Homeworking Heaven or Hell During the COVID-19 Pandemic? Lessons for the Job Demands-Resources Model in the Context of Homeworking

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, public servants in many countries were required to work from home. In this study, we explore Dutch public servants’ experiences of mandatory homeworking by conducting a template analysis. Based on an in-depth examination of 985 written accounts, we inductively expand an a priori template derived from the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) framework, to understand and analyze public servants’ experiences of this new situation. We found homeworking in general had positive effects on public servants’ individual performance and health-related well-being but a predominantly negative impact on happiness well-being. Furthermore, we found that the impact of homeworking on the job demands and job resources seems to depend on the specific clusters of these job demands and resources. Our findings are translated into propositions that extend the JD-R framework.

Psychosocial job characteristics comparison between work from home and work in the office: a study from the pandemic onwards

“…Since the pandemic, several studies have explored the theoretical models of various job characteristics of WFH, like the particularly well-known Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model (e.g., Barbieri et al, 2021;Demerouti and Bakker, 2023;Kruyen et al, 2023), which involves the linking of workplace factors strain and motivation, and the resultant organizational outcomes.…”

“…Past research has suggested various adjustments to evaluate the applicability of the JD-R model to emerging work paradigms. For instance, Kruyen et al (2023) has expanded the model to include personal and home demands/resources in the WFH context, advocating for the clustering of individual demands and resources. In a similar vein, Barbieri et al (2021) have proposed subdividing resources into organizational and individual aspects, akin to the personal factors discussed by Kruyen et al (2023).…”

“…For instance, Kruyen et al (2023) has expanded the model to include personal and home demands/resources in the WFH context, advocating for the clustering of individual demands and resources. In a similar vein, Barbieri et al (2021) have proposed subdividing resources into organizational and individual aspects, akin to the personal factors discussed by Kruyen et al (2023). Adding to this discourse, Demerouti and Bakker (2023) have highlighted the intricate interplay between job demands, organizational resources, and individual wellbeing during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, enriching our understanding of the implications of remote work.…”

“…Conversely, in the home office, deliberate efforts are required to connect with colleagues and supervisors. Various studies (Ipsen et al, 2021;Lee, 2021;Becerra-Astudillo et al, 2022;Kruyen et al, 2023) have highlighted a reduction in social resources and support during WFH. However, these studies have often compared telecommuters with office-based workers, or have linked telecommuters' experiences with only specific outcomes, thus lacking a direct comparison between participants' home and office workplaces.…”

“…However, from the lack of in-person exchange and altered digital organizational structures, it can be inferred that WFH can have a negative effect (Ipsen et al, 2021;Rodríguez-Modroño and López-Igual, 2021). Existing reviews (Beckel and Fisher, 2022;Antunes et al, 2023) and studies (e.g., Ipsen et al, 2021;Kruyen et al, 2023) offer divergent results on the organizational factor. Therefore, our third hypothesis remains non-directional considering the difference in psychosocial working conditions between the office and home: Hypothesis 3: Organizational factors, involving work intensity, job autonomy, work continuity and task clarity, differ in all 3 years between working from home and working in the office.…”