Wellbeing and Work Design in Brazilian Teleworkers.

Viviane Mishima-Santos,Marina Greghi Sticca,Amalia R Pérez-Nebra

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.733640

Viviane Mishima-Santos, Marina Greghi Sticca + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.733640

Copy DOI

Abstract

Studies suggest that work characteristics may be related to workers’ wellbeing. However, little is known about how these work characteristics may influence telework wellbeing in the face of the long period of social isolation and restrictions imposed by COVID-19. This study aimed to relate work characteristics in remote work to wellbeing using a two-stage multi-method approach. The general hypothesis is that different work characteristics will be organized into different groups and related to wellbeing. In Step 1, 108 teleworkers who participated in compulsory telework conditions answered the Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ) and Wellbeing at Work scale. A cluster analysis was conducted in which two clusters emerged based solely on their valence. The variables that contributed most to the cluster were: feedback from the job, social support, problem-solving, and decision and execution autonomy. Cluster 1 aggregated higher scores on work characteristics, and Cluster 2, lower scores. Cluster 1 presented significantly higher scores on wellbeing. In Step 2, 27 of these workers were blindly interviewed. Five classes of words emerged from the interviews: Class 1 – wellbeing, Class 2 – work dissatisfaction lexicon, Class 3 – role clarity, Class 4 – job demands, and Class 5 – job resources, including receiving feedback, conversations, praise, and support. Chi-square analysis suggests significant differences in classes 2, 3, 4, and 5. Cluster 1 appears more frequently in the role clarity class and less frequently in the work dissatisfaction and job demands classes. Cluster 2 is more frequent in the job dissatisfaction and job demands classes, however, less frequent in the job resources class. Class 1 shows no significant difference. These results partially support the general hypothesis that different work characteristics will be organized into different clusters and related to the teleworker’s wellbeing, but in the sense that it prevents suffering but does not necessarily promote wellbeing. The results contribute to the understanding of the relationship between work characteristics and wellbeing during the pandemic by using a different methodological approach, describing that work feedback, social support, skill variety, and problem-solving are the most significant in differentiating the perception of the groups. Social support and feedback from the job differentiate cluster 1 from cluster 2, but social support is not able to increase wellbeing, unless buffering unwellness.

Highlights

Studies based on work design models suggest relations between work characteristics and worker wellbeing (Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006; Parker et al, 2017; Montañez-Juan et al, 2019), there is less evidence in the pandemic and teleworker field
Little is known about how much these work characteristics can influence wellbeing in remote work in the face of the long period of social isolation and restrictions imposed by COVID-19 (Hodder, 2020; Kniffin et al, 2021; Ipsen et al, 2021; Wang et al, 2021), with pieces of evidence of both positive (Ipsen et al, 2021; Williams et al, 2021) and negative (Ipsen et al, 2021; Wang et al, 2021) repercussions
The descriptive results (Table 1) suggest that, in general, the sample presented a high quality of work design, as the averages were above the medium point of the scale

Summary

Introduction

Studies based on work design models suggest relations between work characteristics and worker wellbeing (Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006; Parker et al, 2017; Montañez-Juan et al, 2019), there is less evidence in the pandemic and teleworker field. In Brazil, a country that suffers more due to its political conduction and social inequalities, the practice of remote work and working from home were not widely used (Helliwell et al, 2021). Workers who had this opportunity had little remote work experience and their organizations were not prepared to support them. Recent data indicate that in 2018, 3.8 million people (less than 2%) performed their work activities in their households, a number that increased to 8.7 million after the onset of the pandemic in 2020 (Góes et al, 2020; IBGE, 2020)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion