scholarly journals Working from home and productivity under the COVID-19 pandemic: Using survey data of four manufacturing firms

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. e0261761
Author(s):  
Ritsu Kitagawa ◽  
Sachiko Kuroda ◽  
Hiroko Okudaira ◽  
Hideo Owan
Keyword(s):  
Well Being ◽  
Manufacturing Firms ◽  
Productivity Losses ◽  
Work From Home ◽  
Working From Home ◽  
Communication Difficulties ◽  
Individual Productivity ◽  
Time Invariant ◽  
Health And Well Being ◽  
Better Than

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted the world economy in various ways. In particular, the drastic shift to telework has dramatically changed how people work. Whether the new style of working from home (WFH) will remain in our society highly depends on its effects on workers’ productivity. However, to the best of our knowledge, the effects of WFH on productivity are still unclear. By leveraging unique surveys conducted at four manufacturing firms in Japan, we assess within-company productivity differences between those who work from home and those who do not, along with identifying possible factors of productivity changes due to WFH. Our main findings are as follows. First, after ruling out the time-invariant component of individual productivity and separate trends specific to employee attributes, we find that workers who worked from home experienced productivity declines more than those who did not. Second, our analysis shows that poor WFH setups and communication difficulties are the major reasons for productivity losses. Third, we find that the mental health of workers who work from home is better than that of workers who are unable to work from home. Our result suggests that if appropriate investments in upgrading WFH setups and facilitating communication can be made, WFH may improve productivity by improving employees’ health and well-being.

Remote e-Workers’ Psychological Well-being and Career Development in the Era of COVID-19: Challenges, Success Factors, and the Roles of HRD Professionals

2021 ◽  
pp. 152342232110178
Author(s):  
Sunyoung Park ◽  
Shinhee Jeong ◽  
Dae Seok Chai
Keyword(s):  
Career Development ◽  
Human Resource Development ◽  
Success Factors ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Psychological Well Being ◽  
Effective Strategies ◽  
Work From Home ◽  
Hrd Professionals ◽  
Health And Well Being

The Problem As most employees have been forced to work from home during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is considerable concern about how to preserve employee health and well-being by supporting their work in this unpredictable situation. In this sense, research highlighting how to support remote e-workers in the COVID-19 pandemic era is urgently needed to inform scholars and practitioners about effective strategies and interventions to support remote e-workers. The Solution By reviewing conceptual and empirical studies, we discuss the challenges of remote e-workers from the perspective of psychological well-being. We also summarize the factors that support psychological well-being. Based on the findings, we suggest how human resource development (HRD) professionals can support remote e-workers’ psychological well-being and career development in the COVID-19 pandemic era. The Stakeholders This article has relevance for scholars, scholar-practitioners, and practitioners who are interested in seeking ways to support remote e-workers from an HRD perspective across countries, disciplines, and contexts in the COVID-19 pandemic era.

scholarly journals Having to Work from Home: Basic Needs, Well-Being, and Motivation

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (10) ◽  
pp. 5149
Author(s):  
Hannah M. Schade ◽  
Jan Digutsch ◽  
Thomas Kleinsorge ◽  
Yan Fan
Keyword(s):  
Social Support ◽  
Work Engagement ◽  
Basic Needs ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Need Satisfaction ◽  
Job Control ◽  
Role Clarity ◽  
Daily Work ◽  
Work From Home ◽  
Working From Home

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many employees were asked to start working from home for an extended time. The current study investigated how well employees worked and felt in this novel situation by following n = 199 German employees—56% of them female, 24% with childcare duties—over the course of two working weeks in which they reported once daily on their well-being (PANAS-20, detachment) and motivation (work engagement, flow). Participants reported on organizational and personal resources (emotional exhaustion, emotion regulation, segmentation preference, role clarity, job control, social support). Importantly, they indicated how well their work-related basic needs, i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness, were met when working from home and how these needs had been met in the office. Multilevel models of growth showed that work engagement, flow, affect and detachment were on average positive and improving over the two weeks in study. Higher competence need satisfaction predicted better daily work engagement, flow, and affect. In a network model, we explored associations and dynamics between daily variables. Overall, the results suggest that people adapted well to the novel situation, with their motivation and well-being indicators showing adequate levels and increasing trajectories. Avenues for improving work from home are job control and social support.

scholarly journals Learning from work-from-home issues during the COVID-19 pandemic: Balance speaks louder than words

PLoS ONE ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. e0261969
Author(s):  
Amanda M. Y. Chu ◽  
Thomas W. C. Chan ◽  
Mike K. P. So
Keyword(s):  
Structural Equation ◽  
Working Hours ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Work Life ◽  
Work Life Balance ◽  
Life Balance ◽  
Psychological Well Being ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Work From Home ◽  
Working From Home

During the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, many employees have switched to working from home. Despite the findings of previous research that working from home can improve productivity, the scale, nature, and purpose of those studies are not the same as in the current situation with the COVID-19 pandemic. We studied the effects that three stress relievers of the work-from-home environment–company support, supervisor’s trust in the subordinate, and work-life balance–had on employees’ psychological well-being (stress and happiness), which in turn influenced productivity and engagement in non-work-related activities during working hours. In order to collect honest responses on sensitive questions or negative forms of behavior including stress and non-work-related activities, we adopted the randomized response technique in the survey design to minimize response bias. We collected a total of 500 valid responses and analyzed the results with structural equation modelling. We found that among the three stress relievers, work-life balance was the only significant construct that affected psychological well-being. Stress when working from home promoted non-work-related activities during working hours, whereas happiness improved productivity. Interestingly, non-work-related activities had no significant effect on productivity. The research findings provide evidence that management’s maintenance of a healthy work-life balance for colleagues when they are working from home is important for supporting their psychosocial well-being and in turn upholding their work productivity.

scholarly journals Why Working From Home Will Stick

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose Maria Barrero ◽  
Nick Bloom ◽  
Steven J. Davis
Keyword(s):  
Human Capital ◽  
High Income ◽  
Social Experiment ◽  
Major City ◽  
Work From Home ◽  
Working From Home ◽  
Better Than ◽  
At Home

We survey 15,000 Americans over several waves to investigate whether, how, and whyworking from home will stick after COVID-19. The pandemic drove a mass social experiment in which half of all paid hours were provided from home between May and October 2020. Our survey evidence says that 22 percent of all full work days will be supplied from home after the pandemic ends, compared with just 5 percent before. We provide evidence on five mechanisms behind this persistent shift to working from home: diminished stigma, better-than-expected experiences working from home, investments in physical and human capital enabling working from home, reluctance to return to pre-pandemic activities, and innovation supporting working from home. We also examine some implications of a persistent shift in working arrangements: First, high-income workers, especially, will enjoy the perks of working from home. Second, we forecast that the post-pandemic shift to working from home will lower worker spending in major city centers by 5 to 10 percent. Third, many workers report being more productive at home than on business premises, so post-pandemic work from home plans offer the potential to raise productivity as much as 2.4 percent.

scholarly journals Is any job better than no job? A systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sian Price ◽  
Hannah Shaw ◽  
Fiona Morgan ◽  
Rocio Rodriguez-Lopez ◽  
Kirsty Little ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Mental Well Being ◽  
Health And Well Being ◽  
Better Than

Objectives This systematic review addresses the question Is any job better than no job? Specifically, it compares health and well-being outcomes in those who are unemployed with those who are in jobs that could be considered poor or low quality and the impact of any movement between them. Method We conducted a systematic review following a PROSPERO-registered protocol (CRD42020182794). Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, HMIC, ASSIA, TRIP, Google Scholar and 10 websites were searched in April 2020 and again in May 2021 without date limits. Two reviewers working independently screened search results against the inclusion/exclusion criteria. A checklist for quantitative studies reporting correlations was used to critically appraise articles included at full text. We undertook synthesis without meta-analysis (narrative synthesis) and explored a range of variables (for example, study design and quality, type of outcome measure) that we considered might have an impact on the association between exposure and outcome. Results We included 25 studies reported in 30 journal articles. All 25 studies involved secondary analysis of data from national cohorts, including six from the UK. The most frequent outcomes reported were measures of mental well-being. There was considerable heterogeneity across included studies in terms of design, population, definition of poor/bad or low quality job and outcome types and measures. Overall the quality of the included studies was moderate. The evidence base is inconsistent. There are studies that suggested either labour market position might be preferable, but a number of studies found no statistically significant difference. Cohort and case-control studies looking at mental well-being outcomes showed some support for a poor job being better than unemployment. However, we did not find sufficient numbers of well-designed studies showing a strong association to support a causal relationship. Most included study designs were unable to distinguish whether changes in employment status occurred before a change in outcome. Three studies looking at employment transitions found that moving to a poor job from unemployment was not associated with improved mental health, but moving from a poor job to unemployment was associated with a deterioration. Conclusion Evidence that better health and well-being outcomes are more likely to be associated with a poor/bad or low quality job than with unemployment is inconsistent. Studies conducted in the UK suggest that a poor job is not significantly associated with better health and well-being outcomes than unemployment. The studies we identified do not allow us to distinguish whether this lack of association is the result of a state welfare regime preventing some of the worst ills associated with unemployment, or a reflection of job quality. The evidence base has significant limitations in study design and conduct. In summary, the evidence we found suggests it is not safe to assume that, in the UK, any job will lead to better health and well-being outcomes than unemployment.

scholarly journals Implications of COVID-19: The Effect of Working From Home on Financial and Mental Well-Being in the UK

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleftherios Giovanis ◽  
Oznur Ozdamar
Keyword(s):  
Negative Impact ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Financial Situation ◽  
Work From Home ◽  
Working From Home ◽  
Using Data ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Mental Well Being

In response to the threat posed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the UK prime minister announced on the 23rd of March strict lockdowns and introduced a new way of living and working, at least temporarily. This included working from home (WHF) wherever possible. Many experts from the IT industry were long arguing about the potential for WFH, which suddenly now became indisputable. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of WFH on the individuals’ perception about their future financial situation and their mental well-being. We apply a difference-in-differences (DiD) framework using data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) combined with the UKHLS COVID-19 survey conducted in April 2020. Our findings suggest that those who have not experienced a shift from working at the employer’s premises to WFH became more concerned about their future financial situation. However, we find that WFH has a negative impact on mental well-being. On the other hand, we find no difference in the mental well-being when we consider those who work from home on occasion. The findings of this study have policy implications for government, firms and health practitioners. In particular, a balance between WFH and at the employer’s premises may provide both financial security and maintain the mental and psychological well-being at satisfying levels.

The performance of the K6 and K10 screening scales for psychological distress in the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being

2003 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 357-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. A. FURUKAWA ◽  
R. C. KESSLER ◽  
T. SLADE ◽  
G. ANDREWS
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Anxiety Disorders ◽  
National Survey ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Mood And Anxiety Disorders ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Health And Well Being ◽  
Better Than

Background. Two new screening scales for psychological distress, the K6 and K10, have been developed but their relative efficiency has not been evaluated in comparison with existing scales.Method. The Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being, a nationally representative household survey, administered the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) to assess 30-day DSM-IV disorders. The K6 and K10 were also administered along with the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), the current de facto standard of mental health screening. Performance of the three screening scales in detecting CIDI/DSM-IV mood and anxiety disorders was assessed by calculating the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs). Stratum-Specific Likelihood Ratios (SSLRs) were computed to help produce individual-level predicted probabilities of being a case from screening scale scores in other samples.Results. The K10 was marginally better than the K6 in screening for CIDI/DSM-IV mood and anxiety disorders (K10 AUC: 0·90, 95%CI: 0·89–0·91 versus K6 AUC: 0·89, 95%CI: 0·88–0·90), while both were significantly better than the GHQ-12 (AUC: 0·80, 95%CI: 0·78–0·82). The SSLRs of the K10 and K6 were more informative in ruling in or out the target disorders than those of the GHQ-12 at both ends of the population spectrum. The K6 was more robust than the K10 to subsample variation.Conclusions. While the K10 might outperform the K6 in screening for severe disorders, the K6 is preferred in screening for any DSM-IV mood or anxiety disorder because of its brevity and consistency across subsamples. Precision of individual-level prediction is greatly improved by using polychotomous rather than dichotomous classification.

scholarly journals Increased labor losses and decreased adaptation potential in a warmer world

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke A. Parsons ◽  
Drew Shindell ◽  
Michelle Tigchelaar ◽  
Yuqiang Zhang ◽  
June T. Spector
Keyword(s):  
Global Warming ◽  
Heat Exposure ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Early Morning ◽  
Reanalysis Data ◽  
Worker Productivity ◽  
Adaptation Potential ◽  
Productivity Losses ◽  
Continuous Work ◽  
Health And Well Being

AbstractWorking in hot and potentially humid conditions creates health and well-being risks that will increase as the planet warms. It has been proposed that workers could adapt to increasing temperatures by moving labor from midday to cooler hours. Here, we use reanalysis data to show that in the current climate approximately 30% of global heavy labor losses in the workday could be recovered by moving labor from the hottest hours of the day. However, we show that this particular workshift adaptation potential is lost at a rate of about 2% per degree of global warming as early morning heat exposure rises to unsafe levels for continuous work, with worker productivity losses accelerating under higher warming levels. These findings emphasize the importance of finding alternative adaptation mechanisms to keep workers safe, as well as the importance of limiting global warming.

The Great Health Dilemma

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Dye
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Illness ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Good Health ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Health Advice ◽  
The World ◽  
Great Health ◽  
Health And Well Being ◽  
Better Than

The proverbial benefits of prevention over cure are self-evident—and yet we are reluctant to invest in staying healthy. Resolution of this age-old dilemma begins with a timeless truth: the benefits of good health come at a cost: prevention is not better than cure at any price. That logic leads to a testable—and refutable—proposition: that prevention should be favoured when an imminent, high-risk, high-impact hazard can be averted at relatively low cost. Application of this idea helps to explain why cigarette smoking is still commonplace, why the world was not ready for the COVID-19 pandemic, why the idea of a ‘sin tax’ is misconceived, why billions still do not have access to safe sanitation, why the response to climate change has been so slow, and why public health advice often falls on deaf ears. Much more money and effort are invested in health promotion and prevention today than is commonly thought, but the enormous avoidable burden of illness is reason to seek incentives for investing still more. The principles, together with a series of case studies in diverse settings, offer 12 lessons for prevention. These are methods and motives for shifting the balance away from reactive medical treatment, bypassing illness and injury, to promote better health and well-being.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document