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
/
Examining the pandemic’s impact on remote worker wellness in community colleges: organizational lessons and strategies
(USC Thesis Other)
Examining the pandemic’s impact on remote worker wellness in community colleges: organizational lessons and strategies
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Examining the Pandemic’s Impact on Remote Worker Wellness in Community Colleges:
Organizational Lessons and Strategies
Josué Ramón Sandigo
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
August 2024
© Copyright by Josué Ramón Sandigo 2024
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Josué Ramón Sandigo certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Monique Datta
Eric Canny
Melanie Brady, Committee Chair
Alan Green, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024
iv
Abstract
This qualitative study used the Burke-Litwin organizational change model as its primary
framework to understand the lived experiences of community college educators who were first to
transition to remote work during the 2020 global pandemic. The purpose of this research was to
examine the lived experiences of community college remote workers in terms of the
organizational and wellness support received from their higher education institutions. The
study’s goal was to identify key takeaways and factors to provide actional recommendations for
higher education institutions to remediate organizational and wellness support and resources.
In total, 15 participants who actively worked in community colleges as staff members
during the pandemic were selected based on their roles as remote workers. The study
additionally drew from an existing and emerging literature review, an analysis of publicly
available data on websites, and individual interviews. Nine findings related to participants’ lived
experiences attributed to lack of organizational and wellness support, direction, and resources
that impacted overall wellness, work–life balance, and self-efficacy. The majority of participants
demonstrated technical and conceptual knowledge over remote work configuration and
autonomy but remarked a consistently absent leadership. The study also found an organizational
lack of awareness over business continuity and disaster recovery (BC/DR) planning, remote
work adaptation, and fluid wellness resource allocation.
Recommendations are presented to assist educators and the colleges on improving
wellness resources and remote worker inclusionary practices for enhanced output. These findings
provide actionable items for supporting community college remote workers.
Keywords: COVID, pandemic, community college, remote work, education, wellness,
equity, inclusion, work–life balance, self-efficacy
v
Dedication
To Olivia and Inma. May this work serve as an inspiration that you can really do anything you
want in this world when you face adversity head on; rely on your support networks; and, most
importantly, trust in yourself and the process.
To Mom. Thank you for everything you sacrificed, you fought for, and everything you earned for
us. You have always been my true red bull; you gave me all the strength I ever needed to be who
I am today, so who I can be for others tomorrow. For this, I will always love you, and did all of
this for you.
Last, but not least, my German Shepherd Charlie. You are my fierce yet loving spirit guide and
comrade at arms who has accompanied me throughout my journey in school and life. Ever so
battle or adventure ready, I could not have ever imagined taking on life without you.
vi
Acknowledgements
First, I want to thank my family, friends, and loves, whose unconditional love and endless
support has helped me through all ups and downs, and all-arounds during this doctoral journey. I
appreciate you all for helping me through this.
Secondly, to my memorable teachers and mentors throughout my entire life journey and a
special note of gratitude to my “away team,” that is my committee. The support, feedback, and
encouragement received along the way has strengthened me in unimaginable ways.
This research is for all those who have been affected mentally, socially, physically and
emotionally by the ravages of the COVID-19 global pandemic and faced overall wellness
challenges. This is for all those who were thrusted into an unknown environment during
turbulent times. May you find the peace you so solemnly seek.
I was born in war-torn Nicaragua and my family came to the United States with the
promise of a new life and success. I grew up in a generation of early adopters to technology. It
was fascinating to me, despite it taking nearly 20 years to own a computer. In my heart, I knew
that technology was the future, and I invested myself professionally, eventually learning about
the great digital divide. As an advocate for digital transformation, I am an advocate for
technological parity for all communities, as we all deserve the opportunity to learn, grow, and
support one another. Cultural differences should be celebrated, never condemned.
Lastly, I have but one piece of advice for all those struggling: fight on, no matter what.
vii
Table of Contents
Dedications and Acknowledgements 2
Table of Contents vii
List of Tables x
List of Figures xi
Abstract iv
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1
Context and Background of the Problem 4
Statement of the Problem 7
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions 8
Research Questions 9
Importance of the Study 9
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology 10
Methodology 11
Definitions 12
Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery 12
Cloud 12
C-Suite/Leadership/Organizational Leadership 12
COVID-19/COVID/CORONAVIRUS 12
Distributed Organization 12
Fully Distributed Organization 13
Hybrid Work 13
Information and Communication Technology 13
Information Technology 13
Internet 13
Intersectionality 13
Local Area Network 13
Pandemic 14
Personal Computer 14
Persons of Color 14
Positionality 14
Remote Work, Remote Working, Remote Worker 14
Software as a Service 14
Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol or Internet Protocol Suite 15
Working From Home 15
Wide Area Network 15
World Wide Web/Web 15
Organization of the Dissertation 15
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 17
Conceptual Framework 20
Burke-Litwin Framework Application 22
Assessing the External Environment 24
PCs 25
The Internet 27
The WWW 28
viii
Impact of COVID-19 30
Assessing Transformational Factors 32
The Stigma of Remote Work 32
How COVID-19 Exposed Inadequate Wellness Support 34
Factors Impacting Remote Work 36
Addressing the Individual Factors 38
Wellness and the Workplace 39
Chapter Summary 44
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 46
Research Questions 46
Overview of Design 47
Research Setting 48
The Researcher 49
Data Sources 50
Method: Qualitative Interviews 56
Participants 57
Instrumentation 58
Data Collection Procedures 58
Data Analysis 59
Trustworthiness and Credibility 60
Ethics 61
Limitations and Delimitations 62
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 63
Research Question 1: How Did Community College Workers Experience Organizational
Support With Remote Work During the Pandemic? 64
Insufficient Direction 65
Insufficient Organizational Support 68
Lack of Feeling Supported by the Organization 72
Research Question 2: How Did Remote Community College Employees Experience
Support for Their Wellness During the Pandemic? 77
Impact on Productivity 78
Impact on Affected Engagement and Wellness 80
Impact on Work–Life Balance 83
Research Question 3: What is the Remote Worker’s Perspective on Organizational
Support for Wellness? 89
Accountability 90
Process Improvement 93
Equity and Inclusion in the Decision-Making Process 97
Summary 102
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS 108
Discussion of Findings 109
Findings on Participants’ Experiences With Organizational Support 110
Conceptual Knowledge 110
Applied Understanding 114
Findings on Organizational Support for Participants’ Wellness 115
Participant Motivation and Self-Efficacy 116
ix
Findings on Participants’ Perceptions of Organizational Support for Wellness 118
Organizational Culture 118
Responsiveness 119
Equity 120
Recommendations for Practice 121
Recommendation 1: Update Policies That Provide Actionable and Equitable
Remote Work Wellness Strategies 121
Recommendation 2: Provide Permanence and Shared Governance for Remote
Work 122
Recommendation 3: Establish a Collaborative Hub to Exchange Best Practices124
Recommendations for Future Research 125
Conclusion 126
References 128
Appendix A Interview Protocol 152
Appendix B Participant Sampling Criteria for Interviews 157
Appendix C Recruitment Email 158
Appendix D Interview Information Sheet 159
x
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant Name, Location, and Administrative Role 52
Table 2: Interview Quotes Describing Insufficient Organizational Direction 68
Table 3: Interview Quotes Describing Insufficient Organizational Support 72
Table 4: Interview Quotes Describing Lack of Feeling Supported by the Organization 74
Table 5: Summary of Participants’ Experiences With Organizational Support 76
Table 6: Interview Quotes Describing the Impact on Productivity 80
Table 7: Interview Quotes Describing the Impact on Engagement 83
Table 8: Interview Quotes Describing the Impact on Work–Life Balance 87
Table 9: Summary of Participants’ Experience with Support for Their Wellness 89
Table 10: Interview Quotes on Remote Workers’ Perspectives on Accountability of
Organizational Support for Wellness 93
Table 11: Interview Quotes on Remote Workers’ Perspectives on Organizational Support for
Wellness Process Improvement 96
Table 12: Interview Quotes on Remote Workers’ Perspectives of Organizational Support for
Wellness With Equity and Inclusion in the Decision-Making Process 101
Table 13: Summary of Participants’ Experiences With Support for Their Wellness 102
Table 14: Summary Table of Themes and Findings 105
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Burke-Litwin Model 22
Figure 2: Burke Litwin Model (Abridged) 42
Figure 3: Conceptual Framework: The TRIAD 44
Figure 4: Diagram Demonstrating Participant Responses on How Work–Life Balance was
Impacted by COVID-19 After Receiving Organizational Support 84
1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Remote work, or the ability for an organizational workforce to conduct their jobs from a
location outside company headquarters, has increased in both traction and popularity in the past
2 decades, but has increased dramatically since 2020 (Abulibdeh, 2020; Coate, 2021; Elldér,
2019; Golden, 2012; McLaughlin, 2022). The reason behind the organizational change was
because the 2020 global pandemic beset by the COVID-19 virus forced over 60% of U.S.
companies to necessitate and hastily switch its personnel to a remote working environment
(Bartik et al., 2020; Ferreira et al., 2021; Jones, 2020; Parker et al., 2021, 2022; Simon, 2021).
Sudden operational upheaval, lack of organizational adaptability, improper business continuity
and disaster recovery (BC/DR) planning, inadequate business scalability and formal adoption of
remote work, insufficient guidance, scarce wellness resources, and overall transitional guidance
caused a complete disruption of the affected workforce’s home–life balance and wellness
(Barone Gibbs et al., 2021; Bartik et al., 2020; Bulińska-Stangrecka & Bagieńska, 2021; Carillo
et al., 2021; Como et al., 2021; Donnelly & Proctor-Thomson, 2015; Elldér, 2019; Felstead &
Henseke, 2017; Ferreira et al., 2021; Izdebski & Mazur, 2021; Liberati et al., 2021; Lin et al.,
2021; Madero Gómez et al., 2020; Montenegro-Rueda et al., 2021; Simon, 2021; Sonuga‐Barke,
2021; Tronco Hernández et al., 2021). Among the hardest impacted industries by the pandemic
and stay-at-home mandates was education—in particular, higher education specific to
community colleges were insufficiently prepared to transition and manage all their personnel to
working remotely (Brock & Diwa, 2021; Case et al., 2022; Crapo, 2021; D’Amico et al., 2022;
Etshman, 2021; Weaver, 2023). Unfortunately, education has always been a late adapter to new
technologies and policies, including remote work, which also affected its response to the
pandemic and mitigation of both academic instruction and administration (Crapo, 2021; Heiden
2
et al., 2021; Montenegro-Rueda et al., 2021; Núñez-Canal et al., 2022; Shamsi et al., 2021). The
latency response, haphazard incorporation of remote work technologies, insufficient resources,
and obtuse guidance has led to a slew of challenges for community colleges. To understand the
hesitation to embrace remote work, the history and scope of remote work must be defined.
Remote work has its beginnings in the workplace since the 1980s, but only recently has it
taken a more prominent role in the 21st century (Coate, 2021; Elldér, 2019; Golden, 2012). Its
rise in popularity is largely due to acute information technology (IT) leaders, the investment and
modernization of organizational infrastructure, information governance, and the incorporation of
evolving technologies (Bonfante, 2011; Butler, 2017; Gill, 2010; Pogarcic et al., 2012).
According to a 2020 report by the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly one third of surveyed U.S.
households had switched to remote work (Marshall et al., 2021). Similarly, the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics published a 2020 report that 35% of the U.S. workforce surveyed was working
remotely (Dey et al., 2021). These findings presented a stark contrast to the 6% of the surveyed
U.S. workforce working remotely prior to 2020 (Coate, 2021; Parker et al., 2021). In early 2020,
there was an increase in organizational transition and adaptation to remote working (Abulibdeh,
2020; McLaughlin, 2022), primarily due to an international health crisis known as the COVID19 global pandemic (Jones, 2020). The COVID-19 virus spread globally, affecting mass
populations and forcing local governments to take action to curb the spread (Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2022). Global economies were gravely impacted, closing many
businesses while forcing others to switch to alternate methods of business operations to minimize
viral infections among its workforce (Bartik et al., 2020; Ferreira et al., 2021; Simon, 2021). One
universally accepted solution was transitioning to remote work.
3
Organizations have been slow to adopt remote working as part of overall operations,
much less as part of any form of BC/DR planning (Donnelly & Proctor-Thomson, 2015; Ferreira
et al., 2021). Part of the reluctance has been mainly due to archaic policies, inflexible leadership,
or negative stigma about remote work despite supporting evidence (Brown et al., 2016; Haddon
& Brynin, 2005; Pogarcic et al., 2012). When COVID-19 was elevated to a global pandemic in
early 2020, many organizations hastily migrated their operational workflows to a technologybased virtual infrastructure and workforce to work from home (WFH; Leonardi, 2021; O’Leary,
2020; Pogarcic et al., 2012). Because a pandemic was not generally considered part of BC/DR
planning, many organizations encountered numerous challenges with the remote work transition,
particularly with training and resources (Donnelly & Proctor-Thomson, 2015; Elldér, 2019;
Ferreira et al., 2021; Messenger & Gschwind, 2016).
Aside from procuring proper training and adapting technological and operational
resources to a newly transitioned workforce, one critical aspect of this shift entailed supporting
the wellness of remote workers during a pandemic (Barone Gibbs et al., 2021; Bentley et al.,
2016; Bulińska-Stangrecka & Bagieńska, 2021; Carillo et al., 2021; Como et al., 2021;
Dongarwar et al., 2020; Izdebski & Mazur, 2021; Jones, 2020; Liberati et al., 2021; Lin et al.,
2021; Madero Gómez et al., 2020; Meyer et al., 2021; Perry et al., 2018; Sonuga‐Barke, 2021;
Tronco Hernández et al., 2021). Emerging research has also demonstrated how many industries,
including higher education, have provided insufficient wellness resources for remote workers
that have disrupted their home–life balance and impacted their self-efficacy and work
productivity (Donnelly & Proctor-Thomson, 2015; Felstead & Henseke, 2017; Galanti et al.,
2021; Hernandez, 2020; Kirby et al., 2023; Perry et al., 2018; Prasath et al., 2021; Rene et al.,
2021; Wang et al., 2021; Weaver, 2023).
4
The shutdown of community colleges because of the pandemic was a response by local
and state officials, an answer that later proved to be inadequate and unsustainable for staff in
both support services and wellness (Brazeau et al., 2020; Brock & Diwa, 2021; Case et al., 2022;
Cho & Brassfield, 2022; Crapo, 2021; Gutman et al., 2023; Heiden et al., 2021; Peacock 2022).
The pandemic caused multiple disruptions spanning organizations, policy, personnel wellness,
productivity, and work–life balance. With the transition to remote work, new challenges
appeared for community college personnel who were facing a new working environment,
promoting online instructional learning, and maintaining organizational continuity without
proper or sufficient guidance or support from their leaders.
Because the 2020 COVID-19 global pandemic forced educational institutions to pivot
unexpectedly, the rapid shift exposed many operational inefficiencies left shouldered to remote
workers (Bartik et al., 2020; Ferreira et al., 2021; Gutman et al., 2023; Heiden et al., 2021;
Núñez-Canal et al., 2022). Wellness among remote workers is a critical issue that organizations
need to address for the sake of employee engagement, particularly when the workforce
introduces to new and unknown elements. The purpose of this study was to gain insight and
garner perspective on the lived experiences of remote workers of community college systems
during the 2020 COVID-19 global pandemic, along with their perceptions of how organizational
support of their overall wellness and productivity were impacted in this time.
Context and Background of the Problem
Remote work, often referred to as telework, is a working arrangement where the staff can
operate offsite from a centralized location, most often from a worker’s home (Baruch, 2000;
Gartner, n.d.; Haddon & Brynin, 2005). Beginning in the early 1980s, the field of remote work
grew in popularity and adoption, particularly in the field of information and community
5
technologies (ICT), and with the advent of technology and the internet (Baruch, 2000; Elldér,
2019; Haddon & Brynin, 2005; Kumar et al., 2016; Messenger & Gschwind, 2016). As of 2024,
technology offers numerous flexibilities in tools and resources that no longer bind remote
workers to physical spaces; much of these features are available on a smartphone (Leonardi,
2021; Messenger & Gschwind, 2016). Furthermore, support services have become streamlined,
whereas smartphone applications are increasingly prevalent for both technical and wellness
support, commonly referred to as eHealth (Ferreira et al., 2021). Still, much of this industry
growth has been hindered with misconceptions and a negative stigma that remote work is
inefficient, unmanageable, and unproductive (Baruch, 2000; Brown et al., 2016). Conversely,
Kamal et al. (2020) published specific remote working metrics that consistently demonstrated
higher productivity, improved engagement, better wellness, and a more balanced work–life
equilibrium among a remote workforce than their counterparts.
For remote work to be successful, several conditions must be met. The first condition is
organizations are aligned with an industry that has the flexibility to provide this option to its
workforce. Second, proper training on remote-working operations, policies, and expectations
must be met. Third, proper resources must be sourced and provided for—including
technological, secondary, and support services to set up remote workers. Finally, the workforce
must have the correct or adaptable mindset, personality, or emotional stability to work remotely
and away from a centralized working location (Haddon & Brynin, 2005; Perry et al., 2018).
Because most organizations have not incorporated remote working as a permanent operation, or,
at minimum, incorporated remote working parameters into a BC/DR policy, many resources at
the onset of the COVID-19 global pandemic in 2020 were inefficient or nonexistent (Donnelly &
Proctor-Thomson, 2015). Such a lack of foresight by many organizations proved economically
6
fatal and shuttered many businesses after local and state governments mandated organizational
personnel to switch business operations to minimize the spread of COVID-19 (Bartik et al.,
2020; Carlsson-Szlezak et al., 2020; Ferreira et al., 2021; Jones, 2020; Simon, 2021).
One industry most severely impacted by the pandemic was education, specifically higher
education in community colleges. Community colleges were insufficiently prepared to transition
and manage all their personnel to working remotely and provide subsequent direction and
wellness resources to mitigate any issues caused by the COVID-19 global pandemic. The
struggles and challenges faced by community colleges can be attributed to the absence of
remote-working policies that administrators could have adopted to conduct work offsite and
provide additional benefits to both the organization and constituents (Brock & Diwa, 2021; Case
et al., 2022; Crapo, 2021; D’Amico et al., 2022; Etshman, 2021; Weaver, 2023). The problems
stemmed from the lack of a comprehensive mitigation plan; BC/DR policy; and any ensuing
resource allocation to manage wellness issues also arising from a hasty work environment
transition, a global crisis, and an interruption in work–life balance (Carillo et al., 2021; Donnelly
& Proctor-Thomson, 2015).
Although no organization could have reasonably anticipated a pandemic or incorporated
such preventive measures into a BC/DR policy, investing in remote working and relevant
resources, particularly wellness, could have alleviated the issues that came with a sudden and
unplanned transition (Abulibdeh, 2020; Bentley et al., 2016; Carillo et al., 2021; D’Amico et al.,
2022; Donnelly & Proctor-Thomson, 2015). Community college remote workers and institutions
managed the best they could with the resources and communications given at the start and during
the COVID-19 global pandemic. Untimely, strong considerations impacting remote workers
during the pandemic included (a) the depth of insufficient training for new remote workers; (b)
7
the lack of organizational policy or leadership to include remote work in an organization; and (c)
most critically important, providing sufficient wellness resources or support to address any
home–life disruption.
Statement of the Problem
Workforces whose organizations suddenly pivoted and transitioned operations to a
remote working environment without adequate guidance or instruction during the 2020 COVID19 global pandemic experienced a disruption of their work–life balance and health, a wellness
impact that was most felt by those whose work transitioned overnight to remote work
(Abulibdeh, 2020; Bentley et al., 2016; Carillo et al., 2021; Meyer et al., 2021; O’Leary, 2020).
This issue was further exacerbated by insufficient wellness support resources provided by
organizations, resulting in negative impacts on wellness and overall productivity (Abulibdeh,
2020; Barone Gibbs et al., 2021; Bentley et al., 2016; Bertoni et al., 2021; Bulińska-Stangrecka,
& Bagieńska, 2021; Como et al., 2021; Galanti et al., 2021; Grigore, 2020; Hernandez, 2020;
Izdebski & Mazur, 2020; Liberati et al., 2021; Lin et al., 2021; Madero Gómez et al., 2020;
Meyer et al., 2021). Community colleges struggled greatly in attempting to mitigate COVID-19
outbreaks, government-mandated shutdowns, and attempts to sustain education curriculum to
curb critical losses of classroom instruction, enrollment, and employment while personnel coped
with their overall wellness as remote workers (Brock & Diwa, 2021; Case et al., 2022; Cho &
Brassfield, 2022; Crapo, 2021; D’Amico et al., 2022; Etshman, 2021; Gutman et al., 2023;
Heiden et al., 2021; Kirby et al., 2023; Melnyk et al., 2021; Montenegro-Rueda et al., 2021;
Núñez-Canal et al., 2022; Peacock, 2022; Prasath et al., 2021; Rene et al., 2021; Shamsi et al.,
2021; Weaver, 2023).
8
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this research was to explore the lived experiences of community college
remote workers who transitioned during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, examine their insights,
and use their recommendations to provide organizational practices for improved wellness
initiatives and support through organizational change. The pandemic provided undue hardship
for remote workers, which was intensified by both scarce support services and mandated stay-athome ordinances by government officials. The goals of this research were to (a) acknowledge the
wellness impacts on community college workers who transitioned to remote work specifically
during the pandemic, demystify the negative stigma of remote work, and provide the necessary
framework to enable the success of both organizations and their respective workforce in
providing constructive wellness support services.
Using the Burke-Litwin (1992) model of organizational change, this research explored
the problems faced by remote workers, which included the impact on wellness beset by COVID19. Subsequently, this research employed a conceptual framework to marry (a) understanding of
how the pandemic affected the workforce and (b) an overview of support services during the
pandemic, thereby providing critical lessons to improve resources to sustain workforce wellness.
During the COVID-19 global pandemic, community college staff were forced to quickly
adapt to remote work without much preparation and faced adverse wellness impacts as a result of
lacking organizational support. Acquiring data about the experiences from this specific group of
community college remote workers can provide opportunities to improve or enhance processes
and wellness support resources. Such knowledge can help community colleges implement more
effective strategies when conducting enterprise-level changes and mitigate any negative impacts
9
on wellness and productivity. The following research questions were developed to determine
how learned experiences can inform community college work and wellness.
Research Questions
The project was guided by the following research questions:
1. How did community college workers experience organizational support with remote
work during the pandemic?
2. How did remote community college employees experience support for their wellness
during the pandemic?
3. What is the remote worker’s perspective on organizational support for wellness?
Importance of the Study
The importance of the study is critical to address because community college remote
workers were the first type of remote organizational unit to experience a global pandemic
without proper resources, wellness support, and organizational guidance—causing a critical
impact on business continuity and employee wellness. Aside from economic factors, wellnessinduced issues by the COVID-19 global pandemic also caused numerous issues and negative
impacts on organizations and their workforces, including permanent closures of businesses,
layoffs, job satisfaction, distanced team management, lost productivity, physical and mental
health stresses, disrupted work–life balance, and lack of direction (Baker, 2020; Barone Gibbs et
al., 2021; Bartik et al., 2020; Bertoni et al., 2021; Carillo et al., 2021; Como et al., 2021; Crapo,
2021; Dey et al., 2021; Dongarwar et al., 2020; Galanti et al., 2021; Grigore, 2020; Heiden et al.,
2021; Kamal et al., 2020; Madero Gómez et al., 2020; Melnyk et al., 2021; Mongelli et al., 2020;
Orsini & Rodrigues, 2020; Pradies et al., 2021; Prasath et al., 2021; Simon, 2021). The pandemic
caused additional stresses upon higher institutions and staff that made remote work
10
unsustainable, creating a constant threat to community colleges, other staff, students, and
communities whom they all serve. The pandemic also caused staff shortages, rolling school
closures, high rates of absenteeism, physical and mental stress, and disrupted instruction (Carrion
et al., 2023; Crapo, 2021; Kuhfeld et al., 2022; Tronco Hernández et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021;
Weaver, 2023). By incorporating postpandemic takeaways that focus on reassessing the depth of
wellness support, educational administrators could increase overall readiness through strategic
planning; sustainable remote workforce support; resource allocation; and, most importantly,
adequate wellness services to remote working educators. This study provided a review of
adequate wellness support services that impact both the community college remote worker and
their respective institutions.
Since its inception, remote work has proven to be a beneficial alternative to traditional
onsite work and a positive counterpart to a hybrid working environment (Abulibdeh, 2020;
Baruch, 2000; Brooks et al., 2022; Brown et al., 2016; Choudhury et al., 2020; Leonardi, 2021;
Tuyo, 2020). Secondly, supporting remote work infrastructure includes sustainable resources
such as organizational and wellness support (Licite-Kurbe & Leonovica, 2021; Margherita &
Heikkilä, 2021; Orsini & Rodrigues, 2020; Ozimek, 2020; Tuyo, 2020; Wang et al., 2021). By
providing community college remote workers with the necessary resources and guidance, both
the organization and stakeholders stand to benefit by this addition, particularly during an
international crisis such as the pandemic.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The Burke-Litwin (1992) organizational change framework was best suited for this
research because it illustrates the problem of adapting to new environments, infrastructure,
communication, and culture to benefit its employees. Burke-Litwin’s change model was
11
appropriate because it examines the effects between the external environment and individuals,
how that exchange impacts respective attitudes and performance, and what changes it
necessitates; these changes may include the organization’s mission, vision, culture, and
leadership. Most importantly, the external environment impacts individual performance via
transactional and transformational factors. What the research sought to frame specifically were
(a) the relationships between the impact of the 2020 COVID-19 global pandemic on the
workforce, individual adaptation, response, and readiness, and (b) perceived organizational
support to address personnel wellness during this period.
Methodology
The Burke-Litwin (1992) change model helped examine the relationship and takeaways
between the COVID-19 global pandemic and remote worker wellness. By incorporating these
lessons, organizations can mitigate the work–life disruption faced by remote workers
significantly and provide the necessary support resources to reduce or eliminate any operational
gaps. Qualitative research through phenomenology interviewing was the preferred methodology
because this approach maximizes randomized data collection for this specific type of
investigation (Creswell & Creswell, 2014), specific to remote workers whose input was
necessary to validate the research questions by sharing their lived experiences. Creswell and
Creswell (2014) posited that storytelling processes the human experience by providing
participants the capacity to speak candidly—in this case, remote workers. Interviews were
conducted with 15 remote workers that were guided by the research questions. The interviews
leveraged the framework to lean into participants’ lived experiences and process the information
through subsequent data collection and analysis.
12
Definitions
The listed definitions provide context and understanding for this study, specific to the
time period, organizational units, resources, and studied phenomena.
Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery
Business continuity planning focuses on keeping organizations operational during a
disaster, whereas disaster recovery focuses on backing up and restoring data access and IT
infrastructure after a disaster. Typically, these two processes are mutually exclusive; however,
disaster recovery is usually housed in business continuity policy planning (Margherita &
Heikkilä, 2021).
Cloud
The Cloud comprises global servers whose files, media, databases and applications are
accessed over the Internet (Tabb et al., 2021).
COVID-19/COVID/CORONAVIRUS
Also known as COVID, COVID 19, or COVID-19, the novel coronavirus disease is
caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2022).
This contagious virus was discovered in 2019 and quickly spread globally, resulting in being
officially declared a pandemic in 2020.
C-Suite/Leadership/Organizational Leadership
The C-suite is the organizational unit charged with developing and ensuring the execution
of the organization’s mission and vision (Regan, 2022).
Distributed Organization
A distributed organization is an organization where, at minimum, 50% of the employees
are distributed across different locations and work primarily online (Armstrong & Cole, 1995).
13
Fully Distributed Organization
A fully distributed organization is an organization where all the employees are distributed
across different locations and work primarily online (Williams, 2021).
Hybrid Work
Hybrid work reflects a flexible approach that combines working in an office environment
with working from home (Kirkham, 2022).
Information and Communication Technology
ICT is comprised of the infrastructure, components, systems resources, and computing
required for unified information and telecommunications (Kumar et al., 2016).
Information Technology
IT is the use of computers, resources, systems, and networks to process and manage
myriad data and information (Yasar, n.d.).
Internet
The internet is an extensive global computer network where information and
communication are shared (Berners‐Lee et al., 1992; Gromov, 2012; Vogele, 2019).
Intersectionality
Intersectionality is the possession of two nondominant positions or greater (Collins &
Bilge, 2020).
Local Area Network
A local area network is a computer network that links devices in a building or group of
adjacent buildings in a small geographic area (Messenger & Gschwind, 2016).
14
Pandemic
A pandemic occurs when a disease, caused by new infectious agents, affects the global
population. A pandemic is a type of epidemic; however, a pandemic involves the number of
people and the geographical area the disease affects (Grennan, 2019; Morens et al., 2009).
Personal Computer
A personal computer (PC) is a multipurpose microcomputer whose size, capabilities, and
price make it feasible for individual use; a personal computer is intended for end user(s) to
operate it directly (Beaudry et al., 2010).
Persons of Color
Persons of color is an umbrella term for all nonwhite ethnicities, or self-identified as
such, that are not designated as part of a White demographic (Chin et al., 2022).
Positionality
Positionality is an author’s frame of reference or lens of lived experiences, generally
derived from a structure of power or influence (Misawa, 2010).
Remote Work, Remote Working, Remote Worker
Also known as telework, remote work is a type of arrangement where professionals can
conduct work outside a traditional onsite office environment, typically from the professional’s
home (Gartner, n.d.).
Software as a Service
Software as a service is an online platform where applications are accessed and used
online rather than a local computer installation (Frost, 2021).
15
Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol or Internet Protocol Suite
A transmission control protocol, also known as internet protocol or internet protocol
suite, is a set of standardized rules permitting computers to communicate on a network (Berners‐
Lee et al., 1992; Gromov, 2012; Vogele, 2019).
Working From Home
Working from home constitutes an employment arrangement where personnel do not
commute to a central place of work and typically complete work from their places of residence
(Baruch, 2000; Gartner, n.d.; Haddon & Brynin, 2005).
Wide Area Network
A wide area network is a telecommunications network that links devices, data centers,
and applications over a large geographic area (Mitchell, 2021).
World Wide Web/Web
The World Wide Web (WWW) is an information system enabling documents and other
online resources to be accessed over the internet. Files and downloadable media are made
available to the web network through servers and can be accessed by programs such as web
browsers (Berners‐Lee et al., 1992; Gromov, 2012; Vogele, 2019).
Organization of the Dissertation
The research is comprised of a five-chapter dissertation model. Chapter 1 provides a
conceptual understanding of the existing problem of practice, recognizing the 2020 COVID-19
global pandemic’s impact on wellness of community college remote workers and its exploitation
of organizational deficiencies. The problem is important to resolve because not only can it
provide organizations with findings to provide support services and work–life equilibrium to an
16
organization’s remote workforce, but it can also help create a roadmap to incorporate global
biological calamities into a BC/DR.
Chapter 2 explores existing literature that supports the research, factoring the BurkeLitwin (1992) organizational change model framework for additional analysis and reference.
This theoretical framework is joined by the researcher’s conceptual framework to link
organizational strategy, culture, and wellness to provide an overall view of remote workers’ lived
experiences during the COVID-19 global pandemic by examining and identifying critical
takeaways that can be remediated for a harmonized work–life balance and improved
organizational operations.
Chapter 3 describes the methodology, including (a) data collection, compilation, and
analysis and (b) the use of randomized quantitative sampling to determine what cause-and-effect
relationships exist between operational failures, remote working, and wellness during the
COVID-19 global pandemic. The current campaign consisted of publishing online surveys in
several heavily trafficked, highly engaged social networking sites, along with other online
forums whose primary audiences are remote workers and organizational leaders. The design of
the survey intended to capture the candid thoughts of qualifying participants and quantify the
results.
Chapter 4 presents the study’s results and related discussions of the findings. This chapter
incorporates the guiding research questions to effectively outline results consistent with
remediation to the problem of practice.
Finally, Chapter 5 concludes with these recommendations based on the findings for
developing stronger organizational culture and operations, along with permanently sustaining
remote working and sufficient wellness services for its workforce.
17
Chapter Two: Literature Review
This literature review provides an examination on the impact of the COVID-19 global
pandemic’s impact on the wellness of remote workers. The review was limited to research on
existing and newly transitioned remote workers in this time period where academic institutions
moved hastily to a virtual infrastructure. As a means to avoid economic collapse and by virtue of
state mandates, many organizations that did not incorporate remote work as part of their
respective business continuity or disaster recovery (BC/DR) planning decentralized their
operations and personnel haphazardly. More critically, the literature examines how the COVID19 global pandemic impacted wellness, how disrupted home–life balance impacted wellness, and
how organizational leaders responded to the crisis.
This chapter examines how the Burke-Litwin (1992) change model was leveraged to
structure the effects of the COVID-19 global pandemic on individuals and, by extension,
organizations in the form of wellness and performance, along with the response and depth of
organizational support that leadership provided. By segregating the elements of the Burke-Litwin
change model, each literature review section forms a confluence: personal computers (PCs), the
internet, the World Wide Web (WWW), the role and stigma of remote work, the impact of the
COVID-19 global pandemic worldwide, COVID-19’s exposure of inept leadership strategy, the
pandemic’s impact on wellness, and how the respective considerations affected the culture of
remote workers.
Emerging research has demonstrated a connection between remote work and wellness
(Barone Gibbs et al., 2021; Bieńkowska et al., 2020; Carillo et al., 2021; Coate, 2021; Como et
al., 2021; Dongarwar et al., 2020; Galanti et al., 2021; Hennekam & Shyko, 2020; Hernandez,
2020; Izdebski & Mazur, 2021; Liberati et al., 2021; Lin et al., 2021; Madero Gómez et al.,
18
2020; Meyer et al., 2021; Perry et al., 2018; Sonuga-Barke, 2021; Tronco Hernández et al., 2021;
Wang et al., 2021; Xiao et al., 2021). Additionally, these same researchers have been consistent
in recognizing COVID-19’s dual impact on remote work, indicating both an increase in
productivity and an increase in stress. Past literature on remote work since its early adoption in
the 1980s has indicated a negative stigma heavily influencing organizations from incorporating
remote working, along with arcane leadership, which remains prevalent as of 2023 (Baruch,
2000). Moreover, though building past practice has been essential, previous practices do not
support current technology, work environment, and expectations for work that are subject to
change.
The literature review focused primarily on remote work and wellness related to work
during the COVID-19 global pandemic and adjacent organizational support. The Burke-Litwin
(1992) framework structures understanding, acceptance, and support for change-specific
migration from a standard working environment to a remote environment, what leadership bias is
and how it interferes with progress, and how organizations can address and allocate sufficient
resources to its workforce. Leveraging the Burke-Litwin model of organizational change, the
framework assesses organizational challenges in adapting to changing environments and its
effect on culture and personnel. Providing active feedback from affected community college
remote workers by recounting their perspectives on how they experienced adapting to change
and acceptance can allow for improved organizational practices and allocation of wellness
resources.
The second consideration involved the responsiveness of leadership during the COVID19 global pandemic, namely how organizations reacted to COVID-19’s economic, operational,
and sustainability impacts, and which strategies were considered or implemented. Leveraging the
19
Burke-Litwin model, COVID-19 was designated as an external environmental factor, meaning
its influence was most heavily felt in the transformational factors of organizational mission and
strategy, organizational culture, and the untimely impact of remote work engagement for
traditional academic institutions whose foundations were established in typical brick-and-mortar
physical spaces. The pandemic presented an unprecedented challenge of how to proceed with
operations when business continuity policies either excluded or provided limited support on
working remotely.
Because BC/DR policy is critical for organizational sustainability, the pandemic’s blatant
exposure of obsolete or nonexistent planning in numerous organizations forced many enterprises
to adapt or fold. With the former, leadership hastily adopted a “figure it out as we go” policy
because no guidance was ever set by a governing body at the organizational or state levels
(Bartik et al., 2020; Brooks et al., 2022; Hernandez, 2020; Koufie & Muhammad, 2021;
Margherita & Heikkilä, 2021; Wu et al., 2022). The result was an eclectic mixture of
organizations in various states of transition to remote working environments that ranged from a
bare minimum laptop and systems access to full-service work from home (WFH) setup with
additional resources for technical support, training, and wellness initiatives.
The last consideration examined how organizational culture was affected by the
pandemic’s intrinsic and extrinsic forces, and whether or not organizational leadership made any
subsequent adjustments. In this research, the researcher specified how the workforce adjusted
after transitioning to remote work, what level of support, if any, was provided by the
organizations, along with how organizational cohesion changed during the pandemic.
Organizational culture is impacted by executive-level leadership, and primarily
influences the workforce that adheres to its governance. The impression of organizational culture
20
is felt most notably on productivity, morale, and values. An organization with a strong culture is
likely because of provided resources, support, and equity; by contrast, any organization that has
insufficient or lacks such assets will reflect a poor culture and may lead to negative outputs or
results.
Moreover, it should be noted that although researchers have used the Burke-Litwin
(1992) model consistently, the framework is insufficient to fully triage the impact and takeaways
of wellness of remote workers during the COVID-19 global pandemic. As such, the author of
this research developed their own conceptual framework that added to the Burke-Litwin (1992)
model. This conceptual framework extended specifically to the remote workforce’s overall
response during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic and the main catalysts of strategy, wellness, and
culture.
Conceptual Framework
The Burke-Litwin (1992) organizational change model was the ideal framework for this
research because it focuses on internal organizational effects by external forces, such as the
COVID-19 global pandemic. However, several additional key concepts needed to be addressed
to arrive at a comprehensive understanding of how personnel are further affected by external
forces and organizational changes influencing output. These key concepts include:
• Knowledge, Direction – what depth of understanding community college remote
workers have of their organization’s remote work policies.
• Process Improvement, Support, Accountability – what depth of understanding
community college remote workers have of their organizations’ response or
responsibility to triage and mitigate the pandemic’s effects via remote working.
21
• Impact on Productivity –how the community college remote worker was affected by
pandemic and organizational changes to remote work.
• Engagement – how the community college remote worker’s work–life balance
changed as a result of working from home.
• Motivation – how the community college remote worker’s wellness and productivity
was impacted by the pandemic.
These concepts fall into broader categories of experience, support, and wellness that are nestled
in the Burke-Litwin (1992) model. To compensate for how the COVID-19 global pandemic
altered the workforce, the Burke-Litwin model was extended to include the three underpinnings
to form the TRIAD. For the scope of this research, the TRIAD specifically focused on the pillars
of wellness, leadership, and culture to assess and determine to what depth the organizational
strategy, workforce wellness, and organizational culture changed during the pandemic. The
TRIAD is illustrated in Figure 1.
22
Figure 1
Burke-Litwin Model
Note. Reprinted from “Culture, Strategy and Leadership - Who Eats Who?,” by P. Macfarlane,
February 25, 2016, LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/culture-strategy-leadership-whoeats-paul-macfarlane). Copyright 2016 by LinkedIn.
Burke-Litwin Framework Application
The performance and change model (Burke & Litwin, 1992) is a revised framework that
provides critical insight into the dynamic working environment of an organization during a time
of change. The framework examines where failure can occur, how internal and external change
factors influence organizational segments, which transformational and transactional factors exist,
and the overall effect on performance. The framework’s primary purpose is to either diagnose
23
problems in an organization, organizational workflows, or scope of influence to determine
change. By using the Burke-Litwin (1992) model, each issue can be assessed independently.
This literature review identified the model’s levers, or layout, between the external
environment and individual performance, specifically short-term, long-term, and operational
levers. This model can be viewed in Figure 1. The external environment, or input, represents any
conditions outside the organization that affect the organizational performance (Burke & Litwin,
1992). The long-term levers, also referred to as transformational factors, are the organization’s
deeply rooted processes and characteristics, whereas any changes that take place here result in
substantial outcomes for the rest of the organization. Any outside force that has a strong
influence on transformational factors will also have a definitive impact on transactional factors.
The transformational factors consist of the organization’s leadership, culture, and mission. Both
leadership and mission are generally and explicitly stated in an organization, whereas culture is
not. Leadership is primarily responsible for providing direction, guidance, and motivation,
whereas the mission defines the purpose of the organization and its chosen methodology of how
it will achieve its designated goals. Culture reflects the organization’s norms and values that are
informal and implicitly communicated.
The transactional levers, also referred to as operational factors, are the logistical
workflows of the organization (Burke & Litwin, 1992). The transactional factors are
management practices, structure, and systems. Any changes in these factors are only permanent
if changes also take place via transformational factors. Transactional factors are often influenced
by management and not leadership. Management practices are the activities, behaviors, and
responses by managers that are consistent with carrying out the organizational strategy. Structure
refers to the organizational hierarchy or chain of command. Finally, systems and networking
24
serve as organizational governance. Generally, the transactional factors are where the policies
and procedures in place support the organization’s workforce.
Finally, short-term levers are the individual factors affected by the aforementioned
factors that influence individual or organizational performance, or output (Burke & Litwin,
1992). These factors are specific to organizational personnel and their immediate environment
and consist of work-unit climate, motivation, task requirements, and individual needs and values.
Work-unit climate is the team’s working environment, specifically the level of comfortability
where and how workers collaborate, express themselves, and manage workflows internally. This
climate, in turn, governs the behavior of the remaining factors. Task requirements ensure a
worker’s expertise is consistent with their assigned duties or responsibilities. An individual’s
needs and values signify the expectations required for management for a worker to meet their
goals, such as an acceptable work schedule or salary. Many of these factors are interconnected
and bidirectional due to the complexity of organizational development, but are segmented
depending on which system is assessed.
Assessing the External Environment
The top, or outside level of the Burke-Litwin (1992) change model, is the external
environment, or outside forces, and how these forces affect the organization, organizational
leadership, and performance. Examples of external environments can be various markets, social
norms, force majeure crises, and changes in the economy. Because organizations cannot manage
the external environment, this level has the strongest effect of change. Among specific realworld examples of outside influences were (a) the introduction of PCs in 1977, the emergence of
the internet in 1983, and the development of the WWW in 1991 (Beaudry et al., 2010; Bradley,
2011; Hennessy, 2021; Messenger & Gschwind, 2016; Nguyen, 2019). Indeed, these external
25
breakthroughs not only contributed to human advancement, but also ushered the information age
and (Castells, 1996) and changed how business and, by extension, remote working, was
conducted and how it changed the work, attitudes, and behaviors of the workforce.
PCs
Although computers have existed for the greater part of the 20th century, the
development of the microprocessor in 1977 contributed most to the creation of PCs (Beaudry et
al., 2010; Bradley, 2011; Hennessy, 2021; Nguyen, 2019). At the time, computers, as they were
known, were generally room-sized mainframe computers that were expensive to source, house,
manufacture, and manage—leaving only large enterprises and universities as the sole users.
When the internal circuit boards evolved to include the newly created microprocessor, such a
shift led to the development of a PC designed for individual use (Beaudry et al., 2010; Hennessy,
2021).
Initially, the role of a PC was to conduct business administration functions such as
document processing, database management, and financial accounting (Beaudry et al., 2010;
Bradley, 2011). As PCs expanded in capabilities, their interfaces concentrated less on business
functionality by incorporating video games, multimedia, education, and entertainment for daily
use (Beaudry et al., 2010; Bradley, 2011). By 1983, computers were incorporated into K–12 and
postsecondary education use for majority computer-assisted instructional teaching and
development for students, teachers, and educators (Cuban, 2003; Johnstone, 2003, Nagel, 2018).
PCs became increasingly interconnected to other computers to fulfill transactions,
becoming a rudimentary example of a network, known as a local area network. As local area
networks connected with other local area networks, this structure became the foundational
blueprint for the internet (Messenger & Gschwind, 2016) and, by extension, the concept of
26
remote work. In late 1979, Chief Economist of the Committee for Economic Development,
Frank Schiff, published an article in The Washington Post about the idea of remote work,
referred to as “telecommuting.” Telework, a term interchangeable with remote work, became a
term coined to define the concept of completing work-related tasks outside the designated
working environment, notably incorporating the use of PCs (Baruch, 2000; Elldér, 2019; Ferreira
et al., 2021; Harker Martin & MacDonnell, 2012; Licite-Kurbe & Leonovica, 2021; Messenger
& Gschwind, 2016).
The idea of remote work evolved into a policy that many organizations started to
incorporate; however, popularity in remote work greatly increased when PCs connected to the
internet to increase productivity and enhance infrastructure (Baruch, 2000). Although remote
work did not have a primary working capacity in community colleges and in education,
education technology gradually developed, and distance learning education emerged to assist
students and working professionals in remote learning or working environments (National Center
for Education Statistics, n.d.; Saba, 2011). Prior to any interconnected computer networks,
remote work took place via using the telephone, submitting data printouts to the organization, or
copying files by removing media from the home computer and bringing the media into the
workplace (Baruch, 2000; Haddon & Brynin, 2005; Nguyen, 2019). As remote work increased in
various organizations and industries, both computers and remote work became mutually
exclusive, where remote work could not exist without computers.
The acceptance of remote work came with establishing work–life balance, a concept that
was further developed with the introduction of the internet (Coate, 2021; Ferreira et al., 2021;
Golden, 2012; Harker Martin & MacDonnell, 2012; Maruyama & Tietze, 2012). However, many
organizations that valued traditional and conventional workflows demonstrated resistance to
27
implement any type of remote work, as organizational leaders felt productivity waned when the
workforce could not be supervised directly (Baker, 2020; Baruch, 2000; Brown et al., 2016;
Coate, 2021; Elldér, 2019; Felstead & Henseke, 2017; Ferreira et al., 2021; Gerke, 2006; Mahler,
2012; Maruyama & Tietze, 2012). By contrast, modern remote work and leadership introduced
additional workforce and economic benefits that included increased productivity, recruitment of
top talent without geographical barriers, and improvement in organizational morale in a
collective effort to obtain competitive advantage. Modern leadership has also aided with longterm sustainability, scalability, and progress (Baruch, 2000; Gill, 2010; Licite-Kurbe &
Leonovica, 2021; Mello, 2007; Messenger & Gschwind, 2016; Northouse, 2019; Offstein et al.,
2010; Orsini & Rodrigues, 2020; Pogarcic et al., 2012). A critical component to the modern
remote workforce, or that of a fully distributed organization, is its virtual or online presence on
the internet.
The Internet
Notably, when commercial-based online shopping—more collectively referred to as
eCommerce—launched in 1991, it shifted previous iterations of teleshopping where consumers
would place orders from a catalog or order on a business telephone line to a computer-based
platform (Miva Blog, 2020). Remote work, or telework, as coined previously, also started in
1979 to test alternative working procedures and technologies (Golden, 2012; Haddon & Brynin,
2005; Messenger & Gschwind, 2016; Nguyen, 2019).
The first version of the internet started in the U.S. Department of Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (ARPA) by connecting two network nodes between the University of
California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and Stanford Research Institute in 1969. This connection
became known as ARPANET and its primary function was to serve as an interconnection
28
between regional academic institutions and military networks (Gromov, 2012). As technology
evolved, so did the use case for ARPANET, which also evolved. When the transmission control
protocol/internet suite protocol (TCP/IP) was standardized in 1982, computers and networks
worldwide proliferated (Gromov, 2012), which included research institutions, academic
institutions, businesses, and specific user groups to connect, communicate, and collaborate. As
growth continued, it promoted more buy-in from businesses and organizations, improving
organizational effectiveness especially in the remote workforce (Harker Martin & MacDonnell,
2012; Licite-Kurbe & Leonovica, 2021; Maruyama & Tietze, 2012). Moreover, the continuous
improvements to the technological infrastructure led to the development of the WWW, which
had the greatest impact on companies, remote work, work–life balance, and the internet.
The WWW
In 1989, computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee invented the WWW, often simply known as
the web. The WWW encompassed the use of a web server, or a remote computer that stores
information, and a web browser that could request access to that information and display it in the
application (Berners-Lee et al., 1992; McPherson, 2009). By 1995, the WWW tool and its
functionality were released worldwide. Institutions, organizations, enterprises, and individual
entities began to use the web for various purposes of consumption. Although individuals often
use the terms internet and the WWW interchangeably, there is a distinction between the two. The
internet is the backend consisting of all the computers and networks, whereas the WWW is the
front end consisting of a browser that requests and displays requested information (Vogele,
2019).
When the WWW became publicly available, many organizations took advantage to
establish their online presence. The development of electronic commerce, or eCommerce,
29
increased exponentially (Vogele, 2019). Given many organizations grew with use of the internet
as its digital counterpart, remote work became an integral part of their operations (Choudhury et
al., 2020; Elldér, 2019; Felstead & Henseke, 2017). As such, many organizations scaled their
operations to include remote workers from other geographic locations not native to their
headquarters. A subset of the remote worker is the digital nomad, or someone who performs their
duties while traveling (Elliott, 2022; Thompson, 2019).
As developers began constructing interactive applications and information systems that
integrated with the internet and WWW, remote work grew from a business fad to an operational
norm (Pogarcic et al., 2012). Organizational effectiveness grew continuously year after year
(Baruch 2000; Choudhury et al., 2020; Coate, 2021; Elldér, 2019; Ferreira et al., 2021; LiciteKurbe & Leonovica, 2021), to the extent that the U.S. government also incorporated remote
work and established policy and governance through the 2000s and the 2010 Telework
Enhancement Act to account for the future of remote work (Brown et al., 2016; Felstead &
Henseke, 2017; Ozimek, 2020; Telework Enhancement Act, 2010). Due to the efficient ability to
scale and the growing efficacy of remote work, companies strategized to consider both remote
work and hybrid working environments (Kirkham, 2022). This movement provided additional
benefits to remote workers, which increased productivity, wellness attitudes toward work, and an
incentivized work–life balance.
The rising popularity of software as a service (SAAS) solutions, where web-based
applications replace conventional applications, removed obsolete organizational workflows and
restrictions, increased collaboration, and provided real-time data and analytics (Bentley et al.,
2016; Felstead & Henseke, 2017; Ferreira et al., 2021; Frost, 2021). Both organizational and
educational software that were SAAS based allowed for greater flexibility for educators to
30
immediately access systems and retrieve data in real time, which strengthened the case for
remote work and yielded greater technology based educational resources (Nagel, 2018; Office of
Educational Technology, 2017). Indeed, many organizations modernized their strategies to
develop their online presence, which increased in popularity and productivity and seemingly
reflected a new chapter in ICT; however, in 2020, the COVID-19 global pandemic abruptly and
irrevocably changed how organizations and communities interfaced with one another worldwide.
Impact of COVID-19
In 2019, an infectious and highly contagious virus was discovered in Wuhan, China.
Designated as Coronavirus Disease 2019, or COVID-19, this virus was caused by SARS-CoV-2
virus. COVID-19 sits with the coronavirus family that generally attacks the respiratory system
and can lead to irreparable health damage and death (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2022). On March 11, 2020, COVID-19 cases increased 1,300%, with over 118,000
cases in 114 countries, and 4,291 deaths and climbing; on this day, the World Health
Organization (WHO) officially declared the global outbreak a pandemic (Cucinotta & Vanelli,
2020). At the time of writing this dissertation, COVID-19 totaled 662,089,167 total cases and
7,507,564 total deaths in 229 countries and territories (St. John Hopkins University & Medicine,
2023).
The COVID-19 global pandemic facilitated a series of unprecedented events. Many
countries and government officials declared a state of emergency and a public health hazard,
forcing the closure of many companies to limit interactions and minimize the spread, although
many constituents considered the government’s response haphazard (Schrager, 2021; C. Silver &
Hyman, 2022). Many officials categorized the pandemic as a force majeure, leaving many
organizations to transition to a new workstation state or close under mandated lockdowns; over
31
200,000 companies in the United States closed in the first several months of the pandemic
(Beardwood, 2020; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2022; Coate, 2021; Edwards &
Ott, 2021; Hennekam & Shymko, 2020; Israhadi, 2020; Jones, 2020; Simon, 2021). The
responses to the global emergency caused a major economic downturn that led to rises in
unemployment, shuttered businesses, and exposed inefficiencies in BC/DR practices (Bartik et
al., 2020; Edwards & Ott, 2021). These inefficiencies were particularly notable when surviving
organizations made the transition into remote work to survive economically.
Alongside disruption of supply chains, operations, employment, and socioeconomic
impact, the mental health of the public was adversely affected by the COVID-19 global
pandemic. As many struggled to cope with the effects of the international crisis, the working
environments were also not immune (Kamal et al., 2020). To mitigate the effects of COVID-19,
organizational leaders made the decision to adopt remote working practices (Abulibdeh, 2020;
Bieńkowska et al., 2020; Ferreira et al., 2021). In the United States, local, state, and federal
governments also implemented COVID-19 tracking procedures and encouraged the general
public to access this information to regularly monitor COVID-19 outbreaks in their communities
(O’Leary, 2020).
Technology has played a critical role in the development of organizational operations and
practices. With the advent of computers, the internet, and WWW, remote work and workers have
established themselves as key components for company structure and strategy. Additionally,
technology has created a work–life balance synchronization and culture, which complements
overall wellness. As the outbreak worsened, many companies embraced a learn as we go policy
in attempts to remain flexible and adjust amidst uncertainty (JUST Capital, 2020). These
companies had not previously adopted a remote work policy, did not have insights on managing
32
remote work, nor were they equipped with providing additional wellness resources for its
workforce. All these external factors proved a detriment to the organizational structure and
interaction, from leadership to personnel. These themes of strategy, wellness, and culture are
further explored in the remaining factors of Burke-Litwin (1992) change model.
Assessing Transformational Factors
The top level of the Burke-Litwin (1992) change model, known as the transformational
factors, explores how both the organization and organizational leadership are affected by the
external environment. This level focuses primarily on the organizational mission of culture and
strategy. Business continuity planning is built upon the following three elements: resilience,
recovery, and contingency. Typically, an organization can establish resilience by implementing
disaster recovery scenarios that are met with key functions and infrastructure such as data
redundancy, staffing, and bandwidth availability (Margherita & Heikkilä, 2021). Most, if not all,
fully distributed organizations have business continuity planning and BC/DR policies in place
due to their decentralized nature; however, more traditional companies faced challenges with
adapting to remote work after the start of the COVID-19 global pandemic, particularly managers
who had historically supervised teams in person rather than online (Baker, 2020; Gerke, 2006).
The Stigma of Remote Work
An ongoing and contested topic among companies is the use of a remote workforce as a
temporary or permanent addition to an organizational operation. Many researchers have
concluded this point of contention is mostly due to optics and opinions of a remote workforce
rather than the depth and quality of output produced (Abulibdeh, 2020; Baruch 2000; Brooks et
al., 2022; Felstead & Henseke, 2017; Gerke, 2006; Golden, 2012; Harker Martin & MacDonnell,
2012; Licite-Kurbe & Lenovica, 2021; Mahler, 2012). Traditional leadership often views remote
33
work as ineffective due to a propensity to be less productive outside the workplace and even less
at home and without any type of immediate supervision; additionally, researchers have generally
believed only certain types of personnel and personalities can qualify for remote work. Modern
leadership has viewed remote work as dynamic by streamlining business processes, adaptation,
and scaling with the growth of talent and technologies (Baker, 2020; Baruch, 2000; Coate, 2021;
Felstead & Henseke, 2017; Ferreira et al., 2021; Gerke, 2006; Golden, 2012; Harker Martin &
MacDonnell, 2012; Mahler, 2012; Meghana & Vijaya, 2019; Mello, 2007; Offstein et al., 2010;
Orsini & Rodrigues, 2020; Wang et al., 2021; Zaccaro, 2003).
With the COVID-19 pandemic taking a stronghold globally via government-mandated
shutdowns and dangers of companies shuttering its doors, there was very little time to debate
incorporating remote work. Organizations had very little time to research and deploy
contingency plans as outlined in BC/DR policies; as such, policies in many organizations either
omitted remote work or did not have any business continuity planning in place (Tagliaro &
Migliore, 2022; Wang et al., 2021). The general public supported working from home because
the consensus was that doing so kept people safe from COVID-19, allowed more flexibility to
attend to personal matters, and granted more trust to the individual (Marshall et al., 2021; Parker
et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021).
Remote work was overall the best strategy to execute amid the COVID-19 global
pandemic’s considerable impact on commerce, and the best practice for companies to modernize
to stay operationally solvent and support sustainability with efficient IT systems in place to
maintain data flow and integrity (Marshall et al., 2021; Parker et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021).
Without existing or flexible business continuity practices, the “learn as we go” model took shape
for both leaders and companies to weather the uncertainty of the economy. However, it was not
34
long before COVID-19 revealed many inefficiencies in leadership, organizations, workforce, and
resources that affected the remote workforce, the general public, work–life balance, and
wellness.
How COVID-19 Exposed Inadequate Wellness Support
There are myriad reasons why many companies failed during the COVID-19 global
pandemic, and how many others struggled. A common denominator among those two types of
organizations involved leadership adaptability to remote work. Because business continuity
planning was either unreliable, nonexistent, or devoid of remote working possibilities,
organizational reliability was low, and many companies were delayed in the transition or
suffered catastrophic losses (Abulibdeh, 2020; Bartik et al., 2020; Bieńkowska et al., 2020).
The hasty transition to remote work for many traditional onsite personnel caused and
promoted a disruption in their work–life balance (Donnelly & Proctor-Thomson, 2015). One
emerging issue among the remote workforce was the insufficiency of support services and
resources. Lack of support services included wellness resources in coping and managing
physical, emotional, and mental stresses over the risks of COVID-19 infection, insufficient
training to WFH, the government lockdown and stay-at-home orders, closed businesses, scarcity
of supplies, and coping with constant interaction with family members over prolonged periods of
time. Because hospitals and care centers were inundated with COVID-19 sick patients and
deaths, only real emergencies were accepted, and many were left to care on their own. Physicians
were not available to treat patients with less severe issues, yet negative mental wellness effects
continued to increase (Bertoni et al., 2021; Bulińska-Stangrecka & Bagieńska, 2021; Lin et al.,
2021). Detrimental company support services reflected a dire need to support their remote staff
35
(Bentley et al., 2016; Bulińska-Stangrecka & Bagieńska, 2021; Carillo et al., 2021; Como et al.,
2021).
Because many organizations—in this case, community colleges and other higher
education institutions, had no formal adaptation to remote work, the response from organizations
varied from companies to industries. Many companies carried on with no additional adjustments
to resources other than the workplace transition, and all benefits remained static. Some
companies took moderate measures to add nominal resources such as coupons for wellness
services, wellness exercise literature or programs, and limited access to tele-therapists. Finally,
the remaining fewer organizations provided a plethora of services that included unlimited
telephone and online access to tele-therapists, eHealth wellness mobile applications, and
unlimited access to physical and wellness online programs (Bertoni et al., 2021; BulińskaStangrecka & Bagieńska, 2021; Carillo et al., 2021; Christensen & Hickie, 2010; Como et al.,
2021; Dongarwar et al., 2020; Hill et al., 2017; Izdebski & Mazur, 2021; Leonardi, 2021;
Sonuga‐Barke, 2021; Torous & Roberts, 2017).
Community college leaders were ill-prepared to handle a pandemic but were well within
their expertise to modernize educational operations. The lack of investment into remote working
technologies, policies, and providing baseline wellness resources were exploited once the
pandemic was officially declared. Organizational leadership was faulted with poor operational
continuity strategizing and the inflexibility of providing additional resources and services to its
workforce when it transitioned remotely to a distributed or fully distributed working
environment; its organizational culture remained in a traditional setting and did not change
accordingly. The problem was further exacerbated by leadership failures to adapt to dynamic
changes caused primarily by the pandemic and government actions to sustain operations,
36
organizational practices, and the wellness of its staff. Acute and aggressive decision making
would have mitigated any loss of productivity caused by myopic strategizing, obsolete optics on
remote work, and counseling with better-faring companies regarding the increase of its resources
for its workforce during the pandemic. Leadership’s lack of understanding of the impact of
COVID-19 on remote work and work–life balance inevitably caused additional but easily
avoidable issues.
Factors Impacting Remote Work
Traditionally, the responsibilities of an IT department are to provide technological
services and support for operations to function as standard (Dewett & Jones, 2001; Overby et al.,
2006). When the COVID-19 global pandemic began, organizational leaders were tasked with
determining how to proceed with incorporating and managing a virtual environment, adjacent to
the IT role in workplace culture where divisions, departments, and teams establish and build
rapport and engagement. Initially, many companies adjusted their respective onsite working
environments to include hybrid work, remote work, or a combination of all three when possible.
However, to maintain overall business continuity, surviving organizations simply switched to
remote work, albeit hastily (Abulibdeh, 2020; Coate, 2021; Elldér, 2019; Felstead & Henseke,
2017; Ferreira et al., 2021; Licite-Kurbe & Leonovica, 2021; Mahler, 2012; Offstein et al., 2010;
Ozimek, 2020; Pogarcic et al., 2012).
For an organization to be eligible for remote work, it must leverage technology to meet
its deliverables and can operate with little-to-no interaction with others. During the pandemic,
these criteria typically disqualified industries such as arts, entertainment, recreation, food
services, hospitality, and even education that were closed by government mandates (Stang,
2021). Qualifying organizations used cloud computing to continue their operations. Aside from
37
standard office productivity software such as Microsoft Office, this effort included additional
online applications such as Zoom to conduct meetings, Microsoft Teams for collaboration, and
DocuSign to manage electronic agreements, mitigating the need to complete such workflows in
person. Personnel were instructed to continue their job functions from home and were provided
with additional computer equipment such as external monitors, keyboards, and portable internet
connection devices known as a MiFi for internet access; nonstandard equipment included
personal protection equipment such as masks and face shields, should personnel be required to
be onsite or have hybrid work arrangements (Margherita & Heikkilä, 2021). These measures
ensured structure, practices, and systems were met and in place and ensured organizations and
their leaders could continue to operate during the pandemic amid the government shutdown.
Many organizations, including community colleges, resisted restructuring in light of the
COVID-19 global pandemic, believing remote work to be an ad-hoc working environment
(Baruch, 2000). These same organizations felt the pandemic would not immediately nor heavily
impact their operations or outputs and, therefore, were justified in maintaining a laissez-faire
approach to operations (Carlsson-Slezak et al., 2020). Static, absent, or delayed approaches and
communications to change operational levers were evident when employees resigned their
positions, engaged in chronic absenteeism or isolation, or whose demoralization decreased
output (Carillo et al., 2021; Como et al., 2021; Dey et al., 2021; Esch, 2010; Galanti et al., 2021;
Grigore, 2020; Hernandez, 2020; Izdebski & Mazur, 2021; Kamal et al., 2020; Madero Gómez et
al., 2020; Meyer et al., 2021; Tagliaro & Migliore, 2022; Tronco Hernández et al., 2021; Wang
et al., 2021; Zito et al., 2021).
38
Addressing the Individual Factors
The lack of sufficient support services carried on as the COVID-19 global pandemic
continued beyond 2020 and began to deteriorate the short-term levers of the work climate,
motivation, the skills, and the individual needs and values of the workforce. Many remote
workers felt abandoned by organizational leaders when they asked for guidance, direction, or
support after their transition, which only added further stress to what the pandemic had already
brought. These stresses affected each individual differently, along with their resulting respective
output, productivity, and motivation.
According to the Burke-Litwin (1992) framework, an individual in an organization values
the following short-term levers. These factors are explained with how the COVID-19 global
pandemic impacted each:
• Tasks and skills were the are required actions employees completed as assigned by
their organizations. Although most companies transitioned to WFH during the
pandemic, no additional training outside learning new application software was
required to meet their individual deliverables.
• Individual needs and values posited workers come from a multitude of different
backgrounds and have conscious bias, unconscious bias, and expectations that differ
from others. This subjectivity can be often misconstrued and may lead to
opportunities or failures in the organization and its culture. Promotional and pay
disparities became surprisingly apparent during the pandemic and divided among
genders, which naturally affected motivation for remote workers and questioned the
actions of the organization (Oleschuk, 2020).
39
• Motivation described the depth of commitment and dedication to meet organizational
goals by its workforce. Individual levels of motivation depend on additional
considerations such as culture, value, and practices. COVID-19 catalyzed fluctuations
in motivation of remote workers due to a disrupted work–life balance, mental and
physical health concerns, and scarcity of resources during the pandemic (Orsini &
Rodrigues, 2020).
• Work climate reflected organizational climate. Prior to the pandemic, views of
climate comprised how comfortable workers felt in the organizational culture and
how they felt about leadership. After the pandemic, work climate reflected attitudes
toward leadership on how they handled the crisis and took care of the organization
and its workforce. This change can serve as a driver of change especially when Csuite leaders look to change the working environment (Bartik et al., 2020).
With a remote workforce, the concepts of wellness and the working environment became
more pronounced as they leaned toward leaders for a myriad of support. Because the COVID-19
global pandemic was an extraordinary event, the needs increased because the crisis introduced
other restrictions that would not generally fall into a healthy work–life balance. There emerged a
critical need to receive more support and dynamic practices to help promote wellness, practices,
and strategy (Abulibdeh, 2020; Barone Gibbs et al., 2021; Bentley et al., 2016).
Wellness and the Workplace
According to a White House Brief (2022), the United States spent nearly $300 billion
annually on mental health services as of 2022. The brief acknowledged the profound changes in
the deterioration of overall health in the U.S. public and how these data were disproportionate
among marginalized communities, with over 56% of the U.S. population mentally affected by
40
the pandemic. With nearly 40% of respondents reporting that they work from home (Marshall et
al., 2021), it became increasingly clear how dire mental wellness, organizational culture, and
strategy are all connected.
Organizations were divided over how they viewed wellness and its impact in the
workplace, both in general and during the pandemic. The reasons from organizations varied from
bandwidth shortages to policy and opinions (Barone Gibbs et al., 2021; Bentley et al., 2016;
Bertoni et al., 2021; Dey et al., 2021; Galanti et al., 2021; Mongelli et al., 2020), and the division
was evident based on the depth of resources provided after the shift to remote work, because it
was indicative that these resources (or lack thereof) were part of each organization’s strategy.
Nonetheless, empirical research has demonstrated a consistency between a disruption in work–
life balance and inequities of organizational-based support services, particularly for a remote
workforce (Barone Gibbs et al., 2021; Bentley et al., 2016; Bulińska-Stangrecka & Bagieńska,
2021; Carillo et al., 2021; Como et al., 2021; Dongarwar et al., 2020; Felstead & Henseke, 2017;
Galanti et al., 2021; Hernandez, 2020; Kamal et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2021; Madero Gómez et al.,
2020; Maruyama & Tietze, 2012; Meyer et al., 2021; Parker et al., 2021; Perry et al., 2018;
Sonuga‐Barke, 2021; Tronco Hernández et al., 2021).
The wellness issue grew with the notion of digital handcuffs, a byproduct of a disrupted
work–life balance (Brooks et al., 2022; Carillo et al., 2021; Como et al., 2021; Felstead &
Henseke, 2017; Ferreira et al., 2021; Galanti et al., 2021). Because insufficient, if any, support
services were available to use by remote workers, organizations leveraged technology during the
pandemic to fill the void. As a result, with an instant or constant technological connection to
organizational information systems and infrastructure, remote workers operated in a similar
constantly connected manner. Information was always accessible through a mobile device such
41
as a laptop, tablet, or mobile phone. Digital exhaust (i.e., information created by activities
completed online) demonstrated timestamps of remote workers operating past business hours,
thereby increasing productivity while simultaneously creating additional stress and inadvertently
widening the work–life balance gap (Baron, 2010; Leonardi, 2021; Maurer, 2021; Xiao et al.,
2021).
Existing research has demonstrated strong correlations between the COVID-19 global
pandemic’s impact on the wellness of remote workers in the forms of direct and indirect
psychological strain in coping with COVID-19; steep learning curves or challenges in learning
new ICT when working from home; disrupted home work–life balance (e.g., the ambiguous
divide) and increased stresses between work and home responsibilities; chronic absenteeism;
poor or lost productivity; job dissatisfaction; and resignations (Barone Gibbs et al., 2021; Bertoni
et al., 2021; Bulińska-Stangrecka & Bagieńska, 2021; Carillo et al., 2021; Como et al., 2021;
Dey et al., 2021; Galanti et al., 2021; Grigore, 2020; Hernandez, 2020; Izdebski & Mazur, 2021;
Kamal et al., 2020; Maurer, 2021; Meyer et al., 2021; Tronco Hernández et al., 2021; Wang et
al., 2021; Xiao et al., 2021). Without adequate organization-provided resources and guidance to
address these wellness-related issues, a remote worker’s ability to adapt to their new
environment proves difficult and detrimental to the sustainability of the company throughout the
pandemic into the present (Kamal et al., 2020; Liberati et al., 2021; Madero Gómez et al., 2020;
McLaughlin, 2022; Parker et al., 2021, 2022; Sonuga‐Barke, 2021; Tagliaro & Migliore, 2022).
To determine what solutions are feasible, an examination of the organization through remote
workers’ experiences provides a starting point for addressing wellness support.
42
The Burke-Litwin (1992) performance change model (see Figure 2) was used to assess
and identify critical points specific to the remote workforce in how external forces and
organizational response affected their experiences during the COVID-19 global pandemic.
Figure 2
Burke Litwin Model (Abridged)
Note. Reprinted from “What is the Burke-Litwin Model? The Burke-Litwin Model In a
Nutshell,” by FourWeekMBA, January 13, 2024, LinkedIn (https://fourweekmba.com/burkelitwin-model). Copyright 2024 by LinkedIn.
43
Because the literature review identified wellness, inadequate support services, and the
lived experiences of remote work during the pandemic as critical impact points, this research
developed a conceptual framework that extended the Burke-Litwin (1992) change model specific
to workforce needs. For this research, those needs involved community college remote workers’
experiences with organizational support, organizational support for wellness, and their
perceptions on organizational support for wellness. Figure 3 surmises the formulation of the
conceptual framework, called the TRIAD, which encompasses those themes. The TRIAD sought
extrapolate the stronger themes from the transformational, transactional, and individual factors
and set them as standalone aspects that affect remote workers, as related to the impact of the
pandemic. The conceptual framework in this research was created specifically to provide a
solution to the problem. Chapters 4 and 5 provide the results and recommendations to designate a
sustainable and amicable solution.
44
Figure 3
Conceptual Framework: The TRIAD
Chapter Summary
In examining strategy, culture, and wellness from a remote worker perspective, it is
important to note that both companies and employees have the same goal—that is, to adapt new
strategies that positively affect the culture of the remote worker who looks for wellness
sustainability brought upon the pandemic. Relative to Burke-Litwin’s (1992) framework,
individual change starts with identifying and strategizing solutions that ascend the organization’s
culture relative to its workforce and equip its remote workers with the necessary resources to
succeed with improved experiences and wellness resources. With the TRIAD extension,
45
companies can readily identify both positive and negative influences by external forces and
through mediated interpretation that can improve remote workers’ support, experiences, and gain
access to additional resources.
The literature demonstrated that prioritizing wellness and assessing proper protocols for
wellness initiatives can provide sufficient support services, adhere to continuous process
improvement to wellness and remote-working policies, and consider pivotal changes to
leadership outlooks on remote work. In doing so, many of the issues faced by remote workers
can be mitigated. Remote workers can be properly motivated and dedicated when they are valued
and validated, both in need and productivity. Such contribution extends beyond productivity and
into loyalty, improvement, and communal success. This study demonstrated how the success of
remote workers is dependent on how well they are received by leadership, and explored what it
will take to meet the needs of these individuals and their organizations.
Community colleges, akin to evolving practices of instruction and incorporating new
knowledge into education, must also adhere to internal changes that will increase support to
optimize output and maintain organizational sustainability, including prioritizing personnel
wellness that directly impacts productivity and engagement. This study provided baseline
evidence on how to bridge the disconnect and develop sustainable solutions for organizations to
follow during a global crisis.
46
Chapter Three: Methodology
This research employed a qualitative approach framed by three research questions, with
remote workers who transitioned during the COVID-19 global pandemic serving as the principal
group of study. Qualitative interviews were selected as the designated methodology for this
study. The interviews consisted of themes exploring remote workers’ views and lived
experiences of organizational support for wellness, adaptation, and changes to remote work
throughout the pandemic.
The research questions were designed to better understand the participants’ perceptions
of support, how the remote workers experienced remote work during the COVID-19 global
pandemic, and how they adapted and accepted the transition from onsite to offsite work. Using a
qualitative approach through interviews of remote workers in this specific time period garnered
depth and insight that aimed to support the goal of the research and assist with determining
optimal recommendations.
Research Questions
This chapter examines the following research questions and produces a comprehensive
overview of the investigation primarily consisting of its protocol, design, data sources,
compilation, analysis, and ethics.
1. How did community college workers experience organizational support with remote
work during the pandemic?
2. How did remote community college employees experience support for their wellness
during the pandemic?
3. What is the remote worker’s perspective on organizational support for wellness?
47
Overview of Design
For this research, the use of interviews for qualitative research methods provided an
overview of data rich responses of the designated stakeholder group who were affected deeply by
the depth of support provided by their respective organizations (Seidman, 2013). This research
sought to provide a unified voice for recommended practices on improved organizational
procedures for enhanced or dedicated wellness support services for a remote workforce in
community colleges and how such revamped strategies influence overall culture, particularly
after surviving the COVID-19 global pandemic. By sharing their experiences and suggestions on
work–life balance, company culture, and organizational strategies as they were practiced during
the pandemic, future remote workers stand to benefit the most from the incorporation of these
recommendations and construct sustainable value and resources for best practices.
This qualitative framework was consistent with processes outlined by Creswell and
Creswell (2014), which focused on qualitative-based research designs and approaches. This
research employed components of Creswell and Creswell’s (2014) framework, specifically
narrative research, phenomenology, and case studies. The focus was to leverage the lived
experiences, personal narratives, and the bounded system for data collection. This qualitative
framework also provided additional flexibility that allowed for adjustments made throughout the
research and enabled the researcher to play a critical role during data analysis and when
presenting the final narrative. This method was fitting because formal interviews facilitated the
collection of a broad range of data. By analyzing these data, it was possible to draw certain
patterns and make practical conclusions fitting to this organizational unit under specific
conditions.
48
Furthermore, this methodology was appropriate because the researcher formally gathered
broad data to draw specific conclusions drawn from patterns made during the interviewing
process. This investigative process included the researcher as the primary instrument of data
collection and analysis, followed by synthesizing information received and leveraging inductive
processes from the interviews to produce rich descriptions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Following
Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the chosen design of the interview protocol was semistructured, as
this structure provides both guidance and flexibility for the researcher to adjust wording on
questions, ask follow-up questions, and to further engage participants in responses. This method
is to assist the researcher in understanding experiences from the optics of the stakeholder,
promote organic responses, and maintain flow.
The goal of this research was to gain a thorough understanding of recently transitioned
remote workers’ working knowledge and experiences of organization-provided wellness
resources during the COVID-19 global pandemic, how employees had adapted and accepted the
change to remote work, and how organizations can support remote workers postpandemic via
organizational-required changes. The interview questions were designed to identify
organizational support sufficiency and how the participants’ work–life balance was impacted.
These responses were also meant to help organizational leadership better prepare for the needs of
remote workers.
Research Setting
Leveraging technology for the purpose of recruiting and interviewing qualified
participants, the researcher conducted the interviews online using the video-conference platform,
Zoom. Meeting virtually provided additional benefits to the researcher and participants through
convenience, privacy, and comfortability; expedited interview transcriptions, and eliminated the
49
need for travel and geographical barriers. This method aligned with eligible participants who
identified as remote workers and were accustomed to virtual meetings.
All interviewees agreed to be recorded and the conversations were transcribed verbatim,
sans any personal identifiable information (PII). The interviews were conducted online, one-onone between researcher and participant, and lasted approximately 75 minutes. A total of 15
participants were interviewed for this study. The researcher advertised this research through
social media, online message forums, and other social networking sites, a modern best practice to
reach a larger audience (Sue & Ritter, 2011). The interviews were scheduled and completed over
a 2-week period.
Participants all identified as a recently transitioned remote worker beset by the start of the
COVID-19 global pandemic in 2020. No other demographic details, such as race, gender, or job
function, were considered; however, participants could elect to disclose those details if they
wished. This exclusion was intentional to determine how consistent different organizations were
to their workforce (Creswell & Creswell, 2014). Additionally, remote workers could also
identify as an organizational leader, which added an additional layer of questions regarding
remote management policy development and support services.
The Researcher
The primary researcher has both conscious and unconscious biases (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). This section includes the researcher’s positionality, which largely influenced both the
views and preconceived notions of others, along with technology. At the time of this study, the
researcher had over 25 years of career experience in information technology (IT), had grown up
with limited wellness resources, had experienced limited access to technologies, and was serving
as the leading director of IT at a members association serving marginalized communities
50
pursuing academic and professional pursuits in science, technology, engineering, and math
(STEM). The researcher also identified as a remote worker in a fully distributed organization.
The researcher’s predominant salient identities included growing up in a marginalized
community with limited resources and his career in the IT field. To mitigate bias or any optics of
bias, or the researcher’s role in a dominant position, proxies were used as interviewers.
Furthermore, the researcher’s extensive knowledge in IT, remote work, and accessibility to
technical and wellness resources both aided and hampered data analysis. Both knowledge and
experience in IT and as a remote worker helped the researcher understand the impressions shared
by the participants. By contrast, the researcher’s tenacity built on experiencing limitations
through personal and professional life hindered the analysis; such a bias was due to their belief
that remaining absolute in one’s resolve could render successful results in receiving sufficient
technological and wellness support services from either oneself or leadership, an example of
survivorship bias. It was imperative that the researcher remain mindful of these biases and
passions to avoid judgment and accept that not all remote workers and/or organizational leaders
felt the same way about the need for sustainable resources. This task was completed through
dedicated and repeated conscientious attention to the research questions, follow-up questions,
and acute self-reflection to lead this investigation with both empathy and understanding.
Data Sources
Interviews with participants comprised the primary data source for this study. The actual
data source was comprised of community college remote workers who transitioned into their
updated role during the COVID-19 global pandemic starting in 2020. The interviews were
conducted in 2023 following research approval by the University of Southern California’s
51
Institutional Review Board. All final data were collected, compiled, coded, member-checked,
and analyzed in Fall 2023.
Requests for participation were plentiful, however, the researcher selected 15 participants
based on meeting the criteria for interviews; their availability for interviews; and diversity,
equity, and inclusion conditions. Table 1 illustrates each participant’s pseudonym, approximate
location, and administrative role in higher education. The researcher conducted each interview
and received consent to record each session using the online video-conferencing platform, Zoom.
All participants self-selected a pseudonym and the order of interviews published was in
chronological order. After the completion of each interview, participants had the opportunity to
review and approve their transcripts for accuracy and redact any PII before the data transitioned
into deductive coding. Each qualifying participant was identified based on the criteria required
for this study. These criteria included working as a full-time administrative employee for an
accredited community college, working at the start of the 2020 COVID-19 global pandemic, and
being selected by their respective organizational leadership to transition to remote work for the
first time.
52
Table 1
Participant Name, Location, and Administrative Role
Pseudonym Location Administrative role
John San Diego Advancement officer
Julio Salt Lake City Community engagement
Katherine Los Angeles Workforce development specialist
Norma New York Communications director
Robert Miami Operations manager
Abrey Phoenix Counselor
Sadie San Francisco Information technology manager
Bob Chicago Distance learning instructor
Molly Los Angeles Executive leader
Pete Ann Arbor Marketing manager
Stephanie Huntsville Student resource specialist
Tanjiro Las Vegas Engineering
Liz Rio Grande Institutional research
Oma Burlington Arts director
Brenda Orlando Human resources coordinator
Note. Location and administrative role were disclosed to indicate diversity in remote workers.
Interview Participants
Each participant selected a pseudonym for their interview and are listed in the order in
which they interviewed. The addition of locations and administrative roles provided validation to
the study’s participant selection criterion as staff members at a community college, as the goal
was to understand their various perspectives based on their roles, scope of work, and limitations.
53
John was the first participant to interview in this qualitative study. He was an
advancement officer at a San Diego community college whose primary responsibility was
fundraising, developing a long-term giving program strategy, cultivating and soliciting gifts, and
overall stewardship of alumni and stakeholders. His role was vital in higher education because he
worked in various capacities that not only affected the donor experience, but whose
communication aspect was vital to sustainability.
Julio worked in community engagement in a Salt Lake City community college and
developed programs aiming to serve the social and civic needs of local communities. These
programs created opportunities for students to collaborate with community partners through
research, service, and teaching. Julio’s role required a lot of front-facing interaction with
different constituencies and groups.
Katherine worked as a workforce development specialist in a southern California
community college. Her main role was to enhance work-based learning opportunities by
providing students with equitable access to career and training programs, enhance skillsets and
educational levels, and provide pathways to industry specific licensure or certification for career
readiness. She regularly interfaced with different groups and partners to facilitate growth and
success between students and businesses.
Norma was a communication director from New York. At her community college, Norma
oversaw the overall communication from the leadership and engaged other divisions, groups, and
stakeholders in the college on behalf of the administration. Her responsibilities included but were
not limited to prerecorded media, email, publications, press releases, social media, conference
calls, onsite or virtual announcements, and town hall meetings. Norma and her team were
separated operationally by the scope of each communication and the technology leveraged.
54
Robert was an operations manager at a Miami community college who frequently
interfaced with a myriad of different constituencies, groups, departments, and people all over his
campus. Although he primarily communicated through email and radio, Robert shared that he
was constantly onsite on different physical locations at the college, as the role required many
direct interactions.
Abrey was a counselor working in a Phoenix community college who often met with
students and administrators. Abrey’s role was considered a frontline worker in higher education
because students most often meet with counselors compared to other academic personnel.
Additionally, Abrey described regularly holding large seminars for new and continuing students.
Abrey remarked that her role was constantly “on the go,” as she was always speaking in an
office, conference room, in a large gymnasium, at an athletics venue, and outside.
Sadie worked at a community college in northern California as an IT manager. Sadie
contended that most of her work is “behind the screens” as she relays information and directives
through email and chat. Online communication notwithstanding, Sadie said she regularly attends
inter- and cross-department meetings in person as needed. Her belief was that work-based
communication can be effectively done through any technological means.
Bob worked as a distance learning instructor at a Chicago community college. His
primary method of instruction was conducting instructional teaching online while using content
or learning management systems for course related material. Bob taught both online and hybrid
courses, whereas hybrid courses required Bob and enrolled students to attend classes on campus,
and all course materials were posted online.
Molly worked as a vice president of student services for a Los Angeles community
college. She was part of administrative leadership and oversaw many organizational units and
55
staff. She had extensive career experience in higher education, holding multiple roles and
positions and dealing with various departments and stakeholders. Molly was involved in
numerous conference meetings, executive committee meetings, faculty senate meetings, and
student support meetings.
Pete was part of a Michigan community college and worked as a marketing manager.
Much of Pete’s job function involved developing and promoting marketing material, including
social media, for the college. Pete said he mostly meets internally with his own team and
different departments to determine his tasks and the production of new content. A component of
Pete’s marketing included showcasing students, student groups, and various departments and
personnel.
Stephanie worked as a student resource specialist in an Alabama community college. She
helped students by providing guidance, academic, and personal resources to students and
supporting her college’s counselors. Additionally, she said she helps bring students together in
groups to create a sense of community by facilitating events and coordinating student
programming. Her role required a lot of front-facing work and engagement with both students
and administrators.
Tanjiro worked in the department of engineering at a Las Vegas community college. He
mostly supported engineering faculty, staff, and students by managing labs, supplying
instructional material, and coordinating engineering-specific events. Tanjiro said he provides
additional assistance to instructors and aides alike to ensure instructional continuity during
lecture and lab, works as a liaison on behalf of the engineering administrative department, and
fields questions asked by students.
56
Liz worked in institutional research in a Texas community college. In her capacity, Liz
said she assesses the student data needs of the college and presents that information for ongoing
business decision making. Additionally, Liz described collaborating with external local, state,
and federal organizations. Liz’s role was considered mostly internal, she does meet with external
stakeholders for data collection, sharing, and collaborative purposes.
Oma was an art director at a community college in Burlington. Despite being the head of
the college’s art department, Oma also taught several introductory and advanced art courses. Her
job functions required her to be at the college to interact with faculty, staff, and students. Her
courses were a mixture of lecture and lab, where the latter had interactive and hands-on
instruction. Oma believed that direct engagement is paramount to student success in the world of
art.
Brenda was a human resources coordinator at an Orlando community college. Her work
was mostly internal, with very little interaction with students; however, she said she processes
many human management tasks with numerous departments and personnel. Brenda was part of a
team of other human resource specialists who maintain the policies, procedures, and staff
management. She said her team regularly makes presentations for employees at all parts of their
career trajectories at the community college.
Method: Qualitative Interviews
Semistructured, qualitative interviews lasting approximately 65–75 minutes were
conducted online using the video-conferencing platform, Zoom. This interview method used
standard, yet open-ended research questions, and follow-up questions to each participant allowed
for narratives unique to each individual to emerge that provided insight to each of their lived
experiences based on those questions (Johnson & Christensen, 2017; Seidman, 2013; Weiss,
57
1995). Additionally, the semistructured setup streamlined the data organization and comparative
process for expedited analysis and reduction of bias (Johnson & Christensen, 2017). The
interview transcription data were managed by artificial intelligence, recorded in Zoom; exported
into a Microsoft Word document and reviewed for accuracy; then submitted for coding, analysis,
and interpretation by the researcher. Any PII found was redacted in the final transcript. All data
were secured in a private cloud storage platform with a backup to a local secure external storage
drive with access made available only to the researcher. Upon completion, all interview media
and relevant files were securely destroyed. The interview questions can be found in the interview
procedure guide (see Appendix A).
Participants
To qualify for this study, participants were required to be either full-time employees or
contractors at a community college. Their job functions required onsite work prior to the start of
the COVID-19 global pandemic in 2020, and the organization had to have mandated their
transition to remote work within the first 90 days of the declared pandemic between March–May
2020. Through snowball sampling, 15 participants were selected based on the criteria to widen
the applicant pool. These criteria are covered in Appendix B, which includes any additional
information on the participants selected for this study.
The researcher solicited and recruited qualified applicants to partake in this study through
multiple methods that included (a) cold-call introductory emails on existing mail listservs, (b)
academic and professional public distribution lists, (c) posts on heavily trafficked online message
forums, (d) higher education social hubs and newsletters, and (e) posts on social networking sites
such as LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook. These publications had no geographical requirements
and contained information that described the purpose of the research and an invitation to share
58
experiences. From the initial respondents, a formal online invitation via email provided an
introductory note and described the research’s purpose (see Appendix C and Appendix D). Out
of all possible respondents who had availability to interview, 15 remote workers were selected to
participate. Snowball sampling assisted in reaching the desired number of participants because
there were opportunities for participants to identify additional measures for sourcing other
qualified participants for the interviews.
Instrumentation
For the interview protocol, the researcher included an interview guide consisting of
instructions on the interview logistics that lasted 65–75 minutes (Seidman, 2013; Weiss, 1995).
The interview itself was composed of a standardized set of questions with optional probing
questions that were asked at the discretion of the interviewer (the researcher; see Appendix A).
The order and design of all the questions were structured to promote a natural and engaging flow
of conversation and responses that could be captured without hard interruption. For example, the
first prompt was, “Can you describe your remote work experience?” which established the topic
and theme of the discussion. The initial questions were broad in nature to allow for participants
to share and prompt the researcher for any further questions to further enrich data collection,
such as, “Can you further elaborate on that experience?” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The 16
questions found in Appendix A were recorded and transcribed online.
Data Collection Procedures
After participant approval to be recorded, all interview data were recorded, collected, and
transcribed over Zoom using artificial intelligence. After an initial welcome and restatement of
the purpose of the interview and research, open-ended questioning followed the semistructured
interview to maintain organic flow and engagement (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interviews
59
lasted approximately 65–75 minutes and all responses that were shared were classified as
experiences, opinions, values, or any combination thereof.
Zoom served as the primary transcription software, and the data were backed up to a
Microsoft Word document to check for any inaccuracies. The researcher also used Microsoft
OneNote for additional rea- time data capture. Finally, the researcher must acknowledge the
story’s construction formed through the data capture and representation of those data to others
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016); as such, all participants were recognized for their participation and
involvement in the study and thanked with a $10 electronic Starbucks gift card.
Data Analysis
The researcher conducted coding methods using hybrid or priori or open and axial coding
types, which are consistent with the qualitative research. Data were first transcribed from the
online interview and exported into a living, breathing document and framed through a
phenomenological lens for better understanding and control (Johnson & Christensen, 2017).
These data were then filtered through the theoretical and conceptual framework (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Next, the researcher set a coding standard, and each interview recording went
through several iterations for coding conducted mainly through repetition of listening,
examining, and understanding the data for comparison. The next stage involved open coding,
which required the researcher to review all the intrinsic elements of each interview data to
formulate themes and concepts.
Coding began with priori codes for emerging themes and concept frequencies and were
converted into categories through axial coding to include relationships (Aliyu et al., 2015).
Additionally, the researcher selectively coded any remaining phenomenal data for further
60
explanation. Data analysis was complete when no new information was available or if saturation
was present (Creswell & Creswell, 2014).
Trustworthiness and Credibility
This study was designed to collect rich data through the lived experiences and opinions of
remote workers during the COVID-19 global pandemic. To properly assess a qualitative
interview requires credibility and dependability, which, in this study, incorporated participants of
qualifying remote workers to recount their lived experiences (Maxwell, 2012; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, member checking was also employed as another best practice to
further enhance the study’s internal credibility because this approach accounts for both accuracy
and bias (Gibbs, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This step included submitting copies of the
interview transcripts to participants for accuracy. Once the researcher received the sign off, the
data was ready for analysis.
Dependability is another validity redundancy tool that is established by quoting
participants in the research results to provide clarity and understanding. This method assists with
keeping data consistent with the results (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Lastly, reliability is achieved
through thorough use of a study or interview protocol and coding process for others to follow.
Reliability determines if the data collection, protocols, and results provide authenticity to the
results (Creswell & Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Coding the transcripts underwent
several iterations as new patterns and themes were analyzed and discovered, with a minimum
number of intervals set as the baseline while minimizing any coding errors such as definitional
drift (Gibbs, 2018).
It should be noted that all research in this study included several review processes by
various stakeholders. Alongside the researcher, the dissertation committee made additional
61
reviews for consistency and adequacy. The data collected during the interviews were deemed
completed after all 15 participants submitted their final approvals after any editing was
completed.
Ethics
Because human participants were part of the study, additional considerations had to be
met to ensure confidentiality procedures were followed. It was the responsibility of the
researcher to ensure all data were secured and untampered while ensuring the “do no harm”
policy was enabled to maintain trustworthiness (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). University of
Southern California’s Institutional Review Board provided additional guidelines for humanrelated research.
All participants received digital consent forms, which, along with expressing the nature
of the research, explained their rights as participants. These rights, which were reiterated by the
researcher, emphasized the following:
● consent by the participant must be granted to start the interview,
● the interview can be stopped at any time,
● participation is voluntary,
● consent must be granted for the interview to be recorded,
● each participant will refrain from disclosing any PII,
● any PII found will be redacted,
● each participant’s identity will be kept confidential,
● data will be securely stored during the research, and
● data will be securely destroyed at the conclusion of the research.
62
The participants had to consent verbally and in writing before the interviews continued. As
previously aforementioned, each participant received a copy of their interview transcript to check
for accuracy.
Limitations and Delimitations
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), limitations are influences outside of the
researcher’s control. For this study, a limitation was the final number of individuals who were
interviewed for the qualitative research, which was designated at 15. Although this sample size
allowed for comprehensive rich data, it was still small and not representative of the overall
population. Another limitation was that participants may not have been entirely truthful in their
responses because they were promoting their own biases; such a limitation may have led to
embellished or underrepresented responses.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) considered delimitations within the control of the researcher.
The first delimitation was that the scope of this study was limited to only community college
remote workers who transitioned into that role at the start of the COVID-19 global pandemic in
2020. Remote workers prior to March 2020 or thereafter were not eligible to participate. Another
delimitation was not all industries were represented in the study. Finally, another delimitation
was that this was a qualitative study of 15 participants. A quantitative survey could have yielded
higher participation from an increased number of participants from various industries. All of
these limitations and delimitations can be mitigated in future research.
63
Chapter Four: Findings
The research presented in this study sought to understand the lived experiences of
community college remote workers during the COVID-19 global pandemic in 2020. This chapter
synthesizes the outcomes from data analyzed from participant interviews, publicly available and
relevant data, and the literature review. The following research questions stemmed from the
Burke-Litwin (1992) model for organizational change, whose framework focuses on the various
drivers and impacts of change:
1. How did community college workers experience organizational support during the
pandemic?
2. How did remote community college employees experience support for their wellness
during the pandemic?
3. What is the remote worker’s perspective on organizational support for wellness?
As part of the data collection process for this study, a total of 15 participants from various
nationwide community colleges participated in individual a 65–75-minute semistructured online
interview. The interview contained open-ended and interpretative questions designed to elicit
rich and in-depth responses. The interview questions can be found in Appendix A.
During the coding phase, the initial data were processed through both the theoretical and
conceptual framework. Then, the filtered data were further analyzed and observed to generate
themes and patterns that aligned with the research questions. Participants who used terms or
phrases such as “I felt” or “It felt” to denote their respective lived experiences was indicative of
reactions to organizational wellness support or guidance received (Pradies et al., 2021; Reich et
al., 2020; Smith, 2023; VanLeeuwen et al., 2021). As participants expressed their lived
experiences, they shared their firsthand accounts of a particular phenomenon, which, for the
64
research, was the COVID-19 global pandemic (Creswell & Creswell, 2014). Key aspects of the
participants’ lived experiences, when spoken in the “I felt/it felt” form, yielded data focused on
individuals, direct involvement, and the knowledge gained. Benefits from incorporating these
lived experiences included richer data, informal solutions, and empowerment as future
researchers leverage these data and incorporate the data into their findings. Every participant
provided their lived experiences in their responses as related to their work during the pandemic,
illustrating the impact on their wellness, motivation, self-efficacy, engagement with their
organization, and their work–life balance.
Research Question 1: How Did Community College Workers Experience Organizational
Support With Remote Work During the Pandemic?
The interview questions were designed to understand the depth of support and wellness
that community college remote workers received from their employers. The questions leaned on
prevailing themes of motivation, self-efficacy, and engagement to explore (a) how participants
internally developed initiatives to adapt to their new surroundings; (b) what type of foundational
and organizational understanding each participant had regarding remote work, training, and
support; and (c) what pivoting took place. Based on the first research question, the primary and
subsequent interview questions probed the depth of organizational support that remote workers
received during the COVID-19 global pandemic. Though conceptually, remote workers
generally expected baseline support from their companies, during the interviews many
participants expressed the limitations, scarcity, and overall guidance or acuity in providing
additional support to accommodate their transition to remote work. Many participants expressed
minimal support or instructions received beyond technical equipment and stipends to purchase
additional equipment; to a lesser degree, all participants agreed that they had received little-to-no
65
training on remote working practices, despite repeated requests for understanding. For example,
Robert remarked, “No training was given, it was more like a set of rules. Get up at this time,
check in on the email with us.” Another participant, Liz, responded to one of the prompts as to
what the organization had done to improve their transition to remote work, noting, “Probably
having clear guidance and expectations, of, like employee-to-supervisor expectations.”
Data analysis from the participant interviews revealed the following recurring themes
about remote workers’ experiences of organizational support. Analysis of the interviews revealed
over 80% of the interviews contained recurring themes; these themes were strong indicators of
areas deserving further exploration. Such findings are extrapolated later in the following
sections:
• Insufficient direction
• Insufficient organizational support
• Lack of feeling supported by the organization
The first theme was Insufficient Direction, which came in the form of guidance,
instruction, and training that organizations gave to their workforce during the transition to remote
work. The second theme was Insufficient Organizational Support, where community college
remote personnel felt there was not enough support outside providing minimal computer
equipment to continue doing their job. The third theme was the Lack of Feeling Supported By
the Organization, where remote workers felt their employers did not conduct any wellness checkins, provide adequate wellness resources, nor even support them on how to set up a home office.
Insufficient Direction
Participants expressed similar concerns and provided personal examples of the lack of
direction they received from their organizations. Only one respondent remarked that their
66
direction was adequate, though no more or less than previous standard guidance. Conversely,
66% of the total participants detailed their difficult experiences when attempting to receive
guidance on remote-working procedures, either as these procedures existed or evolved; two
participants from different colleges and states mentioned how they had asked for direction
repeatedly and those requests were never answered. Another four participants felt although they
received partial direction, it was inadequate overall. These emerging experiences highlighted the
theme of Insufficient Direction and was further illustrated by the following examples.
Katherine worked at a large community college in the greater Los Angeles area. She had
a good rapport with her local information technology (IT) department and understood
technology, and by extension, remote work. She also worked alongside student support services.
Katherine expressed that she supported remote work completely, but during the COVID-19
global pandemic, she received little overall direction and did not feel supported. When referring
to conflicting directions, Katherine remarked, “[Staff] would always ask the questions but never
got responses [from organizational leaders] . . . the support was not there.” When asked about
how much help she did receive, Katherine went on to say:
The help was limited because there were other resources . . . where [the organization]
could have been more supportive but . . . whether it was for lack of understanding of how
to navigate that or how to keep track, it wasn’t offered.
Katherine explained how staff members were often confused at who had jurisdiction over
remote-working practices, transitions, and assistance when organizational leadership made
recommendations, but deferred any executive decision to division leaders, who were often in
conflict with middle managers. This confusion led to unanswered questions, and simply making
any decision by staff caused increased reprimands and/or disciplinary action. Katherine believed
67
an empathetic leader should, at the minimum, have made adaptive decisions based on the
organization’s recommendations, medical and state officials’ mandates on closures, and
sustained active feedback from the workforce on what they needed for a successful transition by
providing ongoing guidance and direction through constant communication.
Another participant, Norma from New York, provided another example by explaining her
frustrations with a lack of direction, to which she was expected to adjust as necessary. Norma
expressed her experiences similarly to Katherine’s. Her experiences were also reminiscent of
Katherine’s, where the organizational direction was subject to constant changes. Norma shared
her initial account from when the COVID-19 global pandemic started and said, “My department
manager required me to come into work because he did not provide any [justification] despite
that the [vice president] made the recommendation to work from home . . . which I can totally do
my job [from home].”
Thereafter, Norma received a notification that she could work from home (WFH).
However, when she inquired about additional training and guidance, the tone changed. Norma
reported, “I asked about additional training. [My manager] only mentioned to wait . . . and
review any safety websites or videos . . . none of it was relevant to my job . . . I was on my own.”
Norma’s experience with self-efficacy fluctuated in the absence of any organizational direction,
and she learned how to overcome the difficulties of remote work during the pandemic without
any assistance beyond IT support.
Both Katherine and Norma were representative of a large group of community college
remote workers who were faced with both internal and external adversities, and who were left to
fend for themselves. Their insights as recent remote workers in the community college sector
likely differed from any experienced remote worker or fully distributed organization that
68
provides modern guidance on remote work practices; in contrast, this specific group of remote
workers described relying on each other. Table 2 contains the summary of select participants’
responses that highlighted insufficient organizational direction.
Table 2
Interview Quotes Describing Insufficient Organizational Direction
Participant Interview quote
Julio My work requires me to engage students directly. I couldn’t get anyone to give
me any directions. All I had was email and then later Zoom which made things
impersonal and tough.
John The one thing they repeated to me was to just do my job. How was I supposed to
do that when they took all my resources?
Robert I was just expected to get up and go to my computer and await further instructions
that never came. This happened time and again.
Pete There were days where I didn’t know how to work because anything I did was
rejected. Even after asking for help, it was just silence.
Liz How does one research when it requires you to be on campus, but they didn’t
allow me to be on campus even collect my data? There were a lot of ‘no’ to
everything, so I did nothing because I got nothing.
Insufficient Organizational Support
The second recurring theme found in the data was the depth of support received by
community college remote workers from their respective employers. Thirteen of the 15
participants mentioned baseline support from their respective IT departments, which included
procuring computer equipment and accessories for take-home use and technical support.
However, many IT departments did not provide remote work best practices, technical support
during regular business hours, or additional equipment beyond a laptop. Organizational
69
leadership did not include any additional support measures, such as wellness initiatives, stipends
to cover the costs of employees purchasing work equipment, or any type of engagement training
for coworkers and stakeholders.
The lack of organizational support was evident throughout the interviews in various and
numerous ways. For example, Julio, a community college remote worker from Salt Lake City,
mentioned how he had to search for compatible monitors and cables to establish his home office
for the first time because no one answered his requests for clarity on setup. Liz expressed her
dissatisfaction with her immediate manager regarding how, at minimum, a phone call to check in
on her well-being would have made a difference in her productivity and engagement. The same
sentiment emerged for Robert, who shared that leadership simply told him to “standby for further
instruction” on email. Only two participants remarked that the engagement and depth of support
received from their leadership was on par to prepandemic levels; however, most interviewees
discussed how any type of genuine action from the organization and its leadership would have
made a difference; these actions ranged from a simple phone call to acknowledging wellness
adversities during the pandemic.
Tanjiro, a community college remote worker from Las Vegas, explained his view on the
differences between baseline and extended support during the pandemic. He shared his
experience with his organization’s human resources (HR) department’s business continuity
practices, noting, “When it came to asking about what emotional or psychological services are
available to cope [with the pandemic], it was silence.” Tanjiro further expressed his frustrations
that HR offered no assistance or support, stating:
70
I asked about those mobile health apps . . . like Headspace, but whatever response I got
was, “You can seek those services on your own, but we are not exploring any options at
this time.” I mean . . . how would you take that?
Tanjiro identified a need to support community college remote workers who struggled to cope
with the COVID-19 global pandemic, especially amid the worldwide fatalities, isolation, city
curfews, and public panic. However, when he proposed this opportunity to his school’s HR
department, he learned that his organization opted out of investing in further support services for
their remote workers. Tanjiro’s case was not uncommon, as other participants also conveyed a
similar experience.
Liz, a participant from Rio Grande, remarked how she was not surprised about a lack of
organizational support; she said, “We hardly had any resources to begin with.” Liz also
commented, “When the pandemic started, I said ,‘Oh my God, we are going to get sick and die . .
. and my school doesn’t even care!’” Although Liz knew that there were limitations in what her
school could do for remote workers, she felt her organization was in such disarray that it would
be more taxing to try to get any type of assistance and instead opted to do it on her own. She
relied heavily on her coworkers, whom she referred to as a second family, to make it through the
COVID-19 global pandemic and obtain the support that she and others desperately needed. Liz
was not alone in the way she felt, and shared, “[Other coworkers] brought me a desk and chairs .
. . helped me put it together . . . and asked how I was holding up. Just fine, I said. But we all
knew we were all far from fine . . . we were scared.”
These gestures and more than helped Liz and others like her get through the lack of
organizational support. Many in her own community college were aware of this issue, but as Liz
said, “That didn’t stop us from helping one another, from a phone call, to dropping off a meal . . .
71
to simply doing something. That was more than what my school did for us. They did not help at
all.”
Liz felt conflicted about how her organization gave support. She noted although the
leaders did provide basic support services, she was very aware of the lack of funding to provide
any additional support. Her main issue was the lack of communication and empathy from her
organization and its leaders to recognize the shortcomings, which instead deferred to
recommendations made by local city and county officials to adhere to any medical and/or federal
guidelines. However, a gap in addressing any wellness resources to remote workers became
increasingly evident in the data. Liz fully understood that even in the trying times that the
COVID-19 global pandemic showcased, providing wellness support by any means was vital to
both the wellness of remote workers and to the business continuity practices of organizations.
Similarly, Bob, a remote worker from a community college in Chicago said, “We have all
types of experts, some which work [at this community college]. Why didn’t they do more to help
us when COVID started happening? Many of [the remote workers] felt lost, scared, and . . .
abandoned.” When prompted about his experience of organizational support, Pete, a community
college remote worker from Ann Arbor, said, “Hindsight is 20/20. [The organization] could have
done a lot, something. But some things were just obvious . . . and our leaders were oblivious.”
Both Bob and Pete agreed that insufficient support was provided to community college remote
workers during the COVID-19 global pandemic, indicating that some institutions had the
resources and means to do so otherwise. The participants recognized that their schools had the
ability to provide additional support services when they transitioned their workforce to remote
work and its respective value. Lastly, Pete, Bob, and other participants shared a fundamental
understanding on recognizing organizational experts who have extensive experience in
72
organizational support. Moreover, based on the community college remote workers’ own
experiences, overall support came from grassroots efforts of staff helping one another instead of
the organization leading the initiative. Table 3 contains the summary of select participant
responses that highlighted insufficient organizational support.
Table 3
Interview Quotes Describing Insufficient Organizational Support
Participant Interview quote
Oma What made my work difficult was that my administration told me to keep going. I
could give some direction to my staff . . . like continue working on a computer.
But how do continue teaching [art] when you are supposed to use your hands?
We use paint and brushes, not keyboards and mice.
Brenda I was inundated with questions [from employees] about how this will affect their
pay and benefits, and how to work from home. Honestly, it gave me anxiety
trying to help, they were frustrated, confused, scared. I was told by my boss to
just calm them down. That’s it, nothing else to them or me.
Lack of Feeling Supported by the Organization
The third theme that emerged from the data on Research Question 1 was how community
college remote workers felt supported by the organization. This theme reflected a variation of the
previous theme of the actual support received. Several interviewees discussed feeling supported
when they would take initiatives or ask for assistance during the transition into remote work,
such as how the organization provided actual guidance on the transition versus how the remote
worker felt with the actual transition guidance given. With the former, an organization provided
enough direction to prepare its workforce for remote work successfully, complete with
instructions on home office setup, equipment, and standard unchanged support; with the latter,
73
the remote worker felt that the guidance provided by the organization or requests for additional
support were denied or unfulfilled. This theme stemmed from a probing question on how the
participants reacted to the challenges they faced during the transition into remote work. Many of
the community college remote workers discussed their various experiences and how this theme
took form. John described his experiences, noting, “I felt terrible asking for more help . . . as if
something was wrong with me. But I couldn’t turn to my coworker because they didn’t know
either . . . [my organization] would make you feel stupid for not knowing.”
John’s view was that nobody, including his management, was on the same page and he
was certain that no one was ready for remote work, yet felt punished for not knowing. His
expectations on how to move forward during the pandemic contrasted with the expectations
communicated by his school. His equity lens demonstrated how standardized instructions
alienated many of the recently transitioned workforce and that overall remote work readiness
was low. John further explained the difficulties he endured the COVID-19 global pandemic as he
established himself as a remote worker despite the organizational support he received, noting it
was not enough.
Brenda, a community college remote worker from Orlando, understood what remote
work entailed. She expressed the visible disparity in remote-work readiness among the staff
following the transition. She also mentioned the hardship of receiving additional support from
her employer and the undesirable outcome. She said:
I knew many people that worked from home, including my son. I understand how it
works. But what [setting him up] to work from home was not the same for me . . . many
in my department felt the same way. Yet when I tried to ask for help, I was better off
asking my son instead. It was a letdown when your boss ignored you.
74
Both John and Brenda recognized the difference, and discrepancy, in what support the
organization gave and how it felt to receive support from the organization.
The participants’ comments in this section displayed metacognitive knowledge of their
existing understanding of the depth of equitable support. Many participants described seeking
additional understandings of what type of support they looked to receive to overcome the
challenges faced. Table 4 contains the summary of select participant responses that highlighted
lack of feeling supported by the organization.
Table 4
Interview Quotes Describing Lack of Feeling Supported by the Organization
Participant Interview quote
Katherine I got no help from management, no help from leadership, nothing. It felt like a
dead end.
Norma I was sending communications every other day or week; it seemed confusing what
I was telling the [college] community. After speaking out about it, [the
leadership] told me to figure it out and just do my job. This is not how you
support your team during a time of crisis!
Robert When [the pandemic] started happening, we were ordered to stop everything.
Then we were told that we were working from home. My job isn’t exactly
‘online,’ but how was I supposed to work? My job isn’t designed that way. My
boss didn’t even answer my emails when I asked how I do things when I have
to be on campus.
Pete It was a dead stop for us. We were either putting out bulletins on COVID or
recycling old material. It felt cheap and misleading to talk about how vibrant
the school was when no one was there . . . and I’m not just referring to just the
school either.
Bob The tough part was how I received a very sterile email about how instruction was
moving online . . .very few details. It took me aback how dismissive [the
communication] felt about my well-being, how this impacted me or others, or
how basically we were functioning without a clear understanding of what we
were doing or supposed to do.
75
Experiences of organizational support from community college remote workers during
the COVID-19 global pandemic included insufficient direction, insufficient support, and a lack
of feeling supported by the organization. Although there were outliers who felt that there was
adequate direction and support, for most participants, a gap existed between organizational
support provided and support received sufficiency. The answers provided by the community
college remote workers interviewed demonstrated a limitation to their conceptual understanding
of remote work practices but also a metacognitive awareness that comprehensive support was
detrimental to both the individual and organization’s business continuity and success. Table 6
presents a summary of participants’ experiences with organizational support as aligned to the
first research question. Additionally, many participants identified a lack of separate wellness
support as part of their support experience, which is addressed in the next section.
76
Table 5
Summary of Participants’ Experiences With Organizational Support
Participant Received
insufficient
direction
Received insufficient
organizational support
Lack of feeling supported
by the organization
John ✔ ✔
Julio ✔ ✔ ✔
Katherine ✔ ✔ ✔
Norma ✔
Robert ✔ ✔ ✔
Abrey ✔ ✔
Sadie ✔ ✔
Bob ✔ ✔
Molly ✔
Pete ✔ ✔ ✔
Stephanie ✔
Tanjiro ✔ ✔ ✔
Liz ✔ ✔ ✔
Oma ✔
Brenda ✔ ✔
77
Research Question 2: How Did Remote Community College Employees Experience
Support for Their Wellness During the Pandemic?
Community college remote employees spoke candidly about their wellness in this study.
The second research question delved into themes arising from the first (i.e., remote workers’
experiences of organizational support). Research Question 2 specifically examined the support’s
impact on various productivity aspects, self-efficacy, peer engagement, and work–life balance.
Analysis of data on the participants’ well-being support experiences revealed three key study
themes:
• Impact on productivity
• Impact on affected engagement
• Impact on work–life balance
The first theme reflected how wellness support experiences caused an impact on
productivity for the individuals. Such productivity was based on their function as remote workers
opposite standard onsite workers. The second theme was how wellness support experiences
affected individuals’ engagement, with both work coworkers and with personal acquaintances.
Finally, the last theme was how everyone coped with wellness issues caused by the Impact on
Work–Life Balance precipitated by the COVID-19 global pandemic. Many common words or
their derivatives such as improvement, better, and stress turned up repeatedly among the
participant interviews; for context, any repeating term or word was designated as mentioned over
10 times in any given prompt. Some participants expressed neither positive nor negative views in
this research question and were not marked. This section also covered intrinsic and extrinsic
forces, including self-efficacy, motivation, and wellness resources—these findings were
78
consistent with the overall sentiment about the haphazard response by organizations to mitigate
wellness issues.
Impact on Productivity
All interviewees were asked how remote work affected their productivity. Of the
participants’ responses, 60% expressed a positive impact on their productivity, whereas 20%
reported no change in productivity. The majority of participants felt the shift to remote work
allowed an increase in both personal and professional productivity. Many in the interview group
expressed initial difficulties with adapting to remote work, specifically working from home;
however, after acclimation, participants reported a dramatic increase in productivity.
Abrey, a community college remote worker from Phoenix, provided an example of a
change in productivity. Although she still observed all medical and state stay-at-home mandates,
she recalled her experience after acclimation, noting:
I didn’t feel “chained” anymore.” We are all used to a 9 to 5 workday, Monday through
Friday . . . but I am doing so much more . . . I am not rushing . . . not everything has to
wait when I get home or the weekend.
Abrey’s positive experiences reflect how working from home introduced her to work–life
harmonization rather than disruption. In her words, Abrey remarked, “It’s crazy to think that our
view of work has changed because of an international crisis . . . and is the silver lining. I can’t
same the say for others, but a lot of my stress was gone.”
Abrey’s experience resulted in her increased support for remote work. She spoke about
how conducive remote work had been in her life and how the shift contributed to an overall
positive impact on her productivity and, by extension, her wellness. She continued to say how a
79
positive work environment, particularly from home, influenced her wellness, which increased her
motivation and productivity directly.
The positive impact on productivity was consistent in other interviews. Katherine
remarked how remote work was not a prior alternative work consideration and how its benefits
certainly promoted a greater work–life harmonization. Katherine said, “[Working remotely] has
been a game changer for me. I feel less stressed, more productive, more engaged, and much,
much happier.” On a similar note, Oma from Burlington said:
Remote work is not for everyone, I think there’s a lot of self-discipline involved. But if
you run your house right, this should be second nature . . . I knew what I needed to adjust
to make my days go right.
Oma’s view could also be taken literally, as she described combining her work and meetings
with cleaning and laundry and was relieved that she no longer had home tasks pending after a
long day at work. Oma was quick to point out that self-discipline extends to self-care as well,
noting, “Going through a pandemic was tough . . . and you had to give up that your employer
was going to provide you with additional [wellness support], you had to take care of it yourself.”
Like many other participants, Oma said she did try the wellness mobile applications that were
available in the smartphone markets, and she contended these applications helped her become
less anxious and sleep better but admitted that success may not be the case for others.
Both Katherine and Oma’s experiences ran in tandem with a positive impact on
productivity and a relative impact on their respective wellness; moreover, the two participants
acknowledged that their wellness was not representative of their fellow remote workers’
experiences and understood that extended wellness support services during the COVID-19 global
pandemic could have mitigated many wellness issues and subsequent impacts on productivity,
80
engagement, self-efficacy, and motivation. Table 6 contains the summary of select participant
responses that highlighted the impact on their productivity.
Table 6
Interview Quotes Describing the Impact on Productivity
Participant Interview quote
Bob This isn’t my first rodeo, as I have been working in a remote capacity for
years. I’m used to it, enjoy it, and wouldn’t go back to regular work if I
could. It didn’t affect me at all.
Robert This was the most difficult time in my life working remotely, I hated it. I
struggled to get my job done. While most of it was management, I also
blame myself for my inefficiency; I wasn’t motivated enough, and my
coworkers knew it.
Pete There were days where I felt super productive and into my work, and there
were days where I didn’t even turn on my laptop. After the whole
wishy-washy call for support from the brass, it just desensitized me. I
was on my own, so I needed discipline . . . that wasn’t easy.
Impact on Affected Engagement and Wellness
In exploring the theme of how the participants’ engagement was affected, the data
revealed a mixture of both positive and negative impacts on engagement and wellness. Of the 15
participants, 53% reported a negative impact on engagement as a remote worker during the
pandemic, and 46% reported a positive influence on wellness from the organizational support
received. The data indicated that 40% of participants reported minimal, if any, changes in
engagement, whereas 13% of participants had minimal-to-negligible changes in continuing
wellness issues from the support received by the organization. For reference, these minimal
changes were considered by participants to be too insignificant to track or deemed critical. The
81
following example showcases the experiences of Sadie, a community college remote worker
from San Francisco. Sadie spoke about how on her experiences with receiving organizational
wellness support, initially stating that she felt great about working remotely because it allowed
her to focus on her work, but that positivity quickly eroded after when she could not get ahold of
HR to discuss the mortal impact of COVID-19. Sadie remarked, “I reached out to [HR] and all
they did was refer to the [Centers for Disease Control] website and follow any recommendations.
That didn’t help. I started to worry. I couldn’t chat with [anyone] about it.” The lack of
communication and wellness impacted Sadie’s wellness and engagement considerably, and she
became reclusive, remarking how she was off camera and muted in almost all of her meetings.
She went on to affirm, “It hit me hard . . . honestly, I wish someone would have just pick up the
phone to ask if I was okay. . . because I was not okay.”
Sadie’s account mirrored more than half of the participants interviewed who responded
identically, reflecting on a general retreat and reduction in engagement primarily due to
organizational communications devoid of any empathetic and nonexistent extended wellness
support services. The personal aspects of detailing loneliness and coping with a threat that was
not fully understood were emotions not acknowledged by their employers. The participants’
responses combined as a communal reference to supporting remote work but underscored the
negative impact on wellness and engagement with personal and professional individuals.
Another example came from Tanjiro, who had previously expressed an absence of
specific wellness resources. Speaking about how the support he received impacted his wellness,
Tanjiro expressed his dissatisfaction that nothing was available when trying to find help for his
wellness issues noting, “Call it emotional health, mental health, physical health, wellness,
82
whatever. . . . I wanted to talk to someone, a therapist. I wanted to know if telehealth or eHealth
was a thing. It was not, at least not where I work.”
Tanjiro said he felt particularly defeated especially after his own family tested positive
for COVID-19 and how he tried to keep it together the best he could despite extremely limited
information and resources. In that, Tanjiro lamented, “When [HR] just showed me my [standard
benefits], it was obvious that nothing extra was offered. With the whole COVID thing, it was
upsetting. They weren’t supporting me any more than they had to.” This experience adversely
affected Tanjiro’s desire to maintain his productivity and engagement, and he expressed a
decreasing will to go to work, attend meetings, and respond to messages, saying, “You expect
me to go the extra mile, but [the organization] couldn’t even check in with me to see how I was
doing? Was that too much to ask?” In summary, Tanjiro, as with other participants who aligned
with his experiences and answers, felt they all had to take care of themselves at their cost while
still attempting to do their job. When asked to summarize his experience with engagement,
Tanjiro simply said, “It was crap.”
Tanjiro’s experience with wellness support affected his ability to engage others directly.
Given the lack of sufficient wellness resources, Tanjiro, like Sadie, was not motivated to sustain
any form of higher-than-normal engagement in the organization as remote workers. The
participants were preoccupied with coping and managing their wellness in their own respective
means, which served as their short-term levers. Table 7 contains the summary of select
participant responses that highlighted the impact on their affected engagement.
83
Table 7
Interview Quotes Describing the Impact on Engagement
Participant Interview quote
Brenda I just receded into my home. I didn’t feel like talking to any coworkers,
participate in any meetings, or even have my camera on. Most of the time
I was on mute until they asked me something, then I was very short. [HR]
asked if me everything was ok; I lied because they were lying to me too.
Just let me do my job and leave me alone.
John How do you engage the community behind Zoom? You were either looking
at dark boxes or people that looked zoned out. I had to try my hardest to
stay optimistic, it was HARD! There were many times were even my best
was my worst.
Katherine I don’t know . . . I found it hard sometimes to do my work because my work
didn’t support me. My job that is. I reminded myself to be grateful that I
was employed because so many were not. But it still felt terrible because
how was I supposed to remain engaging when my own wellness was not a
concern.
Impact on Work–Life Balance
Because the COVID-19 global pandemic caused a major disruption in the work–life
balance of many, alleviating this issue was incredibly complex. The data presented in this study
revealed a mixture of positive, negative, and negligible impact from community college remote
workers. In this study, out of the 15 participants, approximately 46% of participants reported a
negligible-to-minimal disruption, whereas the remaining 53% indicated an increase in work–life
balance. These data are reported and visualized in Figure 4. For reference, a minimal-tonegligible disruption was categorized as an insignificant variation that had no measurable or
known changes to work–life balance behaviors and routine.
84
Figure 4
Diagram Demonstrating Participant Responses on How Work–Life Balance was Impacted by
COVID-19 After Receiving Organizational Support
In all, 93% of all participants shared their personal experiences of how organizational
support affected their work–life balance, where many participants indicated a positive impact.
However, despite the majority’s support, 53% also made recommendations on improving or
providing extended wellness resources to cope with and combat any wellness issues.
Molly, a community college remote worker from Los Angeles, recounted her wellness
experience during the COVID-19 global pandemic. She remembered how, initially, it was
confusing and overwhelming when she started as a remote worker for her community college
because of all the different issues that were happening at once. Molly said:
85
It was incredibly hard to keep up . . . even with the support. After I settled . . . I had a
good work–life balance routine. Now could the school have done more to support my
wellness? Absolutely, and I did make those suggestions.
However, any suggestions made by Molly or other community college remote workers to obtain
additional wellness resources simply resulted in the form of “coupons” for wellness services. She
recounted how this effort was a very short-lived solution because she was unable to go to a
hospital to see a counselor during the pandemic. Molly explained her disappointment at her
school’s response, as she would have liked for the school to have permanently offered wellness
services and felt their solution was myopic in scope and untimely in use and could not be used to
obtain the support she needed for her wellness. Molly ended her experience by stating although
her home was not filled with suffering and was quite peaceful and safe, she “strongly
recommends having better support resources like that for the future.”
Drawing from her experiences working remotely in Huntsville, Stephanie described her
work–life disruption and attempts to adjust without the help of her community college’s
resources that were provided. Stephanie’s experiences were more midpoint, as a partial
interruption of her work–life balance. She explained the only change was the transition to
working from home and the burden was with the employer, but noted:
My employer was only following orders from [state officials and Centers for Disease
Control]. I trusted [them]. After I was set up at home . . . there wasn’t much support other
than what [my employer] gave us, I didn’t make a fuss.
Because Stephanie believed that her institution was following orders from the federal and state
officials, she felt there was not much else with which her organization could have provided her.
As she described:
86
They only knew what everyone else knew, so I wasn’t expecting much . . . we were all
uncertain about what was gonna happen tomorrow, but we just prayed and hoped that we
could see another day . . . and I did, which was a blessing already.
Julio’s experience was exceptionally negative, where he had a complete work–life
disruption, his community college provided scarce support, and his leaders did not address any
wellness resources. Julio generally supported remote work, despite the challenges and adversities
to sustain remote work and protect his wellness. Of his experience with his organization’s
support on his wellness during the COVID-19 global pandemic, Julio articulated that “everything
was awful,” and placed the blame on how his school’s IT department ignored all his calls and
emails, leaving him to research everything from his smartphone. He said of this experience,
“When I finally got a computer, it was incomplete. Imagine trying to find all the things you need,
from cables to desks, during the pandemic when everything was shut down to set up your
office.” Additionally, Julio lamented how his school did not send out any timely instructions on
their transition and untimely learned from a coworker, not his manager or division director, that
his department was going to WFH. Julio went on to blame HR for their ineptitude on
communicating any guidance or support on how to WFH, manage his new working environment,
and navigate any newfound stressors. He remarked:
You have other people living in isolation, it can be constantly distracting and tense. All
the while, you’re trying to not get sick, but you want to learn from professionals how to
deal with it . . . but you have no resources.
Julio illustrated his experience as “downright awful.” Additionally, Julio’s views and
experiences on remote work were consistent with the descriptions provided by the other
participants, and he noted, “Working from home seems like a legit gig, when done right. It was a
87
nightmare for me. I literally got no support, and my [wellness] tanked, not like there was any
support for that, either.”
Molly, Stephanie, and Julio’s experiences varied, but they all agreed that their
community college could have provided some form of additional wellness to help them cope to
sustain a positive work–life balance during the COVID-19 global pandemic. Each of them, along
with the remaining majority, made recommendations on how to better support remote workers’
wellness, particularly during a natural disaster like the pandemic, to ensure business continuity,
self-efficacy, motivation, and resiliency. Table 8 contains the summary of select participant
responses that highlighted the impact on their work–life balance.
Table 8
Interview Quotes Describing the Impact on Work–Life Balance
Participant Interview quote
Norma There’s flexibility in both the line of work I do and in working from home that I
appreciate. For example, I can now spend more time with my children. My
meetings are on [Microsoft] Teams and I don’t have to go to big lengths to get
things done as when I would go into the office. I tend to look at my work more
than I used to, and I do need to work on that.
Sadie I absolutely love remote work; it has made such a positive change in my work–
life balance. It has given me liberty to take care of things that I normally had to
wait until the end of the day and there’s no more stress like dealing with traffic.
Again, support from my employer was limited, and I had to adapt, but I wish I
found out about remote work much sooner.
Liz It was a little difficult to get used to remote work when I first started, it really
challenged how my work and life balanced each other. I’d give too much of
one, then too much of the other . . . so it took a while. But I think I’ve gotten
better at it where I can change into ‘work Liz’ and then ‘home Liz’ without
issue.
88
Other themes emerged in the data to help implement enhanced wellness resources,
governance, and protocols; as such, the impacts on productivity, engagement, and work–life
balance were designated as the most adversely affected among the participants. The participants
all voiced their perspectives shaped by the COVID-19 global pandemic experience, leveraging
personal examples with productivity, engagement, and the depth of organizational support
received with maintaining wellness strategics. Table 9 summarizes the participants’ experiences
with support for their wellness, which aligned to the second research question. The next section
assesses the community college remote workers’ perspectives on organizational support for
wellness.
89
Table 9
Summary of Participants’ Experience with Support for Their Wellness
Participant Negative impact on
productivity
Negative impact on
engagement
Positive impact on work–
life balance
John ✔ ✔
Julio ✔ ✔
Katherine ✔ ✔
Norma ✔
Robert ✔ ✔
Abrey ✔ ✔
Sadie ✔ ✔ ✔
Bob ✔
Molly ✔
Pete ✔ ✔ ✔
Stephanie ✔
Tanjiro ✔ ✔
Liz ✔
Oma ✔
Brenda ✔ ✔
Research Question 3: What is the Remote Worker’s Perspective on Organizational
Support for Wellness?
Throughout the interview process, participants spoke on their lived experiences as
recently transitioned remote workers, the depth of support received by their organizations, and
90
how the support impacted their wellness during the COVID-19 global pandemic. The interview
questions were designed to discover the understanding and navigation of both individual and
organizational impacts, the latter exploring concepts of motivation, self-efficacy, and
engagement. The participants described their adaptation experiences of their new role modality
and acceptance of organizational support. Research Question 2 investigated each participant’s
support experience for their wellness. In this section, the findings outline each participant’s
perspective on organizational support for wellness, where the viewpoint of Accountability
emerged as a recurring theme. Another theme discussed was Process Improvement, where
participants felt their organizations could have done better when conveying and relaying
wellness communication resources to their remote workforce. The last theme in discovery was
the incorporation of Equity and Inclusion in the Decision-Making Process when providing
wellness solutions to the remote workforce. Analysis of the data indicated that 93% of the
community college remote worker interviewed focused on those themes:
• Accountability
• Process improvement
• Equity and inclusion in the decision-making process
Participants agreed that reassessments were necessary to improve upon existing communication,
policies, and resources to sustain the success of any remote working model.
Accountability
Because communication was sent either by each organization’s HR department or on
behalf of their respective president or cabinet’s office, the participants felt that organizational
communication remained singular and one sided. Everyone acknowledged that they had each
received an email announcement, either through a nonmonitored or generic email account. What
91
added to the communication confusion was that some participants reported receiving several
emails from different leadership distributing identical information, or just one email and no
subsequent communication; no one could discern who to contact for follow up. Whatever issues
resulted from the minimal transmissions, lack of guidance or direction, or lack of wellness
resources were the responsibility of remote workers to remediate.
When speaking about his organization’s approach to providing any wellness resources,
Robert, a community college remote worker from Miami, remarked, “I think they dropped the
ball. [My organization] took no responsibility for providing or communicating anything.” Robert
understood the critical need not only for direction, but also the need for wellness initiatives that
would help him and his remote colleagues cope with the COVID-19 global pandemic and allow
him to perform his duties, an act of accountability that was largely absent in many organizations.
Robert recognized the value of providing succinct wellness communication and resources as
indicated by his recommendations made during the interview. Alongside Robert, nearly all
participants felt that taking accountability for its haphazard approach to providing wellness
resources would have bridged a discussion between the organization and its remote workforce
and improved business continuity/disaster recovery (BC/DR) best practices.
Brenda echoed the same views as Robert and recognized the need for accountability for
her organization’s shortcomings. Based on her experience, she said:
I think that my school needs to . . . take responsibility for what they failed to do. We were
not ever supposed to become remote workers, and we rushed into becoming one. Then,
they left [us] to figure things out for ourselves.
92
Brenda’s lens, as with other participants, mirrored the need for more assistance to mitigate
COVID-19-induced wellness issues, but instead were met with her organization simply
continuing with day-to-day practices. She remarked:
It’s business as usual . . . it was as if [the organization] glossed over that. No, we all
needed help, and you ignored us. That is not right, and the school has to own up to it. It
was a huge mistake.
Stephanie also expressed a similar disappointment at the lack of accountability at her
community college. She said, “It was a lackluster affair when HR announced how online
[wellness services] can help us. But . . . they wanted us to sign up for it, not that the college was
providing it for us.” Stephanie expressed feeling let down regarding her college’s expectations
that remote workers manage their self-care when they were transitioned into their role
haphazardly without consent or proper equipment. She also lamented that both her institution and
her institution’s HR department’s communication were closed and one directional by design, so
she could not request or contest anything.
Brenda and Stephanie understood that their respective organizational leaders provided
minimal wellness resources with the expectation that it was sufficient and appropriate for
everyone but would not take any further action or responsibility in responding to additional
wellness issues. Other participants had comparable observations related to a lack of
organizational accountability on handling wellness resources to community college remote
workers, providing recommendations on how to handle wellness issues for new and continuing
remote workers along with providing continuous resources that will meet their wellness needs.
Table 10 contains the summary of select participant responses that highlights the remote
workers’ perspectives on accountability of organizational support for wellness.
93
Table 10
Interview Quotes on Remote Workers’ Perspectives on Accountability of Organizational Support
for Wellness
Participant Interview quote
Abrey There’s no such thing and shouldn’t be such a thing as ‘business as usual.’ Emails
talking about the latest [COVID19] information aren’t enough. I would expect
a town hall meeting where [the leadership] sits down and hears what we have
to say. This is my job, this is what I do, it’s effective, it works! They need to be
counseled as to what they did wrong, come to terms with it, and how to
improve. They are just as dependent on us as we are to them.
Molly I understand where a lot of support personnel are coming from, and believe me, I
am just as frustrated. Our organizational units were not thoroughly considered
at any point and that’s a critical deficiency that the school needs to drastically
improve. I am for all change processes once we can identify and consider the
needs of many of our constituents, especially remote workers and it starts with
taking accountability for your indecisions.
Oma Honestly, it’s a process. It really starts with a simple admission that things were
not done correctly. It’s okay to mess up, we all mess up. It’s not okay to try to
sweep it under the rug and pretend that we—I should say [the leadership] left
[remote workers] abandoned. Admit that you were in the wrong so that we can
finally get to making it right.
Process Improvement
In understanding the perspectives over support received on wellness, the researcher
sought to identify what recommendations community college remote workers articulated that can
specifically improve organizational support for wellness. Although process improvement
suggestions varied across all the participants, a couple of the participants linked the procurement
of additional wellness resources to the original communication of transitioning to remote work.
Additionally, though a disparity between participants existed when prompted to consider whether
or not if sufficient wellness resources had been offered versus the need for additional wellness
94
resources, 86% of participants had definitive recommendations on the critical need for any
wellness resource for remote workers.
John was very vocal in his response on existing wellness support, expressing, “My
community college could have done a better job, absolutely. [They] were terrible in handling the
transition, and even worse providing any type of assistance on improving well-being during
COVID.” John was adamant to point out that his organizational leaders needed to reassess issues
that had developed during the pandemic, take in feedback from remote workers who were
suffering, and try other viable solutions. He continued, “If something this insane happens again.
It’s not that hard to be empathetic and show some humanity because not all of us are Superman.
Even Superman had feelings and helped others.” John’s advice was to retool their
communication strategy and engage their workforce actively, but most importantly to take
accountability with failure because to do so otherwise invalidates the thoughts, attitudes, and
feelings of the remote workforce. John said, “We are all different and we all need something
different, especially during COVID . . . and follow through, don’t ignore or dismiss us.
Otherwise, you’re gonna be left without a staff to manage.”
The comments made by John revealed the seemingly tone-deaf approach that his
organization took with remote workers and that no one-size-fits-all for wellness support existed.
He additionally covered the lack of equity, inclusion, accountability, and empathetic tone from
his organizational leadership. Lastly, John’s expectations were that his leadership revamp the
entire support process for the sake of business continuity and remote workforce success, faulting
its existing practices on “direct as you go” management during the pandemic.
Other examples included Molly’s and Pete’s perspectives where they felt that the
organization delivered unsatisfactory wellness resources. Molly remarked, “I was given a coupon
95
for one free counseling session. How is that going to help? It’s embarrassing.” Liz, like Molly,
also believed in the value of starting anew for sourcing wellness assets. Pete, who previously
expressed his frustration with the general lack of support, expressed a similar sentiment when
researching any wellness resources available, saying:
You couldn’t go to the hospital because of the COVID patients, the pharmacies were
cleaned out, so you couldn’t get any type of decent medicine, and looking up any type of
counselor or therapist . . . good luck, no one was available!
Pete’s own accounts ran like both the accounts of other participants and the literature review,
where finding direction was difficult and wellness benefits were not factored into his
compensation plan. Pete noted, “I tried to give my employer another chance to see if they could
help with supporting my well-being . . . no email ever went out . . . I got nothing. It was
disgusting, I wanted to cry.” If not for his economic obligations and the pandemic, Pete remarked
that he nearly resigned from the organization, explaining, “When you work for a company that
doesn’t care for its workers, they leave. I wanted to leave but I have kids to feed and take care
of.” When Pete decided to partake in the research, he wished to make the following statement:
My hope . . . is to let [other remote workers] know that they are not alone and for schools
to get it together. Listen to us when we need something, if you provide, you get loyal . . .
workers. It is not that hard.
Pete understood the negative impact that lacking empathy had on a remote workforce with scant
wellness resources. His experience was mutually shared by other participants who felt deserted
by their organization, both in acknowledging the necessity for wellness resources and
recognizing the need for provisioning wellness resources—a challenge that was shouldered by
the remote workforce.
96
Oma valued the significance of adequacy in support services, especially with wellness
during the time of crisis. Her story contrasted those of other participants and suggested any
improvements to providing additional wellness resources would be, in her words, “marginally
better than what [she] received.” Nonetheless, it can be reasonably posited that any type of
process improvement, however minor, would prove a benefit to providing qualitative wellness
resources to community college remote workers. The final section addresses the many qualifying
statements made by participants that included discussions of equity, inclusion, and empathy in
the decision-making process that were woven into their experiences with wellness support. Table
11 contains the summary of select participant responses that highlight the remote workers’
perspectives on organizational support for wellness process improvement.
Table 11
Interview Quotes on Remote Workers’ Perspectives on Organizational Support for Wellness
Process Improvement
Participant Interview quote
Stephanie I would like to see both employees and management sit down and just hammer
out a plan to improve the quality of support for remote worker wellness. I
understand that’s not easy because people have such different opinions but let’s
use that to benefit everyone. At the end of the day, we’re all doing it for the
same reason, so that all of us can be okay. So, let’s take an honest look at this
situation and improve it.
Molly It would go a long way if [the leadership] would admit that they messed up and
can offer to fix things. [Remote workers] were left out when the decision
making happened, so they need to be let in to make things right, especially if
they plan to keep any type of remote work for the future.
97
Equity and Inclusion in the Decision-Making Process
Data extracted from the interviews indicated approximately 14 out of 15 participants
remarked how their experiences would have been different if their organizations had
reconsidered both their communicative approaches and depth of wellness support. The
participants accepted, during the time of the COVID-19 global pandemic, that it was uncertain
what any individual or organization could reasonably do to maintain both safety and a livelihood.
They also possessed a foundational knowledge of BC/DR policies, remote work, and wellness
support services. When the pandemic started, the participants gained a conceptual understanding
of these topics but deferred to organizational leadership for the direction and safety of their
workforce. Nearly all agreed, however, that as the pandemic continued, they were met with less
guidance and wellness support services, if at all. In hindsight, each educator commented on how
there was a genuine lack of equity, inclusion, and empathy during the decision-making process to
provide communication and support to remote workers.
When speaking about equitable practices, Bob strongly felt he, along with other
community members, had not been prioritized by the organization. He said:
It’s strange to say this out loud. Faculty and administrators were the first to go and work
from home. IT and HR helped them immensely. I heard that they got extra benefits, too.
Next were the tenured faculty . . . treated like VIPs. After them were the staff of the
school . . . coming in last place were the adjunct professors. When [the organization]
announced it to us, it was short and to the point, I remember [the email] was no more than
a paragraph. We weren’t asked what we needed to get set up either. I get that we all have
different job functions, but [the organization] could have treated us with more dignity and
respect.
98
Bob’s experience displayed how there was a gap in equity in communication and
resources, and similarly, Norma—who was part of the organizational leadership—also expressed
that she observed questionable practices in the decision-making process. Of her involvement in
executive leadership meetings regarding announcements of her school’s closure, transitions, and
support, Norma thought the discussions that took place during the transitions were off-putting.
She explained how organizational leadership frantically debated the different tiers of assistance
planned to give to the entire school while easily disqualifying certain job functions because they
deemed those job functions not critical to school operations. Norma remembered how leadership
asked the best way in which she and her team could communicate, she did not respond
immediately because of the shock she felt. Norma said, “There was nothing about inclusivity . . .
making sure that everyone was accounted for. There was no equity either, nothing was discussed
on how to provide any support dealing with wellness.” She later recounted that toward the end of
those meetings, her organizational leaders and her supervisor directed her on how to specifically
draft communication rather than rely on her expertise on the best way to compose the
communication, something she said “wasn’t done right. They did not want to hear any pushback
[from the workforce]. Whatever wellness support was given to the employees, it was a meeting
[she] was not part of.”
Norma’s experience at the educational leadership level exposed a detrimental gap in the
knowledge, understanding, and implementation of empathetic communication and qualitative
wellness resources for remote workers. She understood that the messaging context and tone was
vital during the COVID-19 global pandemic. Critically as important was the fundamental lack of
inclusion and equity in those conversations that had an adverse impact on the remote workforce.
Her recommendation was for organizational leaders to include key stakeholders and provide a
99
baseline wellness support that remained open to scalability based on the needs of the remote
workforce.
Similarly, Sadie described how her organization made unilateral decisions without
consulting any additional community members. She said, “The communication was flat, the
[wellness] support was unfair, and no one was included [in the decision-making process].”
Norma and Sadie’s stories recounted what many of the other participants said in their interviews,
where there was a genuine lack of inclusivity and/or equity by community college leaders. Such
a sentiment bridged the recommendation of incorporating better diversity, equity, and inclusion
practices into enterprise-wide decision-making processes specific to providing wellness
resources.
In another example, Abrey made several attempts to provide guidance to her community
college on the comprehensive approach to providing empathy in communication and resources.
Abrey’s recommendations stemmed from her counseling background in improving
communication and altruistic endeavors. When asked about her perspective on organizational
support for wellness, she said it takes empathy to help people listen, understand, and create
support. She understood that many people do not practice empathy, especially in organizations,
citing her own organization as one of those examples. Moreover, Abrey said that expressing
emotion in communication is vital, stating:
Conveying empathy in your communication to the entire school would have been better
than what was said. People were desperate for some type of wellness support during
COVID, and it would’ve helped if our leadership led with empathy and understanding.
Abrey believed regardless of whether it was a financial, governance, or a bandwidth issue, all
employees deserved to know and be heard. She added that it would have been mutually
100
beneficial if school leaders had practiced active feedback; listening to their staff, both the
positive and negative; and validating their responses. Abrey ended with, “If you lead them right,
they will follow you through the good and the bad, even the pandemic bad.”
Abrey also recognized the importance of empathy in organizational leadership, and
articulated it to her leadership; however, she also accepted that this is an ongoing effort to grow
and learn and indicated her desire to teach others empathetic communication and decision
making. This selfless act to help others during the pandemic was noted by many of the other
participants in the study. Table 12 contains the summary of select participant responses that
highlighted the remote workers’ perspectives of organizational support for wellness with equity
and inclusion in the decision-making process.
101
Table 12
Interview Quotes on Remote Workers’ Perspectives of Organizational Support for Wellness With
Equity and Inclusion in the Decision-Making Process
Participant Interview quote
Liz As a woman of color, I felt that I experienced greater hardship in transitioning
into remote work than my peers. I knew that I couldn’t count on management
to help, but it felt disheartening that the only people I could reach out was my
own community, some of which didn’t even work with me. Research is my
thing, and I would like to be part of committee that puts forth data-driven
decisions that cannot be ignored and that management takes a long look to see
where our inequities are.
Tanjiro Too often I used to simply dismiss or ignore the cries of others that there were
issues with management and minorities. I’ll admit that sometimes they felt
exaggerated or simply the result of self-victimization. However, as COVID hit
harder, I could no longer ignore the increase of issues. When finally, when my
turn came and went without the slightest consideration from management, it
deeply hurt me and I now felt like the others, an outcast. I felt remorseful and
guilty, even more when my coworkers helped me deal with all the emotional
issues caused by the pandemic. They assured me it was okay, they took no
offense, and promised that we were all going to get through it together. That’s
the type of community I want to be part of, and I hope that management gets it.
The themes of Accountability, Process Improvement, and Equity and Inclusion in the
Decision-Making Process, along with the supporting examples, all contributed to the remote
workers’ perspectives on organizational support for wellness. Participants made
recommendations pertaining to the need to improve practices in communication and provide
wellness resources. Table 13 summarizes the participants’ perspectives on organizational support
for wellness. Other themes such as empathetic based leadership and mutually beneficial active
feedback were also presented as part of enhanced BC/DR policies that would optimize the
readiness of the remote workforce.
102
Table 13
Summary of Participants’ Experiences With Support for Their Wellness
Participant Stated no
organizational
accountability
Recommended
organizational process
improvement
Recommended equity and
inclusion in the decisionmaking process
John ✔ ✔
Julio ✔ ✔
Katherine ✔ ✔ ✔
Norma ✔ ✔
Robert ✔ ✔
Abrey ✔ ✔ ✔
Sadie ✔ ✔
Bob ✔ ✔
Molly ✔ ✔ ✔
Pete ✔ ✔
Stephanie ✔ ✔ ✔
Tanjiro ✔
Liz ✔
Oma ✔ ✔ ✔
Brenda ✔ ✔ ✔
Summary
The community college remote workers who participated in the study expressed
numerous thoughts and ideas on their organizational support wellness experience. Each of the
participant’s statements were specific to the corresponding research question. A combination of
103
lived experiences, individual expertise, observations of others, and conceptual knowledge of
remote work contributed to the responses received in the research. Additionally, participants
perceived instances of metacognition, situational awareness, empathy, self-efficacy, motivation,
and a desire to learn and help others. Submission of these characteristics by community college
remote workers into the individual (i.e., short term), transactional (i.e., operational), and
transformational (i.e., long term) was consistent with the Burke-Litwin (1992) change model, in
the forms of personal changes, management practice improvements, and positive changes in
organizational leadership.
During the 2020 COVID-19 global pandemic, many organizational issues revolving
around robust remote work and business continuity policies exposed issues that deeply affected a
portion of the workforce in higher education. One critical issue was the lack of sustainability and
support of community college remote workers in wellness resources. This research gained
insight from 15 eligible participants who voiced their lived experiences, and whose stories were
consistent with the literature review and publicly available corroborated data. All data called for
actionable items for sustainability. Community college remote workers who support remote work
will continue to do so and believe that many more will do so upon the contingency that wellness
support initiatives are revamped for better coverage and improved work–life balance.
Participants also commented on how they were open to other forms of remote work, including a
hybrid model of both onsite and offsite work. Furthermore, a change in organizational leadership
through empathy, inclusion, and equity begets a change in organizational culture that will affect
both policy shifts and workforce support positively (Abulibdeh, 2020; Baruch, 2000; BulińskaStangrecka & Bagieńska, 2021; Case et al., 2022; Cho & Brassfield, 2022; Gill, 2010; Gutman et
al., 2023; Kirby et al., 2023; Meghana & Vijaya, 2019; Tuyo, 2020; Weaver, 2023; Zito et al.,
104
2021). Participants in the study served various roles and positions ranging from support staff to
executive leadership, which highlighted the shared responsibility of making remote work
sustainable in community colleges.
All identified themes were extrapolated from data provided from the qualitative
interviews, which indicated any, some, or all of the following: strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, threats, and gaps in knowledge, communication, and wellness support. Any of the
themes listed are subject to improvement, which would improve other connected and
corresponding themes. Table 14 outlines the themes and respective findings. Each section is
categorized by an overarching theme of knowledge, support, and communication. The
recommendations made are based on the research data analysis from the qualitative interviews
and the Burke-Litwin (1992) model for change. The recommendations are outlined in the final
chapter.
105
Table 14
Summary Table of Themes and Findings
Theme Findings
Knowledge
Insufficient direction Most community college remote workers did not receive
sufficient guidance or direction on transitioning into remote
work during the pandemic.
Equity and inclusion in
the decision-making
process
Some community college remote workers felt that neither equity
nor inclusion was practiced by organizational leaders to
determine remote work implementation.
Support
Insufficient
organizational support
Most community college remote workers did not receive
sufficient organizational support on transitioning into remote
work or receiving wellness support during the pandemic.
Lack of feeling
supported by the
organization
Most community college remote workers did not feel supported
by the organization in mitigating remote work wellness issues.
Impact on productivity Most community college remote workers experienced a
dramatic increase in productivity when working from home.
Impact on engagement Most community college remote workers experienced a
decrease in engagement with coworkers, but not so much
family and friends.
Impact on work–life
balance
Most community college remote workers experienced a
harmony in work–life balance while some experienced no
change. A minority experienced a work–life disruption.
Communication
Accountability Most community college remote workers believe that there was
no organizational accountability for its poor handling of the
remote work transition process and/or providing adequate
wellness resources.
Process improvement All community college remote workers made recommendations
on how to improve communication and support for wellness.
106
The participants’ responses revealed strong preferences for clear and succinct
interventions and process improvements for wellness support. Conducting one-on-one interviews
proved a beneficial approach to connect with remote workers to determine how closely aligned
their experiences were with the study’s literature review and framework. Each participant’s lived
experience aggregated to one specific objective remote workers sought: support. Chapter 5
examines additional recommendations and explores other options for community colleges and
their remote workers.
The participants’ reasons, motivations, and expressions for participating in the study were
consistent. As expected, not all participants agreed, with 1 to 3 outliers who consistently
indicated disagreement with the rest of the group’s commonalities, mostly due to the nature of
their fields, interactions, typical responsibilities, or biases from previous related experiences.
What the study clearly demonstrated was an unsettling lack of organizational support, a need for
better organizational communications and active feedback, and a requirement to provide
improved wellness services to remote workers in community colleges. Remote workers also
described facing adversities when configuring their WFH setup and settling their work–life
balance and submitted recommendations for additional guidance from leadership for improved
best practices and sustainable and positive experiences.
The recommendations put forth by the participants would be a tremendous asset to
integrate into any community college’s mission and strategy and organizational culture.
Incorporating these suggestions would benefit policy development, structure, systems, and
personnel benefits to include remote work. This shift, in turn, could affect the motivation,
individual skills, and the needs and values of remote workers, leading to improved performance.
107
Chapter 5 includes a critical analysis of the major and minor themes and other emerging
factors. The findings ware diagramed to outline data-driven recommendations that community
college and other similar institutional personnel can and should implement to support remote
workers to close any organizational gaps, improve best practices, and contribute to wellness
services.
108
Chapter Five: Recommendations
The research examined the responses from select community colleges to the COVID-19
global pandemic. A glaring deficiency found in both the literature review and the participant
interviews was the lack of organizational support to newly transitioned remote workers, both in
procedural, directional, and wellness-related support (Case et al., 2022; Cho & Brassfield, 2022;
Crapo, 2021; D’Amico et al., 2022; Gutman et al., 2023; Heiden et al., 2021; Hoke et al., 2022;
Kirby et al., 2023; Melnyk et al., 2021; Peacock, 2022; Prasath et al., 2021).
The study used qualitative research methods guided by the following research questions,
with the goal to identify effective data-driven solutions to remedy the aforementioned issues:
1. How did community college workers experience organizational support with remote
work during the pandemic?
2. How did remote community college employees experience support for their
wellness during the pandemic?
3. What is the remote worker’s perspective on organizational support for wellness?
This chapter opens with a discussion of the findings, providing a foundation for actional
recommendations. Additionally, Chapter 5 addresses recommended knowledge, support, and
communication solutions designed for incorporation into organizational mission, strategy, and
culture so that these solutions can be distributed into policy and systems development with the
goal of increasing wellness support services for remote workers. The recommendations made in
this chapter stem from data-driven solutions derived from both the relevant literature review and
qualitative research conducted in this study. Lastly, this chapter concludes with a discussion of
the limitations and delimitations of the research, recommendations for future research, and
overall conclusion.
109
Discussion of Findings
The research returned nine findings, with three derived from the first research question,
three from the second research question, and three from the third research question. The first
research question examined participants’ experiences with organizational support during the
COVID-19 global pandemic. The second research question elaborated on the first question by
investigating the participants’ experiences with organizational support for their wellness during
the pandemic. The last research question observed remote workers’ perceptions on
organizational support for wellness. The findings were arranged into respective knowledge,
support, and communication sections.
All participants in the study met the following conditions: (a) they had no previous
experience as a remote worker in higher education, (b) their duties and responsibilities had
initially required onsite obligations at the community colleges they served, and (c) one of their
engagements types with others had included face-to-face or front-facing support. The community
college remote worker sample represented a population of a diverse workforce comprised of staff
at various positions and departments in an organizational hierarchy that transitioned into remote
due to the pandemic. For clarity, when the “organization” is referenced, meaning is attached to
organizational leadership at the executive level of any community college that is responsible for
the overall direction and accountability of the institution. It is important to note these distinctions
as the study narrowed the scope to staff who were identified as those who had transitioned into
remote work, reflecting the data specifically collected, and whose roles and responsibilities were
excluded in executive decision making but nonetheless had an impact on business continuity.
110
Findings on Participants’ Experiences With Organizational Support
The following sections present the findings of participants’ experiences with
organizational support, separated by conceptual and applied understanding. The findings are
rooted in the Burke-Litwin (1992) change model of structure: work-unit climate, tasks and skills,
motivation, individual needs and value, and individual performance.
Conceptual Knowledge
Research data from this study indicated that all participants had no previous knowledge,
or solid conceptual understanding, of remote work in an academic setting. Some participants
expressed secondary or anecdotal knowledge of what remote work was and how it worked;
however, they did not demonstrate additional interest in active research nor participation in
remote work. The investigation revealed that, according to H. Silver (2023) and the U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics (2023), pre-COVID-19 global pandemic data have indicated that less than 6%
of the national workforce actively worked remotely. For community college educators, such an
opportunity to work remotely was even more rare, because their positions often involve inperson interactions with students, faculty, and staff (Coate, 2021). The lack of awareness of what
additional conditions are required for functioning remote work revealed broader issues with
organizational leadership and policy management that involved providing adequate support and
investing in business continuity/disaster recovery (BC/DC) initiatives, which was largely evident
at the start and throughout the pandemic (Guggenberger et al., 2023; Haque, 2023; Kossek,
2021). By providing invaluable remote work resources, including emerging technologies and
wellness resource allocation, organizations have invested not only in themselves, but in the longterm sustainability and growth of the organization, particularly when natural disasters occur. The
participants interviewed for this study all had extensive career experience in higher education in
111
their respective departments and demonstrated leadership and should be included in ongoing
conversations with organizational leadership to mitigate support for a workforce new to remote
work. Leveraging their expertise would have provided an improved foundational understanding
of the primary and ancillary support service requirements for remote work.
Secondly, all participants remarked how they had no previous knowledge or
understanding of how wellness resources are offered or used for remote workers (Bentley et al.,
2016; Felstead & Henseke, 2017; Heiden et al., 2021). About 50% of participants stated eHealth
smartphone applications, such as Calm, are designed to assist with wellness issues, which was
consistent with literature on digital wellness resources (Bentley at al., 2016; Christensen &
Hickie, 2010; Hill et al., 2017; Torous & Roberts, 2017). Participants claimed during the
transition to remote work, organizational leadership seldom provided wellness resources;
whatever was distributed among the remote workforce, its wellness initiatives provided little
incentive or details on its benefits or its long-term sustainability. Many participants felt such
wellness benefits seemed to be a short-term fix with no seemingly long-term solution;
additionally, leadership communications suggested that the remote workers work through all of
these challenges (Sonuga-Barke, 2021; Xiao et al., 2021; Zito et al., 2021). By contrast, 13% of
participants felt their organization’s attention to wellness resources and support was adequate or
consistent with existing support and found no need for additional resources.
The Burke-Litwin (1992) model for organizational change focuses on different
transformational, transactional, and individual factors that affect the individual when external
environments are introduced. In this model is the TRIAD conceptual framework, which outlines
three elements that intersect between the organization and the individual. These elements include
wellness support resource allocation, dedicated and dynamic preparation, and shared governance
112
for remote worker best practices. As the literature review and participant interviews suggested
and corroborated, this finding overlapped the study’s conceptual framework that addressed issues
with remote work directly, including organizational mission and strategy, organizational
leadership, and the culture (Abulibdeh, 2020; Armstrong & Cole, 1995; Baruch, 2000; Burke &
Litwin, 1992; Gill, 2010; Haddon & Brynin, 2005; Mahler, 2012; Spangenberg & Theron, 2013).
The value derived from the input of a transitioning workforce would greatly increase both the
quality and depth of support services for new or extended organizational units, for which
community college remote workers would qualify (Case et al., 2022; Crapo, 2021; D’Amico et
al., 2022; Gutman et al., 2023; Heiden et al., 2023).
Out of the 15 participants, seven were in leadership in their departments, of which three
held executive positions in their respective community colleges. Along with the literature review,
the findings supported that nearly half of all participants were in pivotal positions in both
transformational and transactional ways. In these roles, they influenced policies, management
practices, and structures to model best practices (Baker, 2020; Bulman & Fairlie, 2021) for
developing direction and support services for a transitioning community college remote
workforce (Brazeau et al., 2020; Crapo, 2021; Kirby et al., 2023; Weaver, 2023). Because
conceptual knowledge contributed to the remote workers’ experiences directly, the conceptual
framework for this study aligned with a perception of support and wellness. Additionally, the
literature review asserted that positively modeling culture, strategy, and wellness also
strengthens employee resolve, motivation, and overall experience when properly guided and
validated for a fluid remote work, work–life balance, and wellness support (Cho & Brassfield,
2022; Copeland et al., 2021; Hoke et al., 2022; Kirby et al., 2023; Melnyk et al., 2021; Peacock,
113
2022). This data also supported additional findings in a recommendation for best practices to
improve academic remote work support services.
Nearly all participants remarked how dynamic communication would have improved
their confidence that organizational leadership actively sought process improvement methods to
prepare or mitigate employees for a remote working environment, with dedicated attention to
wellness support. Secondly, through active feedback, the participants mentioned that
organizations could have sourced additional wellness resources to support their remote
workforce during the pandemic. Most participants concluded that their conceptual knowledge of
remote work as instructed by their respective community college was insufficient, which resulted
in an overall poor experience. The participants who were outliers mentioned that their respective
organizations adjusted the best they could, given the extraordinary circumstances and felt that
everyone should work collaboratively instead of leadership shouldering the efforts (Wu et al.,
2022). Consistent with the conceptual framework of this study, by providing baseline wellness
resources and scaling them with the feedback provided, organizations could have pivoted to a
more grounded and fluid approach during a time of uncertainty. Participants’ negative
perceptions of support could have been mitigated by organizations listening to their constituents
for improved direction and subsequently allocating support resources that resulted in the
development or overhaul of organizational practices supported by the literature review (Brock &
Diwa, 2021; D’Amico et al., 2022; Ferreira et al., 2021; Gutman et al., 2023; Hoke et al., 2022;
Rene et al., 2021; Shamsi et al., 2021). Further discussion is addressed in the recommendations
section of the study.
114
Applied Understanding
Data regarding each participant’s applied understanding of remote work practices, which
included their perceptions of support, training, and wellness, were consistent with one another
despite employment at different community colleges, job functions, and departments. Each
participant understood that remote work consisted of working outside the designated place of
employment, usually from home, and included a home office setup with appropriate computing
equipment, an internet connection, and access to designated systems and applications.
Participants were trained as needed on new or existing basic collaboration, communication, and
messaging tools (Barone Gibbs et al., 2021; Coate, 2021; Como et al., 2021; Dey et al., 2021;
Felstead & Henseke, 2017). The transition and training component for remote work varied
among each participant, with the research data indicating over 67% of participants had a negative
experience. When asked to elaborate on their negative experiences of organizational training and
application of instructions, participants expressed either marginal improvement or confusion.
Recent literature reinforced this argument that community college remote workers had
insufficient organizational direction and guidance, baseline or fluid, to provide adequate support,
which adversely affected their wellness (Kamal et al., 2020; Kirby et al., 2023; Leonardi, 2021;
Liberati et al., 2021).
In all, 14 of the 15 participants stated they took full advantage of the wellness resources
that were provided by their employer. These resources varied in scope, availability, and features
ranging from discounted or free access to mobile wellness applications, home exercise programs,
and limited coupons for a massage. The participants also indicated that they conferred with
others to determine what wellness resources they could procure outside their employment to
continue coping with their working environment, the COVID-19 global pandemic, institutional
115
response, and other related stressors. The literature review also reinforced the many wellness
challenges faced by remote workers and educators alike and their negative impacts to
productivity, efficacy, and work–life balance (Bertoni et al., 2021; Brazeau et al., 2020;
Bulińska-Stangrecka & Bagieńska, 2021; Como et al., 2021; D’Amico et al., 2022; Dey et al.,
2021; Dongarwar et al., 2020; Galanti et al., 2021; Gutman et al., 2023; Grigore, 2020; Heiden et
al., 2021; Hernandez, 2020; Kamal & Garfield, 2020; Kirby et al., 2023; Liberati et al., 2021; Lin
et al., 2021; Madero Gómez et al., 2020; Melnyk et al., 2021; Meyer et al., 2021; Mongelli et al.,
2020; Montenegro-Rueda et al., 2021; Núñez-Canal et al., 2022; Orsini & Rodrigues, 2020;
Peacock, 2022; Perry et al., 2018; Prasath et al., 2021; Rene et al., 2021; Tronco Hernández et
al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Weaver, 2023; Xiao et al., 2023; Zarneh, 2021).
This finding is fundamental to the conceptual framework because it aligns with
establishing effective perceptions of support, enhanced remote worker experience, and remote
worker wellness. Organizational best practices offer numerous options for community college
remote workers to engage with effective wellness resources. Although the participants preferred
a one-on-one approach of active feedback, organizational unit surveys and townhalls could
provide additional benefits that contribute to improved changes and positive impacts to
organizational strategy, leadership, culture, and structures and systems that meet the individual
needs and values of the remote workforce.
Findings on Organizational Support for Participants’ Wellness
The data compiled from the 200 pages of interview transcripts returned common themes
and words that consisted of lack[ing], insufficient, negative, and inadequate when participants
described organizational support. All participants agreed that changes are necessary to improve
the wellness support by organizational leadership for community college employees. The
116
literature review similarly suggested a correlation between the productivity, engagement, and
self-efficacy of educational employees; organizational support; and wellness during the
pandemic (Barone Gibbs et al., 2021; Bentley et al., 2016; Bertoni et al., 2021; BulińskaStangrecka & Bagieńska, 2021; Coate, 2021; Meyer et al., 2021; Prasath et al., 2021). The
literature review also supported participants’ assertions that job satisfaction is predicated by the
sufficient support provided by their employer and demonstrates how support also contributes to
both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations as a community college remote worker (BulińskaStangrecka & Bagieńska, 2021; Grigore, 2020; Izdebski & Mazur, 2021; Maruyama & Tietze,
2012; Melnyk et al., 2021; Meyer et al., 2021; Orsini & Rodrigues, 2020; Zito et al., 2021).
Organizational support for wellness, the data compiled, and the terms outlined were
consistent with the conceptual framework and are necessary elements for community college
remote workers to succeed in their line of work. Furthermore, but to a lesser degree, many
participants articulated the words “reluctance” and “skepticism” when they expressed their
employers’ resolve to mitigate additional support measures.
Participant Motivation and Self-Efficacy
The research data in this study demonstrated a split in participant motivation. The first
group of participants expressed frustration with organizational support and how it directly and
indirectly affected their productivity and subsequent motivation to overcome any newly created
challenges resulting from insufficient wellness support services. By contrast, the second group of
participants indicated that their productivity as remote workers remained relatively identical to
pre-COVID-19 global pandemic levels, consistent with their motivation. As noted by Mayer
(2011), Clark and Estes (2008), and Orsini and Rodrigues (2020), motivation drives the purpose,
will, and guidance for goal fulfillment. Goal fulfillment is an essential factor in productivity and
117
engagement. The pandemic posed an adverse effect on many community college remote workers
and, where guidance remained inadequate or absent, so did the motivation to remain productive.
Most participants agreed the prevailing issue could have been mitigated by the organization
providing improved or continuous wellness support for wellness. Of the 15 participants, 13
remarked that this remediation should take place not only at the policy level, but also within
organizational culture and by leadership, as also indicated by the Burke-Litwin (1992) model.
To a lesser extent, some participants remarked how their self-efficacy was also negatively
impacted because of poor organizational support. Although 33% of the participants mentioned
self-efficacy in their interviews, the quantity of their responses stood out because it was not a
prompt nor probing question during the semistructured interview and was submitted voluntarily.
As noted by both Bandura (1977) and Clark and Estes (2008), where it is an individual’s belief
whether or not they can fulfill a goal, the lack of sufficient organizational support cast doubt
among these specific participants to succeed as community college remote workers during the
pandemic. The participants felt that addressing organizational support issues would have also
alleviated any problems with self-efficacy among the community college remote workforce,
consistent with any other type of professional development training and workforce development
opportunities. To be successful, leadership and the workforce must work together and collaborate
in taking collective, corrective, and equitable action that satisfies organizational goals (Bandura
1977; Clark & Estes, 2008). In doing so, self-efficacy, motivation, stagnancy, and productivity
issues are reduced or eliminated, and organizational progress and success prevails.
Motivation and self-efficacy are embedded in productivity and are essential components
to the success of community college remote workers predicated by the depth and quality of
118
organizational support that meets their wellness needs. The last section of participants’ findings
addressed their interpretation of organizational support for wellness.
Findings on Participants’ Perceptions of Organizational Support for Wellness
The following section presents the inquiry outcomes concerning participants’ perceptions
on organizational support for wellness. In particular, the sections address organizational culture,
responsiveness, and equity.
Organizational Culture
This study’s data indicated that 13 out of the 15 participants saw neither an immediate
nor gradual shift in the perceived attitudes, behavior, or support toward providing acute wellness
resources during the pandemic. Only 13% of participants felt supported by the organization
consistent with pre-COVID-19 global pandemic organizational support services. Consistent with
the literature review and participant data, the White House (2022) published a report that
acknowledged the profound results of insufficient resources to support mental health and
wellness and addressed its adverse impact on the pandemic-laden workforce. Based on BurkeLitwin’s (1992) change model, any perceived changes in wellness support at the individual level
are contingent upon changes in management practices and organizational leadership. Participants
agreed that changes in the external environment and transactional changes affect individual and
organizational performance.
This finding was consistent with the conceptual framework, whereas the community
college remote workers’ perceptions of reliable support were linked to the Burke-Litwin (1992)
model of organizational change. Community colleges that engage in active feedback to
implement better wellness practices enhance their remote workforce’s perceptions of support
(Kirby et al., 2023; Rene et al., 2021; Shamsi et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Weaver, 2023).
119
Furthermore, effective change management is predicated on recognitions of shortcomings and
modeling for improvement that contributes directly to perceptions on support, motivation, and
work–life balance (Bentley et al., 2016; Bertoni et al., 2021; Brooks et al., 2022; BulińskaStangrecka & Bagieńska, 2021; Coate, 2021; Como et al., 2021; D’Amico et al., 2022; Galanti et
al., 2021).
The research demonstrated that 86% of participants’ perceptions were influenced heavily
by conversations with department and division leaders, anticipated outcomes, and fluidity during
unknown times. Both participant data and literature support indicated that collaboration,
acknowledgment, and resource allocation provide an organizational change in perceptions of
wellness support.
Responsiveness
This study’s findings pointed at a delayed, inadequate, or overall insufficient
organizational reaction to the pandemic, the transition to remote work, and overall wellness
support. Although 15 out of 16 respondents indicated minimal-to-poor responsiveness from
organizational leadership, the remaining respondent remarked that the response was “adequate.”
Carlsson-Szlezak et al. (2020), Mahler (2012), Margherita and Heikkilä (2021), and Marshall et
al. (2021) collectively stated the leadership—workforce relationship is imperative to productivity
and success. Bulińska-Stangrecka and Bagieńska (2021) provided additional context that
leadership and workforce relationships also aid in job satisfaction, retention, and engagement.
A negative perception of organizational support developed because of the lack of an
immediate or fluid response from the organization. The community college remote workers
contended if communication was to remain dynamic on matters of organizational support for
wellness, perceptions on wellness support would increase positively. This finding aligned with
120
improving internal communication and collaboration to meet the wellness needs and enable
positive experiences of remote workers inherent to the conceptual framework of their perceptions
of wellness support.
Equity
This study’s findings suggest there existed a lack of equity in determining wellness
resources for community college remote workers. In all, 86% of participants, and supported by
the literature, indicated that inquiries and requests for additional wellness support or resources
went unanswered, attributing to a negative organizational perception (Núñez-Canal et al., 2022;
Prasath et al., 2021; Rene et al., 2021; Tronco Hernández et al., 2021; Weaver, 2023; Xiao et al.,
2021; Zhang et al., 2021). The inequity is linked directly to challenges faced by many
community colleges nationwide, where wellness support and resources greatly vary in depth,
duration, and quality, and lack any standardization (Montenegro-Rueda et al., 2021; Parker et al.,
2022; Tagliaro & Migliore, 2022). However, many participants agreed that field feedback
through surveys, townhall meetings, one-on-one meetings, and interviews could immediately
remedy the degraded perception of organizational support for wellness (Gibbs, 2018; Johnson &
Christensen, 2017; Maxwell, 2012; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Seidman, 2013; Sue & Ritter,
2011). Lastly, reassessing best practices through inclusivity of a diverse workforce improves
resource allocation for wellness support and closes any equity deficiencies.
The conceptual framework aligned with the community college remote worker
experience, perceptions of support, and wellness support. All participants agreed that
organizational training, communication, equitable actions, and subsequent wellness support have
critical deficiencies that are mitigable. As such, the following recommendations for practice are
outlined in the next section.
121
Recommendations for Practice
The findings of this study yielded solutions related to community college accountability
and responsibility to its remote workforce in providing sufficient wellness resources. The first
recommendation is for community college leadership to reassess BC/DR policies that provide
dedicated transitional training and extend support services that validate the needs of remote
workers. The second recommendation is to reorganize the organizational culture that
incorporates a permanent remote workforce structure with the stipulation that remote workers are
represented properly at the senior leadership level for shared governance and equity in the
decision-making process. The third recommendation is to design and secure a collaborative hub
where remote workers, onsite workers, and division managers can exchange best practices with a
dedicated emphasis on communication, instruction, approaches, and resource allocation.
The Burke-Litwin (1992) change model establishes three ranked organizational levels
from 12 change drivers. This model assumes all factors are combined and, as such, a change in
one factor affects the rest. Therefore, this research sought to understand the factors that
contributed to the experiences faced by community college remote workers.
Recommendation 1: Update Policies That Provide Actionable and Equitable Remote Work
Wellness Strategies
The first recommendation is to reassess and develop a comprehensive plan that extends
BC/DR policies specifying remote work-related strategies (Margherita & Heikkilä, 2021). This
strategy includes comprehensive onboarding or transitional training on core competencies,
adaptation, management, and expectations of remote work (Abulibdeh, 2020; Armstrong & Cole,
1995; Baruch, 2000; Bonfante, 2011; Felstead & Henseke, 2017; Ferreira et al., 2021; Maruyama
& Tietze, 2012; Mello, 2007; Zaccaro, 2003) based on the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016)
122
model of reaction, learning, behavior, and results. Additionally, remote workers must be outfitted
with dedicated and equitable wellness support services that validate and meet the ongoing needs
of remote workers to achieve a satisfactory work–life balance (Ferreira et al., 2021; Haddon &
Brynin, 2005; Kirby et al., 2023; Kirkham, 2022; Licite-Kurbe & Leonovica, 2021; Ozimek,
2020).
This framework must be fully transparent; sourced; scalable; and supported through
committed communication, flexibility, and resources by institutional leadership to achieve
remote workforce buy-in. Stakeholders would review the proposal to assess and submit
sustainable recommendations before finalization. This recommendation outlines the roadmap and
implementation for changing the organizational climate with an inclusive approach to the
wellness needs of both onsite and remote workers. Implementing this plan with the assistance of
both leadership and the remote workforce would provide an additional layer of confidence,
security, and equity for all participants (Maruyama & Tietze, 2012; Meghana & Vijaya, 2019;
Mello, 2007; Offstein et al., 2010; Pogarcic et al., 2012; Zaccaro, 2003).
The proposed change management strategy is subject to periodic review and supervised
by an appointed task force committee to maintain accountability. Community college leaders
should conduct an annual review of wellness resources and support services in the context of
funding and usage according to the ongoing dynamic needs of remote workers. Lastly, annual
review should include how ongoing work–life balance satisfies the Burke-Litwin (1992) change
model in providing both qualitative and equitable wellness experiences.
Recommendation 2: Provide Permanence and Shared Governance for Remote Work
The second recommendation is to focus on the transformational factors of the BurkeLitwin (1992) change model to adjust the mission and strategy to support a permanent placement
123
of remote work in the institution. This tactic would include full support from leadership and
transform the organizational culture. Changes in systems, structures, and management practices
in the transactional factors (Burke & Litwin, 1992) would allow for proper and equal
representation as another type of organizational unit in the community college workforce with
the rights and privileges equivalent to their onsite counterparts. Furthermore, it is essential to
establish remote workforce ambassadors to serve in committees that interface regularly with
senior leadership in shared governance matters that are administrative, operational, and
institutional.
This framework both remediates and mitigates the validation, needs, and concerns of a
new workforce to achieve sustainability and success while committing to an essential element of
overall leadership and infrastructure (Licite-Kurbe & Leonovica, 2021; Margherita & Heikkilä,
2021; McCauley & McCall, 2014; McLaughlin, 2022; Wang et al., 2021). Shared governance
permits community college remote workforce leaders to provide effective communication
exchanges, resource allocation, and equitable input in the decision-making processes that directly
and indirectly affect their performance. This governance type also eliminates skepticism and
reluctance by maintaining a progressive and inclusive mindsight in business by welcoming a
diverse workforce that brings non-geographically restricted talent (Licite-Kurbe & Leonovica,
2021; Thompson, 2019; Tuyo, 2020; Williams, 2021).
As an added benefit for everyone, both organizational leadership and remote workers can
also opt into a hybrid working model that allows the choice to selectively work onsite and offsite
on determined business days for greater output, job satisfaction, and harmonized work–life
balance. This flexibility provides an opportunity for existing employees to consider, where
124
appropriate, while allowing existing remote workers to return to work onsite (Kirkham 2022;
Licite-Kurbe & Leonovica, 2021; Offstein et al., 2010; Ozimek, 2020).
Recommendation 3: Establish a Collaborative Hub to Exchange Best Practices
The research data indicated 80% of participants did not feel supported by their
community college employers, with unanswered questions and unfulfilled requests despite
numerous attempts. These experiences are indicative of a larger systemic, organizational flaw
related to organizations’ lack of situational awareness in the overall institutional ecosystem
(Peacock, 2022; Wang et al., 2021; Weaver, 2023; Wu et al., 2022; Zito et al., 2021). This issue
was outside the scope of the research; however, what remained in its purview is the design and
source of systems and processes designed to facilitate communication and exchange between all
stakeholders. The creation of an online collaborative hub would invite remote workers, onsite
workers, department managers, and other academic leaders to share best practices, instructions,
and strategies with one another. There would be a special emphasis on communication,
approach, initiatives, resource allocation, and support. Such an exchange portal can improve the
learning culture, provide different types of support for constituents, and have an overall positive
influence on the remote worker experience (Abulibdeh, 2020; Bentley et al., 2016; BulińskaStangrecka & Bagieńska, 2021; Como et al., 2021; Margherita & Heikkilä, 2021). Adopting this
recommendation should align with the existing mission and vision of community colleges, and
institutional leaders could leverage this hub with additional strategic initiatives designed to
improve the organizational workforce (Gill, 2010; Golden, 2012; Harker Martin & MacDonnell,
2012; Koufie & Muhammad, 2021; Maruyama & Tietze, 2012; Mello, 2007).
Using emerging technologies to streamline communication, discussions, training,
strategies, and wellness support initiatives would incentivize both the organization and its remote
125
workforce (Abulibdeh, 2020; Baruch, 2000; Bentley et al., 2016; Coate, 2021; Como et al., 2021;
Dewett & Jones, 2001; Elldér, 2019; Felstead & Henseke, 2017; Ferreira et al., 2021; Golden,
2012). The hub is uniquely designed as a safe space for collaboration and its resourcing and
implementation should be prioritized by community college leadership as designated
professional development for remote workers. Lastly, the return on investment for the support of
the hub will benefit institutions holistically as it continues its academic mission.
Recommendations for Future Research
The research’s scope was limited to wellness and support experiences from community
college remote workers nationwide. The study focused primarily on the experiences, support,
and perceptions of support during the COVID-19 global pandemic and organizational responses
after transitioning onsite employees to remote work. Future research should investigate broader
methods, greater or different target audiences, and larger experiences post-pandemic to
accompany any updated or different perspectives. Although this study relied on the Burke-Litwin
(1992) change model, other frameworks could be facilitated in future research for greater
discovery in the remote working environment, the allocation and use of wellness resources and
strategies, and equitable representation in the educational space.
Secondly, some of the recommendations made here may have already been implemented
in higher education or other industries. As part of the follow-up research, it is recommended to
look into how this study’s design and implementation plan was deployed, and note the successes
and failures, particularly noting the highlights of each end for improvement. This
recommendation would enhance the original three recommendations and could further strengthen
the TRIAD conceptual framework to benefit its stakeholders.
126
Third, implementing a quantitative study could render a richer set of data to capture an
improved and expanded sample population could enhance the understanding of remote worker
wellness, organizational support, and equitable representation. By implementing a quantitative or
mixed methods approach, additional data could corroborate, enhance, or disprove existing data
from this study and determine what actionable steps, if any, were taken to address the issues
outlined in the research.
Lastly, this research can be revised or expanded in a future time when technology,
communication, and culture have advanced and greatly intersected. This newer research can
determine how information, advancement, and technology has improved organizational structure,
wellness, and culture.
Conclusion
This study included a qualitative analysis of organizational support, perceptions on
organizational support for wellness, and support for wellness of transitioned community college
remote workers during the pandemic. The research was important to pursue in building
inclusionary practices between organizations and organizational units, determining the equitable
and sustainability wellness needs of a remote workforce, and providing overall best practices in
supporting all staff in an institution. The year 2020 was filled with international uncertainty and
calamity, where everyone tried to move forward the best they could. Wellness took an
exceptional toll on everyone, and academia was particularly impacted because of its hasty
transition due to their atypical organizational configuration.
Many higher institutions, including community colleges, had varying degrees of
responsiveness, readiness, support, resources, successes, and failures evident in the research
participants’ responses. On a broader scale, the COVID-19 global pandemic exposed archaic
127
leadership, policies, or attitudes over remote work. As business and technology develops, so
should the ability to use, leverage, and adapt, including removing geographical restrictions to
recruit talent and using technologies for instructional teaching, collaboration, and engagement. In
meeting remote workers where they are, meaning halfway, it is conceivable that wellness
stresses can be mitigated by actively and continuously assessing wellness resources. Furthering
this opportunity by providing a voice to address any concerns allows institutions to also grow
and scale through the uniqueness that both problems and solutions present.
As the primary investigator, the researcher was in agreement with the shortsightedness of
organizational leadership when managing the remote work transition process but could also
understand how the organizations considered such a decision when extremely limited
information was available or distributed over how to mitigate a pandemic. This study remained
impartial to evade any suggestions of fault; however, a follow-up study to assess organizational
decision making, risk, and mitigation would greatly complement this research and provide
improved understanding of managing global-scale catastrophes to ensure business continuity.
This doctoral work initially focused on technologies and remote work in the education
sector, and through this research, discovered what further research can be done to bridge the
digital divide. Providing technology resources is the next identified critical basic for educational
remote workers need that will benefit all those who either invest or benefit, ensuring sustained
communities of learning.
128
References
Abulibdeh, A. (2020). Can COVID‐19 mitigation measures promote telework practices? Journal
of Labor and Society, 23(4), 551–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/wusa.12498
Aliyu, A. A., Singhry, I. M., Adamu, H., & AbuBakar, M. A. M. (2015,). Ontology,
epistemology and axiology in quantitative and qualitative research: Elucidation of the
research philosophical misconception. In Proceedings of the academic Conference:
Mediterranean publications & research international on new direction and uncommon
(Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1054–1068). Scirp Publishing.
Armstrong, D. J., & Cole, P. (1995). Managing distances and differences in geographically
distributed work groups. In S. E. Jackson and M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work
teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace (pp. 187–215). American
Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10189-007
Baker, S. (2020, May 4). Execs address practical challenges of working remotely;
Videoconferences are the rule of the day as meetings go virtual. Pensions & Investments.
https://www.pionline.com/pension-funds/execs-address-practical-challenges-workingremotely
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Baron, N. S. (2010). Always on: Language in an online and mobile world. Oxford University
Press.
Barone Gibbs, B., Kline, C. E., Huber, K. A., Paley, J. L., & Perera, S. J. O. M. (2021). COVID19 shelter-at-home and work, lifestyle and well-being in desk workers. Occupational
Medicine, 71(2), 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqab011
129
Bartik, A. W., Bertrand, M., Cullen, Z., Glaeser, E. L., Luca, M., & Stanton, C. (2020). The
impact of COVID-19 on small business outcomes and expectations. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 117(30), 17656–17666.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2006991117
Baruch, Y. (2000). Teleworking: Benefits and pitfalls as perceived by professionals and
managers. New Technology, Work, and Employment, 15(1), 34–49.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-005X.00063
Beardwood, J. (2020). COVID 19 and force majeure/extraordinary event clauses: It’s time to
dust them off: An analysis of scope, limits and potential of FME clauses as contractual
tool. Computer Law Review International, 21(4), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.9785/cri2020-210402
Beaudry, P., Doms, M., & Lewis, E. (2010). Should the personal computer be considered a
technological revolution?: Evidence from U.S. metropolitan areas. Journal of Political
Economy, 118(5), 988–1036. https://doi.org/10.1086/658371
Bentley, T., Teo, S., McLeod, L., Tan, F., Bosua, R., & Gloet, M. (2016). The role of
organizational support in teleworker wellbeing: A socio-technical systems approach.
Applied Ergonomics, 52, 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.07.019
Berners‐Lee, T., Cailliau, R., Groff, J. F., & Pollermann, B. (1992). World‐Wide Web: The
information universe. Stanford University. https://web.stanford.edu/class/cs344g/www1992.pdf
Bertoni, M., Cavapozzi, D., Pasini, G., & Pavese, C. (2021). Remote working and mental health
during the first wave of Covid-19 pandemic [Report No. 14773]. Institute of Labor
Economics. https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp14773.html
130
Bieńkowska, A., Tworek, K., & Zabłocka-Kluczka, A. (2020). Organizational reliability model
verification in the crisis escalation phase caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sustainability, 12(10), Article 4318. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104318
Bonfante, L. (2011). Lessons in IT transformation: Technology expert to business leader. John
Wiley & Sons.
Bradley, D. (2011). A personal history of the IBM PC. Computer, 44(9), 19–25.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2011.232
Brazeau, G. A., Frenzel, J. E., & Prescott, W. A. (2020). Facilitating wellbeing in a turbulent
time. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(6), Article 8154.
https://www.ajpe.org/content/84/6/ajpe8154.short
Brock, T., & Diwa, C. (2021). Catastrophe or catalyst? Reflections on COVID’s impact on
community colleges. Journal of Postsecondary Student Success, 1(2), 2–17.
https://doi.org/10.33009/fsop_jpss129901
Brooks, S. K.; Hall, C. E., Patel, D., & Greenberg, N. (2022). “In the office nine to five, five
days a week . . . those days are gone”: Qualitative exploration of diplomatic personnel’s
experiences of remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Psychology,
10(1), 1–272. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-022-00970-x
Brown, C., Smith, P. R., Arduengo, N., & Taylor, M. (2016). Trusting telework in the federal
government. Qualitative Report, 21(1), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-
3715/2016.2466
131
Bulińska-Stangrecka, H., & Bagieńska, A. (2021). The role of employee relations in shaping job
satisfaction as an element promoting positive mental health at work in the era of COVID19. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041903
Bulman, G., & Fairlie, R. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on community college enrollment
and student success: Evidence from California administrative data [Working paper].
National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w28715
Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and
change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523–545.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800306
Butler, A. (2017, March 8). What business leaders need to know about IT leadership. LinkedIn.
https://linkedin.com/pulse/what-business-leaders-need-know-leadership-allen-butler
Carillo, K., Cachat-Rosset, G., Marsan, J., Saba, T., & Klarsfeld, A. (2021). Adjusting to
epidemic-induced telework: Empirical insights from teleworkers in France. European
Journal of Information Systems, 30(1), 69–88.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1829512
Carlsson-Szlezak, P., Reeves, M., & Swartz, P. (2020, March 3). What coronavirus could mean
for the global economy. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/03/whatcoronavirus-could-mean-for-the-global-economy
Carrion, A. J., Ridley, A., Rasaki, A. A., Journee, B., & McCants, T. A. (2023). Impact of
COVID-19 on the academic performance and mental health of HBCU pharmacy students.
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 15(2), 123–129.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2023.02.017
132
Case, A. S., Kang, E., Krutsch, J., Bhojwani, J., Fanok, S., & Contreras, S. (2022). Stepping in
and up to meet community needs: How community‐based college access and success
programs responded to COVID‐19. Journal of Community Psychology, 50(7), 3023–
3043. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22812
Castells, M. (1996). The Information Age: Economy, society and culture (Vol. I). Blackwell
Publishers.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022, August 16). CDC Museum COVID-19
timeline. https://www.cdc.gov/museum/timeline/covid19.html
Chin, J. C., Mártir Luna, G. A., Huo, Y. J., & Pérez, E. O. (2022). Motivating collective action in
diverse groups: Person of color identity, prototypicality perceptions, and environmental
attitudes. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 14(6), 751–762.
https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221083818
Cho, K. S., & Brassfield, L. (2022). An afterthought: Staff of color and campus wellness within
higher education responses to COVID-19. American Behavioral Scientist, 3(1), 34–48.
https://doi.org/10.47602/johah.v3i1.31
Choudhury, P., Crowston, K., Dahlander, L., Minervini, M. S., & Raghuram, S. (2020). GitLab:
Work where you want, when you want. Journal of Organization Design, 9, Article 23.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41469-020-00087-8
Christensen, H., & Hickie, I. B. (2010). Using e-health applications to deliver new mental health
services. Medical Journal of Australia, 192(11), S53–S56. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-
5377.2010.tb03695.x
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. IAP.
133
Coate, P. (2021, January 25). Remote work before, during, and after the pandemic. National
Council on Compensation Insurance.
https://www.ncci.com/SecureDocuments/QEB/QEB_Q4_2020_RemoteWork.html
Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2020). Intersectionality. John Wiley & Sons.
Como, R., Hambley, L., & Domene, J. (2021). An exploration of work-life wellness and remote
work during and beyond COVID-19. Canadian Journal of Career Development, 20(1),
46–56. https://cjcd-rcdc.ceric.ca/index.php/cjcd/article/view/92
Copeland, W. E., McGinnis, E., Bai, Y., Adams, Z., Nardone, H., Devadanam, V., Rettew, J., &
Hudziak, J. J. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on college student mental health
and wellness. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 60(1),
134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2020.08.466
Crapo, D. N. (2021). Higher education in the COVID era. American Bankruptcy Institute
Journal, 40(5), 16–57. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/higher-educationcovid-era/docview/2522864438/se-2
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. SAGE Publications.
Cuban, L. (2003). Oversold and underused. Harvard University Press.
Cucinotta, D., & Vanelli, M. (2020). WHO Declares COVID-19 a pandemic. Acta Biomedica
Atenei Parmensis, 91(1), 157–160. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v91i1.9397
D’Amico, M. M., Atwell, A. K., Spriggs, J. N., & Cox, J. A. (2022). Are we doing enough?
COVID responses from urban and rural community colleges. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 46(1–2), 12–19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2021.1961925
134
DeWittt, T., & Jones, G. R. (2001). The role of information technology in the organization: A
review, model, and assessment. Journal of Management, 27(3), 313–346.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700306
Dey, M., Frazis, H., Piccone, D., Jr., & Lowenstein, M. A. (2021). Teleworking and lost work
during the pandemic: New evidence from the CPS. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2021/article/teleworking-and-lost-work-during-thepandemic-new-evidence-from-the-cps.htm
Dongarwar, D., Yusuf, K. K., Maiyegun, S. O., Ibrahimi, S., Ikedionwu, C., & Salihu, H. M.
(2020). Covid-19 and neuro-behavioral economics: A conceptual framework to improve
physical and mental health among remote workers. International Journal of Maternal
and Child Health and AIDS, 9(3), Article 360. https://doi.org/10.21106/ijma.399
Donnelly, N., & Proctor-Thomson, S. B. (2015). Disrupted work: Home-based teleworking
(HbTW) in the aftermath of a natural disaster. New Technology, Work, and Employment,
30(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12040
Edwards, F. L., & Ott, J. S. (2021). Governments’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.
International Journal of Public Administration, 44(11–12), 879–884.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.1936964
Elldér, E. (2019). Who is eligible for telework? Exploring the fast-growing acceptance of and
ability to telework in Sweden, 2005–2006 to 2011–2014. Social Sciences, 8(7), Article
200. https://doi.org/10.3390/SOCSCI8070200
Elliott, J. (2022, August 22). What is a digital nomad? What to know about a work and travel
lifestyle. U.S. Chamber of Commerce. https://www.uschamber.com/co/grow/thrive/whatis-a-digital-nomad
135
Etshman, T. (2021, February 21). Community colleges work through COVID, hope for stimulus
relief. Rochester Business Journal. https://rbj.net/2021/02/22/community-colleges-workthrough-covid-hope-for-stimulus-relief/
Felstead, A., & Henseke, G. (2017). Assessing the growth of remote working and its
consequences for effort, well‐being and work‐life balance. New Technology, Work, and
Employment, 32(3), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12097
Ferreira, R., Pereira, R., Bianchi, I. S., & da Silva, M. M. (2021). Decision factors for remote
work adoption: Advantages, disadvantages, driving forces and challenges. Journal of
Open Innovation, 7(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010070
Frost, A. (2021, September 25). Getting SaaS’y - A brief history of SaaS. LinkedIn.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/getting-saasy-brief-history-saas-andrew-frost
Galanti, T., Guidetti, G., Mazzei, E., Zappalà, S., & Toscano, F. (2021). Work from home during
the COVID-19 outbreak: The impact on employees’ remote work productivity,
engagement, and stress. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63(7),
E426–E432. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002236
Gartner. (n.d.). Remote work. https://www.gartner.com/en/informationtechnology/glossary/remote-work
Gerke, S. (2006). If I cannot see them, how can I lead them? Industrial and Commercial
Training, 38(2), 102–105. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197850610653171
Gibbs, G. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Gill, R. (2010). Change management–or change leadership? Journal of Change Management,
3(4), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/714023845
136
Golden, T. (2012). Applying technology to work: toward a better understanding of telework.
Organization Management Journal, 6(4), 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1057/omj.2009.33
Grennan, D. (2019). What is a pandemic? Journal of American Medicine, 321(9), 910–910.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.0700
Grigore, O. M. (2020). Factors contributing to work-related absenteeism during the COVID-19
pandemic. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 8(4), 401–418.
https://doi.org/10.2478/mdke-2020-0026
Gromov, G. (2012). Roads and crossroads of the internet history. Netvalley.
https://www.netvalley.com/cgi-bin/intval/net_history.pl?chapter=1
Guggenberger, P., Maor, D., Park, M., & Simon, P. (2023). The state of organizations 2023: Ten
shifts transforming organizations. McKinsey & Company.
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/ourinsights/the-state-of-organizations-2023
Gutman, L. M., Younas, F., Perowne, R., & O’Hanrachtaigh, E. (2023). Lived experiences of
diverse university staff during COVID-19: An examination of workplace
wellbeing. Studies in Higher Education, 49(2), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2231015
Haddon, L., & Brynin, M. (2005). The character of telework and the characteristics of
teleworkers. New Technology, Work, and Employment, 20(1), 34–46.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2005.00142.x
Harker Martin, B., & MacDonnell, R. (2012). Is telework effective for organizations?
Management Research Review, 35(7), 602–616.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171211238820
137
Haque, S. M. S. (2023). The impact of remote work on HR practices: Navigating challenges,
embracing opportunities. European Journal of Human Resource Management Studies,
7(1), 56–84. https://doi.org/10.46827/ejhrms.v7i1.1549
Heiden, M., Widar, L., Wiitavaara, B., & Boman, E. (2021). Telework in academia: Associations
with health and well-being among staff. Higher Education, 81(4), 707–722.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00569-4
Hennekam, S., & Shymko, Y. (2020). Coping with the COVID‐19 crisis: force majeure and
gender performativity. Gender, Work, and Organization, 27(5), 788–803.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12479
Hennessy, J. L. (2021). The 50 year history of the microprocessor as five technology eras. IEEE
MICRO, 41(6), 20–21. https://doi.org/10.1109/MM.2021.3112301
Hernandez, Y. A. T. (2020). Remote workers during the COVID-19 lockdown. What are we
missing and why is important. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
62(11), e669–e672. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002018
Hill, C., Martin, J. L., Thomson, S., Scott-Ram, N., Penfold, H., & Creswell, C. (2017).
Navigating the challenges of digital health innovation: considerations and solutions in
developing online and smartphone-application-based interventions for mental health
disorders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 211(2), 65–69.
https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.115.180372
Hoke, A. M., Pattison, K. L., Molinari, A., Allen, K., & Sekhar, D. L. (2022). Insights on
COVID‐19, school reopening procedures, and mental wellness: Pilot interviews with
school employees. The Journal of School Health, 92(11), 1040–1044.
https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.13241
138
Israhadi, E. I. (2020). The social impact of force majeure and the consequences of the
determination of the COVID-19 disaster status on learning the manpower law. Journal of
Social Studies Education Research, 11(4), 28–51.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1281579.pdf
Izdebski, Z. W., & Mazur, J. (2021). Changes in mental well-being of adult Poles in the early
period of the COVID-19 pandemic with reference to their occupational activity and remote
work. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 34(2),
251–262. https://doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.01778
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2017). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. SAGE Publications.
Johnstone, B. (2003). Never mind the laptops: Kids, computers, and the transformation of
learning. iUniverse.
Jones, D. (2020). History in a crisis—Lessons for Covid-19. The New England Journal of
Medicine, 382(18), 1681–1683. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2004361
Kamal, R., Panchal, N., & Garfield, R. (2020, December 21). Both remote and on-site workers
are grappling with serious mental health consequences of COVID-19. Kaiser Family
Foundation. https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/both-remote-and-on-site-workers-aregrappling-with-serious-mental-health-consequences-of-covid-19
JUST Capital. (2020). The COVID-19 corporate response tracker: How America’s largest
employers are treating stakeholders amid the coronavirus crisis.
https://justcapital.com/reports/the-covid-19-corporate-response-tracker-how-americaslargest-employers-are-treating-stakeholders-amid-the-coronavirus-crisis/
139
Kirby, L., Zolkoski, S., O’Brien, K., Mathew, J., Kennedy, B., & Sass, S. (2023). Examining
staff and faculty work–life balance and well-being using the dual continua model of
mental health during COVID-19. Journal of Happiness and Health, 3(1), 34–48.
https://doi.org/10.47602/johah.v3i1.31
Kirkham, A. (2022, November 10). What is hybrid work and why do employees want it? Envoy.
https://envoy.com/blog/what-is-a-hybrid-work-model/
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Kossek, E. E. (2021, September 22). The future of flexibility at work. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2021/09/the-future-of-flexibility-at-work
Koufie, M., & Muhammad, N. M. N. (2021). Leaders perspective in post COVID-19 pandemic
period: Global business focus. International Journey of Health and Economics
Developments, 7(1), 13–36.
Kuhfeld, M., Soland, J., Lewis, K., & Morton, E. (2022, March 3). The pandemic has had
devastating impacts on learning. What will it take to help students catch up? Brookings
Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-pandemic-has-had-devastatingimpacts-on-learning-what-will-it-take-to-help-students-catch-up
Kumar, R. S., Stauvermann, P. J., & Samitas, A. (2016). The effects of ICT⁎ on output per
worker: A study of the Chinese economy. Telecommunications Policy, 40(2–3), 102–115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2015.06.004
Leonardi, P. (2021). COVID‐19 and the new technologies of organizing: Digital exhaust, digital
footprints, and artificial intelligence in the wake of remote work. Journal of Management
Studies, 58(1), 247–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12648
140
Liberati, E., Richards, N., Parker, J., Willars, J., Scott, D., Boydell, N., Pinfold, V., Martin, G.,
Dixon-Woods, M., & Jones, P. (2021). Remote care for mental health: Qualitative study
with service users, carers and staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Open, 11(4),
e049210–e049210. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049210
Licite-Kurbe, L., & Leonovica, R. (2021). Economic benefits of remote work from the employer
perspective. In 22nd International Scientific Conference. Economic Science for Rural
Development 2021 (No. 55, pp. 345–354). https://doi.org/10.22616/ESRD.2021.55.034
Lin, T., Stone, S. J., & Anderson, T. (2021). Treating from afar: Mental health providers’
challenges and concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Behavioral Medicine, 48(4),
1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/08964289.2021.1908217
Macfarlane, P. (2016, February 25). Culture, strategy and leadership—Who eats who? LinkedIn.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/culture-strategy-leadership-who-eats-paul-macfarlane
Madero Gómez, S., Ortiz Mendoza, O. E., Ramírez, J., & Olivas-Luján, M. R. (2020). Stress and
myths related to the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on remote work. Management
Research, 18(4), 401–420. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRJIAM-06-2020-1065
Mahler, J. (2012). The telework divide: Managerial and personnel challenges of telework.
Review of Public Personnel Administration, 32(4), 407–418.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X12458127
Margherita, A., & Heikkilä, M. (2021). Business continuity in the COVID-19 emergency: A
framework of actions undertaken by world-leading companies. Business Horizons, 64(5),
683–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2021.02.020
141
Marshall, J., Burd, C., & Burrows, M. (2021). Working from home during the pandemic. The
U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/03/working-fromhome-during-the-pandemic.html
Maruyama, T., & Tietze, S. (2012). From anxiety to assurance: Concerns and outcomes of
telework. Personnel Review, 41(4), 450–469.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481211229375
Maurer, R. (2021, July 6). Remote employees are working longer than before. Society for
Human Resource Management. https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hrnews/pages/remote-employees-are-working-longer-than-before.aspx
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. SAGE
Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying to the science of learning. Pearson Education.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00003-X
McCauley, C., & McCall, M. (2014). Using experience to develop leadership talent: How
organizations leverage on-the-job development. Wiley.
McLaughlin, K. (2022). COVID-19: Implications for business. McKinsey & Company.
https://mckinsey.com/business-functions/risk-and-resilience/our-insights/covid-19-
implications-for-business
McPherson, S. S. (2009). Tim Berners-Lee: Inventor of the World Wide Web. Twenty-First
Century Books.
Meghana, J., & Vijaya, R. (2019). E-leadership, psychological contract and real-time
performance management: Remotely working professionals. SCMS Journal of Indian
Management, 16(3), 101–111.
142
Mello, J. A. (2007) Managing telework programs effectively. Employee Responsibilities Rights
Journal, 19, 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-007-9051-1
Melnyk, B. M., Tan, A., Hsieh, A. P., Amaya, M., Regan, E. P., & Stanley, L. (2021). Beliefs,
mental health, healthy lifestyle behaviors and coping strategies of college faculty and
staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of American College Health, 71(9), 2740–
2750. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2021.1991932
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Messenger, J. C., & Gschwind, L. (2016). Three generations of telework: New ICTs and the
(r)evolution from home office to virtual office. New Technology, Work, and Employment,
31(3), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12073
Meyer, B., Zill, A., Dilba, D., Gerlach, R., & Schumann, S. (2021). Employee psychological
well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany: A longitudinal study of
demands, resources, and exhaustion. International Journal of Psychology, 56(4), 532–
550. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12743
Misawa, M. (2010). Queer race pedagogy for educators in higher education: Dealing with power
dynamics and Positionality of LGBTQ students of color. The International Journal of
Critical Pedagogy, 3(1), Article 68. https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/view/68
Mitchell, B. (2004, February 8). What is a wide area network (WAN) and how does it work?
Lifewire. https://www.lifewire.com/wide-area-network-816383
Miva Blog. (2020, November 23). The history of ecommerce: How did it all begin?
https://blog.miva.com/the-history-of-ecommerce-how-did-it-all-begin
143
Mongelli, F., Georgakopoulos, P., & Pato, M. T. (2020). Challenges and opportunities to meet
the mental health needs of underserved and disenfranchised populations in the United
States. Focus, 18(1), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.focus.20190028
Montenegro‐Rueda, M., Luque‐de la Rosa, A., Sánchez‐Serrano, J. L. S., & Fernández‐Cerero, J.
(2021). Assessment in higher education during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A systematic
review. Sustainability, 13(19), Article 10509. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910509
Morens, D. M., Folkers, G. K., & Fauci, A. S. (2009). What is a pandemic? The Journal of
Infectious Diseases, 200(7), 1018–1021. https://doi.org/10.1086/644537
Nagel, D. (2018, July 11). Teaching with technology in 2018. THE Journal.
https://thejournal.com/articles/2018/07/11/teaching-with-technology-in-2018.aspx
National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Distance education in IPEDS.
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/use-the-data/distance-education-in-ipeds
Nguyen, T. C. (2019, July 7). Who invented the computer? ThoughtCo.
https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-computers-4082769
Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Núñez-Canal, M., de Obesso, M. de las M., & Pérez-Rivero, C. A. (2022). New challenges in
higher education: A study of the digital competence of educators in COVID times.
Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 174, Article 121270.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121270
Office of Educational Technology. (2017, January 18). National education technology plan.
https://tech.ed.gov/netp/introduction/
144
Offstein, E., Morwick, J., & Koskinen, L. (2010). Making telework work: Leading people and
leveraging technology for competitive advantage. Strategic HR Review, 9(2), 32–37.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14754391011022244
O’Leary, D. (2020). Evolving information systems and technology research issues for COVID19 and other pandemics. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic
Commerce, 30(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2020.1755790
Oleschuk, M. (2020). Gender equity considerations for tenure and promotion during COVID‐19.
Canadian Review of Sociology, 57(3), 502–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/cars.12295
Orsini, C., & Rodrigues, V. (2020). Supporting motivation in teams working remotely: The role
of basic psychological needs. Medical Teacher, 42(7), 828–829.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1758305
Overby, E., Bharadwaj, A., & Sambamurthy, V. (2006). Enterprise agility and the enabling role
of information technology. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(2), 120–131.
Ozimek, A. (2020). The future of remote work [Manuscript]. Social Science Research Network.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3638597
Parker, K., Menasce Horowitz, J., & Minkin, R. (2021, February 9). How coronavirus has
changed the way Americans work. Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends
Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/12/09/how-the-coronavirusoutbreak-has-and-hasnt-changed-the-way-americans-work
Parker, K., Menasce Horowitz, J., & Minkin, R. (2022, March 23). COVID-19 pandemic
continues to reshape work in America. Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic
Trends Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/02/16/covid-19-
pandemic-continues-to-reshape-work-in-america/
145
Peacock, J. (2022). University employees’ perceptions of health during the early stages of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 46(1), 107–114.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.1887464
Perry, S. J., Rubino, C., & Hunter, E. M. (2018). Stress in remote work: Two studies testing the
demand-control-person model. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 27(5), 577–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1487402
Pogarcic, I., Krnjak, D., & Ozanic, D. (2012). Business benefits from the virtualization of an ICT
infrastructure. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 4(1), Article
42. https://doi.org/10.5772/51603
Pradies, C., Aust, I., Bednarek, R., Brandl, J., Carmine, S., Cheal, J., Pina e Cunha, M., Gaim,
M., Keegan, A., Lê, J. K., Miron-Spektor, E., Nielsen, R. K., Pouthier, V., Sharma, G.,
Sparr, J. L., Vince, R., & Keller, J. (2021). The lived experience of paradox: How
individuals navigate tensions during the pandemic crisis. Journal of Management Inquiry,
30(2), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492620986874
Prasath, P. R., Bhat, C. S., Mather, P. C., Foreman, T., & James, J. K. (2021). Wellbeing,
psychological capital, and coping of university employees during the COVID-19
pandemic. Journal of the Professoriate, 12(1), 1–30. https://caarpweb.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/04/Wellbeing_psychological_capital_Prasath-121.pdf
Regan, T. (2022, August 19). What are the roles of C-suite executives? Reworked.co.
https://www.reworked.co/leadership/definitions-and-examples-of-c-suite-executives
146
Reich, J., Buttimer, C. J., Coleman, D., Colwell, R. D., Faruqi, F., & Larke, L. R. (2020). What’s
lost, what’s left, what’s next: Lessons learned from the lived experiences of teachers
during the 2020 novel coronavirus pandemic. Teaching Systems Labs.
https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/8exp9
Rene, R., Cunningham, A., Pando, O., Silverio, A., Marschilok, C., & Sifri, R. (2021).
Development and evaluation of employee wellness sessions in response to COVID-19.
Families, Systems, & Health, 39(3), Article 505. https://doi.org/10.1037/fsh0000615
Saba, F. (2011). Distance education in the United States: Past, present, future. Educational
Technology Archive, 51, 11–18. http://distance-educator.com/wp-content/uploads/ETarticle-Saba-11-12-2011.pdf
Schrager, B. (2021). The geography of the US’s mishandling of COVID-19: A commentary on
the politics of science in democracies. The Geographical Journal, 187(1), 51–56.
https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12363
Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education
and the social sciences (5th ed.). Teachers College Press.
Shamsi, M., Iakovleva, T., Olsen, E., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2021). Employees’ work-related wellbeing during COVID-19 pandemic: An integrated perspective of technology acceptance
model and JD-R theory. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 18(22), Article 11888. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182211888
Silver, C., & Hyman, D. A. (2022, September 15). COVID-19: A case study of government
failure. Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/pandemics-policy/covid-19-case-studygovernment-failure
147
Silver, H. (2023). Working from home: Before and after the pandemic. Contexts, 22(1), 66–70.
https://doi.org/10.1177/15365042221142839
Simon, R. (2021, April 16). COVID-19’s toll on U.S. business? 200,000 extra closures in
pandemic’s first year. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19s-tollon-u-s-business-200-000-extra-closures-in-pandemics-first-year-11618580619
Smith, J. (2023). “I felt like I was losing every day” Women educators’ lived experience of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Labour, 92, 259–280. https://doi.org/10.52975/llt.2023v92.0010
Sonuga‐Barke, E. J. S. (2021). Editorial: “No pain ‐ No gain” – Towards the inclusion of mental
health costs in balanced “lockdown” decision‐making during health pandemics. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 62(7), 801–804. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13435
Spangenberg, H., & Theron C. (2013). A critical review of the Burke-Litwin model of
leadership, change and performance. Management Dynamics, 22(2), 29–48.
Stang, S. (2021, July 29). Impact of the coronavirus pandemic on establishments and
employment by industry. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2021/impact-of-the-coronavirus-pandemic-on-businessesand-employees-by-industry/home.htm
St. John Hopkins University & Medicine. (2023). COVID-19 map. Johns Hopkins Coronavirus
Resource Center. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
Sue, V. M., & Ritter, L. A. (2011). Conducting online surveys. SAGE Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983754
148
Tabb, M., DelViscio, J., & Gawrylewski, A. (2021, December 1). What is ‘The cloud’ and how
does it pervade our lives? Scientific American.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/video/what-is-the-cloud-and-how-does-it-pervadeour-lives/
Tagliaro, C., & Migliore, A. (2022). “Covid-working”: What to keep and what to leave?
Evidence from an Italian company. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 24(2), 76–92.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-10-2020-0053
Telework Enhancement Act of 2010, Public Law 292, U.S. Statutes at Large 124 (2010): 3165-
3174. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-111publ292
Thompson, B. Y. (2019). The digital nomad lifestyle: (Remote) work/leisure balance, privilege,
and constructed community. International Journal of the Sociology of Leisure, 2(1), 27–
42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41978-018-00030-y
Torous, J., & Roberts, L. W. (2017). Needed innovation in digital health and smartphone
applications for mental health: Transparency and trust. JAMA Psychiatry, 74(5), 437–
438. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.0262
Tronco Hernández, Y. A., Fabio, P., Faghy, M., Roscoe, C. M., & Maratos, F. A. (2021).
Influence of the COVID-19 lockdown on the physical and psychosocial well-being and
work productivity of remote workers: Cross-sectional correlational study. MIRx Med,
2(4), Article e30708. https://doi.org/10.2196/30708
Tuyo, D. (2020, September 8). The unexpected benefits of remote work. Credit Union Times.
https://www.cutimes.com/2020/09/08/the-unexpected-benefits-of-remotework/?slreturn=20230121122924
149
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2023, March 22). Telework, hiring, and vacancies news release
- 2022 A01 results. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/brs1.htm
VanLeeuwen, C. A., Veletsianos, G., Johnson, N., & Belikov, O. (2021). Never‐ending
repetitiveness, sadness, loss, and “juggling with a blindfold on:” Lived experiences of
Canadian college and university faculty members during the COVID‐19 pandemic.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(4), 1306–1322.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13065
Vogele, N. (2019, July 3). The difference between the internet and World Wide Web—And why it
matters. Page One Power. https://www.pageonepower.com/linkarati/difference-betweeninternet-world-wide-web
Wang, B. Liu, Y., Qian, J., & Parker, S. K. (2021). Achieving effective remote working during
the COVID‐19 pandemic: A work design perspective. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 16–59.
https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12290
Weaver, G. C. (Ed.). (2023). Acute crisis leadership in higher education: Lessons from the
pandemic (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003239918
Weiss, R. S. (1995). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. Simon and Schuster.
The White House. (2022, June 17). Reducing the economic burden of unmet mental health needs
[Press release]. https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2022/05/31/reducingthe-economic-burden-of-unmet-mental-health-needs/
Williams, W. (2021, April 13). What to look for in a solid ‘fully distributed’ remote company.
Growth Marketing Agency. https://www.firstpagestrategy.com/remote-work-blog/fullydistributed-remote-company
150
Wu, C. H., Weisman, H., Sung, L., Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2022). Perceived
overqualification, felt organizational obligation, and extra‐role behavior during the
COVID‐19 crisis: The moderating role of self‐sacrificial leadership. Applied Psychology,
71(3), 983–1013. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12371
Xiao, Y., Becerik-Gerber, B., Lucas, G., & Roll, S. C. (2021). Impacts of working from home
during COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental well-being of office workstation
users. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63(3), 181–190.
https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002097
Yasar, K. (n.d.). Information technology. TechTarget DataCenter.
https://www.techtarget.com/searchdatacenter/definition/IT
Zaccaro, S. (2003). E-leadership and the challenges of leading E-teams: Minimizing the bad and
maximizing the good. Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 377–387.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(02)00129-8
Zarneh, Y. S. (2021). 7.P. Workshop: Mental health during the Covid19 pandemic &
corresponding national health promotion measures. European Journal of Public Health,
31(Suppl. 3), Article 205. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckab164.541
Zhang, C., Yu, M. C., & Marin, S. (2021). Exploring public sentiment on enforced remote work
during COVID-19. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(6), Article 797.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000933
151
Zito, M., Ingusci, E., Cortese, C. G., Giancaspro, M. L., Manuti, A., Molino, M., Signore, F., &
Russo, V. (2021). Does the end justify the means? The role of organizational
communication among work‐from‐home employees during the COVID‐19 pandemic.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(8), Article 3933.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18083933
152
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Research Questions
• How did community college workers experience organizational support with remote
work during the pandemic?
• How did remote community college employees experience support for their wellness
during the pandemic?
• What is the remote worker’s perspective on organizational support for wellness?
Respondent Type
Remote workers
Introduction
Date:
Location:
Number of persons attending:
Principal Researcher:
Hello. My name is Josué Sandigo, the Principal Investigator of this study and I will be
facilitating this interview. The goal of this investigation is to understand the lived experiences of
remote workers who transitioned into their role during the 2020 pandemic. Specifically, what
type of support did community college remote workers receive during the pandemic, which
includes wellness resources, how was your wellness impacted and supported by the organization
during the pandemic and working from home, and what type of experiences remote workers had
153
during the pandemic. As a participant, I value your responses and insights and welcome your
feedback into this research.
This interview will take 75 minutes, consist of 16 questions, and will follow a designed
interview protocol. Please take the time to review the details in the designated Study Information
Sheet. With your permission, this session will be recorded for transcription accuracy only. I ask
for verbal confirmation that you agree to continue with a recorded session.
Please note that this interview is completely voluntary and can be stopped at any time.
Any personal identifiable information will be redacted, de-identified, and pseudonyms will be
used wherever possible. Please refrain from identifying yourself or your organization and
leverage details as you need to. All questions are open-ended and interpretative so feel free to
answer as you see fit, there are no right answers, and request the prompts to be repeated if you
need to.
After I have compiled, analyzed, and incorporated all interview data, the recorded interviews
will be securely destroyed.
If you have any questions, you can ask them now. Otherwise, please take several minutes to
review everything.
If there are no further questions, let’s get started.
154
Interview
Interview Question Potential Probes
RQ
Addressed
Key Concepts
Addressed
Can you describe your remote
work experience since 2020? Can you tell me more? 1
Knowledge,
Organizational
direction
What is your view on remote
work? Can you tell me more? 1
Knowledge,
Support,
Accountability,
Motivation,
Equity & Inclusion in
the decision-making
process
What type of training, if any,
was provided to help you
begin remote work?
Can you describe
resources you were
provided with, if any, to
help you with remote
work? 1
Process improvement,
Support,
Engagement
Can you describe a challenge
you faced with remote work?
Can you tell me how
supported you felt by
your organization? 2
Productivity,
Support,
Process improvement
What changes, if any, did you
make to adapt to remote
work? Tell me more, how so? 2
Productivity,
Support,
Process improvement
What support, if any, did your
organization provide you
with?
What type of value did
you find in the services
you were provided with? 3
Knowledge,
Organizational
direction,
Accountability,
Support
Tell me more about your
wellness experience during
this time:
1. How did working from
home affect your
productivity?
2. Comparatively, can you
describe your engagement
with your coworkers who
were now remote workers?
3. How did you cope with Tell me more. 1, 3
Knowledge,
Support,
Engagement,
Motivation
155
any wellness issues while
working from home?
How has working from home
impacted your work life
balance?
if any? Tell me more. 1, 3
Knowledge,
Support,
Engagement,
Motivation
In what ways, if at all, has
working from home affected
your personal relationships? 1, 3
Support,
Engagement,
Motivation
Now that you have worked
remote for at least a year, can
you describe your experience
at this point?
Can you describe how your
work life balance was
impacted after starting
remote work? Tell me more, how so? 1, 2, 3
Knowledge,
Support,
Engagement,
Motivation,
Accountability,
Process improvement,
Organizational
direction,
Equity & Inclusion in
the decision-making
process
In what ways, if at all, has
remote work during the
pandemic influenced your
productivity?
How has leveraging the
support services provided
by your organization
increased or decreased
your productivity? 1, 2, 3
Support,
Engagement,
Productivity,
Accountability,
Organizational
direction
Thinking back on this
experience:
1. What could the
organization done to better
support your transition when
you started remote work?
2. When you continued
remote work?
3. What resources can you
think of that would have
promoted wellness for you? Tell me more. 1, 3
Organizational
direction,
Accountability
Support,
Productivity,
Equity & Inclusion in
the decision-making
process
What suggestions can you
make to remote workers to
effectively manage their
wellness?
1, 2
Knowledge,
Support,
Engagement
156
Motivation,
Productivity
Process improvement
What advice would you give
to others beginning remote
work? 2
Knowledge,
Support,
Process improvement,
Motivation,
Engagement,
Accountability
Are there any wellness
resources or support other
organizations provided for
their employees that you
thought would have helped
you?
These are ideas and
practices you determined
on your own and wish to
share with others. 1, 2, 3
Knowledge,
Support,
Engagement,
Motivation,
Accountability,
Process improvement,
Organizational
direction,
Equity & Inclusion in
the decision-making
process
Is there anything else you
wish to add or share? 2
Knowledge,
Support,
Accountability,
Process improvement,
Organizational
direction,
Equity & Inclusion in
the decision-making
process
Conclusion to the Interview
This concludes our interview. I would like to thank you for volunteering your time with me
tonight, your feedback is invaluable to the study of overall wellness. If you have any further
questions regarding this study, you have my contact information for follow-up.
Thanks again and good day/evening/night. I will now stop the recording.
157
Appendix B: Participant Sampling Criteria for Interviews
The following table is the interview sample criteria and explanation:
Criteria Explanation
Community College Administrator
Remote Worker
A community college staff member who
qualifies as an educator and/or administrator.
An individual that qualifies under the desired
population for the study as they have met the
eligibility of a company employee who
works outside the established headquarters
and can answer the research questions.
Community College Remote Worker who transitioned
into this role during the 2020 COVID19 pandemic
A community college remote worker who
specifically moved from onsite to remote
work during the pandemic. This individual
provides a rich data source to describe this
particular experience, different from other
remote workers. This individual can also
provide in-depth knowledge of services and
support provided during their transition.
158
Appendix C: Recruitment Email
Dear Eligible Participant -
I am currently a researcher at the University of Southern California. As part of my doctoral
program, I am looking for community college educators who became remote workers during the
start of the pandemic in 2020 to help develop my investigation into key takeaways of your
perception of support, your wellness, and experiences during the start of the global pandemic.
My hope is that sharing your lived experiences will provide insight in enhancing best practices
and providing additional resources to remote workers.
I am looking for a total of 15 remote workers to be interviewed. This participation is completely
voluntary, approximately 75 minutes, and will be conducted online over Zoom. Then there will
be a follow up email where you will have an opportunity to review your responses and ask any
clarifying questions before submitting for analysis.
Please note that this is completely confidential. This includes your identity and your answers.
Your time is important to us, and we deeply appreciate your participation. If, for any reason, you
cannot or are unwilling to participate, please let us know so that we can adjust accordingly.
Please respond to this email with your commitment to participate. An Interview Sheet along with
available appointments will follow. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Josué R. Sandigo
159
Appendix D
Interview Information Sheet
The purpose of this research is to understand the lived experiences of community college remote
workers who transitioned into their role during the 2020 pandemic. Specifically, we are
interested in what type of support did remote workers receive during the pandemic, which
includes wellness resources, how was your wellness impacted during the pandemic and working
from home, and what type of experiences remote workers had during the pandemic.
The goal is to compile all information and determine how the different types of lived experiences
help enhance the remote work experience.
The following study will encompass the following:
• The study will include 15 interviews with community college remote workers.
• Interviews will last approximately 75 minutes.
• Interviews will take place over Zoom.
• Interviews will be recorded.
• Each interview is confidential; any personal identifiable information (PII) will not be
retained.
• Interviewees will have an opportunity to review the transcript for accuracy.
• All interview data will be compiled and analyzed to support the research.
• Statements made may be used or summarized to support the research and will be done
anonymously.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Employee engagement in a post-COVID era: the mediating role of basic psychological need satisfaction in remote and hybrid work environments
PDF
Frontline workers serving students: a study on the well-being of student affairs professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic
PDF
“Black” workplace belonging: an examination of the lived experiences of Black faculty sense of belonging factors in community colleges
PDF
Driving organizational transformation: empowering middle managers to prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion within the healthcare sector
PDF
The role of executives’ knowledge and motivation in enabling organizational supports for diversity, equity, and inclusion
PDF
The development of change leadership skills in aspiring community college leaders
PDF
Collaboration, capacity, and communication: Leaders’ perceptions of innovative work behavior across hybrid and remote work environments
PDF
Evaluation of a post work related injury total wellness program designed for fire and police department employees
PDF
The long-term impact of COVID-19 on commute, employment, housing, and environment in the post-pandemic era
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on physician burnout in LA County Hospital settings
PDF
Disclosure of abuse to empowerment: exploring psychological safety as a leadership tool to support women struggling with workplace performance
PDF
Who’s taking care of our graduate students? The impact of the onboarding process for first-generation students transitioning into graduate school during the COVID-19 pandemic
PDF
Exploring inequitable experiences of remote employees of color in biotechnology organizations in the United States who face less favorable remote work conditions…
PDF
COVID-19 pandemic: the impact on the Napa Valley wine industry workers
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
Negotiation strategies for women impacting the expanding gender earnings gap at midlife
PDF
Canaries in the mine: centering the voices of Black women DEI practitioners in a period of DEI resistance
PDF
Inclusion of adjunct faculty in the community college culture
PDF
An unlikely partnership: engaging diasporas as stakeholders to international development donors
PDF
An unlikely partnership: engaging diasporas as stakeholders to international development donors
Asset Metadata
Creator
Sandigo, Josué Ramón
(author)
Core Title
Examining the pandemic’s impact on remote worker wellness in community colleges: organizational lessons and strategies
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2024-08
Publication Date
09/09/2024
Defense Date
06/28/2024
Publisher
Los Angeles, California
(original),
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
community college,COVID,education,equity,inclusion,Internet,OAI-PMH Harvest,pandemic,remote work,self-efficacy,welllness,work–life balance
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Brady, Melanie (
committee chair
), Green, Alan (
committee chair
), Canny, Eric (
committee member
), Datta, Monique (
committee member
)
Creator Email
jrsandigo@gmail.com,jsandigo@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC11399AILW
Unique identifier
UC11399AILW
Identifier
etd-SandigoJos-13502.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-SandigoJos-13502
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Sandigo, Josué Ramón
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20240909-usctheses-batch-1209
(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
community college
COVID
equity
inclusion
Internet
pandemic
remote work
self-efficacy
welllness
work–life balance