The relationship between psychological well-being in the Covid-19 pandemic and organizational processes for sustainable development - DIVA
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The relationship between
psychological well-being in the
Covid-19 pandemic and
organizational processes for
sustainable development
Clara López & Merle Seevers
Main field of study - Leadership and Organisation
Degree of Master of Arts (60 credits) with a Major in Leadership and Organisation
Master Thesis with a focus on Leadership and Organisation for Sustainability
Spring 2021
Supervisor: Jonas Lundsten
Malmö University
Culture and Society
Urban Studies
Master Program Leadership for Sustainability (SALSU)
The relationship between psychological well-being in the
Covid-19 pandemic and organizational processes for
sustainable development
Name and Code of the course:
OL646E – Master Thesis with a focus on
Leadership and Organization for
Sustainability
Name and Code of the Examination:
Master’s Thesis
Type and Date of Examination:
28/05/2021
Student name:
Clara LÓPEZ MAMBLONA, 19.09.1998
Merle SEEVERS, 16.04.1997
Responsible Teacher(s):
Jonas LUNDSTENAbstract Psychological employee well-being is a severe challenge for companies around the world. The Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated the problem and forced companies to act to ensure a healthy and productive workforce. Based on the Job Demands-Resources Model (JD-R), this study examines the leader's perspective on how decision making, and communication processes have been altered in the face of the pandemic and how these alterations can promote the advancement of psychological well-being. Another central research focus is the impact of the changes in decision making and communication processes on the sustainable development of the organization. The relatively new perspective of the Psychology of Sustainability and Sustainable Development (PoS&SD) is applied to investigate these questions. A qualitative approach was chosen and a total of ten organizations were studied, half in Sweden and half in Germany. With the support of semi-structured interviews, leaders of small and medium-sized organizations in both countries were interviewed, and their perceptions were explored. The results showed that almost all companies in the study implemented changes to the two processes because they perceived deterioration in employee psychological well-being. While most leaders in Sweden indicated that they had given employees more autonomy throughout the pandemic, leaders in Germany reported a greater desire for direction and structure. The communication style likewise required adjustment to meet the new way of working and employees’ needs. Finally, it could be shown that the topic of employees’ psychological well-being will take on a higher priority in many companies in the wake of the pandemic. This is partially since companies have recognized that the fostering of psychological well-being is closely linked to sustainable development. Key Words: Sustainability, Sustainable Development, Covid-19, Psychological Well-being, Communication, Decision Making, Autonomy, Feedback, Psychology of Sustainability and Sustainable Development, PsyCap
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background.................................................................................................................................... 2
1.1.1 Workplace Psychological Well-being ................................................................................... 2
1.1.2 Sustainable Development and Psychological Well-being ..................................................... 2
1.1.3 Covid-19 and Workplaces in Germany and Sweden ............................................................. 3
1.2 Research Problem .......................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Research Purpose........................................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Research Questions ....................................................................................................................... 6
1.5 Layout ............................................................................................................................................ 6
2. Literature Review .................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 The Psychology of Sustainability and Sustainable Development ................................................. 7
2.1.1 Psychological Capital ............................................................................................................ 8
2.2 Resilient Organizations.................................................................................................................. 8
2.2.1 HERO Model ......................................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Job Demands – Resource Model ................................................................................................. 10
2.3.1 Linking Decision Making and Employees’ Well-being ...................................................... 12
2.3.2 Linking Communication and Employees’ Well-being ........................................................ 14
3. Methodology and Methods ................................................................................................................... 17
3.1 Research Design .......................................................................................................................... 17
3.1.1 Methods of Data Collection ................................................................................................. 18
3.1.2 Methods of Data Analysis ................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Reliability and Validity ............................................................................................................... 20
3.3 Limitations................................................................................................................................... 21
4. Presentation of the Object of Study ..................................................................................................... 22
4.1 SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being ........................................................................................... 22
4.2 SDG 8 Decent Work and Economic Growth ............................................................................... 23
4.3 Small and Medium-sized Organizations...................................................................................... 23
5. Results and Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 25
5.1 Results Overview......................................................................................................................... 25
5.2 Analysis of Findings and Theoretical Implementation ................................................................ 29
5.2.1 Decision Making.................................................................................................................. 29
5.2.2 Communication ................................................................................................................... 30
5.2.3 Psychological Well-being .................................................................................................... 315.2.4 Resilience ............................................................................................................................ 32
5.2.5 Creativity ............................................................................................................................. 33
5.2.6 Leaders’ Well-being ............................................................................................................ 33
6. Discussion ............................................................................................................................................... 35
6.1 Decision Making ......................................................................................................................... 35
6.2 Communication ........................................................................................................................... 35
6.3 The Role of Culture ..................................................................................................................... 36
6.4 Psychological Well-being and Sustainable Development ........................................................... 37
6.5 Theoretical and Practical Implications ........................................................................................ 38
7. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 39
7.1 Key Findings ............................................................................................................................... 39
7.2 Limitations and Future Research ................................................................................................. 39
References .................................................................................................................................................. 40
Appendix A. Interview Guide ................................................................................................................... 51
Appendix B. Content Analysis Table ....................................................................................................... 56Table of Figures and Tables Figure 1 The HERO Model of Positives Organizations (Salanova et al., 2016, p.178) .............................. 10 Figure 2 Job Demands-Resource Model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, p.313) ........................................... 11 Table 1 Interviewees sample overview ....................................................................................................... 19 Table 2 Summarized results gathered from data collection......................................................................... 26 Table 3 Codes chosen for the analysis......................................................................................................... 27
Abbreviations CEO Chief Executive Officer Covid-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019 GDP Gross Domestic Product HERO Healthy and Resilient Organizations HRM Human Resource Management ICT Information and Communication Technology JD-R Job Demands-Resources model LAS Leader Autonomy Support MDGs Millennium Development Goals NCD Non-communicable disease OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development POS Perceived Organizational Support PoS&SD Psychology of Sustainability and Sustainable Development PsyCap Psychological Capital RQ Research Question SDGs Sustainable Development Goals SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprises UN United Nations WHO World Health Organisation
1. Introduction
Since the first known human infection with the novel Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2
(Covid-19) in November 2019 (Hubscher-Davidson, 2020), the virus spread quickly around the whole
world. In March 2020, Covid-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (World Health
Organisation, 2020). Despite its worldwide recognition as a pandemic, and its adverse effects on
individuals’ well-being, the responses and measures taken against a further spread of the virus vary
substantially by country. This research focuses on Germany and Sweden, as the approaches to Covid-19
restrictions in these countries vary substantially. While Germany declared several lockdowns in the course
of the pandemic (Köckeritz & Azim, 2020), Sweden imposed different measures, such as social distancing,
but never declared a country-wide lockdown to the present day (Dryhurst et al., 2020). In addition, the two
countries were chosen due to similarities in several of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (Viberg & Grönlund,
2013), which make a comparison highly interesting.
Among others, pandemic diseases represent a severe threat to organizations' economic success and
sustainability (Xiao & Cao, 2017) and are, thereby, emphasizing the need for organizational resilience.
Confronted with drastic changes, resilient organizations can adapt quickly and develop new capacities (Xiao
& Cao, 2017). Furthermore, organizations can reach a higher level of resilience by supporting healthy
practices, healthy employees and, as a result, maintain a sustainable competitive advantage (Manuti &
Giancaspro, 2019).
The pandemic is forcing organizations worldwide to face new risks and change the way they are
operating (Bailey & Breslin, 2021). Not only do organizations need to adapt to the changing demands, but
workers also need to get used to radically changing working conditions, such as the shift to working from
home (Carnevale & Hatak, 2020). Especially the remote working situation has posed problems for a
significant number of people. Mainly, it is harder to “unplug” from the work demands if work and private
life are not spatially separated, leading to an increased stress level for many employees (Chawla et al.,
2020). Thus, Covid-19 negatively affects worker’s psychological well-being in different ways (Chawla et
al., 2020; Evanoff et al., 2020). For example, a recent study by Evanoff et al. (2020) in the United States
showed a connection between a high prevalence of stress, anxiety, depression, and community or clinical
exposure to Covid-19.
In light of this, it is pivotal to understand how organizational processes, such as communication and decision
making, affect employees’ psychological well-being and how these can be designed to promote employees’
psychological well-being under challenging times. Within the Job Demands-Resource (JD-R) Model these
two organizational processes have been studied as job resources for the support of employees’ psychological
well-being. Furthermore, another way of support is to look at it from the perspective of the Psychology of
Sustainability and Sustainable Development (PoS&SD). The Psychology of Sustainability and Sustainable
Development is a relatively new area of research, which can contribute to expanding the horizon of
sustainable development (Di Fabio & Rosen, 2018). It focuses on conditions that can improve workers’
well-being and quality of life while expanding the sustainability paradigm from the ecological and socio-
economic domain to the psycho-social context. Therefore, it aims to promote individual well-being and
organizational sustainable development (Manuti & Giancaspro, 2019). For organizations to achieve an
optimal sustainable development, the promotion of psychological well-being within their employees must
be central (Nunes et al., 2016).
This research applies the lens of Psychology of Sustainability and Sustainable Development to better
understand organizational psychological-health promotion and the implications of Covid-19 on
organizational processes that can conceivably enhance employee’s psychological well-being. In addition,
this study is conducted based on the JD-R Model.
11.1 Background
The following section first provides an overview of the meaning and development of psychological well-
being in an organizational context. Following, the connection between sustainable development and
psychological well-being is demonstrated. Finally, a comparison is made between the German and Swedish
approaches to Covid-19 restrictions and the associated impact on working conditions.
1.1.1 Workplace Psychological Well-being
Psychological health is a complex topic and has many different definitions, dimensions, and
approaches (Edgar et al., 2017). Among the most used definitions is one provided by the World Health
Organization (WHO) in 1946 that defines well-being as “a state of complete physical, psychological,
spiritual, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”. A broader definition
established by Rath et al. (2010) states that well-being is “all the things that are important to how we think
about and experience our lives” (p.137). One common feature that many definitions have is the assumption
that psychological health does not merely mean the absence of psychological illness (Huppert, 2009).
Scholars distinguish between different dimensions of well-being. Traditionally, well-being was
differentiated into eudaimonic and hedonic well-being (e.g., Loon et al., 2019; Kowalski & Loretto,
2017, Galderisi et al., 2015). Eudaimonic well-being refers to the ability to well-function, while hedonic
well-being refers to positive emotions and feeling good (Kowalski & Loretto, 2017; Huppert,
2009). Another possible distinction can be made between the physical, social, and psychological well-
being (Edgar et al., 2017). While Edgar et al.’s dimensions (2017) are mainly concerned with well-being in
general, Keyes (2014) further distinguishes forms of psychological well-being in emotional, psychological,
and social well-being. In this context, the emotional dimension includes factors, such as happiness and a
general interest in life. The psychological dimension includes, for example, satisfactory relationships with
others, contentment with the own personality, and the ability to manage daily responsibilities. Finally, the
social dimension refers to social contribution, integration, actualization, and coherence (Keyes, 2014).
Next to different dimensions of well-being, there are also several approaches to psychological well-being.
In general, the following three approaches can be distinguished: treating a present disorder, preventing a
disorder from occurring, and enhancing well-being (Huppert, 2009). As this research aims to provide a
holistic understanding of organizational psychological well-being practices in the face of Covid-19, all three
approaches are considered. Psychological well-being in the workplace is also related to society’s sustainable
development. Moreover, it is becoming increasingly apparent the actual consequences that workers’
negative psychological well-being has for society’s health costs (Danna & Griffin, 1999).
Psychological well-being among workers is a widespread issue around the world (Memish et al., 2017). A
review by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimates that around 5%
of the labor force in high-income countries are severely affected by psychological health problems, while a
further 15% are affected by moderate psychological health problems (OECD, 2013). Workers’ well-being
does not only have implications for the worker but also the organization. One possible implication of poor
employee psychological well-being is low productivity (Kowalski & Loretto, 2017). Implications like this
need to be managed closely to ensure a sustainable workforce and a sustainable economic
performance (Kowalski & Loretto, 2017).
1.1.2 Sustainable Development and Psychological Well-being
The importance of psychological well-being has grown through the last decades and established its
significance with the foundation of the WHO Mental Health Division and the World Federation of Mental
Health in 1948 (Jenkins, 2019). Once phrased as an invisible problem in international
development (Chambers, 2010), psychological well-being is now being described as one of the most
2pressing development issues of our time (Mills, 2018). The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),
adopted in the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015), were developed as
an improved version of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). SDGs discuss some of the structural
obstacles to sustainable development and provide a greater balance of the three main pillars of sustainable
development – economic, social, and environmental (Costanza et al., 2016). Well-being relies on SDG 3, as
this was developed to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages” (United Nations,
2015). In particular, SDG 3.4 states the following: “By 2030, (to) reduce by one-third premature mortality
from non-communicable disease (NCDs) through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and
well-being”. Hence, the promotion of psychological well-being is currently being considered an important
challenge for sustainable development.
The inclusion of psychological well-being in the SDGs is of highly relevance due to its intersection with
other SDGs (Mills, 2018). To illustrate this, psychological health problems are strongly linked to poverty,
financial distress, and low productivity (Jenkins, 2019), being connected to SDG 8 and highly relevant for
this thesis. Decent work (SDG 8) and, thereby, economic sustainability will only be achieved with a healthy
workforce. Thus, promoting psychological well-being is central to achieving sustainable
development (Nunes et al., 2016). Health, well-being, and sustainable development are considered to be
strongly linked, as sustainable development refers to the use of resources to ensure the current development
for not compromising the health and well-being of future generations (Nunes et al., 2016).
Over the years, many researchers have sought to comprehend which factors influence and constitute a
potential synergy between well-being and sustainability (Bakar et al., 2015). Furthermore, after the Covid-
19 pandemic, Hakovirta and Denuwara (2020) proposed to reconsider sustainability as the crossing of the
economy, environment, society, and human health, as it was shown that it was impossible for life to continue
as normal when the health of millions was jeopardized. In the current environment, physical and
psychological health should be understood as a separate pillar due to their importance for human survival
and the sustainable development of society (Hakovirta & Denuwara, 2020).
Organizational sustainability can be defined as the dynamic process necessary for achieving effective
performance in the long term (Eccles et al., 2014). In the past decades, building sustainable organizations
was mostly focused on minimizing the negative impacts on the physical environment (de Jonge & Peeters,
2019), leaving aside employee practices for sustainability. However, due to the rapid economic expansion,
organizations have started to give more value to the impact of human capital to enhance organizational
performance and sustainability (Alola et al., 2018). Moreover, the sustainable development of organizations
ensures that companies will succeed and achieve their intended goals in a growingly competitive
environment (Guo et al., 2017). Nowadays, organizations must ensure a healthy workplace where
employees can flourish (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2019), thus, determining which psycho-social assets might be
improved to promote workers and organizational well-being.
The sustainable performance of employees has become one of the most relevant challenges for
organizational sustainability (Di Fabio, 2017; Scully-Russ, 2012). Furthermore, research has shown that
boosting employee psychological well-being leads to higher employee engagement, improved efficiency,
and decreased absenteeism, transforming this into a cost-effective strategy (Ivandic et al., 2017). Therefore,
supporting psychological well-being for organizations’ sustainable development has also benefits on
organizations’ performance and productivity (Singh et al., 2019).
1.1.3 Covid-19 and Workplaces in Germany and Sweden
Having established the importance of psychological well-being for sustainable development, it is crucial to
consider the impact that Covid-19 has on how organizations approach employee psychological well-being.
Covid-19 has not been the first pandemic that the world has faced, and it will not be the last one (Sharfuddin,
32020). Many researchers assume that pandemics will occur more frequently in the future and that we have
to be better prepared for future pandemics (e.g., Sodhi et al., 2021; Pearce, 2020; Howard et al., 2020). After
the Covid-19 pandemic, we cannot go back to the world as it was before the outbreak in 2019. The world
needs to reinvent how the economy, social, and health systems are structured (Sharfuddin, 2020). In the
following, a brief overview of how Germany and Sweden approached the pandemic so far and why these
specific two countries were chosen is given.
National responses and governmental interventions aiming at stopping the spread of Covid-19 vary
considerably by country (Dryhurst et al., 2020). In the course of the pandemic, it became obvious that
businesses could not continue as usual and had to take unprecedented actions to ensure the health and safety
of their employees (Rind et al., 2020). One of these actions was to let employees work from home instead
of the usual place of business, often referred to as remote work or telework (Bloom et al., 2015). However,
several different problems arise from this new working situation, potentially harming employees'
psychological well-being (Bönisch et al., 2020; Fadinger & Schymik, 2020). In addition, it is not
infrequently the case that working from home leads to work-care conflicts, which affect women
unproportionally more than men, potentially leading to increased gender inequality (Kohlrausch & Zucco,
2020).
Germany has adopted various interventions during the pandemic, including partial lockdowns and contact
restrictions (Bönisch et al., 2020). Many companies were forced to send their employees to the home office
since the beginning of the pandemic (Bönisch et al., 2020). As a result, German society was negatively
affected by the pandemic and the accompanying restrictions (Holst et al., 2021).
In comparison to the German strategy, the Swedish approach to the spread of Covid-19 has entailed less
stringent measures (Dryhurst et al., 2020; Claeson & Hanson, 2020). The taken measures include limiting
the number of people in crowded places (Claeson & Hanson, 2020) or recommending the public to practice
social distancing and use hygiene products (Dryhurst et al., 2020). The Swedish national response to Covid-
19, which is in comparison to Germany and other European national responses less rigorous (Claeson &
Hanson, 2020), has been criticized in the course of the pandemic. Nevertheless, working from home has
also become the new normal for many office-based employees during the pandemic in Sweden, as it is seen
as an effective measure to minimize exposure to the virus (Hallman et al., 2021). In addition, a recent study
from Sweden has shown that working from home due to Covid-19 was associated with a longer duration of
sleep compared to days on which workers commute to the office (Hallman et al., 2021). This study indicates
that the new working conditions may also benefit workers’ health (Hallman et al., 2021).
To further understand the different approaches adopted by the two countries, national culture is investigated.
In order to show similarities and differences between Germany’s and Sweden’s culture, the two countries
are compared with Hofstede’s six-dimensional model of national culture. Germany and Sweden show very
similar scores in the dimensions of power distance and individualism (Bluszcz & Quan, 2016; Viberg &
Grönlund, 2013). The scores for power distance are low, expressing that all community members expect to
have an equal voice, and autocratic leaders are opposed. The scores for individualism are high in both
countries, showing that the societies are individualistic and interdependencies between members of the
society are low. However, the scores in the dimensions masculinity vs. femininity, uncertainty avoidance,
long-term orientation, and indulgence vary (Bluszcz & Quan, 2016; Viberg & Grönlund, 2013). The
Swedish society is characterized by caring for each other and one’s quality of life (low masculinity), a slight
preference for avoiding uncertainty, no clear preference regarding long- or short-term orientation, and a
high value on leisure and enjoying life (high indulgence). The predominant features of the German society
are drawing self-esteem from tasks (high masculinity), a low tendency for uncertainty avoidance,
pragmatism (long-term orientation), and lower importance of leisure (low indulgence) (Bluszcz & Quan,
2016).
4The two countries were chosen because of similar cultural characteristics in relevant areas in terms of
Hofstede's cultural dimensions (Hofstede et al., 2010). In combination with the fundamentally different
approach to Covid-19, a comparison of the two countries is very interesting.
1.2 Research Problem
Workers’ psychological well-being is a significant and current issue that needs to be addressed by all
organizations. Over the last few years, an increasing number of researchers have expressed concern about
workers’ psychological well-being (Edgar et al., 2017). In contrast to economic well-being, psychological
well-being has risen since the Second World War (Leporelli & Santi, 2019). Especially in the face of the
Covid-19 pandemic, the psychological health of employees is being threatened. Various studies and articles
have discussed the dangerous impact of the pandemic on psychological well-being (Chawla et al.,
2020; Evanoff et al., 2020) and sustainable development (El Keshky et al., 2020). However, looking at the
topic from the lens of PoS&SD, it becomes clear that every crisis offers opportunities as well. Therefore,
this research is conducted to understand how the Covid-19 pandemic has affected how organizations have
dealt with employees’ psychological well-being from leaders’ experiences. By analyzing leaders
experiences, knowledge can be gained about 1) the structural factors within the organizations and 2) the
discourses about the relationship between psychological well-being and the Covid-19 situation. In
particular, this research looks into which alterations were done by several organizations’ leaders to two
organizational processes: communication and decision making. These two processes were chosen as several
studies found correspondences between a lack of shared decision making and open communication with
higher degrees of psychological health problems and lower degrees of motivation (Demerouti et al., 2001).
As the PoS&SD is a relatively new area of study in the literature, this research aims to contribute to its
understanding in a highly uncertain environment. In addition, it has been established that harder restrictions,
such as self-isolation, have negative influences on workers’ psychological well-being (El Keshky et al.,
2020). Therefore, this research presents another point of view on psychological well-being in times of
Covid-19 by investigating from the organizational leader’s perspective which actions were taken in
communication and decision making processes. Furthermore, an increasing number of scientists have been
warning about the possibilities of more frequent pandemics after Covid-19 (Doucleff, 2021; Gill,
2020). Understanding how organizational processes affect mental health is particularly important in this
context. Only with this knowledge can organizations better prepare for the coming challenges and support
their employees in the best possible way. Hence, for the continuity of sustainable development,
organizations will have to find new means to promote workers’ psychological well-being both in an
individual and collective sense.
1.3 Research Purpose
Accordingly, this study aims to better understand employee psychological well-being and its enablers.
Specifically, this research explores how organizational processes, mainly feedback, as part of
communication, and autonomy, as part of decision making, have changed since the beginning of the Covid
-19 pandemic. This is studied from the perspective and the experiences of organizations’ managers in
Germany and Sweden as a means to fulfill the research problem. It is also investigated if these changes
contributed to employees’ psychological well-being, which is a fundamental requirement for good health
and a key component for sustainable development (SDG 3). In other words, the objective of this research is
to obtain valuable insights to contribute to the debate about organizational sustainable development,
improving its intangible resources, and enhancing employee psychological well-being while supporting
decent work (SDG 8). To understand the actual effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on psychological well-
being, a longitudinal study would have been needed. Nonetheless, the purpose of this thesis is not to gain
understanding of the long-term effects on psychological well-being, but to understand leader’s perspective
when promoting their employees’ health through decision making and communication processes.
51.4 Research Questions
The following research questions are addressed:
RQ1: How have organizational processes (decision making and communication) changed in the
course of the Covid-19 pandemic to support employees’ psychological well-being from the
leaders’ perspective?
Sub RQ1: Are there any noticeable differences in the organizational responses taken
by Sweden and Germany?
RQ2: Based on the leader’s perception, have these changes promoted psychological well-being
(SDG 3) and contributed to organizational sustainable development?
1.5 Layout
The structure of this thesis is presented as follows. Chapter 2 contains a systematic review of previous
literature on the applied theories and concepts. The literature review covers the following topics: The
Psychology of Sustainability and Sustainable Development, Psychological Capital, Resilient Organizations,
the HERO Model, the Job Demands-Resources Model, and finally, the link between psychological well-
being and decision making and communication. In Chapter 3, the methodology is presented, and the chosen
qualitative data collection and analysis method is explained. Chapter 4 presents the object of this study in-
depth. It is followed by an overview of the results and analysis (Chapter 5) and discussion (Chapter 6) of
the data gathered concerning the research questions. The final Chapter 7 sums up the results of the study
and provides recommendations for future research.
62. Literature Review
2.1 The Psychology of Sustainability and Sustainable Development
The Covid-19 pandemic is posing a threat to employee well-being (Chawla et al., 2020; Evanoff et al.,
2020) and leads to unprecedented changes in the workplace (Bailey & Breslin, 2021; Rind et al.,
2020). Nevertheless, even in times of rapid changes in environments and working conditions, it is vital to
build a meaningful life, both in a private and an organizational context, through the improvement and the
regeneration of personal resources (Chiesa et al., 2018). Therefore, the main aim of the PoS&SD
is “understanding how it is possible to establish meaningful lives and meaningful work experiences despite
the numerous challenges, transitions, and changes that characterize the current career paths” (Chiesa et
al., 2018, p. 2).
Well-being can be seen as a key sustainable development goal, and it also plays an essential role in
organizational life and Human Resource Management (Di Fabio & Blustein, 2016). A recent study by
Castano et al. (2020) highlights the importance of well-being for Human Resource practices, as these have
the power to influence employee well-being positively. The PoS&SD is a relatively new area of research
that is concerned with the organizational promotion of psychological well-being (Di Fabio & Blustein,
2016). Leporelli and Santi (2019) discovered that in contrast to economic well-being, which has risen
continuously, psychological well-being had not risen accordingly. This alarming observation highlights the
need for organizations to assign a high priority to the organizational promotion of psychological well-
being (Hubscher-Davidson, 2020).
PoS&SD's underlying definition of sustainable development differs from traditional definitions, such as the
Brundtland report (1987). Traditionally, sustainable development consists of the three pillars of economy,
equity, and ecology (Purvis et al., 2019). The famous definition of sustainable development established in
the Brundtland Report (1987) underlines the ability of present and future generations to lead a good life on
the planet and enjoy natural resources. While this definition is based on avoiding, for example, exploitation
and irreversible alternation, the PoS&SD's definition is more focused on the promotion of psychological
well-being and flexible change (Di Fabio & Maree, 2016).
The PoS&SD looks at sustainable development from different perspectives by applying a psychological
lens to the individual, the group, and the organizational level to promote well-being for all (Ingusci et al.,
2019; Di Fabio & Maree, 2016). In this context, organizations can be seen as systems that aim at “creating
a climate and a culture characterized by sustained creativity and innovation, and a happy place for
employees and employers” (Ingusci et al., 2019, p.2). In order to achieve well-being, a primary prevention
approach is applied in the PoS&SD to avoid problems before they arise (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2015; 2019).
According to Hubscher-Davidson (2020), it is beneficial for workers' well-being to increase their personal
strengths to avoid problems before they develop and enable them to face unpredictable and changing
environments, such as the Covid-19 pandemic. Previous research also consistently indicates that increased
individual resources help workers adapt more quickly, promote decent work, and support employees’
prospering (Di Fabio et al., 2018; Tur-Porcar et al., 2019). Hubscher-Davidson (2020) acknowledges the
importance of improved personal resources and suggests that the enhancement and regeneration of personal
resources can lead to an increased quality of life.
The PoS&SD suggests that to reach organizational sustainable development, one must shift from the
motivational to the meaning paradigm (Di Fabio & Blustein, 2016). While the motivational paradigm deals
with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and ways of enhancing the latter, the meaning paradigm highlights
the understanding of how people establish meaningful work during challenging times (Di Fabio,
2017). This theory is used throughout the research as a means to understand the importance of the promotion
7of employees’ well-being for the organization’s sustainable development. Even in uncertain times, the
workforce must be healthy for the organizations’ sustainable continuity.
2.1.1 Psychological Capital
The PoS&SD is mainly concerned with the optimization and regeneration of personal resources to maintain
psychological well-being. In the literature, the resources that the PoS&SD deals with are often termed
Psychological Capital (PsyCap) (Hubscher-Davidson, 2020). PsyCap can be characterized as an individual's
psychological state that is regarded as a form of capital, enabling employees to perform well and create a
competitive advantage (Wang et al., 2018).
The way that the term capital is referred to in PsyCap differs from the classical use of the term in economics
and finance. The following commonly used definition highlights how the term capital is understood in this
concept. Psychological Capital is “an individual’s positive psychological state of development that is
characterized by: (1) having confidence (efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at
challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3)
persevering toward goals and when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and
(4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resilience) to
attain success” (Luthans et al., 2007, p.542).
The above mentioned four psychological states of self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience are described
by different scholars as job resources (Grover et al., 2018; Chiesa et al., 2018) in terms of the JD-R model
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti et al., 2001). According to Chiesa et al. (2018), PsyCap is a
beneficial job resource for employees that can reduce experienced stress levels and simultaneously increase
their general well-being and psychological well-being (Burhanuddin et al., 2019; Grover et al., 2018). Next
to increased well-being, other organizational benefits of fostering employees’ PsyCap were determined by
previous research. Among these were increased work performance and job satisfaction (Burhanuddin et al.,
2019) and the ability to better acclimatize to job constraints and opportunities (Grover et al., 2018).
The enhancement of PsyCap within workers has received much attention from researchers in the last
years (Burhanuddin et al., 2019). However, while the personal resources self-efficacy, optimism, and hope
have been studied in-depth, the fourth component, resilience, has been less thoroughly studied (Grover et
al., 2018). Therefore, this research studies the importance of individual and organizational resilience as a
contributor to psychological well-being during the Covid-19 pandemic.
2.2 Resilient Organizations
The concept of organizational resilience was first presented by Coutu (2002) in the Harvard Business
Review. Since then, a significant number of researchers have pursued its investigation (Xiao & Cao,
2017). Bryce et al. (2020) understand resilience as a process by which organizations work to detect and react
to the external threats which happen due to transboundary crises. Therefore, anticipation and a “planned
resilience” are the most valuable attributes for organizations when attempting to respond to unknown
situations effectively. Furthermore, organizational resilience can be founded on four central pillars:
preparedness, responsiveness, adaptability, and learning (Koronis & Ponis, 2018), stating the importance of
a culture of resilience. Koronis and Ponis (2018) also recognized the critical role of an organization’s
adaptation to restructure its processes and functions to return to normal rapidly. Previously, organizational
processes’ reconstruction was also illustrated by Kuntz et al. (2016) as an adaptive resilience capability for
business growth when exposed to significant adverse events. This shift in the organizational process is the
main area of concern for the present study in a turbulent environment due to Covid-19.
Covid-19 has affected society and, in particular, organizations, like no other crisis in the last few decades.
The pandemic has had significant impacts on the global economy and society. Plenty of industries have
8struggled to survive, leading to an unprecedented series of shutdowns (Rai et al., 2021). However, some
organizations were able to recover faster than others, mainly due to their resilience capability.
Organizational resilience has been critical for organizations’ survival in times of uncertainty (Koronis &
Ponis, 2018). Rai et al. (2021) investigated the relationship between the three main organizational resilience
attributes -crisis anticipation, organizational robustness, and recoverability- with their effects on social and
economic sustainability. As Bryce et al. (2020), their findings stated the importance of organizations’
capability to anticipate crisis for the enhancement of social sustainability. Hence, resilient organizations
have better opportunities of continuing their path to sustainable development after the Covid-19 pandemic.
Attention on organizational resilience has increased as business and nonprofit organizations constantly seek
innovative strategies to become more sustainable in a highly dynamic environment (Witmer & Mellinger,
2016).
In recent academic papers, the concept of human capital has increasingly appeared when understanding
organizational resilience (Cantu et al., 2021). A significant source of organizational resilience comes from
the ability of employees to bounce back from obstacles at work and grow by learning from their
mistakes (De Clercq & Pereira, 2019). Kuntz et al. (2016) argued that employees’ psychological well-being
was one of the core elements of resilience capability. How workers used the resources offered by the
organization could lead to developing better organizational resilience. This was also reinforced by
Nyaupane et al. (2021), who investigated the critical role that employees’ well-being played when
confirming whether an organization would or not adapt to uncertain environments. Moreover, as human
capital is the basic element of an organization system, individual well-being has also been identified as the
main source of organizational resilience (Xiao & Cao, 2017). Resilience is one of employees’ main job
resources and it has demonstrated to have a positive relationship with employees’ psychological well-being
(Gardner, 2020). Therefore, the way in which organizations adapted to Covid-19 by altering their
organizational processes is connected to and has influence on, employees’ psychological well-being.
2.2.1 HERO Model
As stated previously, resilience is a prerequisite for healthy organizations. “Organizational health” was first
defined in 1958 by Argyris as an organization’s capacity to let humans’ development arise. Current
organizations must have healthy employees to survive and grow when crises emerge (Salanova et al., 2012).
Healthy organizations value their employees’ psychological well-being in uncertain times, such as the
Covid-19 pandemic, for the later optimal sustainable development of the organization. Therefore, as a
combination of healthy and resilient organizations, the Healthy Resilient Organizations (HERO) Model was
presented by Salanova et al. (2012). The HERO Model (see Figure 1) is a theoretical approach that combines
practical and theoretical data from job stress, Human Resource Management, the PoS&SD, and
organizational resilience (Acosta et al., 2015). Salanova et al. (2016) understood HERO organizations as
those which planned their efforts to improve employees’ well-being while enhancing organizational
processes and outcomes. This model is based on the PoS&SD, as it aims to explain how the quality of work
and organizational performance can be enriched by improving employees’ psychological well-being
(Salanova et al., 2016).
According to Salanova et al. (2012), HERO organizations improve their work environment at three levels -
organizational resources and practices, employees’ well-being, and organizational outcomes. Within
organizational resources and practices, Salanova et al. (2012) distinguished between the interpersonal
(social relationships), the organization (HRM), and the task (autonomy and feedback), being the latter level
the one most relevant for this research. Furthermore, this theory is based on the JD-R Model , as it focuses
on how work engagement -an employee well-being indicator- is an outcome of a combination of job
demands and job resources (Demerouti et al., 2001). Finally, HERO organizations invest in their
organizational resources and practices in times of crisis to support organizational sustainable development
(Acosta et al., 2015).
9Figure 1 The HERO Model of Positives Organizations (Salanova et al., 2016, p.178)
Therefore, organizations can improve their resilience capabilities when altering their organizational
processes in uncertain times. This alteration, in combination with the enhancement of employees’
pscyhological well-being, supports organizations’ sustainable development.
2.3 Job Demands – Resource Model
As stated previously, the Job Demands-Resource Model is a useful tool to better understand employee
psychological well-being. Together with Karasek’s Job Demands-Control Model (1979) and Siegrist’s
Effort Reward Imbalance Model (1996), the JD-R Model is one of the leading and commonly used models
on job stress and predicting burnout (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). The JD-R model was developed by
Demerouti et al. (2001) with the initial aim to better understand job burnout, psychological distancing, and
reduced personal efficacy (Schaufeli, 2017). After the publication of the initial model, different adjustments
were made and published; for example, engagement was added to the model.
Both the first publication “The Job Demands–Resources model of burnout”, published in the Journal of
Applied Psychology, as well as the revised model “Job demands, job resources and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study” published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior were
cited more than 10.000 times each to date (Google Scholar, 2021). These high numbers show the high impact
and importance that the model has for research.
As the theory emerged in the early 2000’s many relevant studies and articles about the JD-R Model were
published in the subsequent years. This model is especially suitable for this research, as it has a particularly
broad scope and incorporates a range of relevant job characteristics (Schaufeli, 2017). Thus, the JD-R Model
is not only of great relevance for research, but also highly appropriate for the practical use in organizations
(Schaufeli, 2017). Moreover, the robustness of the JD-R Model is well proven by previous research. The
validity of the JD-R Model in terms of the prediction of job burnout has been supported by several previous
studies, both cross-sectional (Alarcon, 2011; Crawford et al., 2010; Llorens et al., 2006; Schaufeli & Tauris,
2014) and longitudinal (Lizano & Mor Barak, 2012; Hakanen et al., 2008).
The basic assumption of the JD-R Model (see Figure 2) is that every job bears negative characteristics, the
job demands, and positive characteristics, the job resources (Schaufeli & Taris 2014; Bakker & Demerouti
102007, 2013; Demerouti et al., 2001). Job demands are those aspects that claim a continuous physical or
psychological effort. This effort leads to drainage of workers’ energy and can be seen as a physiological and
or psychological cost (Demerouti et al., 2001). Job demands can take different forms, they can be
psychological (mental), emotional or physical (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
Examples of job demands can be work overload or conflicts with colleagues (Schaufeli, 2017).
In contrast, job resources are “those physical, social, or organizational aspects of the job that may do any
of the following: (a) be functional in achieving work goals; (b) reduce job demands and the associated
physiological and psychological costs; (c) stimulate personal growth and development” (Demerouti et al.,
2001, p. 501). Examples of job resources are social support, autonomy, and feedback (Schaufeli & Taris,
2014). This research focuses on the latter two job resources. The reasons for choosing these two resources
particularly are presented in the following subchapter. Job resources can be situated at different levels: the
level of the organization at large, the interpersonal relations, the organization of work, and the level of the
task (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Autonomy is mainly located in the organization of work in form of
participation in decision making, as well as, at the level of the task. Feedback, on its part, is located at the
level of the task, in form of performance feedback (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
Figure 2 Job Demands-Resource Model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, p.313)
As the model shows, two separate psychological processes are triggered in the JD-R Model. These two
processes are called stress and motivational process (Schaufeli, 2017; Huang et al., 2016). The stress process
is activated by high job demands in combination with low job resources. The stress process can lead to
several negative outcomes, including absenteeism or low organizational commitment. If this state continues
for a longer time, employees’ energy is continuously drained, which increases the risk of a burnout
(Schaufeli, 2017). Burnout does not only have negative impacts on the working individual but also on
organizational outcomes.
The motivational process is activated by low job demands and high job resources. This process can lead to
high work engagement, motivation, and job-related learning. (Schaufeli, 2017; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
By doing so, the motivational process makes employees feel energized and leads to good organizational
outcomes as well. These positive effects of the motivational process have been confirmed by several
previous researchers (Acosta et al., 2005; Taris & Feij, 2014). Different authors also suggest that job
resources can have a buffer effect on job demands and can, therefore, lower the adverse effects of high job
demands (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007; Bakker et al., 2005). In their research,
Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) and Bakker et al. (2005) were able to find evidence that the buffer effect that
11job resources have, can increase employees’ psychological well-being. Similarly, a study by Billings et al.
(2000) among AIDS-related caregivers extends the knowledge about the buffer effect by adding that the
buffer effect that resources have is higher when demands are high. Likewise, Bakker et al. (2005) were able
to find evidence for the buffer effect that job resources have and that this buffer can increase employees’
psychological well-being.
Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) investigated the role of three personal resources in the JD-R Model. Two of the
investigated resources belong to the formerly presented theory of PsyCap: self-efficacy and optimism. They
found evidence that personal resources, such as self-efficacy and optimism, positively influence the
relationship between job resources and motivation. Moreover, these can even take on a mediating role. This
finding is supported by a recent study conducted by Huang et al. (2016), who investigated the role of self-
efficacy and optimism on the two processes of the JD-R Model. They were able to show that optimism, as
a personal resource, can mediate both processes and therefore, impact workers experience motivation or
burnout. However, while the PoS&SD and PsyCap are concerned with the internal/ personal resources of
the individual, the JD-R Model focuses more on external resources (Demerouti et al., 2001) that the
organization can influence.
Finally, to demonstrate why the JD-R Model was chosen for this study, it was compared to other influential
models about job stress, namely Karasek’s Job Demands-Control Model (1979) and Siegrist’s Effort
Reward Imbalance Model (1996). All three models assume that employee well-being results from a balance/
imbalance of positive and negative job characteristics (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). In the JD-R Model, the
negative characteristics are the job demands, and the job resources are the positive characteristics. The Job
Demands-Control Model also uses the term job demands for negative job characteristics that increase
worker’s stress. On the other hand, a high decision latitude (control), for example, in the form of decision
authority, can lower stress in the Job Demands-Control Model (Karasek, 1979). In the Effort Reward
Imbalance Model, efforts are seen as costs and can be extrinsic (e.g., demands) or intrinsic (e.g., critical
coping). Rewards such as money, esteem, or status control are seen as positive job characteristics. The
model mainly studies high effort - low reward situations, which can be considered particularly stressful
(Siegrist, 1996). It has previously been criticized that the Job Demands-Control and the Effort Reward
Imbalance Model are oversimplified and therefore, not suited for use at workplaces, as workplaces are
particularly complex environments (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Furthermore, it is unclear why control is
the most essential resource in the Job Demands-Control Model, leaving not much room for other job
resources. The JD-R Model considers that every job has different demands and resources and is therefore,
suited for the application at different kinds of workplaces (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
Several studies about the JD-R Model have uniformly shown, that employees perform best in resourceful
work environments, as these enhance employees’ work engagement (Bakker & Bal, 2010; Demerouti &
Cropanzano, 2010). Hence, the model highlights the importance of resourceful workplaces, for the
organization itself and for its employees’ psychological well-being. In this research, two job resources are
understood to promote psychological well-being: decision making and communication.
2.3.1 Linking Decision Making and Employees’ Well-being
The earlier discussion on job resources has shown that they can be located at different levels. In the
following, it is discussed how aspects of decision making can act as a job resource to increase workers’
psychological well-being.
In a recent research, Palmer and Flanagan (2016) investigated the strategies carried out by today’s
companies to integrate sustainability in their core values. The results were precise: the number of “people”
strategies established in companies was much higher than the rest -environment and economic- (Palmer &
Flanagan, 2016). Additionally, within these, the most common goals’ component was health and safety
12You can also read
