Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH
Working Life During
the Pandemic:
Experienced Changes
and their Implications for
Occupational Well-being
among Employees in
Switzerland
IEVA URBANAVICIUTE
FABIAN GANDER
KOOROSH MASSOUDI
ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented changes to numerous aspects of
work such as working conditions, workload, income, nature of duties, or work-home
balance that may eventually pose significant risks to employee well-being and career
development. Using a person-centred approach, we examined how these changes
cluster together, defining the experiences of different employee sub-groups. We
then compared these groups regarding their background characteristics and selected
aspects of occupational well-being (i.e., job satisfaction, job insecurity, turnover
intention, work engagement, and exhaustion).
A sample of professionally active adults (N = 600; 55% women) completed a baseline
cross-sectional survey, while a subsample (n = 426) further responded to brief daily
questionnaires, reporting their job satisfaction, engagement, and exhaustion over a
course of five workdays.
Results suggested three different patterns (i.e., latent classes) of pandemic-related
changes at work. They characterized workers who experienced a strong decline in their
workload and income (‘precarious’), those who experienced an increase in workload
and a change in the quality of working conditions (‘challenged’), and those whose
work situation was mostly unaffected (‘status quo’). These worker groups differed
regarding their personal and professional background as well as occupational well-
being outcomes. Those more strongly affected by the pandemic (the challenged or
precarious pattern) were more likely to show initial background vulnerabilities, while
those in the status quo group were more likely to benefit from working from home and
reported the least detrimental outcomes. We discuss the implications of these findings
within the conservation of resources and career sustainability frameworks.
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Koorosh Massoudi
University of Lausanne, CH
koorosh.massoudi@unil.ch
KEYWORDS:
quality of working conditions;
COVID-19; sustainable careers;
occupational stressors;
person-centred approach
TO CITE THIS ARTICLE:
Urbanaviciute, I., Gander, F., &
Massoudi, K. (2023). Working
Life During the Pandemic:
Experienced Changes and their
Implications for Occupational
Well-being among Employees
in Switzerland. Swiss
Psychology Open, 3(1): 4,
pp. 1–17. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.5334/spo.39
*Author affiliations can be found in the back matter of this article
2Urbanaviciute et al. Swiss Psychology Open DOI: 10.5334/spo.39
INTRODUCTION
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought substantial
changes to the organization of work, touching upon
its key aspects such as quality of working conditions,
workload, income, nature of duties, and work-home
balance. While possibly not all negative, many of them
are likely to result in longer-term modifications of
working modalities, contributing to what may be a ‘new
normality’ at work (Carillo et al., 2021; OECD, 2021). This
inevitably poses a challenge for employee well-being and
career development that cannot be ignored. Yet, despite
the considerable interest in work-related consequences
of the pandemic (Möhring et al., 2021; Rudolph et al.,
2021; Trougakos et al., 2020), empirical evidence about
how various alterations brought by the COVID-19 crisis
have been experienced from a personal point of view
is still fragmented and would benefit from a more
thorough analysis. In the present study, we maintain
that the changes caused by the pandemic do not occur in
isolation but accumulate in different subpopulations, and
therefore argue for identifying different configurations of
such changes. To that end, we adopted a person-centred
approach (see Howard & Hoffman, 2018), which allows
to derive an empirically based grouping of employees
with regard to their pandemic-related experiences at
work. This is important for both theoretical and practical
reasons, because it helps to unravel those sub-groups
that have been affected the most and leads towards a
better understanding of potential risks to the quality of
their working lives.
The current study specifically answers three research
questions. First, we examined the number and type of
patterns (i.e., latent classes) of employees’ experienced
changes in the above-mentioned work aspects. This
provided us with an empirical illustration of how people’s
working lives were transformed by the pandemic. Second,
we sought to demonstrate the role of personal (i.e., age,
gender, having children) and professional (i.e., tenure,
skill level, remote work) characteristics in predicting
one type of pattern over the other, which reveals either
protective factors or additional vulnerabilities occurring
in the face of extra-organizational stressors. Third, we
compared employee subgroups with different patterns
of experienced change in order to understand the
implications of the pandemic for their occupational well-
being.
Drawing on an integrative work stress and sustainable
careers theoretical framework, the current study aims at
adding to the literature in several ways. Our main aim is
to respond to the call for a ‘worker-centric’ investigation
of the pandemic, which places an accent on the often-
overlooked heterogeneity of employee population and
the risks they encounter in disruptive circumstances (Allen
et al., 2021; Kanfer et al., 2020). Our study illustrates
such heterogeneity by revealing employee subgroups
characterized by distinct pandemic-related experiences
and contributes to a better understanding of people’s
differential reactions to crises by investigating well-being
outcomes based on both overall (cross-sectional) and
aggregated day-to-day indicators. Daily measurements
offer the possibility to study experiences in the natural
context and in real time. Moreover, aggregating them
helps to achieve more precision by reducing random
errors in measurement. Thus, our approach may help
resolve some inconsistencies in the literature regarding
the impact of the pandemic on employees’ psychological
well-being (see Wang et al., 2021). We also make a timely
contribution to the research on sustainable working lives
beyond the pandemic context. The current study sheds
light on how conservation versus loss of important
work resources may define the person’s vulnerability to
unexpected external stressors. As a result, we provide
fresh empirical insights regarding the role of change in the
status quo of one’s work situation in their occupational
well-being from the career sustainability perspective,
which has attracted increasing scientific interest in recent
years (e.g., De Vos et al., 2020).
UNDERSTANDING PERSONAL ENCOUNTERS
OF THE PANDEMIC: A PERSON-CENTRED
APPROACH
Having started its global spread in the early months
of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic represents a major
disruptive event that has brought unprecedented
turbulences to the world of work and beyond. While
Switzerland did not apply extremely strict lockdown
measures (at least, on a global scale), the implemented
restrictions have nonetheless posed numerous
challenges for businesses and people working therein
(Giauque et al., 2022; Hale et al., 2021). Looking from
an individual perspective, some sources have classified
the pandemic as a career shock (Akkermans et al., 2020)
and a resource threat for workers (Zacher & Rudolph,
2021), with a growing concern about its impact on the
quality of working lives, career development, and the
future of work overall (Kniffin et al., 2021; Rudolph et al.,
2021). Among the consequences of the pandemic, one
thing particularly stands out: it has caused a change in
a number of aspects surrounding the conditions and
organization of work as well as employee-employer
relationships. Recent studies have repeatedly underlined
aspects that pertain to financial security (Phetmisy &
King, 2021; Sinclair et al., 2021), workspace and work
design (Allen et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021), workload
(Kuntz, 2021), and work-family balance (Brenner et al.,
2021; Rigotti et al., 2020), to name just a few. Whereas
changes in them are not necessarily all detrimental, it is
safe to say that they were rapid and unexpected. Due
to the exceptional circumstances in which they emerged,
these changes have generated a considerable amount of
uncertainty about the future, which poses a risk to many
3Urbanaviciute et al. Swiss Psychology Open DOI: 10.5334/spo.39
employees’ career development and well-being, thereby
increasing their vulnerability (Cubrich & Tengestal, 2021;
Kanfer et al., 2020).
Although each one of the above-mentioned work
aspects, taken separately, may contribute to employee
well-being, they do not occur in isolation in real life. Rather
on the contrary, they co-occur in defining the quality of
one’s work situation. It is therefore crucial to inspect
personal encounters of the pandemic in closer detail. At
this point, a person-centred investigation is especially
valuable because it offers an integrative representation
of changes that people have experienced during this
challenging period. For example, a decrease in workload
often might go along with a decrease in income and a
deterioration of working conditions for the same person.
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, this means
that for some subgroups of workers, a multitude of work-
related changes may have combined into a potentially
negative scenario. Notably, it is possible that this has
especially hit those workers who were more vulnerable
to begin with, which poses the risk of cumulative (dis)
advantages (e.g., it has been suggested that people with
precarious work are more vulnerable to the effects of the
pandemic; see Rudolph et al., 2021). An advantage of
person-centred methods (such as latent class analyses)
is that they enable the researchers to identify distinct,
and potentially high-risk, sub-groups emerging from the
data, showing how individuals share similarity within
the group and differ from members of other groups
regarding the investigated aspects (Howard & Hofmann,
2018; Spurk et al., 2020). A person-centred approach
thus unravels the so-called unobserved heterogeneity
of the sample, which is critical to recognize for it depicts
the variety of ways in which the COVID-19 outbreak may
have threatened the sustainability of one’s working life.
In order to provide a better understanding of the threats
encountered by different types of workers, the first step in
the current study was therefore to explore the grouping
(i.e., latent classes) that characterize employees based
on the patterns of changes they have encountered in
their work situation during the pandemic.
Research Question 1: What are the main employee
subgroups regarding their experienced change
patterns at work during the pandemic?
To be more specific, in this step we aimed at selecting
(1) a broad array of work-related indicators that might
have changed following the government measures in
reaction to the COVID-19 outbreak, and we (2) focused
on external, more or less objective changes (e.g.,
changes in work arrangements), but did not include
purely subjective changes (e.g., changes in stress level).
In Switzerland, examples of pandemic containment
measures included changes in work schedules and
partial unemployment (which may lead to changes in
workload and income), transformation of the usual work
and schooling routines (which might go along with work-
home balancing challenges), and changes in the ways
of working and increased safety concerns (which may
reflect in the quality of working conditions). Based on this
reasoning, we assessed changes regarding workload,
income, quality of working conditions, the nature of
duties, and work-home balance. Since most of these
aspects may change in both directions, we expected
the identified patterns to reflect not only the extent but
also the valence of the experienced change, such that
they represent employee heterogeneity regarding the
modification of the quality of their working life and serve
as a basis for further analyses.
PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL PREDICTORS
Our second aim was to investigate background
characteristics as potential predictors of the
vulnerabilities that may be reflected in the identified
change patterns. Rudolph et al. (2021) have thoughtfully
noted that the pandemic allows for a re-examination of
the quality of work lives, with a special emphasis on the
underlying risks of precarity. In this vein, some authors
have advocated an investigation of social, demographic,
and occupational factors that may predispose the person
to inequity in the labour market during the pandemic
(Dhanani et al., 2021). Gender, age, skill/income level,
or exposure to health risks—such as contact versus
remote work—are a few to mention (Allen et al., 2021;
Juchnowicz & Kinowska, 2021; Wachtler et al., 2021).
Importantly, these factors are often intertwined and
need to be interpreted in concert to reflect how they
intersect (Moen et al., 2020). For instance, gendered
precarious work experiences during the lockdown may be
partly due to women being exposed to wage disparities
or childcare duties (Cubrick & Tengesdal, 2021; Meyer et
al., 2021). Similarly, while older workers are generally
considered more vulnerable, age-based implications of
the pandemic cannot be understood without considering
the wider context in parallel, such as skill and experience
level, and the opportunity for remote work (Kanfer et al.,
2020). The latter is particularly important, as it has been
recognized as a potentially protective factor during the
pandemic (Rieth & Hagemann, 2021).
Based on the above, and also drawing on prior studies
that distinguish among different configurations of
decent and precarious work (e.g., Blustein et al., 2020),
we selected to investigate two groups of characteristics
as predictors of the experienced change patterns (i.e.,
latent class membership), which allows to account for
the variety of factors that may contribute to employees’
susceptibility to precarity (versus resilience) in the face
of disruptive events. Specifically, gender, age, and
minor children at home were included as personal
predictors, whereas skill level, tenure, and opportunity
of working remotely during the pandemic were analyzed
4Urbanaviciute et al. Swiss Psychology Open DOI: 10.5334/spo.39
as professional predictors. Our exploratory research
question regarding them is as follows:
Research Question 2: How is personal and
professional background linked to the different
patterns of the pandemic-induced change at
work?
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR
OCCUPATIONAL WELL-BEING
A third question in the current study concerns the
outcomes of the pandemic-induced changes at work.
As noted by Zacher and Rudolph (2020), the COVID-19
outbreak represents not only a health and economic
crisis, but it also has an underlying psychological aspect
to it that manifests in people’s subjective well-being.
Moreover, since the pandemic is an extra-organizational
stressor (cf. Kuntz, 2021), its psychological implications
are likely to be far-reaching and affect a range of
aspects, pertaining to both instant (day-to-day) well-
being at work and the sustainability of one’s working life
overall. To elaborate on these outcomes, we have drawn
on an integrative theoretical framework comprising the
principles of conservation of resources (COR) and career
sustainability, which helps to better understand the
repercussions of employees’ experienced changes in
their work situation.
The theoretical reasoning behind COR (Hobfoll, 2001)
highlights a fundamental role of resources (i.e., central
aspects that people value) in human lives. Resources
can be classified into objects, personal characteristics,
conditions, and energies. In the work domain, their
examples range from tools and conditions necessary for
performance to status or money acquired through work.
They are essential for optimal functioning; therefore, a
loss of resources evokes strain and an effort to protect or
compensate what is lost (Hobfoll et al., 2018; Westman
et al., 2004). The notion of COR has been extensively
used to explain the detrimental effects of stressful job
situations on employee outcomes (see Hobfoll et al.,
2018 for a review). Empirical evidence accumulated in
organizational settings reveals several salient effects.
First, it has been substantially proven that a threat to or
deprivation of important work-related resources (e.g.,
due to organizational stressors) compromises employee
health and well-being (e.g., Alarcon, 2011; Barling &
Frone, 2017). Second, having some kind of control over
the job situation serves a preventive purpose because it
may help preserve resources (e.g., Kuijpers et al., 2020)
and attenuate stress (e.g., Griep et al., 2021). With this
evidence at hand, COR theory is also of great relevance
for explaining occupational well-being outcomes in
times of crises that represent extra-organizational
stressors. Extreme situations—such as the COVID-19
pandemic—can significantly deplete valuable resources
and unravel the underlying patterns of vulnerability
within the population (Hite & McDonald, 2020; Zacher
& Rudolph, 2021). Most work-related aspects that we
included in our latent class analyses can indeed be
considered a form of resources (e.g., adequate working
conditions, salary, work-home balance) for they define
the quality of work. Hence, the identified change patterns
should be reflective of either resource loss or gain, with
corresponding implications for occupational well-being.
Furthermore, because our investigated changes and their
outlook are largely beyond the control of the individual
and demand intensive adaptation efforts, coping with
them on a daily basis is presumably energy draining.
For this reason, we expected differences among the
identified change patterns regarding proximal ‘energetic’
aspects of well-being, such as day-to-day exhaustion
and work engagement, as well as affective aspects such
as daily satisfaction with the workday. Exhaustion refers
to a loss of mental and physical energy (Bakker et al.,
2014), and it may be assumed to be more pronounced
among employees who faced negative or large in scope
change patterns. By way of contrast, work engagement
represents a fulfilling, energizing mental state at work
(Schaufeli et al., 2002). Thus, along with workday
satisfaction, it should be linked to less extreme or more
positively valenced change patterns.
Furthermore, drawing on the sustainable careers
perspective (De Vos et al., 2020), at least several distal
occupational outcomes can be expected that denote
sustained well-being at work (or a lack thereof). Notably,
the above-referred theoretical framework maintains
perceived continuity as a basis of career sustainability.
In times of the pandemic, this very principle has been
seriously challenged introducing a turmoil in career
development landscapes and threatening the status quo
of people’s job situation. Increased job insecurity and
turnover intention are especially likely in such scenarios,
representing an anticipated involuntary or voluntary
discontinuity of the employment situation, respectively.
Defined as the perceived threat of losing the job and
the worries related to this threat (De Witte, 2005), job
insecurity should vary as a function of precarity reflected
in the identified change patterns (especially those
that might include changes in duties and decreased
workload). In a similar way, one may expect turnover
intention to be more pronounced in patterns with
‘negative’ changes in one’s work situation, whereas the
reverse may be assumed for job satisfaction. To reflect
sustained well-being, the latter was assessed as a global
rather than aggregated daily construct in the present
study, which represents a ‘happiness’ indicator within
the sustainable careers framework (De Vos et al., 2020).
Note that the above-presented rationale allows for
expecting differences in outcome indicators depending
on the type of employees’ experienced change patterns.
However, the exact type of such patterns was not a priori
determined, and this precludes us from raising specific
5Urbanaviciute et al. Swiss Psychology Open DOI: 10.5334/spo.39
hypotheses. For this reason, we posed an open research
question instead, which is in line with the exploratory
nature of our investigation:
Research Question 3: How do employees with
different patterns of experienced work-related
change differ in terms of their occupational well-
being outcomes (i.e., day-to-day and overall job
satisfaction, day-to-day work engagement, day-
to-day exhaustion, job insecurity, and turnover
intention)?
METHOD
PROCEDURE AND SAMPLE
In the current study, we used the data from a two-phase
online survey on employee well-being, conducted within
the framework of the National Centre of Competence in
Research LIVES (NCCR LIVES). The NCCR LIVES is a large-
scale collaborative research framework between several
research institutions in Switzerland, encompassing
a variety of disciplines to study the development of
vulnerability over the life course. Data for this study were
collected as part of a subproject designed to examine the
role of personal and professional resources in addressing
occupational disadvantages and promoting career
development. The data were collected in the French- and
German-speaking regions of Switzerland. Data collection,
which was organized by the authors with the assistance
of student helpers, took place during the second wave
of the COVID-19 pandemic and lasted from November
2020 to April 2021. The participants were professionally
active adults, part of them were recruited from a large
contact pool managed by an external polling institute,
and the rest were contacted with the help of student
research assistants. The survey link was distributed by
means of the invitation letter sent either by post or by
email. The participation was voluntary, participants
provided informed consent, and the data were collected
anonymously, with a digital code identifying each
participant. Besides being professionally active, no
specific inclusion or exclusion criteria were applied. Upon
the full completion of the survey, participants received
a compensation of 40 CHF. They could choose to either
donate it to a non-profit organization or receive a gift
card in this amount. According to the guidelines of the
university where this research was conducted, no formal
ethics approval was required for this study.
The sample at Phase 1 consisted of 600 participants
(mean age 46 years, SD = 11.23, 55% women). During
this phase, they completed a baseline questionnaire
that measured various personal and work-related
characteristics. Phase 2 was a diary study that asked
participants to complete surveys on five selected working
days within one month’s time. This phase consisted of
both within-day and end-of-day assessments. For the
within-day assessments, participants were prompted
by e-mail or text messages at three random time points
during the working day. The link for completing the survey
was valid for 30 minutes upon receiving the prompt.
For the end-of-day assessment, participants received a
survey link every day at 7 pm and could respond until
midnight. In total, 426 participants (mean age 46.21,
SD = 11.06, 54% women) agreed to proceed to Phase
2 and responded to at least one day’s questions. Since
our research questions mainly concern Phase 1 data,
we used the full sample in these analyses. In the case
when daily data were concerned (i.e., Research Question
3), aggregated data of the Phase 2 sample was used.
Figure 1 gives an overview over what measures were
assessed in which study phase.
Figure 1 Variables in the Present Study.
6Urbanaviciute et al. Swiss Psychology Open DOI: 10.5334/spo.39
MEASURES
Background variables, measured at Phase 1, included
personal characteristics such as participants’ age, gender,
and children, as well as professional characteristics such
as tenure in years, skill level (assessed as an ordinal
variable ranging from 1 – manual/technical workers to
5 – top managers), and obligation to work from home
during the pandemic (1 – yes, 0 – no).
Change in work aspects. Changes at work during
the COVID-19 pandemic were assessed at Phase 1.
A set of 1-item questions was used measuring the
following aspects: changes in quality of (physical)
working conditions, changes in workload, changes in
income, additional challenges in work-home balance,
and changes in the nature of duties. All aspects were
treated as nominal variables. The coding of responses
for quality of working conditions, workload, and income
was as follows: -1 – a decrease, 0 – no change, 1 – an
increase. Challenge in work-home balance was coded 0
– no change, 1 – a slight increase, 2 – a large increase.
The nature of duties was a dichotomous variable, where
0 – no change, 1– change. Similar one-item questions
have been used in several data collections examining the
COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., Kühne et al., 2020).
Turnover intention was measured with a one-item
scale, used in similar surveys within the NCCR LIVES
(Maggiori et al., 2016). The respondents were asked about
their intention to look for a new employer in the year to
come (“How likely are you to seek a new job/employer in
the coming year?”). The responses were based on a Likert
type scale, ranging from 1 – very weak intention to 5 –
very strong intention. Arnold and Feldman (1982) report
a good prediction of similar items of turnover intentions
with actual turnover one year later.
Job insecurity was assessed at Phase 1 with the
quantitative Job Insecurity Scale originally developed by
De Witte (2000) and validated by Vander Elst et al. (2014).
It consists of four items measuring the perceived threat
of losing one’s job in the near future and worries related
to this threat. A sample item: “Chances are, I will soon
lose my job”. A Likert type scale was used for response
coding, where 1 – strongly disagree, 5 – strongly agree.
Internal consistency in the present sample was ω = .91.
Job satisfaction was measured at both phases, using
1-item measures. At Phase 1, we asked about overall
job satisfaction (“Overall, how satisfied are you with
your work?”), evaluated on a 5-point Likert type scale
from 1 – very dissatisfied to 5 – very satisfied. At Phase
2, satisfaction with the workday (“Overall, I felt satisfied
with my workday”) was measured using a 7-point Likert
type response scale from 1 – not at all to 7 – completely.
Wanous et al. (1997) report good convergent validity for
single-item measures of job satisfaction with multi-item
scales.
Work engagement was measured during Phase 2.
We used the ultra-short measure validated by Schaufeli
et al. (2017), which assesses the key aspects of work
engagement (i.e., energy, absorption, dedication) with
one item each. The items were adjusted to fit daily
measurements in the current study. A sample item: “At
this moment, I feel bursting with energy”. Responses
were recorded on a 7-point Likert type scale, ranging
from 1 – not at all to 7 – completely. Because Phase 2 data
were clustered (i.e., repeated measurements clustered
within subjects), composite reliability ω was estimated
for work engagement, following the approach by Geldhof
et al. (2014). At the between-person level, ω was equal to
.93, which indicates good reliability.
Exhaustion was measured during Phase 2 with four
items adapted to daily measurements from the Burnout
Assessment Tool (BAT; Schaufeli et al., 2020). A sample
item: “I felt mentally exhausted”. Responses were
recorded on a 7-point Likert type scale, ranging from
1 – not at all to 7 – completely. At the between-person
level, the reliability coefficient ω was equal to .91, which
indicates good reliability.
Further, participants completed additional measures
not relevant for the purpose of the present study. Because
the survey could be filled out in two languages, all multi-
item scales were tested for measurement invariance
across the German and French-speaking participant
groups and met the requirements for either partial (work
engagement and job insecurity) or full (exhaustion)
metric invariance. These results are available from the
corresponding author upon request.
STATISTICAL ANALYSES
The data were analyzed with Mplus v8.4. To address
Research Question 1, we conducted latent class analyses
(LCA), with changes in work aspects (cross-sectional
data) as categorical class indicators. The analyses were
run using 5,000 random sets of starting values, 1,000
iterations, and 200 final optimizations (Hipp & Bauer,
2006). Starting from a one-class model, we gradually
increased the number of classes, comparing them to
a k-1 class model. Model comparisons were based on
fit indices such as information criteria, likelihood ratio
tests, and entropy (see Nylund et al., 2007). The Akaike
Information Criterion (AIC), the Bayesian Information
Criterion (BIC), and the Sample-adjusted BIC (SABIC)
with lower values were indicative of a better model fit.
Furthermore, significant statistics from the Lo-Mendell-
Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test (LMR) and the
Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test (BLRT) suggested that a
model with k classes was superior to the k-1 class model,
and entropy values that were on the higher-end (i.e.,
approaching 1) showed higher classification quality. In
order to choose the best-fitting latent class model, we
additionally assessed the size and interpretability of
latent classes.
To address Research Question 2, personal and
professional characteristics were tested as predictors
7Urbanaviciute et al. Swiss Psychology Open DOI: 10.5334/spo.39
of class membership in the best-fitting latent class
model. To do so, the auxiliary R3STEP command was
used (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014). It uses multinomial
logistic regression to estimate the association between
the covariates and latent classes. Similarly, to address
Research Question 3, cross-sectional and the person’s
aggregated weekly mean scores of occupational well-
being outcomes were compared across classes in the
best-fitting latent class model with the BCH command
(Bakk & Vermunt, 2016), which uses Wald tests to
examine the equality of means in outcome indicators
across groups.
RESULTS
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Descriptive statistics for all variables are provided in
Tab le 1 (see also Appendix for supplemental information).
It displays either the frequencies of the nominal variables
or means and standard deviations of discrete variables.
The correlation matrix revealed mostly small and
moderate correlations, which means that there was
no major overlap between the study variables. Among
more notable exceptions were the association between
age and tenure, which are naturally interrelated, and the
(negative) correlation between daily work engagement
and exhaustion, which in theory represent the opposite
sides of employee well-being.
LATENT CLASS ANALYSES
A comparison of alternative latent class models (see
Table 2) suggested the optimal number of three classes.
Except the AIC, the information criteria reached their
lowest point in the 3-class solution. This solution also
showed significant LMR and BLRT test statistics, whereas
in the adjacent 4-class model the BLRT test was non-
significant. This means that the latter did not outperform
the 3-class model. The three identified classes were quite
well interpretable and adequate in size. As illustrated in
Figure 2, the first class (37.3%) characterized participants
with a high probability of having experienced an increase
in workload and work-home balancing issues, a change
(increase or decrease) in the quality of working conditions
and nature of duties at work, and no change in income
during the pandemic. We named it the ‘challenged’ class.
The second class was the largest (41.3%) and contained
participants who had a high probability of having
experienced no change in the above-mentioned work
aspects. We labelled it the ‘status quo’ class. Participants
in the third class (21.4%) were those who had a high
probability of having experienced a decrease in workload,
quality of working conditions and income, and a slight
increase in work-home balancing challenge. We labelled
it the ‘precarious’ class.
PREDICTORS AND OUTCOMES OF CLASS
MEMBERSHIP
As shown in Table 3, except tenure, all the investigated
personal and professional characteristics were
predictive of class membership. Regarding personal
characteristics, older participants showed higher odds
of being unaffected (the status quo class) versus
challenged by the pandemic, men were more likely to
be classified in the precarious versus challenged class
(a reversed pattern was applicable to women), and
those with minor children had higher odds of being
in the challenged class than in the status quo class.
Regarding professional characteristics, participants
with higher skill level were more likely to fall in the
challenged class as compared to those in the status quo
and precarious classes (see Appendix for more details
on skill level distribution across classes). Working from
home was linked to higher odds of being unaffected by
the pandemic.
The results from outcome analyses are summarized
in Table 4. Among the cross-sectionally measured
occupational well-being outcomes, only overall job
satisfaction did not differ significantly between the
identified classes. Turnover intention was the lowest in
the status quo class and it significantly differred from
the remaining classes. Job insecurity was the highest
among participants in the precarious class, and its mean
levels were significantly different from those in the status
quo and challenged classes. Fewer differences were
observed for the aggregated mean scores of day-to-day
occupational well-being outcomes. Participants in the
challenged class demonstrated significantly higher levels
of daily exhaustion than those in the remaining classes.
However, although the most elevated levels of daily job
satisfaction and work engagement were observed in the
status quo class, they did not differ significantly from the
other classes.
DISCUSSION
INTERPRETATION OF THE MAIN FINDINGS
The current study unravels the underlying heterogeneity
among workers in Switzerland with regard to the changes
they experienced in their work situation following the
COVID-19 outbreak. In doing so, we contribute to the
growing literature on the psychological consequences
of the pandemic (e.g., Meyer et al., 2021; Möhring
et al., 2021; Zacher & Rudolph, 2020), highlighting a
range of occupational vulnerability and sustainability
manifestations that have occurred among employees
during the lockdown. In the following paragraphs, we
provide an overview of these results and discuss their
theoretical and practical implications for employee well-
being.
8Urbanaviciute et al. Swiss Psychology Open DOI: 10.5334/spo.39
M (
SD
)/COUNT (%) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
Personal background characteristics
1. Age 46.00 (11.23)
2. Gender (male) 268 (44.7%) .16***
3. Children (yes) 264 (44%) .05 .10*
Professional background characteristics
4. Skill level 3.03 (1.15) .05 .09* .13**
5. Tenure 10.15 (9.07) .48*** .13** .08 –.05
6. Work from home 258 (43%) –.08 .03 .08 .30*** –.11**
Changes in work aspects Quality of working conditions:
7. Decrease 183 (30.5%) <.01 .11* .07 .05 –.04 .10*
8. Increase 162 (27%) –.16*** –.15*** –.04 .05 –.05 .05 –.40***
Changes in workload:
9. Decrease 137 (22.8%) –.06 –.03 –.11** –.10* –.06 –.06 .16*** –.13**
10. Increase 220 (36.7%) –.04 –.06 .07 .09* –.02 –.05 .01 .25*** –.41***
Changes in income:
11. Decrease 128 (21.3%) .01 .07 –.03 –.05 .01 –.06 .14** –.06 .45*** –.18***
12. Increase 33 (5.5%) –.10* <.01 –.02 –.02 –.03 .01 –.05 .03 –.11** .17*** –.13**
Work–home balance challenge:
13. Slight increase 300 (50%) –.07 .06 .08* <.01 –.03 –.01 .03 –.03 .02 .03 .01 –.02
14. Large increase 122 (20.3%) –.09* –.04 .20*** .09* –.02 .13** .13** .07 –.01 .11** .11** –.03 –.51***
Change in duties:
15. Yes 238 (39.7%) –.01 –.07 –.05 –.04 .01 –.21*** .08 .11* .11** .22*** .12** <.01 .04 .07
Cross-sectional outcomes
Table 1 Descriptive statistics.
Notes: JS = job satisfaction. Multi-categorical changes in work aspects were turned into dummy variables. Point biserial correlations were calculated between the dichotomous and continuous variables.
*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05.
(Contd.)
9Urbanaviciute et al. Swiss Psychology Open DOI: 10.5334/spo.39
M (
SD
)/COUNT (%) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
16. Overall JS 3.87 (1.12) .01 .09* –.03 .17*** .05 .07 .01 –.06 .01 –.02 –.04 .01 –.01 –.09*
17. Turnover intention 1.93 (1.23) –.26*** –.13** –.02 –.03 –.22*** .08 .07 .08 .10* .02 .09* –.02 .02 .13**
18. Job insecurity 2.49 (0.60) .06 .01 .10* –.12** –.05 .02 .11** –.04 .16*** –.04 .27*** –.08* .02 .13**
Aggregated day-to-day outcomes
19. Workday JS 5.13 (1.03) .11* .05 –.02 .02 .19*** –.05 –.13** .07 –.01 –.05 .01 .06 .04 –.16**
20. Work engagement 4.29 (1.13) .23*** .06 .11* .06 .20*** –.07 –.12** –.01 –.03 <.01 –.02 .03 –.01 –.05
21. Exhaustion 6.25 (1.08) –.19*** –.10* <.01 –.07 –.15** –.02 .08 .09 –.02 .13** –.01 .03 .07 .11*
M (
SD
)/COUNT (%) 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
Cross-sectional outcomes
16. Overall JS 3.87 (1.12) –.04
17. Turnover intention 1.93 (1.23) .07 –.24***
18. Job insecurity 2.49 (0.60) .12** –.20*** .30***
Aggregated day-to-day outcomes
19. Workday JS 5.13 (1.03) –.01 .19*** –.27*** –31***
20. Work engagement 4.29 (1.13) –.05 .22*** –.35*** –17*** .62***
21. Exhaustion 6.25 (1.08) .13** –.17** .14** .24*** –.34*** –.22***
10Urbanaviciute et al. Swiss Psychology Open DOI: 10.5334/spo.39
FIT INDICES
COMPARED MODELS
AIC BIC SABIC ENTROPY LMR
(
P
-VALUE)
BLRT
(
P
-VALUE)
SMALLEST
PROFILE (%)
1 class 5502.985 5542.557 5513.985 N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 classes 5351.582 5435.124 5374.804 .570 <.001 <.001 40.5%
3 classes 5243.094 5370.605 5278.538 .682 <.001 <.001 21.4%
4 classes 5240.442 5411.923 5288.108 .743 .043 .150 6.2%
5 classes 5244.509 5459.959 5304.397 .778 .037 1.000 5.4%
6 classes 5249.880 5509.299 5321.990 .779 .145 .667 5.2%
Table 2 Comparison of alternative latent class models.
Note: N/A – not applicable for a one-class (baseline) model.
Figure 2 Latent Classes (Challenged, Status Quo, Precarious) Denoting Experienced Changes at Work During the Pandemic.
11Urbanaviciute et al. Swiss Psychology Open DOI: 10.5334/spo.39
Notably, our study focuses on employees’ experienced
changes in external working conditions (versus
psychosocial job characteristics) that have resulted
from the COVID-19 situation and actions taken to
control it. Our results revealed that these changes were
not independent, but indeed clustered into different
patterns with varying levels of experienced precarity. We
observed one pattern of neutral valence with little to no
change at work (the status quo class) and two patterns
with a rather broad scope of changes that were either
predominantly negative (the precarious class) or mixed
in terms of valence (the challenged class). Such findings
partially correspond to other studies that investigated
employees’ well-being profiles in times of the pandemic,
demonstrating that its implications were not the same
for all (e.g., Harju et al., 2021). Remarkably, our study did
not reveal a positive change pattern, most participants
falling into the neutral ‘status quo’ class. The second
largest ‘challenged’ pattern represented an increase
in various job challenges (such as bigger workload and
change of duties), but it did not contain major hindrances
(such as loss of income). The ‘precarious’ class was the
most detrimental and the smallest one. However, it still
contained more than 20% of the sample, which indicates
that a sizeable portion of the workforce may have
encountered major risks such as loss of working hours,
income, and quality of working conditions.
Our study further clarifies who was most likely to
be exposed to one pattern over the other. Childcare
and home-based schooling are often mentioned in
the literature as key aspects that employees were
facing during the lockdown (Rieth & Hagemann, 2021).
Accordingly, our findings showed that younger workers
and those having minor children were more likely to
belong to the challenged class than to the status quo
class. Moreover, while not without its own challenges
for well-being (e.g., Möhring et al., 2021), being able to
work from home seems to be an important protective
factor allowing people to preserve the status quo of their
work situation. This may indeed serve as an advantage
OUTCOME VARIABLES CLASS 1
‘CHALLENGED’
CLASS 2
‘STATUS QUO’
CLASS 3
‘PRECARIOUS’
OVERALL
COMPARISON
Overall job satisfaction 3.78 3.94 3.87 1.37(2)
Turnover intention 2.05a1.68a,b 2.18b10.74(2)**
Job insecurity 1.97a1.85b2.28a,b 10.71(2)**
Daily workday
satisfaction
5.02 5.21 5.17 1.66(2)
Daily work engagement 4.25 4.39 4.17 1.95(2)
Daily exhaustion 3.46a,b 2.91a3.08b13.74(2)**
Table 4 Mean level comparisons of occupational well-being outcomes across the latent classes.
Notes: The analyses were based on the BCH procedure. Shared superscript letters indicate which classes significantly differ from each
other on a given outcome (e.g., with regard to turnover intention, class 1 differs from class 2 but not class 3). Overall comparison
refers to the overall between-group tests, indicating Wald χ2 statistic and degrees of freedom in parentheses. Aggregated day-to-day
scores were used in daily outcome analyses. ** p < .01.
PREDICTOR VARIABLES COMPARED CLASSES†ODDS RATIO 95%CI
Personal characteristics:
Age 2 vs. 1 1.031 [1.003; 1.059]
Gender (male) 3 vs. 1 1.770 [1.023; 3.061]
Children (yes) 1 vs. 2 1.685 [1.008; 2.815]
Professional characteristics:
Skill level 1 vs. 3
1 vs. 2
1.372
1.396
[1.061; 1.772]
[1.104; 1.766]
Tenure ns ns ns
Work from home (yes) 2 vs. 1 2.320 [1.346; 3.999]
Table 3 Background characteristics as predictors of latent class membership.
Notes: † Reference class appears on the right side. Class 1 = challenged, Class 2 = status quo, Class 3 = precarious. Only significant
results are summarized, based on higher odds of belonging to a given class over the reference class. Example: Older participants are
more likely to be classified in the status quo than the challenged class. CI = confidence intervals. Ns = no significant effects found.
12Urbanaviciute et al. Swiss Psychology Open DOI: 10.5334/spo.39
in times of crisis because those not having the possibility
to transfer their work to remote settings (e.g., frontline
workers and essential service personnel) are considered
particularly at risk (Allen et al., 2021). It is notable that
highly skilled workers generally had higher odds of being
exposed to the challenged versus any other pattern of
work-related change. This pattern is characterized by
increased workload and change in duties; hence, it should
have been applicable to many mid- and higher-level
professionals, who had to adapt their ways of working
and learn to effectively manage their teams in unusual
settings over a very short term. Our findings also require
some intersectional perspective as some predictive
effects are better interpreted in light of other predictors.
For instance, men showed higher odds of belonging to
the precarious class versus the challenged class, which
could be partly explained by occupational skill level
distribution across classes. The precarious class hosts a
relatively large percentage of blue-collar workers, some
of which (e.g., road workers) are likely to be dominated
by men (as shown in the Appendix, we indeed observed
the highest proportion of men in the lowest and highest
skill categories).
From a theoretical point of view, the identified change
patterns represent different degrees of vulnerability (in
terms of resource preservation and loss) and help explain
the implications of the pandemic for different groups of
workers. First, it is important to note that only negative,
but not positive occupational well-being outcomes
differed significantly across the latent classes; this
may be explained by the fact that our person-centred
analyses revealed no positive change patterns, thus
highlighting stressor-strain responses. Drawing on both
COR (Hobfoll, 2001) and sustainable careers theory (De
Vos et al., 2020), the challenged and precarious change
patterns may be interpreted as predisposed to ill-being
outcomes due to exposure to new job challenges and/or
hindrances (i.e., stressors) that are beyond one’s control.
Hence, they both represent a vulnerability situation. By
way of contrast, the status quo class may be thought of
an example of occupational sustainability. In this class,
employees’ work situation has been relatively unaffected
by the pandemic, which implies that they were able to
preserve the resources necessary for maintaining the
quality of their working lives. Indeed, turnover intention
was the least expressed in this class and was significantly
higher in both other classes, whereas job insecurity was
especially salient among workers in the precarious class
and posed less issues to those in the remaining classes.
This is in line with the theoretical reasoning and prior
empirical evidence suggesting that pandemic-induced
economic stressors, such as short-time work, are potent
triggers of occupational uncertainties (Möhring et al.,
2021; Rudolph et al., 2021). Based on the above, we may
consider the precarious pattern of change a prominent
threat to the continuity of the career path, with an
elevated risk to sustainable careers and occupational
well-being as such. It is worrying that this change
pattern was somewhat more frequently observed
among individuals with other vulnerability characteristics
(e.g., lower skilled jobs). This may indicate an underlying
cumulative disadvantage through which those with
initial precarities are exposed to a higher risk of loss and
further precarity (O’Rand, 2009), and thus may be more
heavily impacted by the pandemic.
Our findings regarding day-to-day exhaustion also
warrant a separate comment. In the current study, the
most elevated levels of exhaustion were observed in the
challenged class, and they did not differ significantly
between the precarious and status quo classes. This
contributes to prior empirical evidence showing that daily
job and home demands during telework may be related
to emotional exhaustion (e.g., Abdel Hadi et al., 2021)
and strain experiences (Giauque et al., 2022). As noted
in previous paragraphs, the challenged class was defined
by a mixed pattern of changes associated with exposure
to various new demands. While this pattern of change
does not necessarily threaten key job resources, it implies
an increased consumption of energetic resources (such
as keeping up with high workloads, adapting to changes
in duties), which explains its relation to exhaustion. Apart
from representing an energetic outcome, exhaustion
also signals occupational health impairment (Bakker et
al., 2014). Hence, while affecting the less disadvantaged
part of the workforce (in terms of higher skill level jobs),
this pattern seems to have its own psychological costs
that are not necessarily compensated by positive well-
being outcomes.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
The changes assessed in the current study have
different underlying causes that are either directly or
indirectly related to the pandemic and its containment
measures. Some of these changes represent major
shifts in the labour market (e.g., obligation to work
from home), while others are related to organizational
policies and employment conditions (e.g., work-home
balance, alterations in work rate). Moreover, some of
these changes may persist even after the crisis has been
resolved. They include, for example, transformations in
working methods and interactions, emergence of new
forms of employment, intensified use of information
and communication technologies and virtual platforms,
dissolving geographical boundaries, and similar aspects.
Hence, in terms of practical implications, we should
call for corresponding practices at the managerial,
organizational, and structural levels to help people’s
sustained adjustment to such changes should they
result in permanent modifications of their working life.
For instance, the literature has highlighted the role
13Urbanaviciute et al. Swiss Psychology Open DOI: 10.5334/spo.39
of leadership in fostering employee health and well-
being in times of the pandemic (Rudolph et al., 2021).
Leadership skills will be key in a post-pandemic world as
well, especially when it comes to supporting flexibility
(e.g., in terms of working schedules and modes) and
promoting healthy and productive new ways of working
(e.g., through remote team management, feedback,
trust-building practices). Likewise, at the organizational
level, more effort will likely be needed towards adopting
a truly flexible and inclusive working culture that is
favourable for employees’ latitude (Kniffin et al., 2021),
diversity (Brenner et al., 2021), and family-friendly norms
(Rudolph et al, 2021).
It must be, however, noted that the pandemic may have
accelerated some pre-existing detrimental tendencies in
the labour market that are beyond individual managers’
control. One illustration of it is an increase in precarious
forms of work that manifest in reduced-hour temporary
contracts and certain types of platform work (see also
Allen et al., 2021). In this case, structural measures are
needed to protect the most vulnerable individuals from
being entrapped in the vulnerability cycle and potentially
abusive employment relationships. Moreover, supportive
actions are essential for employee resilience and faster
recovery from the recent crisis (Kuntz, 2021).
As illustrated by the present findings, certain groups
of workers have faced a particularly negative pattern
of change in their work situation during the pandemic,
with notable threats to employability and sustained
well-being. These issues must be noted and carefully
addressed to avoid further complications. Indeed, the
problem here is twofold. First, one could assume that
for some workers the momentary decrease in workload
(e.g., due to the economic slowdown) may result in a
long-term decrease of their job opportunities through
downsizing and digitalization/robotization practices. It is
thus important to ensure access to life-long education
and vocational guidance for the most vulnerable ones
to support their sustainable careers. Second, while in
some sectors the slowdown may have been temporary,
it has given high turnover rates and created an insecurity
culture that may bring a host of deleterious effects in the
long run, such as decreased work morale, an increase in
occupational health risks, and difficulties for businesses
to retain their employees. This is not a desirable ‘new
normal’ and organizations could benefit from this period
to reset their working cultures so that they are more
sustainable, humane, and prosocial value-oriented (e.g.,
Hite & McDonald, 2020).
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Several limitations must be taken into account when
interpreting the results of the current study. First, we
have mostly focused on analyzing changes in external
employment conditions because they were drastically
affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. It is, however, true
that the quality of work situation is also determined
by psychosocial task and job characteristics (such as
autonomy, task stimulation and interdependence, social
relationships, growth and development opportunities),
and the crisis has presumably changed the subtle
balance between them. In addition, there may be other
aspects that have become relevant during the pandemic
(e.g., changes in leadership roles). Therefore, further
person-centred research on configurations of changes in
the psychosocial work environment would be a valuable
addition to the current findings as well as those that have
attempted to identify employee well-being profiles (e.g.,
Harju et al., 2021).
Likewise, the scope of our study is limited to objective
personal and professional predictors of the pandemic-
induced change patterns at work. The list of potential
antecedents could be still expanded to include individual
difference variables (e.g., personality and individual
resource characteristics) as well as organizational
characteristics (e.g., organizational climate or leadership
practices) that may be useful for identifying broader
personal and occupational factors that are important
determinants of people’s experiences of critical situations.
Another important limitation is that our sample
consisted only of individuals who were employed at the
time of the study. Therefore, those who lost their jobs
during the pandemic and who were likely to have been
most affected occupationally are not represented in our
sample. It should be also noted that the current study
relies on a retrospective approach assessing perceived
changes at work and their magnitude. While such an
approach informs about how the pandemic is seen
and subjectively experienced by the study participants,
it is not exempt from shortcomings (e.g., people may
differ in how they interpret change). It may be the case
that people who already considered quitting their job
(turnover intention) interpreted small changes in working
conditions or workload more drastically. Similarly, all
data relied on self-reports and are therefore subject
to common method bias. These limitations should be
kept in mind when interpreting or comparing the results
presented in this paper.
Further, several concepts in the current study were
measured by single items (e.g., turnover intention, job
satisfaction). While previous studies using these or very
similar measures supported their validity, interpretation
of our results should consider the potentially lower
reliability of single-item measures, which could lead to
underestimation of effects.
Finally, despite the benefits of diverse well-being
outcomes that combine overall and aggregated daily
indicators, the current analyses are based on a rather
static perspective that does not allow for testing changes
in latent class membership or outcome developments
14Urbanaviciute et al. Swiss Psychology Open DOI: 10.5334/spo.39
over time. Longitudinal extensions would enrich this
line of research and they should be considered in future
studies aiming to unravel the stressor-strain dynamics in
a post-pandemic world.
CONCLUSION
Overall, our results corroborate earlier findings that people
have been differently hit by the COVID-19 pandemic
and that their experienced changes at work may be
clustered into distinct patterns: those who experienced
strong declines in workload and income (the precarious
pattern), those who mostly experienced increases
in workload and changes in the quality of working
conditions (the challenged pattern), and those who were
widely unaffected (the status quo pattern). Findings on
background characteristics suggested that employees
who were younger, lower skilled, raising minor children,
and/or having no possibility for telework were generally
more likely to encounter a pattern of marked changes
in their work situation. Also, those who were more
strongly affected by the pandemic reported higher levels
of exhaustion, job insecurity, and turnover intentions,
while no differences regarding work engagement or job
satisfaction emerged. Our results place an emphasis on
stressor-strain responses and suggest that the pandemic
may have been particularly detrimental to individuals
with initial vulnerabilities.
ADDITIONAL FILE
The additional file for this article can be found as follows:
• Appendix. Supplemental descriptive information.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/spo.39.s1
TRANSPARENCY STATEMENT
We reported how we determined the sample size and
the stopping criterion. We reported all experimental
conditions and variables. We report all data exclusion
criteria and whether these were determined before or
during the data analysis. We report all outlier criteria and
whether these were determined before or during data
analysis.
PREREGISTRATION
No part of the study procedures was pre-registered prior
to the research being conducted. No part of the study
analyses was pre-registered prior to the research being
conducted.
ETHICS AND CONSENT
This study was carried out in accordance with the
recommendations of the Swiss Psychological Association.
All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance
with the Declaration of Helsinki. According to the
guidelines of the University of Lausanne, no formal ethics
approval was required, as this study does not belong to
research on human beings using physiological measures
or aiming at the diagnostic of a pathology.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to Julie Schulthess, Tim Rohr and
Lennart Koch for their assistance with data collection.
FUNDING INFORMATION
This contribution benefited from the support of the Swiss
National Centre of Competence in Research LIVES—
Overcoming vulnerability: Life course perspective,
financed by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant
number: 51NF40-185901).
COMPETING INTERESTS
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
IU: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Data
Curation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing—Original
Draft, Writing—Review and Editing;
FG: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Visualization, Writing—Review and Editing;
KM: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Writing—Review and Editing.
AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS
Ieva Urbanaviciute orcid.org/0000-0002-1077-2632
University of Lausanne, CH; Vilnius University, LT
Fabian Gander orcid.org/0000-0002-2204-8828
University of Basel, CH
Koorosh Massoudi orcid.org/0000-0001-9307-1294
University of Lausanne, CH
REFERENCES
Abdel Hadi, S., Bakker, A. B., & Häusser, J. A. (2021). The role
of leisure crafting for emotional exhaustion in telework
15Urbanaviciute et al. Swiss Psychology Open DOI: 10.5334/spo.39
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping,
34, 530-544. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.202
1.1903447
Akkermans, J., Richardson, J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2020).
The Covid-19 crisis as a career shock: Implications for
careers and vocational behavior. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 119, 103434. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jvb.2020.103434
Alarcon, G. M. (2011). A meta-analysis of burnout with job
demands, resources, and attitudes. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 79, 549–562. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jvb.2011.03.007
Allen, T. D., Regina, J., & Waiwood, A. M. (2021). A
workercentric view of COVID-19. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 14, 254–259. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1017/iop.2021.46
Arnold, H. J., & Feldman, D. C. (1982). A multivariate
analysis of the determinants of job turnover. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 67, 350–360. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.350
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Auxiliary variables
in mixture modeling: 3-step approaches using Mplus.
Structural Equation Modeling, 21, 329–341. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915181
Bakk, Z., & Vermunt, J. K. (2016). Robustness of stepwise latent
class modeling with continuous distal outcomes. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23, 20–31.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.955104
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014).
Burnout and work engagement: The JD–R approach.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 1, 389–411. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091235
Barling, J., & Frone, M. R. (2017). If only my leader would just
do something! Passive leadership undermines employee
well‐being through role stressors and psychological
resource depletion. Stress and Health, 33, 211–222. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2697
Blustein, D. L., Perera, H. N., Diamonti, A. J., Gutowski,
E., Meerkins, T., Davila, A., Erby, W., & Konowitz, L.
(2020). The uncertain state of work in the U.S.: Profiles of
decent work and precarious work. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 122, 103481. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jvb.2020.103481
Brenner, J., Jain, S., Leas, K., Samudio, D. C., & Amundson, M.
(2021). Mayflower group benchmark on changes in work
due to COVID-19: Now and in the future. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 14, 139–143. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1017/iop.2021.35
Carillo, K., Cachat-Rosset, G., Marsan, J., Saba, T., & Klarsfeld,
A. (2021). Adjusting to epidemic-induced telework:
Empirical insights from teleworkers in France. European
Journal of Information Systems, 30, 69–88. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1080/0960085x.2020.1829512
Cubrich, M., & Tengesdal, J. (2021). Precarious work during
precarious times: Addressing the compounding effects
of race, gender, and immigration status. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 14, 133–138. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1017/iop.2021.42
De Vos, A., Van Der Heijden, B. I., & Akkermans, J. (2020).
Sustainable careers: Towards a conceptual model. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 117, 103196. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.06.011
De Witte, H. (2000). Arbeidsethos en jobonzekerheid: Meting
en gevolgen voor welzijn, tevredenheid en inzet op
het werk [Work ethic and job insecurity: Assessment
and consequences for well-being, satisfaction and
performance at work]. In R. Bouwen, K. De Witte, H. De
Witte & T. Taillieu (Eds.), Van groep naar gemeenschap
[From group to community]. Liber Amicorum Prof. Dr. Leo
Lagrou (pp. 325–350). Leuven: Garant.
De Witte, H. (2005). Job insecurity: Review of the
international literature on definitions, prevalence,
antecedents and consequences. SA Journal of Industrial
Psychology, 31(4), 1–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.
v31i4.200
Dhanani, L. Y., Johnson, R. C., & Pueschel, A. (2021). The
inequity of crisis: COVID-19 as a case for diversity
management. Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
14, 81–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2021.12
Geldhof, G. J., Preacher, K. J., & Zyphur, M. J. (2014). Reliability
estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis
framework. Psychological Methods, 19, 72–91. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0032138
Giauque, D., Renard, K., Cornu, F., & Emery, Y. (2022).
Engagement, Exhaustion, and Perceived Performance of
Public Employees Before and During the COVID-19 Crisis.
Public Personnel Management, 00910260211073154. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260211073154
Griep, Y., Bankins, S., Vander Elst, T., & De Witte, H. (2021).
How psychological contract breach affects long‐term
mental and physical health: the longitudinal role of
effort–reward imbalance. Applied Psychology: Health and
Well‐Being, 13, 263–281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/
aphw.12246
Hale, T., Angrist, N., Goldszmidt, R., Kira, B., Petherick, A.,
Phillips, T., … & Tatlow, H. (2021). A global panel database
of pandemic policies (Oxford COVID-19 Government
Response Tracker). Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 529–538.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01079-8
Harju, L. K., Rokka, J., Lopes, M. M., Airoldi, M., & Raïes, K.
(2021). Employee well-being profiles during COVID-19
lockdown: a latent profile analysis of French and UK
employees. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 2181. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.645300
Hipp, J. R., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Local solutions in the estimation
of growth mixture models. Psychological Methods, 11, 36.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.1.36
Hite, L. M., & McDonald, K. S. (2020). Careers after COVID-19:
Challenges and changes. Human Resource Development
International, 23(4), 427–437. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080
/13678868.2020.1779576
16Urbanaviciute et al. Swiss Psychology Open DOI: 10.5334/spo.39
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community,
and the nested self in the stress process: Advancing
conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology:
An International Review, 50, 337–370. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062
Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J.-P., & Westman, M.
(2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational
context: The reality of resources and their consequences.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 5, 103–128. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640
Howard, M. C., & Hoffman, M. E. (2018). Variable-centered,
person-centered, and person-specific approaches:
Where theory meets the method. Organizational
Research Methods, 21, 846–876. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1177/1094428117744021
Juchnowicz, M., & Kinowska, H. (2021). Employee well-
being and digital work during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Information, 12, 293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/
info12080293
Kanfer, R., Lyndgaard, S. F., & Tatel, C. E. (2020). For whom the
pandemic tolls: A person-centric analysis of older workers.
Work, Aging and Retirement, 6, 238-241. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1093/workar/waaa014
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., … Vugt, M. v. (2021). COVID-19 and the
workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future
research and action. American Psychologist, 76, 63–77.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000716
Kühne, S., Kroh, M., Liebig, S., & Zinn, S. (2020). The need for
household panel surveys in times of crisis: The case of
SOEP-CoV. Survey Research Methods, 14, 195–203. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2020.v14i2.7748
Kuijpers, E., Kooij, D. T. A. M., & van Woerkom, M. (2020). Align
your job with yourself: The relationship between a job
crafting intervention and work engagement, and the role
of workload. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
25, 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000175
Kuntz, J. C. (2021). Resilience in times of global pandemic:
Steering recovery and thriving trajectories. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 70, 188–215. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12296
Maggiori, C., Rossier, J., Krings, F., Johnston, C. S., & Massoudi,
K. (2016). Career pathways and professional transitions:
Preliminary results from the first wave of a 7-year
longitudinal study. In Surveying human vulnerabilities
across the life course (pp. 131–157). Cham: Springer. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24157-9_6
Meyer, B., Zill, A., Dilba, D., Gerlach, R., & Schumann, S. (2021).
Employee psychological well‐being during the COVID‐19
pandemic in Germany: A longitudinal study of demands,
resources, and exhaustion. International Journal of
Psychology, 56, 532–550. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/
ijop.12743
Moen, P., Pedtke, J. H., & Flood, S. (2020). Disparate
disruptions: Intersectional COVID-19 employment effects
by age, gender, education, and race/ethnicity. Work, Aging
and Retirement, 6, 207–228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/
workar/waaa013
Möhring, K., Naumann, E., Reifenscheid, M., Wenz, A., Rettig,
T., Krieger, U., … & Blom, A. G. (2021). The COVID-19
pandemic and subjective well-being: longitudinal evidence
on satisfaction with work and family. European Societies,
23, 601–617. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.202
0.1833066
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007).
Deciding on the number of classes in latent class
analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo
simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 535–569. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1080/10705510701575396
OECD. (2021). Implications of Remote Working Adoption on
Place Based Policies: A Focus on G7 Countries. Paris: OECD
Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/b12f6b85-en
O’Rand, A. M. (2009). Cumulative processes in the life course.
In G. H. Elder, Jr. & J. Z. Giele (Eds.), The craft of life course
research (pp. 121–140). The Guilford Press.
Phetmisy, C. N., & King, D. D. (2021). The ubiquitous effects
of financial stress during pandemics and beyond:
Opportunities for industrial and organizational psychology.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 14, 90–93. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2021.16
Rieth, M., & Hagemann, V. (2021). The impact of telework
and closure of educational and childcare facilities on
working people during COVID-19. Zeitschrift für Arbeits-
und Organisationspsychologie A&O. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1026/0932-4089/a000370
Rigotti, T., De Cuyper, N., & Sekiguchi, T. (2020). The corona
crisis: What can we learn from earlier studies in applied
psychology? Applied psychology: An International Review,
69, 1–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12265
Rudolph, C. W., Allan, B., Clark, M., Hertel, G., Hirschi,
A., Kunze, F., … & Zacher, H. (2021). Pandemics:
Implications for research and practice in industrial and
organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 14, 1–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/
iop.2020.48
Schaufeli, W. B., Desart, S., & De Witte, H. (2020). Burnout
Assessment Tool (BAT)—development, validity, and
reliability. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, 17, 9495. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph17249495
Schaufeli W. B., Salanova M., González-Romá V., & Bakker
A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and
burnout: a confirmatory factor analytic approach.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
17Urbanaviciute et al. Swiss Psychology Open DOI: 10.5334/spo.39
TO CITE THIS ARTICLE:
Urbanaviciute, I., Gander, F., & Massoudi, K. (2023). Working Life During the Pandemic: Experienced Changes and their Implications
for Occupational Well-being among Employees in Switzerland. Swiss Psychology Open, 3(1): 4, pp. 1–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/
spo.39
Submitted: 26 February 2022 Accepted: 06 March 2023 Published: 23 March 2023
COPYRIGHT:
© 2023 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Swiss Psychology Open is a peer-reviewed open access journal published by Ubiquity Press.
Schaufeli, W. B., Shimazu, A., Hakanen, J., Salanova, M., &
De Witte, H. (2017). An ultra-short measure for work
engagement. European Journal of Psychological Assessment,
35, 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000430
Sinclair, R. R., Probst, T. M., Watson, G. P., & Bazzoli, A. (2021).
Caught between Scylla and Charybdis: How economic stressors
and occupational risk factors influence workers’ occupational
health reactions to COVID‐19. Applied Psychology, 70, 85–119.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12301
Spurk, D., Hirschi, A., Wang, M., Valero, D., & Kauffeld,
S. (2020). Latent profile analysis: A review and “how
to” guide of its application within vocational behavior
research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 120, 103445. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103445
Trougakos, J. P., Chawla, N., & McCarthy, J. M. (2020). Working
in a pandemic: Exploring the impact of COVID-19 health
anxiety on work, family, and health outcomes. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 105, 1234–1245. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1037/apl0000739
Vander Elst, T., De Witte, H., & De Cuyper, N. (2014). The
Job Insecurity Scale: A psychometric evaluation across
five European countries. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 23(3), 364–380. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.745989
Wachtler, B., Michalski, N., Nowossadeck, E., Diercke, M.,
Wahrendorf, M., Santos-Hövener, C., … & Hoebel, J. (2020).
Socioeconomic inequalities and COVID-19–A review of the
current international literature. Journal of Health Monitoring, 5,
3–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25646/7059
Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J., & Parker, S. K. (2021). Achieving
effective remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic: A
work design perspective. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 70(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12290
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job
satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal
of Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.247
Westman, M., Hobfoll, S. E., Chen, S., Davidson, O. B., &
Laski, S. (2004). Organizational stress through the lens
of conservation of resources (COR) theory. In Exploring
interpersonal dynamics, 4, 167–220. Emerald Group
Publishing Limited. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-
3555(04)04005-3
Zacher, H., & Rudolph, C. W. (2020). Individual differences and
changes in subjective wellbeing during the early stages
of the COVID-19 pandemic. American Psychologist. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000702
Zacher, H., & Rudolph, C. W. (2021). Researching employee
experiences and behavior in times of crisis: Theoretical
and methodological considerations and implications for
human resource management. German Journal of Human
Resource Management, 36(1), 6–31. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1177/23970022211058812
PEER REVIEW COMMENTS
Swiss Psychology Open has blind peer review, which
is unblinded upon article acceptance. The editorial
history of this article can be downloaded here:
• PR File 1. Peer Review History. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.5334/spo.39.pr1
• PR File 2. Peer Review History. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.5334/spo.39.pr2
