Suddenly Working From Home!
Effects of the Corona Crisis on Psychological Job Demands and Resources and the Role of Telecommuting
Abstract
Abstract. The Corona crisis and the lockdown in the spring of 2020 had various effects on working life in Europe. In this three-wave study, we assessed the trajectories of job demands and resources of 302 employees 2 weeks before the lockdown, over 1 week after lockdown start, and 6 weeks following the beginning of the lockdown. We applied a pre-post follow-up design with 129 employees who switched to telecommuting and a control group of 173 employees who remained in their on-site workplace. Results from the repeated-measures MANCOVA indicate that, despite various general changes to job characteristics because of the Corona crisis, telecommuting changes contributed to significant changes only in communication opportunities and – before Bonferroni correction – in physical job demands. These results may imply that the most visible massive switch to telecommuting of many employees during the first phase of the Corona crisis is only one explanatory factor for general changes to job characteristics.
Zusammenfassung. Die Corona-Krise und der Lockdown im Frühjahr 2020 waren mit vielfachen Veränderungen im Arbeitsleben in Europa verbunden. In einer 3-Wellen-Längsschnittstudie wurden die Verläufe von Stressoren und Ressourcen von 302 Beschäftigten zwei Wochen vor dem Lockdown, eine Woche nach Lockdownstart und sechs Wochen nach Lockdownstart erfasst. Die Studie folgte einem Pre-post-Follow-up-Design mit 129 Beschäftigten, die zu Homeoffice-Arbeit wechselten und einer Kontrollgruppe von 173 Beschäftigten, die weiter vor Ort arbeiteten. Ergebnisse einer MANCOVA mit Messwiederholung zeigen, dass trotz vielfältiger allgemeiner Veränderungen in den Arbeitsbedingungen durch die Corona-Krise der Wechsel ins Homeoffice nur zur Veränderung von zwei Arbeitsmerkmalen beitrug (Reduktion von Kommunikationsmöglichkeiten und – vor einer Bonferroni Korrektur – physische Arbeitsplatzstressoren). Das deutet darauf hin, dass die sehr sichtbaren Wechsel ins Homeoffice in der ersten Phase der Pandemie nur ein erklärender Faktor für vielfältige Veränderungen in den Arbeitsbedingungen im Zuge der Corona Krise darstellt.
The Corona crisis 2020 had a high impact on everyday life in Europe and various effects on the working conditions of its citizens. One of the most visible effects during the first weeks of the Corona crisis – with the so-called lockdown in Germany starting 16 March 2020 – was the sudden switch for a large number of employees from regular on-site office work to home-based telework. Rather than being touted as a flexibility tool, a benefit made available to employees to increase the attractiveness of the workplace and balance work and home demands, telecommuting became a required work arrangement aimed at protecting public health. In many cases, neither the employees nor the organizations were prepared for this step. This paper tests the general effects of the first 6 weeks of the Corona crisis on job characteristics and the role of the switch to telecommuting under these specific conditions. Based on previous research on telecommuting, we assumed that the switch from on-site working to working from home would be not only a change in location and work-home interaction (Ellison, 1999; Felstead & Henseke, 2017) but also a change in concrete job demands and job resources such as autonomy, social support, work interruptions, and role ambiguity (Sardeshmukh et al., 2012; ter Hoeven & van Zonen, 2015; Van Steenbergen et al., 2018). This study systematically examined which core job characteristics changed because of the relocation from an office workplace to a home-based workplace while controlling for general changes in job characteristics that took place during the first 6 weeks of the Corona crisis in Germany. We assessed the trajectories in job demands and the resources of employees over three measurement points: 2 weeks before the lockdown, over 1 week after lockdown start, and up to 6 weeks after the lockdown started. We then analyzed the differences between employees who switched to telecommuting and those who remained in an on-site workplace.
This study contributes to the increasing research on the effects of the Corona crisis on working conditions by investigating the general short-term changes in working conditions during the first phase of the Corona crisis in Europe. Furthermore, this study contributes to the general research on the effects of telecommuting on job demands and job resources. While most studies on telecommuting compare only the job characteristics of telecommuters and on-site workers on a cross-sectional, between-person level, this study considers longitudinal effects. Applying a quasiexperimental pre-post follow-up design with a group of employees who switched to telecommuting and a control group of employees who remained at their on-site workplace, this study yields more robust information on the effects of telecommuting.
Telecommuting
The development of information technologies and the mobile internet created manifold opportunities regarding flexibility for both employees and employers. One development is the opportunity to establish home-based telework (telecommuting) for many professions, either formally or informally, to work from home – and generally from anywhere – and at any time. Following the definition by Di Martino and Wirth (1990), telecommuting in this study is characterized by employees completing all or part of their work tasks from home while communicating with colleagues, supervisors, and customers via information and communication technologies (ICT). Telecommuting affects work and private life and the interaction between both domains in many ways (McDonald & Thompson, 2016; Venkatesh & Vitalari, 1992). Already before the Corona crisis, decentralized telework had become widespread in numerous companies and professions (BITKOM e.V., 2013; Nayani et al., 2018). A labor force survey of the German Federal Office of Statistics found that, across all business sectors, 12.9 % of German employees participated in telework in 2019, with high variance between different vocational classes (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2021). For example, 49.3 % of freelancers and 30.3 % of managers worked from home occasionally or regularly, compared with only 3.9 % of blue-collar workers.
The popularity of telecommuting was largely based on the assumption that telecommuting facilitates a balance of work and family life and decreases the interference of work-role demands with family-role demands, i. e., work-to-family conflict (WFC), which has been supported in many studies (BVDW e.V., 2017; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Tavares, 2017; Hill et al., 1996). Sewell and Taskin (2015) pointed out that the employees’ private lives and work-life balance particularly benefit from the employees being at home during breaks and emergencies and participating in family life during work hours. Additionally, working from home reduces the time and cost of commuting (Hill et al., 2003; Sewell & Taskin, 2015; Tavares, 2017) and opens up new job opportunities for people who live far away from their workplace or cannot commute to an office for individual reasons, such as children or physical limitations (Mahler, 2012; Mello, 2007), or adverse circumstances, such as the Corona crisis.
Besides these benefits, telecommuting may imply risks for employees. Adverse career effects were documented by Tavares (2017), Mello (2007), and Illegems and Verbeke (2004). However, according to Golden and Eddleston (2020), telecommuting per se does not lead to a lower likelihood of promotion, but employees are less likely to be promoted the more they work from home and receive lower salary increases. These adverse career consequences are also referred to as the flexibility stigma, describing the perception that people who are working flexibly (e. g., remotely) contribute less and are less committed to their workplace, particularly when employees are engaging in flexible work because of care duties (Williams et al., 2013).
Even though improvements in work-home balance and work and commuting time are intended, telecommuting may be associated with a reduced delimitation of working hours, blurring work-home boundaries, and increased WFC (Delanoeije et al., 2019), particularly for employees who prefer to separate life domains (Junker & van Dick, 2020). Telecommuters are also more likely to work overtime and to exceed official working hours without wage compensation (Brenke, 2016; Felstead & Henseke, 2017; Hill et al., 2003). Home-based employees may worry that their colleagues in the office may feel that they are not fully committed to their work at home and therefore feel compelled to respond to emails immediately to signal their virtual presence and availability (Sewell & Taskin, 2015; Dettmers et al., 2016). In addition, telecommuters tend to be constantly available not only to colleagues, superiors, and customers as well as to their families (Bamberg & Dettmers, 2015). The easy compatibility of work and family comes at a cost, as the boundaries between the family and work domains become blurred (Ellison, 1999; Felstead & Henseke, 2017; Tavares, 2017). Thus, private distractions tend to be greater at home than in the office, and family-to-work conflicts, which arise because of family-role demands interfering with work-role demands, tend to intensify (Delanoeije et al., 2019; Mello, 2007; Weer & Greenhaus, 2014).
Given the varied consequences of telecommuting, research on the general effects of telecommuting has provided inconsistent findings (Bailey & Kurland, 2002). The impact of telecommuting on general and mental health and well-being is controversial (Charalampous et al., 2019; Crawford et al., 2011; Kröll et al., 2017; Mann & Holdsworth, 2003; Steward, 2001). Some occupational health studies showed negative associations of telework with the burnout indicator of emotional exhaustion (Golden, 2006, Sardeshmukh et al., 2012). Tavares (2017) pointed out that, on the one hand, telecommuting reduces stress because of greater flexibility, lower WFC, and better work-life balance, whereas on the other hand, it might increase stress because of blurred boundaries between work and private life and conflicts within the family. In addition, telecommuters are often confronted with strict deadlines and sometimes unpaid overtime, which can trigger feelings of stress. Furthermore, the studies could have provided inconsistent results if different boundary conditions and the specific job characteristics had varying degrees of influence.
Effects of Telecommuting on Job Characteristics
Job characteristics such as physical, psychological, social, and organizational attributes of a job can be classified as either job demands or job resources (Demerouti et al., 2001). Job demands, like time pressure or situational constraints, require sustained physical or mental effort and may lead to physiological or psychological stress, which in turn results in emotional exhaustion, burnout, and loss of health (Demerouti & Bakker, 2011; Demerouti et al., 2001; Schaufeli et al., 2009). On the other hand, job resources are aspects of the job that moderate the relationship between job demands and stress, help to achieve work goals, or support personal development (Demerouti et al., 2001). If job resources are not sufficiently available, employees are unable to cope with job demands, which may result in stress. Furthermore, a lack of job resources leads to a decrease in work engagement (Demerouti et al., 2001; Schaufeli et al., 2009). Common examples of job resources are autonomy, feedback, and support (Demerouti & Bakker, 2011).
Job demands and resources are inherent to the specific content of the work tasks and work activity. However, the overarching work organization, the design of the specific workplace, and the local physical and social environment may have a significant impact on the specific shape of job demands and job resources. Overarching changes in the job, such as the shift from on-site work to working from home, can significantly change the demands and resources that employees face at their job (Hackman et al., 1978; Schaufeli et al., 2009). Regarding specific job characteristics, telecommuting may be accompanied by various changes.
Relocating the workplace to the home implies a change in the physical working environment. Depending on the specific design of the on-site workplace and the specific conditions at home, the relocation may be associated with increases or decreases in demands at the physical level (e. g., noise, light, ergonomic design) and the psychological level (e. g., work interruptions). Also, regarding psychological demands and resources, research on telework has found some general tendencies regarding differences between on-site working and working from home:
On the one hand, Sardeshmukh et al. (2012) showed that both time pressure and role conflicts decrease when employees work from home. Telecommuters may be less often asked to complete additional tasks and are less often distracted by colleagues (Fonner & Roloff, 2010, 2012;Kazekami, 2020). In addition, working from home may be associated with a reduction in work interruptions when there are fewer distractions from colleagues and noise (Van Steenbergen et al., 2018). Further, working from home is associated with a higher degree of autonomy, because by nature working from home means more freedom in performing tasks (Dimitrova, 2003; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Sardeshmukh et al., 2012; Tavares, 2017).
On the other hand, working from home implies a reduction in social resources, as employees have less face-to-face contact with their supervisors and colleagues. A decrease in communication opportunities, feedback, social support, and even social isolation may be a negative consequence of extensive telecommuting (Sardeshmukh et al., 2012; Tavares, 2017). Another disadvantage of working from home is that the frequency of information exchange decreases significantly, slowing down problem-solving (Harris, 2003).
Telecommuting and the Pandemic
In March 2020, after the start of the pandemic, 49 % to 61 % of employees were transferred to the home office in full or at least in part (BITKOM e.V., 2020; Statista, 2020a; Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, 2020). For about one-third of them, this experience was entirely new (BITKOM e.V., 2020). Since the beginning of May 2020, the proportion of employees who work exclusively from home and continue to pursue their profession to the same extent as before the pandemic has declined to only 5 % (as of July 2020). However, around 23 % of employees still work partly from home (Blom et al., 2020).
Based on the findings concerning telecommuting outlined above, it can be assumed that this introduction of telecommuting was also associated with changes in job demands and job resources for employees. However, the Corona crisis puts them in a new light, as the crisis itself has resulted in many new challenges and general effects, which may exceed the net telecommuting effects: The Corona crisis created a large-scale general economic crisis resulting in across-the-board changes in working conditions including an increase in job insecurity (University of Erfurt et al., 2020). Demand for products and services declined, both the manufacturing industry and consumers faced supply bottlenecks and process interruptions, and distance rules had to be implemented into work processes.
A further, but significant difference between telecommuting in normal times and telecommuting during the Corona crisis was the motivation for introducing it. Instead of being deemed a disadvantage of telework during the Corona crisis, the limitation of physical contacts was considered a value for its own sake. The objective was not to establish individualized solutions for reconciling work and home demands and avoiding commuting demands, but the immediate health protection of employees and their colleagues. Many employees had no choice and did not voluntarily relocate to the home-based workplace but had to follow social-distancing guidelines. As a result, universal workplace solutions rather than individual measures have been implemented (Belzunegui-Eraso & Erro-Garcés, 2020).
Working from home during the pandemic is characterized by specific features that are not essential in normal times. Baruch and Nicholson (1997) proposed a framework model, the conditions of which must be fulfilled to effectively realize working from home. According to this model, in the specific Corona crisis, essential factors for successfully realizing working from home, namely, the design of the home situation, family, and living environment aspects, such as compatibility with distractions by children, but also a suitable workplace in the home, were questionable in this situation. The suddenness of the introduction of telework impeded any preparation, taking neither individual competencies for self-regulation, nor job design, nor technical requirements into consideration, which can be considered prerequisites for working in this new work environment (Dettmers & Mülder, 2020). While the first might be a source of increased qualitative and quantitative overload, the second may be a source of situational constraints and regulatory hindrances, e. g., because of information problems or poorly designed work equipment.
In addition to the suddenness of the introduction of telework, the telecommuters’ work environment was influenced by specific conditions at home that cannot be compared to normal telecommuting (Amis & Janz, 2020; Roggeveen & Sethuraman, 2020; Statista, 2020b). Not only were employees and their partners or housemates forced – or at least expected – to work from home, but also children had to stay at home as German schools and childcare facilities were closed from March until May. Therefore, working parents were confronted with additional demands during their working hours, particularly having to attend to childcare and even active homeschooling, which may have had an immense impact on working conditions during the pandemic telework. The current Corona crisis additionally influenced the job demands and resources typical of working from home. On the one hand, the fear of the pandemic had to be mastered and quick adjustments to the daily work routine were necessary (Bavel et al., 2020; Belzunegui-Eraso & Erro-Garcés, 2020; Lunn et al., 2020). Particularly, psychological and emotional demands increased because of concerns about health and one’s financial and professional situation (University of Erfurt et al., 2020). On the other hand, Sinyor et al. (2020) found that, during the Corona crisis, employees became more focused on overcoming challenges. Because adapting to telework comes with many challenges for employees with no prior telework experience (Greer & Payne, 2014), this focus could represent an increased resource in the pandemic context and facilitate familiarization with telecommuting.
Research Questions
To summarize, the research on telecommuting provides some evidence of changes in work characteristics because of the switch to telecommuting, namely, a change in the physical work environment, a reduction in job stressors such as time pressure, role conflict (Sardeshmukh et al., 2012), and work interruptions (Fonner & Roloff, 2010, 2012;Kazekami, 2020) as well as an increase in autonomy (Sardeshmukh et al., 2012;ter Hoeven & van Zoonen, 2015) and a decrease in social resources (Mello, 2007; Sardeshmukh et al., 2012; Tavares, 2017; van der Meulen et al., 2019; Van Steenbergen et al., 2018). However, given the unprecedented conditions of the Corona crisis, including enhanced health and financial concerns and job insecurity, the extent to which these changes occur in the context of the transition to telecommuting during the Corona crisis remains an open question. For example, the lack of preparation of the home-based workplace and the organization of telework may counteract any potential positive effects of telecommuting on the physical work environment. The mitigating effects of telecommuting on time pressure and role conflict may be reduced in the Corona crisis, though lack of preparation and additional demands (e. g., quick adjustments to the daily work routine, homeschooling) may lead to quantitative and qualitative overload. Also, the reduction of work interruptions often reported as being an advantage of telecommuting may be undermined by additional interruptions from family members and school children living in the same household (Bouziri et al., 2020). Finally, it remains unclear whether an increase of perceived autonomy can be realized under the specific pandemic-induced introduction of telecommuting, which was often not based on employees’ free choice but on external regulations such as social-distancing guidelines.
In contrast, the frequently observed reduction of social resources and information exchange because of telecommuting may even increase, as the lack of preparation of supervisors and the provisional new work organization may hinder effective support from supervisors and colleagues. Premature technical solutions may additionally reduce communication opportunities. In addition, the potential reduction of social resources is accompanied by a general reduction of social resources in the broader private life domain and may increase isolation.
Taken together, the particular conditions during the Corona crisis may challenge the comparability of previous telecommuting findings regarding changes in job characteristics. Some changes in job characteristics found in the literature on telecommuting may decrease or reverse (e. g., time pressure or work interruptions), whereas other changes can be assumed to increase (e. g., decrease in social resources and communication). Because we do not know the size of increasing and decreasing effects, we refrained from formulating apriori hypotheses and followed an exploratory approach, posing open research questions. With this approach, we also intended to investigate additional changes in other job characteristics not investigated in previous research on telecommuting yet. Our research questions, therefore, are as follows:
- 1.Which changes in job demands and job resources can be detected at workplaces during the first weeks of the Corona crisis?
- 2.How do telecommuting employees without prior experience in telework differ from employees who continued working in the office concerning changes in job demands and job resources?
Method
To test our research questions, we used the dataset of an existing multiwave study with a planned final wave in the first week of March 2020. This date was 2 weeks before the lockdown in Germany (t1). At that point, no significant changes in daily working life had taken place or indeed were predictable. Driven by the Corona crisis and the lockdown in Germany, starting on 16 March 2020 (when schools, childcare facilities, stores, and whole companies shut down), we decided to add two additional survey waves to the t1-baseline wave. The second wave (t2) took place at the end of March (from 25 – 29 March 2020, less than 2 weeks after the beginning of the lockdown and the start of extensive telecommuting), with the third wave (t3) occurring 4 weeks later from 22 – 27 April 2020.
Our analysis aimed to detect changes in job demands and job resources following this first phase of the Corona crisis, and to examine the specific role of changes to telecommuting. Therefore, from the complete survey sample consisting of full-time working employees from various occupations (nt1 = 1,085, nt2 = 883, nt3 = 724), we selected those employees who had no prior telecommuting experience before the lockdown and who switched to telecommuting (for at least 3 days a week) from t1 to t2 (n = 156). To analyze changes because of working from home, we wanted to compare employees who started working from home because of the pandemic with employees who continued working in the office. Thus, we also selected those employees from the complete survey sample who remained at their on-site workplace (n = 293). To rule out that differences in the trajectory were driven by factors other than the lockdown-induced switch to working from home, we compared sociodemographic and occupational characteristics of these two subgroups. The analysis revealed that the number of employees in the health and care sectors as well as technical trade work and transportation was significantly higher in the on-site worker group, presumably because telework is much harder to realize in these industries. To obtain more comparable groups regarding specific work activities, we excluded employees from these industries from both subsamples. This resulted in a total sample of 302 full-time employees (173 on-site employees vs. 129 employees who switched to telecommuting) from comparable occupational groups (commercial employees 41.9 %/41.6 %, administrative employees 32.6 %/31.2 %, retail/sales 9.3 %/15 %, school and social sector 13.2 %/10.4 %, others 3.1 %/1.7 %1). Regarding the sociodemographic characteristics, the analysis revealed that those employees who switched to telecommuting had a significantly higher professional degree (university degree: 54 %/30 %). Therefore, we controlled for this variable in further analyses. We asked participants about their general perceptions of the Corona crisis regarding threats to health or the health of close ones and regarding threats to their own professional and economic situation; we detected no significant differences between telecommuters and on-site workers.
At each wave, we assessed job characteristics, including psychological demands and resources in the job content, work processes, organization, social relationships, and the physical work environment.
Measures
Job Demands and Job Resources
The Joint German Occupational Safety and Health Strategy (GDA, 2018) distinguishes four content areas of psychological job demands and job resources: job content, work organization and processes, social relationships at work, and work environment. The Questionnaire for Psychosocial Risk Assessment at Work (FGBU) by Dettmers and Krause (2020) assesses the job demands and job resources outlined by the GDA using 19 scales. We applied this questionnaire in this study to assess job demands and job resources. Table 1 displays the respective scales and sample items and Cronbach’s α in this study averaged over all three measurement waves.
Switch to Telecommuting
We assessed the switch to home-based telecommuting by combining the answers of different items. We asked participants at t2 and t3 if and to what degree they currently practice telecommuting. The answers given ranged from Completely, to 3 – 4 days per week, 1 – 2 days per week, to Not at all. Further, at t2, we asked whether the participant had already worked from home before the lockdown. The answers given ranged from Yes, completely, to Yes, 3 – 4 days per week, Yes, 1 – 2 days per week, to No, not at all. Switch to telecommuting was defined as given if an employee worked from home at t2 and t3 for at least 3 – 4 days but had no telecommuting experience before the lockdown (not at all).
Analysis
In the analyses, we included all job demands and job resources displayed in Table 1. To test changes in these job characteristics, we applied repeated-measures MANCOVA with the job demands and job resources as dependent variables, time as a predictor, and Switch to telecommuting as a grouping variable. Furthermore, we added professional education (University degree: yes or no) as a covariate to the analysis to control for differences between these two groups.
To analyze changes in each dependent variable, i. e., single job demands and job resources, we conducted post-hoc univariate ANOVAs. For the repeated-measures MANCOVA, we used GPower to conduct a sensitivity analysis based on a power of .80 with n = 272, two groups, and three measurements. This results in a minimum effect size of f = .1893 or d = .379/η2 = .035, which corresponds to a conventionally medium required effect size. For the post-hoc repeated-measures ANCOVA, the GPower sensitivity analysis based on a power of .80 with n = 272, two groups and three measurements resulted in a minimum effect size of f = .0770486 or d = .154/η2 = .01, which corresponds to a conventionally small required effect size.
Results
Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations between all job demands and job resources, and the grouping factors Switch to telecommuting and University degree.2
Regarding the main effects of the study variables, the repeated-measures MANCOVA determined that the mean levels of job demands and job resources differed significantly between participants who switched to telecommuting and participants who remained at an on-site workplace (F(20, 250) = 2.07, p = .006, partial η² = .14), and between participants with and without university degree (F(20, 250) = 2.88, p < .001, partial η² = .19). Furthermore, MANCOVA results revealed a significant effect of time (F(40, 230) = 2.26, p < .001, partial η² = .28), signifying that job characteristics differed between the measurement points. Post-hoc analyses revealed that a change of job characteristics as well as the interaction of time with the switch to home office can be detected particularly between t1 and t2 but not between t2 and t3.
Regarding differences in the Trajectory over time, the repeated-measures MANCOVA revealed no significant interaction with the covariate University degree (F(40, 230) = 1.13, p = .286, partial η² = .16), but a significant interaction effect with the grouping variable Switch to telecommuting (F(40, 230) = 1.98, p < .001, partial η² = .26).
The results of the post-hoc univariate ANOVAs for the single job demands and job resources (see Table 2) indicated, concerning time, that mean levels of decision latitude (F(2, 538) = 3.09, p = .046, partial η² = .01) and variability (F(2, 538) = 5.41, p = .005, partial η² = .02) increased between measurements from t1 to t3, whereas mean levels of social stress from customers (F(1.95, 524.70) = 3.59, p = .028, partial η² = .01), emotional dissonance (F(2, 538) = 3.25, p = .040, partial η² = .01), work interruptions (F(2, 538) = 3.39, p = .034, partial η² = .01), and communication opportunities (F(2, 538)= 9.05, p < .001, partial η² = .03) decreased over time (see Table 2). After we applied Bonferroni correction (Bland & Altman, 1995), only the change of communication opportunities remained significant (p < .01).
Regarding differences in the Trajectory over time, the repeated-measures ANCOVA revealed only two significant interactions of the grouping variables Switch to telecommuting with the Trajectory over time. The teleworker group exhibited a stronger decrease in communication opportunities (F(2, 538)= 14.84, p < .001, partial η² = .05) and demands of the physical work environment (F(2, 538)) = 5.42, p = .005, partial η² = .02). Regarding the specific physical demands, the teleworker group exhibited a stronger decrease in noise (F(2, 538)) = 3.77, p = .024, partial η² = .01), heat (F(2, 538)) = 3.52, p = .030, partial η² = .01), inadequate ergonomic design (F(2, 538)) = 4.22, p = .015, partial η² = .02), and heavy physical work (F(2, 538)) = 4.41, p = .013, partial η² = .02). After we applied Bonferroni correction (Bland & Altman, 1995), only the interaction effect on communication opportunities remained significant (p < .01).
In addition, the included covariate University degree interacted with the Trajectory over time. This interaction was significant for the following job characteristics: variability (F(2, 538)= 3.39, p = .021, partial η² = .01) and information overload (F(2, 538) = 4.74, p = .009, partial η² = .02) with a stronger increase in the group with a university degree and social stressors with colleagues (F(2, 538)= 6.32, p = .002, partial η² = .02) with a stronger decrease in the group with university degrees. However, after we applied Bonferroni correction (Bland & Altman, 1995), the interaction effects were no longer statistically significant (p > .05).
Discussion
This study investigated the effects of the first lockdown in 2020 because of the Corona crisis on job demands and job resources, with a particular focus on the role of telecommuting. This flexible workplace model was extensively introduced in response to the pandemic and reflected a completely new work situation for many employees. The results of our study revealed generally strong time effects, indicating a significant change in job demands and job resources from before the lockdown to 6 weeks into lockdown. In addition, our results indicate that these changes differed between employees who switched to telecommuting and those who remained in the on-site workplace. Particularly, this finding, including the strong interaction effect, suggests that telecommuting might play a significant role in modulating the effects of the Corona crisis on the workplace.
However, in detail, the post-hoc tests revealed that the interaction effect of working from home became significant only for communication opportunities and the demands of the physical work environment, and the latter only before Bonferroni correction. It is not surprising that these two job characteristics are particularly affected by the switch to telecommuting. Previous research on telecommuting has shown that the reduction of social resources and social isolation may be one of the risks of telecommuting (Mello, 2007; Tavares, 2017; van der Meulen et al., 2019; Van Steenbergen et al., 2018). This study replicated that finding. Working from home causes a lack of direct contact with colleagues and supervisors. Though new electronic information and communication technology offer a variety of tools for information exchange and social interactions, actual social contacts are often framed by official appointments and moderated meetings that do not allow as much social exchange as unplanned, informal, and spontaneous meetings, for example, in the office breakroom. The reduction of social interaction in our study might have been experienced even worse as not only work-related communication opportunities decreased but also social interactions in the private domain. The results of an additional post-hoc analysis suggested by one of the reviewers comparing “new” telecommuters with experienced telecommuters indicated that there was also a greater lack of communication before the lockdown which further increased after the lockdown.
The finding regarding the change in demands of the physical environment also seems plausible at first glance. Particularly in the telework situation investigated, without sufficient technological preparation or long-term installation of a home workplace, the additional demands of having children at home suggest that sudden teleworkers were faced with an unprepared and inadequate home workplace, as reflected in the significant interaction of switch to home office and time (Carillo et al., 2020). However, in our study we discovered a contrary finding, indicating that physical working conditions at home are in fact perceived as better than at the original workplace. More detailed analyses revealed that heavy physical work, ergonomic design, heat, and noise are evaluated better after the switch to telecommuting with a tendency to normalize at t3.
Considering the results in general, our study draws a picture that significant changes in job characteristics took place over time from before the lockdown to the later measurements during the lockdown. However, with only one significant interaction effect of telecommuting with time, the results indicate that many Corona crisis-induced changes in working conditions are driven by factors other than just the net change of working from home. Referring to work-psychological stress models such as the job demands-resources model (Demerouti et al., 2001), most of the detected changes can be considered improvements in job design, as job resources as decision latitude and variability increase, whereas job demands such as work interruptions, social and emotional stressors decrease, resulting in a less stressful situation. This finding is consistent with the results from other studies (Frodermann et al., 2020; Huebener et al., 2020), in which participants reported general deceleration and downtimes as a first consequence of the “Corona shock.”
In our study, as an unintended side result of the covariate professional education, we see even more significant interaction effects with time on job demands and resources than for telecommuting. This indicates that a significant part of the variance in the lockdown effects on employees’ job characteristics may be explainable by different qualifications (and related to this: work activities) rather than by the switch to telecommuting. Furthermore, professional education (university degree or not) is somewhat (r = .25**) related to the opportunity of practicing telecommuting. Though this was an unintended side result for which we cannot rule out random sample-specific effects, it led us to consider that focusing on telecommuting as a major explanatory process for the Corona lockdown effects may fall short: Other factors may be equally important, such as industry-specific constraints, job insecurity, and individual factors.
Implications
The study findings provide some valuable insights into the changes in job demands and job resources following the first phase of the Corona crisis and the role of telecommuting because of the lockdown. Regarding the general changes in job characteristics, the increases and decreases in job demands and job resources may have been more idiosyncratic to the specific historical situation with relatively positive changes in job design and a reduction in sources of work stress. Interaction effects seem to be more relevant to implications. The more robust reduction in social resources such as communication opportunities for employees who switched to telecommuting has also been reported in other studies on telecommuting and remains a core disadvantage of working from home. The popularity and use of telecommuting are likely to increase even after the Corona crisis, so that measures will need to be developed to cope with this reduction in communication opportunities and to address the communicational challenges of remote work. The Corona crisis has accelerated the development and distribution of communication software that not only allows formal virtual meetings and collaboration but also establishes more opportunities for informal social exchange. The effects on general communication opportunities at work need to be further investigated.
The unexpected results regarding the stronger improvement in the physical work environment following the switch to telecommuting highlight potentially difficult work environments in many on-site workplaces. Though the switch to telecommuting came unexpectedly and without consideration of an adequate work environment at home (such as a separate room), and even with the potential co-presence of partners and children, the sudden telecommuters evaluated their physical workplace conditions as better than employees did who remained in the on-site workplace. This result indicates a challenging physical workplace design of many regular workplaces and emphasizes the need to still account for physical demands such as noise when assessing risks at work.
Limitations
This study provided interesting findings regarding changes in job demands and resources during the first 6 weeks of the Corona crisis in Germany and the role of telecommuting. Yet, some limitations have to be considered when interpreting the results.
We followed a rather exploratory research strategy without stating verifiable hypotheses, which undermines the validity of the statistical tests applied in this study. We applied a pre-post-follow-up quasiexperimental approach, a relatively strong design in applied psychology to infer a causal relationship between the variables under consideration. However, the preliminary analysis revealed that the nonrandomized groups in our studies had significant structural differences in terms of branches and qualifications. Although we tried to control for these differences by sample selection and statistical procedures, we cannot rule out that further differences between the experimental groups in our study may have caused differences in the examined trajectory in job demands and job resources. Regarding the general research on telecommuting, we have to account for the extraordinary conditions of the Corona crisis under which our observation took place. Thus, the results obtained are not entirely comparable to the existing findings in telecommuting research. Furthermore, the observed timespan was relatively short. As Van Steenbergen et al. (2018) pointed out, some effects of the transition to remote work did not emerge until nearly a year later. Our period of observation was thus far too short to draw conclusions about long-term changes in job demands and resources because of telecommuting.
Electronic Supplementary Material
The electronic supplementary material is available with the online version of the article at https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089/a000374
Literatur
(2020). Leading change in response to COVID-19. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56 (3), 272 – 278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886320936703
(2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23 (4), 383 – 400. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.144
(2015). Verfügbarkeit – ein (neues) Thema der Arbeitsgestaltung [Availability – a (new) subject of work design]. Profile – Internationale Zeitschrift für Veränderung, Lernen, Dialog, 12 (24), 30 – 41.
(1997). Home, sweet work: Requirements for effective home working. Journal of General Management, 23 (2), 15 – 30. https://doi.org/10.1177/030630709702300202
(2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour, 4 (5), 460 – 471. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z
(2020). Teleworking in the context of the Covid-19 crisis. Sustainability, 12 (3662), 1 – 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093662
(2013). Work 3.0 – Working in the digital world. Retrieved from https://www.bitkom.org/sites/default/files/file/import/Studie-Arbeit-30.pdf
(2020, March 18). Corona-Pandemie: Arbeit im Homeoffice nimmt deutlich zu. Bitkom [Corona pandemic: telework is increasing significantly]. Retrieved from https://www.bitkom.org/Presse/Presseinformation/Corona-Pandemie-Arbeit-im-Homeoffice-nimmt-deutlich-zu
(1995). Multiple significance tests: The Bonferroni method. BMJ, 310 (6973), 170.
(2020). Die Mannheimer Corona-Studie: Das Leben in Deutschland im Ausnahmezustand [The Mannheim Corona Study: Life in Germany in a state of emergency]. Retrieved from https://madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/55482/1/30-06-2020_Mannheimer_Corona-Studie_-_Bericht_zur_Lage_in_den_Tagen_20_Mrz-29_Jun_2020.pdf
(2020). Working from home in the time of COVID-19: How to best preserve occupational health? Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 77 (7), 509 – 510. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2020-106599
(2016). Home Office. Möglichkeiten werden bei Weitem nicht ausgeschöpft [Telework. Opportunities are far from being exhausted]. DIW Wochenbericht Nr. 5, 95 – 105. DIW – Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung. Retrieved from http://www.diw.de/de/diw_01.c.525999.de/wochenberichte/home_office_moeglichkeiten_werden_bei_weitem_nicht_ausgeschoepft.html
(2017). Umfrage zum Thema Flexibles Arbeiten [Survey on flexible working]. Retrieved from https://www.bvdw.org/fileadmin/bvdw/_membercontent/staging/news/86134f5b5d6591f2d0e986fe2d1bc1db_02.pdf
(2020). Adjusting to epidemic-induced telework: Empirical insights from teleworkers in France. European Journal of Information Systems, 30, 1, 69 – 88. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1829512
(2019). Systematically reviewing remote e-workers’ well-being at work: a multidimensional approach. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28 (1), 51 – 73. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1541886
(2011). The health and well-being of remote and mobile workers. Occupational Medicine, 61 (6), 385 – 394. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqr071
(2019). Boundary role transitions: A day-to-day approach to explain the effects of home-based telework on work-to-home conflict and home-to-work conflict. Human Relations, 72 (12), 1843 – 1868. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718823071
(2011). The job demands–resources model: Challenges for future research. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37 (2), a974,, 1 – 9. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v37i2.974
(2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (3), 499 – 512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
(2016). Characteristics of extended availability for work: The role of demands and resources. International Journal of Stress Management. Advanced online publication https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000014
(2020). Der Fragebogen zur Gefährdungsbeurteilung psychischer Belastungen (FGBU) [The questionnaire for risk assessment of psychological stress]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie A&O, 64 (2), 99 – 119. https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089/a000318
(2020). Arbeitsgestaltungskompetenz im Homeoffice [Work design competencies in telework]. Wirtschaftspsychologie aktuell, 3, 14 – 19.
(1990). Telework: A new way of working and living. International Labour Review, 129 (5), 529 – 554. Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/intlr129&div=54&id=&page=
(2003). Controlling teleworkers: Supervision and flexibility revisited. New Technology, Work and Employment, 18 (3), 181 – 195. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-005X.00120
(1999). Social impacts: New perspectives on telework. Social Science Computer Review, 17 (3), 338 – 356. https://doi.org/10.1177/089443939901700308
(2020). Verbreitung und Auswirkungen von mobiler Arbeit und Homeoffice [Distribution and effects of mobile work and working from home]. Forschungsbericht 549. Retrieved from https://www.bmas.de/DE/Service/Publikationen/Forschungsberichte/fb-549-verbreitung-auswirkungen-mobiles-arbeiten.html
(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
(2010). Why teleworkers are more satisfied with their jobs than are office-based workers: When less contact is beneficial. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38 (4), 336 – 361. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2010.513998
(2012). Testing the connectivity paradox: Linking teleworkers’ communication media use to social presence, stress from interruptions, and organizational identification. Communication Monographs, 79 (2), 205 – 231. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2012.673000
(2020). Online-Befragung von Beschäftigten: Wie Corona den Arbeitsalltag verändert hat [
Online survey of employees: How the Corona pandemic has changed everyday work ]. IAB-Kurzbericht Nr. 13, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung. Retrieved from http://doku.iab.de/kurzber/2020/kb1320.pdf(2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (6), 1524 – 1541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524
(2018). Leitlinie Beratung und Überwachung bei psychischer Belastung am Arbeitsplatz [Guideline for counseling and monitoring in the event of psychological stress in the workplace]. Geschäftsstelle der Nationalen Arbeitsschutzkonferenz. Retrieved from https://www.gda-portal.de/DE/Downloads/pdf/Leitlinie-Psych-Belastung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
(2006). Avoiding depletion in virtual work: Telework and the intervening impact of work exhaustion on commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69 (1), 176 – 187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2006.02.003
(2020). Is there a price telecommuters pay? Examining the relationship between telecommuting and objective career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 116, 103348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103348
(2014). Overcoming telework challenges: Outcomes of successful telework strategies. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 17 (2), 87 – 111. https://doi.org/10.1037/mgr0000014
(1978). Effects of changes in job characteristics on work attitudes and behaviors: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21 (3), 289 – 304. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(78)90055-7
(2003). Home‐based teleworking and the employment relationship: Managerial challenges and dilemmas. Personnel Review, 32 (4), 422 – 437. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480310477515
(2003). Does it matter where you work? A comparison of how three work venues (traditional office, virtual office, and home office) influence aspects of work and personal/family life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63 (2), 220 – 241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00042-3
(1996). Work and family in the virtual office: perceived influences of mobile telework. Family Relations, 45 (3), 293 – 301. https://doi.org/10.2307/585501
(2020). Wohlbefinden von Familien in Zeiten von Corona: Eltern mit jungen Kindern am stärksten beeinträchtigt [Well-being of families in times of the Corona pandemic: Parents with young children most affected]. DIW Wochenbericht Nr. 30/31, 527 – 537. DIW – Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung. https://doi.org/10.18723/DIW_WB:2020-30-1
(2004). Telework: What does it mean for management? Long Range Planning, 37 (4), 319 – 334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2004.03.004
(2020). Congruence in preferences and expectations of work-family role management: Operationalization and their effects on work-family balance and perceived spousal support. Sex Roles, 82, 644 – 658. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11199 – 019 – 01085 – 1
(2020). Mechanisms to improve labor productivity by performing telework. Telecommunications Policy, 44 (2), 101868 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2019.101868
(2017). Meta-analytic evidence of the effectiveness of stress management at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26 (5), 677 – 693. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1347157
(2020). Using behavioral science to help fight the Coronavirus. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 3 (1), 1 – 15. https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.31.147
(2012). The telework divide: Managerial and personnel challenges of telework. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 32 (4), 407 – 418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X12458127
(2003). The psychological impact of teleworking: Stress, emotions and health. New Technology, Work and Employment, 18 (3), 196 – 211. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-005X.00121
(2016). Social media(tion) and the reshaping of public/private boundaries in employment relations: Social media(tion) and the reshaping of public/private boundaries. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18 (1), 69 – 84. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12061
(2007). Managing telework programs effectively. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 19 (4), 247 – 261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-007-9051-1
(2018). Out of sight and out of mind? A literature review of occupational safety and health leadership and management of distributed workers. Work & Stress, 32 (2), 124 – 146. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2017.1390797
(2020). How the COVID-19 pandemic may change the world of retailing. Journal of Retailing, 96 (2), 169 – 171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2020.04.002
(2012). Impact of telework on exhaustion and job engagement: a job demands and job resources model: Impact of telework on exhaustion and job engagement. New Technology, Work and Employment, 27 (3), 193 – 207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2012.00284.x
(2009). How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30 (7), 893 – 917. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.595
(2015). Out of sight, out of mind in a new world of work? Autonomy, control, and spatiotemporal scaling in telework. Organization Studies, 36 (11), 1507 – 1529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615593587
(2020). Changes in suicide and resilience-related Google searches during the early stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 65 (10), 741 – 743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0706743720933426
(2020a). Corona-Krise: Anteil der Belegschaft, der im Homeoffice arbeitete, aktuell arbeitet oder theoretisch arbeiten könnte in Deutschland im 2. Quartal 2020 [Corona crisis: Share of the workforce who worked in the home office, currently works or could theoretically work in Germany in the 2nd quarter of 2020]. Retrieved from https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1140049/umfrage/Corona-krise-homeoffice-nutzung-und-potenzial/
(2020b). Welche Auswirkungen hat die COVID-19-Pandemie aktuell auf die Geschäfte Ihres Unternehmens? [What effects is the COVID-19 pandemic currently having on the business of your company?] Retrieved from https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1102907/umfrage/umfrage-unter-deutschen-unternehmen-zu-den-erwarteten-folgen-des-Coronavirus/
(2021). Erwerbstätige, die von zu Hause aus arbeiten. Qualität der Arbeit [Workers who work from home. Quality of work]. Author. Retrieved from https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Arbeit/Arbeitsmarkt/Qualitaet-Arbeit/Dimension-3/home-office.html
(2001). Health trade-offs in teleworking. An exploratory study of work and health in computer home-based working. The Indexer, 22 (3), 142 – 146. Retrieved from https://www.theindexer.org/files/22-3/22-3_142.pdf
(2017). Telework and health effects review. International Journal of Healthcare, 3 (2), 30 – 36. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijh.v3n2p30
(2015). Flexible work designs and employee well-being: Examining the effects of resources and demands. New Technology, Work and Employment, 30 (3), 237 – 255. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12052
(2020). COVID-19 snapshot monitoring. Author. Retrieved from https://projekte.uni-erfurt.de/cosmo2020/archiv/19-01/cosmo-analysis.html
(2019). No teleworker is an island: The impact of temporal and spatial separation along with media use on knowledge sharing networks. Journal of Information Technology, 34 (3), 243 – 262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268396218816531
(2018). Transitioning towards new ways of working: Do job demands, job resources, burnout, and engagement change? Psychological Reports, 121 (4), 736 – 766. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294117740134
(1992). An emerging distributed work arrangement: An investigation of computer-based supplemental work at home. Management Science, 38 (12), 1687 – 1706. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.38.12.1687
(2014).
Family-to-work conflict . In A.C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 2210 – 2211). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_3330(2013). Cultural schemas, social class, and the flexibility stigma. Journal of Social Issues, 69 (2), 209 – 234. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12012
