The potential impact of COVID-19 restrictions on worker well-being is currently unknown. In this study we examine 15 well-being outcomes collected from 621 full-time workers assessed before (November, 2019 - February, 2020) and during (May-June, 2020) the COVID-19 pandemic. Fixed effects analyses are used to investigate how the COVID-19 restrictions and involuntary homeworking affect well-being and job performance. The majority of worker well-being measures are not adversely affected. Homeworkers feel more engaged and autonomous, experience fewer negative emotions and feel more connected to their organisations. However, these improvements come at the expense of reduced homelife satisfaction and job performance.

COVID-19 created a transformational shift in the working environment for much of the labour force, yet its impact on workers is unclear. This study uses longitudinal data to examine the wellbeing of 621 full-time workers assessed before (November 2019–February 2020) and during (May–June 2020) the first lockdown in the United Kingdom. We employ fixed effects analyses to investigate the impact of the restrictions and mandatory homeworking on cognitive, emotional, and psychological wellbeing. Within the sample, the rate of full-time homeworking increased from 2 to 74% between waves. We identify significant changes in 9 of the 15 measures assessed, with a general pattern of improvements in wellbeing during lockdown. Overall levels of stress, self-rated mental health, positive emotions and life and job satisfaction are not adversely affected by the restrictions. There is a reduction in the burnout symptoms of disengagement (−0.13 sd) and exhaustion (−0.20 sd) and in the frequency with which negative emotions are experienced at work (−0.15 sd). Workers feel more autonomous (+0.09 sd), closer to their co-workers (+0.10 sd), and more attached to their organisations (+0.19 sd). However, homelife satisfaction declines (−0.11 sd). These findings highlight the possibility that the COVID-19 pandemic and large-scale transition to homeworking was associated with unchanged or improved worker wellbeing. This study has important implications for governments and employers regarding a global shift to homeworking.

The links between worker well-being and quit intentions have been well researched. However, the vast majority of extant studies use just one measure, job satisfaction, to proxy for worker well-being as a whole, thus ignoring its documented multidimensionality. This paper examines whether this approach is justified. Using novel survey data, I compare the extent to which alternative well-being indicators (job satisfaction, affect, engagement and the satisfaction of basic psychological needs) individually, and jointly, explain variation in the quit intentions of 994 full-time workers. I find systematic differences in the personal and well-being profiles of workers who intend quitting and those who do not. Furthermore,  well-being indicators explain four to nine times more variation in quit intentions than wages and hours combined. The engagement measure performs best, explaining 22.5% of variation in quit intentions. Employing a composite model (job satisfaction + affect + engagement) significantly increases explanatory power. My results suggest that the standard single-item job satisfaction measure may be good enough for organisations who merely wish to identify categories of workers who may be most at risk of quitting. For organisations seeking to develop proactive quit prevention  strategies however, supplementing job satisfaction with other indicators such as engagement should increase explanatory power and yield valuable, potentially actionable, insights.

No abstract

No abstract