Page 1 of 17
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 9, No. 9
Publication Date: September 25, 2022
DOI:10.14738/assrj.99.13040. Krishnamoorthy, R. (2022). An Exploration of the Personal Non-Work Factors Affecting Employee Engagement When Working from
Home. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(9). 21-37.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
An Exploration of the Personal Non-Work Factors Affecting
Employee Engagement When Working from Home
Raghu Krishnamoorthy
University of Pennsylvania
ABSTRACT
This paper reports on the research investigating the personal, non-work factors
that influence the employee engagement of those working remotely from home. As
corporations moved their workers to work from home because of the COVID-19
pandemic, the dynamics of work and the workplace evolved, with new, non-work- related human variables acquiring significance. Emerging research indicates that
working from home is here to stay, making it necessary to understand and factor in
those non-work elements in employee-related decision making. This exploratory
qualitative study examines the crucial non-work elements influencing employee
engagement based on the lived experiences of twenty-three employees who began
working from home during the pandemic. Findings reveal that concerns about
health, well-being, and work-life balance influence employee engagement when
people work from home. The paper suggests that decision-makers look at the
results of this study when answering important questions about the future of work
and how things that do not have anything to do with work could affect how engaged
employees are when they work from home.
Keywords: Working from home, remote workers, employee engagement, purpose, well- being, work-life balance.
More than 60% of people who had previously worked in offices switched to working virtually
from home at the start of the COVID-19 epidemic in March 2020. (Brynjolfsson et al., 2020).
Working from home, which was once an employee perk, has since evolved into a pandemic- induced permanent workplace reset (Zakaria, 2020).
The home as the center of the future workplace is more than just a shift in geography; it
represents the start of a new industrial revolution (Lapova & Delera, 2021). Neither businesses
nor employees expected or were prepared for such a rapid shift to home-based remote working
in such a short period of time (Brynjolfsson et al., 2020). According to a Harvard survey, 40%
of leaders felt unprepared to manage remote employees, and 41% had trouble keeping their
remote team members engaged (Parker et al., 2020). In the same way, only 40% of employees
said they felt supported by their managers when they worked from home, and 51% were
worried that their bosses didn't think they could do a good job when they were at home
(Achievers Workplace Institute, 2021).
Working from home, or working remotely, is not a new concept. It is defined by (a) a physical
separation between employees and their organizations and leaders, (b) the use of information
and computer technology as a work medium, and (c) a shift in work design and relationship
Page 2 of 17
22
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 9, September-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
management (Raghuram et al., 2001). According to Gartner (2020), over 30% of employees in
the United States worked remotely from home prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, until
the COVID-19 outbreak, working from home was seen as an employee benefit that could be
withdrawn at any time (Peck, 2015). The pandemic's workplace disruption changed work from
a home arrangement to a company's contingency need, and today it has clearly emerged as an
employee's workplace preference (Barrero et al., 2020).
While organizations are realizing that working from home is here to stay, accepting the same
and creating policies that address the transition to work-from-home has been difficult for
organizations and their leaders (Barrero et al., 2020). A further complication is that even
though polls show that companies' business performance has improved because of employees
working remotely from home, employee engagement scores, a key business metric, show
worrying signs, plunging to a new low in 2022, according to Gallup polls (Harter, 2022).
Employee engagement means that an employee is able and willing to give their full attention to
their work and do their best while also feeling satisfied (Kahn, 1990). If their engagement levels
are low, it clearly shows that employees may not be giving their all to the work, raising doubts
among decision makers as to whether working from home is detrimental to organizational
interests. This study tries to resolve the conundrum of how firms should think about keeping
their employees engaged at work because, post-pandemic, working from home is an
irreversible reset.
As companies and executives move their focus to managing people outside of typical office
settings, they must keep in mind that family and life dynamics frequently overlap with work
contexts, affecting an employee's capacity to focus solely on work (Warzel & Petersen, 2021).
During the pandemic, a poll of over 400 HR managers found that the workplace culture needed
to move from a work-centric to a worker-centric approach; firms needed to engage employees
first as human beings, then as workers (Bersin, 2021). Consequently, when it comes to boosting
employee engagement, organizational leaders must think about these personal, non-work
factors that may not have been as important in the past (Stein et al., 2021).
It is becoming increasingly vital for leaders to have a new understanding of how to reconfigure
the workplace model to fit employees' desire to work from home while keeping them engaged
in the work and the organization. The primary research question for this study is: what are the
personal, non-work-related factors that affect employee engagement when they work from
home? The terms "remote work" and "working from home" are used interchangeably in this
study.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The following section reviews the scholarly literature on the key elements of the study. It covers
the impact of COVID-19, remote work or working from home, and employee engagement.
The Impact of COVID-19
COVID-19, notwithstanding its tragic humanitarian consequences, gives us a chance to evaluate
the efficacy of working from home as the main workplace arrangement (Barrero et al., 2020).
The lesson learned is that working from home for the previous two years has proven to be a
sustainable and long-term work arrangement (Alexander et al., 2021; Barrero et al., 2020). New
Page 3 of 17
23
Krishnamoorthy, R. (2022). An Exploration of the Personal Non-Work Factors Affecting Employee Engagement When Working from Home. Advances
in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(9). 21-37.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.99.13040
research on this topic falls into three main categories: techno-economic effects, socio- psychological effects, and effects on how people make sense of the world.
When it comes to the economic impact of the pandemic, research shows that companies that
adopted working from home enhanced productivity by lowering operating costs, travel
expenditures, and real estate space (Barrero et al., 2020; Neeley, 2020). Furthermore, the stock
market recovered quickly from the pandemic shock, supported in part by favorable
government policies and showed that working from home had no adverse impact (Barrero et
al., 2020). As a result, many firms performed well and even flourished during the pandemic,
despite the move to work from home. The rapid growth of technology has made the transition
to virtual work even easier. Zoom, for example, grew from ten million subscribers in March
2020 to 300 million by July 2020 (Shein, 2020). Working from home, on the other hand, has had
some negative consequences at an individual employee level. Constant digital interaction, work
overload, and economic apprehensions at the beginning of the pandemic led to both exhaustion
and stress (Cranford, 2020).
Several major aspects impacting employees who work from home have been identified in the
literature on COVID-19's socio-psychological impact. School closures, eldercare, and isolation
difficulties put extra and distinct stress on those working from home, particularly women
(Carnevale & Hatak, 2020; Chawla et al., 2020; Meyer et al., 2021). Working from home,
however, improved after the initial adjustment, according to more recent studies, and was
crucial to sustaining well-being and a healthy work-life balance (A. Grant, 2021). Employees
have welcomed the idea that there is another way to work and that working from home might
help them achieve the long-elusive work-life balance (Alexander et al., 2021; Warzel & Petersen,
2021). Employees who spent more time with their families found how much they cherished
family relationships over many other things they thought they previously valued; they
rekindled dormant hobbies and passions and avoided grueling commutes and interruptions
(Warzel & Petersen, 2021).
Well-Being
The phrase "well-being" refers to a comprehensive concept that encompasses physical,
emotional, social, and psychological factors that all contribute to a person's overall positivity
and fulfilling existence (Hone et al., 2014). The increased interest in well-being has generated a
plethora of definitions that can be categorized into two groups: hedonistic and eudemonic
groupings of well-being (Dodge et al., 2012). Well-being is defined as happiness, a high degree
of positivity, a low level of negativity, and a general sense of fulfillment in life (Lyubomirsky &
Lepper, 1999). The eudemonic approach emphasizes psychological well-being and human
growth (Waterman, 1993). The terms "quality of life" and "well-being" are frequently used
interchangeably (Morrow & Mayall, 2009). According to Seligman (2011), well-being is linked
to happiness or thriving, and its benefits include positive feelings, engagement, positive
connections, a sense of purpose in life, and a sense of accomplishment. The antithesis of
happiness or thriving is languishing, which can also be described as a feeling of dread, lethargy,
or dullness (A. Grant, 2021; Seligman, 2011). A loss of ambition, focus, excitement, and joy in
life is linked to languishing (Chopra & Vild, 2021).
Employee well-being in work-from-home environments has been studied before, but the
results have been mixed. Despite claims to the contrary in certain studies, such as a reduction
Page 4 of 17
24
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 9, September-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
in stress caused by meetings and long commutes, C. A. Grant et al. (2013) found that remote
work increased the risk of overwork, exhaustion, and physiological problems such as sleep
deprivation and musculoskeletal illnesses. The physical health risks and mental discomfort
connected with catastrophic crises, such as the pandemic, also threatened well-being (Paredes
et al., 2021).
Nonetheless, researchers claimed that as people became more accustomed to working from
home over time, the transition improved their well-being since it naturally provided them more
control over their lives (Warzel & Petersen, 2021). Employees used to struggle to fit their lives
around their work; now, for the first time, they can fit their work around their lives, as work
has become more elastic to meet life's demands (Warzel & Petersen, 2021). We have learned
from the pandemic that well-being is not a separate or unique idea; it is an important part of
employee engagement (Qualtrics, 2021).
Work-Life Balance
Work-life balance is a logical extension of well-being (Felstead & Henseke, 2017). Work-life
balance is a psychological state in which people attempt to harmonize their resources and
expectations with the current demands imposed on them (Barber et al., 2015). If work and life
are not balanced, they will compete. Employees who have a strong work-life balance are more
productive and engaged, whereas conflict leads to disengagement and burnout (Kossek et al.,
2006). Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) recognized three types of work-life conflict: (a) time- based conflict, where the time demands of one role conflict with the time demands of other
roles; (b) strain-based conflict, whereby demands of one role deplete available psychological
resources, causing burnout and stress, resulting in difficulties in meeting the psychological
demands of other roles; and (c) behavior-based conflict, in which one role’s behaviors are
opposed to demands of behaviors in other roles. Long-term research has shown that work and
family are connected and that the lines between them are not always clear (Pleck, 1977).
Meaning-making
When significant life changes occur because of unplanned circumstances, people often
reconstruct their lives (Yerushalmi, 2007). Meaning-making, a concept established by Frankl
(1962) in reference to his experiences as a Holocaust survivor, is the process of consciously
reconstructing one's life based on lived experiences. Individuals were challenged to reassess
their fundamental assumptions about life and work, as well as their priorities, values, and
beliefs, because of COVID-19 and the change to working from home, culminating in meaning- making that may have influenced their professional or personal lives (Christianson & Barton,
2020). As a result, transitioning to working from home has meant more than just a change in
one's workplace; it has also transformed one's life priorities (Zakaria, 2020).
Working from home
Working from home, also known as "remote working," is a type of flexible work in which
employees use information and communication technology (ICT) to operate and complete tasks
outside of traditional office environments. Several studies (Anderson & Kelliher, 2009; Shaik &
Makhecha, 2019) point out the benefits of remote working, or working from home, such as
increased productivity, employee engagement, and lower turnover. Other research studies
have challenged the positive findings listed above. Due to the difficulty of building a sense of
connection among remote workers who do not work in a co-located office space, Gallup
Page 5 of 17
25
Krishnamoorthy, R. (2022). An Exploration of the Personal Non-Work Factors Affecting Employee Engagement When Working from Home. Advances
in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(9). 21-37.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.99.13040
discovered that remote workers were the least engaged of all employees (Dvorak & Sasaki,
2017). When comparing remote workers to nonremote workers, Staples (2011) found that
remote workers' effectiveness was influenced by nonwork issues such as childcare and
caregiving duties. Evanoff et al. (2020) found that non-work factors decreased employee
engagement when they caused stress and cut into the employee's work time when they worked
from home.
Employee Engagement
Kahn (1990) defined the term, employee engagement, as “the harnessing of organization
members' selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves
physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performance” (p. 694). Employee
engagement is a psychological state that describes how employees are present and
psychologically experience their work (Kahn, 1990). Because of its reputation as a predictor of
organizational performance, employee engagement has become a significant employee and
organizational metric (Harter, 2020; Xu & Cooper-Thomas, 2011). Increased employee
engagement, according to research, leads to a higher return on assets, earnings per employee,
sales growth, retention rates, and a more competitive organization (Harter et al., 2002; Xu &
Cooper-Thomas, 2011).
Employee engagement has changed with time, with new definitions and theoretical models
added to Kahn's original concept. Burnout and disengagement as the opposites of engagement
are among the most important of these theories (Maslach et al., 2001). Burnout, according to
Maslach and Leiter (1997), is a work-related condition characterized by exhaustion, cynicism,
and low self-efficacy because of an individual being overworked and weary due to work-related
stress. According to Maslach et al. (2001), burnout causes a sense of alienation from one's job
and organization, which is a strong indicator of disengagement.
Due to the general notion that remote work environments were secondary and alternate
workspaces before the pandemic, academic literature mostly ignored employee engagement in
remote work or working-from-home environments (Gilson et al., 2015; Shaik & Makhecha,
2019). During the pandemic, surveys on engagement showed mixed findings. Employee
engagement soared to 39 percent during the early stages of the pandemic, the highest level
since the Gallup survey's inception in 2000, but quickly fell to its lowest level ever at 31 percent
by August 2020, before stabilizing at a slightly lower 36 percent for the entire year compared
to the previous year (Wigert et al., 2021). Gallup also indicated that in the first half of 2021,
engagement levels remained stable at the same level as in 2020. (Harter, 2021). Engagement
levels grew by 13% in 2021, according to a separate poll performed by Qualtrics Employee XM
(2021). Gino and Cable (2021a), on the other hand, saw a 16 percent reduction in engagement.
Given the wide range of results, there is still some skepticism regarding the validity of these
surveys. Variations in engagement may, however, be attributable to different definitions of
engagement, different techniques of assessing the construct, different questions, or a
combination of all the above.
SUMMARY
Every aspect of people's lives was altered by the pandemic: their physical and mental health,
where and how they worked, their social and familial relationships, personal ambitions, and
objectives (Setterston et al., 2020; Warzel & Petersen, 2021). As a result, workplace paradigms
Page 6 of 17
26
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 9, September-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
have shifted around the world: where we work, how we work, and what we prioritize have all
been turned upside down. Brynjolfsson et al. (2020) contended, “As people learn new ways to
work remotely and businesses reorganize, the pandemic-driven changes may have more lasting
effects on the organization of work” (p. 24). Employees and organizations, however, still have
work to do to completely adapt to a work-from-home setting (Rosenbaum, 2021). Working
from home needs a new approach to studying employee engagement dynamics, and this
research contributes to academic and practitioner knowledge by examining the personal and
nonwork aspects that will be important for employee engagement in a post-pandemic future.
METHODOLOGY
The study used qualitative research methodology to conduct in-depth interviews with a diverse
group of participants, documenting the contextual and nonwork factors affecting their
engagement while working from home. An approval from the University of Pennsylvania’s
Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the study was obtained in June 2021.
Participant Selection and Sample Size
A purposeful, criterion-based, maximum variation sampling procedure was used to choose
participants. Volunteers for the study came from two places: alumni of a University of
Pennsylvania master's-level course and members of a professional forum with whom the
researcher is affiliated. The researcher sent out an email to thirty-five volunteers, and twenty- seven of them replied. The final research study included twenty-three participants after
eliminating two owing to not matching the criteria, removing another due to schedule conflicts,
and eliminating yet another due to recording issues.
Table 1: Demographic Profile of the Participants
Age Profile Gender Ethnicity Marital Status Child Status
21-30= 5 Female = 12 Caucasian = 15 Single = 4 None = 9
31-40= 9 Male = 11 Black = 3 Single With Partner = 4 Pre-school = 4
41-50= 4 Hispanic = 2 Married = 12 Primary = 5
51-60= 3 Asian = 3 Separated = 2 Secondary = 1
61+= 2 High = 1
Adults = 3
MATERIALS AND DATA COLLECTION
The interview structure and materials were developed utilizing the preceding section's
literature review, and two pilot interviews were conducted to allow the researcher to practice
and calibrate the structure. Because it was difficult to meet participants face to face during the
pandemic, all interviews were performed using Zoom, a popular video teleconferencing
software. Interviews lasted 45 minutes on average, ranging from 30 to 65 minutes. With the
participants' agreement, all interviews were videotaped using Zoom and the auto-transcriber
tool Otter.ai. In addition, the researcher made detailed handwritten notes throughout the
interviews, focusing on observations, nonverbal cues, and any emotional responses by the
participants. This method of triangulating data improved accuracy and descriptive validity
(Ravitch & Carl, 2016). The interview questions were in four sections:
• Section A: Questions about the respondent and demographics
Page 7 of 17
27
Krishnamoorthy, R. (2022). An Exploration of the Personal Non-Work Factors Affecting Employee Engagement When Working from Home. Advances
in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(9). 21-37.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.99.13040
• Section B: Questions about the context: Employee's job title, confirmation that they
began working from home after the pandemic (to avoid any confirmation bias in favor
of working from home), marital status, and caregiving status.
• Section C: Questions about their lived experience: What distinctive environmental and
non-work elements influenced the person when working from home, and it impacted
their work engagement (favorably or adversely)?
• Section D: The participants' final thoughts.
DATA CODING AND ANALYSIS
The data coding and analysis had three goals: (a) gain a comprehensive understanding of
interviewees’ lived experiences, (b) compare the results to the published studies, and (d) use
this analysis as a source of input when designing a new research questionnaire in a subsequent
study. Following Ose's (2016) recommendations, coding and analysis were conducted using a
combination of Excel and Word. The analysis was completed using deductive coding. Deductive
coding is defined by Ravitch and Carl (2016) as reading data in search of "something specific,"
which in this case refers to previously established concepts and models. A priori codes that best
reflected the data from the interviews were chosen from such prominent, existing literature,
and the data was mapped into these codes. Hinkin et al. (1997) suggested using deductive
coding as the primary analytical framework to ensure that there are no omissions from the
broader theoretical understanding of a subject.
RESULTS
To set the context of the results, it is appropriate to explore the characteristics of the
respondents beyond the demographics. This would help in understanding the specific personal
circumstances through which the participants would have viewed the questions. All the twenty- three participants were working from an office they moved to working from home before the
pandemic. At the time of the interviews, seven of the twenty-three stated that they would prefer
a work-from-home arrangement permanently moving forward in the future, while thirteen
were willing to work in a hybrid fashion. Only three wanted to return to an office fulltime. In
terms of their engagement levels at work, four of them felt their engagement levels were low,
while six felt they were medium, while thirteen declared their engagement levels to be high.
Two mentioned that their engagement levels had gone up after they started working from
home, while one said it had dropped. Of the twenty-three, four were single, four had a
significant other, twelve were married, while two were separated. Nine had no children, four
had preschoolers, five had children in primary school, one each had children in the middle
school and high school, while three had adult children out of home. All twenty-three of them
were working for the same organization from before the pandemic, although eleven of them
had had a change in their boss during the period they were working from home. These
characteristics serve as a useful backdrop in terms of the insights.
The results of the deductive thematic analysis are described next. Five categories emerged
because of this research, based on content analysis of the data. These five themes are: COVID- 19 related health issues, working-from-home adjustments, work-life, burnout, and wellbeing.
To determine the a priori codes, the following broad and well-known constructs from the
literature were employed as inputs: Work-life boundaries (Dumas & Sanchez-Burks, 2015),
burnout (Maslach & Leiter, 1997), COVID-19 stress syndrome (S. Taylor, 2021), remote work
Page 8 of 17
28
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 9, September-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
adjustment (Raghuram et al., 2001), and well-being (Dodge et al., 2012). Figure 1 shows the five
overarching themes as well as the fourteen sub-themes that are related to these categories.
Figure 1: Thematic Diagram Mapping Emerging Themes
Highlights from each theme are explained below:
Theme 1 – COVID-19-Related Stress
S. Taylor (2021) determined that the COVID-19 pandemic was a physical and psychological
phenomenon that affected people's well-being and dubbed the accompanying symptoms
"COVID-19 stress syndrome." Fear of Contracting the Disease, socioeconomic Fears, and
psychological stress on account of fear of COVID were the three subthemes that emerged under
COVID-19-Related Stress. Seven of the participants volunteered that they had contracted
COVID-19; three of them had immediate family members who were immuno-compromized and
had not been vaccinated, causing a major stress among the participants about their health. Here
is a quote illustrating this subtheme:
My dad lives in Haiti. Through last year they were not getting any (COVID-19) cases. This year,
just like in India, it has become just ridiculous—people are dying left and right. And, you know,
it is just another stress that I must deal with now. (Participant Cl)
Theme 2 Technology and Personal Adjustment
The pandemic forced a hasty transition to a virtual work environment, and employees and their
managers had to react quickly. Informational and technology (ICT) adjustment, according to
Raghuram et al. (2001), is the ability to leverage, use, and work virtually efficiently and
successfully. Working-from-home environments, isolation, and technological difficulties were
all analyzed under this theme's three subthemes.
Page 9 of 17
29
Krishnamoorthy, R. (2022). An Exploration of the Personal Non-Work Factors Affecting Employee Engagement When Working from Home. Advances
in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(9). 21-37.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.99.13040
The following quote represents this subtheme:
I am trying to cram what I can offer into much smaller spaces and much fewer hours because
these other hours must go to my husband, food, cat, and school. So, it does impact I think what
I am giving to work (Participant Er).
Isolation is defined as social loneliness that affects a person's mental health and work quality
(Raghuram et al., 2001), as represented by this quote:
I live alone now. So, some, some weeks I will not see anybody except who I run into at the
grocery store, these strangers, but, you know, during the worst part of the pandemic, I was
isolated, and whether you like it or not, I think it can take a toll on you! (Participant Ju)
Because all work from home is now done on mobile devices, the final subtheme in this area,
technical difficulties, alluded to issues with hardware and software (Raghuram et al., 2001).
The following quote represents this subtheme:
We were all kind of getting disconnected because of internet issues. There was a point when we
wondered why we are even having these [online] conversations because nothing was
productive. After March [2020], we upgraded our internet access at home. Now I feel okay. I
can, you know, update my files and work on them. There is no lag when I communicate. I felt
crazy for the first few weeks—I felt that, and other people did as well. (Participant Br)
Theme 3 – Work-Life Boundaries
Individuals' ability to manage work and life role demands, as well as their ability to implement
strategies to allocate time and attention to complete divergent role duties, is related to work- life boundaries (Dumas & Sanchez-Burks, 2015). The demands of overlapping roles were one
of the adjustments people had to make while working remotely from home (Schieman et al.,
2021). There are three subthemes under this theme: Work-Life balance, children at home, and
gender (women)-related Issues.
Under Work-Life Balance, items, where work demands prevented employees from having time
and energy to focus on important things for their family or personal lives, were grouped
(Schieman et al., 2021). Here is a quote representing this theme:
The biggest piece for me is overworking. It makes it a little bit harder to compartmentalize work
versus my personal life. I feel like they have become a little bit intertwined, thinking about work
when I am not working, because I am in the same environment where I live and where I do
work. It has been harder to, you know segregate those two worlds from each other. (Participant
Cl)
Work-life balance was impacted in two ways by having children at home. Because children are
a counter-veiling force favorably impacting lives, one effect was an increase in work-life
balance. Due to the increasing workload connected to childrearing during the pandemic,
children at home also had the reverse effect, reducing work-life balance (Schieman et al., 2021).
The following quote is an example of this subtheme:
My son will just come in and start screaming in my ear while I am on a Zoom call. Obviously,
people without kids do not deal with that. But then when you work at home, and the schools
are closed, it comes with the territory. It is what it is. (Participant Br)
Page 10 of 17
30
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 9, September-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Mothers' obligations to perform various responsibilities as both income earners and primary
carers for their families, which presented them with contradicting ideological pressures, were
referred to as Gender Issues (Offer & Schneider, 2011). The following quote represents this
subtheme:
It is harder for women, because when you're at home, you have many other responsibilities
again, not to discount the support that my husband provides me. At home, it is like constantly
having something to do. When you are home, as you know, you are like doing laundry, folding
clothes, and whatnot. When you are in the office the disconnect happens automatically, but not
at home. (Participant Um)
Theme 4– Burnout
During the pandemic, some of the participants experienced burnout, which was defined as a
combination of weariness, stress, and dissatisfaction ( Maslach and Leiter (1997). Because
burnout is occupational or work-related, not pandemic-related, it should be distinguished from
COVID-19 stress syndrome. One important result of the research is that given that work is now
done from home, and there are overlaps between work and non-work, burnout can happen
even on account of issues not related to work. This is where the definition given by Maslach,
and Leiter diverges in case of a work-from-home situation. This construct had three themes:
Exhaustion, cynicism, and personal efficacy (Maslach & Leiter, 1997).
Exhaustion is a term used to describe overworked people who had too much on their plates and
found it impossible to meet all the demands placed on them, leaving them fatigued and drained
(Maslach & Leiter, 1997). Here is a quote representing this theme.
I really wake up, and you feel like it is Friday, though it is still Wednesday. You realize that you
have worked 12- hour days in a row with such a backlog of work that you know you are not
going to be caught up even by Monday. You just get to a point where you just stop being
productive. I mean, you find yourself surfing the internet than working. And after a couple of
hours of that, you have not gotten any work done. But you know subconsciously you are
purposely avoiding work because you are just tired. (Participant Br)
Cynicism is defined as a negative, even hostile attitude toward one's work that causes
individuals to lose faith in the leader or the work, prompting them to accomplish the bare
minimum rather than fully engage (Maslach & Leiter, 1997). This is represented in the following
quote: “It seemed like there was not really an end in sight. There is an apathy that washed over
me” (Participant Ju).
A positive or negative sense of self that influenced self-image was referred to as personal
efficacy. The following quote represents this subtheme:
“I was given a process improvement initiative. Being able to add to that project and then present
the results was really gratifying to me. My boss provided the opportunity and was supportive
throughout (Participant Mg).”
It is interesting to note that no question regarding burnout was asked, but twelve of the twenty- three participants mentioned that they were feeling burnout, while four said they were not
burnout, and only seven did not mention anything related to it.
Page 11 of 17
31
Krishnamoorthy, R. (2022). An Exploration of the Personal Non-Work Factors Affecting Employee Engagement When Working from Home. Advances
in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(9). 21-37.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.99.13040
Theme 5– Well-Being
Well-being is a quality-of-life construct that encompasses an individual's physical, mental, and
social health, which can be positive or bad (Dodge et al., 2012). The topic of well-being is crucial
given the combination of COVID-19-related stress and workplace stress (A. Grant, 2021). The
"flourishing" concept under Well-Being is based on positive psychology and refers to a general
sense of well-being that leads to fulfillment and accomplishment (Dodge et al., 2012). Here is a
quote representing this theme:
I can have some more time to myself. So that is a good thing, you know, and am able to, like I
said pick up a couple of new sports and things like that, and then be able to share those sports
with my daughter . . . makes me feel good about myself, my daughter and life in general.
(Participant Do)
The "languishing" theme, on the other hand, connoted negative well-being (or ill-being), a
struggle to feel satisfied, poor emotions, and a sense of worthlessness that is unhealthy and
leads to disengagement (A. Grant, 2021). Here is a quote representing this theme: “I find myself
wandering in my mind. I am slower, more easily distracted, and find it difficult to bring myself
back to the task on hand” (Participant Do).
DISCUSSION
The study's findings highlight the complexities of personal and non-work factors that influence
employee engagement when working from home. The five themes that emerged from the
qualitative deductive analysis provide interesting insight into how different employees
experience working from home. Furthermore, it emphasizes the need for a more sophisticated
knowledge of how to keep employees engaged and motivated while working from home. As a
result, the study provides leaders with practical insights into what how to think about relevant
solutions when it comes to working from home as a primary work arrangement. These
observations are detailed below.
The first observation is that allowing employees to work from home provides a level of
assurance about their personal health and the health of their loved ones. People continue to be
concerned about COVID-19. While the situation may improve over time, the many varieties and
sub-variants of the pandemic are major variables that employees evaluate before considering
returning to work in a co-located office space. Any mandated return to office will be viewed
with trepidation because of the potential consequences for oneself and family members. This
fear about compromising on health has had a particularly negative impact on care givers,
particularly women, as evidenced by the number of women who have chosen to leave the
profession entirely rather than return to work from a collocated office space. Employees' health
and safety has become a value, a prism through which they view one’s quality of life. Any threat
to one's health (or safety), even if unrelated to the pandemic, given the compounding issues of
riots, shootings in schools, would reawaken people's memories of the pandemic and other
related fears and drive them to work from home as a safe haven where they can control the
environment, especially for those in the family who are immunocompromised or have other
risk factors.
The second finding is that while technology (access, accessibility, and expertise) is no longer an
impediment, many people still crave social connection through actual human interaction.
Organizations and individuals have spent significantly in technology ($561 per person by 2021)
Page 12 of 17
32
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 9, September-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
to enhance access and quality, allowing people to work from home more easily (Barrero et al.,
2021). While technology no longer poses a barrier, human-related issues of isolation become
increasingly vital to address, particularly for individuals who live alone. As a result, many
employees, particularly those in the younger age group, regard the workplace as a place for
social interaction, even more than as a place of work. This desire for social connection has
implications for organizations in terms of workplace design that supports such interactions and
interventions for bringing people together in a common space to foster community, social
connection, and a sense of belonging. Even here, the office serves as a social and collaboration
outlet rather than a primary place of work. Alternatively, organizations can think of non-office
venues to fulfill the same purpose.
Work-life balance and burnout are interrelated concepts. Employees may experience weariness
and burnout because of their office workload and increasing duties at home. The original
description and psychometric validation of exhaustion by Maslach et al. (1986) described it as
an individual's inability to give their all at work; in other words, an exhausted individual is
incapable of being engaged at work. Surprisingly, their definition focuses primarily on work,
and the insight from this study fis that non-work-related factors, such as the increased burden
of caregiving or taking care of children who are now at home due to the pandemic, are all
capable of exhausting an individual to the point where work engagement suffers. Exhaustion,
according to Greenhaus and Beutell (1985), has an impact on work-life balance. Exhaustion
depletes psychological resources, leading to burnout and stress. This makes it more difficult to
meet the psychological demands of other life responsibilities, causing a disruption in the work- life balance. Burned-out employees are 2.6 times more likely to be looking for job and 63
percent more likely to fall sick (Moss, 2019). When you work from home, both work and life
have stresses that might lead to burnout and exhaustion.
Businesses have adopted a variety of strategies to prevent burnout and exhaustion, including
resilience training, stress management, relaxation techniques, mindfulness training, and
mental health breaks (LeBlanc & Marques, 2019). A few structural interventions are also being
tested, including 4-day work weeks, Friday afternoon breaks during the summer, and a mental
health week off (Chen & Smith, 2021). To safeguard and shield life from the encroachment of
work, organizations must assist by establishing more formal barriers and guardrails (Warzel &
Petersen, 2021). Flexibility has been one of the biggest benefits of the unexpected shift to
working from home- and individuals want to preserve it.
The final insight is on well-being. Working from home has given people greater control over
their lives if work does not become so intrusive that it takes away from the newly acquired time
for life. Employees are prone to feel exhausted and overworked if work becomes too
demanding. Working from home, on the other hand, has allowed people to explore the areas of
life that provide them with comfort, vitality, and enjoyment. This finding can be interpreted to
mean that working from home aids in the resolving quality-of-life difficulties. Any change in
that arrangement (such as a forced return to work) will be viewed as a deterioration in quality
of life, posing substantial employee retention concerns for the company.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
The current study has two primary limitations. Firstly, it was conducted in 2021 and early 2022
with the pandemic as a backdrop. In fact, it was the logistical move on the part of the
Page 13 of 17
33
Krishnamoorthy, R. (2022). An Exploration of the Personal Non-Work Factors Affecting Employee Engagement When Working from Home. Advances
in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(9). 21-37.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.99.13040
organizations to pivot to employees working from home due to the pandemic, which brought
about this overwhelming preference for a long-term reset to working from home. As time goes
by, there is a potential for some of the dynamics caused by the pandemic to have different
implications on employees and therefore these findings need to be taken in the context of the
pandemic and re-examined at a different time post the pandemic.Howeever, since COVID-19 is
also a natural experiment, this kind of a study would have been difficult under normal
circumstances (Settersten et al., 2020). Second, the study's sample size is twenty-three people,
all of whom are from the United States, which raises concerns about generalizability given the
limited sample. Nonetheless, Gibson and Brown (2009) state that a small sample size is
acceptable if the sample is representative of the larger phenomenon, which was achieved in this
study by following a maximum variation in sample demographics.
CONCLUSION
The following is the conclusion reached because of this qualitative research: Organizations
must design policies, processes, and systems that include the whole person if employee
engagement is defined as an employee's ability to contribute their entire selves to work,
physically, cognitively, and emotionally (Kahn, 1990). When examining the whole individual,
nonwork or personal factors become crucial. Well-being, burnout, work-life balance issues are
critical to address in a human-centered organization (Bersin, 2021). Employee and employer
perspectives of organizations that offer for and support interventions to address nonwork
problems are vastly different, with employees in the future requiring far greater support from
their employers (Segal, 2021). A recent survey by the cleaning coalition of America found that
76% of organizational leaders think it is essential to have people back in an office (David, 2022).
Nonetheless, leaders must recognize that, flaws and all, remote work-from-home arrangements
have become a keystone of a post-COVID-19 labor market characterized by the great
resignation. A survey done in March 2022, reveals that 50% of US employees would rather leave
an organization than return to office (Lufkin, 2022). As a result, any organizational strategy
geared at enhancing employee engagement in the future of work—which is about
understanding that working from home is here to stay—should include personal
considerations such as assurance about health, work-life guardrails, and well-being.
References
Achievers’ Workplace Institute. (2021). Engagement and retention report, 2021.
https://www.achievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Achievers-Workforce-Institute-2021-Engagement- and-Retention-Report.pdf
Alexander, A., Crackness, R., & De Smet, A. (2021, May 17). What executives are saying about the future of hybrid
work. McKinsey. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/people-and-organizational-performance/our- insights/what-executives-are-saying-about-the-future-of-hybrid-work
Anderson, D., & Kelliher, C. (2009). Flexible working and engagement: The importance of choice. Strategic HR
Review, 8(2), 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/14754390910937530
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day's work: Boundaries and micro role transitions.
Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472–491. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3363315
Barber, L. K., Grawitch, M. J., & Maloney, P. W. (2015). Work-life balance: Contemporary perspectives. In M. J.
Grawitch & D. W. Ballard (Eds.), The psychologically healthy workplace: Building a win-win environment for
organizations and employees (pp. 111–133). American Psychological
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14731-006
Page 14 of 17
34
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 9, September-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Barrero, J., Bloom, N., & Davis, S. J. (2020). Why working from home will stick? (No. w28731). National Bureau of
Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w28731
Bersin, J. (2021). Big reset playbook: Human-centered leadership. https://joshbersin.com/big-reset-2020/
Brynjolfsson, E., Horton, J. J., Ozimek, A., Rock, D., Sharma, G., & Tu Ye, H.Y. (2020). COVID-19 and remote work: An
early look at US data (NBER No. w27344). National Bureau of Economic Research.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w27344
Carnevale, J. B., & Hatak, I. (2020). Employee adjustment and well-being in the era of COVID-19: Implications for
human resource management. Journal of Business Research, 116, 183–187.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.037
Chawla, N., MacGowan, R. L., Gabriel, A. S., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2020). Unplugging or staying connected? Examining
the nature, antecedents, and consequences of profiles of daily recovery experiences. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 105(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000423
Chen, T., & Smith, R. A. (2021, December 21). American workers are burned out, and bosses are struggling to
respond. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/worker-burnout-resignations-pandemic-stress-
-11640099198
Chopra, S., & Vild. G. (2021, July 12). Are you feeling blah? Psychology Today.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-life-s-purpose/202107/are-you-feeling-blah
Christianson, M. K., & Barton, M. A. (2020). Sensemaking in the time of COVID-19. Journal of Management Studies,
58(2), 572–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12658
Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53(6),
747–770. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700536001
Cranford, S. (2020). Zoom fatigue, hyper focus, and entropy of thought. Matter, 3(3), 587–589.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matt.2020.08.004
Dodge, R., Daly, A. P., Huyton, J., & Sanders, L. D. (2012). The challenge of defining well-being. International
Journal of Well-Being, 2(3), 222–235. https://www.internationaljournalofwell- being.org/index.php/ijow/article/view/89
Dvorak, N., & Sasaki, J. (2017, March 30). Employees at home: Less engaged. Gallup Business Journal.
http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/207539/employees-home-lessengaged.aspx/banner.html
Dumas, T. L., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2015). The professional, the personal, and the ideal worker: Pressures and
objectives shaping the boundary between life domains.
Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 803–843. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2015.1028810
Evanoff, B. A., Strickland, J. R., Dale, A., Hayibor, L., Page, E., Duncan, J. G., Kannampallil, T., & Gray, D. L. (2020).
Work-related and personal factors associated with mental well-being during the COVID-19 response: Survey of
health care and other workers. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(8), e21366.
https://doi.org/10.2196/21366
Felstead, A., & Henseke, G. (2017). Assessing the growth of remote working and its consequences for effort, well- being, and work-life balance. New Technology, Work and Employment, 32(3), 195–212.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12097
Frankl, V. (1962). Man's search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. Boston Press.
Gartner. (2020, September 30). Employee engagement implications of COVID-19.
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/3991232/employee-engagement-implications-of-COVID-19
Gilson, L. L., Maynard, T. M., Jones Young, N. C., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015). Virtual teams research: 10
years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1313–1337.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314559946
Gino, F., & Cable, D. (2021a, March 21). During COVID-19, why are workers so disengaged? Blame the boss. The
Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/during-COVID-19-why-are-workers-so-disengaged-blame- the-boss-11616338814
Page 15 of 17
35
Krishnamoorthy, R. (2022). An Exploration of the Personal Non-Work Factors Affecting Employee Engagement When Working from Home. Advances
in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(9). 21-37.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.99.13040
Grant, A. (2021, April 19). There’s a name for the blah you’re feeling: It’s called languishing. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/19/well/mind/COVID-mental-health- languishing.html
Grant, C. A., Wallace, L. M., & Spurgeon, P. C. (2013). An exploration of the psychological factors affecting remote
e-worker's job effectiveness, well-being, and work-life balance. Employee Relations, 35(5), 527–546.
https://doi.org/10.1108/er-08-2012-0059
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of
Management Review, 10(1), 76–88. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4277352
Harter, J. (2020, July 2). Historic drop in Employee engagement follows record rise. Gallup Workplace.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/313313/historic-drop-employee-engagement-follows-record-rise.aspx
Harter, J. (2021, July 29). U.S. employee engagement holds steady in first half of 2021. Gallup Workplace.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/352949/employee-engagement-holds-steady-first-half-2021.aspx
Harter, J. (2022, April 25). U.S. Employment engagement slump continues. Gallup Workplace.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/391922/employee-engagement-slump-continues.aspx
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction,
employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268
Hinkin, T. R., Tracey, J., & Enz, C. A. (1997). Scale construction: Developing reliable and valid measurement
instruments. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 21(1), 100–
120. https://doi.org/10.1177/109634809702100108
Hone, L. C., Jarden, A., Schofield, G. M., & Duncan, S. (2014). Measuring flourishing: The impact of operational
definitions on the prevalence of high levels of well-being. International Journal of Well-being, 4(1), 62–90
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of
Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.5465/256287
Kossek, E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundary management: Correlates
of policy use and practice, job control, and work–family effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(2), 347–
367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.07.002
Lapova, A., & Delera, M. (2021). What is the fourth industrial revolution? UNIDO.
https://iap.unido.org/articles/what-fourth-industrial-revolution
LeBlanc, N. J., & Marques, L. (2019, April 17). How to handle stress at work. Harvard Health Blog.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/how-to-handle-stress-at-work-2019041716436
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct
validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2), 137–155.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to
do about it. John Wiley & Sons.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397–422.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
Meyer, B., Zill, A., Dilba, D., Gerlach, R., & Schumann, S. (2021). Employee psychological well-being during the
COVID-19 pandemic in Germany: A longitudinal study of demands, resources, and exhaustion. International
Journal of Psychology, 56(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12743
Microsoft. (2021). The Work Trend Index: The next great disruption is hybrid work—Are we ready? Microsoft
Worklab. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-index/hybrid-work
Morrow, V., & Mayall, B. (2009). What is wrong with children’s well-being in the UK?
Questions of meaning and measurement. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 31(3), 217–229.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09649060903354522
Page 16 of 17
36
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 9, September-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Moss, J. (2019). Burnout is about your workplace, not your people. Harvard Business Review.
https://egn.com/dk/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/08/Burnout-is-about-your-workplace-not-your- people-1.pdf
Neeley, T. (2020). Remote work revolution: Succeeding from anywhere. Harper Business.
Nippert-Eng, C. (1996). Home and work: Negotiating boundaries through everyday life. University of Chicago
Press.
Offer, S., & Schneider, B. (2011). Revisiting the gender gap in time-use patterns. American Sociological
Review, 76(6), 809–833. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122411425170
Ose, S. (2016). Using Excel and Word to structure qualitative data. Journal of Applied Social Science, 10(2), 147–
162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1936724416664948
Paredes, M. R., Apaolaza, V., Fernandez-Robin, C., Hartmann, P., & Yañez-Martinez, D. (2021). The impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on subjective mental well-being: The interplay of perceived threat, future anxiety, and
resilience. Personality and Individual Differences, 170, 110455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110455
Parker, S., Knight, C., & Keller, A. (2020). Remote managers are having trust issues. Harvard Business Review.
https://netfamilybusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Remote-Managers-Are-Having-Trust-Issues.pdf
Peck, E. (2015, March 18). Proof that working from home is here to stay: Even Yahoo still does it. The Huffington
Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/18/the-future-ishappening-now-ok_n_6887998.html
Pleck, J. H. (1977). The work-family role system. Social Problems, 24, 417–427.
https://academic.oup.com/socpro/article-abstract/24/4/417/1632248
Qualtrics Employee XM. (2021). 2021 Employee experience trends. https://www.qualtrics.com/lp/trends-report- ex-2021/ Raghuram, S., Garud, R., Wiesenfeld, B., & Gupta, V. (2001). Factors contributing to virtual work
adjustment. Journal of Management, 27(3), 383–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700309
Rosenbaum, E. (2021, March 30). The message Microsoft is sending to managers after a decline in team
connectedness. CNBC. https://www.necn.com/news/business/money-report/the-message-microsoft-is- sending-to-managers-after-a-decline-in-team-connectedness/2436667/
Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. C. (2016). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological.
SAGE Publications.
Schieman, S., Badawy, P. J., Milkie, M. A., & Bierman, A. (2021). Work-life conflict during the COVID-19
pandemic. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023120982856
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish – A new understanding of happiness and well-being–and how to achieve them.
Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Settersten, R. A., Bernardi, L., Härkönen, J., Antonucci, T. C., Dykstra, P. A., Heckhausen, J., Kuh, D., Mayer, K., Moen,
P., Mortimer, J. T., Mulder, C. H., Smeeding, T. M., van der Lippe, T., Hagestad, G. O., Kohli, M., Levy, R., Schoon, I., &
Thomson, E. (2020). Understanding the effects of COVID-19 through a life course lens. Advances in Life Course
Research, 45, 100360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2020.100360
Shaik, F., & Makhecha, U. (2019). Drivers of employee engagement in global virtual teams. Australasian Journal of
Information Systems, 23, 1–45. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v23i0.1770
Shein, E. (2020, October 5). Tech investment surges to unprecedented levels due to COVID-19. The Technology
Republic. https://www.techrepublic.com/article/tech-investment-surges-to-unprecedented-levels-due-to- COVID-19/
Staples, D. (2011). Are remote and non-remote workers different? Exploring the impact of trust, work experience
and connectivity on performance outcomes. In M. A. Mahmood (Ed.), Advanced topics in end user computing (Vol.
1, pp. 302–324). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/9781930708426.ch018
Stein, D., Hobson, N., Jachimowicz., & Whillans, A. (2021, October 13). How companies can improve employee
engagement right now. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/10/how-companies-can-improve- employee-engagement-right-now
Page 17 of 17
37
Krishnamoorthy, R. (2022). An Exploration of the Personal Non-Work Factors Affecting Employee Engagement When Working from Home. Advances
in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(9). 21-37.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.99.13040
Taylor, S. (2021). COVID stress syndrome: Clinical and nosological considerations. Current Psychiatry Reports,
23(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-021-01226-y
Yerushalmi, H. (2007). Paradox and personal growth during crisis. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 67(4),
359–380. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ajp.3350038
Warzel, C., & Petersen, A. H. (2021). Out of office. Knoff.
Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and
hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 678–691. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.64.4.678
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R. (2001). Organizational identification among virtual workers: The
role of need for affiliation and perceived work-based social support. Journal of Management, 27(2), 213–229.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700205
Wigert, B., Agarwal, S., Barry, K., & Maese, E. (2021, March 13). The well-being-engagement paradox of 2020.
Gallup. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/336941/well-being-engagement-paradox-2020.aspx
Xu, J., & Cooper-Thomas, H. (2011). How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 32(4), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731111134661
Zakaria, F. (2020). Ten lessons for a post-pandemic world. W. W. Norton & Company