More governments are promising a ‘right to disconnect’ – but psychology affects how well we can unplug from work
- Written by Najmeh Hafezieh, Lecturer in Digital Innovation and Analytics, Royal Holloway University of London
The idea of a “right to disconnect”[1] from work is gaining traction worldwide, with countries like France[2] and Spain[3] enacting laws to protect workers from the demands of the digital age. The UK government has also indicated[4] it will do the same.
In Australia, recent legislation[5] aims to give employees in large- or medium-sized businesses the right to switch off from attempts to contact them outside work hours. And the same law will be applied to small businesses (fewer than 15 employees) in August 2025. But is it enough?
We conducted a research study[6] into how employees perceive and respond to the demands of constant connectivity. We focused on academics from Australia, using in-depth interviews about their experiences.
Our findings reveal that our ability to disconnect from work is complicated, and depends on our psychology. The way workers perceive constant connectivity significantly influences their ability to disengage.
Among our participants, we found three distinct models of thinking about constant connectivity. These models affected how workers felt about making themselves available to work, and as such had a bearing on how good they were at unplugging. This suggests that being able to disconnect goes beyond just work demands. Our psychology plays a big part too.
Three perceptions of constant connectivity
1. Constant connectivity as a resource
A number of employees perceive constant connectivity as a tool that empowers them, making it easier to collaborate with colleagues, respond quickly to work tasks, access real-time data, and work flexibly from different locations.
2. Constant connectivity as a challenge
Others view constant connectivity as a burden, leading to increased workload, pressure to respond immediately and a sense of being overwhelmed by the need to always be available.
3. Constant connectivity as a balance
This group recognises both the benefits and drawbacks. They mainly experience the mental challenge of balancing the advantages of flexibility and access with the struggles of distraction and overload. However, they often find it difficult to maintain this balance.
Managing the boundaries
The model that you most closely align with significantly influences how you manage the boundaries between work and personal life.
The first group, which perceives constant connectivity as a resource, reported that they can manage it by regulating their availability. By setting personal boundaries and being disciplined about when and how they connect, they are able to maintain productivity without letting work overwhelm their personal time.
However, there’s still a risk of work-life conflict if they don’t uphold the boundaries.
The second group, which views it as a challenge, may experience stress and anxiety. They may feel unable to escape work demands. This group feels that the system itself and the unwritten norms put pressure on them to remain connected outside work hours.
Such pressure can make people feel obliged to be constantly available. This makes it even more challenging for workers to disengage and maintain a healthy balance between their professional and personal lives.
The third group faces a unique struggle, navigating the tension between the benefits and drawbacks of constant connectivity. While they may recognise the importance of setting boundaries, they often find it challenging to maintain them.
Strategies like turning off notifications at home or setting specific times for checking emails are helpful, but the underlying pressure to stay connected can make these difficult to stick to. This pressure is often reinforced by workplace norms and expectations, which can make employees feel guilty or anxious about disconnecting, even outside of work hours.
These findings have important implications for the right-to-disconnect movement. While legislation is a crucial step, it’s not a silver bullet. The right to disconnect is essential, but simply implementing policies and laws isn’t enough[8] to change entrenched behaviour and unwritten norms.
For meaningful change, companies must encourage a culture that supports and enforces these rules, ensuring that employees feel that it’s acceptable to set boundaries without fear of repercussions.
This means valuing work-life balance and supporting employees in setting boundaries for themselves. It also means providing training not only for employees but also for managers, who can play a big part in influencing unwritten norms. And it involves providing resources, like contingency cover for when someone is off or flexible working if they have an unforeseen domestic situation, for example.
The right to disconnect is not just about legal protections. It’s about changing managers’ mindsets and empowering employees to take control of their work-life boundaries. By understanding the complexities of constant connectivity, organisations can create a healthier and more sustainable work environment for everyone.
References
- ^ “right to disconnect” (theconversation.com)
- ^ France (www.connexionfrance.com)
- ^ Spain (healthy-workplaces.osha.europa.eu)
- ^ indicated (www.bbc.co.uk)
- ^ recent legislation (www.fairwork.gov.au)
- ^ a research study (www.tandfonline.com)
- ^ ARVD73/Shutterstock (www.shutterstock.com)
- ^ isn’t enough (www.theguardian.com)
