Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The well-being and employee effectiveness of United States government contractors during the COVID-19 pandemic
(USC Thesis Other)
The well-being and employee effectiveness of United States government contractors during the COVID-19 pandemic
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
The Well-Being and Employee Effectiveness of United States Government Contractors
During the COVID-19 Pandemic
by
Rodolfo “Rudy” Lunasin
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2023
Copyright 2023 Rodolfo U. Lunasin
ii
The Committee for Rodolfo Lunasin certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Heather Davis
Briana Hinga
Kimberly Hirabayashi, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023
iii
Abstract
As of April 2023, the COVID-19 virus has caused over 1.1 million deaths in the United
States. The restrictions put in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic created high levels of stress
and burnout, which negatively impacted employee well-being. This study attempted to find
effective strategies and best practices that employers used to improve employee well-being and
effectiveness. The focus of this study was United States government contractors, who answered
a 28-item questionnaire, with 24 multiple-choice questions and 4 open-ended questions. A total
of 85 people participated in the study. The study found that as a person’s emotional exhaustion,
burnout, or fatigue increased, employee effectiveness decreased. However, if a company trains
its leaders and shifts resources toward ensuring employee well-being, employee effectiveness
increases. Effective actions taken by employers include providing remote and telework
opportunities, allowing flexible schedules, and enabling increased interaction between workers
and supervisors using new technology tools and systems.
iv
Acknowledgements
I must first thank my wife, Heidi, and my children, Hunter and Alea for their support the
past three years during my educational journey to a doctoral degree. Thanks for supporting this
crazy idea, without your support I would have never completed this. Thank you to my parents, for
instilling the belief and desire to always keep learning.
Thank you to my dissertation chair, Dr. Kimberley Hirabayashi, for keeping me moving
forward and providing clear guidance and direction for me to finish. Thank you to Dr. Briana
Hinga and Dr. Heather Davis for serving on my dissertation committee. Thank you to Dr. Dennis
Hocevar for providing such wonderful support and guidance during my data collection.
Thank you to my thematic group classmates, in particular, Nan Ho, Cynthia Baker, and
Amy Heerschap, for their leadership in organizing the team to develop our survey tool.
Lastly, I want to thank my wonderful study group of Dave Kelley, Jonida Spahija, Gavin
Kostoglian, Julie White, Karolyn Rubin and Renee Bostick. Thank you my friends for your
unwavering support and friendship during our doctoral journey, OCL Cohort 16 is the best! Fight
On!!
v
Table of Contents
Abstract ...............................................................................................................................................iii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. iv
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................... vii
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................................. 2
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions ................................................................................... 3
Importance of the Study ....................................................................................................................... 3
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ...................................................................... 4
Definitions ............................................................................................................................................ 6
Literature Review ................................................................................................................................. 6
Well-Being ............................................................................................................................... 7
Occupational Stress and Burnout ........................................................................................... 12
Employee Effectiveness ......................................................................................................... 15
Actions Taken During the Pandemic to Address Employee Effectiveness ........................... 18
Conceptual Framework ...................................................................................................................... 23
Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 24
Research Setting..................................................................................................................... 25
The Researcher....................................................................................................................... 26
Data Sources .......................................................................................................................... 28
Participants ............................................................................................................................. 28
Instrumentation ...................................................................................................................... 28
Data Collection Procedures.................................................................................................... 29
Data Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 30
Validity and Reliability .......................................................................................................... 31
Findings .............................................................................................................................................. 31
Research Question 1: What Is the Relationship Between Burnout, Emotional Exhaustion,
and Fatigue With Respect to Employee Effectiveness During COVID-19? .............. 32
Research Question 2: What Specific Strategies Did Organizations and Leaders Implement
That Support the Well-Being of Their Employees During COVID-19? .................... 40
Summary ................................................................................................................................ 42
Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 43
Discussion of Findings ....................................................................................................................... 43
Recommendations for Practice ........................................................................................................... 46
Recommendation 1: Government Contractor Companies Should Develop and Implement a
Training Program for Their Supervisors, Managers, and Leaders on How to Support
Employees to Decrease Burnout and Exhaustion ....................................................... 47
Recommendation 2: Implement the Three Essentials of Protection from Harm, Work-Life
Harmony, and Mattering at Work ............................................................................... 48
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................................ 51
Recommendations for Future Research.............................................................................................. 51
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 51
References .......................................................................................................................................... 53
Appendix A ........................................................................................................................................ 68
Survey Questions ................................................................................................................................ 68
vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Executive and Individual Contributor Hopes for Work Transformation ........................ 21
Table 2: Participant Demographics ............................................................................................... 29
Table 3: Question source and target area (s) ................................................................................. 30
Table 4: Cronsbach’s α Study variables ....................................................................................... 32
Table 5: Burnout Questions .......................................................................................................... 34
Table 6: Exhaustion and Fatigue Questions .................................................................................. 35
Table 7: Resources and Supervisor Cares Questions .................................................................... 36
Table 8: Current Effectiveness Questions ..................................................................................... 37
Table 9: Responses on COVID-19 Effectiveness ......................................................................... 38
Table 10: Pearson Correlation Results for Variables to Current and Before COVID
Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................. 39
Table 11: Responses for Policies, Practices, and Strategies to Support Employee Well-Being .. 41
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory of the Problem of Practice ................................... 5
Figure 2: Elements of Employee Health and Well-Being ............................................................ 10
Figure 3: Positive Well-Being Segments ...................................................................................... 11
Figure 4: Organizational Actions to Integrate Well-Being Into Work ......................................... 22
Figure 5: Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 25
Figure 6: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Framework for Workplace Mental Heath and Well-
Being ......................................................................................................................................... 49
1
The Well-Being and Employee Effectiveness of United States Government Contractors
During the COVID-19 Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic introduced new restrictions and rules to everyday life. Face-to-
face restrictions, social distancing, (staying more than 6 feet apart) and mask wearing have
drastically changed how the world interacts, communicates, and works. Beginning in April of
2020, countries closed their borders, schools closed, and businesses were shut down. As of May
of 2021, there have been over 32 million people infected with the COVID-19 virus, which
resulted in over 591,000 deaths in the United States alone (Worldometers, 2022). Many
companies that stayed open had their employees work from home and telecommute (Katella,
2021), causing new stressors in everyday life. These persistent, stressful conditions have caused
people to experience burnout, but those classified as essential workers—workers who conduct a
range of operations and services essential to continue critical infrastructure operations (National
Conference of State Legislators, 2021)—have been at even higher risk (Abramson, 2022). Moss
(2021) conducted a survey in the Fall of 2020, and 89% of respondents said their work life was
getting worse; 85% said their well-being had declined; 56% said their job demands had
increased; and 57% felt the pandemic had a “large effect on” or “completed dominated” their
work.
The U.S. government employs over 9 million people; of this number, over 4 million are
classified as U.S. government contract employees (Light, 2019). Many of these workers were
classified as essential workers during the pandemic. The problem of practice for this study was
how companies and employers of U.S. government contractors are supporting the well-being of
their employees due to the high levels of stress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
2
Context and Background of the Problem
The U.S. government federal contractor workforce spans six sectors: (a) domestic, (b)
diplomatic, (c) economic, (d) defense, (e) homeland, and (f) environment. In 2020, over 5
million people were in the federal contractor workforce (Light, 2019). U.S. defense spending is
approximately $714 billion, with an expected growth to $900 billion in 2030 (Mordor
Intelligence, 2021). In Fiscal Year 2020, the U.S. government spent a total of $682 billion on
contract spending (Edwards, 2021). In addition, during the pandemic, a large portion of the
contractor workforce was classified as essential workers. The limited human contact, the stress
of working from home, children being schooled at home, and the possibility of losing jobs are
just some stressors that have affected this population. This study examines what U.S.
government contractor companies did to mitigate these stressors to ensure their employee well-
being and effectiveness.
Three social alteration methods used to prevent the spread of COVID-19 are (a) social
distancing, (b) self-quarantine, and (c) self-isolation. Social distancing or physical distancing is
the practice of keeping people at least 6 feet apart as to prevent the virus from spreading. Self-
quarantine refers to a person restricting their travel when they have been exposed to COVID-19,
and self-isolation is the separation of those infected by the virus to protect those who are not
infected (Suppawittaya et al., 2020).
Because the pandemic is ongoing, there has been limited research on the well-being of
employees during this period. This study provides data and perspective to ensure that if a similar
event occurs again in the future, best practices will be understood and implemented, minimizing
the damage a pandemic has on a population.
3
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to examine the organizational and leadership practices that
were implemented during COVID-19 by U.S. government contracting companies and that
affected the well-being of employees. The research questions that guided this study were
1. What is the relationship between burnout, emotional exhaustion, and fatigue with
respect to employee effectiveness during COVID-19?
2. What specific strategies did organizations and leaders implement that support the
well-being of their employees during COVID-19?
Importance of the Study
Millions of people have been infected by COVID-19, and hundreds of thousands of
people have died from the disease. The three social alteration methods most used to prevent or
decrease the spread of the virus have had negative effects on people’s well-being. Social
distancing, self-quarantine, and self-isolation lead to psychological, social, physical, and
professional challenges (Prime et al., 2020; Suppawittaya et al., 2020). The International Labour
Organization found global working hours declined by 17.3% in the second quarter of 2020
(Cotofan et al, 2021). The Center for State and Local Government Excellence (2021) found
government employees were feeling more stressed, fatigued and anxious than when they were
surveyed previously in May of 2020. The report shared 47% of respondents felt burnt out and
fatigued, up from 27%; 76% felt their jobs were somewhat risky in terms of their potential
exposure from COVID-19, and full-time remote work decreased from 42% in May to 16% in
October, with three-quarters of those working not being given a remote work option
(Reichenberg, 2021). In the same report, 25% of respondents struggled to balance work and
4
home demands, with childcare being a key challenge. In regard to finances, 40% were worried
about saving enough to be financially secure throughout retirement.
As stated earlier, over 4 million people are U.S. government contractor employees. The
largest government agency is the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) which alone has nearly
500,000 people. The work done by government contractors make up well over a quarter of those
responsible for conducting missions of the U.S. Armed Forces. Because much of the work done
by the DOD is classified, work is typically done in person and in controlled-access locations,
limiting remote work options. This reality meant COVID-19 has had a large negative impact on
the effectiveness of this workforce, putting at risk the defense of the United States’ and its
interests abroad.
Employers provide the environment for their employees to succeed or fail. This
environment is shaped through policies, procedures, and training. Understanding how employers
implemented change due to COVID-19 and how those changes affected the well-being of their
employees could ensure organizations have policies and procedures in place or could respond
quickly to take care of their employees and cause less disruption to the organization and
everyone in it with future events.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
This study focused on how changes in the environment of an organization affect the well-
being of employees. These changes may include changes to strategy, resources, policies,
practices, and procedures. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory contends human beings create the
environments in which they live and shape their development (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2008).
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model is shown in Figure 1. The ecological model has five
interconnected levels or systems, starting in the center with (a) the individual, followed by the
5
(b) microsystem, (c) mesosystem, (d) exsosystem, and (e) macrosystem (Gardiner & Kosmitzki,
2008). Each level includes factors that can affect the individual. This framework provided
perspectives used to determine how an individual’s well-being is being affected for this study.
Figure 1
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory of the Problem of Practice
This study used mixed methods for its research design. The quantitative portion of this
study was used to determine how individuals felt in terms of their well-being. Questions
revolved around the variables of burnout, exhaustion, effectiveness, and organizational support.
The qualitative data was obtained through open-ended questions about strategies, polices, and
6
procedures organizations were put in place to improve employee well-being. This method aligns
with identifying organizational and leadership practices, policies, and procedures put in place
due to COVID-19 and then understanding effects on employees. Using a mixed-method
approach ensured participants could communicate how they felt in terms of their well-being and
provided context about what organizations did or did not do to improve or support well-being.
Definitions
The coronavirus disease-2019 or COVID-19 is the ongoing respiratory disease caused by
a novel coronavirus that is structurally related to the virus that causes severe acute respiratory
syndrome. It was first detected in Wuhan, China, in late 2019 (Fauci et al, 2020).
Employee burnout is a term recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a
diagnosable condition that causes feelings of irritation, frustration, cynicism, and emptiness
(Miller et al., 2021).
Employee well-being is a term that is generally considered subjective and includes
employees’ views of their physical, social, intellectual, and emotional dimensions of employee
well-being (Juniper, 2011).
Social distancing is the practice of people in public should stay 2 meters or 6 feet away
from each other to reduce transmission of COVID-19 (Abel & McQueen, 2020).
Literature Review
This literature review provides an overview of the related literature and research on
employee well-being, burnout, and employee effectiveness. Although at the time of this writing,
the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, this review will also include some actions that employers
have taken to address employee well-being during this pandemic. There is not one universal
definition of employee well-being; however, this literature review will identify the areas and
7
elements where most academics and practitioners agree. This section describes practices
employers have implemented to ensure the well-being of their employees, ensuring increases
their effectiveness and improving organizational productivity and performance.
The actions taken by employers to address employee effectiveness focus on decreasing
stressors for the individual and improving the overall culture and environment of the workplace.
These strategies and policies provide supervisors and leaders with the necessary tools and
techniques to help their employees deal with problems and stressors. This review explores how
employers attempted to improve employee effectiveness and identify those actions that were
successful and those that were not.
Because the world is currently experiencing the COVID-19 pandemic, the amount of
research and studies related to actions taken by organizations to address the well-being of their
employees during COVID-19 are limited. This review will present COVID-19 related studies
that were available at the time of writing this dissertation and studies that pertained to similar
pandemics in the past.
Well-Being
Over the past couple decades, there has been an increased focus on employee well-being
(Lomas, 2019). In a 3-year period, from 2015–2018, there were over 170,000 articles written on
well-being (Diener et al, 2018). Prior to COVID-19, the Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends
Study, found 80% of 9000 employers surveyed considered well-being important or very
important to their organization’s success (Fisher, 2021). Because of COVID-19, organizations
have been forced to prioritize their employees’ well-being to remain a viable organization
(Fisher, 2021). Evidence suggests the pandemic negatively and substantially affected mental
well-being, with declines strongly associated with family responsibilities and age; in addition,
8
COVID-19 seems to be unequally felt more by women (Etheridge & Spantig, 2020). One
responsibility that often falls to women is parenting. Parenting is hard enough, and the pandemic
has made it even more stressful (Almeida et al., 2020). COVID-19 has exacerbated the tasks of
taking care of children who are going to school via distance learning and either telecommuting
for work or trying to find someone to take care of the children while going to work in person.
According to the International Labour Organization, employee health and well-being
relate to all aspects of working life, from the quality and safety of the physical environment to
how people feel about their work environment, climate, and work organization (Mok, 2018).
There are several definitions of well-being. Figure 2 depicts the four elements of employee
health and well-being: (a) physical, (b) intellectual, (c) emotional, and (d) social. This definition
provides employers a basis for how to nurture and provide an environment that ensures employee
well-being. Rath et al. (2010) determined that the five essential elements of well-being are (a)
career, (b) social, (c) financial, (d) physical, and (e) community. This model has become the
cornerstone of many workplace well-being programs. The most general definition of well-being
is how people are doing in life, including social, health, material, and the subjective aspects of
life (Diener et. al, 2018), yet another definition is “the state of successful performance across the
life course integrating physical, cognitive, and social-emotional function (Pollard & Davidson,
2001, p. 10).
Figure 3 depicts positive well-being in three segments: (a) job satisfaction, (b) life
satisfaction, and (c) organizational commitment (Luna-Arocas & Danvila-del-Valle, 2020).
These three elements provide organizations areas to monitor and make changes to have a direct
impact on employee job performance (Luna-Arocas & Danvila-del-Valle, 2020). The physical
element of well-being is the ability to perform physical activity (Mok, 2018). Figure 3 denotes
9
shows that the physical element focuses on disease, injury, exercise, nutrition, and lifestyle. The
intellectual aspect of well-being is the ability to expand knowledge and skills which relate to
learning, development, competency, creativity, and productivity. The emotional area of well-
being is the ability to handle personal emotions which include stress, satisfaction, purpose,
confidence, and security. The social element includes work/career and community well-being.
Because of the almost immediate slowdown of the economy, the financial impact on the entire
world was drastic and unexpected, thus the need to include the financial element when
evaluating someone’s well-being.
The concept of well-being is multifaceted and has multiple levels: (a) a global level,
consisting of a broad, reflective sense of well-being not isolated to any one aspect of life (e.g.,
life satisfaction, growth, purpose); (b) a domain-specific level, consisting of an evaluation of a
specific aspect of life (e.g., job satisfaction, work engagement, career satisfaction, marital
satisfaction); and (c) a momentary level, consisting of cognitive and affective reactions to the
various positive and negative experiences people have on a day-to-day basis (e.g., thoughts,
emotions; Grawitch et al., 2017).
Self-determination theory (SDT) proposes a self-determination continuum, ranging from
a lack of self-determination to intrinsic motivation (fully self-determined). This intrinsic
motivation is based on three basic psychological needs: (a) autonomy, (b) belongingness, and (c)
competence; SDT is used often in the study of work motivation (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Van den
Broeck et al., 2016). Autonomy is the desire to experience ownership of one’s behavior and to act
with a sense of volition, which is reached through having opportunities to make personal choices
(Deci & Ryan, 2000). Studies have found employee task discretion and control over work pace
10
are tied to overall job satisfaction, performance, and mental health (Andreassen et al., 2010; Hall
et al., 2006; Kalleberg et al., 2009; Park & Searcy, 2012; Thompson & Prottas, 2006).
Figure 2
Elements of Employee Health and Well-Being
Note: From “Employee Health and Well-being Walk the Talk or Talk the Talk” by C. Mok.
Carbon Care Asia.
https://www.carboncareasia.com/eng/news/press_releases/181115_press_release.php
11
Figure 3
Positive Well-Being Segments
Belongingness is defined as the human striving for close and intimate relationships and
the desire to achieve a sense of communion (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Workplace studies
suggest positive coworker relationships have significant positive effects on employee well-being
(Lindberg & Vingård, 2011; Lohela et al., 2009; Luchman & Gonazález- Morales, 2013). In
addition, positive emotions and job satisfaction have been linked to better job performance,
positive organizational outcomes, and high levels of psychological well-being (Wright et al.,
2007).
Competence is mastering the environment and the development of new skills; in the
workplace, it can be described as using one’s energy to be effective at work and take care of
one’s work tasks (Maslach & Banks, 2017). In a study of 600 cross-occupational employees in
Norway, the need for competence was significantly associated with work enjoyment, and another
study found the need for competence was strongly and negatively correlated with self-reported
12
depression and anxiety (Andreassen et al., 2010; Baard et al., 2004). Satisfaction of these needs
may result in a highly productive workforce and promote positive well-being. Low levels of
employee well-being can lead to negative impacts on absenteeism, job satisfaction, and work
engagement (De Witte et al., 2016; Tenney et al., 2016).
Occupational Stress and Burnout
As early as the 1980s, occupational stress has been identified as one of the top 10 health
problems in the United States. Stress is directly linked to seven of the 10 leading causes of death
in the world (Quick & Henderson, 2016). Occupational stress can be defined as the harmful
physical and emotional responses that occur when the requirements of a job do not match the
capabilities, resources, or needs of a worker (National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health, 1999). Occupational stress occurs in three stages: (a) the causes of stress, which are
known as risk factors, (b) the stress response, a normal and naturally occurring reaction to
environmental demands or internal pressures, and (c) the consequences of life history—either in
forms of distress (medical, psychological, behavioral) or health stress (Quick & Henderson,
2016). When high levels of occupational stress occur chronically, burnout is likely to occur
(Maslach et al., 2001).
The term burnout, in the context of workplace stress, was first used in the 1970s. Since
that time, the medical community has argued about how to define it (Moss, 2019). The WHO
defined burnout as a syndrome resulting from chronic, unmanaged workplace stress that has
three dimensions: (a) feelings of energy depletion and exhaustion, (b) increased mental distance
from one’s job or feelings of negativity or cynicism, and (c) reduced professional efficacy
(Gallup, 2020).
13
Maslach et al. (2001) found job burnout is a response to prolonged exposure to emotional
and interpersonal workplace stressors. Maslach developed a multidimensional model for the
burnout phenomenon, which has three key dimensions: (a) overwhelming exhaustion, (b)
feelings of cynicism or depersonalization and detachment from the job, and (c) a sense of
ineffectiveness and lack of accomplishment. Depersonalization is when an individual puts
distance between oneself and service recipients by actively ignoring the qualities that make them
unique and engaging people (Maslach, 2003). In relation to the workplace, exhaustion and
cynicism emerge due to work overload and social conflict, and inefficacy develops from a lack
of resources (e.g., time, tools, critical information) to get the job done (Maslach, 2003; Maslach
et al., 2001).
Research on stress has shown a positive correlation between workload demands and
stress-related outcomes, where exhaustion leads workers to distance themselves emotionally and
cognitively from their work. Inefficacy’s relationship to the other two dimensions of burnout is
more complex. In some cases, inefficacy appears because of exhaustion or cynicism, but it may
also develop in parallel, rather than sequentially (Maslach, 2003. Golembiewski and
Munzenrider (1988) developed a phase model, where each of the dimensions are split into high
and low, with eight possible combinations. Of the various conceptualizations and models of
burnout, there are five common elements: (a) a predominance of dysphoric symptoms, such as
mental or emotional exhaustion, fatigue, and depression, (b) an emphasis on mental and
behavioral symptoms more than physical ones (c) work-related symptoms, (d) symptoms that
manifest themselves in people who did not suffer from them before, and (e) decreased
effectiveness and work performance because of negative attitudes and behaviors.
14
In early 2019, in its 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases, the
WHO declared burnout an occupational phenomenon, not a medical condition (Gallup, 2020).
Because of this classification, burnout is not considered an illness or health condition. A 2019
Gallup poll found 28% of full-time employees felt burned out; 48% were burned out sometimes;
and 76% of full-time employees experienced job burnout at least sometimes (Gallop, 2020). An
American Psychological Association (APA) study found employees suffering from burnout are
2.6 times more likely to look for another job, 63% more likely to take a sick day, and 23% more
likely to visit the emergency room (Moss, 2019). In the United States, $190 billion is spent each
year on workplace stress-related costs. Workplace stress has resulted in nearly 120,000 deaths.
Worldwide, and 615 million people suffer from depression and anxiety, with a cost of nearly $1
trillion in lost productivity each year (Moss, 2019). A survey of 7,500 full-time employees found
the top five reasons for burnout are (a) unfair treatment at work, (b) unmanageable workload, (c)
lack of role clarity, (d) lack of communication and support from their manager, and (e)
unreasonable time pressure (Wigert & Agrawall, 2018).
Employee burnout affects nearly all sectors of the economy. Forty percent of public
sector (federal/public administration) employees and 67% of mental health workers experience
burnout (Golembiewski et al., 1998; Morse et al., 2012). The APA found companies without
systems to support employee well-being have higher turnover, lower productivity, and higher
healthcare costs than companies with those systems (Moss, 2019). The reasons for burnout are
caused by the employer. Research has shown it is in the employer’s scope of control and
influence to solve the employee burnout problem. With the costs to companies in lost
productivity and healthcare expenses, it is in the best interest of employers to resolve or decrease
15
the incidents of employee burnout. This study examined the three dimensions of burnout to
determine how COVID-19 has affected the U.S. government contractor population.
Employee Effectiveness
Many studies have investigated what affects employee effectiveness. Employee goal
setting, employee empowerment and engagement, spiritual leadership, and supervisor and
leadership support are some of these items. In terms of employee goal setting, employee
effectiveness is an enhanced level of employee performance that leads to higher productivity.
Goal setting is defined as a formal program of setting numerical or quantitative performance
goals for individuals (Teo & Low, 2016). Teo and Low (2016) found organizations that set goals
for their employees and the organization had a positive impact on employee effectiveness, which
then improved the organization’s effectiveness. All the participants in Teo and Low’s study
stated that goal setting was very important, as it provided a sense of alignment, direction and
purpose for the organization and its employees.
Employee empowerment is another factor in employee and organizational effectiveness.
Employee empowerment is when leaders and managers share power with their employees and
give them credit and visibility, which allows employees to develop and do extremely well by
investing in themselves, even at the risk of making mistakes (Mehrabani & Shajari, 2013).
Successful managers serve as mentor or coaches, treating their employees as individuals, instead
of a group, and have a good understanding of a subordinate’s development needs (Robert et al.,
2000). Proactive engagement by managers improves employee performance and satisfaction. Just
monitoring employee performance does not seem to improve employee effectiveness; employee
empowerment and active coaching and mentoring by managers is necessary to improve
employee effectiveness (Mehrabani & Shajari, 2013).
16
Employee engagement is another driver of employee and organizational effectiveness.
Employee engagement has several definitions. One definition is one’s emotional and intellectual
commitment to an organization (Baurmruk, 2004; Richman, 2006; Shaw, 2005). Development
Dimensions International (2005) defined it as the extent to which people value, enjoy, and
believe in what they do. The Corporate Leadership Council (2004) defined employee
engagement as the extent to which employees commit to something or someone in an
organization. A focus on employee engagement strategies increases organizational effectiveness
through higher productivity, profits, customer satisfaction, quality, and employee retention
(Sundaray & Vihar, 2011). Studies have found engaged employees have higher levels of energy
and enthusiasm and are fully immersed in their jobs (Macey & Schneider, 2008; May et al.,
2004).
Spiritual leadership is another management approach related to employee effectiveness.
Many organizations focus on creating organizational visions and corporate cultures that may
inspire their employees’ inner motivations. Spiritual leadership incorporates vision, hope/faith,
and altruistic love for motivation (Chen et al., 2013). The idea is to inspire or motivate
employees to work beyond what is expected for the common good of the organization. Spiritual
leadership theory was developed through the intrinsic motivation model (Fry, 2003). Intrinsic
motivation is the inherent tendency to seek out challenges to experience one’s capacity to learn
and be creative (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Studies have confirmed intrinsic motivation leads to better
learning, creativity, and performance (Wang et al., 2019). Spiritual leadership intrinsically
motivates self and others through a leader’s values, attitudes and behaviors. The three
components of spiritual leadership are (a) vision: a meaningful future, causing employees to feel
intrinsic self-value and life purpose; (b) hope/faith: a leader’s confidence in achieving the vision,
17
high levels of which inspire subordinates to accomplish the mission; and (c) altruistic love: a
series of leader behaviors valuing mutual care and respect, which produce a sense of being
understood by employees and the organization (Wang et al.,2019).
A positive relationship exists between spiritual leadership and task performance (Wang et
al.,2019). Task performance is a specific pattern of behaviors oriented toward completing a work
task and contributes to a supervisor’s judgement of an employee’s worth to an organization
(Conway, 1999; Johnson, 2001; Motwidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). Spiritual leadership is an
effective way to fuel an employee’s intrinsic motivation, and it meets the psychological needs of
managers and employees (Fry 2003; Guillen et al., 2015). Employees of leaders who use
spiritual leadership perform better because of a common and clear vision. A clear vision and
sufficiently challenging goals are likely to motivate followers and improve individual
performance (Locke et al., 1981).
Supervisor and leadership support improve employee effectiveness and well-being.
Social support theory provides the foundation for how supervisor support mechanisms bolster
employee well-being and effectiveness (Mohr et al., 2021). The social support one receives from
their social network and their coworkers is vital to one’s health and employee well-being (Cohen
& Wills, 1985). When done correctly, social support acts as a positivity catalyst and negativity
buffer for people (Bavik et al., 2020). When an employee is provided with support it results in
positive behaviors, such as employee engagement. This social support serves as a resource, as
described in the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989) and the job demands–resources
model, where employees are motivated to accumulate and maintain highly valued resources,
resulting in increased work and well-being. As a negativity buffer, social support roles in the
workplace are resources that reduce the negative effects of stressors and job demands, which is
18
also consistent with the job demands–resources model (Demerouti et al., 2001). Supervisors are
valuable resources for employees and can serve as positivity catalysts and negativity buffers, as
they can create cultures of support and encourage employees to participate in workplace
programs that result in family support behaviors, improved employee health and well-being, and
positive work outcomes (Hammer & Perry, 2019). Daily supervisor support protects against a
decline in negative affect, caused by work–family conflict and has been shown to improve job
satisfaction, especially for those experiencing significant family conflict (Hammer et al., 2011).
Mohr et al. (2021) conducted to determine the effects of a supervisor support training (SST)
intervention on military veterans transitioning to the civilian workplace. The study included
veterans who had positive screens for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and some who did
not. The study found SSTs improved employee positive emotions for those who did have PTSD.
Veterans who screened positive for PTSD may benefit from increased supervisor support and
result in the reduction of negative emotions. The study supported the positive impact
organizations that have SSTs and social support systems have on improving employee
effectiveness and well-being.
Actions Taken During the Pandemic to Address Employee Effectiveness
COVID-19 garnered public attention beginning in December of 2019, when cases of
pneumonia were detected in Wuhan, China. The WHO identified and initially named the novel
coronavirus that caused the pneumonia 2019-nCoV. The virus was renamed COVID-19 in
February 2020 (Centers for Disease Control [CDC], 2021). The first case of this novel
coronavirus in the United States was detected in Washington state in January of 2020 (CNN,
2021). The United States declared a national emergency in March 2020, and from that point,
19
mask wearing, social distancing, businesses closing, and remote work became the “new normal”
in the United States (CNN, 2021).
Employers had little time to prepare for the once-in-a-lifetime pandemic. To prevent the
virus from spreading, governments instituted three main social alteration methods: (a) social
distancing (or physical distancing), staying at least 6 feet apart to minimize interactions between
people living in a wider community, who may be infectious but not know it yet; (b) self-
quarantine: travelling restriction of people who are presumed to have been exposed to a
contagious disease and not yet ill, with an average incubation period of 6.4 days, ranging from
2.1 to 11.1 days (Backer et al., 2020); and (c) self-isolation: separation of ill persons with
contagious diseases from others to protect those not infected (Suppawittava et al., 2020). The
three methods described caused people to feel abandoned, neglected, angry, and confused. Some
employees suffered from PTSD and depression and had suicidal ideations (Suppawittaya, et al.,
2020). Employers had to deal with these requirements and issues, while trying to keep their
businesses viable and solvent. Maslach et al. (2001) concluded interventions aimed at individual
strategies to reduce burnout are ineffective, as the intervention decreased exhaustion but resulted
in no change in depersonalization or sense of personal inefficacy. A Deloitte (2021) employee
well-being survey found 39% of employers had a formal well-being strategy, with others being
ad-hoc; 31% of programs were built solely around healthcare; 6% had comprehensive strategies
and programs; and 82% of companies adjusted their well-being programs to focus on remote
work, mental health, and expanding health insurance programs (Deloitte, 2021)
Awa et al. (2010) reported 80% of organizations that ground themselves in a set of human
principles—purpose and meaning, ethics and fairness, growth and passion, collaboration and
relationships, and transparency and openness—had significant reduction of burnout. Deloitte
20
(2021) found organizations best prepared for the COVID-19 crisis had already adopted a “thrive”
mindset of using disruption as an opportunity to propel the organization forward. Organizations
acted by moving workers to remote work, implementing testing and contact tracing strategies,
and created new programs for emergency medical leave, childcare and eldercare support, and
physical, mental, and financial health. Seven out of 10 executives said that shifting to remote
work had a positive impact on well-being and productivity (Deloitte, 2021). Some employers
took notable actions: Delta Airlines allowed 5,000 workers at high risk of COVID-19 to stay at
home with full pay and medical benefits (Fisher, 2021). Starbucks posted work schedules 2
weeks in advance, and if workers had more than a 1-hour commute, employees were transferred
to a closer store (Fisher, 2021). When senior executives and individual workers were asked about
the most important outcomes for work transformation efforts in the next few years, individual
workers ranked improved well-being in the top three priorities, while senior executives ranked it
as eighth. Table 1 shows the top 10 priorities of senior executives and individual workers,
demonstrating executives and workers are in agreement that customer needs, quality and
innovation are important to a business; however, there was a disconnect in understanding the
importance of the workforce and that without people, a business is nothing.
Figure 4 depicts actions organizations can take to integrate well-being into the workplace.
There are three levels organizations should consider actions, policies, and mandates: (a)
individual, (b) team, and (c) organizational. At the individual level, workers should take the
initiative in setting their own boundaries and making their well-being needs understood. They
should influence the prioritization and design of well-being by participating in the development
of flexible and responsive policies and practices that balance individual needs with those of the
team and the organization. At the team level, the power of a team comes from their ability to
21
connect people with each other to unleash their collective capabilities. Tapping into those
capabilities requires team members to understand and honor each individual’s well-being needs
to create an environment in which the team can perform at its best. At the organizational level,
leaders have a responsibility to invest in and promote well-being and to commit to it by
incorporating well-being into work and making it a consideration as important as any other factor
that affects the bottom line (Deloitte, 2021). These three levels should be considered across the
five environments of (a) cultural, (b) relational, (c) operational, (d) physical, and (e) virtual. This
framework may be used to assist leaders incorporate well-being in their organizations.
Table 1
Executive and Individual Contributor Hopes for Work Transformation
Rank Senior executives Individual workers
1 Improving the customer experience Improving quality
2 Increasing innovation Increasing innovation
3 Reducing cost Improving worker well-being
4 Improving quality Improving the customer experience
5 Doing new work Doing new work
6 Increasing capacity Reducing cost
7 Growing market share Increasing capacity
Note. Rankings of what executives (n = 3,630) and individual contributors (n = 1,108) hoped to
achieve in their work transformation efforts in the next 1–3 years. Adapted from Designing Work
for Well-Being: the End of Work/Life Balance by J. Fisher, 2021. Deloitte.
[https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/human-capital-trends/2021.html].
22
Figure 4
Organizational Actions to Integrate Well-Being Into Work
Organizational Team Individual
Cultural
Building well-being
into social behaviors
and norms
Model well-being
behaviors such as
taking micro-breaks
or only making
certain meetings
video-focused
Be proactive and
vocal about well-
being needs
Relational
Fostering well-being
in relationships
among colleagues
Form teams based
on worker
preferences, working
styles, and personal
needs
Check in frequently,
proactively, and
consistently with
colleagues on their
well-being needs and
preferences
Operational
Including well-being
in management
policies, processes,
and programs
Embed well-being
criteria in work
scheduling,
performance
management
processes,
leadership
evaluations, and
rewards and
recognition programs
Enable team agency
and choice by
allowing teams to
adopt well-being
practices best suited
to them
Physical
Designing the
physical workspace
to facilitate well-being
Design work
environments to
support workers’
physical, mental, and
emotional health
needs
Leverage physical
workspaces that
promote team
collaboration and
performance
Virtual
Designing new
technologies and
virtual workspaces
for well-being
Use new
technologies, like
virtual reality, to train
team members to
navigate stressful
situations
(e.g.,interacting with
a frustrated
customer)
Leverage wearable
technologies and
apps to help master
distractions, increase
mindfulness, and
reduce anxiety
Note. Adapted from Designing Work for Well-Being: the End of Work/Life Balance by J. Fisher,
2021. Deloitte. [https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/human-capital-
trends/2021.html].
23
COVID-19 has changed how the entire world—in particular, the workforce—must
operate. This literature review confirms COVID-19 has negatively affected people’s well-being,
productivity at home, and productivity at work. Studies demonstrate employers can and should
put programs in place to support and improve employee well-being, which will then improve or
maintain employee productivity and allow businesses to survive and remain viable.
This study focused on how changes in the environment of an organization affect the well-
being of a person or employee. These changes may include changes to strategy, resources,
policies, practices, and procedures. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory contends human beings
create the environments in which they live, thus shaping their development (Gardiner &
Kosmitzki, 2008). Bronfenbrenner’s theory is operationalized using his ecological model (see
Figure 1). The ecological model has five interconnected levels or systems, starting in the center
with (a) the individual, followed by the (b) microsystem, (c) mesosystem, (d) exosystem, and (E)
macrosystem (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2008). Each level includes factors that can affect the
individual. This framework provided perspectives this study used to determine how an
individual’s well-being is affected.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this study was Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system’s
theory, which was used to understand how a government contractor employee’s well-being and
work effectiveness is affected by the strategies and policies companies and employers put into
place during the COVID-19 pandemic. The focus of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model
is on a person and how this person exists in a system of relationships, roles, activities, and
settings, which are all connected (Shelton, 2018). Research Question 1 was asked to determine
24
the well-being of the employee, who rated their burnout, exhaustion, and work effectiveness.
Research Question 2 was used to link the policies and actions of the employer to the well-being
of the employee. Bronfenbrenner’s model provides an appropriate framework to understand
relationships, connections, and correlations that may exist been the individual employee’s well-
being and the policies and procedures put in place by the employer. In Figure 5, the items in the
red box, show the systems this study examined. The focus was on the exosystem down to the
microsystem layers. The exosystem included strategies, policies, and procedures organizations
put in place for COVID-19. The study then determined if those changes improved the well-being
and effectiveness of its employees. The mesosystem is where relationships between each
individual microsystem are interconnected and influence each other (Guy-Evans, 2020). In this
study, the employee’s work environment is the mesosystem (Guy-Evans, 2020). Policies and
procedures are created by the employer due to changes in the macrosystem. What
Bronfenbrenner’s model shows is levels of the ecological system are interconnected and affect
each level and the individual employee.
Methodology
This study used mixed methods for its research design. Data collection included a
combination of quantitative questions and qualitative open-ended questions. This method was
used to identify organizational and leadership practices, policies, and procedures put in place due
to COVID-19 and understand effects on employees. The data used for this study was collected in
the month of July 2022 and was available to participants for 30 days. U.S. government
contractors were invited to participate in the study via email and through social media,
particularly through LinkedIn and Facebook. There were a total of 85 government contractor
participants for this study. Each completed a 28-item questionnaire: 24 questions were multiple
25
choice and four were open ended. Sixteen questions were focused on the research questions and
12 were on demographics.
Figure 5
Conceptual Framework
Research Setting
The target population of this study were U.S. Government contractor employees and
managers—specifically the employees of the company for which I was working during data
26
collection in July 2023. The company is a U.S. government contractor, with approximately 150
employees supporting different U.S. government agencies and departments. At the time of the
data collection, the WHO had declared COVID-19 a global pandemic a year earlier, and the
United States had declared a national emergency, with states issuing stay-at-home orders, mask
mandates, and capacity limits at businesses, including restaurants and bars (CDC, 2021). By July
2021, three COVID-19 vaccines were approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and well
over 93 million vaccine doses had been administered (American Journal of Managed Care Staff,
2021). In addition, children as young as 6 months old were approved to receive the vaccine
(Health and Human Services, 2022). The population had been living with the COVID-19 virus
for over 2 years, with varying restrictions and rules in place.
The Researcher
First and foremost, I am a father of two adult children: Hunter, age 24, who has been
serving as a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force, and Alea, age 23, who is a recent graduate
of Colorado State University. For 25 years, I have been husband to my wonderful wife, Heidi,
who has supported me, as I served our nation as an active-duty Army officer for over 24 years,
and for 17 of those years, our country was at war. Thanks to the military, our family has lived all
over the world: the West Coast of the United States, the East Coast of the United States, Europe,
and Asia. I am a first generation American, whose hard-working parents immigrated to the
United States from the Philippines well over 50 years ago. I am now a retired Army officer with
a pension, working as a government contractor. My family and I are well educated, upper
middle-class Americans.
My problem of practice focused on examining the organizational and leadership practices
implemented to ensure the well-being of employees during the COVID-19 pandemic. This topic
27
of interest directly impacted me in several ways. First, I am currently serving as the deputy
program director for a government contractor in an organization of over 200 employees. Until
August 2021, no one in my immediate family had been infected by the virus, and we had all been
able to keep our jobs and either work remotely or have a reduced work schedule, with full pay.
Of the 200 employees in my program, we have had two or three people test positive for COVID-
19, and they were either nonsymptomatic or had very minor symptoms.
The good fortune my family and company has had during this pandemic in many ways
relates to the intersecting wheel of privilege, domination, and oppression (Morgan, 2018). Able-
bodied, credentialed, educationalism, upper middle class are all categories on the Domination
end of the intersecting wheel (Morgan, 2018). All these categories meant my family was
minimally affected by the COVID-19 virus.
At the time of this writing, the COVID-19 virus had mutated to the delta and mu variants.
These variants are significantly more contagious and have been killing unvaccinated people. In
just the past month (September 2021), my work organization had five positive cases, with many
more people exposed. This event caused a shutdown of our work facility for 2 days and reduced
our maximum building capacity to 40%, until this outbreak was under control. The actions taken
by my employer have had a direct impact on the well-being of my employees, my family, and
me.
While serving as the primary instrument in this study to collect and analyze the data, it
was important for me to understand my biases. Currently living through the COVID-19
pandemic, I had to be sure not to add my experiences and feelings to participants’ responses.
Second, I am a manager for a government contracting company. I had to refrain from reading,
analyzing, and interpreting the data through is the lens of a manager.
28
Data Sources
The data was collected through an online Qualtrics (Version July, 2022) survey.
Participants completed a survey of 30 total questions. Sixteen of the questions focused on
research questions. Of the 16 questions, 13 were Likert-like questions and three were open-ended
questions. The remaining questions were about demographics. The survey questions are listed in
Appendix A.
Participants
Participation in this study was voluntary and anonymous. Candidates received a direct
email requesting they take the survey. Other participants in this study were sourced through my
LinkedIn network of over 1,324 connections, and my Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter friends
and followers (over 1,000 people). Table 2 displays the participants’ demographics.
Instrumentation
Participants completed a questionnaire of 13 Likert-like questions to determine well-
being, burnout, fatigue, and effectiveness during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, three
open-ended questions addressed employer strategies, followed by items addressing
demographics. The 13 Likert-like questions were selected from three instruments, the Maslach
Burnout Inventory (MBI), the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), and the Gallup Q12. The MBI and
PSS were used for Research Question 1, which focused on employee burnout, employee
exhaustion, and fatigue. The Gallup Q12 helps businesses gauge employee engagement,
providing a tool to collect perspectives of employee effectiveness. The PSS is the most widely
used tool to measure stress (Cohen, 1994), and the MBI is the first scientifically developed
measure of burnout and has been used widely in research studies since its introduction in 1981
(Maslach & Leiter, 2021). A breakdown of the source and target areas for the 13 Likert-style
29
questions and the open-ended questions are shown in Table 3. Appendix A includes all
questions.
Table 2
Participant Demographics
n %
Gender Female 26 30.59%
Male 55 64.71%
Prefer not to answer 4 4.70%
Marital Status Single 11 12.94%
Married 62 72.94%
Divorced/Separated 6 7.06%
Prefer not to answer 6 7.06%
Age Under 25 2 2.35%
25-34 12 14.11%
35-44 23 27.06%
45-54 31 36.47%
55-64 12 14.12%
65 and older 2 2.35%
Prefer not to answer 3 3.52%
Years in current role Less than 1 22 25.88%
1-2 34 40.00%
3-5 14 16.47%
6-10 10 11.76%
11 or more 5 5.88%
Note. n = 85.
Data Collection Procedures
Participants were either emailed a link to the survey or received the link through social
media. The link was active for just over a month, from June 29, 2023, until July 31, 2023. Each
participant was presented with the same survey and questions for the study. The demographic
information was the only identifying data collected for each respondent. Participants had the
option to stop or end the survey at any time. Participation was voluntary and anonymous.The
30
data was exported from Qualtrics and imported to SPSS (Version 28.0.0.0) software. When the
data were reviewed and cleaned, there were a total of 85 participants.
Table 3
Question Source and Target Areas
Source Question number Target areas
Maslach Burnout Inventory 1, 2 Emotional exhaustion & burnout
Fatigue Assessment Scale 3, 4, 5 Fatigue
Perceived Stress Scale 6, 7, 8, 9 Employee effectiveness
Gallup Q12 10, 11 Organizational support
N/A 12, 13 Change between pre and post pandemic
Open ended 14, 15, 16 Policies and strategies
Data Analysis
The focus of this study was on employee well-being and the strategies, polices, and
procedures organizations use to support their employees. A survey was used to collect data on
how employees rate their well-being and whether they believed their employers were effective in
ensuring they were well. Descriptive and inferential analysis were used to understand the data to
find relationships related to how the pandemic affected the population and determine trends on
actions that may be effective.
This study had five independent variables: (a) burnout, (b) exhaustion, (c) fatigue, (d)
resources, and (e) whether a participant felt their immediate supervisor cared for them. The
dependent variable was employee effectiveness. The study determined how each independent
31
variable influenced the dependent variable of employee effectiveness. The questions of the
survey were grouped to measure each variable. Questions 1 and 2 were grouped to measure the
independent variable burnout, Questions 3–5 were grouped to measure the independent variable
exhaustion (fatigue), Questions 6–9 were grouped to measure the independent variable of work
effectiveness, and Questions 10 and 11 were grouped to measure the organization support
provided to employees. Questions 12 and 13 were grouped to measure the dependent variable of
work effectiveness, before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Once the internal consistency or
Cronbach’s alpha (α) of Questions 10 and 11 was calculated to be 0.57, the variables of
resources and whether a supervisor cared were treated as separate independent variables.
Validity and Reliability
The internal reliability determines if questions correlate with one another strongly enough
to measure the same thing (Salkind & Frey, 2020). One measurement that determines the internal
consistency is the coefficient α, also known as the Cronbach’s α. The higher the number (on a
scale from 0 to 1), the more the items relate to each other (Salkind & Frey, 2020). For research, a
reliability coefficient of 0.70 or higher is desired (UCLA Advanced Research Computing, n.d.).
Table 4 shows the Cronbach’s α for each variable. As shown in Table 4, the grouping of the
variables for burnout, exhaustion, and employee effectiveness all have a Cronbach’s α higher
than 0.70, so the items measured those variables appropriately. As noted earlier, the original
grouping of Questions 10 and 11 had Cronbach’s α of 0.57, thus the variables of resources and
supervisor cares were treated as separate independent variables.
Findings
The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine how the COVID-19 pandemic
impacted U.S. government contractor perceptions of effectiveness and identify organizational
32
and leadership practices companies implemented to support the well-being of employees. The
study had two research questions. The first research question focused on how burnout, emotional
exhaustion, and fatigue may have impacted employee beliefs of their effectiveness at work. The
second research question aimed to identify strategies, policies, and procedures that companies
may have implemented that positively supported the well-being of their work force. This section
provides the findings and data analysis from the questionnaire.
Table 4
Cronbach’s α Study variables
Question number Variable Cronbach’s α
1, 2 Burnout .76
3, 4, 5 Exhaustion .86
6, 7, 8, 9 Employee effectiveness .81
10, 11 Resources and supervisor cares .57
12, 13 Effectiveness Pre/Post Pandemic .79
Research Question 1: What Is the Relationship Between Burnout, Emotional Exhaustion,
and Fatigue With Respect to Employee Effectiveness During COVID-19?
Research Question 1 addressed how burnout, exhaustion, and fatigue influenced
employee effectiveness. Questions 1 through 13 of the questionnaire were related to Research
Question 1. The independent variables for this portion of the study were burnout, exhaustion, and
fatigue, while the dependent variable was the perceptions of employee effectiveness before and
33
after the COVID-19 pandemic. The dependent variable of employee effectiveness is an outcome
under the influence of the three independent variables of burnout, exhaustion, and fatigue.
Burnout and Emotional Exhaustion
Table 5 presents the descriptive statistics of the two items related to burnout. Question 1
asked if the participant felt burned out from work, and Question 2 asked if they had become
more callous toward people since taking their job. As stated in the methods section, burnout has
three domains: (a) emotional exhaustion, (b) depersonalization, and (c) personal
accomplishment. Question 1 measured emotional exhaustion, while Question 2 measured
depersonalization. Depersonalization can be defined as someone feeling detached or having a
callous attitude toward another, thus Question 2 asked participants if they had become more
callous toward people. Participants were given a six-point Likert like scale to describe their
frequency of burnout or feelings of callous toward others, from 1 (never) to 6 (everyday). As
shown in the Table 5, the mean for feeling burned out was 4, with a standard deviation of 2, and
for being more callous, the mean was 2, with a standard deviation of 1. Most (69.3%) of the
government contractors who participated in this study felt burned out from their jobs at least a
few times a month, and only 5.8% of the government contractors answered they never felt
burned out from work.
Most respondents (68.2%) said either they were never more callous toward people
(38.3%) or felt callous toward people a few times or less a year (29.4%). A total of 31.6% of
government contractors became more callous toward people a work a few times a month or
more, with 9.4% of them feeling callous a few times a week (4.7%) to everyday (4.7%). The
mean of the callous question was 2 (a few times a year or less). The data collected indicates
34
participants were burned out and emotionally exhausted; however, they did not have a sense of
depersonalization toward the people they work with.
Table 5
Burnout Questions
Question M SD Never A few
times a
year or less
A few
times a
month
Once
a
week
A few
times a
week
Everyday
I feel burned out from my work
4 2 5.8% 24.7% 28.2% 3.5% 23.5% 14.1%
I have become more callous toward
people since I took this job.
2 1 38.8% 29.4%
10.5% 11.7% 4.7% 4.7%
Note. n = X.
Exhaustion and Fatigue
The three questions listed in Table 6 focused on exhaustion and fatigue. The Cronbach’s
α for the three-question group was 0.858, demonstrating all three questions were strongly
correlated and measured exhaustion and fatigue appropriately. The first two questions were used
to determine if a participant were mentally exhausted and then if they were also physically
exhausted. The results showed participants felt mentally and physically exhausted. More than
half of the respondents (50.6%) felt mentally exhausted sometimes, with a total of 41.2% feeling
mentally exhausted either regularly, often, or always. Similar numbers were found for being
physically exhausted, with most responses (49.4%) feeling physically exhausted sometimes;
17.6% never felt exhausted; 15.3% were regularly exhausted; and 17.7% were either feeling
exhausted often or always. The mean of the physically exhausted question was 2 (sometimes),
and 17.6 % had never felt exhausted. The results indicate slightly more of the participants were
35
mentally exhausted versus physically exhausted, possibly explaining why respondents felt they
had enough energy for everyday life, with a mean response of 3, which meant they regularly felt
they had enough energy for everyday life. A total of 67.1% of the responses indicated
participants felt they had enough energy regularly, often, or always.
Table 6
Exhaustion and Fatigue Questions
Question M SD Never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Always
Mentally, I feel exhausted. 3 1 8.2% 50.6% 15.3% 15.3% 10.6%
Physically, I feel exhausted. 2 1 17.6% 49.4% 15.3% 10.6% 7.1%
I have enough energy for everyday life. 3 1 7.1% 25.9% 27.1% 17.6% 22.4%
Note. n = X.
Resources and Supervision
Table 7 shows the results about whether participants believed they had the right resources
to do their jobs and whether someone at work cares about them as a person. The original intent
was to group these two questions to measure the organizational support one receives from their
employer; however, the Cronbach’s α of this grouping was 0.57. For research, a reliability
coefficient of 0.70 or higher is desired (UCLA Advanced Research Computing, n.d.), so each
question and corresponding variable for resources and whether a participant believed their
supervisor cared for them were treated as separate independent variables. Nearly a quarter of
participants (23.6%) either strongly disagreed or disagreed they had the resources and materials
36
to do their jobs, while most (65.9%) agreed (38.8%) or strongly agreed (27.1%) that they had
what they needed to do their jobs. Only 10.6% neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement.
For the question “My supervisor or someone at work seems to care about me as a person,” the
majority either strongly agreed (43.5%) or agreed (37.6%), with a total of 81.1%. Only 9.4%
disagreed with the statement, and 9.4% neither agreed or disagreed with it.
Table 7
Resources and Supervisor Cares Questions
Question M SD Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree Strongly
agree
I have the materials and equipment I
need to do my work right.
4 1 7.1% 16.5% 10.6% 38.8% 27.1%
My supervisor or someone at work
seems to care about me as a
person.
4 1 3.5% 5.9% 9.4% 37.6% 43.5%
Note. n = X.
Respondents felt they were effective at work and were at the same level or better in their
work effectiveness before the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, government contractors’ well-
being was at the same level or better than before the pandemic. The current effectiveness of
employees was measured using the four questions listed in Table 8 and using a 5-point scale (1 =
never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = regularly, 4 = often, 5 = always). The reliability of the four questions
measuring current effectiveness was high, with a Cronbach α coefficient of 0.81. The mean for
the current effectiveness was 3.54, with standard deviation of 0.85 and an n of 85.
37
Table 8
Current Effectiveness Questions
Question M SD Never Sometimes Regularly Often Always
When I am doing something, I can
concentrate well.
3 1 1.2% 29.4% 32.9% 24.7% 11.8%
In the last month, how often have you
felt that you were unable to control
the important things at work?
3 1 14.1% 27.1% 37.6% 14.1% 7.1%
In the last month, how often have you
felt confident about your ability to
handle your problems at work?
4 1 2.4% 3.5% 18.8% 34.1% 41.2%
In the last month, how often have you
felt difficulties at work were piling up
so high that you could not overcome
them?
2 1 27.1% 29.4% 29.4% 7.1% 7.1%
Note. n = 85.
The results about whether employees felt they could concentrate well and were confident
in their abilities to handle problems at work were favorable. For concentration, 69.4% could
concentrate well at work regularly (32.9%) to always (11.8%), and only 1.2% answered they
could never concentrate well. Of those surveyed, 41.2% were always confident of their abilities
to handle their problems with work, while 34.1% were often confident, and 18.8% were regularly
confident that they could handle their problems at work. Over 94% were regularly or more
confident that they could handle their work problems. When asked how often they felt they were
unable to control things at work, the opposite results occurred. Of the respondents, 37.6% stated
they regularly felt they were unable to control important things at work, with 14.1% saying often
and 7.1% saying always, adding up to over half of the participants (58.5%) feeling they had no
control over important things regularly or more often in the last month. For overcoming
38
difficulties at work, 27.1% said they never felt like they could not overcome them; however, over
half of the contractors felt they could not overcome difficulties at work sometimes (29.4%) or
regularly (29.4%).
Nearly half of the government contractors who participated in the study (47.1%) felt their
effectiveness at work was at the same level as before the COVID-19 pandemic. Over 25%, stated
their effectiveness at work was somewhat (15.3%) to significantly better (10.6%) than before the
pandemic. When added together, 72.1% believed their effectiveness at work was at the same
level or better than before the pandemic. The results for well-being were not as pronounced, with
41.1% of participants finding their well-being somewhat less to significantly less than before the
pandemic, and 58.8% stating their well-being was at the same level or better than before the
pandemic. Table 9 displays the results for the two questions measuring the effect that COVID-19
had on employee effectiveness.
Table 9
Responses on COVID-19 Effectiveness
Question M SD Significantly
less
Somewhat
less
Same
level
Somewhat
more
Significantly
more
How do you compare your
current effectiveness in your
work relative to before the
COVID-19 Pandemic?
3 1 5.9% 21.2% 47.1% 15.3% 10.6%
How do you compare your
current well-being at work
relative to before the
COVID-19 pandemic?
3 1 14.1% 27.0% 34.1% 16.5% 8.2%
Note. n = 85.
39
Correlations
The Pearson correlation coefficient describes the relationship between two variables. The
statistical range of this coefficient is between -1.00 and +1.00 (Salkind & Frey, 2020). Table 10
shows the relationships found from this study. The left-hand side of the table lists the five
independent variables: (a) emotional exhaustion, (b) burnout, (c) fatigue, (d) resources, and (e)
supervisor cares. Across the top of Table 10 is the dependent variable of an employee
effectiveness, showing how participants rated their current effectiveness and their effectiveness
before COVID-19. The data indicates as the emotional exhaustion, burnout, or fatigue of
employee increases, their perceptions of effectiveness decrease. As shown in Table 10, the
emotional exhaustion Pearson correlation coefficients for current effectiveness and COVID
effectiveness are -.74 and -.52 respectively, and the burnout Pearson correlation coefficient for
current effectiveness and COVID effectiveness are -.73 and -.57, respectively. Both coefficients
are negative numbers show a negative correlation, as one variable increases, the other variable
decreases. The -.74 and -.73 coefficients describe a strong negative correlation between
emotional exhaustion and burnout and an employee’s current effectiveness. The -.52 and -.57
coefficients describe a moderate, negative correlation between emotional exhaustion and burnout
and an employee’s COVID effectiveness.
Table 10
Pearson Correlation Results for Variables to Current and Before COVID Effectiveness
M SD Sig (2-tailed) Current effectiveness COVID effectiveness
Emotional exhaustion 4.11 1.99 < 0.001 -.74 -.52
Burnout 3.19 1.56 < 0.001 -.73 -.57
40
Table 10 (continued).
Fatigue 2.62 1.04 < 0.001 -.68 -.49
Resources 3.62 1.24 < 0.001 .55 .56
Supervisor cares 4.13 1.04 < 0.001 .60 .42
Note. n = 85.
The other two independent variables of resources and supervisor cares had a significant,
positive correlation with an employee’s current effectiveness and COVID effectiveness: as
resources or supervisor cares increase, so does the perceived effectiveness of the employee. As
shown in Table 10, the correlation coefficients for resources and boss cares are positive and in
the range of having a moderate correlation. The correlation data answers Research Question 1:
there is a strong, inverse relationship between burnout, emotional exhaustion, and fatigue with
respect to employee effectiveness. As burnout, emotional exhaustion and fatigue increases,
employee effectiveness decreases.
Research Question 2: What Specific Strategies Did Organizations and Leaders Implement
That Support the Well-Being of Their Employees During COVID-19?
There were three open-ended questions about what participants’ employers did to support
their well-being (see Table 11). The first question asked what policies or practices, if any,
organizations implemented to support employee well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The second question asked about what strategies, if any, employers implemented to support
employee well-being. The last question asked participants which strategies they thought were the
most effective. As stated earlier, 85 people participated in this study; however, only 73 people
provided answers to the three open-ended questions. Also, participants seemed to view the two
41
questions of policies and procedures and strategies as the same. The two questions could have
been clearer and provided definitions or examples for policies and procedures delineate the
difference between policies and procedures, versus strategies.
Table 11
Responses for Policies, Practices, and Strategies to Support Employee Well-Being
What policies or practices, if
any, did your organization
implement to support your
well-being during the
COVID-19 pandemic?
What strategies, if any, did your
organization implement to support
your well-being during the COVID-
19 pandemic?
Which of these strategies
did you think was most
effective?
Response n Response n Response n
None
13 None 8 None 19
Remote/ telework
Mask wearing
Flexible/ alternate
schedule
Well-being survey/
mental health days
Mandatory vaccines/
testing
Social distancing
Financial support, home
office, snack allowance
Executive pay cut to
avoid layoffs
50
5
3
4
4
4
3
1
No response
None aware of
Do not recall
Not sure
Remote/telework
Disinfectant
Flexible Time
Government mandates
(vaccine, social distancing)
Increased leader check
ins/more employee interaction
New collaboration tools &
technology
CDC/government guidelines
7
3
1
1
17
1
9
3
12
4
2
No response
Do not recall
Remote/telework
New collaboration
tools & technology
Leader checks and
increased
communication
CDC/government
guidelines
14
1
30
3
3
5
Note. n = 85.
42
Organizations implemented a variety of policies, practices, and strategies to support their
employees’ well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, 13 participants (18%) stated
that their organization did not implement any polices or procedures to support their well-being.
In addition, seven participants did not provide a response for the strategy question, and 14
participants (nearly 20%) did not provide a response to the third question of which strategy was
most effective.
Of the responses about policies and procedures, 50 participants (more than 68%)
indicated employers allowed or shifted to remote or telework options. Of the respondents, 23%
said remote work or telework was a strategy used to support their well-being. Adding these
responses together may indicate that over 91% of the companies used remote or telework to
provide the survey participants support during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some companies used
new collaboration technologies to increase employee interaction and facilitate manager check-
ins, while others provided well-being seminars or webinars to keep people informed. The CDC
guidelines of social distancing and staying home when sick forced many companies to use
remote work, telework, and or flexible schedules to comply with the guidelines. Of the
respondents, 40% believed the most effective action their employers took to support their well-
being was to allow for remote work or telework opportunities, and the next most preferred
actions were allowing for alternate or flexible schedules and increased leader check-ins and
communication with employers.
Summary
This study found a U.S. government contractor work force that was burned out and
exhausted. This same work force believed they were equally or more effective at their jobs then
before the COVID-19 pandemic. Strong correlations were found showing when employers and
43
organizations provided the right resources to their employees and when their leaders and
supervisors provided support to the employees, the effectiveness of the work force increased.
Recommendations
This final section provides a discussion of the findings and connects them to prior
literature and the conceptual framework of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system’s theory.
Following are two recommendations of practice based on the findings of this study, then a
discussion of the limitations and delimitations. Lastly, I close with recommendations for future
research and the conclusion.
Discussion of Findings
This study found most of the U.S. government contractor respondents (69.3%) felt
burned out at least a few times a month. They were both mentally and physically exhausted—but
felt they had enough energy for everyday life. Previous studies found similar data during the
COVID-19 pandemic. In the fall of 2020, (Moss, 2021) found collected responses from over
1,500 people across 36 countries showed 62% of participants struggled with their workload and
had experienced burnout often or extremely often in the previous 3 months.
Although nearly 70% of respondents felt burned out at least a few times a month, nearly
the same amount (68.2%) never became more callous toward others or were callous toward
others a few times a year or less. In addition, participants were mentally and physically
exhausted, but they felt they had enough energy for everyday life.
Asking if respondents felt callous toward people was an attempt to measure the
depersonalization aspect of burnout. Maslach et al. (2001) posted overwhelming work demands
contribute to exhaustion or cynicism, which then erodes one’s sense of effectiveness, while
Leiter (1993) claimed inefficacy develops in parallel, as exhaustion or depersonalization
44
increases. These two models do not seem to support the findings of this study, where the
government contractors were exhausted but did not feel callous, showing a lack of
depersonalization. There is another model where exhaustion occurs first, followed by cynicism,
which leads to inefficacy. A study of hospital nurses yielded the following sequence: (a) stressful
interactions with supervisors increase the workers’ feelings of exhaustion; (b) high levels of
exhaustion lead to cynicism, especially if workers lack supportive contact with their coworkers;
(c) as cynicism persists, the workers’ feelings of efficacy diminish, although supportive contact
with coworkers may help to decelerate this process (Leiter & Maslach 1988). As shown in items
second and third steps of this model, exhaustion leads to cynicism, when there is a lack of
coworker support. As demonstrated in the third stage, supportive support with coworkers may
decelerate this process, which may explain why this study finds participants who were exhausted
but not feeling callous toward others. They may be receiving support from coworkers or
supervisors.
Self-efficacy is an important mechanism to reduce burnout symptoms in stressful
environments (Alessandri et al., 2018). The study found participants either agreed or strongly
agreed they had the materials and equipment to do their jobs correctly. In addition, a strong
majority (81.1%) strongly agreed or agreed that their supervisor cared for them as a person. The
data shows participants believed they had the support and materials needed to do their job, which
may be the reason they did not feel callousness or depersonalization toward others.
The study found that the government contractors who responded felt they were as
effective or more effective at the time of the survey than before the COVID-19 pandemic. The
findings were the same for participant well-being: their well-being was the as the same level or
better than before the pandemic.
45
The study found all the independent variables had a strong correlation with the
effectiveness of the respondents. The variables of emotional exhaustion, burnout, and fatigue had
strong, negative correlations with effectiveness. As each of the variables increased, effectiveness
decreased. As the variables of resources and supervisor cares increased, so did participant
effectiveness, showing the variables had a strong, positive correlation. Social support theory
provides the foundation for how supervisor support mechanisms bolster employee well-being
and effectiveness (Mohr et al., 2021).
Social support is vital to one’s health and employee well-being (Cohen &Wills, 1985)
and acts as a positive catalyst and negativity buffer (Bavik et al., 2020). Prior literature and
studies showed daily supervisor support protects against a declining effect caused by work–
family conflict and has been shown to improve job satisfaction (Hammer et al., 2011). A study
on veterans with PTSD found improved SST intervention improved employee positive emotions
for those that had PTSD (Mohr et al., 2021).
The last section of the questionnaire provided three open-ended questions about the
policies, procedures, and strategies participants’ employers implemented to ensure their health
and well-being due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As noted in the findings section of this study, of
the 85 participants of this study, only 73 provided answers to the three questions. The responses
indicated the most effective actions companies took to ensure the well-being of their employees
was to provide remote or telework opportunities, enable flexibility with work schedules, and
tools to increase interaction between employees and between employees and supervisors and
management. Past studies found companies promoted well-being through providing schedule
flexibility and encouraged self-care (AXA Asia & Columbia University WHO Centre for Global
Mental Health, 2020; McKinsey & Company, 2020; Moss, 2021; Sull et al., 2020). A Deloitte
46
(2021) well-being study in 2021 found the pandemic forced 82% of companies to adjust their
well-being programs to focus on remote work, mental health, and expanded health insurance
programs. The same study found seven of 10 executives said shifting to remote work had a
positive impact on well-being and productivity (Deloitte, 2021). Participants in a survey of 350
human resources leaders and other employees said their organizations shifted to remote work by
communicating frequently with employees, providing technology to enable remote work,
promoting work-life balance, and ensuring their employees’ well-being (Sull et al., 2020).
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory argues one’s environment affects all aspects
of one’s life (Renn & Arnold, 2003) Of the five systems in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model,
this study focused three of them: (a) the microsystem: made up of the groups that have direct
contact with the individual, (b) the mesosystem: the relationships between the groups from each
microsystem, and (c) the exosystem: factors that affect an individual’s life but do not have a
direct relationship with the individual (Renn & Arnold, 2003). For this study, the microsystems
that affect the individual are friends, family, coworkers, and supervisors. The relationships
between each microsystem represent the mesosystem, and the exosystems are the policies and
procedures that govern the workplace. This study demonstrated the well-being of individuals
may be based on the support provided from friends, family, and, in particular, supervisors. If
employees have strong relationships, if they are given adequate materials and support, and if the
environment provides flexibility, the individual’s well-being may improve.
Recommendations for Practice
This study focused on determining the well-being and effectiveness of U.S. government
contractors during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, it attempted to find what policies,
procedures, and strategies were successful in improving employee well-being and their
47
effectiveness at work. The following recommendations for practice are directed to government
contractor companies and employers. If implemented, the recommendations may ensure this
workforce is effective and able to support the many missions of the U.S. government, enabling
companies and employers to be profitable.
Recommendation 1: Government Contractor Companies Should Develop and Implement a
Training Program for Their Supervisors, Managers, and Leaders on How to Support
Employees to Decrease Burnout and Exhaustion
This study found most participants were burned out and exhausted; however, they had
enough energy for everyday life. As noted in the discussion of findings, this finding may be due
to the support employees received from their supervisors and managers. The responses received
showed participants believed their supervisors cared for them. They also believed that they had
the materials they needed to do their jobs and that they were as effective or better in their jobs
than before the pandemic. This study’s findings confirm previous literature, which has shown
that a supervisor who cares about an employee is positively correlated with an employee’s job
performance (Rath et al., 2010) and that employees trust leaders as mediators of their well-being
(Kelloway et al., 2012). Ensuring supervisors are properly trained to support employee well-
being is essential to a company’s success. Previous studies have found engaged employees have
higher levels of energy, enthusiasm and are fully immersed in their jobs (Macey & Schneider,
2008; May et al., 2004). When leaders learn how to share power and give credit and visibility,
employees do extremely well (Mehrabani & Shajari, 2013). Proactive engagement by managers
improves employee effectiveness and satisfaction (Mehrabani & Shajari, 2013), and an
organizational focus on employee-engagement strategies increases the organization’s
48
effectiveness through higher productivity, profits, customer satisfaction, quality, and employee
retention (Sundaray et al., 2011).
Companies could implement a two-prong training program. One part of the program
would be training focused on teaching managers to identify when employees are developing
burnout and exhaustion. Managers would learn ways to assist their employees and direct them to
company healthcare resources to support employee well-being. This training could be an annual
requirement for all managers. The second part of the program would occur about 4 to 6 months
after the training. A session with all the managers in a division or department might gather to
discuss their experiences and share best practices. This collaboration could also provide an
opportunity for managers and supervisors to receive support and guidance from company
leaders.
Recommendation 2: Implement the Three Essentials of Protection from Harm, Work-Life
Harmony, and Mattering at Work
The collection of data for this study occurred in July of 2022. On October 20, 2022, the
U.S. Surgeon General released a new framework for mental health and well-being in the
workplace (U.S. Public Health Service, 2022). In the report, Dr. Murthy stated, “The COVID-19
pandemic has changed the nature of work…and…the link between our work and our health has
become more evident” (U.S. Public Health Service, 2022, p. 4). The framework was created to
help “organizations develop, institutionalize, and update policies, processes, and practices that
best support the … well-being of all workers.” Figure 6 displays the U.S. Surgeon General’s
framework. This study supports at least three components of the framework: (a) connection and
community, (b) mattering at work, and (c) work–life harmony. The study’s findings specifically
support fostering collaboration and teamwork, making schedules as flexible and predictable as
49
possible, and engaging workers in workplace decisions. The qualitative data collection of this
study asked participants to provide policies, procedures, and strategies that their employers
implemented to support their well-being during COVID-19. Respondents stated the most
effective policies and strategies implemented allowed for remote or telework opportunities,
followed by employers allowing alternate or flexible schedules and increased supervisor check-
ins and communication from their employers.
Figure 6
The U.S. Surgeon General’s Framework for Workplace Mental Heath and Well-Being
Note. Reprinted from Workplace Well-Being by the U.S. Surgeon General, 2022
[https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/workplace-well-being/index.html].
50
Prior literature shows that employee engagement is driver of employee and
organizational effectiveness (Baurmruk, 2004; Richman, 2006; Shaw, 2005), and engaged
employees have higher levels of energy, enthusiasm and are fully immersed in their job (Macey
& Schneider, 2008; May et al., 2004). The findings of this study show how companies have used
new technologies to increase employee collaboration and enable supervisors and management
the ability to communicate and check on employees. Supervisor encouragement of employees to
participate in workplace programs results in improved employee health, well-being, and positive
work outcomes (Hammer & Perry, 2019).
Seven out of 10 business executives said shifting to remote work during the COVID-19
pandemic had a positive impact on well-being and productivity (Deloitte, 2021). In addition to
remote work, flexible schedules allow managers the ability to support their employees with their
specific needs, which then foster well-being and prevent burnout (Leiter & Maslach, 2003). A
2022 report from Microsoft found 87% of employees said they are productive doing remote
work, but only 12% of leaders said they had complete confidence that their team is productive
(Paulise, 2022). The same report found globally, the number of meetings conducted per week
increased by 153% since the start of the pandemic. Remote work increases productivity due to
(a) fewer interruptions, (b) quitter work environment, (c) more comfortable workplace, (d) more
focused time, (e) avoiding office politics, (f) less time spent traveling, and (g) better health
management (Paulise, 2022). It would be ideal for companies implement all of the U.S. Surgeon
General’s five essentials; however, this study’s objectives were limited and provided data and
support specifically for (a) connection and community, (b) mattering at work, and (c) work–life
harmony.
51
Limitations and Delimitations
The sample size for this dissertation was 85, which is a relatively small number, in
comparison to the hundreds of thousands of government contractors in the United States. Most of
the promotion for this survey was done through social media. The researcher sent a direct email
to the employees of the company; however, it was a small business with only 150 employees.
Although the reach of social media is vast, the data collected may only represent a small number
of organizations in the U.S. government contractor industry. The dissertation questionnaire was
live for only 30 days. At the time, the questionnaire was closed, the number of participants
indicated was 119. After reviewing and scrubbing the data, only 85 responses were valid.
Recommendations for Future Research
As noted previously, the scope and reach of this study was small. Future research with a
larger population and focused on organizational policies and procedures implemented by
multiple U.S. government agencies during COVID-19 should be conducted to allow a more
complete view of the policies, procedures, and strategies implemented during the pandemic. The
positions participants held in their organization were not identified. Future research should focus
on a target population of policy makers, senior management, and C-suite executives to get a clear
understanding of the overarching strategies used by organizations.
Conclusion
At the time of this writing, the COVID-19 pandemic has been ongoing for over 3 years
with no end in the foreseeable future. In a recent survey, 90% of U.S. adults believed the country
is facing a mental health crisis (Panchal et al., 2023). The U.S. Surgeon General believed
employee well-being was so important that they published guidance to help organizations rethink
how work is done and provided a framework for companies to ensure worker well-being (U.S.
52
Public Health Service, 2022). This study provides only two recommendations of practices that
may make a difference in the overall health and well-being of the U.S. government contractor
work force. Flexibility and remote work were possible, and empowering employees and pulling
them into the conversation to make decisions is possible. The COVID-19 pandemic proved these
things can be done successfully. Companies, employers, and organizations need to take this
opportunity to view the world through a new perspective and focus on people and their well-
being. If this is done, the outcome will be a happy, productive society.
53
References
Abel, T., & McQueen, D., (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic calls for spatial distancing and
social closeness: Not for social distancing! International Journal of Public Health,
65(231). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-020-01366-7
Abramson, A., (2021, January 1). Burnout and stress are everywhere. Monitor on Psychology,
53(1), 72–73. https://www.apa.org/monitor
Alessandri, G., Perinelli, E., De Longis, E., Schaufeli, W. B., Theodorou, A., Borgogni, L.,
Caprara, G. V., & Cinque, L. (2018). Job burnout: The contribution of emotional stability
and emotional self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 91(4), 823–851. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12225
Almeida, M., Shrestha, A., & Stojanac, D. (2020) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
women’s mental health. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 23, 741–748.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-020-01092-2
American Journal of Managed Care Staff. (2021, June 3). A timeline of COVID-19 vaccine
developments in 2021. American Journal of Managed Care.
https://www.ajmc.com/view/a-timeline-of-covid-19-vaccine-developments-in-2021
Andreassen, C. S., Hetland, J., & Pallesen, S. (2010). The relationship between “workaholism,”
basic needs satisfaction at work and personality. European Journal of Personality, 24(1),
3–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.737
Awa, W. L., Plaumann, M., & Walter, U. (2010). Burnout prevention: A review of intervention
programs. Patient Education and Counseling, 78(2), 184–190.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2009.04.008
54
AXA Asia and Columbia University World Health Organization Centre for Global Mental
Health. (2020). Supporting mental health of employees during and beyond COVID-19.
http://axa.backtoofficemindhealthandpracticalguides.monilab.net/mentalhealthguide_toc.
html
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis
of performance and well- being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 34(10), 2045–2068. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02690.x
Backer, J. A., Klinkenberg, D., & Wallinga, J. (2020). Incubation period of 2019 novel
coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infections among travellers from Wuhan, China, 20–28
January 2020. Eurosurveillance, 25(5).
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-
7917.ES.2020.25.5.2000062;jsessionid
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin. 117, 497–529.
https://psycnet.apa.org/home
Baumruk, R. (2004). The missing link: the role of employee engagement in business success.
Workspan, 47, 48–52. https://worldatwork.org/resources/publications/workspan
Bavik, Y. L., Shaw, J. D., & Wang, X. H. (2020). Social support: Multi-disciplinary review,
synthesis, and future agenda. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 726–758.
https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0148
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2021). CDC Museum COVID-19 timeline.
https://www.cdc.gov/museum/timeline/covid19.html#:~:text=March%2011%2C%20202
0,declares%20COVID%2D19%20a%20pandemic
55
Center for State and Local Government Excellence. (2021) Survey findings: Update on public
sector employee views on finances and employment outlook due to COVID-19: May vs.
October 2020. https://slge.org/assets/uploads/2021/01/jan2021-slge-covid-report.pdf
Chen, C., Chen, C. V., & Li, C. (2013). The influence of leader’s spiritual values of servant
leadership on employee motivational autonomy and eudemonic well-being. Journal of
Religion and Health, 52, 418–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-011-9479-3
CNN. (2021, May 16) Covid-19 pandemic timeline fast facts.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/09/health/covid-19-pandemic-timeline-fast-
facts/index.html
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological
Bulletin, 98, 310–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310
Conway, J. M. (1999). Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for
managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 3–13.
https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1999-10108-001
Corporate Leadership Council, (2004). Driving performance and retention through employee
engagement. Corporate Executive Board.
Cotofan, M., De Neve, J., Golin, M., Kaats, M., & Ward, G., (2021). Work and well-being
during COVID-19: Impact, inequalities, resilience, and the future of work. World
Happiness Report. https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2021/work-and-well-being-during-
covid-19-impact-inequalities-resilience-and-the-future-of-work/
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
56
Deloitte. (2021). Employee well-being survey: Identifying the path to success.
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ua/Documents/Press-release/Survey on
well-being at work_EN.pdf
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
Development Dimensions International, (2005). Driving employee engagement. www.ddi
world.com
De Witte, H., Pienaar, J., & De Cuyper, N. (2016). Review of 30 years of longitudinal studies on
the association between job insecurity and health and well‐being: Is there causal
evidence? Australian Psychologist, 51(1), 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12176
Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2018). Advances and open questions in the science of
subjective well-being. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1), 1–49.
https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.115
Edwards, J. (2021). BGOV: Fiscal 2020 Federal Contract Spending Hit $682B. GOVCON Wire.
https://www.govconwire.com/2021/06/bgov-fiscal-2020-federal-contract-spending-hit-
682b/
Etheridge, B., & Spantig, L., (2020) The gender gap in mental well-being during the Covid-19
outbreak: evidence from the UK. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/227789
Fauci, A. S., Lane, H. C., & Redfield, R. R. (2020). COVID-19: Navigating the uncharted. The
New England Journal of Medicine, 382(13), 1268–1269.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe2002387
57
Fisher, J. (2021). Designing work for well-being: The end of work/life balance. Deloitte.
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/human-capital-trends/2021.html
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6),
693–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.001
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self- determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322
Gallup. (2020). Employee burnout: Causes and cures.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/282659/employee-burnout-perspective-paper.aspx
Guillén, M., Ferrero, I., & Hoffman, W. M. (2015). The neglected ethical and spiritual
motivations in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 803–816.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1985-7
Gardiner, H. W., & Kosmitzki, C., (2008). Lives across cultures (4th edition). Allyn & Bacon.
Golembiewski, R. T., Boudreau, R. A., Sun, B. C., & Luo, H. (1998). Estimates of burnout in
public agencies: Worldwide, how many employees have which degrees of burnout, and
with what consequences? Public Administration Review, 58(1), 59–65.
https://doi.org/10.2307/976890
Golembiewski, R. T., & Munzenrider, R. (1988). Phases of burnout: Developments in concepts
and applications. Praeger.
Grawitch, M., Ballard, D., & Erb, K., (2017). Creating a psychologically healthy workplace. In
C. Cooper & M. Leiter (Eds.), The Routledge companion to wellbeing at work, (pp. 249 -
265). Routledge.
58
Guillén, M., Ferrero, I., & Hoffman, W. M. (2015). The neglected ethical and spiritual
motivations in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 803–816.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1985-7
Guy-Evans, O. (2020). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. Simply Psychology.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/Bronfenbrenner.html
Hall, A. T., Royle, M. T., Brymer, R. A., Perrewé, P. L., Ferris, G. R., & Hochwarter, W. A.
(2006). Relationships between felt accountability as a stressor and strain reactions: The
neutralizing role of autonomy across two studies. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 11(1), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.11.1.87
Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Anger, W. K., Bodner, T., &Zimmerman, K. L. (2011). Clarifying
work–family intervention processes: The roles of work–family conflict and family-
supportive supervisor behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 134–150.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020927
Hammer, L. B., & Perry, M. L. (2019). Reducing work–life stress: The place for integrated
interventions. In H. L. Hudson, J. A. S. Nigam, S. L. Sauter, L. C. Chosewood, A. L.
Schill & J. Howard (Eds.), Total worker health (pp. 263–278). American Psychological
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000149-016
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
Johnson, J. W. (2001). The relative importance of task and contextual performance dimensions
to supervisor judgments of overall performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 984–
996. http://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.5.984
59
Juniper, B. (2011). Defining employee wellbeing. Occupational Health & Wellbeing, 63(10), 25.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/65888b376f379560d4d91f4a1afb1d6d/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=49149
Kalleberg, A. L., Nesheim, T., & Olsen, K. M. (2009). Is participation good or bad for workers?
Effects of autonomy, consultation and teamwork on stress among workers in Norway.
Acta Sociologica, 52(2), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699309103999
Katella, K., (2021, March 9). Our pandemic year: A COVID-19 timeline. Yale Medicine.
https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-timeline
Kelloway, E. K., Turner, N., Barling, J., & Loughlin, C. (2012). Transformational leadership and
employee psychological well-being: The mediating role of employee trust in leadership.
Work & Stress, 26(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.660774
Leiter, M. P. (1993). Burnout as a developmental process: Consideration of models. In W.
Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments in
theory and research. Routledge.
Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (1988). The impact of interpersonal environment on burnout and
organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9(4), 297–308.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030090402
Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2003). Areas of worklife: A structure approach to organizational
predictors of burnout. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Emotional and
physiological processes and positive intervention strategies (Vol. 3, pp. 91–134).
Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3555(03)03003-8
Light, P. C. (2019). The government-industrial complex. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190851798.001.0001
60
Lindberg, P., & Vingård, E. (2011). Indicators of healthy work environments: A systematic
review. Work. 41(Supplement 1), 3032–3038. http://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0560-
3032
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task
performance: 1969-1980. Psychology Bulletin, 90, 125–152.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.90.1.125
Lohela, M., Björklund, C., Vingard, E., Hagberg, J., & Jensen, I. (2009). Does a change in
psychosocial work factors lead to a change in employee health? Journal of Occupational
and Environmental Medicine, 51(2), 195–203. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45009485
Lomas, T. (2019). Positive work: A multidimensional overview and analysis of work-related
drivers of wellbeing. International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 3, 69–96.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-019-00016-5
Luchman, J. N., & González- Morales, M. G. (2013). Demands, control, and support: A meta-
analytic review of work characteristics interrelationships. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology. 18(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030541
Luna-Arocas, R., & Danvila-del-Valle, I. (2021). Does positive wellbeing predict job
performance three months later? Applied Research in Quality of Life, 16(4), 1555–1569.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-020-09835-0
Macey, W., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x
Maslach, C. (2003). Job burnout: New directions in research and intervention. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 189–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
8721.01258
61
Maslach, C., & Banks, C. (2017). Psychological connections with work. In C. L. Cooper & M. P.
Leiter (Eds.), The Routledge companion to wellbeing at work (pp. 37–54). Taylor &
Francis.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2021, March 19). How to measure burnout accurately and
ethically. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/03/how-to-measure-burnout-
accurately-and-ethically
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 397–422.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L. and Harter, L. M. (2004), The psychological conditions of
meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work,
Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11–37.
https://doi.org/10.1348/096317904322915892
McKinsey & Company. (2020). Women in the workplace 2020.
https://wiwreport.s3.amazonaws.com/Women_in_the_Workplace_2020.pdf
Mehrabani, S. E., & Shajari, M. (2013). Relationship between employee empowerment and
employee effectiveness, 2(4), 60–68. Service Science and Management Research,
http://www.seipub.org/ssmr
Microsoft. (2022, September 22). Hybrid work is just work. Are we doing it wrong?.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-index/hybrid-work-is-just-work
Miller, D. (2021), How bold will you be in battling burnout? Important steps for managing
burnout in the workplace. Deloitte. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/blog/human-capital-
blog/2021/focus-on-wellbeing-to-prevent-employee-burnout.html
62
Mohr, C. D., Hammer, L. B., Brady, J. M., Perry, M. L., & Bodner, T. (2021). Can supervisor
support improve daily employee well‐being? Evidence of supervisor training
effectiveness in a study of veteran employee emotion. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 94(2), 400–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12342
Mok, C., (2018). Employee health and well-being the talk or talk the talk? Carbon Care Asia.
https://www.carboncareasia.com/eng/news/press_releases/181115_press_release.php
Mordor Intelligence. (2021). United States defense market-growth, trends, COVID-19 impact,
and forecasts (2021-2030). https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5529429/us-
aerospace-and-defense-market-growth-trends#src-pos-2
Morgan, K. P. (2018). Describing the emperor’s new clothes: Three myths of educational (in-)
equity. In A. Diller (Ed.), The gender question in education: Theory, pedagogy, and
politics (p. 105–122). Routledge.
Morse, G., Salyers, M. P., Rollins, A. L., Monroe-DeVitta, M., & Pfahler, C. (2012). Burnout in
mental health services: A review of the problem and its remediation. Administration and
Policy in Mental Health, 9, 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-011-0352-1
Moss, J. (2019). Burnout is about your workplace, not your people. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2019/12/burnout-is-about-your-workplace-not-your-people
Moss, J. (2021, February 10). Beyond burned out. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2021/02/beyond-burned-out
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be
distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475–480.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.475
63
National Conference of State Legislators. (2021, January 11). COVID-19: Essential Workers in
the States. https://www.ncsl.org/labor-and-employment/covid-19-essential-workers-in-
the-
states#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20U.S.%20Department,energy%20to%20defens
e%20to%20agriculture.
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. (1999). Stress … at work: What is job
stress? https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/99-
101/default.html#:~:text=Job%20stress%20can%20be%20defined,poor%20health%20an
d%20even%20injury.
Quick, J. C., & Henderson, D. F. (2016). Occupational stress: Preventing suffering, enhancing
wellbeing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(5).
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13050459
Panchal, N., Saunders, H., Rudowitz, R., & Cox, C. (2023, Mar 20). The implications of COVID-
19 for mental health and substance use. Kaiser Family Foundation.
https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/the-implications-of-covid-19-for-
mental-health-and-substance-use/
Park, R., & Searcy, D. (2012). Job autonomy as a predictor of mental well-being: The
moderating role of quality- competitive environment. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 27(3), 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9244-3
Paulise, L., (2022, December 8). The 2022 Status of remote work and top future predictions.
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lucianapaulise/2022/12/08/the-2022-status-of-
remote-work-and-top-future-predictions/?sh=5cc8a24f1310
64
Pollard, E. L., & Davidson, L. (2001). Foundations of child wellbeing action research in family
and early childhood. UNESCO.
Prime, H., Browne, D. T., & Wade, M., (2020). Risk and reslilience in family well-being during
the COVID-19 pandemic. American Psychological Association.
https://doi.apa.org/fulltext/2020-34995-001.html
Rath, T., Harter, J. K., & Harter, J. (2010). Wellbeing: The five essential elements. Simon and
Schuster.
Reichenberg, N. (2021, February 4). COVID-19 continues to negatively impact government
employees. Workforce Institute. https://workforceinstitute.org/covid%E2%80%9019-
continues-to-negatively-impact-government-employees/
Renn, K. A., & Arnold, K. D. (2003). Reconceptualizing research on college student peer
culture. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(3), 261–291.
https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2003.0025
Richman, A. (2006). Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it? Workspan,
49, 36–39. https://worldatwork.org/resources/publications/workspan
Robert, C., Probst, T. M., Martocchio, J. J., Drasgow, F., & Lawler, J. J. (2000). Empowerment
and continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: Predicting
fit on the basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85(5), 643–658. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.643
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Journal of Psychology, 55,
68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
65
Salkind, N. J., & Frey, B. B. (2020). Statistics for people (who think) they hate statistics (7th
edition). SAGE.
Shaw, K. (2005). An engagement strategy process for communicators. Strategic Communication
Management, 9(3), 26–29.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/26b659ad323ddb4a59763ca3731684c7/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=44514
Shelton, L. G. (2018). The Bronfenbrenner Primer. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315136066
Sull, D., Sull, C., & Bersin, J. (2020). Five ways leaders can support remote work. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 61(4), 1–10. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/fiveways-leaders-
can-support-remote-work/
Sundaray, B. K., & Vihar, C., (2011). Employee engagement: A driver of organizational
effectiveness. European Journal of Business and Management, 3(8), 53–60.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=26b40176a6401c90a7
e7f5e0ee3bbe2391afb1fd
Suppawittaya, P., Yiemphat, P., & Yasri, P. (2020). Effects of social distancing, self-quarantine
and self-isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic on people’s well-being, and how to
cope with it. International Journal of Science and Healthcare Research, 5(June), 12–20.
https://ijshr.com/
Tenney, E. R., Poole, J. M., & Diener, E. (2016). Does positivity enhance work performance?:
Why, when, and what we don’t know. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 27–46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002
66
Teo, T. C., & Low, K. C. P. (2016). The impact of goal setting on employee effectiveness to
improve organisation effectiveness: Empirical study of a high-tech company in
Singapore. Journal of Business & Economic Policy, 3(1), 1–16.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3088132
Thompson, C. A., & Prottas, D. J. (2006). Relationships among organizational family support,
job autonomy, perceived control, and employee well- being. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 11(1), 100–118. https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2006-03308-010
UCLA Advanced Research Computing, Statistical Methods, and Data Analytics. (n.d.) What
does Cronbach’s alpha mean? https://stats.oarc.ucla.edu/spss/faq/what-does-cronbachs-
alpha-
mean/#:~:text=Cronbach's%20alpha%20is%20a%20measure,that%20the%20measure%2
0is%20unidimensional
U.S. Health and Human Services. (2022). COVID-19 vaccines.
https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines/index.htmlUnited States Public The
U.S. Public Health Service. (2022). U.S. Surgeon General’s framework for workplace mental
health & well-being. https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/workplace-well-
being/index.html
Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C. H., & Rosen, C. C. (2016). Review of research on
self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management,
42(5), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316632058
Wang, M., Guo, T., Ni, Y., Shang, S., & Tang, Z. (2019). The effect of spiritual leadership on
employee effectiveness: An intrinsic motivation perspectiv. Frontiers in Psychology, 9,
2627–2627. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02627
67
Wigert, B., & Agrawall, S. (2018). Employee burnout, Part 1: The 5 main causes. Gallup.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/237059/employee-burnout-part-main-
causes.aspx?version=print
Worldometer. (2022, February 27). Report coronavirus cases.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Wright, T. A., Cropanzano, R., & Bonett, D. G. (2007). The moderating role of employee
positive well being on the relation between job satisfaction and job performance. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology.12(2), 93–104.
68
Appendix A
Survey Questions
This appendix consists of the list of questions to asked of participants for this study. Your
participation in this survey is important to understanding how the COVID-19 pandemic affected
organizational and employee wellbeing.
The purpose of this survey is to investigate two research questions. First is what, if any, specific
organizational and leadership strategies have been implemented to support the wellbeing of
employees during the COVID-19 pandemic? The second is about how have emotional
exhaustion, fatigue, and burnout affected your wellbeing and beliefs about their effectiveness
throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.
Your participation in this survey is important to understanding how the COVID-19 pandemic
affected organizational and employee wellbeing.
The purpose of this survey is to investigate two research questions. First is what, if any, specific
organizational and leadership strategies have been implemented to support the wellbeing of
employees during the COVID-19 pandemic? The second is about how have emotional
exhaustion, fatigue, and burnout affected your wellbeing and beliefs about their effectiveness
throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.
1. I feel burned out from my work.
Never
A few times a year or less
A few times a month
Once a week
A few times a week
Everyday
2. I have become more callous toward people since I took this job.
Never
A few times a year or less
A few times a month
Once a week
A few times a week
Everyday
69
3. Mentally, I feel exhausted.
Never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Always
4. Physically, I feel exhausted.
Never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Always
5. I have enough energy for everyday life.
Never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Always
6. When I am doing something, I can concentrate quite well.
Never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Always
7. In the last month, how often have you felt that you were unable to control the
important things in your life?
Never
Almost never
Sometimes
Fairly often
Very often
8. In the last month, how often have you felt confident about your ability to handle your
problems at work?
Never
Almost never
Sometimes
Fairly often
Very often
9. In the last month, how often have you felt difficulties at work were piling up so high
that you could not overcome them?
70
Never
Almost never
Sometimes
Fairly often
Very often
10. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
11. My supervisor or someone at work seems to care about me as a person.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
12. How do you compare your current effectiveness in your work relative to before the
pandemic?
Significantly less effective
Somewhat less effective
Same level of effectiveness
Somewhat more effective
Significantly more effective
13. How do you compare your current wellbeing relative to before the pandemic?
Significantly less wellbeing
Somewhat less wellbeing
Same level of wellbeing
Somewhat more wellbeing
Significantly more wellbeing
14. What policies or practices, if any, did your organization implement to support your
wellbeing during the pandemic?
15. What strategies, if any, did your direct supervisor implement to support your
wellbeing during the pandemic?
16. Which of these direct supervisor strategies did you think was most effective?
17. What is your highest level of education?
Master’s degree or above
Bachelor’s degree
71
Associate’s degree
Some college
Trade/technical school
High school diploma or equivalent
Other
Prefer not to answer
18. What is your current employment status?
Not currently employed
Receiving Unemployment or SSI Disability Benefit
Part-time employed (less than 40 hours week)
Full-time employed (40 hours or greater week)
19. What is your employment classification?
Contractor
US Military
Government Civilian
20. What is the length of time you have been in your current role?
Less than 1 year
1–2 years
3–5 years
6–10 years
11 or more years
21. What is the average number of hours you work each week?
Less than 20 hours
20–39 hours
40–59 hours
60 hours or greater
22. What is your marital status?
Divorced
Domestic partnership
Never married
Now married (except separated)
Separated
Widowed
Prefer not to answer
23. What is your gender?
Female
Male
Prefer to describe
Prefer not to answer
72
24. What is your ethnicity?
Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic/Non-Latino
Prefer not to answer
25. What is your race? (Select all that apply)
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White
Prefer to describe
Prefer not to answer
26. In what year were you born?
Enter Year:
Prefer not to answer
27. What is your current household income?
Less than $25,000
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $199,999
$200,000 or more
Prefer not to answer
28. Including yourself, how many people live in your household?
Click to write Choice 5
Click to write Choice 4
Click to write Choice 3
Click to write Choice 2
29. How many dependents do you have in your household?
30. What are the ages of the dependents living in your household?
Click to write Choice 1
Click to write Choice 2
Click to write Choice 3
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Well-being, employee effectiveness, and organizational support: community college administrators during the COVID-19 pandemic
PDF
Frontline workers serving students: a study on the well-being of student affairs professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic
PDF
Well-being among Black female managers in retail banking during COVID-19
PDF
Leadership practices impacting Minnesota school principals’ employee well-being and burnout during the pandemic
PDF
The impact of COVID-19 on the wellbeing of veterinarians
PDF
Organizational levers for frontline health care employee well-being in long-term care
PDF
Military spouse well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic
PDF
Physician burnout in the COVID-19 pandemic: Healthcare organization and leadership implications for patient care and clinical team leadership with nurses
PDF
COVID-19 pandemic: the impact on the Napa Valley wine industry workers
PDF
Promoting well-being amid a global pandemic: evaluating the impact on nonprofit employees
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on physician burnout in LA County Hospital settings
PDF
Students’ sense of belonging: college student and staff perspectives during COVID-19
PDF
Teaching in the time of COVID: secondary educators’ experiences during and after the COVID-19 pandemic
PDF
A case Study of gender gaps in the legal profession
PDF
Math teachers and growth mindset
PDF
The teachers are breaking: personal, behavioral, and environmental influences on emotional fatigue
PDF
Lived experiences of transgender young adults transitioning during the COVID-19 pandemic
PDF
Teaching in the time of COVID-19: secondary educators’ experiences during and after the COVID-19 pandemic
PDF
Leadership development and Black pentecostal pastors: understanding the supports needed to enhance their leadership development and ministry effectiveness
PDF
COVID-19's impact on Christian cross-cultural workers
Asset Metadata
Creator
Lunasin, Rodolfo U.
(author)
Core Title
The well-being and employee effectiveness of United States government contractors during the COVID-19 pandemic
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2023-05
Publication Date
06/09/2023
Defense Date
04/27/2023
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Burnout,COVID-19,employee effectiveness,fatigue,government contractors,OAI-PMH Harvest,United States government contractors,US government contractors,well-being
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Hirabayashi, Kimberly (
committee chair
), Davis, Heather (
committee member
), Hinga, Briana (
committee member
)
Creator Email
lunasin@usc.edu,rlunasin@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113169916
Unique identifier
UC113169916
Identifier
etd-LunasinRod-11943.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-LunasinRod-11943
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Lunasin, Rodolfo U.
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20230612-usctheses-batch-1054
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
COVID-19
employee effectiveness
fatigue
government contractors
United States government contractors
US government contractors
well-being