”). A table with correlations between the study variables can be obtained from the first author on request. 1 Fig. 1 Overview of the measurement structure  Creation of the two effort-groups n M effort n M effort Statistical analyses 2005 2005 Results Preparatory analyses 1 M T 2005 M T P 2005 Table 1 Means and standard deviations for the total sample and for the two effort-groups for the measures derived from the general questionnaire  N N N M SD M SD M SD Age 44.95 7.63 46.74 6.69 44.17 7.80 Work engagement 3.94 0.69 3.92 0.63 4.05 0.67 Fatigue 1.89 0.61 1.87 0.57 2.04 0.60 Work pressure 2.47 0.54 2.23 0.53 2.49 0.60 Job control 3.22 0.42 3.25 0.46 3.30 0.39 Social support colleagues 2.59 0.65 2.62 0.53 2.60 0.66 Social support supervisor 2.35 0.87 2.49 0.79 2.19 0.90 Positive affectivity work 3.61 0.53 3.57 0.62 3.51 0.51 Positive affectivity home 3.59 0.63 3.74 0.71 3.47 0.52 Negative affectivity work 1.93 0.57 1.93 0.50 2.04 0.67 Negative affectivity home 1.83 0.56 1.83 0.59 1.95 0.47 Life events 1.98 1.53 2.04 1.34 2.17 1.81 T df 2 df 2 df 2 df T df T df F T T T T T Differences between Saturday and Sunday F F F Research question 1 2 F Table 2 Activity patterns, experiences and recovery indicators during the workday Hypothesis  N N N F df P M SD M SD M SD – % Days  Multivariate        1.29 (4, 42) 0.29  Research 61 33 60 37 62 30 0.60 (1, 45) 0.81  Teaching 75 30 67 37 79 27 3.33 (1, 45) 0.07  Administrative 90 16 90 16 86 20 0.00 (1, 45)  0.99  Informal contacts 55 33 55 33 55 30 0.32 (1, 45) 0.57 – Time  Multivariate       0.31 (4, 42) 0.87  Research 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.3 0.29 (1, 45) 0.59  Teaching 2.0 1.4 2.0 1.7 2.1 1.4 0.36 (1, 45) 0.55  Administrative 1.9 1.0 1.9 1.2 1.7 1.0 0.02 (1, 45) 0.90  Informal contacts 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.89 (1, 45) 0.35 Hypothesis 1a Effort (1–10)   Multivariate       9.94 (4, 29) <0.001  Research 4.87 2.20 3.24 1.66 6.44 1.78 26.53 (1, 32) <0.001  Teaching 4.47 1.76 3.24 1.49 5.87 1.22 29.59 (1, 32) <0.001  Administrative 4.05 1.89 2.74 1.34 5.44 1.80 25.64 (1, 32) <0.001  Informal contacts 2.60 1.48 1.85 1.18 3.30 1.62 7.76 (1, 32) <0.01 – Pleasure (1–10)   Multivariate        0.07 (4, 29) 0.99  Research 7.18 1.09 7.14 1.37 7.23 1.05 0.00 (1, 32) 1.00  Teaching 6.69 1.04 6.88 1.34 6.61 0.60 0.01 (1, 32) 0.94  Administrative 5.76 1.52 5.94 1.46 5.92 0.91 0.02 (1, 32) 0.89  Informal contacts 7.52 0.95 7.31 1.21 7.54 0.88 0.17 (1, 32) 0.68 Hypotheses 1b and Hypothesis 1c Health and well-being  Work-related fatigue first hour 1.89 1.03 1.69 0.65 1.96 0.91 Time: 0.00 (1, 45) 0.96 Group: 4.63(1, 45) <0.05  Work-related fatigue last hour 2.56 1.30 2.13 0.86 3.00 1.43 Time × group: 6.09 (1, 45) <0.05 F P To study possible differences in experiences, two MANCOVA’s were conducted, both based on mean scores across the five workdays. The first analysis revealed that the two effort-groups differed significantly in the average amount of effort reported with respect to the four work activities. Univariate tests showed that the high-effort group experienced each activity as more effortful (Hypothesis 1a supported). The second analysis revealed that the two effort groups did not differ significantly with respect to the pleasure they derived from their work activities. T df T df P In sum, the participants in the two effort-groups do not engage in different types of work activities, nor do they experience their work activities differently in terms of pleasantness. However, the high-effort group reports to spend significantly more effort on each of the work activities, experiences significantly higher work-related levels of fatigue at the end of the work day, as well as a stronger increase in fatigue during the workday. Research question 2 F 3 Table 3 Activity patterns, experiences, recovery indicators, work involvement and work motivation in-between workdays Hypothesis  N N N F df P M SD M SD M SD Hypothesis 2a % Days  Domestic 86 20 90 22 83 18 1.34 (1, 45) 0.25  Active leisure  56 33 62 26 43 31 8.12 (1, 45) <0.01  Overtime 49 23 43 27 58 34 4.92 (1, 45) <0.05  Passive leisure 73 27 78 28 70 34 0.63 (1, 45) 0.43 Hypothesis 2a Time  Domestic  2.3 1.6 2.2 1.4 2.0 1.5 1.47 (1, 45) 0.23  Active leisure 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.7 1.90 (1, 45) 0.18  Overtime 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.1 1.0 2.42 (1, 45) 0.13  Passive leisure 1.3 1.1 1.3 0.8 1.2 0.8 0.36 (1, 45) 0.55 Hypothesis 2b Effort (1–10)  Multivariate        10.90 (4, 27) <0.001  Domestic  2.96 1.57 2.46 1.22 3.32 1.76 0.80 (1, 30) 0.38  Active leisure 3.58 1.76 2.91 1.36 4.56 1.99 7.24 (1, 30) <0.05  Overtime 4.34 1.76 3.13 1.48 5.82 1.15 26.11 (1, 30) <0.001  Passive leisure 2.06 1.24 1.50 0.82 2.81 1.58 3.37 (1, 30) 0.08 – Pleasure (1–10)  Multivariate        0.67 (4, 27) 0.62  Domestic  5.79 1.40 6.08 1.34 5.60 1.21 0.38 (1, 30) 0.54  Active leisure 7.31 1.23 7.43 1.20 7.71 0.75 0.03 (1, 30) 0.86  Overtime 6.34 1.29 6.33 1.49 6.16 0.95 0.07 (1, 30) 0.80  Passive leisure 6.87 1.43 7.19 1.05 6.87 1.33 0.21 (1, 30) 0.65 Hypothesis 2c and 2d Health and well-being  Fatigue t1 3.76 1.93 2.90 1.47 4.87 1.72 Time: 2.16 (2, 44) 0.13  Fatigue t2 4.92 1.74 3.90 1.56 5.88 1.40 Group 22.46 (1, 45) <0.001  Fatigue t3 5.71 1.98 4.87 2.07 6.52 1.50 Time × group 0.06 (2, 44) 0.95  Sleep complaints 1.54 1.12 1.25 1.00 1.95 0.95 4.12 (1, 45) <0.05  Sleep time 7.09 0.88 6.85 1.05 7.13 0.70 1.85 (1, 45) 0.18  Preoccupation work 3.32 1.00 3.19 0.90 3.75 0.95 4.41 (1, 45) <0.05  Work motivation 3.40 0.70 3.49 0.85 3.21 0.50 3.00 (1, 45) 0.09 F P In order to investigate possible differences in their experiences of home activities, two MANCOVA’s were computed, both based on mean scores across the five weekdays. The first analysis showed an overall significant difference between the two effort-groups in the extent to which they considered home activities as effortful. Univariate tests demonstrated that the high-effort group considered active leisure activities and overtime work as more effortful (Hypothesis 2b supported). The second analysis revealed that the two effort-groups did not differ significantly as to their pleasure regarding their home activities. M M T df P In sum, the high-effort group engaged less often in active leisure activities in-between successive workdays, but did not differ significantly from the low effort-group regarding the experience of pleasure associated with these activities. Further, the high-effort group experienced the home activities as more effortful. In addition, we systematically observed higher levels of fatigue; more sleep complaints, and a higher preoccupation with work in the high-effort group in-between workdays. Research question 3 4 F Table 4 Activity patterns, experiences, recovery indicators, work involvement and work motivation during the weekend   N N  N F df P M SD M SD M SD Hypothesis 3a % Days  Domestic  97 13 98 10 96 14 0.13 (1, 45) 0.74  Active leisure 70 32 76 29 63 30 3.16 (1, 45) 0.08  Passive leisure 87 26 85 27 79 33 0.27 (1, 45) 0.61  Overtime 43 39 37 41 50 42 2.23 (1, 45) 0.14 Hypothesis 3a Time  Domestic  5.0 2.4 5.0 2.0 5.3 2.5 0.14 (1, 43) 0.71  Active leisure 2.5 2.0 2.4 1.6 2.4 2.6 0.11 (1, 43) 0.74  Passive leisure 2.6 1.6 2.7 1.5 2.7 1.9 0.38 (1, 43)  0.54  Overtime 1.2 1.4 0.8 0.9 1.4 1.7 6.14 (1, 45) <0.05 Hypothesis 3b Effort (1–10)   Domestic  3.33 1.80 2.65 1.44 3.91 1.97 5.87 (1, 45) <0.05  Active leisure 3.24 1.92 2.41 1.64 3.87 2.13 6.50 (1, 42) <0.05  Overtime 4.54 2.01 3.42 1.72 5.49 1.80 9.01 (1, 24) <0.01  Passive leisure 2.09 1.42 1.73 1.24 2.65 1.59 5.49 (1, 41) <0.05 – Pleasure (1–10)   Domestic  6.24 1.10 6.20 1.31 6.07 1.02 0.15 (1, 45) 0.70  Active leisure 7.68 0.88 7.58 0.97 7.61 0.82 0.02 (1, 42) 0.89  Overtime 6.03 1.57 6.28 1.78 5.96 1.25 0.58 (1, 24) 0.45  Passive leisure 7.47 0.95 7.41 1.10 7.57 0.86 0.14 (1, 41) 0.71 Hypothesis 3c and 3d Health and well-being  Fatigue (t1) 3.43 2.10 2.69 1.69 4.00 2.24 Time: 3.39 (2, 41) <0.05  Fatigue (t2) 4.26 2.04 3.56 1.64 4.72 2.21 Group: 7.80 (1, 42) <0.05  Fatigue (t3) 5.69 2.09 4.56 2.19 6.38 1.57 Time × group: 0.15 (2, 41) 0.87  Sleep complaints 1.04 1.11 0.94 1.07 1.40 1.31 1.44 (1, 44) 0.24  Sleep time 7.88 1.05 7.74 1.10 7.91 0.94 0.69 (1, 43) 0.41  Preoccupation work 2.41 1.07 2.09 0.94 2.69 1.15 2.28 (1, 44) 0.14  Work motivation 3.30 0.98 3.50 0.91 2.89 0.99 5.27 (1, 44) <0.05 F P n M M M M M Two additional ANCOVAs indicated that the two effort-groups did not significantly differ with respect to preoccupation with work during the weekend (Hypothesis 3d rejected), but that the high-effort group felt less like starting the next working week (work motivation). In sum, the two effort-groups did not show significantly different activity patterns during the weekend regarding domestic work, active and passive leisure. However, the high-effort group spent significantly more hours on overtime work during the weekend than the low-effort group. Furthermore, the high-effort group experienced all home activities as significantly more effortful, although not as less pleasant, than the low effort-group. We also observed significantly higher levels of fatigue during the weekend and less motivation to start the upcoming workweek in the high-effort group. Discussion The present study was devised to enhance our insight in the associations between work-related effort and recovery from that effort. To this purpose, we compared two groups of employees reporting different levels of work-related effort (high vs. low) with respect to their activities, experiences, and health and well-being in three time-periods: (1) during work time, (2) in-between work days and (3) during the weekend. Activity patterns 2001 2001 The amount of time devoted to domestic activities during the weekdays and weekend days did not vary significantly between the two effort-groups. This may be due to the fact that many domestic activities are obligatory in nature (e.g., it is difficult to circumvent doing the household chores). Finally, no significant differences between the groups emerged concerning low-effort activities, both during weekdays and weekend days. Experiences Regarding experiences, we distinguished between effort and pleasure. The high-effort group reported significantly more effort for all work activities. In the home domain, the high-effort group judged overtime and active leisure activities as more effortful during weekdays and judged all activities as more effortful during the weekend. No significant differences between the groups were observed with respect to pleasure, neither during work time nor in-between workdays, nor in the weekend. Hence, work-related effort is independent of the pleasure derived from work and home activities. Health and well-being We observed a stronger increase in work-related fatigue during the workday for the high-effort group than for the low-effort group. Thus, whereas the two groups did not differ significantly in work-related fatigue at the start of the working day, the high-effort group was more fatigued at the end of the working day. This difference persisted in-between workdays. This finding might explain why the high-effort group engaged less often in active leisure in-between workdays than the low-effort group. Also during the weekend, the high-effort group remained significantly more fatigued than the low-effort group. Possibly, this may be due to the fact that the former group spent more time on overtime. A somewhat different pattern of results was observed with respect to sleep complaints: The high-effort group reported more sleep complaints during the week, but not in the weekend. The additional finding that the two groups did not differ significantly with respect to sleep time suggests that work-related effort relates to sleep quality, but not sleep quantity. During the week, the high-effort group was apparently more preoccupied with work than the low-effort group. However, it cannot be excluded that this is partly due to our item wording. Although we asked participants to indicate the extent to which they were already preoccupied with the upcoming workday, it would seem possible that this measure (also) reflects the extent to which participants were still ruminating about their past working day. In the weekend, the two groups did not differ significantly in their preoccupation with the upcoming workweek. This is surprising, as the high-effort group spent more time on work-related activities during these days. The high-effort group nonetheless reported less work motivation than the low-effort group. Limitations and suggestions for future research P A second point of concern is the procedure used to create the two effort-subgroups. These groups were created based on the number of days participants considered their work as effortful. To probe the possibility that our findings are biased by this somewhat arbitrary procedure we repeated our analyses using a slightly different effort indicator. For each participant who completed the report mark of global work-related effort on at least three occasions, the mean score on this report mark across the week was computed. Based on these scores, two new subgroups were created: One including participants with scores in the highest tertile, and a second with participants having scores in the lowest tertile. Analyses were repeated for these two groups, yielding results that were highly similar to those found for the original subgroups (results can be obtained from the first author on request). Thus, our findings appear robust across different measures of effort expenditure. 2004 2005 2006 A fourth issue is the impact of potential third variables. One might argue that differences between the two effort-groups regarding (experiences of) activities and health and well-being indicators might be due to personality characteristics or other person or work-related constructs, rather than to work-related effort. However, in our study we attempted to exclude the influence of these variables to our best ability: The two effort-groups turned out not to differ regarding the number of life events experienced, general work characteristics (work pressure, job control, social support), fatigue, work engagement, age and positive and negative affect. Of course this does not exclude the possibility that other third variables (e.g., other aspects of personality) may have acted as third variables in this study. Fifth, this study did not offer insight in the intriguing question into the origin of the differences in work-related effort between the two subgroups studied. It may be that these differences are at least partly due to differences in participants’ objective work performance (e.g., number of publications or student evaluations), but such measure was not incorporated in this study. Thus, it is unclear how the differences between the two effort-groups in their work-related effort are related to real output differences, and future studies on this topic should also include objective measures of task performance. Finally, the present research employed a very specific sample, consisting of academic staff members who worked at least 32 h a week and who lived together with a partner who worked at least 2.5 days a week, and who, as is common for tenured academics in the Netherlands, have relatively high job security and are not dependent on fund raising. Although we believe that our main findings on the relations among effort, recovery, health and well-being are not unique to this sample, it is desirable to replicate this study for employees in other professions, in other family situations and/or with other working hours. Thus, future studies should employ samples from other contexts to broaden our understanding of effort and recovery patterns. Assets of this study In spite of these limitations, we believe that the present study extends and enhances previous research on effort and recovery in at least four respects. First, this study is among the very few that examine effort and recovery from a day-to-day perspective, allowing us to demonstrate that work-related effort is related to various aspects of daily work and (potential) recovery time. In this vein, this study shows how effort expenditure at work is actually imbedded in everyday life, and how it relates to recovery during time-off-the job. Secondly, this study emphasized the importance of the weekend as a (potential) opportunity for recovery. Whereas some differences between the two effort-groups persisted throughout the weekend (e.g., higher levels of fatigue and effort-investment for the high-effort group), other differences manifested themselves only during the working week (i.e., less active leisure, more sleep complaints and more preoccupation with work for the high-effort group) or only during the weekend (i.e., more overtime work and less work motivation for the high-effort group). Thus, not all workers employ the recovery opportunities offered by the weekend in a similar fashion: some seem to employ the weekend as a means to catch up with their overdue tasks. These results suggest that it would be worthwhile to study the reasons why workers differ in the way they use their weekend. Thirdly, by paying attention to employees’ activity patterns at work and outside work, we were able to show that effort expenditure at work relates to activity patterns in the home domain. Namely, high levels of effort expenditure at work were associated with less engagement in active leisure and more overtime work. This finding thus suggests that for some workers, high effort expenditure at work is not compensated by a corresponding degree of participation in recovery activities. Given that an imbalance between effort and recovery is associated with adverse health outcomes, this particular group of workers may, in the long run, be a risk group for the development of ill health. Fourthly, we demonstrated that experiences associated with engagement in work and home activities are important: higher effort investment at work is related to experiences of higher effort expenditure outside work, but not to experiences of less pleasure regarding work or home activities. Practical implications Based on our study’s results, three practical suggestions can be formulated. Firstly, adequate control opportunities in the job setting will allow workers to adjust their work behavior to their current need for recovery and, thus, to prevent the development of negative load reactions during working. Secondly, employees should be encouraged to engage in leisure activities that potentially contribute to the recovery process, such as active leisure. Finally, the time spent on overtime work should be kept within acceptable limits, as overtime work impedes the recovery process. Employers should not to demand excessive overtime work from their employees, in order to guarantee sufficient (potential) recovery time (see also Beckers et al. in press). Theoretical implications 2001