University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Perception of Work Intensification and Well-Being Among Hybrid University Staff in the Post-COVID-19 Context

(USC Thesis Other)

Perception of Work Intensification and Well-Being Among Hybrid University Staff in the Post-COVID-19 Context

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content 1
Perception of Work Intensification and Well-Being Among Hybrid University Staff in the
Post-COVID-19 Context
Joshua B. Weston, M.A.
A Dissertation Presented to the
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
(Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line))
Dissertation Committee Chair: Robert A. Filback, Ph.D.
August 2023
2
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW
The pandemic revolutionized the work landscape and simultaneously thrust health and
wellness into the foreground of public consciousness. After the pandemic shutdowns had passed,
there is evidence that Americans were still in a sustained survival mode (APA, 2022a). The
American Psychological Association (APA) has conducted annual surveys to assess stress and
mental health since the pandemic. In the year after the pandemic, their findings show that 87%
felt that there has been a constant stream of crises for the past two years and 73% felt
overwhelmed by the crises facing the world (APA, 2022b). In addition, 42% reported that they
were continuing with unhealthy habits that they relied on to get through the last two years
including increased alcohol use, decreased physical activity, and disturbed sleep. The survey
suggests that stress levels had become an enduring part of our lives and did not show signs of
recovery. In a separate work and well-being survey, 79% of workers reported experiencing
work-related stress in the last month, and 3 out of 5 reported negative stress impacts (Abramson,
2022). Taken together, these two surveys suggest that workers were operating within a
heightened risk of burnout and poor mental health.
Mental health challenges seem to continue to influence the lives of Americans even now
that we are three years from the pandemic. In a recent Pew survey, 41% of American adults
surveyed responded that they have experienced high levels of psychological stress (Gramlich,
2023). For some, the ongoing impact of the pandemic experience has shown damaging lingering
effects; 14% reported that when they think about COVID-19, they have strong physical reactions
including sweating, trouble breathing, nausea, or a pounding heart.
Within this environment of heightened well-being concerns, the structures and conditions
of work itself have been transformed as organizations shifted to remote or hybrid work models.
3
Millions of Americans are reassessing their relationships to their jobs and are looking for greater
opportunities to thrive at work (Lipman, 2021). They are looking for jobs that not only support
their health and well-being but also provide a sense of meaning and purpose (Peters et al., 2022).
In a 2022 American Psychological Association survey (APA, 2022c), eight in ten report that they
will be looking for organizations that support mental health when looking at new job
opportunities. Within the same survey, workers identified some areas where they want employers
to support their mental health including: 41% flexible working hours, 34% a work culture that
respects time off, 33% ability to work remotely, and 31% a 4-day work week. Hybrid and remote
work options factor directly into the discussion of employee well-being.
One key change in the years after the pandemic is the increase in the number of remote
and hybrid workers. The work from home mandates have lifted, but workers became acquainted
with new possibilities, and generally, they wanted more remote work. In a 2022 Pew Research
survey (Parker et al., 2022), 59% of workers who believed that their jobs can be done mainly at
home are now choosing to do so. Three years into the post pandemic era, there has been a shift
from fully-remote to hybrid work for many organizations (Parker, 2023). In January 2022, 43%
of workers who could work remotely were doing so fully-remotely, while 35% were working a
hybrid schedule. In February 2023, the numbers have flipped, 35% are working fully-remote and
41% are working a hybrid schedule.
However, the picture for hybrid work is complex. On the one hand, the promise of hybrid
work as the “new normal” seems to offer the best of both worlds, as organizations can choose
when staff are able to work from home or in the office. Hybrid workers report that the biggest
positive is a boost in their ability to find work-life balance. Some also report that hybrid work
allows them to get more work done. On the other hand, hybrid workers also report that remote
4
work impairs their ability to connect with coworkers, reduces the chances for mentorship, and
harms their ability to get ahead in their jobs (Parker et al., 2022).
In addition to these concerns, there are also challenges and demands created by hybrid
work that relate to the nature of juggling two distinct systems and work environments. The world
of constant connected work life creates information and communication overload and a blending
of work and personal life (Brigham, 2021). Managing the demands of hybrid work requires new
skills, where workers are forced to trade increased effort for flexibility. Workers are taking on
the responsibilities of management as they decide when, where, how, and with whom they will
complete their work tasks (Kubicek et al., 2021). It can also be a challenge for leadership as
managers must adopt new practices to keep everyone together and balance the work environment
to support not only those who are thriving, but also those who are struggling (Skerlavaj, 2022).
Managers must clarify who should be in the office and who should be remote, handle the
logistics of an uncertain number of attendees for meetings, and ensure an inclusive and equitable
environment despite a range of employee experiences and needs (Chafi et al., 2022). There can
also be a challenge to workers’ sense of competency, as hybrid work requires greater self-
management skills and may also require learning and adapting to new technology platforms to
get through the workday (Chafi et al., 2022).
Taken together, the intersection of decreased well-being in the post-COVID-19 world and
pervasive changes to work systems requires a deeper examination of the dynamics of hybrid
work. While some evidence suggests that there are benefits to hybrid work, numerous challenges
also have been identified. Understanding how changes in the work environment impact well-
being, and whether different groups of workers are more vulnerable to its negative effects, is
integral to fostering a productive work environment where employees can thrive.
5
Statement of Problem
This study aims to address the problem of gaps in the understanding of the phenomenon
of hybrid work for university staff and its association with employee well-being. The study
considered the potential positive and negative effects of work intensification as a result of the
adoption of hybrid work systems. Additionally, it questioned whether all groups of university
staff are experiencing the transition to a hybrid work environment similarly.
Purpose of this Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the well-being of university staff who have
transitioned to a hybrid work model post-COVID-19. The study aims to explore the association
between perceptions of intensified work demands and emotional, psychological, and social well-
being across different groups of university staff.
Research Questions
The current study considers the following research questions:
1. How do university staff hybrid workers perceive work intensification if at all?
2. How are perceptions of work intensification related to employee characteristics
including age, work role, race and ethnicity, gender, and family responsibilities?
3. How does perception of work intensification relate to one’s sense of well-being?
Theoretical Framework
This study utilizes an existing theoretical model to anchor the analysis of the central
concept of work intensification. Kubicek’s Intensified Job Demands model (2015) presents five
dimensions of work intensification: quantity and pace of work, work decision-making, career
planning, knowledge learning, and skill learning. This model is applied to university staff in a
6
hybrid work environment. This framework is useful because it provides a means to investigate
different ways that hybrid work may be intensifying the demands upon hybrid workers.
Significance of the Study
The current phenomenon of shifting to a hybrid work model is a major post-COVID-19
change that impacts a large number of organizations. While many have adopted this model, the
potential negative effects on employee well-being are not fully understood. This study aims to
consider relationships between perceptions of university staff hybrid workers, intensified work
demands, and employee well-being with the goal of discovering nuances of experience that can
provide a more well-rounded understanding of hybrid work as a new model. This may provide
managers and leaders more clarity in what support employees might need in a hybrid work
environment.
Methodology
This study utilizes a mixed methods survey administered, via Qualtrics, to 113 hybrid
university staff members in spring of 2023. There are three sections of the survey. The first
section of the survey measures demographic characteristics and hybrid work variations. The
second section utilizes the Intensified Job Demands (IDS) scale by Kubicek et al. (2015). The
third section employs the Mental Health Continuum Short Form (MHC-SF; Keyes et al., 2008;
Lamers et al., 2011) to measure well-being. Respondents were also asked to reflect on their
hybrid work environment with open-ended qualitative responses. Qualitative responses were
used to triangulate relationships observed within the quantitative analysis to provide a more
comprehensive story about university hybrid worker experience and perceptions of work
intensification and well-being.

7
Definitions
The concepts that are central to the current study relate to work intensification, well-
being, and hybrid work.
Work Intensification: refers to the process of increases in effort, pace, and amount of work
within a limited amount of time, without accompanying increase in support and resources. For
the purposes of this study it is further divided into five dimensions: quantity and pace, work
decision-making, career planning, knowledge learning, and skill learning (Kubicek et al., 2015).
Hybrid Work: refers to a work structure that includes elements of remote work and in-person
work, with or without the ability for employees to choose the days, times, and amount of remote
work. Hybrid work utilizes technological platforms allowing teams to work simultaneously
across remote and in-person locations.
Well-Being: is a broadly defined concept with no singular definition, but there is general
consensus that it involves both a positive assessment of daily experiences combined with a
longer term sense of purpose. For the purposes of this study it is further defined as being
comprised of emotional well-being, social well-being, and psychological well-being.
Organization of the Study
The study provides a literature review that provides contextual background on the
concepts of work intensification, intensified job demands, employee well-being. It also looks at
the potential impact of job demands on employee well-being. There is also context related to
group differences of employee experience. The methodology chapter outlines the mixed method
survey, population, and data analysis methods. The results section is organized by the research
questions with a combination of quantitative results triangulated with qualitative responses.
There is also a general summary and analysis of qualitative data. Finally, there is a discussion of
8
the potential considerations of the current hybrid working environment for university staff
employees, and recommendations for promising practices to support all employees.

9
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Work Intensification
The concept of work intensification is useful in understanding the phenomenon of hybrid
work in the post-COVID 19 era. The concept has been considered since the early 2000’s as
researchers have considered how changes in technology have potentially increased the amount of
tasks a worker is expected to accomplish and also shortening the expected time of completion.
Work intensification is rooted in high-speed, high-performance modes of living, where
expectations of intensified efficiency, productivity, and performance permeate all life domains
(Rosa & Scheuerman, 2010) The Pandemic represented a further acceleration of work
intensification as it introduced a wider range of digital skills and knowledge in the workplace,
and these technological advances in information technology increase the speed of processes.
Work intensification may have some negative effects on employees and has been shown
to be a job stressor and linked to negative well-being outcomes (Mauno et al., 2023). It has been
connected with burnout, exhaustion, and cynicism (Kubicek et al., 2015). Work intensification
has also been associated with email overload and exhaustion for organizational leaders (Venz &
Boettcher, 2022). Specifically in the hybrid work environment, there are several cognitive
demands placed on workers including: information overload across multiple digital channels,
back-to-back online meetings, distractions at either the home or office environments, increased
decision-making, isolation, and learning new ways to collaborate (Chafi et al., 2022).
The intensified job demands model breaks work intensification into five dimensions to
provide a more nuanced understanding of how work intensification may impact employees.
(Kubicek et al., 2015). Dimension one represents work intensification in terms of quantity, where
the pace, number of tasks, and overlapping deadlines reduce idle time and create demands on the
10
worker. Dimension two represents intensified job-related decision making, where autonomy,
self-management, and goal management create qualitative demands on the worker. Dimension
three represents intensified career related decision making, including individual responsibility to
direct one’s own career both internal and external to the worker’s current job. Dimension four
represents knowledge related learning demands. This includes the pressure that workers may feel
to permanently refresh old and acquire new job-related knowledge in order to sustain their
employment. The fifth dimension represents intensified skill-related learning demands. Workers
may need to continually adjust their skill set to work with new equipment, work practices,
regulations, and must do so in a self-directed and strategic manner.
While there are many potential negative effects of work intensification, some dimensions
of intensified job demands have been linked to positive or neutral outcomes. Increased learning
demands, for example, are not always associated with negative outcomes (Mauno et al., 2023),
and long-term learning demands have been connected with increases in job satisfaction and
employee engagement (Kubicek et al., 2015). The variance in well-being outcomes could be a
result of how the employee views the demands placed on them: do they view them as challenges
providing growth and development, or do they view them as obstacles, hampering their ability to
accomplish their work (Kubicek et al., 2015).
Employee Well-Being
Well-being is discussed using a number of related terms, and while there is no clear
consensus regarding an unambiguous definition. Researchers have worked to examine multiple
dimensions of well-being, including, the good life, self-actualization, psychological well-being,
life satisfaction, personal well-being, flourishing, flow, self-determination, subjective well-being,
workplace well-being, work life balance, and positive functioning (Petermans & Cain, 2019).
11
Discussions of well-being are frequently framed by considering the concepts of
eudaimonia and hedonism. Eudaimonic well-being relates to an individual's meaning, purpose,
and journey towards self-actualization. Hedonic happiness is determined by the extent an
individual is able to attain pleasure and avoid pain (Petermans & Cain, 2019). This can be
viewed in terms of time. Eudaimonic well-being is related to long term concepts, where one is
both content with having learned the lessons of the past, and also working towards a purposeful
future. Hedonic happiness is grounded in the moment, where one is generally having more
positive daily experiences than negative ones.
At the highest levels of well-being there is an intersection between the eudaimonic
factors of harmony and larger life purpose with the hedonic aspects of enjoying the moments of
one’s day. Employee work experience could be in harmony with their life’s purpose, provide an
opportunity for personal growth, and allow for frequent daily moments of positivity.
Keyes defines flourishing as a combination of hedonic and eudaimonic factors (Keyes,
2010). The good life consists of feeling hedonic moments of happiness, and also cultivating
abilities and eudaimonically functioning in the world. In short, it is a combination of feeling
good and functioning well. The concept of thriving is defined as a state of vitality and learning
that is related to the concept of flourishing and self-actualization (Spreitzer et al., 2005).
Well-being can also be defined by its absence. When an employee is lacking a sense of
well-being, they find themselves on the lower end of the well-being scale. Individuals may
experience burnout, where they exhibit chronic exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy (Maslach et
al., 2001). Within this state of mind, employees suffer a crisis of motivation and a depletion of
energy and personal resources. Keyes (2002) uses the term languishing to define the condition of
lack of well-being, where the employee has low motivation, and their personal resources are
12
severely reduced. Workers in this situation may be unable to focus on more than getting through
the day, week, or month.
Job Demands as a Threat to Employee Well-Being
Work intensification represents an increase in the job demands that a worker must cope
with, and if they are unable to handle increases in job demands this can impact their well-being.
The framework of job demands and resources illustrates how changes in demands and resources
can either drive well-being upwards or drag it down. This model presents the demands placed on
an employee on the x axis, and the resources available to support the employee on the y axis
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). Demands can include short deadlines, high volume, complex or
boring work, uncomfortable work, little autonomy, poor work relationships, emotionally
draining, unclear goals, role ambiguity, limited career advancement opportunity, and excessive
bureaucracy. Many of these demands can be associated with work intensification. The resources,
on the other hand, boost the ability of the worker to handle demands, including, mentoring or
coaching, training development, constructive feedback, increased autonomy, clearer goals,
organization structure focused on supporting the employees.
The jobs demands and resources model creates a matrix of four conditions that can
overlay onto the well-being scale. When employees experience high demands and low resources,
they may perceive the demand as a hindering stressor, experience job burnout, and be susceptible
to falling into the lower levels of the well-being scale. If they experience high demands and high
resources, they may view the stress they experience as a challenging stressor that supports their
well-being.
Many demands associated with the hybrid work model can be viewed as hindering
demands and have a negative effect on employee well-being. If an employee faces a long
13
commute, subjective well-being may decrease (Emre & De Spiegeleare, 2019). When an
employee experiences greater job complexity, and this demand is viewed as a hindering demand,
it is shown to lead to lower levels of satisfaction and psychological well-being (Chung-Yan,
2010). The modern remote work context of constant digital connectivity is negatively correlated
with well-being and the beneficial ability to disengage from work (Büchler et al., 2020). Work
intensification is shown to lower job satisfaction and increase exhaustion (Korunka et al. 2015).
How an employee views their job tasks can also have a positive effect on well-being. If
an employee sees their work as meaningful, where their efforts directly benefit others, they will
see improved well-being outcomes such as lower withdrawal behaviors and absenteeism (Allan,
2017), increased engagement and reduced turnover intentions (Anuradha et al., 2017). In these
situations, the demands can be viewed as challenging demands, and workers are more motivated
to accomplish them. The perception of whether a demand is viewed as hindering or challenging
can vary depending on the individual experiences of the employees. This diversity of experience
and perception is a key concept to understand the current dynamic of the hybrid work model in
the post pandemic context.
Diversity of Experiences
Job demands and work intensification may impact employee well-being in different
ways. Within the same organization, there can be a wide range of experiences that can result
from a range of conditions. One worker may view learning new online platforms such as Zoom,
Microsoft teams, and Slack as an energizing challenge demand, but another may view these as
hindering demands. The unique characteristics that make up the identity and life experience of
the employee may play a role in determining perceptions of well-being and work intensification.
14
These differences can relate to age, race, ethnicity, gender, family responsibilities, or other
distinctions.
Employee well-being experiences can vary based on the intersection of their life and
career stage. Mehta et al. (2020) proposes three adult stages that are accompanied with distinct
experiences. These include emerging adulthood (Ages 18-29), established adulthood (30-45),
and midlife (45-65). The experiences of each of these stages is described with these themes:
romance, career, physical, cognitive, well-being, and caregiving. Salmela-Aro and Upadyaya
(2018) examined job demands and job resources across different career stages. The career stages
that they focused on were early career (under 35), mid-career (35-49), and late career (over 50).
While the divisions do not perfectly align, there is significant overlap in their descriptions of the
different stages to suggest that different ages and life stages may have distinct work experiences.
Both studies categorize early work stages as opportunities for development where
employees are not yet anchored to many obligations. Mehta et al. (2020) describes emerging
adulthood career as a time when employees are gathering information and experimenting. It is a
flexible time when they are willing to change jobs rapidly. The median number of job changes is
over 10. Salmela-Aro and Upadyaya (2018) describe early career employees as being in the
process of discovery when they have limited resources, but large expectations.
The next stage for an employee is described in terms of a sense of stability that is
challenged by the need to balance competing demands. Mehta et al. (2020) defines the
established adulthood career as a period where the employee is committed to a field, is building
expertise, and is experiencing increased responsibilities. It is a time, when they may experience a
career-care crunch, where their work demands are at a peak, and the need to care for children and
possibly parents is also very high. Success during this stage depends on managing the boundaries
15
of the professional and personal worlds. Salmela-Aro and Upadyaya (2018) describe mid-career
also in terms of the importance of balancing personal and professional demands with their
personal and professional resources. The ability to successfully engage in multiple domains
marks success during mid-career.
The final stage is described as a time where many of life’s demands are declining, but so
are some of the resources related to health. Mehta et al. (2020) describes midlife with declining
caregiving responsibilities, but also declining physical and cognitive abilities. In addition, it is a
professional stage marked by seniority, established experience, mentorship, and wisdom.
Salmela-Arlo and Upadaya (2018) present the late career stage in similar terms, where
caregiving is lessened, but health concerns become more important.
Considering that an organization will generally need to support employees over the full
span of an employee's career stages, it is useful to understand how each group is responding to
the Post-COVID-19 hybrid work environment. Is this environment more supportive to one
particular career stage? What perceptions do those who are successful have?
Another concept to consider is the impact of power dynamics. Employee well-being is a
multi-dimensional concept, and a personal approach that takes into consideration the power
dynamics of employees provides a more complete picture (Liu-Lastres & Wen, 2021). Workers
from less privileged identities have additional challenges, stressors, and demands that may have
a negative effect on their well-being (Velez et al., 2013). As a result of their less-privileged
status these employees can be more susceptible to demands and negativity in the overall work
environment. Work environment climates can be defined as ranging from supportive, tolerant,
ambiguous, and hostile towards minoritized employees (Holman et al., 2018).
16
In negative work environments, there is a clear detrimental effect on employee well-
being. Work environments that include instances of hostility towards women see a decline in
employee well-being for both male and female employees (Minor-Rubino & Cortina, 2004).
Sexual and Gender minorities may experience higher levels of burnout, depression, and anxiety
(Pereira et al., 2022). Racial and ethnic minorities suffer worse employee well-being outcomes in
the face of workplace incivility (Gordon et al., 2018). Microaggressions are additional demands
placed upon a worker that lead to negative outcomes for a variety of identities and in a variety of
settings, such as increased stress for women in academia (Elliott & Blithe, 2021), increased
depression and anxiety for black men working in predominantly white organizations (Pitcan et
al., 2018), and higher levels of worry and psychological distress in non-white nurses during
COVID 19 (Hawkins et al., 2022), and increased stress and job insecurity for workers with
multiple sclerosis (Lee et al., 2019). In addition, the additional cognitive load needed for identity
management for a minoritized employee creates additional stresses (Velez et al., 2013).
Managing stereotype threats similarly harm employee well-being outcomes, leading to increased
rumination and disengagement for older employees (von Hippel et al., 2019).
On the positive side, when efforts are made to counter the negative demands and
stressors, positive outcomes can be seen. Promoting diversity and organizational justice can
support overall employee satisfaction, work motivation, and employee well-being (Huong &
Fujimoto, 2016; Lee, 2019). Strategies to highlight minority identity resources can boost feelings
of inclusion and vitality (Sekhon & Warren, 2020). Fostering a sense of belonging creates
psychological wellbeing and social relatedness (Waller, 2020). Equity can mediate the negative
effects of burnout resulting from an imbalance of job demands and resources (Hu et al., 2013).
Perceived gender equity positively impacts employee well-being (Chawla & Sharma, 2019).
17
Implementing inclusive language is shown to have positive well-being effects for transgender
employees (Perales et al., 2022). It is an organizational need to understand well-being in terms of
the diversity of employee experiences and also within the context of power and identity.

18
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study is to gain an understanding of the post-COVID-19 hybrid work
environment by examining perceptions of work intensification and well-being among hybrid
university staff. An anonymous online survey included both quantitative and qualitative
questions on demographic characteristics including the scope of hybrid work schedule, work
intensification across five dimensions, and employee well-being. The study’s three main research
questions are as follows:
1. How do university staff hybrid workers perceive work intensification if at all?
2. How are perceptions about work intensification related to employee
characteristics including age, work role, race and ethnicity, gender, and family
responsibilities?
3. How does perception of work intensification relate to one’s sense of well-being?

Population and Sample
The current sample (n =113) was purposively drawn from a population of university staff
who work a hybrid schedule. Participants were recruited via email using professional networks.
Participants were invited from a number of different universities across the United States. When
possible, snowballing recruitment was employed, but this accounted for a minority of responses.
The criteria for inclusion were that university staff must work both in-person and remotely for
some part of their weekly schedule. Staff who work fully remote or fully in-person were
excluded from the study. Faculty were also excluded from the study because their work
schedules have not typically followed an 8am-5pm office structure. Student workers were also
excluded from the study.
A total of 130 respondents completed an anonymous survey via Qualtrics between April
10, 2023 and May 12, 2023. Of the 130 surveys, 12 were excluded because they were incomplete
19
and one was excluded because the respondent indicated that they work 0% remote, and four were
excluded because respondents indicated that they worked a 100% remote schedule, leaving 113
surveys. Table 1 provides the sample characteristics. Of the 113 participants, 30 self-identified as
man including transgender, 79 as woman including transgender, and four preferred not to
answer. In terms of sexual orientation, 85.8% self-identified as heterosexual, 3.5% as gay or
lesbian, 3.5% as bisexual, 1.8% preferred to self-describe, and 5.3% preferred not to answer.
Participants were ethnically and racially diverse: 32.7% self-identified as Asian or Pacific
Islander, 3.5% Black or African American, 16.8% Latino/a/e/x or Hispanic, 1.8% Middle Eastern
or North African, 0.9% Native American or Alaskan, 47.8% White or European American, and
2.7% preferred not to answer. The age range was 24-70 years with a mean of 44.3 (SD = 9.7).
The sample was highly educated: participants’ highest level of education reported was 44.2%
Bachelor’s Degree, 41.6% Master’s Degree, and 9.7% Doctoral or Professional Degree.
The work role of participants was 13.3% in executive leadership, 34.5% manager or
supervisor, 52.2% professional staff, and 1.7% other. In the current sample, the percent of the
week that is spent working remotely ranges from 10% to 99% with an average of 44.4% (SD =
21%). The majority have been working a hybrid schedule for over a year: 43.4% = 2+ years,
36.3%= 1-2 years, 13.3%= 6-12 months, and 7% less than six months. Approximately 74% of
participants have a choice regarding which days to work remotely and about half (48.7%) have a
choice regarding how many days per week to work remotely. Most (84.1%) had never worked a
hybrid schedule prior to COVID-19.
Regarding family responsibilities, 54% of participants reported having no dependents
under the age of 18 years, and 43.3% have at least one dependent, with a range of 1-4
20
dependents. Approximately 18% of respondents are caregiving for other adults outside of their
immediate household.
Table 1
Sample characteristics (n=113)

Age in years M (SD) 44.3 (9.7)
Gender Identity
Woman including transgender 70.0%
Man including transgender 26.5%
Nonbinary 0%
Prefer to self-describe 0%
Prefer not to answer 3.5%
Sexual Orientation
Gay or Lesbian 3.5%
Heterosexual 85.8%
Bisexual 3.5%
Pansexual 0%
Queer 0%
Asexual 0%
Prefer to self-describe 1.8%
Prefer not to answer 5.3%
Ethnicity/Race (Select all that apply)
Asian or Pacific Islander 32.7%
Black or African American 3.5%
Latino/a/e/x or Hispanic 16.8%
Middle Eastern or North African 1.8%
Native American or Alaskan 0.9%
White or European American 47.8%
Prefer not to answer 2.7%
Highest Level of Education
High School 1.8%
Technical School 0.9%
Associates Degree 1.8%
Bachelor’s Degree 44.2%
Master’s Degree 41.6%
Doctoral or Professional Degree 9.7%
Work Role
Executive Leadership 13.3%
Manager or Supervisor 34.5%
Professional Staff 52.2%
Length of Time Working Hybrid Schedule
Less than 6 months 7.0%
21
6-12 months 13.3%
1-2 years 36.3%
2+ years 43.4%
Choice of Hybrid Schedule
Which Days are Remote 74.0%
Number of Remote Days 48.7%
Prior to COVID-19 Pandemic Worked Hybrid Schedule
Yes 15.9%
Marital Status
Married 62.8%
Not Married 18.6%
Divorced or Separated 8.8%
Living with Partner 7.1%
Widow or Widower 1.8%
Prefer to self-describe 0.9%
Family Responsibilities
At Least One Dependent Under Age 18 43.3%
Caregiving for Other Adult Outside of Immediate Household 18.0%

Data Collection Procedures
Prior to data collection, university IRB approved the study procedures. Invitation emails
were sent out to targeted participants and universities using professional networks and
connections. The invitation asked participants to complete an anonymous online survey in order
“to learn about perceptions of work intensification and well-being among hybrid workers” in a
post-COVID-19 context. Participants were required to meet the criteria of 1) being university
staff and 2) working a hybrid schedule (at least one day per week in the office, and at least one
day per week remote). A Qualtrics link was embedded in the email, and an information sheet
acknowledging consent was included as the first page of the survey. The final page of the survey
included a link to a separate survey location where participants could voluntarily enter their
email for a drawing of one of two $25 Amazon gift cards. The survey was opened on April 10,
2023 and closed on May 12, 2023.

22
Survey Measures
There were three distinct components of the survey: demographics, intensified job
demands, and well-being.
Demographic information included age, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation,
education, marital status, family responsibilities, and work role. The scope of the participants
current hybrid work schedule was also collected. Respondents were asked to indicate what
percentage they are working remotely on a sliding percentage scale. Responses of either 0% or
100%, were not considered to be hybrid work schedules and were excluded from the study. In
addition, respondents were asked how long they have been working a hybrid schedule on a 4-
point scale: 2+ years, 1-2 years, 6-12 months, or less than 6 months, and to what extent they have
a choice (yes or no) regarding a) how many days and b) which specific days they are able to
work remotely.
Perception of Intensified Job Demands
Perception of intensified job demands was assessed using the Intensification of Job
Demands Scale (IDS; Kubicek et al., 2015). This 18-item scale measures job demands in five
dimensions: quantity and pace of work (It is increasingly rare to have enough time for work
tasks); work decision-making (One increasingly has to determine the sequence of activities by
oneself); career planning (One’s own professional development increasingly requires to keep
other opportunities open); knowledge learning (One has to update one’s knowledge level more
frequently); and skill learning (One increasingly has to get used to new work flows). For each
item, participants were asked to “Consider your hybrid work experience:'' and they responded on
a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 = completely followed each item. Item scores
were averaged to create a mean score for each of the 5 dimensions; higher scores indicated
23
intensified job demands. Participants were also given one open-ended question at the end of the
scale asking, “Would you like to comment on any of the above items and describe the way hybrid
work may have influenced your work.”
Perception of Well-Being
Well-being was assessed using the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF;
Keyes et al., 2008; Lamers et al., 2011). This 14-item questionnaire measured well-being in three
dimensions: emotional well-being, social well-being, psychological well-being. For each item
participants were asked: “In the past month, how often did you feel…” and responded on a 6-
point scale from 1= never, 2 = once or twice, 3= about once a week, 4 = 2-3 times a week, 5 =
almost everyday, and 6 = everyday. Item scores were averaged to create a mean score for each of
the three dimensions and higher scores indicated greater well-being. A total well-being score was
computed by averaging across the mean scores for emotional, social, and psychological well-
being. Following the scale items, participants were given an open-ended question asking, “Could
you please describe how your sense of well-being has changed, if at all, since you have been on a
hybrid work schedule.”.
Data Analysis
Data was analyzed using a mixed methods approach. Quantitative data was analyzed
using SPSS to compute descriptive statistics, correlations and to conduct group comparisons via
t-tests and analyses of variances (ANOVAs).
Qualitative responses on the two open-ended questions following the IDS and MHC-SF,
respectively, were coded and grouped into thematic patterns. Responses referencing work
intensification or well-being were coded if they appeared in either of the two open-ended
comments. Also, responses were coded separately for each type of work intensification
24
described. For example, if one respondent’s comments referenced three types of work
intensification, each type of work intensification was separately categorized.
Ethical Considerations
The online Qualtrics survey was anonymous, free of cost, and participation was
voluntary. No identifying information was collected from participants. A separate link was
provided where participants could voluntarily enter their email into a drawing of one of two $25
Amazon gift cards.
Role of the Researcher
The researcher is a manager who has supervised a team of employees at a large public
university as they have transitioned to mandatory remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic
and is now currently managing the same team as they have transitioned to a hybrid remote work
environment in the post-COVID-19 era. The impetus of this study derives from observations of
that experience. Participants who directly report to the researcher were not asked to participate,
however, colleagues within the same division were invited. Additionally, colleagues from
different departments at the same university were invited to participate as well as colleagues
from other university departments.
The researcher is a white, heterosexual male. In order to check against potential biases,
several steps were taken. Committee members and consultants represented identities different
from the researcher, and their periodic constructive feedback was included in the design and
revision of the present study. The study utilized existing validated instruments, which are widely
used, for its quantitative survey components. Whenever possible, qualitative decisions are
transparent, and direct quotes from the participants are included.

25
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The results indicated that university hybrid staff perceived work intensification in the
post-COVID-19 work environment, and that employee well-being was inversely correlated with
three of the five dimensions on the Intensified Job Demands Scale (IDS). The results also
indicated that groups of hybrid workers reported differences in how they perceived work
intensification and well-being. Three main group differences emerged: age, work-role, and race
and ethnicity.
Research Question 1: How Do University Staff Hybrid Workers Perceive Work
Intensification?
Respondents reported a wide range of perceptions of work intensification. The
quantitative and qualitative survey responses both indicated that university staff does not
uniformly experience hybrid work. Table 2 contains the means and standard deviations of the
IDS dimensions and examples of qualitative comments. The composite scores of the five
dimensions of intensified job demands ranged from 2.87 to 3.43 on a 5- point scale, with higher
scores indicating greater perceived job demands. Qualitative responses indicated a range of
experiences, where hybrid work is contributing to specific intensified demands and how work
demands have lightened in the hybrid work environment.

26
Table 2
Work Intensification Dimensions: Means and Standard Deviations from IDS and Qualitative Examples
Intensified Job Demand
Scale (IDS) Dimension
M(SD) Number of Comments
+ = Positive or Neutral
- = Negative
Examples of Qualitative Comments
Quantity and Pace 2.87
(0.94)
+16 “Hybrid work allows for me to have remote work days
to work on tasks that I cannot complete in the office due
to constant interruptions”

-10 “I used to not even have outlook on my phone but now
it's just part of daily life that work follows my wherever
I am, even though I'm an hourly employee and generally
don't work hours for which I don't get paid”

Work Decision-Making 3.01
(0.98)
+20 “There are great benefits to working in an office
environment and working from home. I get the one-on-
one in-person interaction with colleagues and people I
supervise, and I also get time to focus away from the
office setting where there can be lots of competing
priorities. The most important thing is being organized
and establishing boundaries.”

-12 “Hybrid work has really minimized the way
collaborative work gets done, and when collaborations
do happen, they require a lot more time and
intentionality than before.”

Career Planning 2.96
(1.11)
+0

-0

Knowledge Learning 3.20
(0.95)
+3 “It requires more e-communication and self-education
on certain tasks.”

-2 “Several times questions were asked about updating
knowledge & learning new systems. That's a huge
burden now as the university has to offer more & more
online and/or tries to modernize.”

Skill Learning 3.44
(1.00)
+5 “Having a hybrid work schedule has been a positive
change for me. I am a more productive, finish more
work task, and have acquired new technological skills.”

-2 “I still struggle with finding a balance between feeling
overwhelmed with reading reports and updates and with
filtering the information to clarify and prioritize what's
important and what's not.”

27
Dimension 1: Quantity and Pace of Work
The first IDS dimension, quantity and pace of work, measures a common understanding
of increases in perceptions of workload. Scale questions focus on having less time to complete
tasks, finding it harder to take breaks, experiencing less time between intense work phases, and
having to accomplish more tasks at the same time. The mean score for this dimension was a 2.87
(SD = 0.94; mode 2.40) on a 5-point scale with 1 indicating that the respondent perceives this
dimension “not at all” and 5 indicating that they perceive intensification in quantity and pace of
work “always”.
In the qualitative responses, the responses provided a mixed picture. There were 70
comments that mentioned one of the work intensification dimensions. There were 16 responses
describing a positive experience and indicated a decrease in the quantity and pace of work. There
were 10 responses that described a negative experience and indicated an increase.
Responses that describe an increase in quantity and pace indicate that collaboration
requires more time, that there is a risk of taking calls when on break, and needing to cover for
remote workers who are out of loop and bring them up to speed. One respondent elaborates on
how the pace of meetings is having a negative impact.
Even simple things, like having a moment to walk to a meeting and chat with a colleague
or drink coffee no longer exists - you literally get off one meeting and onto another
meeting. This didn't used to occur when everyone was onsite and attending meetings in
person. I think this creates a more cognitively stressful and tiring work environment.

Another respondent describes how the amount of information coming in as a result of more
online communication channels and less in-person discussions has increased, and that the
amount can have an overwhelming effect:
...with the hybrid work format I still struggle with finding a balance between feeling
overwhelmed with reading reports and updates and with filtering the information to
28
clarify and prioritize what's important and what's not. Sometimes, while working
remotely, it just feels like there's way too much information being shared electronically.

On the other hand, 16 responses reported the opposite experience, describing how hybrid
work is reducing their work demands. One respondent highlights the positive of hybrid work
allowing for a deintensification of the work experience.
A hybrid work schedule allows me a temporary break in the work week where I don’t
have to be as “on” as in the office; I can sleep in a little later without having to get ready
and drive to work, and I am more likely to remember to take breaks and get up at home
than I do at the office.

Taken together, there is evidence that work intensification related to the quantity and
pace of work is perceived by the respondents.
Dimension 2: Work Decision-Making
The second IDS dimension is intensified work-related decision-making. Survey questions
assessed increased planning of workflows and sequences, increased autonomy, and making
decisions without supervisor or manager support. Table 2 shows that quantitative responses fall
into the middle range, with a mean of 3.01 (SD=0.98) and mode of 3.5 on a 5-point scale. There
were 32 qualitative responses that describe how hybrid work requires greater independent
thinking and self-management, especially related to meetings and collaboration.
There were 14 responses that mentioned an increase in independent decision-making,
“Hybrid work has provided more autonomy in my daily work.” Another respondent describes
balancing two work environments, “Some work I choose to complete in [a] remote setting and
some I choose to complete in office, as appropriate.” One respondent discusses balancing
flexibility with increased planning demands, “I like the flexibility, but it definitely takes good
time management skills, and a good sense of how to prioritize tasks in order to get everything
29
done efficiently.” Another respondent further elaborated on the challenge of working with some
staff remote and some in person.
Overall MY work hasn't been as affected by ME working remote as by OTHERS
working remote who then are out of the loop on items they would not be if they were
onsite more often, thus I have to get them up to speed, which in turn does directly affect
my workload.

Another aspect of hybrid work that was highlighted was the increased decision-making
needed to manage meetings and collaboration across both the office and remote settings,
“…when collaborations do happen, they require a lot more time and intentionality than before.”
A similar response discusses scheduling challenges, “One has to be more conscious of when
colleagues are in the office vs. remote. It can be a challenge to plan in office activities or
meetings when not all staff are in the office on the same day.” Another describes the challenge of
creating hybrid meetings, “I try to adjust meetings and offer a Zoom/[Microsoft] Teams as well
as physical room environment so everyone can join but it's hard to read the room when someone
has their camera off and I am left wondering if they are ok”.
The IDS dimension of intensified work decision-making was moderate in the quantitative
responses, but more prevalent in the qualitative responses (32 responses). This suggests that
many of the respondents perceived an intensification in this dimension of their hybrid work
experience.
Dimension 3: Career-Planning
The third IDS dimension is intensified career planning. The survey questions relate to
maintaining attractiveness for the job market, keeping employment opportunities open, and
independently planning career development. The quantitative responses were moderate, with an
overall mean of 2.96 (SD = 1.11), and a mode of 3.33, which is the lowest of the five job
30
intensification dimensions. There were no qualitative comments that were categorized as
intensified career planning.
Dimensions 4 and 5: Intensified Learning Demands: Knowledge and Skill
The last two IDS dimensions were related to learning. Knowledge learning questions
measured acquiring new knowledge and gaining new levels of expertise. Skill learning questions
assessed the need to become familiar with new work processes, equipment, devices, and
programs. Both learning dimensions showed high quantitative scores. Intensified knowledge
learning had a mean score of 3.19 (SD = 0.95), with a mode of 4, and intensified skill learning
had a mean score of 3.44 (SD = 1.01), with a mode of 4. There were five responses that mention
knowledge demands and seven that mention skill learning.
There were five responses focused on the impact of learning new technology. For
example, “There is definitely a learning curve to adjusting your workflow to remote/hybrid
work. It requires more e-communication and self-education on certain tasks.” One response
highlights a technology work-around that helps them get through to manage hybrid work,
“…sometimes I have connection issues with some programs on my work computer. Due to this I
will make adjustments to my at-home work so I don't need to use the programs that tend to
freeze my at-home computer.” In some responses, the challenges of becoming technologically
literate are described: “[It] can be a challenge for all staff, the need for technical support and
technology tools needed to innovate.” Comments also highlighted that not all employees are
equally able to keep up with the technology learning pace, “More appreciative, technology that
allows us to do so, work that allows us, and I do feel bad for those unable to do so.”
31
The combination of higher means on these IDS dimensions and a modest number (12) of
open-ended comments suggest that respondents perceived learning work intensification as part of
their current hybrid work experience.
Overall, the results demonstrate that many of the respondents perceived work
intensification across various dimensions. The range of responses suggest that individual or
group differences may account for some of the varied experiences.
Research Question 2: How Are Perceptions About Work Intensification Related to
Employee Characteristics including Age, Work Role, Race and Ethnicity, Gender, and
Family Responsibilities?
Three main findings were identified in the quantitative analyses examining employee
characteristics and intensified job demand dimensions: Age was negatively correlated with
perceptions of work intensification; managers and executive leaders were more likely to perceive
greater work intensification compared to staff; and non-white employees were more likely to
perceive work intensification when compared to white employees. Differences related to gender
and family responsibilities were not clearly seen in the quantitative results; however, five
qualitative comments shed light on how hybrid work may be impacting these groups.
Older Hybrid Employees Reported Less Work Intensification
The results indicated that perceptions of work intensification are influenced by age. In
the quantitative data, there is an inverse correlation between age and two of the IDS dimensions.
In addition, there is a qualitative difference in the open-ended responses. Younger respondents
provide more positive, generalized responses when mentioning work intensification dimensions,
and these responses more frequently assert appreciation for the benefits of remote work rather
than discussing hybrid work. In contrast, older respondents provide more balanced, specific
32
responses, describing aspects of hybrid work in terms of specific positives and negatives that
must be considered to make the system functional. They also were more likely to make critical
comments about remote work.
Table 3 contains the means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations of the main
study variables. Age and perceptions of work intensification were inversely correlated in two
dimensions: increases in age were correlated with decreases in Job Decision-Making (r = -.21, p
<.05) and Career-Planning (r = -.28, p <.01).

33
Table 3
Intercorrelations and Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 M SD Range
1. WI: Quantity and Pace

-- 2.87 0.94 1-5.00
2. WI: Work Decision-
Making
.72*** -- 3.01 0.98 1-5.00
3. WI: Career Planning .66*** .67*** -- 2.96 1.11 1-5.00
4. WI: Knowledge
Learning
.60*** .65*** .74*** -- 3.20 0.95 1-5.00
5. WI: Skill Learning .61*** .63*** .57*** .78*** -- 3.44 1.00 1-5.00
6. Emotional Well-Being -.21* -.20* -.26** -.16 -.16 -- 4.81 1.01 2-6.00
7. Social Well-Being -.23* -.25** -.19 -.12 -.18 .75** -- 4.52 1.01 1.67-
6.00
8. Psychological Well-
Being
-.19* -.23* -.11 -.04 -.15 .67** .75** -- 3.58 1.08 1-6.00
9. Total Well-Being -.23* -.25** -.20* -.11 -.18 .89** .92** .90** -- 4.30 0.94 1.61-
6.00
10. Percent of work week
that is remote
-.07 .01 -.05 -.04 .02 -.10 -.08 -.16 -.13 -- 44.39 21.38 10.00-
99.00
11. Length of time with
hybrid schedule
-.15 -.04 .03 -.06 -.08 .23* .27** .20* .26** .08 -- 3.16 0.91 1-4.00
12. Age in years -.15 -.21* -.28** -.09 -.07 .19* .30** .27** .28** -.03 .13 -- 44.3 9.75 24-70
Note. WI = Work Intensification Dimension. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
34
Table 4 contains an overview of the qualitative responses divided by a mean split at age
44 years. Respondents younger than age 44 provided more positive comments that valued the
remote aspect of hybrid work. Older respondents, age 44 and above, provided comments about
both the remote and in-person components of their work, and presented more balanced
comments (i.e., pros and cons) of hybrid work. Also, older workers frequently described a
problem-solution framework to make the hybrid system function. Older respondents reported
more negative comments about the remote aspect of hybrid work than their younger
counterparts.
Table 4
Examples of Qualitative Comments about Work Intensification By Age Group Based on Mean Split of Age 44
Years
Younger
(Age 43 and below)
Older
(Age 44 and above)
Overall Patterns: responses are more
general, positive, focused on benefits of
remote work
Overall Patterns: responses are specific, balanced focused on
evaluating hybrid work

Hybrid work has increased my job
satisfaction as I would have more time at
home and less time having to commute.

Some work I choose to complete in remote setting and some I
choose to complete in office, as appropriate.
I also appreciate remote days in order to
have the space to get work done without a
lot of distraction
MY work hasn't been as affected by ME working remote as by
OTHERS working remote who then are out of the loop on items
they would not be if they were onsite more often, thus I have to get
them up to speed, which in turn does directly affect my workload.

I feel a lot more productive when I am
working from home than when I work in
the office
The mix of in-person and remote allow me to take advantage of the
advantages of both formats. It keeps you steady while allowing for
a more activated and less stressful week.

Hybrid work allows for me to have remote
work days to work on tasks that I cannot
complete in the office due to constant
interruptions.
I like the flexibility, but it definitely takes good time management
skills, and a good sense of how to prioritize tasks in order to get
everything done efficiently

Hybrid work has made things easier and
has made me a happier employee. I would
rather work from home more often but
unfortunately my manager is not flexible
One has to take the time to connect with colleagues. One has to be
more conscious of when colleagues are in the office vs. remote. It
can be a challenge to plan in office activities or meetings when not
all staff are in the office on the same day.

I have become more productive working a
hybrid schedule and enjoy the option of
working remote
Better work-life balance. Hybrid work allows better management
of all aspects of life. Some things are easier and more productive to
do in the office. Others can be done just as effective at home,
35
which also allows me to take care of family and other
responsibilities more efficiently.

A hybrid schedule has saved me a
significant amount of time from
commuting
I am actually much more productive in a hybrid work
environment. I tend to focus more working remote as I take these
days to complete weekly independent tasks while when I'm in the
office I attempt to schedule more meetings and engage/interact with
my colleagues who are also in the office

The culture of the office was sincerely
lacking prior to AVOID so I do not miss
much about the office- 3 days is more than
enough being "in person" at work.

Can be a challenge for all staff the need for technical support and
technology tools needed to innovate
I am a happier employee with a hybrid
work schedule, as I get to spend more time
with my family and do not have to
commute to the office everyday like I did
pre-COVID.

While it is true we have had to re-evaluate our processes and make
many changes to our previous work flow, I believe this also created
an opportunity to improve many processes.

My commute is not long, but it can still be
soul draining. Going in 3 days a week
helps with my sanity
The positives of working a hybrid schedule far outweigh some of
the negatives.

The younger workers’ responses showed a clear preference for the remote aspect of
hybrid work. Even though the open-ended questions asked about hybrid work, the majority of
responses focused solely on remote (at-home) work. There were 62 comments that addressed
well-being, and of these 44 (71%) praised remote work compared to only 4 (6%) that were
negative. Examples of global appraisals of remote work included, “I have become more
productive working a hybrid schedule and enjoy the option of working remote.” Many of the
comments mentioned improved ability to focus at home compared to the office, for example, “ I
also appreciate remote days in order to have the space to get work done without a lot of
distraction” and “Hybrid work has made things easier and has made me a happier employee. I
would rather work from home more often but unfortunately my manager is not flexible.” This
pattern of valuing the benefits of remote work over in-person work was a common qualitative
theme and may help to explain why the quantitative data showed that younger respondents
reported lower levels of well-being overall. That is, the clear preference for remote work over in-
36
person suggests that younger workers may be dissatisfied with the combination of remote and in-
person work.
The responses of older workers directly addressed the pros and cons of hybrid work.
There were 60 comments that addressed some aspect of well-being, with 24 comments
evaluating the positives (18) and negatives (6) of hybrid work. The comments of older workers
also frequently involved problem-solution perspectives for hybrid work, which examined
strategies and tactics needed to facilitate the hybrid model. Older workers offered some praise
for the remote aspect of hybrid work (23 of 60 comments), but they also provided criticisms of
remote work (13 comments). Notably, this was three times more criticism about remote work as
compared to younger workers (4).
Responses from the older group consistently presented specific work intensification
dimensions. For example, the quote below illustrates the decision-making aspect of hybrid work
which involves autonomy, organization, and establishing boundaries:
Overall hybrid work has allowed for a lot more autonomy and a decrease in stress. There
are great benefits to working in an office environment and working from home. I get the
one-on-one in-person interaction with colleagues and people I supervise, and I also get
time to focus away from the office setting where there can be lots of competing priorities.
The most important thing is being organized and establishing boundaries. More is
expected and it is important to communicate with a supervisor what are reasonable
workloads within working hours.

Many of the older group responses also addressed specific ‘ingredients’ for the hybrid system to
work effectively. This is expressed by this respondent, “I like the flexibility, but it definitely
takes good time management skills, and a good sense of how to prioritize tasks in order to get
everything done efficiently.” Another respondent described the need for intentional
collaboration, “One has to take the time to connect with colleagues. One has to be more
conscious of when colleagues are in the office vs. remote. It can be a challenge to plan in-office
37
activities or meetings when not all staff are in the office on the same day.” These comments
demonstrated that older respondents were actively reflecting on what works and what doesn’t
work in a hybrid work model, and this problem-solution focus may shed some light on why older
workers reported greater levels of well-being overall, as compared to younger workers.
Managers and Executive Leadership Reported Greater Perceptions of Work
Intensification Than Staff
When work role was examined, significant differences in perceptions of work
intensification were found between professional staff compared to managers or executive
leadership. ANOVAs were conducted to examine differences in work intensification for
employees based on their work role. Table 5 presents mean scores of the five work
intensification dimensions for executive leadership, manager or supervisor, and professional
staff. Two dimensions of intensified job demands showed significant differences for work role:
quantity and pace of work, F(2, 112) = 5.02, p = .008, and career planning F(2, 112) = 5.17,
p=.007. Tukey’s HSD post-hoc comparisons showed that compared to professional staff, both
managers/supervisors and executive leadership have greater perceptions of intensified quantity
and pace of work (p=.029, 95% CI = [.041, 0.930] and p=.039, 95% CI = [.027, 1.272]) and
career planning (p=.020, 95% CI = [.076, 1.125]) p=.046, 95% CI = [.010, 1.479]).

38
Table 5

Means, Standard Deviations, and One-Way Analyses of Variances in Work Intensification by Work Role

Work Intensification
Dimensions
Executive
Leadership
(n = 15)
Manager or
Supervisor
(n = 39)
Professional
Staff
(n = 59)
F(2, 112)

M SD M SD M SD
Quantity and Pace
3.27 1.15 3.10 0.94 2.62 0.81
5.02**
Work Decision-Making
3.20 1.06 3.04 1.02 2.94 0.94
0.45
Career Planning
3.40 0.94 3.26 1.02 2.66 1.13
5.17**
Knowledge Learning
3.38 0.86 3.39 0.76 3.02 1.05
2.22
Skills Learning
3.51 0.81 3.71 0.90 3.23 1.08
2.71
**p<.01

There were 18 comments that addressed an aspect of the management challenges that
hybrid work presents. Of these, 13 directly mentioned management, leadership, or supervision,
and five indirectly described tasks or responsibilities that must be managed. These comments
supported the quantitative results and addressed how hybrid work has impacted the workload of
managers/supervisors and executive leadership. For example, management tasks are intensified
as managers need to consider multiple work environments or team dynamics.
Overall, my impression is that hybrid work has made managers adapt to the new needs of
the market. For those wanting to go back to the "old" ways, it seems to be continually
problematic since the current workforce expects more flexibility and managing
distributed teams does take more work.

The comments also suggested that there is increased pressure for managers/supervisors
and leadership to ensure that the hybrid model works, particularly to avoid breakdowns in
productivity. For example, one respondent described the importance of maintaining
accountability, “Hybrid schedules have not interfered with productivity levels for my team, and
as long as staff are held accountable while working remotely there is never a problem”. The
39
comments below also suggested the important role that managers play in executing a successful
hybrid work environment.
Hybrid can work with a good leader. Some of the things that have been increased for me
or that I have to do on my own are because the leader is not equipped to manage the
situation, the team and/or goals.

However, in my organization as well as in many that I know of, there is no attention put
to the fact that work in distributed teams requires fundamentally rethinking the work
environment and inventing many new ways to create and maintain a thriving company
culture. There might be a correlation but no causal effect from hybrid to workload,
burnout, turnover etc, but there is a causal effect of mismanagement of hybrid on all of
these effects.

The qualitative responses and quantitative results suggest that managers and executive
leaders are perceiving greater quantity and pace of work, career planning, and work decision-
making leaders are tasked with designing and adopting a collection of new management
strategies and tactics.
Non-White Employees Reported Greater Perceptions of Work Intensification
When race and ethnicity were considered, there were significant differences between
White and non-White groups, with non-White groups showing greater perceptions of intensified
job demands. Table 6 provides results of independent samples t-tests. Specifically, respondents
that self-identified as non-White perceived greater intensification of the quantity and pace of
work compared to White respondents, t (111) = 2.30, p =.023. Non-white respondents also
reported greater demands in career planning, t (111) = 2.34, p =.021 and knowledge learning, t
(111) = 2.05, p =.043. Differences based on individual race or ethnic groups were not
considered due to the small number of respondents in each category.

40
There were two patterns that emerged when comparing the qualitative responses of the
non-White and White respondents. Qualitative differences were found with respect to how each
group discussed autonomy and choice and in the use of the phrase “to be ‘on’ at work”. The
overall number of responses to the open-ended questions was similar: there were 72 comments
from non-white respondents and 84 comments provided by White respondents.
Respondents that self-identified as White more frequently mentioned autonomy and
choice (12 comments or 15%) and used more positive language in their descriptions (11 of 12
were positive or neutral), than non-White respondents. Comments fell under the dimension of
work decision-making and included phrases such as “in control”, “increased autonomy”, and
“independently”. This respondent demonstrates a positive assessment, “Hybrid has increased my
autonomy in a great way.” The general pattern of comments indicated workers’ appreciation for
having more space to make decisions regarding how and where they do their work.
The Non-white group mentioned autonomy or choice less often (5 comments or 7%)
than their White counterparts, and most comments had negative connotations (3). For example,
one comment implies that autonomy in hybrid work is burdensome, “Not much has changed,
Table 6

Means, Standard Deviations, and t-Test Results of Work Intensification for White and Non-White Employees

Work Intensification
Dimensions
Non-White/
European American
(n = 59)
White/
European American
(n =54 )
t(111) p Cohen’s d

M SD M SD

Quantity and Pace
3.06 0.95 2.66 0.88 2.30 .023
.43
Job Decision-Making
3.17 0.91 2.84 1.03 1.81 .074
.34
Career Planning
3.19 1.00 2.71 1.17 2.34 .021
.44
Knowledge Learning
3.37 0.92 3.01 0.95 2.05 .043
.39
Skills Learning
3.56 1.05 3.30 0.95 1.37 .175
.26
Note. Due to small sample sizes of individual ethnic and racial categories, participants self-identifying as non-
White/European American categories were grouped together for analyses.
41
except having to be more self-sufficient in utilizing the resources I have to find resolutions”.
Two responses expressed a preference for more choice, “I would be happier if we had more input
in our schedule” and “I appreciate the hybrid schedule, just wish it were on the cycle that i
choose and not [the] operational needs of the current office structure.” The absence of overall
praise for autonomy and choice, combined with more critical responses suggested a difference in
perception of hybrid work for Non-white respondents compared to White respondents.
Another noticeable pattern in the comments involved the use of the phrase “to be ‘on’ at
work”. This occurred in three of the non-White group responses. Although this is a small
number, it is worth noting because these comments suggest that minoritized identity groups may
experience additional pressure or work intensification during in-office work days. All three
comments were remarkably similar, “A hybrid work schedule allows me a temporary break in
the work week where I don’t have to be as “on” as in the office” and “I would say that my well-
being has increased with the opportunity to be on a hybrid schedule. It is much less energy to be
"on" all the time when in the office.” The longer quote below reiterates the connection between
relief from the task of being “on” and improved well-being.
I feel better equipped with time to prioritize my physical and emotional health. I have
been having a hard time with a persona[l] matter and [it] has been nice to not have to be
"on" when I am working from home. That has helped me healing tremendously.

This use of the phrase “being’ on’ at work” was unique to the non-White respondents in this
sample, and the comments suggest that periods of remote work provided a beneficial break from
the increased stresses associated with in-person work for this group. Given that minoritized
identity groups often navigate workplace dynamics involving microaggressions, stereotype
threat, and identity management (Velez et al., 2013), it is reasonable to consider that hybrid work
allows for some respite from these stressors.
42

Gender and Family Responsibility Group Differences in Work Intensification Were
Present in Qualitative Responses
To examine differences in work intensification by gender and family responsibilities,
independent samples t-tests were conducted. Overall, no significant differences were not found
for perceptions of work intensification between men and women (ps >.05). The current sample
contained more than two times the number of women (n=79) compared to men (n=30) which
may have decreased statistical power to find group differences.
Regarding family responsibilities, because more than half of the sample (54%) indicated
0 dependents under the age of 18, group differences were examined for participants with ‘no’
versus ‘any’ dependents. Results of t-tests indicated no significant differences in perceptions of
work intensification between participants who had dependents and those who did not (ps >.05).
Caregiving for adults outside of the immediate household was not examined because of the low
number (18%) of adult caregivers in the sample.
Within the qualitative data responses, there were five responses that specifically
mentioned childcare and spending more time with children and the potential positive impact of
hybrid work. All five respondents self-identified as women, reported caring for 1-2 dependents
under age 18, and each provided care and support for at least one other adult family member.
These responses did not focus directly on work intensification dimensions, but did indicate some
unique hybrid work experiences. These responses are described in the well-being section below.
Research Question 3: How Does Perception of Work Intensification Relate to One’s Sense
of Well-Being?
Both quantitative and qualitative results showed relationships between work
intensification and one’s sense of well-being. Two main findings emerged: many of the work
43
intensification dimensions are inversely correlated with well-being dimensions; age is positively
correlated with well-being dimensions and inversely correlated with work intensification
dimensions.
In addition, qualitative comments about well-being were abundant, with clear, consistent
themes (see Table 7). On the positive side, comments reflected work-life balance, reduction in
commute time, ability to focus with remote work, and overall health benefits. On the negative
side, comments reflected diminished social connections, intensified job demands in several areas,
management challenges, poor work-life boundaries, and equity issues.
Table 7
Qualitative Examples of Themes Relating to Well-Being and Hybrid Work
Positive Negative
Theme Number of
comments
Example Theme Number of
comments
Example
Work/Life
Balance
38 “Better because I'm
able to have a good
work-life balance.”
Worsened
Social
Interactions
20 “My sense of well-being
has decreased. I really
miss having team
activities and functions. I
really feel disconnected.”
Reduced
Commute
25 “I don't waste my life
in stressful
commutes.”
Work
Intensification
16 “Several times questions
were asked about
updating knowledge &
learning new systems.
This is a real burden for
the university”
Focus in Remote
Environment
20 “While working at
home, I feel I am able
to focus better when I
need to because I am
able to control
interruptions and
schedule my time.”
Management
Challenges
13 “I think it is more
difficult to know where
you stand with your co-
workers, your direct
reports, and especially
with your supervision.”
Reduced
Workload
15 “Much more flexible,
convenient, and
productive.”
Poor
Work/Life
Balance
6 “I do feel like my work-
life balance is worse now.
I find it hard to set
44
boundaries and I feel
more stressed.”
General Health
Improvement
9 “One example is
nutrition, where fresh
food preparation and
its consumption are
more accessible.”
Equity 5 “There is resentment
when the hybrid
requirements are not
made requirements of all
staff equitably.”
Self-Worth 2 “I definitely feel more
valued as an employee
since we transitioned
to the hybrid
environment.”

Intensified Quantity and Pace of Work, Job Decision-Making, and Career Planning Are
Associated With Lower Well-Being
Work intensification in terms of quantity and pace, work decision-making, and career
planning were each negatively correlated with perceptions of well-being (see Table 3).
Intensified quantity and pace of work and increased decision-making were significantly
associated with perceptions of less emotional well-being, less social-well-being, less
psychological well-being, and total well-being (an average across each of the three well-being
scores). Intensified career planning was associated with lower levels of emotional well-being and
total well-being only.
Additionally, there were six qualitative responses that suggest a relationship between
these dimensions and negative outcomes. One respondent echoes how hybrid work requires more
effort to maintain clear work-life boundaries, “Unless employees block out time on their calendar
to take breaks, they may receive calls when they are on break”. This comment reflects
intensified Quantity and Pace of Work in that it shows how work can spill over into break time,
and it also relates to Job Decision-Making by highlighting the extra effort employees must make
in planning their work schedule.
45
Another respondent describes a situation where they are overwhelmed with the increase
in the amount of information and the challenge of collaborating with colleagues.
I've noticed that working from home means I need to read and retain a lot more
information (and look at my screen a lot longer!), but without tangible context. With the
increased amount of reading, I feel I'm missing a lot of good information that used to be
communicated in person. Now, since I don't see colleagues very often, the amount of
person-to-person transfer of information is reduced, which means workers are less aware
of what's going on and with important details.

This description reflects increased Quantity and Pace of Work (IDS #1). The increase in screen
time and the challenge of processing reading information without context of in-person
communication reflects intensified workload. There were no qualitative responses that focused
on career planning.
Learning Demands Did Not Relate to Well-Being
The two learning dimensions of intensified job demands, knowledge learning and skills
learning did not show significant correlations with any of the well-being dimensions. This
suggests that intensified learning was not connected to perceptions of well-being for employees.
There were no qualitative comments that relate these work intensification dimensions and well-
being.
Age is Positively Correlated With Well-Being Dimensions
As mentioned in research question two, age is inversely correlated with the work
intensification dimensions of work decision making and career planning. Additionally, age is
positively correlated with all 3 well-being dimensions and total well-being: Emotional Well-
Being (r = .19, p < .05) Social Well-Being (r = .30, p < .01) Psychological Well-Being
(r= .27, p<.01) Total Well-Being (r= .28, p<.01). This presents a picture where older
respondents are reporting less work intensification and a greater well-being when compared to
their younger counterparts.
46
When qualitative comments were separated by a mean split of age 44 years, there were
unique patterns in how each group discusses well-being. For respondents in the younger group,
they more frequently praised remote work, with 71% of the positive well-being comments
addressing remote work with no mention of hybrid work. They were also more often critical
about in-person work, “My outlook on work is much more negative the more days I'm forced to
work in person at the office. I'm more positive when most of the week is remote work.” In many
cases in-person work is described as a burden, and remote work as a chance to recover from a
range of in-person stresses, for example, “I feel better equipped with time to prioritize my
physical and emotional health. I have been having a hard time with a personal matter and has
been nice to not have to be "on" when I am working from home. That has helped me healing
tremendously.” The quote below describes a common sentiment that the days of remote work
provide a break from the office.
A hybrid work schedule allows me a temporary break in the work week where I don’t
have to be as “on” as in the office; I can sleep in a little later without having to get ready
and drive to work, and I am more likely to remember to take breaks and get up at home
than I do at the office.

Comments such as these provide less of an endorsement of hybrid work, and more of a
preference to work remotely rather than in the office.
Responses from the older group tended to present a balanced assessment, where the
benefits of a specific hybrid work schedule enhanced their overall well-being. The response
below encompasses many of the themes represented in the older group comments.
Overall hybrid work has allowed for a lot more autonomy and a decrease in stress. There
are great benefits to working in an office environment and working from home. I get the
one-on-one in-person interaction with colleagues and people I supervise, and I also get
time to focus away from the office setting where there can be lots of competing priorities.
The most important thing is being organized and establishing boundaries. More is
47
expected and it is important to communicate with a supervisor what are reasonable
workloads within working hours.

In addition, the older group responses were more likely to be critical of remote work (22%)
compared to the younger group (6%), for example, “I think that one thing that has changed is
that I tend to get lost in the day working remotely. I feel better about my work with a lot of
structure, and I feel like I get that structure being in the office.” Comments like these were more
common in the responses from those age 44 or older.
Overall, clear age differences were found in perceptions of work intensification and well-
being. Younger respondents perceived greater work demands and reduced well-being in the
hybrid work environment. Their comments were aligned with a general endorsement of the
remote aspect of work. Older respondents perceived less work demands and an increased well-
being in hybrid work. Their comments were more descriptive and balanced the positives and
negatives of hybrid work, while also considering ways to manage and optimize specific aspects
of the hybrid model.
General Themes of Positive and Negative Well-Being in Qualitative Responses
There were more positive comments (109) than negative comments (56) discussing
hybrid work and well-being. Within these subsets, clear themes emerged in employees’
descriptions of their hybrid work experiences (see Table 7).
Positive responses related to well-being
The positive comments clustered around a variety of elements that support well-being,
with 97 comments describing the positives of work-life balance, reduction in commuting, focus
time out of the office, and an overall healthy lifestyle.
48
Work-life balance emerged as the most reported positive of hybrid work with 38
instances. Some respondents provide a very general broad endorsement, “Better because I'm able
to have a good work-life balance” and “Hybrid model creates a work-life balance which allow[s]
my cup to remain full, with a full cup I am unstoppable in life and career.” Other respondents
were more specific as to how hybrid work allows them better work-life balance, for example,
many mentioned the positive impact of a flexible work schedule.
Better work life balance, in general. I really enjoy the flexibility to do simple daily tasks
like cooking dinner. Having less time to commute and more time at home, I feel I can be
a better employee because I have time to take care of my personal life.

Within the context of work-life balance, five responses illustrated how gender and family
responsibilities impact perceptions of the impact of hybrid work. There were only 5 responses
that specifically mentioned children or childcare, and all five of these were provided by
respondents who identified as women and as having dependents. These responses praised the
flexibility that working more at home provides, “It has given me much more work-life balance
as a parent. As a mother I am able to prioritize my family with flexible work.” This comment
further makes the point, “Breastfeeding an infant is possible with remote work and as a working
mom that is extremely important”. Another respondent provides a specific description about how
working from home enhances time with their youngest child.
Since beginning this schedule, I have noticed a remarkably direct correlation between my
presence in the afternoons and the positive change in my youngest child's behavior. This
is a real win for work-life balance, as I am more easily able to focus on work while I am
working if my children's behavior is not a concern to me.

These responses provide some insight into how remote work facilitates the ability to spend more
time with family, specifically children, which is valued by respondents with dependents.
Reduced commute time emerged as a clear benefit in respondents' open-ended comments.
There were 25 responses which were fairly consistent in how they described the benefits of
49
reduced commute time, where it allows for more personal time, less stress, and better health:
“Working from home allows me to use the time I used to use for commuting to complete house
duties and other tasks.”; “Overall, the reduction in commuting has opened up possibilities or
allowed more choices for healthier lifestyle balance between home life and work life”; and “My
commute is not long, but it can still be soul draining. Going in 3 days a week helps with my
sanity”. The response below brings in a number of benefits.
The time saved by not having to commute is a small amount, but has a big impact on
quality of life. I feel more energetic and relaxed, and am able to get more things done.
The small stress of driving through rush hour traffic no longer spoils two days a week,
and even though it doesn't seem like it, that's a big deal!

One response emphasized the benefits of commute time reduction but also suggests that
hybrid work complicates their routine, “I really do not enjoy the commute because I must wake
up a lot earlier than I would when I am working exclusively from home which makes having a
sustainable routine difficult.”
There were 20 comments that described the benefits of being able to focus on work tasks
at home without office distractions. Some examples include, “Hybrid work has made more work
possible due to less interruptions and more comfortable environment” and “While working at
home, I feel I am able to focus better when I need to because I am able to control interruptions
and schedule my time. Not having people just popping into my office is great for my focus”.
The last key positive trend in the open-ended responses was seen in the nine responses
that mentioned the direct health benefits associated with working a hybrid schedule. Many
respondents described physical or mental health benefits, “I sleep better and I am maintaining a
more healthy lifestyle since I have been on a hybrid schedule”; “I am more conscious about self-
50
care and prioritizing mental health”; “Since i don't have to drive and can incorporate more
exercise in the morning, healthier eating habits and less stress for home responsibilities”;
A few respondents (4) described the mental health benefit of breaking up the informal
work demands of working in the office, “It is much less energy to be "on" all the time when in
the office”. The response below expresses a similar perspective.
I feel better equipped with time to prioritize my physical and emotional health. I have
been having a hard time with a personal matter and has been nice to not have to be "on"
when I am working from home. That has helped me healing tremendously.

Other respondents highlight additional aspects of the healthy lifestyle that they can achieve with
some days working remotely.
One example is nutrition, where fresh food preparation and its consumption are more
accessible. Another example is feeling easier at home to move about and be able to
stretch or relieve poor body posture aches and pains.

Hybrid work has had a positive impact on my mental health. I find that my days at home
allow me to organize my time to complete my work tasks, run errands for my home, or
have break time for myself (Such exercising or going to therapy on my lunch break). I
also find that I am less overwhelmed with stressful situations when I can process in the
comfort of my home instead of in a busy office.

When all of these positive comments are taken together, there is a clear majority of
respondents that are describing how well-being drivers are positively impacted by the hybrid
work environment.
Negative responses paint a picture of well-being challenges
There were less negative qualitative responses describing hybrid work (60); however, it
was clear that, for a block of respondents, they are not thriving in a hybrid work environment.
Responses outlined harmful impacts on their well-being. The negative responses focused on
challenges related to social connections, intensified job demands, poor work-life balance, and
negative work climate as a result of inequity.
51
The highest number of negative comments (20) focused on the worsening state of social
interactions in the hybrid work environment. It was a common response to identify a decrease in
the quality of work interactions, “Increasingly difficult to socially connect with other
coworkers.” In many cases a direct link to well-being was mentioned, “My sense of well-being
has decreased. I really miss having team activities and functions. I really feel disconnected.”
Several respondents mentioned feelings of isolation, “I am pretty extroverted and prefer to work
in person around others. I bounce off of others' energy and struggle to stay motivated and feel
purposeful when I work alone.” An additional comment amplifies this with a very direct
statement, “I feel isolated and lonely.”
There were a small number of negative responses that specifically addressed an aspect of
hybrid work that is harmful for social interactions. This quote speaks to the potential disjointed
nature of social interactions when workers are alternating between days in the office and remote.
“When i go back into the office i sometimes feel disconnected since things may have happened
the previous day that i was unaware of.” The quote below further illustrated how social
interactions are disrupted and hard to manage, not just in terms of day-to-day interactions, but
also with relationships built over months.
Office bonding is tougher, we rely on the few times each month that we are all in the
office at the same time to connect and catch up, and that is difficult if employees are sick
or on vacation. We used to spend time together every day, now that happens just a couple
times a month.

Several respondents also mentioned missing positive informal interactions with coworkers. One
respondent talked about missing the informal feedback they receive in-person, “most of my
interactions on many days are on email (where emotions and non-work conversations are very
limited).” Another elaborates on the missing value of informal interactions.
52
The value of the face to face interactions and even casual conversation in passing has
been diminished and while many may say “we can work just as productively at home”
the team morale, access to networking opportunities and mentorship suffers in a hybrid
environment.

Overall, there was a clear theme of poorer social connections among respondents with more
negative descriptions of their hybrid work environment.
Although there were 38 positive responses indicating an improved work-life balance,
there were six respondents who felt that the opposite had happened. Many of these responses
focused on the difficulty of maintaining boundaries in the hybrid work context. In some cases, it
is the ever-present access to work that creates the problem, “However, I tend to work while
eating lunch in front of my computer and disconnecting in the evening is more difficult because I
have such easy access to work tasks and messages via email/Teams.” Another respondent
provided a clear description of the negative impact on their mental health, “It just seems like the
work is always looming, which can cause anxiety and the feeling that I'm not doing enough.”
Maintaining work-life boundaries can also be complicated when other family members share the
same space, “My family likes to think that just because I am home that I am still available at all
times even when I’m in the middle of working on projects.” While these comments did not
represent a majority of respondents, they provided some evidence that managing work-life
boundaries within the hybrid environment was difficult for some.
Equity concerns related to the policies and management of hybrid work policies and
systems were also found in the qualitative responses. There were only five such comments,
however, it is important to consider these, as some presented very strong negative opinions. In
general, several comments addressed how the application of hybrid work can be perceived as
inequitable, “Concerns of fairness leads to low employee morale.” A small group of respondents
described negative emotions that they personally feel when perceptions of inequity are present,
53
“I still feel guilty on my at-home day, and I know other employees whose positions were not
approved for at-home work probably resent me.” One respondent described how the larger
policies and systems can lead to a negative work environment, “Lack of clarity around return-to-
work policy created [an] atmosphere of mistrust, feelings of inequity, and overall, less-than-ideal
work environment.” While this was not an overriding theme in the qualitative responses, it is
worth noting, as the potential impact of perceptions of inequity can damage the work
environment and lower employee well-being.
The overall picture of the positive and negative descriptions of the hybrid work
environment indicated that there is a range of ways the respondents experienced hybrid work.
With a majority of the comments focusing on positive aspects, there seems to be a real benefit
for some university staff who see better work-life balance, less time commuting, increased focus
and less distractions during remote work, and improved opportunities for a healthier lifestyle.
However, there was a clear group of respondents who described a shadow side to hybrid work,
with a number of challenges, including deterioration in social connections, intensified job
demands, blurred work-home boundaries, and tensions from perceptions of inequity.

54
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The present study examined hybrid work for university staff, considering the
relationships between work intensification, well-being, and group differences. Overall, the
results indicated that many dimensions of work intensification were perceived by the hybrid staff
participants, there was an inverse relationship between work intensification and well-being, and
there were group differences found regarding both work intensification and well-being. The
results regarding work intensification and well-being are in line with earlier research. The results
exploring group differences offer an expansion of the current understanding of the impact of
hybrid work for university staff.
RQ 1: How do university staff hybrid workers perceive work intensification? The results
showing perceptions of work intensification were consistent with earlier research. Hybrid work
introduces a number of additional work tasks which require workers to do more. The quantitative
results show recognition of all of the dimensions of intensified job demands (Kubicek et al.,
2015). In qualitative responses there were frequent descriptions of information overload, back-
back online meetings, distractions in both home and work environments, increased decision
making, and learning new ways to communicate with colleagues (Chafi et al., 2022). The
findings to support the presence of work intensification can be explained by the fact that workers
need to manage two distinct work environments–and each may require their own policies and
strategies. Whereas a shift to a fully remote from fully in-person represents a dramatic change.
Within this mixture of work modalities, it is reasonable to see how hybrid staff can perceive an
intensification in the quantity and pace, work decision-making, career planning, knowledge
learning, and skill learning.
55
RQ2: How are perceptions about work intensification related to employee characteristics,
including age, work role, race and ethnicity, gender, and family responsibilities? In the analysis
of groups differences, the present study expands the current understanding of hybrid work for
university staff. In particular, the group differences related to age, non-white staff, and managers
and executive leaders.
The finding that age is inversely correlated with work intensification and well-being is a
significant finding. The intersection of career and life stage may provide some insight this group
difference. Employees in their early career (under Age 35) are less established and more willing
to change jobs (Salmela-Arlo & Upayada, 2018). While they may have limited resources, they
have large expectations. Emerging adults (18-29) are in a gathering information stage (Mehta et
al., 2020). It is possible that younger employees in these overlapping stages are more likely to
view hybrid work and the amount of remote work as a value that their employer provides them–a
job perk that helps them decide will they stay at their job or shop around. From this mindset, it is
possibly more likely that they may view the increased demands placed on them as hindering
demands, which are related to lower well-being outcomes. (Emre & De Spiegeleare, 2019). The
qualitative data supports this assertion. The younger respondents showed a clear preference for
remote work over in-person work, with very few comments giving detailed analysis of hybrid
work dynamics. The implication was that the more hybrid work offered to them the better. Each
week, they are experiencing and comparing the quality of their remote work life compared to
their in-person life. For staff who strongly favor one modality over the other, they have a weekly
reminder that—for example—remote work is a wonderful benefit, but in-person work is a
challenging burden. It is reasonable to conclude that staff in this situation would perceive lower
well-being and could be resistant to any policy that impinges on the amount of remote work.
56
As hybrid staff become older, they may be within a different set of life experiences. Mid-
career (35-49) and established adults (30-45) are defined by a career/care crunch, where
balancing priorities and maintaining effective boundaries are key to successful outcomes (Mehta,
2020) (Salmela-Arlo & Upayada, 2018). This aligns with a number of the qualitative comments
in this group which focused on self-management, prioritization, and establishing boundaries. For
this group, the hybrid work environment is less likely to be viewed as something that is on offer
to them, but possibly more likely to be looked at as a workable system that requires their effort.
For those within these age groups, success is within their own hands. If they are successful in
managing their hybrid work environments, they may be more likely to view the increased
demands placed upon them as challenging demands that may boost well-being outcomes (Emre
& De Spiegeleare, 2019).
For university staff in the oldest age groups, their work experiences potentially evolve to
create a different hybrid work experience. For those employees in mid-life (45-65) or later career
(over 50), demands placed on them from outside of work are decreasing, and their work reality is
characterized by experience, mentorship, and wisdom (Mehta et al., 2020; Salmela-Arlo &
Upayada, 2018). With a reduction in outside life demands and a more established professional
role, the intensification of job demands that may result from hybrid work may be less impactful
on them. They are less likely to be planning a career and weighing new job options. They are
also less likely to be balancing heavy care responsibilities. It is possible within this life and
career stage to be less affected by hybrid work intensification and to report higher levels of well-
being.
The study results indicated that non-white respondents perceived greater work
intensification than white respondents. One possible insight into this result may come from the
57
additional demands that minoritized identity employees may already have to carry. Minoritized
identity employees may already be handling additional challenges, stressors, and demands
(Velez et al., 2013). This additional weight is largely hidden from others in their work
environments. These may be microaggressions (Elliott & Blithe, 2021), identity management
cognitive load (Velez et al., 2013), stereotype threats (von Hippel et al., 2019). Non-white
respondents may already have their work demands cup full, and the increase in hybrid related
work intensification demands may present a greater strain. Organizational leaders may benefit
from considering the impact of hybrid work changes on minoritized employees when introducing
policy.
The third significant group difference finding is that managers and executive leaders
perceived greater work intensification in terms of work decision-making and career planning.
The evidence for increased decision-making and the need to effectively manage a hybrid system
was clear not only in the quantitative results, but also in the qualitative responses. These finding
align with earlier research showing negative outcomes for managers and organizational leaders
(Venz & Boettcher, 2022). The qualitative responses provide insight into why managers and
executive leaders may be reporting greater work intensification. Many respondents refer to the
challenges of managing hybrid work effectively, mentioning the need to re-envision the nature of
work and to move beyond the 8-5 paradigm. Many also mention the need for accountability,
equity, and oversight (Chafi et al., 2022). This responsibility falls tactically onto the shoulders of
managers and strategically onto the shoulders of executive leaders. They must keep everyone
productive despite group differences and support not only those who are thriving, but also those
who are struggling (Skerlavaj, 2022). It is dangerous to assume that managers and leaders can
58
handle these challenges without support since increased work intensification can lead to lower
long-term wellbeing outcomes (Kubicek et al., 2015).
RQ3: How do perceptions of work intensification relate to one’s sense of well-being?
The findings were consistent with earlier research showing a negative correlation between work
intensification dimensions and well-being outcomes (Kubicek et al., 2015). The lack of negative
well-being outcomes for learning demands also align with Kubicek’s representation of
intensified job demands (Kubicek et. al., 2015). The qualitative comments mentioning well-
being also align with Pew Research surveys regarding how employees evaluate hybrid work
(Parker et al., 2022). The positives included work-life balance and increased ability to focus
with less distractions. The negatives included difficulty connecting with coworkers and
information overload (Brigham, 2021).
Recommendations
With the evidence indicating that different groups of university staff may perceive work
intensification and well-being differently, it may be beneficial to carefully consider any broad
application of a hybrid work system. While it may appear that hybrid work represents the best of
both worlds approach, it may be useful to consider comments such as this one. “I cannot state
how much better my life is now that I only go into the office on a very limited basis”, which
clearly expresses not an endorsement of hybrid work, but rather a tolerance of limited in-person
work. Even when an organization is attuned to the dynamic tension between allowing employee
choice and creating an equitable system, it is still necessary to dive deeper and explore the
perceptions of different groups. The recommendations below emerge from the current findings
as well as relevant earlier research.

59
Recommendation #1: Acknowledge the Power of the Preference for Remote Work
Clearly collect information regarding university staff members’ preferences for remote
work versus hybrid work. Acknowledge and value these preferences. Even if policies may go
against the wishes of staff, organizational efforts to value employee perspectives can build trust.
There is power in the preference for hybrid work. This preference may be directly connected to
an employee’s sense of well-being; to the ability to care for family members; to the ability to
manage workplace discrimination stressors; to how they value themselves at work, as this
respondent quote illustrates, “ I feel that I am more trusted working from home. And
appreciated.”
Recommendation #2: Allow Choice Whenever Possible
Allow university staff choice regarding their hybrid work schedule. This may include the
days, but also the amount. Consider the equity needs of employee groups rather than applying a
broadly equal, uniform policy. To balance conflicts between different groups, consider
incentivizing either hybrid or remote work depending on the organizational need, or offer a staff
member the opportunity to transfer to an area where the work allows for an employee’s preferred
amount of in-person vs. remote work.
Recommendation #3: Provide More Support for Managers and Leaders
Provide training and support to managers and leaders to assist with increased decision
making, prioritization, boundary setting, and career planning job demands. The responsibility to
manage work across two distinct systems simultaneously falls to managers and executive leaders
(Chafi et al., 2022).

60
Recommendation #4: Provide Increased Hybrid Knowledge and Skill Training
Hybrid work is not remote work. It is not in-person work. Hybrid work requires new
approaches, skills, and knowledge. Considering that intensified learning demands do not
correlate with negative well-being outcomes (Kubicek, 2015), university staff administrators can
provide these learning opportunities with less concern that they are burdening their staff.
Delimitations, Limitations, and Assumptions
Several delimitations have been established to narrow the scope of this study. First, the
population has been reduced to university hybrid staff. Excluded from the study are professors,
student workers, and staff who are working fully 100% in-person or remote. The goal for
narrowing the scope of the population was to aim to survey employees with a more similar
hybrid work experience. Second, the survey administration was opened for one month in spring
of 2023. The goal for this narrow timeline was again to aim for consistency in experience, and to
limit the potential impact of larger sociocultural events.
A main limitation of this study is that the number of participants, n=113, represents a
small slice of the larger population of university hybrid work employees. This limits the ability
to generalize observations to the larger population. The participant pool number also limits the
ability to make group analysis related to gender, race, and ethnicity, as these divisions further
reduce the selections of responses. Another limitation is that–even though the target population
has been narrowed to university hybrid staff, there is still a range of job functions that fit this
definition, and these differences were not captured in the survey.
Future Research
There are several areas for future research within the context of hybrid university staff,
work intensification, and well-being. Hybrid work as a general system for university staff who
61
have been largely working a traditional 8-5 office structure is still relatively new. It could be
valuable to further investigate its impact on different employee groups.
Age emerged in the present study as having a relationship with both work intensification
and well-being, however, it would be useful to go deeper than the mean split as a point of
comparison. It might be useful to examine age differences in combination with the divisions of
early, mid, and late career and/or early, mid, and late life stages.
Another area for future research would be to put more focus into investigating the power
of preference of remote work over in-person work. The qualitative responses presented a clear
picture where a majority of respondents expressed a preference for remote work and may of their
concerns were directed towards having to work in-person. The strength of preference for remote
work could be considered in relation to perceptions of work intensification and well-being.
Additionally, preference for remote could be asked directly in a more in-depth qualitative
approach to give respondents the space needed to tell their stories. It may also be valuable to
compare the experiences of hybrid staff, fully in-person, and fully remote.
Further research could also give more attention to the experiences of hybrid non-white
staff. Direct open-ended qualitative questions could allow for a richer understanding of potential
increases in perceptions of work intensification and potential lower well-being. The present
study only touched upon potential differences related to autonomy and the strain of being “on” in
the office. However, the descriptions of seeking relief from having to be “on” during in-person
work has potential as a unique stressor for university staff of color as they navigate hybrid work.
It may also be fruitful to consider some areas where the present study did not find clear
differences. Qualitative results hinted at potential differences related to gender and family
responsibility, but no clear unified story emerged. Research considering the impact of these two
62
characteristics could be beneficial for organizations to understand the complex dynamics that
exist within the implementation and management of relatively new hybrid work systems.
Conclusion
The intention was to support university leaders in better understanding how hybrid work
may be accompanied with perceptions of work intensification and varied levels of employee
well-being, with the ultimate goal of helping leadership to create and apply hybrid policies that
better support the well-being of all employees. The picture that emerged is complex. All
dimensions of work intensification are a part of hybrid work, but not all impact well-being.
Younger and non-White employees report worse outcomes than their older and White
colleagues. Assessments of hybrid work varied: for a small number, hybrid work provides the
best of both worlds; for older respondents it is a challenging system that needs to be effectively
managed; and for many—especially younger respondents—it is valuable only in the amount of
remote work that it can provide. The complexity of hybrid work suggests that its implementation
should be less a blanket policy and more a nuanced reflection of a tapestry of experiences.

63
References
Abramson, A. (2022, January 1). Burnout and stress are everywhere.
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/01/special-burnout-stress
Allan, B. A. (2017). Task significance and meaningful work: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 102, 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.07.011
American Psychological Association. (2022a, March). Stress in America: On second COVID-19
anniversary, money, inflation, war pile on to nation stuck in survival mode.
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2022/march-2022-survival-mode
American Psychological Association. (2022b, October). Stress in America 2022: Concerned for
the future beset by inflation.
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2022/concerned-future-inflation
American Psychological Association. (2022c). Work and well-being report 2022: Workers
appreciate and seek mental health support in the workplace.
https://www.apa.org/pubs/reports/work-well-being/2022-mental-health-support
Anuradha, M.V., Lakshani, R.S,, & Ghuman, S. (2017). An assessment of the influence of the
psychological consequences of task significance on employee engagement and turnover
intentions. South Asian Journal of Management, 24(3), 62-87.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job demands-resources theory. In C.L. Cooper (Ed.),
Wellbeing (pp. 1–28). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118539415.wbwell019
Brigham, T. (2021, May 5). What to say to your “languishing” employees post-covid-19.
Forbes.https://www.forbes.com/sites/tessbrigham/2021/05/05/what-to-say-to-your-
languishing-employees-post-covid-19/?sh=3d1abca826a9
64
Büchler, N., ter Hoeven, C. L., & van Zoonen, W. (2020). Understanding constant connectivity
to work: How and for whom is constant connectivity related to employee well-being?
Information and Organization, 30(3), 100302.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2020.100302
Chafi, M., Hultberg, A., & Yams, N. (2022). Post-pandemic office work: Perceived
challenges and opportunities for a sustainable work environment. Sustainability, 14(1),
294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010294
Chawla, S., & Sharma, R. R. (2019). Enhancing women’s well-being: The role of psychological
capital and perceived gender equity, with social support as a moderator and commitment
as a mediator. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01377
Chung-Yan, G. A. (2010). The nonlinear effects of job complexity and autonomy on job
satisfaction, turnover, and psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 15(3), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019823
Elliott, M., & Blithe, S. J. (2021). Gender inequality, stress exposure, and well-being among
academic faculty. International Journal of Higher Education, 10(2).
https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v10n2p240
Emre, O., & De Spiegeleare, S. (2019). The role of work–life balance and autonomy in the
relationship between commuting, employee commitment and well-being. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(11), 2443–2467.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1583270
Gordon, H. J., Demerouti, E., Le Blanc, P. M., Bakker, A. B., Bipp, T., & Verhagen, M. A. M. T.
(2018). Individual job redesign: Job crafting interventions in healthcare. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 104, 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.07.002
65
Gramlich, J. (2023). Mental health and the pandemic: What US surveys have found. Pew
Research Center.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/03/02/mental-health-and-the-pandemic-
what-u-s-surveys-have-found/
Holman, E. G., Fish, J. N., Oswald, R. F., & Goldberg, A. (2018). Reconsidering the LGBT
climate inventory: Understanding support and hostility for LGBTQ employees in the
workplace. Journal of Career Assessment, 27(3), 544–559.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072718788324
Hu, Q., Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2013). Does equity mediate the effects of job demands
and job resources on work outcomes? Career Development International, 18(4), 357–
376. https://doi.org/10.1108/cdi-12-2012-012
Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43(2), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090197
Keyes, C. L. M. (2010). Flourishing. In I.B. Weiner & W.E. Craighead (Eds.), The Corsini
Encyclopedia of Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0363
Keyes, C. L., Wissing, M., Potgieter, J. P., Temane, M., Kruger, A., & Van Rooy, S. (2008).
Evaluation of the mental health continuum–short form (MHC–SF) in Setswana‐speaking
South Africans. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 15(3), 181-192.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.572
Korunka, C., Kubicek, B., Paškvan, M., & Ulferts, H. (2015). Changes in work intensification
and intensified learning: Challenge or hindrance demands? Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 30(7), 786-800. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-02-2013-0065
66
Kubicek, B., Paškvan, M., & Korunka, C. (2015). Development and validation of an instrument
for assessing job demands arising from accelerated change: The intensification of job
demands scale (IDS). European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(6),
898-913. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.979160
Kubicek, B., Prem, R., Baumgartner, V., Uhlig, L., Hodzic, S., & Korunka, C. (2021). Cognitive
demands of flexible work. In Flexible Working Practices and Approaches (pp. 19–37).
Springer International Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74128-0_2
Lamers, S. M., Westerhof, G. J., Bohlmeijer, E. T., ten Klooster, P. M., & Keyes, C. L. (2011).
Evaluating the psychometric properties of the mental health continuum‐short form
(MHC‐SF). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67(1), 99-110.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20741
Lee, H.W. (2019). How does sustainability-oriented human resource management work?:
Examining mediators on organizational performance. International Journal of Public
Administration, 42(11), 974–984. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1568459
Lee, E.J., Ditchman, N., Thomas, J., & Tsen, J. (2019). Microaggressions experienced by people
with multiple sclerosis in the workplace: An exploratory study using Sue’s taxonomy.
Rehabilitation Psychology, 64(2), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000269
Lipman, J. (2021, May 27). The pandemic revealed how much we hate our jobs. Now we have a
chance to reinvent work. Time. https://time.com/6051955/work-after-covid-19/
Liu-Lastres, B., & Wen, H. (2021). How do ethnic minority foodservice workers perceive
employee well-being? An exploratory study. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 46, 376–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.01.013
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
67
Psychology, 52(1), 397-422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
Mauno, S., Herttalampi, M., Minkkinen, J., Feldt, T., & Kubicek, B. (2023). Is work
intensification bad for employees? A review of outcomes for employees over the last two
decades. Work & Stress, 37(1), 100-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2022.2080778
Mehta, C. M., Arnett, J. J., Palmer, C. G., & Nelson, L. J. (2020). Established adulthood: A new
conception of ages 30 to 45. American Psychologist, 75(4), 431–444.
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000600
Parker, K., (2023, March 30). About a third of workers who work from home now do so all the
Time. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/03/30/about-
a-third-of-us-workers-who-can-work-from-home-do-so-all-the-time/
Parker, K., Horowitz, J. M., & Minkin, R. (2022, February 16). 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/
Perales, F., Ablaza, C., & Elkin, N. (2022). Exposure to inclusive language and well-being at
work among transgender employees in Australia, 2020. American Journal of Public
Health, 112 (3), 482–490. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2021.306602
Pereira, H., Silva, P., & Beatriz, C. (2022). The impact of psychological distress on the
occupational well-being of sexual and gender minorities. Healthcare, 10(4), 699.
https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10040699
Petermans, A., & Cain, R. (2019). Design for wellbeing: An applied approach. Routledge.
Peters, S. E., Dennerlein, J. T., Wagner, G. R., & Sorensen, G. (2022). Work and worker health
in the post-pandemic world: a public health perspective. The Lancet Public Health, 7(2),
68
e188-e194. https://doi.org/10.3410/f.741576438.793593089
Pitcan, M., Park-Taylor, J., & Hayslett, J. (2018). Black men and racial microaggressions at
work. The Career Development Quarterly, 66(4), 300–314.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12152
Rosa, H. & Scheuerman, W.E. (2010). High-speed society: Social acceleration, power, and
modernity. Penn State Press.
Salmela-Aro, K., & Upadyaya, K. (2018). Role of demands-resources in work engagement and
burnout in different career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 108, 190-200.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.08.002
Sekhon, T., & Warren, M. (2020). Highlighting minority identity resources to increase
well-being of marginalized employees. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2020(1),
17671. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2020.17671abstract
Škerlavaj, M. (2022). Post-Heroic leadership in the context of humanizing hybrid work. In
Post-Heroic Leadership (pp. 103–110). Springer International Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90820-1_3
Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M. (2005). A socially
embedded model of thriving at work. Organization Science, 16 (5), 537–549.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0153
Velez, B. L., Brewster, M. E., & Moradi, B. (2013). Testing the tenets of minority stress theory
in workplace contexts. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(4), 532–542.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033346
Venz, L., & Boettcher, K. (2022). Leading in times of crisis: How perceived COVID‐19‐related
work intensification links to daily e‐mail demands and leader outcomes. Applied
69
Psychology, 71(3), 912-934.https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12357
von Hippel, C., Kalokerinos, E. K., Haanterä, K., & Zacher, H. (2019). Age-based stereotype
threat and work outcomes: Stress appraisals and rumination as mediators. Psychology and
Aging, 34(1), 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000308
Waller, L. (2020). Fostering a sense of belonging in the workplace: Enhancing well-being and a
positive and coherent sense of self. In Dhiman, S. (Ed.) The Palgrave Handbook of
Workplace Well-Being, (pp. 1-27). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02470-3_83-1

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

Students’ sense of belonging: college student and staff perspectives during COVID-19

PDF

Well-being among Black female managers in retail banking during COVID-19

PDF

Frontline workers serving students: a study on the well-being of student affairs professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Collaboration, capacity, and communication: Leaders’ perceptions of innovative work behavior across hybrid and remote work environments

PDF

Military spouse well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Well-being, employee effectiveness, and organizational support: community college administrators during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

A case Study of gender gaps in the legal profession

PDF

The well-being and employee effectiveness of United States government contractors during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

The impact of COVID-19 on the wellbeing of veterinarians

PDF

COVID-19 pandemic: the impact on the Napa Valley wine industry workers

PDF

COVID-19's impact on Christian cross-cultural workers

PDF

From a privilege to an option: hybrid work schedule: a gap analysis

PDF

Leadership practices impacting Minnesota school principals’ employee well-being and burnout during the pandemic

PDF

The exploration of lived experiences of Black women directors in student affairs who led others during COVID-19

PDF

Promoting well-being amid a global pandemic: evaluating the impact on nonprofit employees

PDF

The declining enrollment in a California community college during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Physician burnout in the COVID-19 pandemic: Healthcare organization and leadership implications for patient care and clinical team leadership with nurses

PDF

Organizational levers for frontline health care employee well-being in long-term care

PDF

Lived experiences of transgender young adults transitioning during the COVID-19 pandemic

Asset Metadata

Creator Weston, Joshua Buck (author)

Core Title Perception of Work Intensification and Well-Being Among Hybrid University Staff in the Post-COVID-19 Context

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-08

Publication Date 08/01/2023

Defense Date 07/13/2023

Publisher University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag hybrid work,job demands,OAI-PMH Harvest,Post-COVID-19;,work intensification

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Filback, Robert (committee chair), Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee member), Muraszewski, Allison (committee member)

Creator Email jbweston@usc.edu,jbweston14@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113291870

Unique identifier UC113291870

Identifier etd-WestonJosh-12165.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-WestonJosh-12165

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Weston, Joshua Buck

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230802-usctheses-batch-1077 (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, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu