The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0265-671X.htm

Digital service
QUALITY PAPER quality and
A conceptual model of the occupational
stress
relationship between
organisational intelligence traits
and digital government service Received 28 October 2021
Revised 28 February 2022

quality: the role Accepted 7 March 2022

of occupational stress
Subashini Ramakrishnan, Meng Seng Wong, Myint Moe Chit and
Dilip S. Mutum
Nottingham University Business School, University of Nottingham Malaysia,
Semenyih, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – This paper presents a conceptual model that links digital government service quality with
organisational intelligence (OI) traits and occupational stress among the service providers in the public sector.
Design/methodology/approach – This is a conceptual paper that carries out a systematic review of the key
literature from 1978 to 2021, concerning the evolution of models, scales and dimensions attributing to digital
government service quality, OI traits and occupational stress. Following this, a new conceptual model is
proposed to reflect the need of today’s public service delivery from a broader perspective.
Findings – Based on the reviews of the existing models, there is no convincing evidence of the existence of a
conceptual model that incorporates digital government service quality, OI traits and occupational stress from
the public service providers’ viewpoint. Therefore, a conceptual model, with occupational stress acting as a
mediator between various OI traits and digital government service quality, is presented as a comprehensive
framework to heighten the quality of the public service delivery.
Originality/value – This paper explores the gap in the current service quality studies and proposes a
conceptual model that is more reflective of today’s public service delivery. Firstly, it helps better understand
digital government service quality from a much less focused area, the supply side (service providers) standpoint
as opposed to the demand side (citizen) viewpoint (citizen). Secondly, it extends the understanding of performance
and evaluation of public service delivery from perspectives such as knowledge utilisation, strategic alignment
and participatory decision-making. Thirdly, it extends the literature on digital service quality from a non-
technological perspective, as to how it is influenced by employees’ psychological well-being factors.
Keywords Organisational intelligence, Digital government, Digital government service quality, Occupational
stress, Digital service providers
Paper type Conceptual paper

1. Introduction
The public organisations today are expected to embrace inclusivity and participatory
approaches in the decision-making, service design and delivery process (United Nations,
2020). Similar to private organisations, the public organisations deal with variety of
stakeholders with conflicting demands from the citizen, businesses, non-governmental
organisations and government agencies (Cohen and Kotorov, 2016). Hence, the need to
improve accessibility, efficiency and users’ satisfaction of public service delivery is the
ultimate panacea to address these demands (Kuzey et al., 2019; S
a et al., 2016). International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management
In understanding the mechanism of public service operation in today’s complex © Emerald Publishing Limited
0265-671X
environment, it is important to perceive the public service as an open system. This is in line DOI 10.1108/IJQRM-10-2021-0371
IJQRM with the public service-dominant logic that emphasises the importance of engagement and
co-production with service users, innovation and digitalisation of public services (Osborne et
al., 2014), aimed at addressing current challenges faced by the public organisation in the new
public governance era. Complementary to this, the recent Covid-19 pandemic is an ultimate
bullet that is forcibly demanding the government to accelerate the transformation of their
business processes via information and communication technology (ICT) approach (Agostino
et al., 2020; United Nations, 2020; Visvizi and Lytras, 2020).
Nevertheless, the increasing growth of digital service initiatives in the public sector
domain has resulted in much concern on the service quality, as it ensures continuous use by
the users (Nishant et al., 2019). The importance of examining service quality is apparent, as it
is regarded as a major driver contributing to heightened users’ satisfaction (Najjar, 2020;
Namin, 2017). Hence, digitalisation requires the creation of the right environment for
desirable changes to occur, and thus requires an examination of a wide range of antecedents
contributing to better public service quality (Alcaide-Mu~ noz and Bol
ıvar, 2015; Curtis, 2019).
This includes the right equilibrium between the “voice of the users” (demand side) with the
“voice of the provider” (supply side) in designing public digital services (Shareef et al., 2015;
Wong, 2019).
However, most studies on service quality or electronic governance are more customer-
centric in nature, and thus service providers’ context has not been examined to a similar
extent as the customers’ standpoint (Arias and Macada, 2018; Stiakakis and Georgiadis, 2009;
Elsheikh and Azzeh, 2014). As a result, organisational factors such as back-office
development and e-governance-related strategies are indeed crucial despite not being
given much emphasis in service quality studies (United Nations, 2020; Hooda and Singla,
2020). As such, modern approaches including organisational intelligence (OI) practice is a
valuable commodity, as it aids the organisation to promote the process of learning and
inculcate participatory management as well as stakeholder engagement in adapting to its
environment and improving organisations performance (Albrecht, 2003; Osborne et al., 2014;
Stenvall and Virtanen, 2017).
Despite wide recognitions on these approaches in providing value-added service to the
users (Albrecht, 2003; Curtis, 2019), conflicting outcomes have also been reported. For
instance, heightened practices such as joint decision-making and shared responsibility have
not been necessarily linked to organisational performance improvement, but rather caused
stressful pattern of work (Han et al., 2020; Ogbonnaya and Messersmith, 2018; Ogbonnaya,
2019). This is due to increased complexity of tasks and continuous need to upgrade skills,
resulting from amplified use of participatory management and computerisation (Beyza and
Evenstad, 2018; Mohd Yunus and Mahajar, 2011). In fact, those working in the public
administration sector are the second largest group after health and education sector, who
suffer from anxiety at workplace (International Labour Organisation, 2016). Consequently,
occupational health issues lead to declined performance and productivity as well as poor
service quality (Beyza and Evenstad, 2018; Kelloway and Myers, 2019; Ogbonnaya, 2019).
Taking arguments from previous studies, this paper aims to propose a conceptual model
that contributes to the understanding of digital government service quality incorporating
both technological and sociological perspectives. Specifically, it focuses on the supply side
(service providers) context, acknowledging the underlying organisational and employee
factors to attain systemic qualities. As such, OI traits along with occupational stress elements
will be examined, regarding how they can be incorporated into a conceptual model that can
represent a comprehensive framework to heighten the quality of the public service delivery.
The paper is structured as follows. Firstly, it highlights the method used in eliciting the
key literature reviews. Following this, it discusses the review of related literature on the link
among digital government service quality, OI traits and occupational stress. Next, it further
reviews models, scales and dimensions of each variable which contributes to the development
of the conceptual model. The final part discusses the theoretical and practical contributions, Digital service
limitations of the study and some recommendations for future study. quality and
occupational
2. Methodology stress
A systematic literature review was carried out to identify key studies pertaining to the
variables examined in this paper, namely, OI traits, service quality and occupational stress.
Essentially, systematic review requires priori strategies to search the literature, with
predefined criteria for included and excluded studies (Atkinson and Cipriani, 2018). Despite
vast volume of published research available, searching the literature can be challenging,
without an effective search strategy (Hopewell et al., 2007).
The first step involves the development of search strategy by identifying sources to elicit
the information and keywords to be used to perform the search (Atkinson and Cipriani, 2018).
This review employed three main journal databases – Scopus, Google Scholar and NuSearch
(searching platform under the University of Nottingham). To find the specific model and
scales for each variable, key terms such as “organisational intelligence”, “intelligent
organisation”, “smart organisation”, “knowledge organisation” and “high performing
organisation” were used to search for OI models. Similarly, “job stress”, “work-related
stress”, “job burnout” and “occupational stress” were used to identify best matches for
models relating to occupational stress. As for the digital government service quality, terms
such as “e-government service quality”, “digital government service quality” and “digital
service performance” were used to perform the search. This paper only included materials in
the English language comprising digital and non-digital service applied in both public and
non-public organisations setting. Following this, relevant models and scales were identified
from as early as 1978 up to recent years of 2021. In total, 249 materials on OI, 526 on
occupational stress and 404 on digital government service quality were retrieved from all the
three platforms. After the screening process, elimination was performed on duplicating and
irrelevant materials that were not focusing on model and scale development. Hence, 18 OI
models, 20 digital service quality models and 12 stress models were included in this review.
Next, key literature on the linkages among the variables were identified to serve as a
foundation to proposing the conceptual model. Hence, query string was formed to perform
search of the relevant articles (Delgado-Rodr
ıgueza and Sillero-Arenas, 2018) as follows:
ALL (“organi*ational intelligence” OR “intelligent organi*ation” OR “learning
organisation” OR “knowledge based organi*ation*” OR “smart organi*ation” OR “high
performing organi*ation*”) AND (“service quality” OR “digital service* quality” OR “online
service* quality” OR “electronic service* quality” OR “e-service* quality” OR “digital
government service quality” OR “e-government service quality” OR “digital service
performance”) AND (“occupational stress” OR “job stress” OR “work* stress” OR “job
burnout” OR “psychological well-being”)
The search only returned three results under Google Scholar platform. Other platforms
did not produce any result. In addition to this, OI traits were also searched by its individual
trait constituting the whole concept of OI, such as leadership, knowledge deployment,
stakeholder engagement and strategic vision, to examine their linkages to service quality and
occupational stress. Relevant articles elicited are presented in Table 1 under Section 3.

3. Reviews of literature
The theoretical and empirical background of the respective variables is discussed in the
following sections. First, the link between OI traits and occupational stress is discussed in
detail. This is followed by discussion on the link between occupational stress and digital
government service quality. Finally, possible link among the three variables is deliberated.
IJQRM No Source Description Key variables

1 Parker and Decotiis (1983) Study on the relationships between Work stressors, job stress,
work stressors, first-level outcome organisational commitment, job
(job stress) and second-level satisfaction, avoidance behaviour,
outcomes (varying levels of job performance
satisfaction, organisational
commitment, motivation and
performance)
2 Montgomery et al. (2011) A new conceptual approach as to Hospital culture, employees’
how organisational culture and burnout, hospital performance
quality of care can be more
effectively linked through the
physician experience of burnout
3 Montgomery et al. (2013) Study on the link between Organisational culture, job
organisational culture, job burnout burnout, service quality
and the service quality in the
health care sectors
4 Samadzadeh (2013) Study on the effects of work stress, Work stress, general health,
general health, organisational organisational intelligence, job
intelligence and job satisfaction on satisfaction, employee performance
employee performance
5 Garg and Dhar (2014) Study of organisational Job stress, leader–member
antecedents (job stress, leader– exchange, perceived organisational
member exchange, perceived support, organisational
organisational support, commitment, service quality
organisational commitment) on
service quality
6 Tongchaiprasita and Assessment of the relationships Creativity, job satisfaction, job
Ariyabuddhiphongs (2016) among creativity, job satisfaction, stress, turnover intention
job stress and turnover intention
among chefs
7 Elmadag and Ellinger Study on the influences of reward Reward approaches, job stress,
(2018) approaches on job stress, commitment, customer orientation
commitment to the organisation
and customer orientation
8 Koay et al. (2017) Study on the relationships between Employees’ private demand, job
private demands, job stress and stress, cyber-loafing practice
cyber-loafing
9 Mahfooz et al. (2017) Examination of the crucial role of Workplace incivility and ostracism,
workplace incivility and ostracism burnout and job stress,
in employees’ turnover intentions psychological capital, employees’
by concentrating the mediating turnover intentions
role of burnout and job stress and
moderating influence of
psychological capital at health
sector
10 Karatepe et al. (2018) Examination of the effects of Organisational resources, personal
Table 1. organisational and personal resources, stress, engagement, job
Past studies linking OI resources on stress, engagement outcomes
traits with and job outcomes
occupational stress and
service quality (continued )
No Source Description Key variables
Digital service
quality and
11 Malik et al. (2021) Evaluation of the relationships Supervisor aggression, customer occupational
between supervisor and customer- aggression, vigour, job stress
initiated psychological aggression stress
and vigour across time, and the
mediating role of job stress in these
relationships
12 Ogi

nska-Bulik and Study on the mediating role of job Psychological resilience, job
Michalska (2021) burnout in the relationship burnout, secondary traumatic
between psychological resilience stress
and secondary traumatic stress
among nurses
13 Benitez et al. (2021) Assessment of the mediating role Interpersonal conflicts, job
of two main aspects of work- satisfaction, burnout, service
related well-being in the unit (job quality
satisfaction and burnout) on the
relationship between interpersonal
conflicts in the unit and customers’
perceptions of service quality Table 1.

3.1 OI traits in relation to occupational stress

Pursuit of efficiency has become an ultimate norm for most public and private organisations
today. Mixed responses from previous research studies on the association between OI
practice and occupational stress were observed. For instance, organisational approaches
such as the high-performing work system (HPWS) practices are proven to heighten
employees’ autonomy, skills, knowledge, motivation and opportunity to excel, leading
towards overall enhancement performance and well-being (Pak and Kim, 2018; Shin and
Konrad, 2017; Zhang and Morris, 2014). Conversely, some other studies suggest that these
management practices do not actually serve any purpose to enhance the well-being of the
employees, but rather focus on achieving organisational performance goal (Ogbonnaya,
2019). While HPWS is aimed at enhancing employee’s performance by intensifying
employees’ knowledge, skills and abilities, the positive effect tends to deteriorate upon
intensification of the practices (Han et al., 2020).
The mixed outcome above can probably be best explained from the lens of job demand
and resources (JD-R), regarding how each OI traits can act as either job demand or resources
in various organisational setting, contributing to job stress and burnout. Possible link
between each OI trait and occupational stress is discussed below.
3.1.1 Strategic vision and decision-making and occupational stress among service providers.
Organisational processes such as continuous reforms and top-down decision-making
approach have been linked to stress and burnout among the employees (Montgomery et al.,
2013). Conversely, clear expression of organisational strategic vision and higher involvement
of employees in decision-making process were reported to contribute lower level of job stress
(Boxall and Macky, 2014; Sree Lekshmi, 2020). Ogbonnaya (2019), and Wood et al. (2012)
asserted that high-involvement management practice was associated to increased level of
anxiety among employees. As a result of mixed outcome from previous literature, it is
important to understand how strategic vision and decision-making in intelligent organisation
affect occupational stress among service providers.
3.1.2 Shared fate and occupational stress among the service providers. Shared fate is an
element that is employee-centred, and hence it is apparent that these values will have positive
outcome on employees (Sree Lekshmi, 2020). Similarly, the level of trust towards management
is associated with techno-distress level (Rodriguez and Choudrie, 2021). Nevertheless, the
IJQRM element of trust towards management was found to have no significant relationship with
both “time stress” and “anxiety” (Parker and Decotiis, 1983). The same study also
demonstrated that interpersonal relationship such as cohesiveness within organisation was
negatively associated with “time stress” among employees. The link between the two
variables is apparent, despite being inconsistent in its outcome. Hence, the influence of shared
fate on occupational stress is incorporated in this model.
3.1.3 Appetite for change and occupational stress among the service providers.
Organisational culture, as in the desire to transform and innovate, was found to play its
role on employees’ psychological well-being too (Riezebos and Huisman, 2021). Organisations
with vertical hierarchy and low innovation drive were asserted to have shown increased
techno-distress level among employees (Rodriguez and Choudrie, 2021). Similarly, Sree
Lekshmi (2020) emphasised the importance of efficiency, effectiveness and innovative in
problem-solving, regarding how it helps to create positive impact on employees’ well-being.
Surprisingly, contradicting pattern was observed in earlier studies, where encouragement for
innovation in the organisation demonstrated insignificant correlation with both “time stress”
and “anxiety” (Parker and Decotiis, 1983). To further understand this link, the influence of
“appetite for change” on occupational stress would be examined as part of conceptual model.
3.1.4 Knowledge deployment and occupational stress among the service providers. The
association between knowledge deployment processes, (such as knowledge sharing, training
for career and personal growth), and occupational stress, has been examined in several
studies. In today’s organisation with HPWS, the need to produce employees with high
knowledge, skills and attitude has led to both positive and negative outcomes on employees’
psychological well-being (Han et al., 2020). For instance, Pak and Kim (2018) as well as Shin
and Konrad (2017) reported inculcation of positive behaviour among employees as a result
from knowledge intensification process. On the other hand, similar approaches were found to
have caused fatigue and stress among the workers (Boxall and Macky, 2014). Significant and
negative correlation was also reported between training and development programme with
both “time stress” and “anxiety” (Parker and Decotiis, 1983). Hence, the association between
these variables will be examined.
3.1.5 Performance pressure and occupational stress among the service providers.
Performance pressure element such as effort-reward system, role conflict and
performance-based pay were found to yield mixed outcome on employees’ stress and
burnout level. For instance, compensation scheme, performance-based pay and supervisors’
support demonstrated significant but negative correlation with employees’ “time stress” level
(Parker and Decotiis, 1983). Surprisingly, the same study reported that recognition and role
conflict in the organisation were insignificant in their correlation with “time stress”. Parker
and Decotiis (1983) also reported insignificant association between recognition,
compensation scheme and closeness of supervision with “anxiety” level among employees.
Conversely, role conflict, role overload and intensified work system signified positive
correlation with anxiety, fatigue and stress among the employees (Boxall and Macky, 2014;
Jensen et al., 2013; Parker and Decotiis, 1983). Other elements such as performance-based pay
and supervisors’ support showed insignificant correlation with the anxiety level in earlier
study (Parker and Decotiis, 1983), while role clarity had a significant association with stress
(Wood et al., 2019). Various outcomes on the link between performance pressure and
occupational stress in previous studies have prompted the inclusion of this association in
this model.
3.1.6 Alignment and Congruence and occupational stress among the service providers.
Mixed responses were reported based on the previous studies on the association between
alignment and congruence elements such as organisational structure, work processes,
communication style and autonomy on job stress. Parker and Decotiis (1983) reported that
formalisation and centralisation approach in the organisation did not have any significant
association with “time stress”. However, communication openness and autonomy were Digital service
shown to negatively correlate with “time stress”. Likewise, formalisation process quality and
demonstrated negative correlation with “anxiety”, while centralisation, communication
openness and autonomy were insignificant with regard to anxiety. This contradicts similar
occupational
study conducted among employees utilising ICT tools during Covid-19 pandemic, where stress
centralisation and vertical organisation structure were found to positively influence
technostress level (Rodriguez and Choudrie, 2021). Thus, the link between these two variables
is apparent and will be incorporated into the proposed model.
3.1.7 Heart and occupational stress among the service providers. Heart denotes the
willingness of the employee to give more than expected in accomplishing organisation’s
mission (Albrecht, 2003). Hence, increasing employees’ organisational citizenship was found to
decrease burnout among employees (Yusuf and Ayse Sezin, 2013). It is also interesting to note
that employees engaging in citizenship behaviours, as in personal initiatives or sacrifices, were
said to more likely experience emotional exhaustion (Potipiroona and Faerman, 2020).
The “heart” element is also influenced by the employees’ optimism towards management,
in terms of career growth and work-life balance. Parker and Decotiis (1983) concluded that
time spent at work had a significant and positive correlation on both “time stress” and
“anxiety”. Conversely, the same study also asserted that heightened concern for employees
lowered both “time stress” and “anxiety”, while trust towards management had a non-
significant association with both dimensions of occupational stress. Also, relationship within
the organisation and peer support demonstrated significant association with organisational
stress (Riezebos and Huisman, 2021; Wood et al., 2019). Hence, the link between heart and
occupational stress dimensions will be included in this model to further understand its
outcome in the public sector setting.
3.1.8 Leadership and occupational stress among the service providers. Studies on the
correlation between leadership elements and occupational stress also showed mixed
outcomes as other OI traits. For instance, early study by Parker and Decotiis (1983) showed
that top management that is out of touch demonstrated significant and positive relationship
with both “time stress” and “anxiety”. Essentially, employees’ occupational stress level is
negatively associated with leadership style that portrays fairness, honesty and
trustworthiness (Schwepker and Dimitriau, 2021). Similarly, over-controlling leaders along
with imbalance sharing of power between leaders and employees signified causal effects on
stress (Malik et al., 2021). Since leadership style has affected the employees’ stress in various
ways, the link between the leadership in OI context and occupational stress including “time
stress” and “anxiety” will be incorporated in this model.

3.2 Occupational stress in relation to digital government service quality

People are the core element who constitute organisations. Johri and Aggarwal (2016)
elaborated that employees are the only treasured resources, who can convert data,
information, knowledge into valuable intelligence for the organisation. Thus, the role of
employees in boosting organisational and service performance is crucial, as happier
employees perform better (Evenstad, 2018; Krekel et al., 2019). Nevertheless, prioritisation of
the employees’ well-being is often neglected or given less attention, as it has been regarded as
resource-intensive approach (Krekel et al., 2019).
Narrowing down to empirical evidence, many studies have indeed agreed on the strong
and positive correlation between employees’ well-being at work and organisational
performance (Krekel et al., 2019; Ogbonnoya, 2019). Earlier organisational model of stress
(Parker and Decotiis, 1983) suggested that job stress will not necessarily lead to lower job
performance all the time, as it is influenced by other factors such as intensity of the stress and
coping mechanism as well. As such, prolonged and intensive stress level will increase the
likelihood of lower job performance.
IJQRM The link between psychological well-being and organisational performance was also
reflected in the JD-R theory that postulated that employees exhibiting higher morale, less
work-related stress, better emotional state and greater job satisfaction will contribute to
higher productivity and better organisational and service performance (Bakker and
Demerouti, 2017; Bryson et al., 2017). Similarly, employees with poor well-being will
demonstrate symptoms such as job strain, which will negatively impact the job performance
(Bakker and Demerouti, 2017). As the link between job stress and organisational is somewhat
clear in most organisational setting, the effect of occupational stress including “time stress”
and “anxiety” among the service providers on digital government service quality is worth
examining, and thus will be incorporated as part of the model.

3.3 Linking OI traits, occupational stress and digital government service quality
With regard to the theoretical perspectives, the linkages between OI traits, occupational
stress and service quality are well depicted in the organisational model of stress (Parker and
Decotiis, 1983). Looking through the lens of this model, OI traits can be well represented as
organisational stressors that may lead to job stress or to the first-level outcome and
eventually affect service performance or second-level outcome. Since it is rather an old model,
we incorporate it with the JD-R theory to illustrate the impact of OI traits on job stress along
with public service-dominant theory to reflect the complexity of service delivery in today’s
new public governance era.
This is further supported by empirical evidence that examined the linkages of all these
three variables in the same context as this paper intends to pursue. Despite unavailability of
literature in its entirety, there were studies that have incorporated some of these traits
discretely in understanding how organisational factors such as organisational culture,
leadership, reward system and organisational resources influence job stress and eventually
affect performance and service quality in general setting (Elmada g and Ellinger, 2018;
Montgomery et al., 2013; Karatepe et al., 2018). Some of the studies that examined these links
are presented in Table 1. Following this, possible association between all the three variables
can be hypothesised.

4. Development of conceptual model

Following discussion on the link between variables, this section will review the existing
models and dimensions for each variable, and, lastly, conceptualisation of the
proposed model.

4.1 OI models
OI models were built upon relevant theories and empirical basis that have been validated in
various organisational setting (Falletta and Combs, 2018). Some have been leveraged at
individual level (Dealtry, 2004; Yolles, 2005), while some are more inclined to organisational
level (Albrecht, 2003; Falletta, 2008). Hence, intelligence can be perceived from either singular
individual or from plurality of individuals that constitute collective intelligence (Yolles, 2005).
At the same time, some have incorporated OI antecedents with organisational processes into
the model (Travica, 2015; Virtanen and Vakkuri, 2015).
In the public sector context, there are very limited OI models constructed to reflect public
organisations as intelligent organisations. One of those models has incorporated six public
sector organisational features generating OI in facilitating the service delivery
implementation (Stenvall and Virtanen, 2017). On the other hand, Schmidt (2015) expanded
the scope of OI models in the context of public sector by proposing a model that can
implement a practical foresight function. Specifically, organisational policy, planning and
intelligence functions were incorporated with the foresight functions, aimed at facilitating the Digital service
process of organisational decision-making. Nevertheless, the intelligence functions are not quality and
depicted in a form of traits or antecedents as demonstrated in other models. List of OI models
reviewed in this paper is presented in Table 2. Most frequently used dimensions in OI models
occupational
are tabulated in Table 3. stress

4.2 Service quality models

In early years, the dimensions of the service quality models were largely focused on banking
and retailing industries (Pinho and Macedo, 2008). Hence, some researchers contemplated
whether digital government service model can adopt and adapt to any of the other existing
models on service quality (Broderick and Vachirapornpuk, 2002; Santos, 2003).
Similar to private entities, the service quality models of the public service perspective
measure the extent to which service portals enable the delivery of services efficiently to meet
the users’ expectation. Most often, research on digital government service quality revolves
around service quality, information quality and organisation quality (Hien, 2014). While
service quality measures how well a delivered service fulfils the users’ expectation (Hien,
2014), information quality is referred to as information that matches the users’ requirements
(Kahn et al., 2002) or rather as fit for use by the service users (Cardoso et al., 2004). The
organisation quality, which is a less frequently used dimension, represents internal processes
within the organisation itself (Hien, 2014). Despite some common attributes demonstrated in
both public and non-public organisation service quality models, elements such as
transparency and openness, as well as participation and engagement, are the distinctive
attributes of public organisation models (Karkin and Janssen, 2014; Lee-Geiller and Lee, 2019;
United Nations, 2020).
It is also important to note that service quality has been assessed from both supply and
demand side. Supply side represents internal perspective, while demand side denotes
external perspective (Ishikawa, 1991; Bhuiyan, 2011). Despite these differences, both supply

OI models Author and Year

Non-public service organisation

Weisbord’s six-box model Weisbord (1978)
Model of org. performance and change Matsuda (1992)
The causal model of OI Burke and Litwin (1992)
Framework for the design of intelligent organisations Schwaninger (2001)
Nine principles of the smart organisation Matheson and Matheson (2001)
OI model Halal (2002)
The inherent structure and dynamic of intelligent human organisations Liang (2002)
OI model Albrecht (2003)
Strategic model of intelligence (PPP model) Dealtry (2004)
The model of social community intelligence Yolles (2005)
OI model Cronquist (2006)
OI model Falletta (2008)
High-performing organisation scores model Blanchard (2010)
OI business logic model Silber and Kearny (2010)
OI model Travica (2015)
Public service organisation Table 2.
Knowledge management-OI model De Angelis (2013) OI models in the public
Integrated OI model Schmidt (2015) and non-public service
OI model Stenvall and Virtanen (2017) organisation context
IJQRM Dimensions Sources

Leadership Weisbord (1978), Halal (2002), Burke and Litwin (1992), Falletta and Combs
(2018), Schwaninger (2019), Blanchard (2010), Stenvall and Virtanen (2017)
Strategic vision and decision- Weisbord (1978), Burke and Litwin (1992), Matheson and Matheson (2001),
making Halal (2002), Albrecht (2003), Falletta (2008), Schwaninger (2001, 2019),
Cronquist (2006), Blanchard (2010), Silber and Kearny (2010), Yolles and
Fink (2011), De Angelis (2013), Stenvall and Virtanen (2017)
Appetite for change/ Matheson and Matheson (2001), Albrecht (2003), Falletta (2008),
Organisation culture Schwaninger (2019), Blanchard (2010), De Angelis (2013), Travica (2015)
Alignment and congruence Weisbord (1978), Burke and Litwin (1992), Halal (2002), Albrecht (2003),
Falletta (2008), Schwaninger (2001, 2019), Cronquist (2006), Matheson and
Matheson (2001), Blanchard (2010), Silber and Kearny (2010), De Angelis
(2013), Travica (2015), Stenvall and Virtanen (2017)
Performance pressure Burke and Litwin (1992), Halal (2002), Albrecht (2003), Falletta (2008),
Schwaninger (2001), Cronquist (2006), Blanchard (2010), Travica (2015),
Stenvall and Virtanen (2017)
Knowledge deployment Halal (2002), Albrecht (2003), Cronquist (2006), Blanchard (2010), Falletta
(2008), De Angelis (2013), Travica (2015), Dyduch and Bratnicki (2016),
Stenvall and Virtanen (2017)
Heart/Work commitment and Burke and Litwin (1992), Albrecht (2003), Falletta (2008), Yolles and Fink
engagement (2011), Stenvall and Virtanen (2017), Schwaninger (2019)
Shared fate Weisbord (1978), Burke and Litwin (1992), Halal (2002), Albrecht (2003),
Cronquist (2006), Falletta (2008), Yolles and Fink (2011), Schwaninger
Table 3. (2001, 2019)
Dimensions of existing Motivations and rewards Weisbord (1978), Cronquist (2006), Falletta (2008)
OI models Stakeholder relationship Halal (2002), Silber and Kearny (2010), Stenval and Virtanen (2017)

and demand sides share similar attributes which constitute service quality, depicting the
internal and external users’ perception and expectation. These include attributes such as the
functioning of the site, ease of use, information quality and security (Stiakakis and
Georgiadis, 2009). Nevertheless, the supply-side studies acknowledge the underlying basis to
attain systemic qualities, which include coordination and communication between
departments, organisational culture and management support (Curtis, 2019; Rose et al.,
2019; United Nations, 2020). The list of existing service quality models built in the public and
non-public organisations setting from both supply and demand side context is illustrated in
Table 4. The frequently used dimensions in digital government service quality models are
summarised in Table 5.

4.3 Occupational stress models

Research on general stress and occupational stress is often steered by various models.
According to Parker and Decotiis (1983), studies on stress are primarily based on three
perspectives: individual differences, environmental factors and some combination of the two.
Another scholar, Shea and De Ciere (2011) postulated that there are few approaches that can
be taken in understanding stress at workplace. These include direct measurement to
associate experienced stress to job design or workplace conditions, general measurement of
stress that does not necessarily associate the cause of stress to the workplace and lastly via
manifestation of the stress itself such as burnout.
When it comes to dimensions and scales, it generally consists of scales with perceived and
objective measures of stressful events. In this sense, both measures have its pros and cons,
depending on the context of its usage and setting. Essentially, the objective measurement
scales comprise simple measurement procedures, allow estimation of heightened risk for
Service quality models Author and Year Model perspective
Digital service
quality and
Non-public organisation occupational
e-SERVQUAL Zeithaml et al. (2000) Demand
E-quality Madu and Madu (2002) Demand stress
e-Service quality Santos (2003) Demand
E-service operations Surjadjaja et al. (2003) Supply
ASP-QUAL Sigala (2004) Supply
E-S-QUAL and E-RecS-QUAL Parasuraman et al. (2005) Supply
eTransQual Bauer et al. (2005) Demand
PeSQ Cristobal et al. (2007) Demand
Online service quality Nusair and Kandampully (2008) Demand
E-service quality Stiakakis and Georgiadis (2009) Supply
System quality dimensions Cho and Menor (2009) Supply
Sustainable e-service quality model Stamenkov and Dika (2015) Supply and demand
Public organisation
E-business-SERVQUAL Lai (2006) Supply
e-Government service quality Alanezi et al. (2010) Demand
e-GSQA Zaidi and Qteishat (2012) Demand
E-GovQual Papadomichelaki and Mentzas (2012) Demand Table 4.
Website evaluation metrics Karkin and Janssen (2014) Demand Digital service quality
E-Gov service quality Hien (2014) Demand model perspective in
Public e-services quality Jansen and Olnes (2016) Demand public and non-public
Local online service index (UNEGDI) United Nations (2020) Supply organisation

Dimensions Sources

Reliability Alanezi et al. (2010), Papadomichelaki and Mentzas (2012), Karunasena and
Deng (2012), Hien (2014), Jiang and Ji (2014), Shareef et al. (2015), S
a et al.
(2016), Karkin and Janssen (2014), Li and Shang (2020), Lee-Geiller and Lee
(2019), United Nations (2020)
Usability and functionality Alanezi et al. (2010), Papadomichelaki et al. (2006), Karunasena and Deng
(2012), Hien (2014), Jiang and Ji (2014), Shareef et al. (2015), S
a et al. (2016),
Karkin and Janssen (2014), Jansen and Ølnes (2016), Li and Shang (2020),
United Nations (2020)
Responsiveness and customer Alanezi et al. (2010), Papadomichelaki and Mentzas (2012), Karunasena and
support Deng (2012), Hien (2014), Jiang and Ji (2014), Karkin and Janssen (2014),
Shareef et al. (2015), S
a et al. (2016), Li and Shang (2020), Jansen and Ølnes
(2016), United Nations (2020)
Assurance and trust Alanezi et al. (2010), Papadomichelaki and Mentzas (2012), Hien (2014), Jiang
and Ji (2014), Shareef et al. (2015), S
a et al. (2016), Jansen and Ølnes (2016), Li
and Shang (2020), Lee-Geiller and Lee (2019), United Nations (2020)
Efficiency Papadomichelaki and Mentzas (2012), Karunasena and Deng (2012), United
Nations (2020)
Transparency and openness Karkin and Janssen (2014), S
a et al. (2016), Lee-Geiller and Lee (2019), United
Nations (2020)
Accessibility United Nations (2020), Papadomichelaki et al. (2006), Karkin and Janssen
(2014), Li and Shang (2020), S
a et al. (2016), United Nations (2020)
Citizen participation and Karkin and Janssen (2014), S
a et al. (2016), Lee-Geiller and Lee (2019), United
engagement Nations (2020)
Top management support Hien (2014) Table 5.
External and internal Hien (2014) Digital government
communication service quality
ICT infrastructure United Nations (2020), Karunasena and Deng (2012) dimensions
IJQRM disease linked with the incidence of easily recognisable events and thus minimise the
likelihood of multiple subjective biases in the perceptions and reporting of events (Cohen
et al., 1983). Nevertheless, this approach implied that events, which are the triggering source
of illness behaviour, are in and of themselves. In other words, it contradicts the view that
individuals actively interact with their environments, appraising possibly threatening or
challenging events with regard to the available coping resources (Lazarus, 1966, 1977).
Specifically, it suggests that stressor effects only transpire when an individual appraises the
condition as demanding or rather threatening and has inadequate available resources to cope
with it (Lazarus, 1977; Mason, 1971). Hence, personal and cognitive appraisal process
reinforced the need to measure perceived stress against or to complement the objective stress.
On another note, the combination of both the perceived stress scales and objective scales
can be utilised to determine how factors such as social support (Pearlin et al., 1981), self-
assurance (Kobasa, 1979) and locus of control (Johnson and Sarason, 1979) can guard
individuals from the impact of stressful events. Scales and dimensions used in previous
literature to define stress in both general and workplace setting are tabulated in Table 6.

Stress measurement scale Author Dimensions and Items

General population context

General health questionnaire Goldberg and Unidimensional: General health questions
Williams (1991)
The perceived stress scale Cohen (1994) Unidimensional: Perception of stress
General measure of work stress based Yankelevich et al. Unidimensional: General job stress
on the appraisal model (1966) (2011)
Working population context
Job stress scale (based on the Parker and 2 dimensions: Time stress, anxiety
organisational model of stress) Decotiis (1983)
Job demand and control measure – Jackson et al. 5 dimensions: Timing control, method control,
based on job demand-control model (1993) monitoring demand, problem solving,
(1979) production responsibility
Job stress survey Vagg and 3 dimensions: Job stress severity, job stress
Spielberger (1999) frequency and the job stress index
Pressure management indicator Williams and 3 broad dimensions: Effects of pressure,
Cooper (1998) sources of pressure, individual differences
An organisational stress screening Cartwright and 2 dimensions: Physical health, psychological
evaluation tool (The Health subscales Cooper (2002) well-being
of ASSET 2002)
The job demands-resources scale Jackson and 14 dimensions: pace and amount of work,
based on job demand-resources model Rothmann (2005) mental load, emotional load, variety in work,
(2001) opportunities to learn, independence in work,
relationships with colleagues, relationship
with immediate supervisor, ambiguities
regarding work, information,
communications, participation, contact
possibilities, uncertainty about the future,
remuneration and career possibilities
Job stress Lambert et al. Unidimensional: Job stress
Table 6. (2006)
Stress scales and Workplace stressors assessment Mahmood et al. 6 dimensions: Demand, control, support, role,
dimensions in general questionnaire (2010) rewards, relationship
and working
Job stress scale Shukla and 5 dimensions: Role conflict, anxiety, co-worker
population context
Srivastava (2016) support time, stress, work-life balance
4.4 Proposed conceptual model Digital service
The first variable in the model is the OI traits which act as predictors to other variables in the quality and
proposed model. Albrecht’s (2003) OI profile with seven dimensions was used as the basis for
developing OI traits in our model. Albrecht’s (2003) OI profile has been widely used in
occupational
measuring OI practices in the organisations (Keshavarz et al., 2018), though its use in the stress
public sector context is very limited. Besides, all the dimensions used in other models can be
well aligned to the seven dimensions of this model (Table 3). Nevertheless, an additional
dimension, “leadership”, was included based on comparisons with other OI models. Though
this dimension is implicitly embedded in the seven OI traits, it is not made explicit in
Albrecht’s model. Besides, the importance of participatory decision-making and engagement
with key stakeholders are incorporated into the “strategic vision” dimension of Albrecht’s
(2003) model in ensuring relevance of today’s public service delivery (United Nations, 2020).
Therefore, it is redefined as “strategic vision and decision-making” dimension. Overall, eight
OI traits proposed in the conceptual model are “leadership”, “strategic vision and decision
making”, “shared fate”, “appetite”, “heart”, “alignment and congruence”, “knowledge
deployment” and “performance pressure”.
The dependent variable for this model is the digital government services quality, which is
defined and conceptualised based on the service providers’ (supply) standpoint. Since supply-
side models often share similar attributes as the demand side models, e-GovQual model
(Papadomichelaki and Mentzas, 2012) with four dimensions will be adapted. At the same
time, one more dimension is included, namely “transparency”, based on the review of other
public service quality models, so it is more reflective of today’s public service delivery
demands (Karkin and Janssen, 2014; S
a et al., 2016; United Nations, 2020). Systemic quality
factors such as internal communication, management support and service design process are
not taken into considerations as these have been mostly incorporated via OI traits
dimensions. Hence, the proposed digital government service quality variable consists of five
dimensions: reliability, efficiency, assurance and trust, user support and transparency.
Lastly, we conceptualise occupational stress as perceived stress by the service providers
as a result of the role, opportunities, constraints or demands relating to potentially important
work-related outcomes (Parker and Decotiis, 1983; Shukla and Srivastava, 2016). In
understanding perceived measures of stressful events, two dimensions of the organisational
model of stress (Parker and Decotiis, 1983), namely, “time stress” and “anxiety”, are
incorporated. The occupational stress in the context of this paper is conceptualised as a
mediator between OI traits and the digital government services quality, as the mediation
itself is a causal model (MacKinnon et al., 2012). The causal effects of various OI traits on
occupational stress contributing towards the service quality were previously discussed
under Section 3.1 of this paper. Details on the proposed dimensions are explained in Table 7.
The proposed conceptual model, which links all the three variables, is presented in Figure 1.

5. Conclusion
In conclusion, this paper presents a new model to conceptualise digital government service
quality that reflects the new public governance era, by incorporating OI traits and
occupational stress to contextualise underlying systemic qualities from service providers’
spectrum. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed in the following sections.

5.1 Theoretical implications

This paper expands the spectrum of organisational model of stress, by incorporating it with
the JD-R theory and public service-dominant theory. This is to reflect the complexity of public
service delivery in today’s new public governance era and the need to assess a broader range
IJQRM Variable/Dimensions Definition Source

Organisational The extent to which an organisation mobilises Albrecht (2003), Dealtry (2004)
intelligence all its potentials and capabilities as a fully
functioning brain on achieving its mission
Leadership Leaders who have the capacity to engage the Albrecht (2003)
engine of the organisational vehicle and steer
it into the future
Strategic vision and The capacity of an organisation to create, Albrecht (2003), Falletta and
decision-making evolve and express its purpose, as well as Combs (2018), United Nations
building strong and mutually beneficial (2020)
relationships with citizens, other agencies and
interest groups in the service design and
delivery process
Shared fate It revolves around the people and stakeholder Albrecht (2003)
who have the same common purpose and
understand their roles in the organisation.
Thus, they act synergistically to accomplish
the organisational mission and vision
Appetite for change It is about the people in the organisation who Albrecht (2003)
want to reinvent the business models as a way
to react to the environment and seeking
opportunity to tackle something new
Heart The “discretionary effort” or willingness of Albrecht (2003)
employees to give over and above the level
than what they are expected to provide in
ensuring the organisational success
Knowledge The extent to which the organisation Albrecht (2003)
deployment produces, transforms, shares, organises and
applies knowledge, along with relevant
support and inspiration for new ideas and
inventions to challenge the status quo
Performance pressure The commitment of every employee to own Albrecht (2003)
the performance proposition. This implies the
sense of what needs to be accomplished and
thus accepted as a self-imposed set of mutual
expectations with the leaders for shared
success
Alignment and The structure of how the organisation is Albrecht (2003), Falletta and
congruence designed to ensure the people are organised Combs (2018)
for the mission, work and responsibilities are
properly distributed, and rules are exercised
for interaction with one another and the
environment
Occupational stress The feeling of an individual who is required to Parker and Decotiis (1983), Shukla
deviate from normal or self-desired functioning and Srivastava (2016)
at the workplace as the result of role,
opportunities, constraints or demands relating
to potentially important work-related outcomes
Time stress Related to feelings of being under substantial Parker and Decotiis (1983)
Table 7. time pressure
Definition of key Anxiety Associated with job-related feelings Parker and Decotiis (1983)
variables and
dimensions (continued )
Variable/Dimensions Definition Source
Digital service
quality and
Digital government The extent to which the performance of the Osborne et al. (2014), Hien (2014), occupational
service quality service delivery is sustained via internal process Blut (2016), United Nations (2020)
support such as constant monitoring and stress
evaluation, to ensure effective and efficient
online information search and transaction as
well as communications between the
government and the users
Reliability Sustainability of service portal ability to Parasuraman et al. (1988, 2005),
perform the promised service dependably and Papadomichelaki and Mentzas
accurately by ensuring correct functioning of (2012)
the website and speed of accessing, using and
receiving services
Efficiency Sustaining the ease of using the service portal Papsadomichelaki and Mentzas
and the quality of information it provides (2012)
Transparency The extent to which the transparency and Karkin and Janssen, (2014), Sa et al.
legality of its digital services is sustained (2016)
Assurance and trust The degree to which the citizen belief of the Papadomichelaki and Mentzas
service portal’s safety is assured, i.e. from (2012)
intrusion and personal information protection
User support The ability to sustain the quality of users Papadomichelaki and Mentzas
support when needed while experiencing (2012)
difficulties in their interaction with the service
portal Table 7.

Figure 1.
The proposed
conceptual model

of antecedents to sustain the service performance. Hence, this paper will contribute to these
three theories and models via the following approaches.
Firstly, this paper examines the “stressors” component in the organisational model of
stress from the lens of JD-R theory. Essentially, the stressors are represented by various OI
traits that can be attributed by either job demands or resources. The flexibility of the theory
was pointed out by Bakker and Demerouti (2017), regarding how certain roles or functions
represent job demands or resources in different work contexts, causing varying outcome on
psychological well-being. Hence, the outcome of this paper will not only extend the
application of organisational model of stress in different context but also enhance the
IJQRM understanding of JD-R theory regarding how various stressors or OI traits act as job
demands, or rather as job resources from the service providers’ perspective. This would need
to be empirically tested in different setting to see the nature of this stressors effect.
Secondly, it extends the scope of “second level outcome” in the organisational model of
stress from individual- to organisational-level job performance in the digital era of the public
service delivery context. The digital government service quality is examined in accordance
with the public service-dominant theory, which is in sync with the new public governance
paradigm (Osborne, 2006). As such, the importance of outward focused co-production
between the service users and producers, as well as operations management within public
organisations, to deliver efficient and effective service delivery is incorporated in this
proposed model.
Thirdly, this paper also adds value to the public service-dominant theory domain. The
theory recognises the role of employees in terms of skills and knowledge, with no attention
given to the psychological well-being factor contributing to employees’ performance in
delivering services. Therefore, this paper contributes to the existing public service-dominant
theory by introducing occupational stress component to understand the psychological well-
being factors in service delivery context.

5.2 Possible practical implications

The conceptual model presented in this paper incorporates occupational stress to examine its
mediation effect in addressing the missing link between OI and digital government service
quality. The concept presented in this paper would help officials in the public sector to
understand various OI traits that are impacting employees’ occupational stress and digital
government service quality. Further empirical testing will provide better insights in
clarifying how each OI trait influences employees’ occupational stress, regarding job
demands, or rather job resources. This will facilitate the process of employing relevant
strategies to strengthen or sustain the positive OI traits that enhance employees’
psychological well-being and organisational performance. At the same time, it will also
serve as a basis for the public sector officials to revisit the current OI practices that cause
unfavourable impact on employees’ well-being and eventually on digital government service
delivery.

5.3 Limitations and recommendations for future research

The review did not include literature other than those available in English language. Hence,
there could be important literature missed in the review process due to exclusion of this
aspect. Besides, further input could have been obtained via engagement with the service
providers using interview or focus group approach to support or enrich the development of
this model.
It is certain that public service quality models will continue to evolve, particularly in a
digital platform setting. The technological evolution such as data science will likely influence
the development of highly customised models. While an understanding of public
organisation practice is essential in conceptualising such models, it is imperative to
empirically test and validate this model in a variety of settings over time. To serve this
purpose, relevant scale needs to be developed accordingly, prior to examining the intended
associations between variables in this model empirically. The outcome of the empirical study
will provide better insights to facilitate the formulation of relevant intervention strategies in
enhancing the well-being of public service providers. A healthy organisational ecosystem
would indeed be advantageous to both employees and organisation, and thus in enhancing
public service productivity and performance.
References Digital service
Agostino, D., Arnaboldi, M. and Diaz Lema, M. (2020), “New development: COVID-19 as an accelerator quality and
of digital transformation in public service delivery”, Public Money and Management, Vol. 41
No. 1, pp. 69-72.
occupational
Alanezi, M.A., Kamil, A. and Basri, S. (2010), “A proposed instrument dimension for measuring
stress
e-government service quality”, International Journal of U- & E-Service, Science and Technology,
Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 1-18.
Albrecht, K. (2003), The Power of Minds at Work: Organizational Intelligence in Action, American
Management Association, Amacom Books, New York.
Alcaide-Mu~noz, L. and Bol
ıvar, M.P.R. (2015), “Understanding e-government Research: a perspective
from the information and library science field of knowledge”, Internet Research, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 633-673.
Arias, M.I. and Maçada, A.C.G. (2018), “Digital government for e-government service quality: a
literature review [Paper presentation]”, ICEGOV ’18, Galway, Ireland.
Atkinson, L.Z. and Cipriani, A. (2018), “How to carry out a literature search for a systematic review: a
practical guide”, BJPsych Advances, Vol. 24, pp. 74-82.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2017), “Job demands-resources theory: taking stock and looking
forward”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 273-285.
Bauer, H.H., Hammerschmidt, M. and Falk, T. (2005), “Measuring the quality of e-banking portals”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 153-175.
Benitez, M., Leon-Perez, J.M., Orgamb
ıdez, A. and Medina, F.J. (2021), “Interpersonal conflicts in the
unit impact the service quality rated by customers: the mediating role of work-unit well-being”,
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 18 No. 15, p. 8137.
Beyza, S. and Evenstad, N. (2018), “The virtuous circle of ephemeralization and the vicious circle of
stress: a systemic perspective on ICT worker burnout”, Futures, Vol. 103, pp. 61-72.
Bhuiyan, S.H. (2011), “Modernizing Bangladesh public administration through e-governance: benefits
and challenges”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 54-65.
Blanchard, K.H. (2010), Leading at a Higher Level: Blanchard on Leadership and Creating High
Performing Organizations, FT Press, New Jersey.
Blut, M. (2016), “E-service quality: development of a hierarchical model”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 92
No. 4, pp. 500-517.
Boxall, P. and Macky, K. (2014), “High-involvement work processes, work intensification and
employee well-being”, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 963-984.
Broderick, A.J. and Vachirapornpuk, S. (2002), “Service quality in internet banking: the importance of
customer role”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 327-335.
Bryson, A., Forth, J. and Stokes, L. (2017), “Does employees’ subjective well-being affect workplace
performance?”, Human Relations, Vol. 70 No. 8, pp. 1017-1037.
Burke, W.W. and Litwin, G.H. (1992), “A causal model of organizational performance and change”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 523-545.
Cardoso, J., Sheth, A.P., Miller, J.A., Arnold, J. and Kochut, K.J. (2004), “Quality of service for
workflows and web service processes”, Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the
World Wide Web, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 281-308.
Cartwright, S. and Cooper, C.L. (2002), ASSET: An Organisational Stress Screening Tool - The
Management Guide, RCL, Manchester.
Cho, Y.K. and Menor, L.J. (2009), “Toward a provider-based view on the design and delivery of quality
e-service encounters”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 83-95.
Cohen, G. and Kotorov, R. (2016), Organizational Intelligence: How Smart Companies use Information
to become more Competitive and Profitable, Information Builders, New York.
IJQRM Cohen, S., Kamarck, T. and Mermelstein, R. (1983), “A global measure of perceived stress”, Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 385-396.
Cohen, S. (1994), Perceived Stress Scale, Mind Garden, available at: https://www.mindgarden.com/
documents/PerceivedStressScale.pdf.
Cristobal, E., Flavia
n, C. and Guinalı
u, M. (2007), “Perceived e-service quality (PeSQ): measurement
validation and effects on consumer satisfaction and web site loyalty”, Managing Service
Quality, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 317-340.
Cronquist, B. (2006), Organizational Intelligence: A Dynamic Knowledge Creating Activity Embedded in
Organizational Routines. Informatics Research Group, Kristianstad University, Sweden.
Curtis, S. (2019), “Digital transformation—the silver bullet to public service improvement?”, Public
Money and Management, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 322-324.
De Angelis, C.T. (2013), “A knowledge management and organizational intelligence model for public
administration”, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 36 No. 11, pp. 807-819.
Dealtry, R. (2004), “Managing the new generation of corporate universities in knowledge intensive
environments”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 65-78.
Delgado-Rodr
ıguez, M. and Sillero-Arenas, M. (2018), “Systematic review and meta-analysis”,
Medicina Intensiva, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 444-453.
Dyduch, W. and Bratnicki, M. (2016), “Intelligent organisation characteristics”, Studia I Prace
Kolegium Zarza˛ dzania I Finans
ow, Zeszyt Naukowy, Vol. 149, pp. 9-23.
g, A.B. and Ellinger, A.E. (2018), “Alleviating job stress to improve service employee work
Elmada
affect: the influence of rewarding”, Service Business, Vol. 12, pp. 121-141.
Elsheikh, Y. and Azzeh, M. (2014), “What facilitates the delivery of citizen centric e-government
services in developing countries: model development and validation through structural
equation modelling”, International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology,
Vol. 6 No. 1, p. 77.
Evenstad, S.B.N. (2018), “The virtuous circle of ephemeralization and the vicious circle of stress: a
systemic perspective on ICT worker burnout [Article]”, Futures, Vol. 103, pp. 61-72.
Falletta, S. and Combs, W. (2018), “The Organizational intelligence model in context: a comparative
analysis and case profile”, OD Practitioner, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 22-29.
Falletta, S.V. (2008), “Organizational intelligence surveys”, Training and Development, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 52-58.
Garg, S. and Dhar, R. (2014), “Effects of stress, LMX and perceived organizational support on service
quality: mediating effects of organizational commitment”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, Vol. 21, pp. 64-75.
Goldberg, D. and Williams, P. (1991), A user’s Guide to the General Health Questionnaire, NFER-
Nelson, Windsor.
Halal, W.E. (2002), “Organizational intelligence: a broader framework for understanding knowledge”,
On the Horizon, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 43-49.
Han, J., Sun, J.M. and Wang, J.L. (2020), “Do high performance work systems generate negative
effects? How and when?”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 30, pp. 1-14.
Hien, M.N. (2014), “A study on evaluation of e-government service quality”, International Journal of
Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 16-19.
Hooda, A. and Singla, M.L. (2020), “Reengineering as a strategic stance for e-governance success -
mediating role of core-competencies: a mixed method study”, Transforming Government:
People, Process and Policy, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 205-235.
Hopewell, S., Clarke, M., Lefebvre, C. and Scherer, R. (2007), “Handsearching versus electronic
searching to identify reports of randomized trials”, The Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews, Vol. 2007 No. 2, pp. 1-37.
International Labour Organization (2016), Workplace Stress: A Collective Challenge, International Digital service
Training Centre of the ILO, ILO, Turin.
quality and
Ishikawa, K. (1991), What is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
occupational
Jackson, L. and Rothmann, S. (2005), “Work-related well-being of educators in a district of the North- stress
West Province”, Perspectives in Education, Vol. 23, pp. 107-122.
Jackson, P.R., Wall, T.D., Martin, R. and Davids, K. (1993), “New measures of job control, cognitive
demand and production responsibility”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 753-762.
Jansen, A. and Ølnes, S. (2016), “The nature of public e-services and their quality dimensions”,
Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 647-657.
Jensen, J.M., Patel, P.C. and Messersmith, J.G. (2013), “High-performance work systems and job control:
consequences for anxiety, role overload, and turnover intentions”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 1699-1724.
Jiang, X. and Ji, S. (2014). “E-government web portal adoption: a service level and service quality
perspective”, 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 2179-2188.
Johnson, J.H. and Sarason, I.G. (1979), “Moderator variables in life stress research”, in Sarason, I.G.
and Spielberger, C.D. (Eds), Stress and Anxiety, Hemisphere, Washington, DC, Vol. 6, pp.
151-168.
Johri, A. and Aggarwal, A. (2016), Competitive Intelligence: Millennium Intelligence for Winning
Businesses, Himalaya Publishing House, New Delhi.
Kahn, B.K., Strong, D.M. and Wang, R.Y. (2002), “Information quality benchmarks: product and
service performance”, Communication of the Ach, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 184-192.
Karatepe, O.M., Yavas, U., Babakus, E. and Deitz, G.D. (2018), “The effects of organizational and
personal resources on stress, engagement, and job outcomes”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 74, pp. 147-161.
Karkin, N. and Janssen, M. (2014), “Evaluating websites from a public value perspective: a review of
Turkish local government websites”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 34
No. 3, pp. 351-368.
Karunasena, K. and Deng, H. (2012), “Critical factors for evaluating the public value of e-government
in Sri Lanka”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 76-84.
Kelloway, K.E. and Myers, V. (2019), “Leading the service-profit chain: how leaders’ behaviors can
affect customer experience”, Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being, Vol. 17,
pp. 71-90.
Keshavarz, H., Givi, M.R.E. and Shekari, M.R. (2018), “Knowledge management infrastructures and
organizational intelligence in Iranian research centers”, Data Technologies and Applications,
Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 2-15.
Koay, K.Y., Soh, P.C.-H. and Chew, K.W. (2017), “Do employees’ private demands lead to
cyberloafing? The mediating role of job stress”, Management Research Review, Vol. 40 No. 9,
pp. 1025-1038.
Kobasa, S.C. (1979), “Stressful life events, personality, and health: an inquiry into hardiness”, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37, pp. 1-11.
Krekel, C., Ward, G. and De Neve, J.-E. (2019), “Employee wellbeing, productivity, and firm
performance”, Saı€d Business School Working Paper 2019-04.
Kuzey, C.M., Sait Dinc, M.S., Gungormus, A.H. and Incirkus, L. (2019), “Quality in e-government
accounting services: a model of relationships between e-service quality dimensions and
behaviors”, Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics, Vol. 12 No. 23, pp. 63-78.
Lai, J.Y. (2006), “Assessment of employees’ perceptions of service quality and satisfaction with
e-business”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 64 No. 9, pp. 926-938.
IJQRM Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., Camp, S.D. and Ventura, L.A. (2006), “The impact of work–family
conflict on correctional staff: a preliminary study”, Criminology and Criminal Justice, Vol. 6,
pp. 371-387.
Lazarus, R.S. (1966), Psychological Stress and the Coping Process, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Lazarus, R.S. (1977), “Psychological stress and coping in adaptation and illness”, in Lipowski, Z.J.,
Lipsi, D.R. and Whybrow, P.C. (Eds), Psychosomatic Medicine: Current Trends, Oxford
University Press, New York, pp. 14-26.
Lee-Geiller, S. and Lee, D.T. (2019), “Using government websites to enhance democratic e-governance:
a conceptual model for evaluation”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 208-225.
Li, Y. and Shang, H. (2020), “Service quality, perceived value, and citizens’ continuous-use intention
regarding e-government: empirical evidence from China”, Information and Management,
Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 1-15.
Liang, T.Y. (2002), “The inherent structure and dynamic of intelligent human organizations”, Human
Systems Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 9-19.
MacKinnon, D.P., Coxe, S. and Baraldi, A.N. (2012), “Guidelines for the investigation of mediating
variables in business research”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Madu, C.N. and Madu, A.A. (2002), “Dimensions of e-quality”, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, Vol. 19, pp. 246-258.
Mahfooz, Z., Arshad, A., Nisar, Q.A., Ikram, M. and Azeem, M.U. (2017), “Does workplace incivility &
workplace ostracism influence the employees’ turnover intentions? Mediating role of burnout
and job stress & moderating role of psychological capital”, The International Journal of
Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 7, pp. 398-413.
Mahmood, M.H., Coons, S.J., Guy, M.C. and Pelletier, K.R. (2010), “Development and testing of the
workplace stressors assessment questionnaire”, Journal of Occupational and Environmental,
Vol. 52, pp. 1192-1200.
Malik, O.F., Schat, A.C.H., Shahzad, A., Raziq, M.M. and Faiz, R. (2021), “Workplace psychological
aggression, job stress, and vigor: a test of longitudinal effects”, Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, Vol. 36 Nos 5-6, pp. 1-29.
Mason, J.W. (1971), “A re-evaluation of the concept of ‘non- specificity’ in stress theory”, Journal of
Psychiatric Research, Vol. 8, pp. 323-333.
Matheson, D. and Matheson, J.E. (2001), “Smart organizations perform better”, Research-Technology
Management, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 49-54.
Matsuda, T. (1992). “Organizational intelligence: its significance as a process and as a product [Paper
presentation]”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Economics/Management and
Information Technology.
Mohd Yunus, J. and Mahajar, A.J. (2011), “Stress and psychological well-being of government officers
in Malaysia”, The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 40-50.
Montgomery, A., Panagopoulou, E., Kehoe, I. and Valkanos, E. (2011), “Connecting organisational
culture and quality of care in the hospital: is job burnout the missing link?”, Journal of Health
Organization and Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 108-123.
Montgomery, A., Todorova, I., Baban, A. and Panagopoulou, E. (2013), “Improving quality and safety
in the hospital: the link between organizational culture, burnout, and quality of care”, British
Journal of Health Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 656-662.
Najjar, H. (2020), “Relational perspectives of perceived service quality in the online and offline
environments: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Relationship Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 1-21.
Namin, A. (2017), “Revisiting customers’ perception of service quality in fast food restaurants”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 34, pp. 70-81.
Nishant, R., Srivastava, S.C. and Teo, T.S.H. (2019), “Using polynomial modeling to understand Digital service
service quality in e-government websites”, MIS Quarterly, Thompson S. H, Vol. 43 No. 3,
pp. 807-826. quality and
Nusair, K. and Kandampully, J. (2008), “The antecedents of customer satisfaction with online travel
occupational
services: a conceptual model”, European Business Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 4-19. stress
Ogbonnaya, C. and Messersmith, J. (2018), “Employee performance, well-being, and differential effects
of human resource management subdimensions: mutual gains or conflicting outcomes?”,
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 29, pp. 451-468.
Ogbonnaya, C. (2019), “Exploring possible trade-offs between organisational performance and
employee well-being: the role of teamwork practices”, Human Resource Management Journal,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 451-468.
nska-Bulik, N. and Michalska, P. (2021), “Psychological resilience and secondary traumatic stress
Ogi

in nurses working with terminally ill patients-the mediating role of job burnout”, Psychological
Services, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 398-405.
Osborne, S.P., Radnor, Z., Kinder, T. and Vidal, I. (2014), “Sustainable public service organisations: a
public service-dominant approach”, Society and Economy, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 313-338.
Osborne, S. (2006), “The new public governance?”, Public Management Review, Vol. 8, pp. 377-388.
Pak, J. and Kim, S. (2018), “Team manager’s implementation, high performance work systems
intensity, and performance: a multilevel investigation”, Journal of Management, Vol. 44 No. 7,
pp. 2690-2715.
Papadomichelaki, X. and Mentzas, G. (2012), “E-GovQual: a multiple-item scale for assessing
e-government service quality”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 98-109.
Papadomichelaki, X., Magoutas, B., Halaris, C., Apostolou, D. and Mentzas, G. (2006), “A review of
quality dimensions in e-government services”, in International Conference on Electronic
Government, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 128-138.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multi item scale for measuring
consumer perception of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64, pp. 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Malhotra, A. (2005), “E-S-QUAL: a multiple-item scale for
assessing electronic service quality”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7, pp. 213-234.
Parker, D. and Decotiis, T. (1983), “Organizational determinants of job stress”, Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 32, pp. 160-177.
Pearlin, L.I., Lieberman, M.A., Menaghan, E.G. and Mullen, J.T. (1981), “The stress process”, Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 22, pp. 337-356.
Pinho, J.C. and Macedo, I.M. (2008), “Examining the antecedents and consequences of online
satisfaction within the public sector: the case of taxation services”, Transforming Government:
People, Process and Policy, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 177-193.
Potipiroon, W. and Faerman, S. (2020), “Tired from working hard? Examining the effect of
organizational citizenship behavior on emotional exhaustion and the buffering roles of public
service motivation and perceived supervisor support”, Public Performance and Management
Review, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1260-1291.
Riezebos, J. and Huisman, B. (2021), “Value stream mapping in education: addressing work stress”,
The International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 1044-1061.
Rodriguez, C.F. and Choudrie, J. (2021), “The impact of different organizational environments on
technostress: exploring and understanding the bright and dark sides before and during Covid-
19”, UK Academy for Information Systems Conference Proceedings 2021 [Paper presentation],
available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/ukais2021/23/.
Rose, J., G€obel, J.H., Cronholm, J.H., Holgersson, J.H., S€oderstr€om, J.H. and Hallqvist, J.H. (2019), “Theory-
based design principles for digital service innovation”, E-service Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 1-30.
IJQRM S
a, F., Rocha, A. and Cota, M.P. (2016), “Potential dimensions for a local e-government services quality
model”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 33, pp. 270-276.
Samadzadeh, M. (2013), “Investigating the effect of work stress, general health quality, organizational
intelligence and job satisfaction on employee performance”, Management Science Letters, Vol. 3
No. 12, pp. 2989-2994.
Santos, J. (2003), “E-service quality: a model of virtual service quality dimensions”, Managing Service
Quality, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 233-246.
Schmidt, J.M. (2015), “Policy, planning, intelligence and foresight in government organizations”,
Foresight, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 489-511.
Schwaninger, M. (2001), “Intelligent organizations: an integrative framework”, Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, Vol. 18, pp. 137-158.
Schwaninger, M. (2019), “Governance for intelligent organizations: a cybernetic contribution”,
Kybernetes, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 35-57.
Schwepker, C.H. and Dimitriou, C.K. (2021), “Using ethical leadership to reduce job stress and improve
performance quality in the hospitality industry”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 94, pp. 1-11.
Shareef, M.A., Archer, N. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2015), “An empirical investigation of electronic
government service quality: from the demand-side stakeholder perspective”, Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 26 Nos 3-4, pp. 339-354.
Shea, T. and De Cieri, H. (2011), “Workplace stress evaluation tools: a snapshot review”, ISCRR &
Monash University, available at: https://research.iscrr.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/
297758/Workplace-stress-evaluation-tools-snapshot.pdf.
Shin, D. and Konrad, A.M. (2017), “Causality between high-performance work systems and
organizational performance”, Journal of Management, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 973-997.
Shukla, A. and Srivastava, R. (2016), “Development of short questionnaire to measure an extended set
of role expectation conflict, co-worker support and work-life balance: the new job stress scale”,
Cogent Business and Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, doi: 10.1080/23311975.2015.1134034.
Sigala, M. (2004), “The ASP-Qual model: measuring ASP service quality in Greece”, Managing Service
Quality, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 103-114.
Silber, K.H. and Kearny, L. (2010), Organizational Intelligence: A Guide to Understanding the Business
of Your Organization for HR, Training, and Performance Consulting, John Wiley & Sons, New
Jersey.
Sree Lekshmi, S.N. (2020), “Analysis of the impact of organisational culture on occupational stress: the
role of job satisfaction in IT SMEs in India and the UK”, Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of
Wales Trinity Saint David.
Stamenkov, G. and Dika, Z. (2015), “A sustainable e-service quality model”, Journal of Service Theory
and Practice, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 414-442.
Stenvall, J. and Virtanen, P. (2017), “Intelligent public organisations”, Public Organization Review,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 195-209.
Stiakakis, E. and Georgiadis, C.K. (2009), “E-service quality: comparing the perceptions of providers
and customers”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 410-430.
Surjadjaja, H., Ghosh, S. and Antony, J. (2003), “Determining and assessing the determinants of
e-service operations”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 39-53.
Tongchaiprasit, P. and Ariyabuddhiphongs, V. (2016), “Creativity and turnover intention among hotel
chefs: the mediating effects of job satisfaction and job stress”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 55, pp. 33-40.
Travica, B. (2015), “Modelling organizational intelligence: nothing googles like Google”, Online Journal
of Applied Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 1-18.
United Nations (2020), United Nations E-Government Survey 2020: Digital Government in the Decade Digital service
of Action for Sustainable, United Nations, New York.
quality and
Vagg, P.R. and Spielberger, C.D. (1999), “The Job Stress Survey: assessing perceived severity and
frequency of occurrence of generic sources of stress in the workplace”, Journal of Occupational
occupational
Health Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 288-292. stress
Virtanen, P. and Vakkuri, J. (2015), “Searching for organizational intelligence in the evolution of
public-sector performance management”, NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy,
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 89-99.
Visvizi, A. and Lytras, M. (2020), “Editorial: Covid-19 transforms the government: here’s what to look
at”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 125-131.
Weisbord, M. (1978), “Organizational diagnosis: six places to look for trouble with or without a
theory”, Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 1, pp. 430-447.
Williams, A. and Cooper, C. (1998), “Measuring occupational stress: development of the pressure
management indicator”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 3, pp. 306-321.
Wong, M.S. (2019), “Design science approach to build a customer satisfaction theoretical framework to
evaluate e-government services”, The Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 54-64.
Wood, S., Van Veldhoven, M., Croon, M. and de Menezes, L.M. (2012), “Enriched job design, high
involvement management and organizational performance: the mediating roles of job
satisfaction and well-being”, Human Relations, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 419-445.
Wood, S., Ghezzi, V., Barbaranelli, C., Di Tecco, C., Fida, R., Farnese, M.L., Ronchetti, M. and Iavicoli, S.
(2019), “Assessing the risk of stress in organizations: getting the measure of organizational-
level stressors”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 10, p. 2776.
Yankelevich, M., Broadfoot, A., Gillespie, J.Z., Gillespie, M.A. and Guidroz, A. (2011), “General Job
Stress: a unidimensional measure and its non-linear relations with outcome variables”, Stress
and Health X, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 137-148.
Yolles, M. and Fink, I. (2011), “Understanding organisational intelligences as constituting elements of
normative personality [Paper presentation]”, IACCM 2011, Ruse Bulgaria.
Yolles, M. (2005), “Organizational intelligence”, The Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 17 Nos 1/2,
pp. 99-114.
Yusuf, I. and Ayşe Sezin, B. (2013), “The effect of organizational citizenship behaviours of primary
school teachers on their burnout”, Theory and Practice, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 1545-1550.
Zaidi, S.F.H. and Qteishat, M.K. (2012), “Assessing e-government service delivery (Government to
citizen)”, International Journal of eBusiness and eGovernment Studies, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 45-54.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Malhotra, A. (2000), A Conceptual Framework for Understanding
E-Service Quality: Implications for Future Research and Managerial Practice, Marketing Science
Institute, Cambridge, MA, Vol. 115.
Zhang, B. and Morris, J.L. (2014), “High-performance work systems and organizational performance:
testing the mediation role of employee outcomes using evidence from PR China”, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 1-23.

Further reading
Godard, J. (2001), “High performance and the transformation of work? The implications of alternative
work practices for the experience and outcomes of work”, Industrial and Labor Relations
Review, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 776-805.
Jiang, Y. and Lu Wang, C. (2006), “The impact of effect on service quality and satisfaction: the
moderation of service contexts”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 211-218.
IJQRM Wilensky, H. (1967), Organizational Intelligence: Knowledge and Policy in Government and Industry,
Basic Books, New York.

Corresponding author
Dilip S. Mutum can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]