ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

COVID-19 and the Workplace: Implications, Issues, and Insights for Future Research and Action

August 2020
American Psychologist 76(1)

DOI:10.1037/amp0000716

Authors:

Frederik Anseel

UNSW Sydney

John Antonakis

University of Lausanne

Show all 29 authorsHide

The impacts of COVID-19 on workers and workplaces across the globe have been dramatic. This broad review of prior research rooted in work and organizational psychology, and related fields, is intended to make sense of the implications for employees, teams, and work organizations. This review and preview of relevant literatures focuses on (a) emergent changes in work practices (e.g., working from home, virtual teamwork) and (b) emergent changes for workers (e.g., social distancing, stress, and unemployment). In addition, potential moderating factors (demographic characteristics, individual differences, and organizational norms) are examined given the likelihood that COVID-19 will generate disparate effects. This broad-scope overview provides an integrative approach for considering the implications of COVID-19 for work, workers, and organizations while also identifying issues for future research and insights to inform solutions.

Content uploaded by Cort W. Rudolph

Content may be subject to copyright.

American Psychologist

COVID-19 and the Workplace: Implications, Issues, and

Insights for Future Research and Action

Kevin M. Kniffin, Jayanth Narayanan, Frederik Anseel, John Antonakis, Susan P. Ashford, Arnold B.

Bakker, Peter Bamberger, Hari Bapuji, Devasheesh P. Bhave, Virginia K. Choi, Stephanie J. Creary,

Evangelia Demerouti, Francis J. Flynn, Michele J. Gelfand, Lindred L. Greer, Gary Johns, Selin

Kesebir, Peter G. Klein, Sun Young Lee, Hakan Ozcelik, Jennifer Louise Petriglieri, Nancy P.

Rothbard, Cort W. Rudolph, Jason D. Shaw, Nina Sirola, Connie R. Wanberg, Ashley Whillans,

Michael P. Wilmot, and Mark van Vugt

Online First Publication, August 10, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000716

CITATION

Kniffin, K. M., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., Antonakis, J., Ashford, S. P., Bakker, A. B., Bamberger, P.,

Bapuji, H., Bhave, D. P., Choi, V. K., Creary, S. J., Demerouti, E., Flynn, F. J., Gelfand, M. J., Greer, L. L.,

Johns, G., Kesebir, S., Klein, P. G., Lee, S. Y., Ozcelik, H., Petriglieri, J. L., Rothbard, N. P., Rudolph, C.

W., Shaw, J. D., Sirola, N., Wanberg, C. R., Whillans, A., Wilmot, M. P., & Vugt, M. v. (2020, August

10). COVID-19 and the Workplace: Implications, Issues, and Insights for Future Research and

Action. American Psychologist. Advance online publication.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000716

COVID-19 and the Workplace:

Implications, Issues, and Insights for Future Research and Action

Kevin M. Kniffin

Cornell University

Jayanth Narayanan

National University of Singapore

Frederik Anseel

University of New South Wales Sydney

John Antonakis

University of Lausanne

Susan P. Ashford

University of Michigan

Arnold B. Bakker

Erasmus University Rotterdam

Peter Bamberger

Tel Aviv University and Cornell University

Hari Bapuji

University of Melbourne

Devasheesh P. Bhave

Singapore Management University

Virginia K. Choi

University of Maryland, College Park

Stephanie J. Creary

University of Pennsylvania

Evangelia Demerouti

Eindhoven University of Technology

Francis J. Flynn

Stanford University

Michele J. Gelfand

University of Maryland, College Park

Lindred L. Greer

University of Michigan

Gary Johns

Concordia University and University of British Columbia

Kevin M. Kniffin, Dyson School of Applied Economics and Manage-

ment, S. C. Johnson College of Business, Cornell University; XJayanth

Narayanan, Department of Management and Organizations, National Uni-

versity of Singapore; XFrederik Anseel, Business School, University of

New South Wales Sydney; XJohn Antonakis, Department of Organiza-

tional Behavior, University of Lausanne; XSusan P. Ashford, Stephen M.

Ross School of Business, University of Michigan; XArnold B. Bakker,

Center of Excellence for Positive Organizational Psychology, Erasmus

University Rotterdam; XPeter Bamberger, Coller School of Manage-

ment, Tel Aviv University, and Smithers Institute, Cornell University;

XHari Bapuji, Department of Management and Marketing, University of

Melbourne; XDevasheesh P. Bhave, Department of Organizational Be-

haviour and Human Resources, Singapore Management University; Vir-

ginia K. Choi, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College

Park; Stephanie J. Creary, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylva-

nia; XEvangelia Demerouti, Department of Industrial Engineering and

Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology; Francis J.

Flynn, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University; Michele J.

Gelfand, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College

Park; XLindred L. Greer, Stephen M. Ross School of Business, Uni-

versity of Michigan; Gary Johns, John Molson School of Business,

Concordia University, and Sauder School of Business, University of

British Columbia; XSelin Kesebir, Department of Organizational

Behaviour, London Business School; XPeter G. Klein, Hankamer

School of Business, Baylor University; XSun Young Lee, School of

Management, University College London; Hakan Ozcelik, College of

Business Administration, California State University, Sacramento;

XJennifer Louise Petriglieri, INSEAD; Nancy P. Rothbard, The

Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania; XCort W. Rudolph,

Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University; Jason D. Shaw,

Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technology University; XNina

Sirola, Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management

University; Connie R. Wanberg, Department of Work and Organiza-

tions, University of Minnesota; Ashley Whillans, Harvard Business

School, Harvard University;XMichael P. Wilmot, Sam M. Walton

College of Business, University of Arkansas; Mark van Vugt, Depart-

ment of Organizational Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

continued

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

American Psychologist

ISSN: 0003-066X http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000716

Selin Kesebir

London Business School

Peter G. Klein

Baylor University

Sun Young Lee

University College London

Hakan Ozcelik

California State University, Sacramento

Jennifer Louise Petriglieri

INSEAD

Nancy P. Rothbard

University of Pennsylvania

Cort W. Rudolph

Saint Louis University

Jason D. Shaw

Nanyang Technology University

Nina Sirola

Singapore Management University

Connie R. Wanberg

University of Minnesota

Ashley Whillans

Harvard University

Michael P. Wilmot

University of Arkansas

Mark van Vugt

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

The impacts of COVID-19 on workers and workplaces across the globe have been dramatic.

This broad review of prior research rooted in work and organizational psychology, and related

fields, is intended to make sense of the implications for employees, teams, and work

organizations. This review and preview of relevant literatures focuses on (a) emergent

changes in work practices (e.g., working from home, virtual teamwork) and (b) emergent

changes for workers (e.g., social distancing, stress, and unemployment). In addition, potential

moderating factors (demographic characteristics, individual differences, and organizational

norms) are examined given the likelihood that COVID-19 will generate disparate effects. This

broad-scope overview provides an integrative approach for considering the implications of

COVID-19 for work, workers, and organizations while also identifying issues for future

research and insights to inform solutions.

Public Significance Statement

COVID-19 has disrupted work and organizations across the globe. This overview integrates and

applies prior research in work and organizational psychology as well as related fields in its

examination of emergent changes for work practices as well as workers. This article also acknowl-

edges and considers the disproportionate impacts that COVID-19 may have on workers depending on

demographic characteristics, individual differences, and relevant organizational norms. In addition to

helping make sense of the implications of COVID-19 for employees, teams, and work organizations,

this review features roadmaps for future research and action.

Keywords: COVID-19, employees, work, work from home (WFH), pandemics

Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000716.supp

Kevin M. Kniffin, Jayanth Narayanan, and Mark van Vugt served as

leads for conceptualization, writing – original draft, and writing – review

and editing, with support from each additional coauthor (listed alphabeti-

cally by last name) through multiple rounds of input, editing, and review.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kevin M.

Kniffin, Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, S. C.

Johnson College of Business, Cornell University, Warren Hall 111, Ithaca,

NY 14853. E-mail: kmk276@cornell.edu

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

2KNIFFIN ET AL.

COVID-19 is both a global health crisis and an interna-

tional economic threat. The business and industry shut-

downs that were implemented and mandated across the

world to curb the spread of the virus have generated a wide

array of unique challenges for employees and employers. At

the individual level, populations of shutdown-affected em-

ployees were turned overnight into (a) “work from home”

(WFH) employees, (b) “essential” or “life-sustaining”

workers (e.g., emergency room medical personnel and su-

permarket staff), or (c) furloughed or laid-off employees

seeking the nation-specific equivalent of unemployment

benefits. Organizationally, the economic shutdowns and

policy changes are likely to (a) change some industries

fundamentally, (b) accelerate trends that were already un-

derway in others, and (c) open opportunities for novel

industries to emerge, as typically happens in times of wars

and natural disasters (e.g., Sine & David, 2003). Given the

uncertainty and breadth of the COVID-19 shock, work and

organizational psychologists urgently need to apply the

field’s current knowledge for the purpose of sensemaking to

help individuals and organizations manage risks while si-

multaneously developing and applying solutions.

Although it is possible that an effective vaccine or ther-

apeutic treatment becomes available quickly enough to limit

the direct impacts of COVID-19 to less than a year, a look

at human history is filled with cases where pathogenic

microbes have wreaked long-lasting havoc on societies and

workplaces (Diamond, 1998). As an example, between

1918 and 1920, a variant of the flu killed an estimated 50

million people worldwide, many of them adults between the

ages of 20 and 50 years. In response, many countries ad-

opted policies to improve health and working conditions by

providing either universal health care (Europe) or employer-

based insurance schemes (United States). More generally,

the financial and health impacts of infectious disease have

been linked to tighter cultural norms and practices (Gelfand,

2019), political conservatism and xenophobia (Ji, Tybur, &

Van Vugt, 2019), and more directive workplace leadership

(Van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008). It is also known, when

considering other recent systemic shocks such as the Sep-

tember 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, that such

shocks can produce long-lasting global changes in practices

and attitudes toward surveillance, security, and privacy.

This article focuses on the relevance of COVID-19-

related risks and changes for workers, workplaces, and work

practices. This broad survey of topics allows us to identify

a variety of economic, social-psychological, and health-

related risks that workers appear likely to face as either a

direct result of COVID-19 or indirectly as a result of eco-

nomic shutdowns associated with COVID-19 (given that

research on prior economic contractions suggests poten-

tially adverse—and lethal— health effects; e.g., Popovici &

French, 2013). By focusing on topics that appeared most

likely to be influenced by COVID-19 during early stages of

the pandemic, we organized ourselves (as described in the

online supplemental materials) to present a review of rele-

vant literatures along with an evidence-based preview of

changes that we expect in the wake of COVID-19 for both

research and practice. To organize our consideration of the

multiple ways in which the current pandemic is impact-

ing the workplace, this review consists of three main

sections (each with three main topical areas): (a) emer-

gent changes in work practices (WFH; virtual teamwork;

virtual leadership and management), (b) emergent

changes for workers (social distancing and loneliness;

health and well-being; unemployment and inequality),

and (c) the importance of moderating factors (demo-

graphic characteristics; individual differences; organiza-

tional norms).

Beyond reviewing and applying prior research to help

make sense of the crisis, this article aims to provide a

generative overview to help situate and guide future re-

search and theorizing on the impacts associated with

COVID-19. In addition, this effort is designed to help

researchers and practitioners take steps to manage and mit-

igate the negative effects of COVID-19 with evidence-

based roadmaps for moving forward. Given the wide-

ranging impact of COVID-19, this article’s focus on work

and organizational psychology is intended to be broad and

inclusive; however, there are inevitably additional “work-

place” topics that may have inadvertently been omitted.

Emergent Changes in Work Practices

At the same time that COVID-19 abruptly upended nor-

mal work routines, it also caused an acceleration of trends

that were already underway involving the migration of work

to online or virtual environments. A key difference, though,

is that WFH was previously often responsive to employee

preferences but COVID-19 forced many into Mandatory

Work From Home (MWFH), making it difficult to gener-

alize prior findings.

Work From Home (WFH)

A Gartner (2020) survey of 229 human resources (HR)

departments showed that approximately one half of the

companies had more than 80% of their employees working

from home during early stages of the COVID-19 pandem-

ic—and estimated substantial long-term increases for re-

mote work after the pandemic. The need for millions of

workers to WFH in response to COVID-19 has accelerated

recent remote work trends facilitated by the rise of connec-

tivity and communication technologies. While “remote

work” is a broader category because it can include “work

from anywhere” (i.e., not necessarily home), it is known

that some—such as professionals who need to perform

complex tasks that require little interaction with peers—

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

COVID-19 AND THE WORKPLACE

actually prefer and are more productive if they WFH (Allen,

Cho, & Meier, 2014). Yet as large numbers of workers are

forced to WFH, many face challenges due to such funda-

mental issues as not having space in one’s home to attend to

work. For example, employees who live with others also

face a larger set of challenges than those who live alone

because they need to navigate others’ space as well (see

later section on Moderating Factors).

Employees often find it challenging to maintain bound-

aries between work and nonwork (Ramarajan & Reid,

2013). The forced confinement of workers during the

COVID-19 pandemic has further complicated this issue.

While WFH might sound appealing if it offers a safe harbor,

the absence of separation between one’s work and home—

and the lack of commutes to provide a transition between

the two domains— can become a burden too. Questions that

would benefit from closer study include how do individuals’

experiences in the work and nonwork domains influence

each other, and how do individuals’ work and nonwork

identities interact, when they unfold at home?

Given the likelihood that COVID-19 will accelerate

trends toward WFH past the immediate impacts of the

pandemic (Gartner, 2020), it is clear that the diversity of

work arrangements will need to be studied. Future research

should examine whether and how the COVID-19 quaran-

tines that required millions to WFH affected work produc-

tivity, creativity, and innovation. Given that quarantine pe-

riods have entailed literal windows into the homes of

coworkers as well as subordinates and superiors, research is

also needed to examine the implications of WFH for topics

such as motivation and authenticity at work, particularly

when it becomes normal again to work in colocated work-

place settings.

Independent from challenges that individuals can face

when WFH, it is also notable that (a) the reluctance of many

employers to adopt WFH before COVID-19 stemmed from

a perceived lack of control that employers would have over

employees who were out of sight and reach and (b) there is

ample reason to expect that new modes of surveillance will

accompany various WFH arrangements. Indeed, even be-

fore COVID-19, employers were adopting and developing

technologies to monitor employees’ whereabouts (e.g., with

sociometric sensors; Bhave, Teo, & Dalal, 2020). Although

managing-by-walking-around is not feasible when people

are working remotely, the rapidly expanded usage of vid-

eoconferencing has allowed for virtual sight lines. Yet these

virtual sight lines are fraught with a risk as they increase

perceived stress and invade privacy. There is also evidence

that such remote and automated monitoring can lead to

the centralization of decision-making and (in the absence of

countervailing action) contribute to lower creativity among

employees working in lower organizational levels (Nell,

Foss, Klein, & Schmitt, 2020).

Virtual Teamwork

As Mak and Kozlowski (2019) observed before the pan-

demic, “Virtual teams...aregrowing in number and

importance (p. 471).” Rather than assume uniformity in

virtual team characteristics, though, it is valuable to recog-

nize that “team virtuality” is a multifacted concept and

encompasses multiple dimensions including the geographi-

cal distribution of team members and the relative amounts

of (a)synchronous e-communication (Hoch & Kozlowski,

2014). Indeed, a nuanced conceptualizing of virtuality—as a

continuous variable, given that teams are not simply either

face-to-face or virtual— has already been developed (Mak

& Kozlowski, 2019) and should prove helpful for future

researchers who work to classify the different forms of

virtual teamwork that have emerged.

Prior research shows that virtual teamwork tends to lack

the communication richness available to face-to-face teams

(Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004) and that traditional

teamwork problems such as conflict and coordination can

escalate quickly (Mortensen & Hinds, 2001). Building

structural scaffolds to mitigate conflicts, align teams, and

ensure safe and thorough information processing are key

recommendations for virtual teams. For example, prior

work has shown the need— especially in virtual teams—to

formalize team processes, clarify team goals, and build-in

structural solutions to foster psychologically safe discus-

sions (e.g., Gibson & Gibbs, 2006).

Increased team virtuality as a result of COVID-19 may

also affect helping and pro-social behavior. While physical

distancing among coworkers may reduce helping behaviors

in the near term, prior research has shown that people

should be bolder to request help from others because people

do tend to be more willing to help, and give better quality

help, than is usually assumed (Newark, Bohns, & Flynn,

2017), perhaps especially during crises. Normal impedi-

ments to requesting help center on the feeling that it can be

uncomfortable, awkward, and embarrassing (e.g., Bohns &

Flynn, 2010), but “best practices” in virtual helping can

assist help-seekers in overcoming these psychological bar-

riers by maintaining personal privacy (Cleavenger & Mun-

yon, 2015), reducing stigmatization (Ben-Porath, 2002), and

instilling hope that things will get better once help is re-

ceived (McDermott et al., 2017).

As COVID-19 has accelerated the expansion of virtual

teams, it will be valuable for researchers to track and

study innovations that may enable such teams to function

optimally. For example, the intersection of remote work

with a global crisis brings up questions of how emotions,

such as anxiety and stress, can best be communicated and

regulated in the unique setting of virtually connected

work where social and emotional cues are relatively

limited (for an overview, see Lindebaum, Geddes, &

Jordan, 2018). On the other hand, there are prior studies

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

4KNIFFIN ET AL.

showing that teams operating online tend to be more

effective at brainstorming than face-to-face teams (e.g.,

DeRosa, Smith, & Hantula, 2007). In contrast, research

focused on individual performance has shown that re-

motely interacting teammates appear to miss the creative

benefits that can flow from frequent face-to-face interac-

tions (Allen, Golden, & Shockley, 2015). The rapid

growth in virtual teams offers an opportunity to examine

new questions as well as develop interventions to help

improve teamwork in virtual settings; and, in that pursuit,

close attention needs to be paid to the multidimensional

ways in which virtuality varies among remote teams

(Mak & Kozlowski, 2019). The burgeoning area of re-

search on teamwork in health care settings (e.g., Salas,

Reyes, & McDaniel, 2018) where doctors and nurses in

emergency rooms have long been working with each

other behind masks offers a valuable model for teamwork

that is not directly face to face.

Virtual Leadership and Management

The role of leaders to determine organizational outcomes

that have a broad impact on employees at all levels is

especially clear in the crucible of a crisis and certainly vital

in fundamental ways. With the COVID-19 crisis requiring

millions of employees across different hierarchical levels to

WFH, it is reassuring to know that leadership can also work

effectively from a distance (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002).

Prior research shows that successful leaders are those

skilled in a domain to make the right decisions and provide

reassurance through a balanced mix of optimism and real-

ism regarding the future. In other words, effective leaders

strive (in any time period) to project vision—a symbolic

state of affairs with which the collective identifies—and to

reify it (Antonakis, Bastardoz, Jacquart, & Shamir, 2016).

Another possibility, which future research should examine,

is that the move to high-virtuality work arrangements will

foster more participatory relationships given that physical

cues of dominance (e.g., size) are less salient in virtual

environments.

Research on the effectiveness of leaders during and after

the COVID-19 crisis should examine an array of activities,

including the degree to which remote leaders are persuasive

if they (a) clearly state their values that will guide institu-

tional actions, (b) understand and openly discuss the travails

and hopes of their collectives, (c) clearly communicate an

ambitious vision of the direction that the unit will head

toward, and (d) demonstrate confidence that strategic goals

can be achieved. These skills are referred to as charisma

(Antonakis et al., 2016) and require domain expertise as

well as training and investment. Indeed, crises can bring

about changes in leadership styles (Stoker, Garretsen, &

Soudis, 2019); thus, firms can expect to be better prepared

by ensuring that they have adequately invested in profes-

sional development. Future research should estimate if and

how organizational commitments to employees’ profes-

sional development during the crisis pay later dividends. At

a more basic level, it will be important to assess how

COVID-19-induced changes in training programs (i.e.,

moving online) will affect the accessibility, efficiency, and

efficacy of such programs (Cascio, 2019; Salas, Tannen-

baum, Kraiger, & Smith-Jentsch, 2012).

Among the more specific leader-subordinate activities

that will be important to consider in relation to COVID-19

is how assessment and appraisal systems will function. For

example, without being able to directly monitor subordi-

nates in the way that office settings allow, there may be a

shift to results-focused assessment, which prior research

shows to be generally effective (Pritchard, Harrell, Di-

azGranados, & Guzman, 2008). Over longer spans of time,

though, working remotely may reduce the opportunities for

subordinates to gain feedback from leaders and prior re-

search suggests that a lack of learning opportunities is

associated with lower organizational commitment and

higher risk of turnover (Vandenberghe et al., 2019). In

addition, future research should examine how trust can be

built remotely with online interactions so that newcomers

are not disadvantaged due to the lack of face-to-face inter-

actions with their supervisors (Dunbar, 2018).

Emergent Changes for Workers

In addition to the immediate impact of COVID-19, there

is also likely to be a diverse range of social-psychological,

health-related and economic costs of the pandemic for in-

dividuals, including for those (a) whose work was made

virtual or remote, (b) who continued as “essential” workers,

and (c) who were laid off either temporarily or permanently.

While the previous section on work practices focused on

those whose work was made virtual, this section as well as

the rest of this article have broad relevance for everyone

affected by COVID-19, including essential workers and

those who have been laid off.

Social Distancing and Loneliness

The loss of social connections—for those who were laid

off and those required to WFH is likely to negatively impact

workers. Prior research has shown that high-quality social

interactions—including informal chats among coworkers—

are essential for mental and physical health (Mogilner,

Whillans, & Norton, 2018). Handshakes that are also known

to be valuable for social connection (e.g., Schroeder, Risen,

Gino, & Norton, 2019) are now restricted. Against this

backdrop, both the requirement to WFH and plans to de-

densify workplaces in support of physical distancing are

likely to have side effects that include at least some degree

of harm to individuals’ mental and physical health (Brooks

et al., 2020).

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

COVID-19 AND THE WORKPLACE

More insidious than the loss of social connections, lone-

liness is a psychologically painful emotion that results from

people’s subjective feelings that their intimate and social

needs are not adequately met (Cacioppo et al., 2006) and

was already considered “an epidemic” (Murthy, 2017) prior

to this pandemic. Workplace loneliness has been shown to

have strong negative relationships to employees’ affective

commitment, affiliative behaviors, and performance (Ozce-

lik & Barsade, 2018). While we noted that virtual commu-

nications lack richness, a more negative risk of communi-

cations going online is that misunderstandings—in the

absence of nonverbal cues—are likely to increase employ-

ees’ concerns about being interpersonally rejected, contrib-

uting to loneliness (Cacioppo et al., 2006).

As organizations look ahead, prior research recommends

that workplace loneliness be acknowledged and addressed

as an indicator of employee well-being in HR policies,

programs, and practices. Close study of innovations that

people started initiating within weeks of mandatory shut-

downs (e.g., virtual lunch meetings) would also be valuable

for informing future practice as well as research intended to

help prevent loneliness and increase resilience. Such inves-

tigations would complement recent work focused on devel-

oping resilience through experimentally tested interventions

(Williams, Parks, Cormier, Stafford, & Whillans, 2018).

Health and Well-Being

Given the uncertainties of the pandemic, organizations

need to actively support the health and well-being of em-

ployees. Building on job demands–resources theory (Bak-

ker & Demerouti, 2017), it is notable there is variation

across and within industries with respect to how COVID-19

has affected both the demands and resources of different

jobs. There is evidence suggesting that working conditions

have deteriorated for many employees. In light of such

strains, COVID-19 has contributed to greater risk of em-

ployees encountering job burnout—a chronic stress syn-

drome, including permanent feelings of exhaustion and a

distant attitude toward work (Demerouti, Mostert, & Bak-

ker, 2010). Moreover, the continuous exposure to

COVID-19 media news fosters rumination—repetitively

and passively focusing on symptoms of distress and on the

possible causes and consequences of these symptoms

(Nolen-Hoeksema, Wisco, & Lyubomirsky, 2008). Past

studies have shown that people who were exposed to Hur-

ricane Katrina had above-baseline stress and depression

symptoms a year after the event (Obradovich, Migliorini,

Paulus, & Rahwan, 2018), indicating that mental health

problems may remain long after a crisis.

To adequately deal with pandemic-specific and generi-

cally uncertain job demands, employees will need re-

sources. To help address this, organizations may use top–

down (or may facilitate bottom– up) interventions to take

care of employee health and well-being with a goal to

restore balance between job demands and resources. As a

starting point, organizations and their leaders should con-

sider providing (a) immediate tangible resources, such as

information (e.g., about working from home, prevention of

transmission), employee assistance programs, or access to

counseling, therapy, and training, and (b) psychological

resources such as feedback, support, and inspiration through

regular contact with their employees using video calls.

Research that tracks and identifies which variants of such

efforts are most effective will yield benefits beyond the

systemic shocks of COVID-19. In addition, future research

should determine whether structural efforts to optimize

working conditions via job redesign and job crafting can be

as effective now as compared to pre-COVID-19 (Oprea,

Barzin, Vîrga

˘, Iliescu, & Rusu, 2019).

More immediate than many forms of stress, COVID-19

draws close attention to the problem of presenteeism (i.e.,

people going to work when ill; Johns, 2010). From prior

research, there is ample evidence that sick people do persist

in going to work, especially in parts of the United States

where paid sick leave is not presently mandated (e.g.,

Pichler & Ziebarth, 2017) and especially among those who

are highly engaged with their work and/or perceive very

high job demands (Miraglia & Johns, 2016). Independent of

policies regarding presenteeism, Dietz, Zacher, Scheel,

Otto, and Rigotti (2020) found that work team members

imitate the level of presenteeism exhibited by their super-

visors. Compensation policies should also be reviewed in

this context to help ensure that there are not incentives for

coworkers to pressure each other to attend to work while

sick (Kessler, 2017). Notably, for people with jobs that can

be done remotely, research should examine how sickness is

navigated in the post-COVID-19 workscape (e.g., to see if

sick days or snow/weather days will be expected to be WFH

days). Further, for employers that do take active steps to

mitigate and guard against presenteeism, it will be impor-

tant to monitor and assess the degree to which employee

privacy rights are maintained as organizations assume the

right to daily health checks.

As with stress and presenteeism, employee addiction-risk

is another aspect of health and well-being that needs atten-

tion. While it is well known that traumatic events can

precipitate societal shifts in addictive behaviors such as

alcohol consumption (Vlahov et al., 2002), the COVID-19

pandemic is particularly concerning because massive unem-

ployment and mandatory WFH orders may heighten vulner-

abilities and thus trigger or exacerbate alcohol use disorders

(i.e., alcohol abuse or dependence) – a diagnosis applicable

to nearly 13% of Americans and 20% of Europeans (Grant

et al., 2017). Prior research has shown that workforce dis-

engagement can be associated with a decrease in alcohol

misuse due to distancing from workplace-based norms to

drink (Bamberger & Bacharach, 2014). There is also evi-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

6KNIFFIN ET AL.

dence, though, that proximity to work-based peers and

supervisors (which is largely absent when employees WFH)

can provide essential stress-attenuating support in times of

crisis that can prevent alcohol-based coping (Bacharach,

Bamberger, & Sonnenstuhl, 2002).

Beyond traditional employee assistance programs, peer as-

sistance programs including union-sponsored (e.g., Associa-

tion of Flight Attendants’ member assistance program), joint

labor-management-sponsored (e.g., United Auto Workers-

Ford Employee Support Services Program), and employee-

initiated (e.g., Google’s Blue Dot) programs have shown par-

ticular efficacy in times of crisis (Golan, Bacharach, &

Bamberger, 2010), not only for those actively employed, but

for those disengaged from work as well (Bamberger & Bacha-

rach, 2014). Practitioners can also consider Internet-based brief

interventions incorporating personalized norm-feedback (dem-

onstrating, e.g., that the individual’s drinking behavior is ex-

cessive relative to his or her cohort) and/or textual or video-

based insights for addressing the kinds of negative emotional

states potentially driving alcohol-based self-medication be-

cause both kinds of approaches have also demonstrated effi-

cacy (Brendryen, Johansen, Duckert, & Nesvåg, 2017). As

face-to-face support becomes scarce, personalized and adap-

tive virtual technologies may well offer an important new

means to assist workers.

Unemployment and Inequality

As entire industries such as travel, hospitality, sports, and

entertainment were shut down by COVID-19, millions of

people in the United States alone filed new unemployment

claims in early 2020. In addition to losing income, individ-

uals who are unemployed may experience a range of stress-

related consequences including depression, anxiety, and

physical ailments (Wanberg, 2012). Jahoda’s (1982) latent

deprivation model helps explain the negative effects of

unemployment on psychological well-being by acknowl-

edging that employment provides both manifest (e.g., in-

come) and latent (e.g., time structure, social contact, sharing

of common goals, status, and activity) benefits. Financial

deprivation can be particularly devastating, triggering a

spiral of adversity that can affect the entire family (McKee-

Ryan & Maitoza, 2018).

Hopes related to COVID-19 unemployment have cen-

tered on an economic recovery unfolding fast enough that

jobs lost to COVID-19 unemployment will largely be re-

gained but that is far from certain. The broad-based closures

associated with COVID-19 have further complicated typical

advice for individuals who are unemployed to develop a

regular routine of job search (Wanberg, Ali, & Csillag,

2020). Researchers studying unique features of COVID-19

will want to compare how people cope and adapt to the

shocks entailed by COVID-19 in both the near-term with

respect to the employer that let them go and, in the longer

term, where career adaptability (Klehe, Zikic, van Vianen,

Koen, & Buyken, 2012)—the willingness and interest to

explore new options and future work scenarios—might

prove to be increasingly valuable.

In addition to the consequences of unemployment for

individuals, there are negative spillover effects for those

who remain employed. Prior research shows that when

firms reduce overall staffing levels, there tends to be cor-

respondingly lower levels of organizational commitment,

job involvement, and greater stress among survivors

(Trevor & Nyberg, 2008). Meta-analytic evidence finds that

overall reduction in staffing has roughly the same adverse

organizational performance as comparable voluntary turn-

over (e.g., Park & Shaw, 2013). Recent research has also

shown that broader economic downturns tend to be associ-

ated with a shift toward more “zero-sum” mindsets with a

downstream consequence that people become increasingly

prone to misconstrue others as competitors even when they

are not (Sirola & Pitesa, 2017). Future research that exam-

ines the mass layoffs entailed by COVID-19 should test the

extent to which prior research holds up in the face of the

wide, broad, and abrupt layoffs.

As a broader cost associated with the pandemic, many

analysts expect that inequality will increase in the wake

of COVID-19 just as it has in recent shocks such as the

2008 financial crisis (Wisman, 2013). Such inequalities

are known from past shocks to provide differential re-

sources and opportunities for individuals to gain employ-

ment and promotions while exacerbating inequalities in

pay and benefits (Bapuji, Ertug, & Shaw, 2020). In

relation to COVID-19, it seems likely that there will be

continued growth in short-term jobs given that— even

prior to the pandemic—the so-called gig economy (Ash-

ford, Caza, & Reid, 2018) was growing at a high rate

(Manyika, 2016) as a new kind of normal (Petriglieri,

Ashford, & Wrzesniewski, 2019).

Given prior work showing that organizational and

societal inequalities feed into each other, there are rea-

sons to be concerned that growth in inequality after

COVID-19 will contribute to a downward spiral of neg-

ative trends in the workplace in the form of decreased

work centrality, and increased burnout, absenteeism, de-

viant behaviors, bullying, and turnover (Bapuji et al.,

2020). Further, it is likely that job insecurities post-

COVID-19 will motivate greater risk-taking and presen-

teeism among low-paid workers that, in turn, may in-

crease public health risks for further spread of the

disease. Finally, societies may be confronted with social

unrest and political upheaval (e.g., demonstrations, riots)

as social and economic inequality increases on the back

of COVID-19. Therefore, greater organizational invest-

ments to minimize inequality should dampen the negative

spiraling that is otherwise likely to unfold.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

COVID-19 AND THE WORKPLACE

Moderating Factors

The changes and impacts reviewed in the previous two

sections will disparately impact (and be impacted by) em-

ployees with certain demographic characteristics, individual

differences, and variable organizational norms. While the

following subsections focus on moderators for which there

exists evidence relevant to COVID-19, there are ample

reasons to expect that these interact with additional factors

such as a person’s socioeconomic or their health status (i.e.,

chronic illnesses). These moderators are key concerns if

organizations are going to maintain pre-COVID-19 com-

mitments to diverse, inclusive, and equitable workplaces.

Demographic Characteristics

Preliminary analyses of COVID-19 indicate that older

people are disproportionately at-risk of dying if they are

infected thereby warranting substantial attention to aging

workers. Declining birthrates and increasing life expectancy

in the past century have led to an aging workforce across the

globe (Rudolph, Marcus, & Zacher, 2018). Given the health

risks faced by older employees as well as early retirement

incentives that organizations dealing with budget shortfalls

are expected to offer, it is possible that the post-COVID

workplace is less diverse with respect to age. Older employ-

ees’ decisions in relation to COVID-19 seem likely to be

influenced partly by the status of their retirement savings or

benefits; and, certainly, there will continue to be more

heterogeneity in countries where there is not a mandatory

retirement age (e.g., Van Solinge & Henkens, 2014).

Similar to age, fatality rates for contracting COVID-19

have also varied substantially by race (e.g., within the

United States) with speculation that the racial differences

reflect underlying differences in preexisting health condi-

tions, lower socioeconomic status, and dense living condi-

tions. Additionally, members of racial and ethnic minority

groups are less likely to be able to work remotely and as a

result face greater exposure to the virus. In the United

Kingdom, health care professionals from Black, Asian, and

minority ethnic groups represent 20% of nurses and mid-

wives and 44% of doctors and dentists (Cook, Kursumovic,

& Lennane, 2020); however, 70% of health care profession-

als who have died from the virus come from these same

groups with similar patterns visible in the United States

(Cookson & Milne, 2020). Although much is known about

bias and discrimination in the workplace, less is known

about how to mitigate them. To date, organizational schol-

ars and psychologists have proposed individual-level coping

strategies (Smith, Watkins, Ladge, & Carlton, 2019), inter-

personal identity management strategies (Creary, Caza, &

Roberts, 2015), and organizational-level interventions such

as diversity training (Nkomo & Hoobler, 2014) that can

improve racial and ethnic minorities’ experiences at work.

Missing from the literature is an understanding of whether

these strategies are similarly effective under conditions of

economic threat when racial and ethnic minorities are par-

ticularly vulnerable to layoffs (Elvira & Zatzick, 2002). Not

only should scholars who are legally able to collect racial

and ethnic data continue to do so during and beyond this

pandemic, organizational and managerial interventions

aimed at improving the workplace conditions and experi-

ences of racial and ethnic minorities including their expe-

riences of inclusion (Roberts, Mayo, & Thomas, 2019) and

belonging (Good, Rattan, & Dweck, 2012) will be valuable.

As with age as well as race and ethnicity, COVID-19

likely affects gender in a variety of ways. Higher fatality

rates for men imply that male workers might need greater

physical protection from the virus; however, there are eco-

nomic and psychological reasons to suspect that women

face greater occupational risks. First, women tend to work

in positions that are more directly affected by COVID-19

and more easily replaceable (e.g., hospitality, cleaning, and

domestic work; Alon, Doepke, Olmstead-Rumsey, & Ter-

tilt, 2020). Second, because women tend to have higher

empathy (Bloise & Johnson, 2007), women tend to experi-

ence more distress from stressful life events, particularly the

ones affecting others (Kessler & McLeod, 1984). Globally,

several female leaders (e.g., Angela Merkel, Tsai Ing-wen)

have tackled COVID-19 effectively. Whereas this contrasts

with prior research indicating that people prefer a masculine

leader in times of crisis (e.g., Van Vugt et al., 2008), a set

of feminine values and traits can also be effective in crisis

management, including: a communal orientation in moral

decision-making (Tinghög et al., 2016); higher sensitivity to

risk (Eckel & Grossman, 2008), particularly about health

issues (Flynn, Slovic, & Mertz, 1994); higher conscien-

tiousness (Schmitt, Realo, Voracek, & Allik, 2008); and,

more attentive communication styles (Campbell, 2013).

Combining these insights, it is plausible that a feminine

style of leadership might become recognized as optimal for

dealing with crises in the future.

Finally, individual family status (e.g., living alone; with

others; with young children) appears likely to disparately

affect how COVID-19 impacts individuals’ life and work.

For example, research has shown that, in heterosexual cou-

ples, women typically do the majority of household work,

and this can lead them to opt-out of careers (Stone, 2008).

Given that partners are known to play a key role in sup-

porting (or undermining) each other’s careers and develop-

ing professional identities (Petriglieri & Obodaru, 2019), it

will also be key to understand how couples manage the

emotional labor of dealing with anxiety provoked by the

pandemic. Among interventions specific to families that

researchers will want to want to understand more closely are

the conditions and ways in which revisiting psychological

contracts among couples—perhaps especially among cou-

ples with (young) children—is beneficial (Petriglieri, 2019).

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

8KNIFFIN ET AL.

Individual Differences

The Big Five personality traits predict many work atti-

tudes and behaviors, including those relevant to COVID-19,

such as coping (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007), work-

life balance (Michel, Kotrba, Mitchelson, Clark, & Baltes,

2011), and subjective well-being (Anglim, Horwood, Smil-

lie, Marrero, & Wood, 2020). Second-order quantitative

reviews of more than 90 meta-analyses show that extraver-

sion and conscientiousness play particularly important roles

in successful adjustment. Extraversion contributes to adjust-

ment by promoting more frequent experiences of higher

levels of positive emotion as well as a richer repertoire of

interpersonal skill (Wilmot, Wanberg, Kammeyer-Mueller,

& Ones, 2019), whereas conscientiousness contributes to

adjustment by fostering commitment and perseverance to-

ward more predictable, nonimmediate work goals (Wilmot

& Ones, 2019).

In light of this prior research, there are reasons to expect

that both traits play key but distinct roles in workplace

adjustments to the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, the

need for distancing among people may heighten tendencies

toward Introversion, which, in turn, have been associated

with diminished positive emotions (Margolis & Lyubomir-

sky, 2020). Furthermore, while conscientiousness offers

potent workplace benefits, we know that unpredictability

increases job complexity, which, in turn, decreases consci-

entiousness’ beneficial effects (Wilmot & Ones, 2019). Ac-

cordingly, organizational interventions that facilitate social

engagement in spite of physical distancing and bring role

clarity as well as specific goals may offer much-needed

predictability in an uncertain time.

Beyond the Big Five traits, other individual differences

may also matter. For example, regarding WFH, Rothbard,

Phillips, and Dumas (2005) reported that “segmentors” tend

to enjoy work and perform better when they have a clear

boundary between work and nonwork, whereas “integra-

tors” tend to flourish when toggling between different ac-

tivities across these boundaries. This distinction is useful

because each may benefit from different adaptations in their

work routines. Segmentors, particularly those who live with

others, may benefit from strategies that enable them to

tolerate nonwork interruptions during work hours, whereas

integrators may benefit from some segmentation in time and

space.

Organizational Norms

While cultural variation around the globe can be classi-

fied on numerous dimensions, the dimension of cultural

tightness–looseness, which is comparable to classifying

cultures as relatively collectivist or individualist (Hofstede,

1984), appears most relevant for making sense of

COVID-19 because it explains how human groups develop

strong norms and tighter organizational cultures in reaction

to life threatening-experiences (Harrington & Gelfand,

2014). More specifically, prior research suggests that cul-

tural tightening—with advantages that include greater social

order, efficiency, and directive leadership— becomes more

adaptive during a crisis, but is perhaps more maladaptive as

recovery becomes timely and looseness and its associated

creativity are needed. Historically, nations with more infec-

tious disease threats are culturally tighter and, as a result,

less innovative (Gelfand, 2019).

In anticipation of eventual recoveries from the COVID-19

shutdowns, organizations will need to find the right balance

between an overly tight or loose culture, known as tight–

loose ambidexterity (Gelfand, 2019). Accordingly, as many

workplaces tighten in response to their shaky economic

standing, successful organizations will benefit from having

flexible tightness—rules that bind employees together to

prevent social isolation and loneliness, accompanied by the

right dose of looseness, which affords employees lati-

tude and autonomy where possible. It is clear that as the

effective tightness or looseness of a given organization’s

culture changes as it deals with COVID-19, there will be

associated changes in the ways that employees navigate

other dimensions that were examined in previous sections.

For example, in culturally tight organizations (e.g., hospi-

tals, airlines), team creativity and innovation may be fos-

tered by allowing teams to interact virtually, whereas cul-

turally looser organizations (e.g., universities) might profit

from a greater concern with health and safety regulations, as

a result of COVID-19.

Among other dimensions of cultural difference that are

valuable to consider in relation to COVID-19, it is notable

that just as research shows that infectious diseases can help

cultivate political conservatism and xenophobia (Ji et al.,

2019), it is logical to anticipate that sociocultural differ-

ences (e.g., in collectivism) help explain how people and

organizations responded to COVID-19. While analysis of

these kinds of cultural difference are outside of this article’s

scope, future research should consider how employees’ and

organizations’ responses to COVID-19 might have been

influenced by their values, political affiliations, and/or other

traits.

Discussion and Conclusion

For this project, we organized ourselves as a large and

diverse virtual team of researchers to make sense of

COVID-19 for questions of relevance to work and organi-

zational psychology. As is known from prior research on

teamwork among scientists (Kniffin & Hanks, 2018), the

benefits of this approach— because many hands make light

work and many heads are better than a few—are obvious,

especially as we are dealing with an urgent phenomenon,

COVID-19, of seismic proportions. Nevertheless, it is also

certain that this overview is limited and we may have

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

COVID-19 AND THE WORKPLACE

Table 1

Summary of Implications, Issues for Future Research, and Insights for Action Regarding COVID-19 and the Workplace

Domain of work Implications Issues for future research Insight-driven actions

Emergent changes in work

practices

Work from home (WFH) The massive, abrupt, and mandatory (for

many employees) switch to WFH has

required employees to adapt while

employers have become more open to

adopting the practice postpandemic.

How will WFH policies affect employee

attitudes and behaviors to their

employers as well as their coworkers?

Employees should create rituals that allow transitions

(in the absence of commuting) in order to manage

the boundaries between work and home.

How will employee attitudes to privacy

and monitoring shift for work that is

done outside of an office setting?

Organizations should adopt and encourage routines

that enhance trust while being attentive to the

costs of increased monitoring.

Virtual teamwork Employees who are forced to work virtually

for team projects have needed to navigate

the indirect and direct conflicts that can

result in performance losses.

How will emotion expression and

communication in teams with either

low or high virtuality affect outcomes?

Team members need to pay attention to the structure

and nature of communication flows in order to

manage them effectively.

What factors will lead to helping and

prosocial behaviors in teams with

either low or high virtuality—and

how will these impact outcomes?

Organizations should provide opportunities for

nontask interactions among employees to allow

emotional connections and bonding to continue

among team members.

Virtual leadership and

management

Leaders are tested when presented with

systemic shocks and must continue to

project vision. Managers are faced with

new challenges to supervise and cultivate

the development of their subordinates

from much greater distance than usual.

How will leaders adapt their styles in

response to shocks such as the current

pandemic?

Leaders need to balance optimism and realism in

their communications with employees while

demonstrating skills such as charisma.

How can organizations create superior

leader communication to allow

feedback and mentoring to happen

effectively?

Organizations need to (continue to) invest in the

development of current and potential leaders to

build new skills to function effectively in new

work settings.

Emergent changes for workers

Social distancing and

loneliness

WFH—and the reorganization of

workspaces to ensure distance among

people—is likely to hamper social

connections and, in turn, negatively affect

employee mental and physical health.

How can organizations foster high-

quality social interactions among

coworkers when WFH or working in

dedensified workplaces?

Human resources communications should

acknowledge the risk of workplace loneliness and

the value of social connections as part of broader

employee wellness programming.

What innovations are most effective for

mitigating an increase in loneliness?

Organizations should identify and implement policies

and interventions to support social connections

among employees.

Health and well-being Increased job demands and reduced

resources are likely to lead to greater

stress among employees.

Among people serving “essential” jobs,

there is likely to be an increase in people

going to work when ill.

Increase in substance misuse is possible

during the pandemic and any subsequent

economic downturn.

Does rumination about a major crisis

like COVID-19 exacerbate the stress

and preclude effective use of the

available job resources?

How can employer pay and benefit

plans best be structured to discourage

people going to work when ill?

What is the efficacy of Internet-based,

brief interventions in preventing the

onset and/or exacerbation of alcohol

misuse among employees?

What is the impact of the relaxation of

COVID-19 restrictions on alcohol

misuse and addictions more

generally?

Leaders should be trained to facilitate job crafting so

that employees can better cope with new and

uncertain job demands.

Employers should not incentivize employees to work

through illness.

Leaders should model appropriate behavior and not

attend work when ill.

With appropriate consent and attention to privacy

issues, organizations should invest in machine

learning and wearable technologies designed to

virtually and rapidly identify the onset or

exacerbation of risky behaviors such as alcohol

misuse.

(table continues)

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

10 KNIFFIN ET AL.

Table 1 (continued)

Domain of work Implications Issues for future research Insight-driven actions

Unemployment and

inequality

The costs of unemployment are both

economic and latent due to the loss of

social structure, status, and social ties.

There are also direct and indirect costs

experienced by those who remain

working in organizations that have laid

off workers.

Increases in inequality expected from the

shock of COVID-19 are likely to lead to

burnout, deviant behaviors, and

withdrawals.

What is the impact of unemployment

beyond mental health outcomes and how

can the unemployed recover?

What human resources practices,

policies, programs, and/or forms of

support can alleviate the negative

consequences of mass layoffs on

those who remain employed?

How can organizations best minimize

the individual and organizational costs

of broader social inequality?

Job searching requires resilience and persistence and

job seekers should seek support and information

from others.

Job seekers should also prepare for a longer job

search than would be the case with lower

unemployment rates.

Organizations need to reduce inequalities, by

reducing selection biases in favor of the

demographically privileged and taking action to

prevent further negative spiraling of pay and

benefits.

Moderating factors

Demographic characteristics Older employees face disparate health and

economic risks related to COVID-19 with

impacts on retirement planning.

Members of racial and ethnic minority

groups face disparate health and

economic risks related to COVID-19.

Men are more likely to face direct health

threats of COVID-19. Women are more

likely to be affected by the adverse

economic and social costs.

How will organizations respond to age-

specific concerns involving the risks

associated with COVID-19?

How do organizations foster inclusion

and a sense of belonging among

racial and ethnic minorities when the

economy is uncertain and the threat

of job loss is high?

What is the value of feminine leadership

styles in extreme crisis management,

despite the documented preference for

masculine leaders under crisis?

Organizations should intervene to simultaneously (a)

optimize employee human capital across the

lifespan and (b) strengthen internal labor markets

(e.g., through cross-age mentoring).

Employers need to create an environment where all

employees, including racial and ethnic minorities,

realize how they can contribute to the

organization’s goals.

Greater value should be placed on alternatives to

more masculine leadership styles that seem to be

effective in relation to COVID-19.

Individual differences The impacts of social distancing and WFH

vary for those who are higher (vs. lower)

on extraversion and conscientiousness.

How do personality traits—in particular,

Extraversion and Conscientiousness—

function in response to COVID-19?

Organizations should reduce unpredictability (i.e.,

provide clarity to job roles and work goals) to

restore the benefits of conscientiousness.

Other individual differences may also

matter, such as segmentors and

integrators struggling with WFH.

How will the pandemic diminish—or

even reverse—the advantageous work

relations typically associated with

extraversion and conscientiousness?

“Segmentors” will need to tolerate nonwork

interruptions, whereas “integrators” may benefit

from segmenting time and space.

Organizational norms Norms will tend to be stronger and less

flexible, leading to a greater tightness of

organizational cultures, when the threat

of infection is high. As the perceived

threat of infection lowers, there will be a

corresponding loosening of norms.

How do organizations effectively tighten

and loosen (or “close” and “open”) in

response to systemic shocks?

Leaders need to understand how to be ambidextrous

regarding social norms, knowing when to deploy

tightness and looseness as needed since the former

offers protection and the latter facilitates creativity

and innovation.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

COVID-19 AND THE WORKPLACE

missed some trends or developments that later turn out to be

significant. Among the many current unknowns, it is not yet

known how badly the global economy will be affected and

how quickly it will recover. It is also not yet known if and

when there will be a vaccine or effective medicine available

nor how widely and quickly it will be distributed.

Notwithstanding the unknowns, it is obvious that

COVID-19 will be recognized for changing the ways people

work in fundamental ways (see Table 1 for an overview of

the implications, issues, and insights we have considered in

this article). For example, COVID-19 abruptly accelerated

the speed of changes associated with working outside of

colocated settings. Virtual work practices are likely to

spread as organizations realize the cost-savings from struc-

turing labor with fewer full-time employees and more con-

tractors connected technologically (Spreitzer, Cameron, &

Garrett, 2017)—and perhaps with less office space in light

of the health risks known to be associated with conventional

open-plan offices (Pejtersen, Feveile, Christensen, & Burr,

2011). The challenges for individuals working in this man-

ner are clear: more people will need to learn to work in ways

far different than how previous generations worked. In this

respect, COVID-19 makes clear the vulnerability that em-

ployees and employers face. As many businesses around the

world will be restructured or disappear due to the pandemic,

workers will be retrained or laid off and the economic,

social–psychological, and health costs of these actions are

likely to be immense. Indeed, the impacts of the pandemic

will affect some groups of workers more strongly than

others, for example, based on their age, race and ethnicity,

gender, or personality.

An understanding of how these abruptly emergent

changes unfold is important for practitioners who are chart-

ing paths forward to address (e.g., with new interventions)

the needs of vulnerable categories of employees. For in-

stance, workers living alone may have very different virtual

working needs and routines than employees living with

family members. Also, more authoritarian or bossy leaders

may face different challenges in motivating their workers in

virtual environments than more participative and empathic

team leaders, and thus have different training and develop-

ment needs. Finally, in dealing with remote working popu-

lations, HR professionals must develop new performance

management and appraisal systems while occupational

health staff should be trained to recognize mental health

issues in remote working populations—and be able to offer

online advice and therapy.

There are also many challenges for research. Our preview

of questions that seem likely to become important should

offer generalizability beyond the COVID-19 pandemic

given that “extreme events” often provide windows into

identifying and understanding dynamics that are important

but not necessarily visible during normal conditions. It is

not yet known, for example, what the long-term impact of

social isolation and physical distancing protocols will have

for employees. Similarly, research on working from home

has previously focused almost exclusively on people who

opted into WFH by choice but MWFH is quite different.

How will changes such as these affect job satisfaction and

productivity?

To consider the long-term effects of COVID-19, organi-

zational researchers should perhaps also delve deeper into

history to learn about how epidemics and pandemics have

been handled in the past. As Sir Winston Churchill once

said, “The longer you can look back, the further you can

look forward.” There are some parallels between the current

crisis and previous threats such as WWII; the September 11,

2001 attacks; and, the 2008 financial crisis. Yet COVID-19

is also unique because it is primarily a global health threat

and thus requires a different set of adaptive responses (e.g.,

physical distancing instead of coming together). Therefore,

theory development is needed on how different kinds of

global threats and crises shape workplaces in varied ways.

Infectious diseases have been a common aspect of human

evolution and have shaped our psychology, behavior, and

culture in surprising but predictable ways. As people now

live and work in globally interdependent communities, in-

fectious disease threats such as COVID-19 need to be

recognized as part of the workscape. To continue to reap the

benefits from global cooperation, it will be necessary to find

smarter and safer ways of working together.

References

Allen, T. D., Cho, E., & Meier, L. L. (2014). Work–family boundary

dynamics. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organiza-

tional Behavior, 1, 99 –121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-

orgpsych-031413-091330

Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How effective is

telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psycho-

logical Science in the Public Interest, 16, 40 – 68. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1177/1529100615593273

Alon, T. M., Doepke, M., Olmstead-Rumsey, J., & Tertilt, M. (2020). The

impact of COVID-19 on gender equality. Cambridge, MA: National

Bureau of Economic Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w26947

Anglim, J., Horwood, S., Smillie, L. D., Marrero, R. J., & Wood, J. K.

(2020). Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from person-

ality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146, 279 –323. http://dx

.doi.org/10.1037/bul0000226

Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A review and a

proposed theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 673–704. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00155-8

Antonakis, J., Bastardoz, N., Jacquart, P., & Shamir, B. (2016). Charisma:

An ill-defined and ill-measured gift. Annual Review of Organizational

Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 293–319. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062305

Ashford, S. J., Caza, B. B., & Reid, E. M. (2018). From surviving to

thriving in the gig economy: A research agenda for individuals in the

new world of work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 38, 23– 41.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.11.001

Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P. A., & Sonnenstuhl, W. J. (2002). Driven

to drink: Managerial control, work-related risk factors, and employee

problem drinking. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 637– 658.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

12 KNIFFIN ET AL.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands-resources theory:

Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 22, 273–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056

Bamberger, P., & Bacharach, S. B. (2014). Retirement and the hidden

epidemic: The complex link between aging, work disengagement, and

substance misuse—And what to do about it. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199374120

.001.0001

Bapuji, H., Ertug, G., & Shaw, J. D. (2020). Organizations and societal

economic inequality: A review and way forward. The Academy of

Management Annals, 14, 60 –91. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018

.0029

Ben-Porath, D. D. (2002). Stigmazation of individuals who receive psy-

chotherapy: An interaction between help-seeking behavior and the pres-

ence of depression. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21,

400 – 413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.21.4.400.22594

Bhave, D. P., Teo, L. H., & Dalal, R. S. (2020). Privacy at work: A review

and a research agenda for a contested terrain. Journal of Management,

46, 127–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206319878254

Bloise, S. M., & Johnson, M. K. (2007). Memory for emotional and neutral

information: Gender and individual differences in emotional sensitivity.

Memory, 15, 192–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658210701204456

Bohns, V., & Flynn, F. (2010). “Why didn’t you ask?” Overestimating the

willingness to seek help and underestimating discomfort in help-seeking.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 402– 409. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.12.015

Brendryen, H., Johansen, A., Duckert, F., & Nesvåg, S. (2017). A pilot

randomized controlled trial of an Internet-based alcohol intervention in

a workplace setting. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 24,

768 –777. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12529-017-9665-0

Brooks, S. K., Webster, R. K., Smith, L. E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S.,

Greenberg, N., & Rubin, G. J. (2020). The psychological impact of

quarantine and how to reduce it: Rapid review of the evidence. Lancet,

395, 912–920. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30460-8

Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., Ernst, J. M., Burleson, M., Berntson,

G. G., Nouriani, B., & Spiegel, D. (2006). Loneliness within a nomo-

logical net: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Research in Per-

sonality, 40, 1054 –1085. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.11.007

Campbell, A. (2013). A mind of her own: The evolutionary psychology of

women. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1093/acprof:oso/9780199609543.001.0001

Cascio, W. F. (2019). Training trends: Macro, micro, and policy issues.

Human Resource Management Review, 29, 284 –297. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.11.001

Cleavenger, D., & Munyon, T. (2015). Overcoming the help-seeker’s

dilemma: How computer-mediated systems encourage employee help-

seeking initiation. Organization Studies, 36, 221–240. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1177/0170840614556920

Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between person-

ality and coping: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 93, 1080 –1107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.6

.1080

Cook, T., Kursumovic, E., & Lennane, S. (2020, April 22). Exclusive:

Deaths of NHS staff from COVID-19 analysed. The Health Service

Journal. Retrieved from https://www.hsj.co.uk/exclusive-deaths-of-nhs-

staff-from-covid-19-analysed/7027471.article

Cookson, C., & Milne, R. (2020). Nations look into why coronavirus hits

ethnic minorities so hard. Financial Times. Retrieved from https://www

.ft.com/content/5fd6ab18-be4a-48de-b887-8478a391dd72

Creary, S. J., Caza, B. B., & Roberts, L. M. (2015). Out of the box? How

managing a subordinate’s multiple identities affects the quality of a

manager-subordinate relationship. Academy of Management Review, 40,

538 –562. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0101

Demerouti, E., Mostert, K., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Burnout and work

engagement: A thorough investigation of the independency of both

constructs. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 209 –222.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019408

DeRosa, D. M., Smith, C. L., & Hantula, D. A. (2007). The medium

matters: Mining the long-promised merit of group interaction in creative

idea generation tasks in a meta-analysis of the electronic group brain-

storming literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1549 –1581.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.07.003

Diamond, J. M. (1998). Guns, germs, and steel: A short history of every-

body for the last 13,000 years. New York, NY: Random House.

Dietz, C., Zacher, H., Scheel, T., Otto, K., & Rigotti, T. (2020). Leaders as

role models: Effects of leader presenteeism on employee presenteeism

and sick leave. Work and Stress, 34, 300 –322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/

02678373.2020.1728420

Dunbar, R. I. M. (2018). The anatomy of friendship. Trends in Cognitive

Sciences, 22, 32–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.10.004

Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2008). Men, women and risk aversion:

Experimental evidence. In C. Plott & V. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of

experimental economics results (Vol. 1, pp. 1061–1073). Amsterdam,

the Netherlands: Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0722

(07)00113-8

Elvira, M. M., & Zatzick, C. D. (2002). Who’s displaced first? The role of

race in layoff decisions. Industrial Relations, 41, 329 –361. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1111/1468-232X.00248

Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception

of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14, 1101–1108. http://dx

.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00082.x

Gartner. (2020). Gartner HR survey reveals 41% of employees likely to

work remotely at least some of the time post coronavirus pandemic.

Newsroom. Retrieved from https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/

press-releases/2020-04-14-gartner-hr-survey-reveals-41--of-employees-

likely-to-

Gelfand, M. (2019). Rule makers, rule breakers: Tight and loose cultures

and the secret signals that direct our lives. New York, NY: Scribner.

Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality:

The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic

structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 51, 451– 495. http://dx.doi.org/10.2189/asqu.51.3

.451

Golan, M., Bacharach, Y., & Bamberger, P. (2010). Peer assistance pro-

grams in the workplace. In J. Houdmont & S. Leka (Eds.), Contempo-

rary occupational health psychology: Global perspectives on research

and practice (Vol. 1, pp. 169 –187). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1002/9780470661550.ch9

Good, C., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Why do women opt out?

Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 700 –717. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1037/a0026659

Grant, B. F., Chou, S. P., Saha, T. D., Pickering, R. P., Kerridge, B. T.,

Ruan, W. J.,...Hasin, D. S. (2017). Prevalence of 12-month alcohol

use, high-risk drinking, and DSM–IV alcohol use disorder in the United

States, 2001–2002 to 2012–2013: Results from the National Epidemio-

logic Survey on alcohol and related conditions. Journal of the American

Medical Association Psychiatry, 74, 911–923. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/

jamapsychiatry.2017.2161

Harrington, J. R., & Gelfand, M. J. (2014). Tightness-looseness across the

50 united states. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA,

111, 7990 –7995. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317937111

Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierar-

chical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership. Jour-

nal of Applied Psychology, 99, 390 – 403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/

a0030264

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

COVID-19 AND THE WORKPLACE

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in

work-related values (Vol. 5). New York, NY: Sage.

Jahoda, M. (1982). Employment and unemployment: A social-

psychological analysis. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Ji, T., Tybur, J. M., & van Vugt, M. (2019). Generalized or origin-specific

out-group prejudice? The role of temporary and chronic pathogen-

avoidance motivation in intergroup relations. Evolutionary Psychology.

Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1474704

919826851

Johns, G. (2010). Presenteeism in the workplace: A review and research

agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 519 –542. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1002/job.630

Kessler, R. C., & McLeod, J. D. (1984). Sex differences in vulnerability to

undesirable life events. American Sociological Review, 49, 620 – 631.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095420

Kessler, S. (2017, April 19). Amazon is using peer pressure to keep

German warehouse workers from calling in sick. Quartz. Retrieved from

https://qz.com/962717/

Klehe, U. C., Zikic, J., van Vianen, A. E., Koen, J., & Buyken, M. (2012).

Coping proactively with economic stress: Career adaptability in the face

of job insecurity, job loss, unemployment, and underemployment. The

Role of the Economic Crisis on Occupational Stress and Well Being, 10,

131–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3555(2012)0000010008

Kniffin, K. M., & Hanks, A. S. (2018). The trade-offs of teamwork among

STEM doctoral graduates. American Psychologist, 73, 420 – 432. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000288

Lindebaum, D., Geddes, D., & Jordan, P. J. (Eds.). (2018). Social functions

of emotion and talking about emotion at work. Cheltenham, United

Kingdom: Edward Elgar. http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781786434883

Mak, S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2019). Virtual teams: Conceptualization,

integrative review, and research recommendations. In R. Landers (Ed.),

The Cambridge handbook of technology and employee behavior (pp.

441– 479). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781108649636.018

Manyika, J., Lund, S., Bughin, J., Robinson, K., Mischke, J., & Mahajan,

D. (2016). Independent work: Choice, necessity, and the gig economy.

San Francisco, CA: McKinsey Global Institute. Retrieved from https://

www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/employment-and-growth/

independent-work-choice-necessity-and-the-gig-economy

Margolis, S., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2020). Experimental manipulation of

extraverted and introverted behavior and its effects on well-being. Jour-

nal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149, 719 –731. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1037/xge0000668

Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams:

What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Manage-

ment, 30, 805– 835. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.05.002

McDermott, R., Cheng, H., Wong, J., Booth, N., Jones, Z., & Sevig, T.

(2017). Hope for help-seeking: A positive psychology perspective of

psychological help-seeking intentions. The Counseling Psychologist, 45,

237–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000017693398

McKee-Ryan, F. M., & Maitoza, R. (2018). Job Loss, unemployment, and

families. In U. C. Klehe & E. A. J. van Hooft (Eds.), The Oxford

handbook of job loss and job search (pp. 259 –274). New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Michel, J. S., Kotrba, L. M., Mitchelson, J. K., Clark, M. A., & Baltes,

B. B. (2011). Antecedents of work–family conflict: A meta-analytic

review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 689 –725. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1002/job.695

Miraglia, M., & Johns, G. (2016). Going to work ill: A meta-analysis of the

correlates of presenteeism and a dual-path model. Journal of Occupa-

tional Health Psychology, 21, 261–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/

ocp0000015

Mogilner, C., Whillans, A., & Norton, M. I. (2018). Time, money, and

subjective well-being. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook

of well-being. Salt Lake City, UT: Nobascholar.

Mortensen, M., & Hinds, P. J. (2001). Conflict and shared identity in

geographically distributed teams. International Journal of Conflict Man-

agement, 12, 212–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022856

Murthy, V. (2017, September). Work and the loneliness epidemic: Reduc-

ing isolation at work is good business. Harvard Business Review. Re-

trieved from https://hbr.org/cover-story/2017/09/work-and-the-

loneliness-epidemic

Nell, P. C., Foss, N. J., Klein, P. G., & Schmitt, J. (2020). Avoiding

digitalization traps: Tools for top managers. Business Horizons. Ad-

vance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3582655

Newark, D., Bohns, V., & Flynn, F. (2017). A helping hand is hard at work:

Underestimating help quality. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 139, 223–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp

.2017.01.001

Nkomo, S., & Hoobler, J. M. (2014). A historical perspective on diversity

ideologies in the United States: Reflections on human resource manage-

ment research and practice. Human Resource Management Review, 24,

245–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2014.03.006

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking

Rumination. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 400 – 424. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00088.x

Obradovich, N., Migliorini, R., Paulus, M. P., & Rahwan, I. (2018).

Empirical evidence of mental health risks posed by climate change.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 115, 10953–

10958. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1801528115

Oprea, B. T., Barzin, L., Vîrga

˘, D., Iliescu, D., & Rusu, A. (2019).

Effectiveness of job crafting interventions: A meta-analysis and utility

analysis. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28,

723–741. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1646728

Ozcelik, H., & Barsade, S. (2018). No employee an island: Workplace

loneliness and employee performance. Academy of Management Jour-

nal, 61, 2343–2366. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.1066

Park, T. Y., & Shaw, J. D. (2013). Turnover rates and organizational

performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 268 –

309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030723

Pejtersen, J. H., Feveile, H., Christensen, K. B., & Burr, H. (2011).

Sickness absence associated with shared and open-plan offices—A

national cross sectional questionnaire survey. Scandinavian Journal of

Work, Environment & Health, 37, 376 –382. http://dx.doi.org/10.5271/

sjweh.3167

Petriglieri, G., Ashford, S. J., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2019). Agony and

ecstasy in the gig economy: Cultivating holding environments for pre-

carious and personalized work identities. Administrative Science Quar-

terly, 64, 124 –170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0001839218759646

Petriglieri, J. L. (2019). Couples that work: How dual-career couples can

thrive in love and work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Petriglieri, J. L., & Obodaru, O. (2019). Secure-base relationships as

drivers of professional identity development in dual-career couples.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 64, 694 –736. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1177/0001839218783174

Pichler, S., & Ziebarth, N. R. (2017). The pros and cons of sick pay

schemes: Testing for contagious presenteeism and noncontagious absen-

teeism behavior. Journal of Public Economics, 156, 14 –33. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2017.07.003

Popovici, I., & French, M. T. (2013). Does unemployment lead to greater

alcohol consumption? Industrial Relations, 52, 444 – 466. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1111/irel.12019

Pritchard, R. D., Harrell, M. M., DiazGranados, D., & Guzman, M. J.

(2008). The productivity measurement and enhancement system: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 540 –567. http://dx

.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.540

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

14 KNIFFIN ET AL.

Ramarajan, L., & Reid, E. (2013). Shattering the myth of separate worlds:

Negotiating nonwork identities at work. Academy of Management Re-

view, 38, 621– 644. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0314

Roberts, L. M., Mayo, A. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2019). Race, Work, and

Leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Rothbard, N. P., Phillips, K. W., & Dumas, T. L. (2005). Managing

multiple roles: Work-family policies and individuals’ desires for seg-

mentation. Organization Science, 16, 243–258. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1287/orsc.1050.0124

Rudolph, C. W., Marcus, J., & Zacher, H. (2018). Global issues in work,

aging and retirement. In K. Schultz & G. Adams (Eds.), Aging and work

in the 21st century (2nd ed., pp. 292–324). New York, NY: Routledge/

Psychology Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315167602-14

Salas, E., Reyes, D. L., & McDaniel, S. H. (2018). The science of

teamwork: Progress, reflections, and the road ahead. American Psychol-

ogist, 73, 593– 600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000334

Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012).

The science of training and development in organizations: What matters

in practice. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 74 –101.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436661

Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can’t a

man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality

traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

94, 168 –182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168

Schroeder, J., Risen, J. L., Gino, F., & Norton, M. I. (2019). Handshaking

promotes deal-making by signaling cooperative intent. Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology, 116, 743–768. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1037/pspi0000157

Sine, W. D., & David, R. J. (2003). Environmental jolts, institutional

change, and the creation of entrepreneurial opportunity in the U.S.

electric power industry. Research Policy, 32, 185–207. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00096-3

Sirola, N., & Pitesa, M. (2017). Economic downturns undermine work-

place helping by promoting a zero-sum construal of success. Academy of

Management Journal, 60, 1339 –1359. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj

.2015.0804

Smith, A. N., Watkins, M. B., Ladge, J. J., & Carlton, P. (2019). Making

the invisible visible: Paradoxical effects of intersectional invisibility on

the career experiences of executive Black women. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 62, 1705–1734. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.1513

Spreitzer, G. M., Cameron, L., & Garrett, L. (2017). Alternative work

arrangements: Two images of the new world of work. Annual Review of

Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 473– 499.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113332

Stoker, J. I., Garretsen, H., & Soudis, D. (2019). Tightening the leash after

a threat: A multi-level event study on leadership behavior following the

financial crisis. The Leadership Quarterly, 30, 199 –214. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.08.004

Stone, P. (2008). Opting out?: Why women really quit careers and head

home. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Tinghög, G., Andersson, D., Bonn, C., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M.,

Koppel, L., & Västfjäll, D. (2016). Intuition and moral decision-

making–the effect of time pressure and cognitive load on moral judg-

ment and altruistic behavior. PLoS ONE, 11, e0164012. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164012

Trevor, C. O., & Nyberg, A. J. (2008). Keeping your headcount when all

about you are losing theirs: Downsizing, voluntary turnover rates, and

the moderating role of HR practices. Academy of Management Journal,

51, 259 –276. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.31767250

Vandenberghe, C., Landry, G., Bentein, K., Anseel, F., Mignonac, K., &

Roussel, P. (2019). A dynamic model of the effects of feedback-seeking

behavior and organizational commitment on newcomer turnover. Jour-

nal of Management. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1177/0149206319850621

Van Solinge, H., & Henkens, K. (2014). Work-related factors as predictors

in the retirement decision-making process of older workers in the Neth-

erlands. Ageing and Society, 34, 1551–1574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/

S0144686X13000330

Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, follower-

ship, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist,

63, 182–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.182

Vlahov, D., Galea, S., Resnick, H., Ahern, J., Boscarino, J. A., Bucuvalas,

M.,...Kilpatrick, D. (2002). Increased use of cigarettes, alcohol, and

marijuana among Manhattan, New York, residents after the September

11th terrorist attacks. American Journal of Epidemiology, 155, 988 –996.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aje/155.11.988

Wanberg, C. R. (2012). The individual experience of unemployment.

Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 369 –396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/

annurev-psych-120710-100500

Wanberg, C. R., Ali, A., & Csillag, B. (2020). The process and experience

of looking for a job. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

Organizational Behavior, 7, 315–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/

annurev-orgpsych-012119-044939

Williams, A. L., Parks, A. C., Cormier, G., Stafford, J., & Whillans, A.

(2018). Improving resilience among employees high in depression,

anxiety, and workplace distress. International Journal of Research in

Management, 9, 4 –22.

Wilmot, M. P., & Ones, D. S. (2019). A century of research on conscien-

tiousness at work. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,

USA, 116, 23004 –23010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908430116

Wilmot, M. P., Wanberg, C. R., Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Ones, D. S.

(2019). Extraversion advantages at work: A quantitative review and

synthesis of the meta-analytic evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology,

104, 1447–1470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000415

Wisman, J. D. (2013). Wage stagnation, rising inequality and the financial

crisis of 2008. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 37, 921–945. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1093/cje/bes085

Received May 11, 2020

Revision received July 7, 2020

Accepted July 9, 2020 䡲

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

COVID-19 AND THE WORKPLACE

A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.

Learn more

Content available from American Psychologist

This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.

The Role of Remote Work in Enhancing Employee Productivity: Evidence from the US-Based Tech Industry During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2024

This study examines the impact of remote working arrangements on employee productivity within the tech industry in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Utilizing an online survey of 295 tech professionals, the research compares self-reported productivity levels before and after transitioning to remote work. Findings indicate a significant increase in high productivity levels and a decrease in low productivity levels post-transition. Key factors enhancing productivity include improved work-life balance and increased flexibility in working hours, while challenges such as maintaining work-home boundaries and internet connectivity issues were identified as impediments. The study offers actionable insights for managers to optimize remote work practices and contributes to the evolving discourse on business management in the post-pandemic era.

Work engagement of hospital workers in times of pressure: do nonclinical hospital workers react differently from their well-studied clinical colleagues?

Article

Nov 2024

Thriving Workplaces: Wellness, Fairness, and Worthiness at Work

Chapter

Nov 2024

Uma Chandrika Millner

Discover a groundbreaking perspective on personal and collective flourishing in this transformative book. Unveiling a dynamic synthesis of wellness, fairness, and worthiness, it presents a blueprint for thriving on personal, relational, occupational, systemic, community, and planetary scales. Move beyond the confines of individual well-being; embrace a holistic approach that encompasses entire groups, workplaces, communities, nations, and the world. While traditional psychology focused on personal thriving, the need for fostering the common good is now more urgent than ever-to combat pandemics, address climate change, champion peace, battle injustice, and elevate well-being globally. Dive into a compelling conceptual framework that guides theory, research, and action to tackle pressing global issues. This book pioneers a concise and powerful framework-three pillars of thriving: wellness, fairness, and worthiness. Join the movement towards a world where collective thriving is not just a goal, but a reality for all.

Exploring how AI adoption in the workplace affects employees: a bibliometric and systematic review

Article

Nov 2024

Introduction The adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in the workplace is changing the way organizations function, and profoundly affecting employees. These organizational changes raise crucial questions about the employee’s future and well-being. Our study aims to explore the intersection between artificial intelligence and employee well-being through a bibliometric review and a contextual analysis. Methodology Carried out in May 2024, our study is divided into two phases. The first phase, dedicated to bibliometric review, was conducted using the PRISMA method, and explored the Scopus and Web of Science databases for the period from 2015 to 2024. A total of 92 articles were selected for quantitative analysis using VOSviewer software. The second phase is based on an in-depth systematic analysis of 25 articles selected from those previously identified. These articles were selected on the basis of their relevance to the research question, and were subjected to in-depth thematic analysis using NVivo software. Results The bibliometric analysis results reveal a significant increase in publications starting from the year 2020, highlighting advancements in research, primarily in the United States and China. The co-occurrence analysis identifies four main clusters: ethics, work autonomy, employee stress, and mental health, thus illustrating the dynamics created by artificial intelligence in the professional environment. Furthermore, the systematic analysis has brought to light theoretical gaps and under-explored areas, such as the need to conduct empirical studies in non-Western cultural contexts and among diverse target groups, including older adults, individuals of different sexes, people with low education levels, and participants from various sectors, including primary and secondary industries, small manufacturing businesses, call centers, as well as public and private healthcare sectors. Conclusion Existing literature emphasize the importance for organizations to implement supportive strategies aimed at mitigating the potential adverse effects of AI on employee well-being, while also leveraging its benefits to enhance workplace autonomy and satisfaction and promote AI-enabled innovation through employee creativity and self-efficacy.

The Effects of Remote Work on Employee Satisfaction: An Eastern-Western Cross-Cultural Analysis

Article

Jan 2024

Inclusion near and far: A qualitative investigation of inclusive organizational behavior across work modalities and social identities

Article

Feb 2024
J ORGAN BEHAV

Though there are clear benefits of being included at work, important questions about employees' views and experiences of workplace inclusion remain unanswered. First, scholars have tended to adopt a one‐size‐fits‐all approach that assumes that inclusion is viewed and experienced similarly by all employees, regardless of their social identities. Moreover, there have been rapid shifts in work modalities over the last few years, and it is currently unclear how modality impacts inclusion and if that impact is similar across all employees. To address these questions, we leveraged qualitative data from a demographically diverse sample to examine how employees define workplace inclusion, what practices and behaviors employees associate with feeling included, how social identities shape definitions and experiences of inclusion, and the modalities in which employees feel the most included. Results indicated that employees primarily define workplace inclusion as being accepted and treated equally regardless of their identities, being integrated into decision‐making, and expressing themselves authentically. Though employees defined inclusion similarly regardless of their social identities, the importance of specific inclusion practices differed across subgroups. Finally, employees felt more included when working in person, though minoritized employees were more likely to prefer remote work. Theoretical and practical implications regarding inclusion are discussed.

The impact of legal uncertainties on innovating HR practices in developing countries: a case study of remote work during the healthcare crisis in Kazakhstan’s technical gas industry

Article

Nov 2024
INT J HUM RESOUR MAN

Analyzing and conceptualizing the perceived risks of working from home: A qualitative analysis following the COVID-19 pandemic

Article

Nov 2024

The COVID-19 pandemic sharply increased opportunities to work from home. However, current research on working from home cannot keep up with its practical developments. In particular, studies on the risks of working from home are too undifferentiated, so most of these risks’ antecedents and effects remain unknown, along with the relationships among them. This study analyzes and conceptualizes the perceived risks of working from home following the COVID-19 pandemic. We used the Gioia methodology to analyze 22 semi-structured interviews qualitatively. Our results reveal the perceived risks of working from home, along with their antecedents and possible effects. In addition, we developed six process models to represent patterns in these perceived interrelationships between risks, antecedents, and effects. By analyzing and conceptualizing the risks of the work model, our results contribute to the literature on working from home and offer guidance for future research.

Telework, knowledge management, and job performance in Japan: bridging the digital divide

Article

Nov 2024
Knowl Manag Res Pract

Remy Magnier-Watanabe

Virtual Versus Reality: A Systematic Review of Real-World Built Environment Tasks Performed in CAVEs and a Framework for Performance and Experience Evaluation

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2024

With operations in the built environment becoming increasingly data-rich (via Building Information Models and Internet of Things devices) and the rapid development of highly immersive environments, there are new opportunities for components of traditional “real-world” tasks to be undertaken in a “virtual” environment. However, an approach to compare both subjective (psychological) and objective (task-based) performance in real and virtual environments is rarely used in this context. This paper begins by introducing the industrial, technological, and psychological context of real-world and virtual tasks. A systematic review of the application of CAVE Automatic Virtual Environments (CAVEs) for “virtual” built environment tasks is conducted, and research gaps regarding the development of systems and comparison of task environments (CAVE and real-world condition) is identified. A theoretical framework to assess task performance is developed, and a novel practical experiment to compare participant(s) psychological and decision-making performance for an identical task in the real world and in a CAVE is proposed.

Leaders as Role Models: Effects of Leader Presenteeism on Employee Presenteeism and Sick Leave

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2020
WORK STRESS

There is a broad consensus that associations exist between leadership behaviour and employee health. However, much less is known about potential mediating processes underlying links between specific leader behaviours, for instance presenteeism (i.e., working while being ill), and indicators of employee health, such as sick leave. Integrating theories of social information processing, social learning, and the allostatic load hypothesis, we propose that employee presenteeism mediates the positive association between leader presenteeism and employee sick leave. This hypothesis was tested with a multilevel mediation model using three-wave longitudinal data from 74 leaders and their 412 team members across a time period of 22 month. As hypothesized, leader presenteeism had a positive effect on employee presenteeism which, in turn, had a positive effect on employee sick leave, controlling for baseline measures of employee presenteeism and sick leave, as well as employee general health status, shared workload and job autonomy, and demographic characteristics. Additionally, leader presenteeism had a positive indirect effect on employee sick leave through employee presenteeism. These results contribute to the occupational health psychology literature by suggesting that leader health-related behaviour can have consequences for employee health-related behaviour and employee health.

Predicting Psychological and Subjective Well-Being From Personality: A Meta-Analysis

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2020

This study reports the most comprehensive assessment to date of the relations that the domains and facets of Big Five and HEXACO personality have with self-reported subjective well-being (SWB: life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect) and psychological well-being (PWB: positive relations, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, self-acceptance, and personal growth). It presents a meta-analysis (n = 334,567, k = 462) of the correlations of Big Five and HEXACO personality domains with the dimensions of SWB and PWB. It provides the first meta-analysis of personality and well-being to examine (a) HEXACO personality, (b) PWB dimensions, and (c) a broad range of established Big Five measures. It also provides the first robust synthesis of facet-level correlations and incremental prediction by facets over domains in relation to SWB and PWB using 4 large data sets comprising data from prominent, long-form hierarchical personality frameworks: NEO PI-R (n = 1,673), IPIP-NEO (n = 903), HEXACO PI-R (n = 465), and Big Five Aspect Scales (n = 706). Meta-analytic results highlighted the importance of Big Five neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness. The pattern of correlations between Big Five personality and SWB was similar across personality measures (e.g., BFI, NEO, IPIP, BFAS, Adjectives). In the HEXACO model, extraversion was the strongest well-being correlate. Facet-level analyses provided a richer description of the relationship between personality and well-being, and clarified differences between the two trait frameworks. Prediction by facets was typically around 20% better than domains, and this incremental prediction was larger for some well-being dimensions than others. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Job Seeking: The Process and Experience of Looking for a Job

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2020

This review distills available empirical research about the process and experience of looking for a job. Job search varies according to several dimensions, including intensity, content, and temporality/persistence. Our review examines how these dimensions relate to job search success, which involves job finding as well as job quality. Because social networking and interviewing behavior have attracted significant research attention, we describe findings with respect to these two job search methods in greater detail. We provide examples of the relevance of context to job search (i.e., the job seeker's geographical region, country, and culture; the economy; the job seeker's current or past employment situation; and employer behaviors and preferences) and review research on bias in the job search. Finally, we survey work on job search interventions and conclude with an overview of pressing job search issues in need of future research. You can access this article via the following e-print URL: http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/8ACN94HMMPYGCUTVHV5A/full/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-044939

A century of research on conscientiousness at work

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2019

Significance Conscientiousness (C) is the most potent noncognitive predictor of occupational performance. However, questions remain about how C relates to a plethora of occupational variables, what its defining characteristics and functions are in occupational settings, and whether its performance relation differs across occupations. To answer these questions, we quantitatively review 92 meta-analyses reporting relations to 175 occupational variables. Across variables, results reveal a substantial mean effect of ρ ¯ M = 20 . We then use results to synthesize 10 themes that characterize C in occupational settings. Finally, we discover that performance effects of C are weaker in high-complexity versus low- to moderate-complexity occupations. Thus, for optimal occupational performance, we encourage decision makers to match C’s goal-directed motivation and behavioral restraint to more predictable environments.

Privacy at Work: A Review and a Research Agenda for a Contested Terrain

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2019

Privacy in the workplace is a pivotal concern for employees and employers. Employees expect to be in control of the personal information and access they provide to the organization. Employers, however, expect extensive information regarding their employees as well as extensive access to employees’ presence. The chasm between these two often competing expectations has been magnified by regulatory and technological trends. We begin the review by integrating viewpoints from multiple disciplines to disentangle definitions of privacy and to delineate the privacy contexts of information privacy and work environment privacy. We then identify the key stakeholders of privacy in the workplace and describe their interests. This discussion serves as a platform for our stakeholders’ privacy calculus model, which in turn provides a framework within which we review empirical findings on workplace privacy from organizational research and related disciplines and from which we identify gaps in the existing research. We then advance an extensive research agenda. Finally, we draw attention to emerging technologies and laws that have far-reaching implications for employees and employers. Our review provides a road map for researchers and practitioners to navigate the contested terrain of workplace privacy.

Effectiveness of job crafting interventions: a meta-analysis and utility analysis

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2019

Job crafting (JC) is a form of bottom-up job design with a high potential for increasing work engagement and performance. For this reason, researchers have proposed interventions to stimulate JC in organizations. The purpose of this paper was twofold: (1) to meta-analyse the effectiveness of interventions on increasing JC behaviours, work engagement, and job performance; and (2) to estimate the economic value of JC interventions, applying utility analysis. The systematic search identified 14 eligible studies. Random-effects meta-analyses revealed statistically significant results on overall JC (g = 0.26; 95%CI [0.11, 0.40]), seeking challenges (g = 0.19; 95%CI [0.05, 0.33]), and reducing demands (g = 0.44; 95%CI [0.19, 0.69]), on work engagement (g = 0.31; 95%CI [0.14, 0.50]), and on contextual performance (g = 0.39; 95%CI [0.01, 0.78]). Moderator analyses found that interventions in which participants formed plans that included both organizational and personal objectives had moderate effectiveness in boosting work engagement; only healthcare employees reported gains in task performance. Any effects of enhancing JC behaviours on performance were fully explained by increases in work engagement. Utility analysis indicated substantial benefits regarding dollar value increases in output, the percentage increase in output, and reduced labour costs for healthcare professionals.

COVID-19 and the Workplace: Implications, Issues, and Insights for Future Research and Action

Abstract