24.06.2026
Do We Have Too Narrow View of Self-Motivation?
Every spring, the same story repeats itself. Before the examination period begins, there is almost always a Master's student who has somehow lost their motivation. Then we begin searching for it together - under the table, on top of the table, and everywhere in between.
When people are asked what self-motivation means, the answers are usually quite similar. Determination. Persistence. Moving towards goals. Wanting to achieve something.
For many years, I would have answered in much the same way. But several studies have gradually made me wonder whether our view of self-motivation might be somewhat too narrow.
Self-Motivation Requires Knowledge and Skills
The first clue came from our OPSTI studies conducted between 2018 and 2025 (n > 4000), where we examined the relationship between self-motivation and job performance. The finding that self-motivation was associated with job performance (r = 0.50) will probably surprise no one. If I am motivated to do something, it is hardly unexpected that I perform better.
More interesting were the relationships with knowledge (r = 0.44), skills (r = 0.42), and capability (r = 0.42). This made me wonder. Perhaps motivated people do not simply work harder. Perhaps they learn more. Perhaps they develop their skills more actively. Perhaps they make better use of their abilities.
If so, self-motivation may be less a consequence of competence and more one of the engines that drives competence development.
Another finding was equally interesting. Self-motivation was only modestly associated with having the opportunity to perform one's work well (r = 0.29). One might assume that motivated employees would naturally see more opportunities to succeed. Yet the data suggest something different. An employee may be highly motivated, but if the organisation does not provide the conditions for good work, motivation alone is not enough.
Self-Motivation and Stress Do Not Make Good Partners
The second clue also came from our OPSTI studies (n < 4000), where we examined the relationship between self-motivation and psychosocial risk factors. The pattern was remarkably consistent. Higher self-motivation was associated with better perceived health (r = 0.50), better work ability (r = 0.48), and better sleep quality (r = 0.45). And the reverse was also true. The higher the level of stress, the lower self-motivation tended to be.
This finding is important because organisations often talk about motivation as if it were solely an individual characteristic. The data point in another direction. Motivation does not emerge in a vacuum. It appears to be influenced by the environment in which people work. For example, higher motivation was associated with meaningful work (r = 0.50), recognition (r = 0.48), leadership quality (r = 0.44), and organisational psychological climate (r = 0.52).
Perhaps, then, we should ask not only: How can we motivate employees? but also: What kind of work environment allows motivation to survive?
Self-Motivation May Be More Social Than We Think
The third study (n = 714) was, for me, the most fascinating. We examined the relationship between self-motivation and emotional intelligence, including the social skills people use in their everyday work (see Figure).
Figure. Self-Motivation
The results were unexpected. Naturally, self-motivation was associated with self-awareness (r = 0.57) and self-management (r = 0.67). It was also associated with social skills (r = 0.66). But the strongest relationship emerged elsewhere. It was with relationship management (r = 0.82). In practical terms, this includes communication skills, the ability to build relationships, conflict management skills, coping with change, and collaboration and teamwork skills.
This finding genuinely surprised me. Had I been asked beforehand which component of emotional intelligence would be most strongly associated with self-motivation, I would almost certainly have chosen self-management. Not relationship management. Yet the data suggested otherwise. Perhaps our image of a motivated person is incomplete. We usually imagine someone who sets goals, works hard and keeps moving forward. Less often do we imagine someone who is also good at building relationships, maintaining cooperation and working effectively with other people.
What Did We Learn?
Looking across all three studies, one pattern stood out. Self-motivation was not associated with just one domain. It was associated with knowledge, skills, capability, self-management, social skills and relationship management.
In other words:
Perhaps self-motivation is not simply the desire to achieve something. Perhaps it reflects, more broadly, how people learn, develop and collaborate with others.
What Is Worth Remembering?
The next time you feel that your motivation has disappeared, it may be worth asking a few questions before blaming yourself for a lack of willpower. Do I have sufficient knowledge and skills for this task? Does my work environment support good performance? Are my working relationships functioning well?
Motivation is not merely a matter of willpower. It may be a signal that competence, environment and relationships are or are not in balance. When one of these elements is weakened, motivation often declines, regardless of how hard we try to "push ourselves". Understanding this may provide a useful key to understanding ourselves better.
Something to Think About
When someone says that a person is highly motivated, what do they actually mean? Determination? Good self-management? Strong relationships? Or perhaps all of these at the same time?
Keywords: self-motivation, work motivation, job performance, organisational psychology, emotional intelligence, self-management, workplace relationships, work ability, occupational stress, organisational health, professional development
Teichmann,M. (2020). Mapping and assessing psychosocial risk factors for individual- and organizational-level occupational stress intervention. EAWOP IN PRACTICE, 2020/12. https://openjournals.ugent.be/ewopinpractice/article/id/87120/
Teichmann, M., Ilvest, K., and Ilvest, J. (2022). Job satisfaction before the covid-19 pandemic period (2018 - 2019) and during the pandemic (2020 - 2021). In: 2022 IEEE Conference on Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Situation Management (CogSIMA), 115–117. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9830691
When people are asked what self-motivation means, the answers are usually quite similar. Determination. Persistence. Moving towards goals. Wanting to achieve something.
For many years, I would have answered in much the same way. But several studies have gradually made me wonder whether our view of self-motivation might be somewhat too narrow.
Self-Motivation Requires Knowledge and Skills
The first clue came from our OPSTI studies conducted between 2018 and 2025 (n > 4000), where we examined the relationship between self-motivation and job performance. The finding that self-motivation was associated with job performance (r = 0.50) will probably surprise no one. If I am motivated to do something, it is hardly unexpected that I perform better.
More interesting were the relationships with knowledge (r = 0.44), skills (r = 0.42), and capability (r = 0.42). This made me wonder. Perhaps motivated people do not simply work harder. Perhaps they learn more. Perhaps they develop their skills more actively. Perhaps they make better use of their abilities.
If so, self-motivation may be less a consequence of competence and more one of the engines that drives competence development.
Another finding was equally interesting. Self-motivation was only modestly associated with having the opportunity to perform one's work well (r = 0.29). One might assume that motivated employees would naturally see more opportunities to succeed. Yet the data suggest something different. An employee may be highly motivated, but if the organisation does not provide the conditions for good work, motivation alone is not enough.
Self-Motivation and Stress Do Not Make Good Partners
The second clue also came from our OPSTI studies (n < 4000), where we examined the relationship between self-motivation and psychosocial risk factors. The pattern was remarkably consistent. Higher self-motivation was associated with better perceived health (r = 0.50), better work ability (r = 0.48), and better sleep quality (r = 0.45). And the reverse was also true. The higher the level of stress, the lower self-motivation tended to be.
This finding is important because organisations often talk about motivation as if it were solely an individual characteristic. The data point in another direction. Motivation does not emerge in a vacuum. It appears to be influenced by the environment in which people work. For example, higher motivation was associated with meaningful work (r = 0.50), recognition (r = 0.48), leadership quality (r = 0.44), and organisational psychological climate (r = 0.52).
Perhaps, then, we should ask not only: How can we motivate employees? but also: What kind of work environment allows motivation to survive?
Self-Motivation May Be More Social Than We Think
The third study (n = 714) was, for me, the most fascinating. We examined the relationship between self-motivation and emotional intelligence, including the social skills people use in their everyday work (see Figure).
Figure. Self-Motivation
The results were unexpected. Naturally, self-motivation was associated with self-awareness (r = 0.57) and self-management (r = 0.67). It was also associated with social skills (r = 0.66). But the strongest relationship emerged elsewhere. It was with relationship management (r = 0.82). In practical terms, this includes communication skills, the ability to build relationships, conflict management skills, coping with change, and collaboration and teamwork skills.
This finding genuinely surprised me. Had I been asked beforehand which component of emotional intelligence would be most strongly associated with self-motivation, I would almost certainly have chosen self-management. Not relationship management. Yet the data suggested otherwise. Perhaps our image of a motivated person is incomplete. We usually imagine someone who sets goals, works hard and keeps moving forward. Less often do we imagine someone who is also good at building relationships, maintaining cooperation and working effectively with other people.
What Did We Learn?
Looking across all three studies, one pattern stood out. Self-motivation was not associated with just one domain. It was associated with knowledge, skills, capability, self-management, social skills and relationship management.
In other words:
- when people know what they are doing, motivation tends to increase;
- when they have the skills needed to perform well, motivation tends to increase;
- when they understand their strengths and limitations realistically, motivation tends to increase;
- when they are able to build and maintain good relationships, motivation tends to increase.
Perhaps self-motivation is not simply the desire to achieve something. Perhaps it reflects, more broadly, how people learn, develop and collaborate with others.
What Is Worth Remembering?
The next time you feel that your motivation has disappeared, it may be worth asking a few questions before blaming yourself for a lack of willpower. Do I have sufficient knowledge and skills for this task? Does my work environment support good performance? Are my working relationships functioning well?
Motivation is not merely a matter of willpower. It may be a signal that competence, environment and relationships are or are not in balance. When one of these elements is weakened, motivation often declines, regardless of how hard we try to "push ourselves". Understanding this may provide a useful key to understanding ourselves better.
Something to Think About
When someone says that a person is highly motivated, what do they actually mean? Determination? Good self-management? Strong relationships? Or perhaps all of these at the same time?
Keywords: self-motivation, work motivation, job performance, organisational psychology, emotional intelligence, self-management, workplace relationships, work ability, occupational stress, organisational health, professional development
Teichmann,M. (2020). Mapping and assessing psychosocial risk factors for individual- and organizational-level occupational stress intervention. EAWOP IN PRACTICE, 2020/12. https://openjournals.ugent.be/ewopinpractice/article/id/87120/
Teichmann, M., Ilvest, K., and Ilvest, J. (2022). Job satisfaction before the covid-19 pandemic period (2018 - 2019) and during the pandemic (2020 - 2021). In: 2022 IEEE Conference on Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Situation Management (CogSIMA), 115–117. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9830691
21.06.2026
Where Did "Please" Go?
Recently, I was discussing the results of one of our social intelligence studies with students. The findings were largely what we expected. Work-related social skills showed a substantial association with job performance (r = 0.43). People who were better at understanding and interacting with others tended to perform better at work.
One result, however, stood out. Basic social manners - things such as saying hello, please, thank you, and goodbye - showed virtually no relationship with job performance (r = 0.04). People knew these behaviours. They simply did not use them consistently.
Before the next lecture, one of the students approached me and shared an observation. She had been watching her mother teach her grandchild to be polite. The child said: "Give me something to drink." The grandmother immediately replied: "Where did please go?" A few minutes later, the grandmother turned to the child and said: "Bring me a towel." Not: "Please bring me a towel." The student smiled and said: "The interesting thing is that my mother knows perfectly well how to speak politely." And that is exactly where the interesting question begins.
If people know how they should behave, why do they so often behave differently?
Psychologists encounter this phenomenon everywhere. Most people know that physical activity is good for them. Most people know that smoking is harmful. Most people know that stress should be managed. Most people know that listening is important. Most people know that saying thank you and hello is polite. The problem is rarely a lack of knowledge. More often, the challenge lies in translating knowledge into everyday behaviour. We often assume that if people know something, they will automatically do it. Reality is usually more complicated.
Perhaps we should ask a different question. Instead of asking: Do people know? we might ask: Do people use what they know? Those are two very different questions. And often they lead to two very different answers.
The longer I have worked in psychology, the less surprised I am when people behave in ways that contradict what they know. What surprises me more is how rarely we notice it. The grandmother knew perfectly well when to use the word please. The 593 employees who participated in our social intelligence study knew as well. And yet, perhaps we can ask ourselves the same question the grandmother asked her grandchild: Where did "please" go? Perhaps it is a question worth asking ourselves from time to time.
Something to Think About
What do you know that you do not consistently practise? Does your list include something as simple as saying: hello, please, or thank you?
Keywords: social intelligence, social skills, job performance, behaviour change, habits, politeness, organisational psychology, self-regulation, communication skills
One result, however, stood out. Basic social manners - things such as saying hello, please, thank you, and goodbye - showed virtually no relationship with job performance (r = 0.04). People knew these behaviours. They simply did not use them consistently.
Before the next lecture, one of the students approached me and shared an observation. She had been watching her mother teach her grandchild to be polite. The child said: "Give me something to drink." The grandmother immediately replied: "Where did please go?" A few minutes later, the grandmother turned to the child and said: "Bring me a towel." Not: "Please bring me a towel." The student smiled and said: "The interesting thing is that my mother knows perfectly well how to speak politely." And that is exactly where the interesting question begins.
If people know how they should behave, why do they so often behave differently?
Psychologists encounter this phenomenon everywhere. Most people know that physical activity is good for them. Most people know that smoking is harmful. Most people know that stress should be managed. Most people know that listening is important. Most people know that saying thank you and hello is polite. The problem is rarely a lack of knowledge. More often, the challenge lies in translating knowledge into everyday behaviour. We often assume that if people know something, they will automatically do it. Reality is usually more complicated.
Perhaps we should ask a different question. Instead of asking: Do people know? we might ask: Do people use what they know? Those are two very different questions. And often they lead to two very different answers.
The longer I have worked in psychology, the less surprised I am when people behave in ways that contradict what they know. What surprises me more is how rarely we notice it. The grandmother knew perfectly well when to use the word please. The 593 employees who participated in our social intelligence study knew as well. And yet, perhaps we can ask ourselves the same question the grandmother asked her grandchild: Where did "please" go? Perhaps it is a question worth asking ourselves from time to time.
Something to Think About
What do you know that you do not consistently practise? Does your list include something as simple as saying: hello, please, or thank you?
Keywords: social intelligence, social skills, job performance, behaviour change, habits, politeness, organisational psychology, self-regulation, communication skills
17.06.2026
Why Is It Easier for Us to Communicate with Scandinavians than with Slavs?
Recently, I spent an afternoon entertaining myself. Not by watching television or solving crossword puzzles, but by comparing cultural behaviour patterns across countries using Geert Hofstede’s cultural comparison tool. Some readers may consider this an unusual hobby. I found it surprisingly thought-provoking.
One question in particular caught my attention. Why do Estonians often seem to communicate more easily with Finns, Swedes and Danes than with Russians, Ukrainians or even Poles?
Of course, this is not an absolute truth. People differ, and culture does not determine the behaviour of every individual all the time. Yet after many years of working in international teams, I have noticed this pattern repeatedly. Could there be a scientific explanation for it?
Can We Trust Hofstede's Model?
Before comparing cultures, it is worth asking a more basic question: Can Hofstede's model itself be trusted? I have had reasons to be sceptical.
Several decades ago, I participated in an international study of managerial occupational stress that included an evaluation of the psychometric properties of Hofstede's Values Survey Module across 24 countries. The results showed that not all Hofstede scales performed equally well. We later published these findings in Applied Psychology: An International Review.
A few years ago, while studying behavioural responses in crisis situations, we again needed an instrument capable of distinguishing cultural behaviour patterns I consulted an American colleague, Professor Paul Spector, who told me that Hofstede's model is currently the most commonly used instrument for this purpose and expressed hope that significant work might have gone into further developing the tool in the meantime. I decided to check for myself. Our conclusion was that three dimensions appeared sufficiently robust:
For the remaining dimensions, we found insufficient evidence to reach equally confident conclusions. The results were later reported at CogSIMA 2022.
For that reason, I will focus only on these three dimensions.
Three Ways Cultures Differ
Power Distance
Power Distance reflects the extent to which unequal distributions of power are accepted as natural. In high power-distance cultures, hierarchy is expected. Managers give instructions. Subordinates follow them. Children are expected to obey parents.
In low power-distance cultures, greater equality is assumed. People are more comfortable questioning authority and expressing disagreement.
Individualism versus Collectivism
Individualistic cultures emphasise personal responsibility, self-expression and individual goals. Collectivist cultures place greater emphasis on loyalty, belonging and shared responsibility. The focus shifts from "I" to "we".
Uncertainty Avoidance
Some cultures feel more comfortable when rules are clear and situations are predictable. Others tolerate ambiguity more easily and tend to view change as an opportunity rather than a threat.
Is Estonia Culturally Closer to Northern or Eastern Europe?
In the UN's statistical regional classification, Estonia belongs to Northern Europe, together with Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, the United Kingdom, and Ireland. The figure compares the cultural behaviour patterns of Estonia and other Northern European countries in terms of power distance, individualism, and uncertainty avoidance.
In the same UN classification, the following countries belong to Eastern Europe: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Moldova, and Bulgaria. It should be noted that, for historical and political reasons, Estonia and the other Baltic states are also often considered to belong to Eastern Europe.
Using these three Hofstede dimensions, the picture becomes surprisingly clear (see Figure 1 and Figure 2).
Figure 1. Estonia compared with Northern European countries based on Hofstede's three cultural dimensions
Figure 2. Estonia compared with Eastern European countries based on Hofstede's three cultural dimensions
On Power Distance, Estonia (40) is much closer to Finland (33), Sweden (31) and Denmark (18) than to Russia (93), Ukraine (92) or Poland (68). The same pattern appears for Individualism. Estonia scores 62, Finland 75, Sweden 87 and Denmark 89, while Russia scores 46 and Ukraine 56. On Uncertainty Avoidance, Estonia scores 60, almost identical to Finland's 59, but substantially lower than Russia's 95, Ukraine's 95 and Poland's 93. Based on these three dimensions, Estonia appears culturally closer to Northern Europe than to most Eastern European countries.
Perhaps this helps explain why many Estonians intuitively understand Scandinavian communication and working styles more easily than those commonly found in Slavic cultures.
How Does Power Distance Look in Everyday Life?
Some years ago, I taught Management Psychology as a visiting professor at the University of Silesia in Poland. There I noticed an interesting difference. An email from an Estonian student might look something like this: "Hello. I missed your lecture. What did you talk about? Ants"
Polish students often wrote very differently. A visiting professor might be addressed with a lengthy list of titles: 'Pani Profesor, Doktor Mare Teichmann...' Only after that would the actual question follow. At first, I found this unfamiliar and slightly uncomfortable.
Later, I realised that neither approach was more polite than the other. They simply reflected different assumptions about authority and status. In lower power-distance cultures, direct communication with professors or managers feels natural. In higher power-distance cultures, more formal expressions of respect are expected.
Individualism: The Individual or the Group?
Estonia is a relatively individualistic society. Finland, Sweden and especially Denmark are even more individualistic. Russia, Ukraine and Poland occupy a more collectivistic position.
This may help explain why identical workplace situations are sometimes interpreted differently. An Estonian manager may expect employees to make independent decisions and take responsibility for them. Someone from a more collectivist background may expect greater guidance and support from the team or manager.
Which approach is better? Probably neither. Or perhaps both. They are simply different cultural habits that occasionally create misunderstandings.
How Comfortable Are We with Uncertainty?
This dimension interests me particularly in today's rapidly changing world. Uncertainty Avoidance reflects how comfortable people feel when the future is unclear. Cultures with high scores tend to prefer rules, structure and predictability. Cultures with lower scores generally tolerate ambiguity more comfortably and experience less anxiety when things change.
Estonia occupies an interesting position. Our score differs from Finland's by only one point (60 versus 59), yet differs markedly from most Slavic countries. Perhaps this partly explains why both Estonians and Finns have adapted relatively quickly to digitalisation and technological change. Although, to be fair, Sweden and Denmark appear even more comfortable with uncertainty than either Estonia or Finland.
Something to Think About
Have you ever worked or studied with people from very different cultural backgrounds? Do cultural differences create more problems, or do they simply make collaboration more interesting?
Mõttekoht lugejale Kas sina oled töötanud või õppinud koos erineva kultuuritaustaga inimestega? Kas kultuurilised erinevused tekitavad rohkem probleeme või muudavad nad koostöö lihtsalt huvitavamaks?
Link
Spector, P.E.; Cooper, C.L.; Sparks, K.; Bernin, P.; Büssing, A.; Dewe, P.; Lu, L.; De Moraes, L:R.; O`Driscoll, M.; Pagon, M.; Pitariu, H.; Poelmans, S.; Radhakrishnan, P.; Russinova, V.; Salamatov, V.; Salgado, J.; Sanchez, J.I.; Shima, S.; Siu, L.O.; Stora, J.B.; Teichmann, M.; Theorell, T.; Vlerick, P.; Westman, M.; Widerszal-Bazyl, M.; Wong, P.; Yu, S. (2001). An international study of the psychometric properties of the Hofstede Values Survey Module 1994: a comparison of individual and country/province level results. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, No. 2, pp. 269 – 281. https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1464-0597.00058
M. Teichmann, J. Kaugerand, J. Ehala, M. Meriste, K. Rannat, “Effects of Culture on Public Behavior Patterns in Crisis Situations“, 2022 IEEE Conference on Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Situation Management (CogSIMA). https://easychair.org/publications/paper/sVrd/open
Keywords: culture, cultural differences, Hofstede, Estonia, Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Nordic countries, individualism, collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, psychology
Hofstede’ Model: https://www.theculturefactor.com/country-comparison-tool?countries=
One question in particular caught my attention. Why do Estonians often seem to communicate more easily with Finns, Swedes and Danes than with Russians, Ukrainians or even Poles?
Of course, this is not an absolute truth. People differ, and culture does not determine the behaviour of every individual all the time. Yet after many years of working in international teams, I have noticed this pattern repeatedly. Could there be a scientific explanation for it?
Can We Trust Hofstede's Model?
Before comparing cultures, it is worth asking a more basic question: Can Hofstede's model itself be trusted? I have had reasons to be sceptical.
Several decades ago, I participated in an international study of managerial occupational stress that included an evaluation of the psychometric properties of Hofstede's Values Survey Module across 24 countries. The results showed that not all Hofstede scales performed equally well. We later published these findings in Applied Psychology: An International Review.
A few years ago, while studying behavioural responses in crisis situations, we again needed an instrument capable of distinguishing cultural behaviour patterns I consulted an American colleague, Professor Paul Spector, who told me that Hofstede's model is currently the most commonly used instrument for this purpose and expressed hope that significant work might have gone into further developing the tool in the meantime. I decided to check for myself. Our conclusion was that three dimensions appeared sufficiently robust:
- Power Distance
- Individualism versus Collectivism
- Uncertainty Avoidance
For the remaining dimensions, we found insufficient evidence to reach equally confident conclusions. The results were later reported at CogSIMA 2022.
For that reason, I will focus only on these three dimensions.
Three Ways Cultures Differ
Power Distance
Power Distance reflects the extent to which unequal distributions of power are accepted as natural. In high power-distance cultures, hierarchy is expected. Managers give instructions. Subordinates follow them. Children are expected to obey parents.
In low power-distance cultures, greater equality is assumed. People are more comfortable questioning authority and expressing disagreement.
Individualism versus Collectivism
Individualistic cultures emphasise personal responsibility, self-expression and individual goals. Collectivist cultures place greater emphasis on loyalty, belonging and shared responsibility. The focus shifts from "I" to "we".
Uncertainty Avoidance
Some cultures feel more comfortable when rules are clear and situations are predictable. Others tolerate ambiguity more easily and tend to view change as an opportunity rather than a threat.
Is Estonia Culturally Closer to Northern or Eastern Europe?
In the UN's statistical regional classification, Estonia belongs to Northern Europe, together with Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, the United Kingdom, and Ireland. The figure compares the cultural behaviour patterns of Estonia and other Northern European countries in terms of power distance, individualism, and uncertainty avoidance.
In the same UN classification, the following countries belong to Eastern Europe: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Moldova, and Bulgaria. It should be noted that, for historical and political reasons, Estonia and the other Baltic states are also often considered to belong to Eastern Europe.
Using these three Hofstede dimensions, the picture becomes surprisingly clear (see Figure 1 and Figure 2).
Figure 1. Estonia compared with Northern European countries based on Hofstede's three cultural dimensions
Figure 2. Estonia compared with Eastern European countries based on Hofstede's three cultural dimensions
On Power Distance, Estonia (40) is much closer to Finland (33), Sweden (31) and Denmark (18) than to Russia (93), Ukraine (92) or Poland (68). The same pattern appears for Individualism. Estonia scores 62, Finland 75, Sweden 87 and Denmark 89, while Russia scores 46 and Ukraine 56. On Uncertainty Avoidance, Estonia scores 60, almost identical to Finland's 59, but substantially lower than Russia's 95, Ukraine's 95 and Poland's 93. Based on these three dimensions, Estonia appears culturally closer to Northern Europe than to most Eastern European countries.
Perhaps this helps explain why many Estonians intuitively understand Scandinavian communication and working styles more easily than those commonly found in Slavic cultures.
How Does Power Distance Look in Everyday Life?
Some years ago, I taught Management Psychology as a visiting professor at the University of Silesia in Poland. There I noticed an interesting difference. An email from an Estonian student might look something like this: "Hello. I missed your lecture. What did you talk about? Ants"
Polish students often wrote very differently. A visiting professor might be addressed with a lengthy list of titles: 'Pani Profesor, Doktor Mare Teichmann...' Only after that would the actual question follow. At first, I found this unfamiliar and slightly uncomfortable.
Later, I realised that neither approach was more polite than the other. They simply reflected different assumptions about authority and status. In lower power-distance cultures, direct communication with professors or managers feels natural. In higher power-distance cultures, more formal expressions of respect are expected.
Individualism: The Individual or the Group?
Estonia is a relatively individualistic society. Finland, Sweden and especially Denmark are even more individualistic. Russia, Ukraine and Poland occupy a more collectivistic position.
This may help explain why identical workplace situations are sometimes interpreted differently. An Estonian manager may expect employees to make independent decisions and take responsibility for them. Someone from a more collectivist background may expect greater guidance and support from the team or manager.
Which approach is better? Probably neither. Or perhaps both. They are simply different cultural habits that occasionally create misunderstandings.
How Comfortable Are We with Uncertainty?
This dimension interests me particularly in today's rapidly changing world. Uncertainty Avoidance reflects how comfortable people feel when the future is unclear. Cultures with high scores tend to prefer rules, structure and predictability. Cultures with lower scores generally tolerate ambiguity more comfortably and experience less anxiety when things change.
Estonia occupies an interesting position. Our score differs from Finland's by only one point (60 versus 59), yet differs markedly from most Slavic countries. Perhaps this partly explains why both Estonians and Finns have adapted relatively quickly to digitalisation and technological change. Although, to be fair, Sweden and Denmark appear even more comfortable with uncertainty than either Estonia or Finland.
Something to Think About
Have you ever worked or studied with people from very different cultural backgrounds? Do cultural differences create more problems, or do they simply make collaboration more interesting?
Mõttekoht lugejale Kas sina oled töötanud või õppinud koos erineva kultuuritaustaga inimestega? Kas kultuurilised erinevused tekitavad rohkem probleeme või muudavad nad koostöö lihtsalt huvitavamaks?
Link
Spector, P.E.; Cooper, C.L.; Sparks, K.; Bernin, P.; Büssing, A.; Dewe, P.; Lu, L.; De Moraes, L:R.; O`Driscoll, M.; Pagon, M.; Pitariu, H.; Poelmans, S.; Radhakrishnan, P.; Russinova, V.; Salamatov, V.; Salgado, J.; Sanchez, J.I.; Shima, S.; Siu, L.O.; Stora, J.B.; Teichmann, M.; Theorell, T.; Vlerick, P.; Westman, M.; Widerszal-Bazyl, M.; Wong, P.; Yu, S. (2001). An international study of the psychometric properties of the Hofstede Values Survey Module 1994: a comparison of individual and country/province level results. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, No. 2, pp. 269 – 281. https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1464-0597.00058
M. Teichmann, J. Kaugerand, J. Ehala, M. Meriste, K. Rannat, “Effects of Culture on Public Behavior Patterns in Crisis Situations“, 2022 IEEE Conference on Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Situation Management (CogSIMA). https://easychair.org/publications/paper/sVrd/open
Keywords: culture, cultural differences, Hofstede, Estonia, Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Nordic countries, individualism, collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, psychology
Hofstede’ Model: https://www.theculturefactor.com/country-comparison-tool?countries=
14.06.2026
Help! I'm Forgetting. Alzheimer's?
I have heard this cry of alarm more than once. Usually, it is followed by a list of things that have been forgotten. The keys have disappeared. Someone cannot remember which level she parked her car on. Or he walks into the kitchen and suddenly realise they have no idea why he went there in the first place.
Whenever this happens, many people immediately wonder: Is my memory getting worse? Could it be Alzheimer's disease? Perhaps the problem is not memory at all. Perhaps it is attention. Maybe the person never really noticed where the keys were placed. Perhaps she never looked at whether the car was parked on level A, B or C.
And this brings us to an important point. Most of the time, such situations simply mean that attention was occupied by something else. That does not necessarily indicate poor memory.
You cannot remember what you never noticed in the first place.
What Does Research Tell Us?
Research consistently shows that attention problems, forgetfulness and absent-mindedness are not random complaints among people experiencing high levels of stress. They are biologically grounded and measurable cognitive effects associated with chronic stress.
In other words: people are not necessarily lazy, careless or irresponsible. Their brains may simply be overloaded.
The Biological Mechanism
To understand why this happens, it helps to look briefly at the biology. Under chronic stress, including occupational stress, the body releases cortisol, a stress hormone that directly affects brain regions involved in attention and memory.
Two areas are particularly important: the prefrontal cortex, which helps us focus and direct attention, and the hippocampus, which plays a central role in memory formation. When chronic stress affects these systems, concentrating, maintaining attention and remembering information become more difficult.
Stress, Attention and Forgetfulness
When people are under stress, worries and problems tend to compete for attention. As a result, it becomes harder to focus on work and other important activities.
International research has repeatedly shown that occupational stress is associated with reduced cognitive functioning, including both attention and memory. This is not merely a theoretical idea. Nor is it simply a matter of personal experience.
Our own studies using the mini-OPSTI questionnaire (n = 2203) indicate that among people reporting high levels of stress:
High stress appears to affect not only everyday life but also cognitive functioning at work.
What Should We Take Away From This?
If you have recently become more forgetful, more absent-minded or find it harder to concentrate, this does not automatically mean that your memory is deteriorating or that you are developing a serious illness. Often, the explanation is far more ordinary.
Stress affects attention. And when attention deteriorates, we fail to notice things. If we do not notice them, we cannot remember them later. Perhaps we talk so much about memory because the consequences of forgetting are easy to see. The keys really are missing. The car really is difficult to find.
Perhaps the question is not always: Why am I forgetting? Perhaps a better question is: What am I paying attention to right now?
A Few Practical Strategies
During stressful periods, I try to rely less on memory and attention alone. Instead, I use simple external supports. For example, keeping keys in the same place, writing important things down, consciously noting where the car is parked, and deliberately directing attention to information that will matter later. Simple habits often compensate remarkably well for stressed attention systems.
Stress Rarely Comes Alone
Attention and memory difficulties are only part of the picture. Our mini-OPSTI studies suggest that high stress is also associated with excessive use of tension-reducing activities.
These may include overeating, excessive alcohol consumption, immersion in computer games, excessive exercise or highly restrictive dieting.
High stress is also associated with sleep problems. Sometimes people become irritable, nervous or start looking for someone to blame. Several of these findings are interesting enough to deserve separate posts in the future.
Something to Think About
Have you recently become more forgetful? If so, before blaming your memory, consider another possibility. Could stress be affecting your attention? And if attention is elsewhere, what exactly is occupying it?
Mini-OPSTI test (13 kusimust)
Selgitatakse välja mitmed kõige enam levinumat tööstressi sümptomit. Test aitab hinnata, kas ja mil määral need sümptomid esinevad, ning võimaldab võrrelda tulemusi Eesti normidega.
Keywords: occupational stress, attention, memory, forgetfulness, concentration difficulties, cognitive functioning, stress symptoms, absent-mindedness, mini-OPSTI, psychology
Whenever this happens, many people immediately wonder: Is my memory getting worse? Could it be Alzheimer's disease? Perhaps the problem is not memory at all. Perhaps it is attention. Maybe the person never really noticed where the keys were placed. Perhaps she never looked at whether the car was parked on level A, B or C.
And this brings us to an important point. Most of the time, such situations simply mean that attention was occupied by something else. That does not necessarily indicate poor memory.
You cannot remember what you never noticed in the first place.
What Does Research Tell Us?
Research consistently shows that attention problems, forgetfulness and absent-mindedness are not random complaints among people experiencing high levels of stress. They are biologically grounded and measurable cognitive effects associated with chronic stress.
In other words: people are not necessarily lazy, careless or irresponsible. Their brains may simply be overloaded.
The Biological Mechanism
To understand why this happens, it helps to look briefly at the biology. Under chronic stress, including occupational stress, the body releases cortisol, a stress hormone that directly affects brain regions involved in attention and memory.
Two areas are particularly important: the prefrontal cortex, which helps us focus and direct attention, and the hippocampus, which plays a central role in memory formation. When chronic stress affects these systems, concentrating, maintaining attention and remembering information become more difficult.
Stress, Attention and Forgetfulness
When people are under stress, worries and problems tend to compete for attention. As a result, it becomes harder to focus on work and other important activities.
International research has repeatedly shown that occupational stress is associated with reduced cognitive functioning, including both attention and memory. This is not merely a theoretical idea. Nor is it simply a matter of personal experience.
Our own studies using the mini-OPSTI questionnaire (n = 2203) indicate that among people reporting high levels of stress:
- 20% frequently experienced absent-mindedness and forgetfulness;
- 17% reported difficulties maintaining attention and concentrating.
High stress appears to affect not only everyday life but also cognitive functioning at work.
What Should We Take Away From This?
If you have recently become more forgetful, more absent-minded or find it harder to concentrate, this does not automatically mean that your memory is deteriorating or that you are developing a serious illness. Often, the explanation is far more ordinary.
Stress affects attention. And when attention deteriorates, we fail to notice things. If we do not notice them, we cannot remember them later. Perhaps we talk so much about memory because the consequences of forgetting are easy to see. The keys really are missing. The car really is difficult to find.
Perhaps the question is not always: Why am I forgetting? Perhaps a better question is: What am I paying attention to right now?
A Few Practical Strategies
During stressful periods, I try to rely less on memory and attention alone. Instead, I use simple external supports. For example, keeping keys in the same place, writing important things down, consciously noting where the car is parked, and deliberately directing attention to information that will matter later. Simple habits often compensate remarkably well for stressed attention systems.
Stress Rarely Comes Alone
Attention and memory difficulties are only part of the picture. Our mini-OPSTI studies suggest that high stress is also associated with excessive use of tension-reducing activities.
These may include overeating, excessive alcohol consumption, immersion in computer games, excessive exercise or highly restrictive dieting.
High stress is also associated with sleep problems. Sometimes people become irritable, nervous or start looking for someone to blame. Several of these findings are interesting enough to deserve separate posts in the future.
Something to Think About
Have you recently become more forgetful? If so, before blaming your memory, consider another possibility. Could stress be affecting your attention? And if attention is elsewhere, what exactly is occupying it?
Mini-OPSTI test (13 kusimust)
Selgitatakse välja mitmed kõige enam levinumat tööstressi sümptomit. Test aitab hinnata, kas ja mil määral need sümptomid esinevad, ning võimaldab võrrelda tulemusi Eesti normidega.
Keywords: occupational stress, attention, memory, forgetfulness, concentration difficulties, cognitive functioning, stress symptoms, absent-mindedness, mini-OPSTI, psychology
12.06.2026
Does the Language of AI Mislead Us?
In recent years, artificial intelligence has become part of everyday conversation. We say that AI learns, understands, decides, knows, answers, is smart, is intelligent, can do things, and sometimes even that it thinks or wants something. These expressions sound perfectly natural. They make a complex technology easier to understand.
But as a psychologist, I have started to wonder: Is AI itself misleading us? Or is it the language we use to describe AI?
Language Does More Than Describe the World
Psychologists have long known that language is not merely a tool for communication. Language influences how we understand phenomena, how we think, what attitudes we develop, and how we interpret the world. It is one of our most important thinking tools. Language does not simply describe reality. It shapes how we think about reality.
When we use language created to describe people to describe machines, we may stop noticing where description ends and illusion begins. Once we start using human words for machines, we inevitably begin to see more humanity in them than is actually there. For example, we say AI learned, AI understands text, AI thinks, AI knows. These expressions are convenient. But every time we use them, we add a little bit of humanity to the system.
Does AI Have Opinions?
One can debate whether AI "has opinions" in the human sense. A more accurate description might be that it models and predicts possible responses.
Although that raises another question: What exactly is a genuine opinion? That, too, remains a widely debated topic in science. In introductory psychology courses, students learn very early on that humans do not perceive the world in its entirety.
We see fragments. The brain constructs the whole.
Figure. Perceptual completion
The lion image is a classic example. We see only parts, fill in the missing information, end up perceiving a complete object. And most of the time, we do this remarkably well.
With AI, something similar happens - something that, in humans, we might call perceptual completion or model construction.
A person says: "I saw a lion." Even though only part of the information reached the retina. AI might say: "I think the user is interested in an object that may be a lion." Even though only a small part of the lion is visible. In both cases, the process looks something like this: partial information → model → complete interpretation
There is, however, an important difference. Human perception is a subjective experience. An AI model is a mathematical operation.
So What Is the Main Difference Between Humans and AI?
To compare these concepts meaningfully, it helps to start with simple working definitions.
When I look at this comparison, one difference stands out immediately. Human definitions repeatedly contain words such as experience, meaning, goals, choice, or subjective state. AI definitions repeatedly contain words such as input, pattern, processing, mathematical mechanism, optimisation. And that may be one reason why discussions about AI become so confusing.
Why Does This Matter?
The problem is not terminology itself. The problem is what those words do to our thinking. When we talk about AI as if it were human, we gradually begin attributing human qualities to it. This is where anthropomorphism begins - the tendency to see human characteristics where they may not actually exist.
Perhaps we should stop automatically using human-centred language when describing AI.
Because words such as:
easily create the illusion that AI is a person.
A pleasant conversational partner is not necessarily a trustworthy one.
Yet AI is often pleasant to talk to.
All of this creates a pleasant feeling. Psychologists know that people tend to trust those who seem similar to themselves. And that is where the danger lies. Signals that create trust are not the same thing as actual trustworthiness. Illusions can be pleasant.
As a scientist, I have learned to be cautious about illusions - even pleasant ones. If someone feels: "AI understands me" that may be a completely genuine experience. But it does not automatically mean that AI understands a person in the same way another human being does. Those are not the same thing.
Perhaps We Need a New Vocabulary
It seems to me that the rise of AI has created a need for more precise terminology. Not because we want to diminish or underestimate the technology. But because we want to think more clearly.
At the moment, we are using concepts created to describe humans in order to describe machines. Perhaps we need new concepts for phenomena that are not quite human, yet are no longer just machines in the traditional sense.
And finally. The more I use AI, the less interested I become in the question: Is AI intelligent? And the more interested I become in another: Does the language we use help us understand AI or does it mislead us? Perhaps the greatest misunderstandings do not come from the technology itself. Perhaps they come from the words we use to describe it.
Something to Think About
When you say that AI learns, understands, knows, or thinks: are you describing the technology, or are you describing it using words originally created to describe people? And does that distinction matter?
Further Reading
Teichmann, M., Kaugerand, J., Rannat, K., Priisalu J., Mõtus, L., Meriste., M. (2026). Does AI Language Mislead Us? Anthropomorphism in Human–AI Interaction: A Psychological Perspective. (In press).
Keywords: artificial intelligence, anthropomorphism, AI language, human - AI interaction, psychology of language, perception, thinking, machine learning, trust, work psychology
But as a psychologist, I have started to wonder: Is AI itself misleading us? Or is it the language we use to describe AI?
Language Does More Than Describe the World
Psychologists have long known that language is not merely a tool for communication. Language influences how we understand phenomena, how we think, what attitudes we develop, and how we interpret the world. It is one of our most important thinking tools. Language does not simply describe reality. It shapes how we think about reality.
When we use language created to describe people to describe machines, we may stop noticing where description ends and illusion begins. Once we start using human words for machines, we inevitably begin to see more humanity in them than is actually there. For example, we say AI learned, AI understands text, AI thinks, AI knows. These expressions are convenient. But every time we use them, we add a little bit of humanity to the system.
Does AI Have Opinions?
One can debate whether AI "has opinions" in the human sense. A more accurate description might be that it models and predicts possible responses.
Although that raises another question: What exactly is a genuine opinion? That, too, remains a widely debated topic in science. In introductory psychology courses, students learn very early on that humans do not perceive the world in its entirety.
We see fragments. The brain constructs the whole.
Figure. Perceptual completion
The lion image is a classic example. We see only parts, fill in the missing information, end up perceiving a complete object. And most of the time, we do this remarkably well.
With AI, something similar happens - something that, in humans, we might call perceptual completion or model construction.
- It is not knowledge.
- It is not an opinion.
- It is a model.
- In fact, the parallel goes even further.
A person says: "I saw a lion." Even though only part of the information reached the retina. AI might say: "I think the user is interested in an object that may be a lion." Even though only a small part of the lion is visible. In both cases, the process looks something like this: partial information → model → complete interpretation
There is, however, an important difference. Human perception is a subjective experience. An AI model is a mathematical operation.
So What Is the Main Difference Between Humans and AI?
To compare these concepts meaningfully, it helps to start with simple working definitions.
| Psychological phenomenon |
Human | AI |
| Sensation | Raw information received through the senses | Input signals such as text, images, or sound |
| Perception | Organising and interpreting sensations into meaningful wholes | Pattern processing and classification through a model |
| Attention | Directing limited mental resources toward selected objects or tasks | A mathematical mechanism that determines which inputs are most important for generating a response |
| Memory | Encoding, storing, recalling, and forgetting information | Learned patterns plus temporary use of conversational context |
| Thinking | Processing information, reasoning, solving problems, making decisions | Generating outputs and modelling relationships based on patterns |
| Emotions | Psychophysiological states that influence behaviour, attention, and decisions | Description or simulation of emotions without subjective experience |
| Motivation | Internal and external forces that guide behaviour toward goals | No internal goals or desires; optimisation of predefined tasks |
When I look at this comparison, one difference stands out immediately. Human definitions repeatedly contain words such as experience, meaning, goals, choice, or subjective state. AI definitions repeatedly contain words such as input, pattern, processing, mathematical mechanism, optimisation. And that may be one reason why discussions about AI become so confusing.
Why Does This Matter?
The problem is not terminology itself. The problem is what those words do to our thinking. When we talk about AI as if it were human, we gradually begin attributing human qualities to it. This is where anthropomorphism begins - the tendency to see human characteristics where they may not actually exist.
Perhaps we should stop automatically using human-centred language when describing AI.
Because words such as:
- thinking;
- learning;
- understanding;
- intelligence;
- wisdom;
- will;
- emotions;
easily create the illusion that AI is a person.
A pleasant conversational partner is not necessarily a trustworthy one.
Yet AI is often pleasant to talk to.
- It listens.
- It responds quickly.
- It mirrors our vocabulary and way of thinking.
- It does not argue for the sake of ego.
- It offers positive feedback.
All of this creates a pleasant feeling. Psychologists know that people tend to trust those who seem similar to themselves. And that is where the danger lies. Signals that create trust are not the same thing as actual trustworthiness. Illusions can be pleasant.
As a scientist, I have learned to be cautious about illusions - even pleasant ones. If someone feels: "AI understands me" that may be a completely genuine experience. But it does not automatically mean that AI understands a person in the same way another human being does. Those are not the same thing.
Perhaps We Need a New Vocabulary
It seems to me that the rise of AI has created a need for more precise terminology. Not because we want to diminish or underestimate the technology. But because we want to think more clearly.
At the moment, we are using concepts created to describe humans in order to describe machines. Perhaps we need new concepts for phenomena that are not quite human, yet are no longer just machines in the traditional sense.
And finally. The more I use AI, the less interested I become in the question: Is AI intelligent? And the more interested I become in another: Does the language we use help us understand AI or does it mislead us? Perhaps the greatest misunderstandings do not come from the technology itself. Perhaps they come from the words we use to describe it.
Something to Think About
When you say that AI learns, understands, knows, or thinks: are you describing the technology, or are you describing it using words originally created to describe people? And does that distinction matter?
Further Reading
Teichmann, M., Kaugerand, J., Rannat, K., Priisalu J., Mõtus, L., Meriste., M. (2026). Does AI Language Mislead Us? Anthropomorphism in Human–AI Interaction: A Psychological Perspective. (In press).
Keywords: artificial intelligence, anthropomorphism, AI language, human - AI interaction, psychology of language, perception, thinking, machine learning, trust, work psychology
10.06.2026
Multitasking as a Work Design Problem
The phone rings. Teams starts flashing. A new email arrives. At the same time, you are trying to finish a report that was actually due yesterday. Most of us recognise this situation.
The Myth of Multitasking
Over the years, a persistent myth has emerged: Successful people are good at multitasking. Some even consider it an essential skill in modern working life.
Research tells a rather different story. The human brain is not particularly good at performing two attention-demanding tasks simultaneously. What we usually call multitasking is actually rapid switching between tasks - again and again.
Each switch requires time and mental effort. Studies consistently show that multitasking increases errors, prolongs task completion and reduces efficiency.
A Small Experiment
Many years ago, together with students from an international Master's programme in Work and Organisational Psychology, we decided to explore this phenomenon.
Participants were asked to perform both simple and more complex office-work simulations. For example, they had to type text into an email while simultaneously answering simple arithmetic questions over the telephone. The results were later presented at the European Association of Work and Organisational Psychology (EAWOP) Congress in Maastricht.
The findings were clear. When multitasking, participants worked more slowly and made more errors than when completing the same tasks sequentially. Performing multiple tasks simultaneously did not improve efficiency.
Facts Are Stubborn
Research findings are remarkably consistent.
There is one important exception. Automated activities are different. Walking while talking works perfectly well because walking has become automatic.
Trying to perform two cognitively demanding tasks at the same time is another matter entirely. The digital workplace makes this problem even worse. Notifications, emails and instant messages create a continuous chain of interruptions.
More Than Half of Employees Multitask
Our OPSTI studies suggest that multitasking is not an unusual phenomenon. It has become a normal part of modern working life.
Frequent multitasking in OPSTI studies
Figure. Frequent multitasking in OPSTI studies
Multitasking was significantly associated with occupational stress (r = 0.31). The more multitasking employees reported, the higher their stress levels tended to be.
For nearly a decade, more than half of employees have described their work as a situation where several things must be handled simultaneously.
Is the Problem the Employee, the Job, or the Way Work Is Organised?
This is where the findings become particularly interesting. Multitasking was associated with:
In other words, the greater the demands, the more multitasking occurred. Work organisation included situations where employees "...could not determine the order of their tasks; were expected to meet unrealistic deadlines; received instructions from several people simultaneously; and were expected to respond immediately to calls and emails."
These are not personality traits. They are characteristics of work design. Perhaps we have been asking the wrong question. Instead of asking: How can employees become better multitaskers? we might ask: Why is work organised in a way that forces people to multitask in the first place? That is a very different question.
If an employee's day consists of constant interruptions, time pressure and competing demands, multitasking may not be a conscious choice at all. It may simply be a consequence of how work is organised.
Another Paradox
Multitasking was negatively associated with:
This finding should make every manager think. The more knowledgeable employees were, the less multitasking they reported. The higher their motivation, the less multitasking they reported. The higher their job performance, the less multitasking they reported.
Of course, correlations do not prove causation. We cannot say whether multitasking reduces performance or whether less effective employees find themselves more often in multitasking situations. The data do not allow that conclusion.
What the Data Suggest
Multitasking is widespread in modern working life. It is associated with workload, emotional demands, work organisation and occupational stress.
Some organisations may unintentionally produce multitasking - not because employees want it, but because work is organised in a way that makes it almost unavoidable.
The opposite explanation is also possible. Less experienced employees or those with less effective work habits may find themselves more often handling multiple demands simultaneously.
Correlations alone cannot answer that question. One thing, however, seems fairly clear. Year after year, more than half of employees multitask. And research consistently suggests that multitasking does not improve performance.
Something to Think About
What is one activity you have practised so extensively that you could almost do it with your eyes closed? And how often do you multitask at work?
If multitasking occupies a large part of your working day, could some aspects of your work be organised differently?
Keywords: multitasking, workplace interruptions, work design, job performance, work motivation, occupational stress, emotional demands, workload, organisational psychology, workplace productivity
Link
Teicimann, M.; Murdvee M.; Randmann, L.; Hellamaa, T.; Malik, A.S.; Ngana, W.G.; Pitkanen, J.M.; Shkuropat, K.; Stephanou, K.; Svetlicinaia, O.; Tali, A.; Verano Izaguirre, J.J. (2015). Workplace Busyness and Multitasking. In: Abstracts, European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology (EAWOP) Congress, 2015, Maastricht.
The Myth of Multitasking
Over the years, a persistent myth has emerged: Successful people are good at multitasking. Some even consider it an essential skill in modern working life.
Research tells a rather different story. The human brain is not particularly good at performing two attention-demanding tasks simultaneously. What we usually call multitasking is actually rapid switching between tasks - again and again.
Each switch requires time and mental effort. Studies consistently show that multitasking increases errors, prolongs task completion and reduces efficiency.
A Small Experiment
Many years ago, together with students from an international Master's programme in Work and Organisational Psychology, we decided to explore this phenomenon.
Participants were asked to perform both simple and more complex office-work simulations. For example, they had to type text into an email while simultaneously answering simple arithmetic questions over the telephone. The results were later presented at the European Association of Work and Organisational Psychology (EAWOP) Congress in Maastricht.
The findings were clear. When multitasking, participants worked more slowly and made more errors than when completing the same tasks sequentially. Performing multiple tasks simultaneously did not improve efficiency.
Facts Are Stubborn
Research findings are remarkably consistent.
- Multitasking may increase completion time by as much as 40% compared with focusing on one task at a time.
- Error rates increase substantially, particularly when tasks become more complex.
- Women are not necessarily better multitaskers. Despite the popular stereotype, research has not consistently supported this claim.
- Practice helps less than people think. Frequent multitaskers often believe they are good at it, yet studies suggest otherwise.
There is one important exception. Automated activities are different. Walking while talking works perfectly well because walking has become automatic.
Trying to perform two cognitively demanding tasks at the same time is another matter entirely. The digital workplace makes this problem even worse. Notifications, emails and instant messages create a continuous chain of interruptions.
More Than Half of Employees Multitask
Our OPSTI studies suggest that multitasking is not an unusual phenomenon. It has become a normal part of modern working life.
Frequent multitasking in OPSTI studies
Period |
Sample (n) |
Frequent multitasking |
| 2018-2019 | 1203 | 51,1% |
| 2020-2021 | 1299 | 59,3% |
| 2022-2023 | 550 | 59,9% |
| 2024-2025 | 1143 | 56,7% |
Figure. Frequent multitasking in OPSTI studies
Multitasking was significantly associated with occupational stress (r = 0.31). The more multitasking employees reported, the higher their stress levels tended to be.
For nearly a decade, more than half of employees have described their work as a situation where several things must be handled simultaneously.
Is the Problem the Employee, the Job, or the Way Work Is Organised?
This is where the findings become particularly interesting. Multitasking was associated with:
- emotional job demands (r = 0,39);
- quantitative workload and work pace (r = 0,32);
- organisational demands and work organisation (r = 0,32);
In other words, the greater the demands, the more multitasking occurred. Work organisation included situations where employees "...could not determine the order of their tasks; were expected to meet unrealistic deadlines; received instructions from several people simultaneously; and were expected to respond immediately to calls and emails."
These are not personality traits. They are characteristics of work design. Perhaps we have been asking the wrong question. Instead of asking: How can employees become better multitaskers? we might ask: Why is work organised in a way that forces people to multitask in the first place? That is a very different question.
If an employee's day consists of constant interruptions, time pressure and competing demands, multitasking may not be a conscious choice at all. It may simply be a consequence of how work is organised.
Another Paradox
Multitasking was negatively associated with:
- knowledge (r = –0.38);
- work motivation (r = –0.25);
- job performance (r = –0.27).
This finding should make every manager think. The more knowledgeable employees were, the less multitasking they reported. The higher their motivation, the less multitasking they reported. The higher their job performance, the less multitasking they reported.
Of course, correlations do not prove causation. We cannot say whether multitasking reduces performance or whether less effective employees find themselves more often in multitasking situations. The data do not allow that conclusion.
What the Data Suggest
Multitasking is widespread in modern working life. It is associated with workload, emotional demands, work organisation and occupational stress.
Some organisations may unintentionally produce multitasking - not because employees want it, but because work is organised in a way that makes it almost unavoidable.
The opposite explanation is also possible. Less experienced employees or those with less effective work habits may find themselves more often handling multiple demands simultaneously.
Correlations alone cannot answer that question. One thing, however, seems fairly clear. Year after year, more than half of employees multitask. And research consistently suggests that multitasking does not improve performance.
Something to Think About
What is one activity you have practised so extensively that you could almost do it with your eyes closed? And how often do you multitask at work?
If multitasking occupies a large part of your working day, could some aspects of your work be organised differently?
Keywords: multitasking, workplace interruptions, work design, job performance, work motivation, occupational stress, emotional demands, workload, organisational psychology, workplace productivity
Link
Teicimann, M.; Murdvee M.; Randmann, L.; Hellamaa, T.; Malik, A.S.; Ngana, W.G.; Pitkanen, J.M.; Shkuropat, K.; Stephanou, K.; Svetlicinaia, O.; Tali, A.; Verano Izaguirre, J.J. (2015). Workplace Busyness and Multitasking. In: Abstracts, European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology (EAWOP) Congress, 2015, Maastricht.
7.06.2026
Technophiles, Technophobes and Everyone in Between
Over the past few years, I have noticed an interesting pattern. Whenever organisations introduce a new technology or an AI-based tool, people react very differently. One person says: "Excellent. Finally, something new." Another asks: "Does this mean I have to learn yet another system?" A third quietly wonders: "Is my job now at risk?" And a fourth has already downloaded the new application before the meeting has even finished.
Why do people react so differently to the same technology?
Our research suggests that part of the answer lies in people's attitudes towards technology. With some simplification, we can place individuals on a continuum, with technophilia at one end and technophobia at the other.
Who Is a Technophile?
A technophile is not simply someone who knows how to use technology. A technophile is genuinely interested in new technologies and often excited by them.
When a new smartphone, AI application or digital service appears, technophiles usually want to try it immediately or at least explore it. Often not because they need it, but because they find new technology fascinating.
Our research revealed something interesting. Technophiles are not necessarily people who love gadgets. Rather, they tend to see technology as something that makes life easier - a way to stay connected, work more flexibly, and get things done more efficiently.
If you recognise yourself in this description, there is no need for concern.
Technophilia is not a disease.
Who Is a Technophobe?
Neither does technophobia mean that a person is unintelligent or incapable of using technology. More often, it reflects discomfort, anxiety or scepticism towards new technologies. A technophobe may think: "What if I cannot cope with it?" "Why do we need to change things again?" "Will this new system actually make anything better?"
Sometimes these are perfectly reasonable questions. Not every new technology is automatically a good technology.
Estonia Is Not a Paradise for Technophobes
When we developed and validated a questionnaire measuring technophilia and technophobia, we also examined how common these attitudes were among Estonian employees. The results were interesting. In our sample (n = 625), only 3.5% of respondents could be classified as technophobes, while 23.7% could be classified as technophiles.
Figure. Employees who are highly enthusiastic about new tools or technology
In other words, technophiles outnumbered technophobes by almost seven to one.
More broadly, 77.4% of employees reported generally positive attitudes towards new tools and technologies, whereas only 22.6% reported predominantly negative attitudes. This may help explain why Estonia has been so receptive to digital solutions over the past decades.
An Unexpected Finding
Many people assume that technophiles must be more successful employees. Likewise, they often assume that technophobes perform less well. Our data did not support either assumption.
For me, this was one of the most interesting findings. Simply loving the latest technology does not automatically make someone a better employee, a more productive worker or a more motivated person. Likewise, being cautious about new technologies does not automatically make someone less competent or less motivated.
Who Are the Technophiles?
The relationship between age and technophilia was expected. Younger people tended to be somewhat more technophilic (r = -0.26).
What surprised us was that technophilia was not related to gender or marital status. It was, however, associated with having children (r = 0.22). Parents tended to view new technologies more positively than non-parents.
Why might that be? Our data cannot provide a definitive answer. Perhaps children bring new technologies, applications and digital solutions into the household before adults encounter them elsewhere. Perhaps parents are more motivated to find ways of organising their time efficiently. Or perhaps this reflects a broader generational effect.
Technophilia Is Not About Performance
Our results suggest that technophilia is primarily associated with technology use itself (r = 0.47) and with the belief that technology creates mobility (r = 0.45), improves communication (r = 0.41), enhances collaboration (r = 0.39) and increases efficiency (r = 0.39). This suggests that technophilia is not simply enthusiasm for technology. Technophiles see technology as an opportunity to do things differently and perhaps better.
People Respond to Technology Differently
Take AI as an example. Some people believe AI will solve many of our problems. Others worry that it will create more problems than it solves. Some see opportunities. Others see risks. And many people remain largely indifferent.
As a psychologist, I am less interested in the question: Is AI good or bad? I am much more interested in another question: Why do people answer that question so differently? Why does one person adopt a new technology on the first day, another a year later, and a third never at all? Why do some people see opportunities while others see threats? And how do these attitudes influence our decisions, our work, our learning and our everyday lives? Perhaps people do not respond differently because technologies are different. Perhaps they respond differently because people are different.
Something to Think About
Would you describe yourself as more of a technophile or a technophobe? If your organisation introduced a new technology, an advanced robot or an AI tool tomorrow, what would your first reaction be? That question may tell you something interesting about yourself.
Keywords: echnophilia, technophobia, technology attitudes, workplace technology, technology adoption, artificial intelligence, digital transformation, human–technology interaction, work psychology, organisational psychology
Link
Martínez-Córcoles, M.; Teichmann; M. Murdvee, M. (2017). Assessing technophobia and technophilia: Development and validation of a questionnaire. Technology in Society, 51, 183-188. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160791X17301793
Why do people react so differently to the same technology?
Our research suggests that part of the answer lies in people's attitudes towards technology. With some simplification, we can place individuals on a continuum, with technophilia at one end and technophobia at the other.
Who Is a Technophile?
A technophile is not simply someone who knows how to use technology. A technophile is genuinely interested in new technologies and often excited by them.
When a new smartphone, AI application or digital service appears, technophiles usually want to try it immediately or at least explore it. Often not because they need it, but because they find new technology fascinating.
Our research revealed something interesting. Technophiles are not necessarily people who love gadgets. Rather, they tend to see technology as something that makes life easier - a way to stay connected, work more flexibly, and get things done more efficiently.
If you recognise yourself in this description, there is no need for concern.
Technophilia is not a disease.
Who Is a Technophobe?
Neither does technophobia mean that a person is unintelligent or incapable of using technology. More often, it reflects discomfort, anxiety or scepticism towards new technologies. A technophobe may think: "What if I cannot cope with it?" "Why do we need to change things again?" "Will this new system actually make anything better?"
Sometimes these are perfectly reasonable questions. Not every new technology is automatically a good technology.
Estonia Is Not a Paradise for Technophobes
When we developed and validated a questionnaire measuring technophilia and technophobia, we also examined how common these attitudes were among Estonian employees. The results were interesting. In our sample (n = 625), only 3.5% of respondents could be classified as technophobes, while 23.7% could be classified as technophiles.
Figure. Employees who are highly enthusiastic about new tools or technology
In other words, technophiles outnumbered technophobes by almost seven to one.
More broadly, 77.4% of employees reported generally positive attitudes towards new tools and technologies, whereas only 22.6% reported predominantly negative attitudes. This may help explain why Estonia has been so receptive to digital solutions over the past decades.
An Unexpected Finding
Many people assume that technophiles must be more successful employees. Likewise, they often assume that technophobes perform less well. Our data did not support either assumption.
For me, this was one of the most interesting findings. Simply loving the latest technology does not automatically make someone a better employee, a more productive worker or a more motivated person. Likewise, being cautious about new technologies does not automatically make someone less competent or less motivated.
Who Are the Technophiles?
The relationship between age and technophilia was expected. Younger people tended to be somewhat more technophilic (r = -0.26).
What surprised us was that technophilia was not related to gender or marital status. It was, however, associated with having children (r = 0.22). Parents tended to view new technologies more positively than non-parents.
Why might that be? Our data cannot provide a definitive answer. Perhaps children bring new technologies, applications and digital solutions into the household before adults encounter them elsewhere. Perhaps parents are more motivated to find ways of organising their time efficiently. Or perhaps this reflects a broader generational effect.
Technophilia Is Not About Performance
Our results suggest that technophilia is primarily associated with technology use itself (r = 0.47) and with the belief that technology creates mobility (r = 0.45), improves communication (r = 0.41), enhances collaboration (r = 0.39) and increases efficiency (r = 0.39). This suggests that technophilia is not simply enthusiasm for technology. Technophiles see technology as an opportunity to do things differently and perhaps better.
People Respond to Technology Differently
Take AI as an example. Some people believe AI will solve many of our problems. Others worry that it will create more problems than it solves. Some see opportunities. Others see risks. And many people remain largely indifferent.
As a psychologist, I am less interested in the question: Is AI good or bad? I am much more interested in another question: Why do people answer that question so differently? Why does one person adopt a new technology on the first day, another a year later, and a third never at all? Why do some people see opportunities while others see threats? And how do these attitudes influence our decisions, our work, our learning and our everyday lives? Perhaps people do not respond differently because technologies are different. Perhaps they respond differently because people are different.
Something to Think About
Would you describe yourself as more of a technophile or a technophobe? If your organisation introduced a new technology, an advanced robot or an AI tool tomorrow, what would your first reaction be? That question may tell you something interesting about yourself.
Keywords: echnophilia, technophobia, technology attitudes, workplace technology, technology adoption, artificial intelligence, digital transformation, human–technology interaction, work psychology, organisational psychology
Link
Martínez-Córcoles, M.; Teichmann; M. Murdvee, M. (2017). Assessing technophobia and technophilia: Development and validation of a questionnaire. Technology in Society, 51, 183-188. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160791X17301793
3.06.2026
Occupational Stress Is Here to Stay
Whenever I say that occupational stress is here to stay, many people immediately become a little uncomfortable.
Nobody likes to hear that. We would much rather believe that somewhere out there exists an organisation where people work without pressure, feel good all the time, and happily go to work every day.
Unfortunately, decades of workplace research suggest a rather different picture. Across several OPSTI studies conducted between 2018 and 2025, roughly one in five employees reported high levels of occupational stress.
Occupational Stress studied by OPSTI (Organizational Psychosocial Factors Indicator, 2018-2025)
Figure. Occupational stress levels among employees
I have spent a large part of my professional life studying occupational stress. During that time, I have never encountered a single organisation where occupational stress was completely absent.
There can be dozens, sometimes even hundreds, of potential sources of stress at work. Fortunately, not all of them affect the same person at the same time. And fortunately, not everyone reacts to the same stressors in the same way. I have often seen situations where the very same manager is experienced as supportive by one employee and highly stressful by another. This is one of the reasons occupational stress can never be fully eliminated.
This illustrates an important point that occupational stress does not arise solely from the work environment itself. Stress emerges from the interaction between a person and a situation.
That is precisely why occupational stress can never be completely eliminated from an organisation. What we can do is understand its causes and reduce its harmful effects.
Sources of Pressure
Our research shows that, on average, employees are affected by around eight to ten different stressors simultaneously. Some are related to workload, some to work organisation, some to management practices, and others to interpersonal relationships.
That is why the most important question is not: Is there stress in the organisation? Or even: How much stress is there? A far more important question is: What are we going to do about it?
To answer that question, we first need to understand how to recognise stress, what the main sources of occupational stress are, how those sources can be reduced, how to lessen the impact of stress on people, how to prevent burnout.
Perhaps that is why occupational stress continues to fascinate me after all these years. The challenge is not to create stress-free organisations. Such organisations do not exist. The challenge is to understand stress well enough to recognise it early, reduce its harmful effects, and prevent it from turning into burnout.
Occupational stress is here to stay.
The question is how we choose to live and work with it. What we can do is learn to understand it better, reduce its impact, and recognise the warning signs early - before they develop into burnout.
You may also be interested in the following publications:
Teichmann, M., (2020) “Mapping and assessing psychosocial risk factors for individual- and organizational-level occupational stress intervention”, EWOP in Practice 12(1), 25–38. doi: https://doi.org/10.21825/ewopinpractice.87120
Teichmann, M., Ilvest, J. Jr. (2010). Sources of occupational stress in technical university academics. Proceedings of the WSEAS International Conferences: 7th WSEAS International Conference on Engineering Education (EDUCATION '10), Corfu Island, Greece, July 22-25, 2010. Ed. Masttoraka, N.; Misdanov, V. et al. Greece: WSEAS, CD. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234783868_Sources_of_occupational_stress_in_technical_university_academics
Keywords: occupational stress, burnout, workplace well-being, psychosocial risk factors, OPSTI (Organizational Psychosocial Factors Indicator), occupational health, management
Nobody likes to hear that. We would much rather believe that somewhere out there exists an organisation where people work without pressure, feel good all the time, and happily go to work every day.
Unfortunately, decades of workplace research suggest a rather different picture. Across several OPSTI studies conducted between 2018 and 2025, roughly one in five employees reported high levels of occupational stress.
Occupational Stress studied by OPSTI (Organizational Psychosocial Factors Indicator, 2018-2025)
Period |
Sample (n) |
Employees with high stress levels |
| 2018-2019 | 1203 | 19,4% |
| 2020-2021 | 1299 | 24,1% |
| 2022-2023 | 550 | 21% |
| 2024-2025 | 1143 | 22,5% |
Figure. Occupational stress levels among employees
I have spent a large part of my professional life studying occupational stress. During that time, I have never encountered a single organisation where occupational stress was completely absent.
There can be dozens, sometimes even hundreds, of potential sources of stress at work. Fortunately, not all of them affect the same person at the same time. And fortunately, not everyone reacts to the same stressors in the same way. I have often seen situations where the very same manager is experienced as supportive by one employee and highly stressful by another. This is one of the reasons occupational stress can never be fully eliminated.
This illustrates an important point that occupational stress does not arise solely from the work environment itself. Stress emerges from the interaction between a person and a situation.
That is precisely why occupational stress can never be completely eliminated from an organisation. What we can do is understand its causes and reduce its harmful effects.
Sources of Pressure
Our research shows that, on average, employees are affected by around eight to ten different stressors simultaneously. Some are related to workload, some to work organisation, some to management practices, and others to interpersonal relationships.
That is why the most important question is not: Is there stress in the organisation? Or even: How much stress is there? A far more important question is: What are we going to do about it?
To answer that question, we first need to understand how to recognise stress, what the main sources of occupational stress are, how those sources can be reduced, how to lessen the impact of stress on people, how to prevent burnout.
Perhaps that is why occupational stress continues to fascinate me after all these years. The challenge is not to create stress-free organisations. Such organisations do not exist. The challenge is to understand stress well enough to recognise it early, reduce its harmful effects, and prevent it from turning into burnout.
Occupational stress is here to stay.
The question is how we choose to live and work with it. What we can do is learn to understand it better, reduce its impact, and recognise the warning signs early - before they develop into burnout.
You may also be interested in the following publications:
Teichmann, M., (2020) “Mapping and assessing psychosocial risk factors for individual- and organizational-level occupational stress intervention”, EWOP in Practice 12(1), 25–38. doi: https://doi.org/10.21825/ewopinpractice.87120
Teichmann, M., Ilvest, J. Jr. (2010). Sources of occupational stress in technical university academics. Proceedings of the WSEAS International Conferences: 7th WSEAS International Conference on Engineering Education (EDUCATION '10), Corfu Island, Greece, July 22-25, 2010. Ed. Masttoraka, N.; Misdanov, V. et al. Greece: WSEAS, CD. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234783868_Sources_of_occupational_stress_in_technical_university_academics
Keywords: occupational stress, burnout, workplace well-being, psychosocial risk factors, OPSTI (Organizational Psychosocial Factors Indicator), occupational health, management
31.05.2026
Why Did I Start Writing a Blog?
For most of my professional life, I have done what most researchers do. I have conducted studies, written papers, presented findings at conferences, taught students, developed psychological assessment tools, and worked with organizations trying to understand people and improve working life.
So why start a blog now?
Not because I need more visibility. Not because I am trying to sell something. And certainly not because the world needs one more opinion. The answer is much simpler.
Over the years, I have accumulated a large collection of ideas, findings, observations, and questions that never quite found their way beyond research reports, conference presentations, journal articles, or professional discussions. Some of these findings were published. Many were not. Yet all of them contributed to my understanding of people, work, and technology.
The Knowledge Paradox
The longer I have worked as a researcher, the more I have been puzzled by a simple paradox. We produce an enormous amount of knowledge. Yet only a small part of it reaches everyday life.
This is not a criticism of science. Scientific papers serve an important purpose. They help us create new knowledge, challenge assumptions, test theories, and improve our understanding of the world. I have spent much of my own career doing exactly that.
But academic papers are usually written for other researchers. And understandably so. Managers are busy. Engineers are busy. HR professionals are busy. WOP (Work and Organizational Psychology) practitioners are too busy. Most people have neither the time nor the motivation to read scientific journals.
As a result, many useful ideas remain known mainly within professional communities.
A Different Role
At some point I realized that perhaps I could contribute in a different way. Not only as a researcher. Not only as a consultant.
But also as a translator. Not a translator between languages. A translator between research and practice. Between scientific findings and everyday questions. Between what we know and what we actually use.
I am not starting this blog because I have more answers than others. I am starting it because many useful ideas deserve a wider audience than conference rooms and journal articles.
What Will This Blog Be About?
For more than 25 years, my work has focused on the relationship between people, work, and technology.
This blog explores topics such as:
And many other topics that are relevant, timely, and perhaps even useful. Mostly I will write about research findings. Sometimes about practical observations. Sometimes about ideas that made me stop and think. And occasionally about questions for which I do not have a clear answer.
What This Blog Is Not
This blog is not a consulting brochure. It is not a marketing tool. And it is not an attempt to build a personal brand. My goal is much simpler. To share evidence-based ideas, research findings, and reflections with people who are curious about understanding themselves, their work, and the rapidly changing world around them.
If some of these ideas help someone see a familiar problem from a different perspective, then the blog has already served its purpose.
An Invitation
Throughout my career, one question has remained surprisingly constant: How can we help people live and work better in a rapidly changing world?
I certainly do not have all the answers.
But I have accumulated a great many questions, observations, research findings, and stories along the way. Some of them may resonate with your own experiences. Some may challenge your assumptions. And some may simply give you something to think about over your morning coffee.
If that happens, then writing this blog will have been worthwhile. I am glad you are here. You are warmly welcome.
So why start a blog now?
Not because I need more visibility. Not because I am trying to sell something. And certainly not because the world needs one more opinion. The answer is much simpler.
Over the years, I have accumulated a large collection of ideas, findings, observations, and questions that never quite found their way beyond research reports, conference presentations, journal articles, or professional discussions. Some of these findings were published. Many were not. Yet all of them contributed to my understanding of people, work, and technology.
The Knowledge Paradox
The longer I have worked as a researcher, the more I have been puzzled by a simple paradox. We produce an enormous amount of knowledge. Yet only a small part of it reaches everyday life.
This is not a criticism of science. Scientific papers serve an important purpose. They help us create new knowledge, challenge assumptions, test theories, and improve our understanding of the world. I have spent much of my own career doing exactly that.
But academic papers are usually written for other researchers. And understandably so. Managers are busy. Engineers are busy. HR professionals are busy. WOP (Work and Organizational Psychology) practitioners are too busy. Most people have neither the time nor the motivation to read scientific journals.
As a result, many useful ideas remain known mainly within professional communities.
A Different Role
At some point I realized that perhaps I could contribute in a different way. Not only as a researcher. Not only as a consultant.
But also as a translator. Not a translator between languages. A translator between research and practice. Between scientific findings and everyday questions. Between what we know and what we actually use.
I am not starting this blog because I have more answers than others. I am starting it because many useful ideas deserve a wider audience than conference rooms and journal articles.
What Will This Blog Be About?
For more than 25 years, my work has focused on the relationship between people, work, and technology.
This blog explores topics such as:
- Emotional labour
- Self-motivation
- Cyberloafing
- Multitasking
- Sleep problems in modern working life
- Technostress, cyberstress and AI stress
- AI as a mirror of ourselves
- The meaningfulness of work
And many other topics that are relevant, timely, and perhaps even useful. Mostly I will write about research findings. Sometimes about practical observations. Sometimes about ideas that made me stop and think. And occasionally about questions for which I do not have a clear answer.
What This Blog Is Not
This blog is not a consulting brochure. It is not a marketing tool. And it is not an attempt to build a personal brand. My goal is much simpler. To share evidence-based ideas, research findings, and reflections with people who are curious about understanding themselves, their work, and the rapidly changing world around them.
If some of these ideas help someone see a familiar problem from a different perspective, then the blog has already served its purpose.
An Invitation
Throughout my career, one question has remained surprisingly constant: How can we help people live and work better in a rapidly changing world?
I certainly do not have all the answers.
But I have accumulated a great many questions, observations, research findings, and stories along the way. Some of them may resonate with your own experiences. Some may challenge your assumptions. And some may simply give you something to think about over your morning coffee.
If that happens, then writing this blog will have been worthwhile. I am glad you are here. You are warmly welcome.
31.05.2026
About Mare Teichmann
Mare Teichmann is a psychologist, Professor Emerita, entrepreneur, and developer of psychological assessment instruments.
For more than 25 years, she has studied the relationship between people, work, and technology through research, consulting, and practice.
Her work spans occupational and organizational psychology, psychosocial risk management, occupational stress, quality of working life, wellbeing, and, more recently, the psychology of human–technology interaction and artificial intelligence. With an early medico-psychological background in occupational health and nearly a decade of collaboration with IT professionals and engineers, she is particularly interested in how people adapt to technological change.
Mare is the founder of the Psychology Department and the Institute of Industrial Psychology at Tallinn University of Technology, the founder of the WHO Estonian Quality of Life Centre, and co-founder and CEO of PE Konsult.
She has also served in leadership and advisory roles in numerous national and international professional organizations, including EAWOP, SIOP, EFPA (as a member of the Standing Committee on Work and Organizational Psychology), ENOP (as the Estonian representative), and the Estonian Work and Organizational Psychology Association, which she founded and later served as President.
Over the years, she has developed and validated psychological assessment instruments, e-learning and e-assessment solutions, and workplace diagnostic tools used in research and organizational practice. Several of these instruments have been translated into multiple languages and applied internationally.
Throughout her career, she has been guided by a simple question:
How can we help people live and work better in a rapidly changing world?
In this blog, she shares evidence-based reflections on people, work, and technology - drawing on 25 years of workplace psychology research, professional practice, and a lifelong curiosity about human behaviour.
Links
For more than 25 years, she has studied the relationship between people, work, and technology through research, consulting, and practice.
Her work spans occupational and organizational psychology, psychosocial risk management, occupational stress, quality of working life, wellbeing, and, more recently, the psychology of human–technology interaction and artificial intelligence. With an early medico-psychological background in occupational health and nearly a decade of collaboration with IT professionals and engineers, she is particularly interested in how people adapt to technological change.
Mare is the founder of the Psychology Department and the Institute of Industrial Psychology at Tallinn University of Technology, the founder of the WHO Estonian Quality of Life Centre, and co-founder and CEO of PE Konsult.
She has also served in leadership and advisory roles in numerous national and international professional organizations, including EAWOP, SIOP, EFPA (as a member of the Standing Committee on Work and Organizational Psychology), ENOP (as the Estonian representative), and the Estonian Work and Organizational Psychology Association, which she founded and later served as President.
Over the years, she has developed and validated psychological assessment instruments, e-learning and e-assessment solutions, and workplace diagnostic tools used in research and organizational practice. Several of these instruments have been translated into multiple languages and applied internationally.
Throughout her career, she has been guided by a simple question:
How can we help people live and work better in a rapidly changing world?
In this blog, she shares evidence-based reflections on people, work, and technology - drawing on 25 years of workplace psychology research, professional practice, and a lifelong curiosity about human behaviour.
Links
- WIKI EN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mare_Teichmann
- WIKI EST https://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mare_Teichmann
- WIKI UK https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5_%D0%A2%D0%B5%D 1%96%D1%85%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD
- WIKI RU https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Тейхманн,_Маре_Альбертовна
- WIKI AR https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/ماري_تيشمان
- Google Scholar Profile https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Mare+Teichmann&btnG=
Mare Teichmann (PhD) Professor Emerita
mare@pekonsult.ee
blog.pekonsult.ee