University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Exploring inequitable experiences of remote employees of color in biotechnology organizations in the United States who face less favorable remote work conditions…

(USC Thesis Other)

Exploring inequitable experiences of remote employees of color in biotechnology organizations in the United States who face less favorable remote work conditions…

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Exploring Inequitable Experiences of Remote Employees of Color in Biotechnology
Organizations in the United States Who Face Less Favorable Remote Work Conditions
Resulting From an Interplay of Race, Lower Socioeconomic Status Factors, and Little
Access to Technology
Kirk Patrick Avugwi
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
December 2023

© Copyright by Kirk Patrick Avugwi 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Kirk Patrick Avugwi certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Briana Hinga
Susanne Foulk
Robert Filback, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
This research study examined the inequitable experiences of employees of color in
biotechnology organizations in the United States who face less favorable remote work conditions
resulting from an interplay of race, lower socioeconomic status (SES) factors and little access to
technology. The research methodology adopted was an exploratory, qualitative interview design.
The purpose was to explore how socioeconomic-status factors impact employees of color in
remote work in order for organizations to look into leveling the playing field and achieving both
equality and equity in resource allocation. Historical social, economic, technological, and
demographic forces interplayed to disproportionately impact remote employees of color
negatively. The practical implication of this research is aimed at employees and their managers
to help them create better, more equal, equitable workplace experiences for all. Remote work
constitutes a reference guide to interpret—in an integrated way—existing research as well as
issue and identify inconsistencies in empirical findings, relevant gaps and opportunities for
future research. This project attempted to summarize and apply remote work experiences
research for employees of color in biotechnology organizations, propose a theoretical framework
for understanding remote work, present a look into successful remote work arrangement, provide
thought-provoking guiding questions and identify next steps for advancing the remote work
discussion. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory was utilized as a theoretical framework.
The study discovered and proposed strategies for remote work relevant trends, recommended
innovations, transformational and transactional factors of remote work perceived by employees
of color as critical to their and organizational success. This study presented recommendations for
future research, practice, and policy to support remote work in biotechnology, important to
society due to the role these organizations play in the development of transformational products.

v
Acknowledgements
I am eternally grateful to so many generous individuals who helped me achieve success
on this dissertation journey. This dissertation is dedicated to them. A marathoner’s ability to keep
practicing and win hinges heavily on encouragement and the support team. Thanks to my
daughter Yvette and sons Xavier and Jeremy, “Keep pushing, and persist in whatever you do,
and you will grow up just right, successful and will be fine! With persistence, perseverance and
enough analytical skills, you shall be self-sufficient in life.” The three of you are the greatest
gifts of curiosity, which is a doorway into the soul and soulful living. Thank you! I love you with
all my heart and I hope you will remain happy and inquisitive for a long time to come.
To my dissertation Chair Dr. Robert Filback and committee members Dr. Briana Hinga
and Dr. Susanne Foulk, thank you for your encouragement and reining in my disorganized
thoughts, reading multiple versions of my dissertation, and guiding me to this stage successfully.
Your patience is greatly appreciated as I understand the amount of writing you had to read
through on a daily basis. Your mentoring made the journey worthwhile and challenging at the
same time. I can say that this is the best course of action I have ever embarked on.
To all the friends and colleagues whom I have made on my journey who encouraged me
through the tough times, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I promise not to be critical and
pompous when having conversations.
To my Organizational Change and Leadership (OCL) classmates at the University of
Southern California, the pleasure of acquaintance is all mine. All the best!

vi
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures..................................................................................................................................x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study...............................................................................................1
Context and Background of the Problem.............................................................................2
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions...................................................................5
Significance of the Study.....................................................................................................5
Theoretical Framework........................................................................................................6
Definition of Terms..............................................................................................................8
Organization of the Dissertation ........................................................................................10
Summary............................................................................................................................11
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................12
Socioeconomic Status Factors ...........................................................................................12
Equality, Equity, Economics, and Race in the Remote Workplace...................................13
Digital Divide in Broadband Internet in Biotechnology Workplace .................................22
Technology, Tools, and Best Practices of Remote Work ..................................................24
Energy/Electric Power Insecurity Powering Remote Work ..............................................29
Legal Ramifications Impacting Remote Work ..................................................................30
Historical Perspective, Trends and Future Outlook of Remote Work ...............................32
Work-Life Balance.............................................................................................................40
Benefits and Challenges of Remote Work.........................................................................41
Biotechnology Organizations and Employee Inequities....................................................55
The Ecology of Human Development Conceptual Framework.........................................57

vii
Summary............................................................................................................................70
Chapter Three: Research Methodology .........................................................................................72
Research Questions............................................................................................................72
Qualitative Design .............................................................................................................73
Pilot Study..........................................................................................................................75
Population and Sample ......................................................................................................76
Participant Demographics..................................................................................................77
Semi-structured Interviews................................................................................................78
Research Procedures..........................................................................................................78
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................81
Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................82
Evidence of Trustworthiness..............................................................................................85
Summary............................................................................................................................90
Chapter Four: Findings..................................................................................................................91
Research Question 1: Deciding Factors to Consider Regarding Remote Work ................93
Research Question 2: Benefits and Challenges of Remote Work....................................103
Research Question 3: Organizational Factors at Play in Remote Work ..........................113
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................123
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations........................................................................125
Discussion of Findings.....................................................................................................126
Implications......................................................................................................................129
Usefulness of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory for Remote Work ............133
Recommendations............................................................................................................134
Limitations and Delimitations..........................................................................................148
Future Research ...............................................................................................................149

viii
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................151
Appendix A: Participant Information and Informed Consent (PIIC) Form.................................174
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ..................................................................................................175

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Socioeconomic Status by Race and Ethnicity 15
Table 2: Participant Demographics and Profile (N = 12) 77
Table 3: RQs, Ecological Systems, Categories and Themes 92
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 175

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Equity Versus Equality Video Image 18
Figure 2: Equality Versus Equity 19
Figure 3: Household Broadband Adoption by Subscription Type (United States, 2018) 24
Figure 4: Residential Distribution of Employees of a Color Used as a Case Study in the
Telecommunications-Transportation Tradeoff 35
Figure 5: Organizational Evolution of Telecommuting at Two Different Companies 36
Figure 6: Percent Wage/Salary Disparities Between Remote Employees of Color and Whites 38
Figure 7: The Ecology of Human Development of a Remote Employee in Biotechnology 64
Figure 8: Systems-Based Framework for Understanding Remote Work Adoption/Use 69
Figure 9: Recommendations for Employees of Color in Relation to Ecological Systems 134
Figure 10: Prosci’s Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability and Reinforcement (ADKAR)
Model 137

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The problem of practice is to explore the inequitable experiences of employees of color in
biotechnology organizations in the United States who faced less favorable remote work
conditions resulting from an interplay of race, lower socioeconomic status (SES), and little
access to technology. Allen et al. (2015) defined remote work as a flexible work arrangement
where employees work in locations that are remote from their central offices or production
facilities and where the employee has no in-person contact with team members but is nonetheless
able to communicate and stay in touch with them using technology. Likewise, Uni Global Union
(2022) defined remote work as workers performing part or all of their work during their agreed
working hours at a location outside of the normal worksite/office and using primarily
information and communication technologies provided by the employer.
Of specific focus are employees of color who work in the biotechnology organizations in
the United States. This study did not focus on, or differentiate between, voluntary and
involuntary remote work to underscore the complexity behind flexible work schedules and
remote work, especially among white-collar, salaried professionals (Kaduk et al., 2021).
Conversely, Clarke (2020) found that not all employees of color face equal levels of injustice,
and that it is significant in recognizing that employees of color are impacted by systemic racial
injustices. Kniffin et al. (2021) indicated that the unprecedented outbreak of the COVID-19
pandemic in 2020 required millions of people across the world to become remote employees,
ensuring remote work became the new normal. Robinson (2021) noted that socioeconomic and
employee well-being indicators affecting remote employees include emotional, physical, social,
and financial factors. The study focused on inequitable remote work experience factors,

2
employee and organizational factors, and provides recommendations to address and minimize
their impact. This study examined remote work pre-COVID-19.
Context and Background of the Problem
Employees of color in biotechnology organizations in the United States have less
favorable remote work experiences, which might be a result of an interplay of race, lower SES,
and little access to technology. Merriam-Webster (n.d.-a) found that employees of color are most
severely impacted by systemic racial injustices. However, little is known about employees of
color perceptions of remote work. The study utilized human ecology concepts from
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory as the conceptual framework. Due to lower
SES background (American Psychiatric Association, 2022), there is a disparity in accessing
remote work enablement (Clarke, 2020) tools for employees of color as compared to their White
counterparts with higher SES and higher access to technology. By evaluating SES factors among
employees of color and their effects, recommendations may be proposed that may contribute to
possibly level the playing field and support improvements in organizational practices that
improve remote work overall, as part of organizational digital workplace transformation (DWT)
as well as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives implementation.
The way in which work is performed in organizations has been changing over the years.
The current remote work revolution is essential for employees to have a work-life balance and
avoid commute time. Working remotely was also one of the ways of staying safe and healthy
from a silent killer, the COVID-19 worldwide pandemic that has killed 6 million human beings,
friends, and relatives worldwide. Simply defined, remote work is the ability to work from
anywhere. Remote work is defined by Gartner (2022) is a type of flexible working arrangement
that allows an employee to work from remote locations outside of corporate offices. This is a

3
problem because it leads to inequitable experiences for lower SES employees of color who lack
basic tools like internet Wi-Fi or even a dedicated workspace in their homes, causing and/or
leading to disparities in employee experiences organizationally. These employees may then be
punished by their organizations because of lackluster productivity. Remote work is not equitable
for all, the way working on-campus is due to historical employee SES background factors. Some
researchers have found that employees of color lack resources due to historical factors, yet they
are punished for job outcomes. This problem is significant because it causes disparities between
those wealthier, White employees with higher SES factors that own homes with a dedicated
workspace, compared to those renting and contend with roommates, family members and/or pets.
This current research focuses on remote work offered by biotechnology organization for
example work-life balance, performance reasons, and for pandemic considerations. Currently,
flexible work arrangements such as flextime, remote work, reduced load, and compressed
workweeks are employer tools to attract, retain, and motivate talent and support employees’
management of work-home responsibilities (Kossek et al., 2014). In a 10-year period between
2005 and 2015, the number of workers in the United States who worked remotely at least 50% of
the time grew by 115% (Reynolds, 2017). Currently, 56% of employees in the Unites States have
a job which could be done from home at least part of the time due to it being information-based
and involving a lack of physical work requirements (Global Workplace Analytics, 2020), while
37% of jobs in the United States can be done solely at home (Dingel & Neiman, 2020).
Working remotely is undeniably a global phenomenon that has presented biotechnology
organizations with enduring challenges to employee teams and management as a whole. Neely
(2022) argued that the rapid and unprecedented changes brought on by COVID-19 worldwide
pandemic have accelerated the transition to remote working, requiring the wholesale migration

4
of nearly entire organizations to virtual work in just weeks, leaving managers and employees
scrambling to adjust. This unprecedented adjustment has required that organizations implement
DWT fast, via prioritization, budget allocation and staff training. This massive transition has
forced companies to rapidly advance their digital footprint, using cloud, storage, cybersecurity,
and device tools to accommodate their new remote workforce (Neely, 2022). At the onset—and
ongoing—COVID-19 pandemic that so far killed close to 7 million people impacted entire
worldwide systems and the lives of many employees in the United States. The epidemic caused
federal, state, and local authorities to implement several measures and restrictions to control and
minimize the spread of COVID-19. For example, they mandated social distance measures that
most employees confine themselves at their homes working remotely in order to curb its spread.
To reiterate, the problem of practice focuses on inequitable experiences for employees of
color in biotechnology organizations in the United States who face less favorable remote work
conditions resulting from an interplay of race, lower socioeconomic status (SES), and little
access to technology. These SES factors impact employees tasked with leading and balancing a
remote work schedule through massive ongoing, large-scale change. As such, organizational
capacity (what can be accomplished in a standardized, controlled environment) and
organizational capability (what can be accomplished in a daily environment) gaps exist and need
to be examined in a greater level of detail and bridged. Examining whether employees who
believe that there should be equality and equity should make organizational leaders understand
that there is a difference between equality and equity and that they address these complicated
terms.

5
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
This study explored the inequitable experiences of employees of color in biotechnology
organizations in the United States who faced less favorable remote work conditions resulting
from an interplay of race, lower socioeconomic status (SES), and little access to technology. The
study explored the impact of participants’ worker background, lived experiences, and
expectations and access to technology that is foundational for remote work. Also studied were
factors that would enable organizations to level the playing field to achieve equitable work
experiences. Three research questions guided this study:
1. What factors do remote employees of color in biotechnology take into consideration
in deciding whether or not and how much to work remotely?
2. What are the benefits and challenges that biotech employees of color experience
when working remotely?
3. To what extent and how do remote employees of color perceive that their
organization has made efforts to address challenges faced in working remotely?
Significance of the Study
Biotechnology organizations’ future depends on its employees, and remote work is a
central catalyst for profitability and survival. It is therefore important to examine this problem of
practice in detail to understand the impact of SES factors on remote employees of color in
biotechnology organizations in order to eliminate or reduce inequitable experiences, increase
work-life balance as well as effective job outcomes. Organizational leaders may find this study
useful since they may be informed regarding what it takes their employees to work remotely
effectively, which may positively or negatively impact their employee job satisfaction and
organizational bottom line. Employees of color may benefit from this study by understanding the

6
benefits and challenges of remote work, and organizational factors that hasten equal and
equitable resource allocation. Policymakers may learn from this study about the marginalization
and additional accommodation needed for equality and equity for remote employees of color. In
a nutshell, this study may help level the playing field, ensuring equitable remote work
experiences for all, bring to par remote work experiences for all employees and, not punish
employees of color for lackluster performance due to a deficit of remote work tools and
electricity to power them. Finally, this problem of practice is important to me as an Employee of
Color working remotely for a biotechnology organization in the Unites States.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The theoretical framework utilized in this study is Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological
systems theory. This theory asserts that human development is impacted by several concentric
systems: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem, all encompassed within the
chronosystem. A theoretical framework is a theory or theories that have already been tested and
validated and are considered acceptable in scholarly research (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). This
framework connects the research topic to the literature, defines boundaries for the study, and is
the foundation for the entire dissertation. Grant and Osanloo (2014) indicated that frameworks
provide and ties in structure to research questions, literature review, research methodology,
protocols, data analysis, and recommendations. This framework is being utilized because
Bronfenbrenner (1979) proposed an ecological systems theory that organized the contexts of
child development into five nested concentric systems of environmental systems, with
bidirectional influences and interrelationships within and among systems. Bronfenbrenner’s
(1979) ecological systems theory examines remote work choice theme via the techno-subsystem;
employee preparedness and positive attitudes and beliefs themes within the microsystem; work-

7
life balance and no commute time benefits; no dedicated workspace and mental health challenges
themes within the mesosystem; organizational resources theme within the exosystem, and lastly
organizational processes and organizational DEI culture themes within the macrosystem.
In detail, the first system, the microsystem, refers to the immediate environment and
includes for example, most notably, home and school interactions. The second system, the
mesosystem, is composed of connections between immediate environments (e.g., home-school
interactions). The third system, the exosystem, includes environmental settings that indirectly
affect child development (e.g., the parent’s workplace). The fourth system, the macrosystem
refers to overarching social ideologies and cultural values. Last, the chronosystem highlights the
effect of time on all systems and all developmental processes. This research study utilized
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) updated ecological systems theory by Johnson and Puplampu’s (2008)
who asserted that there was an innermost layer called the techno-subsystem. This new inner
dimensional system comes before the microsystem, which includes child interactions with
human and nonhuman elements of information, communication, and recreational digital
technologies, highlights the importance of technology in child development. Johnson and
Puplampu discussed the ecological techno-subsystem concept to include child interaction with
both living and nonliving elements of communication, information, and recreation technologies
in immediate or direct environments. An application of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory is
appropriate for this study and suggests that the use of the internet during childhood include
communicating, accessing information, and playing video games is paramount and that the
environment one grows up in affects every facet of one’s life. This theory dictated that the
individual influences the environment (Rosa & Tudge, 2013), noting that the theory stresses the
role of the individual, the impact of time, and proximal processes.

8
Definition of Terms
This section defines and contextualizes key terms and words pertinent to this study.
Asynchronous work: Working on a team that does not require teams to be online
simultaneously.
Cloud computing network: Cloud computing is defined as the on-demand availability of
computer resources, especially data storage and computing power, without user’s direct active
management, enabled via a cloud services platform via the internet with pay-as-you-go pricing
Cybersecurity: The art of protecting networks, devices, and data from unauthorized
access or criminal use and ensuring confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information.
Digital workplace transformation (DWT): A concept that businesses should use digital
transformation to align technology, employees and business processes to improve operational
efficiency and meet organizational goals.
Digitization: Process that takes an analog process and changes it to a digital form without
any different-in-kind changes to the process itself
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI): A term used to describe policies and programs that
promote the representation and participation of different groups of individuals, ages, races/
ethnicities, dis/abilities, genders, religions, cultures and sexual orientations.
Employees of color: A specific to the United States, intended to center lived experiences
of Black and Indigenous groups to demonstrate solidarity between communities of color.
Fixed mindset: A fixed mindset is the belief that one’s intelligence, talents and other
abilities are set in stone. One believes that they're born with a particular set of skills and that one
can't change them. If one has a fixed mindset, one will likely fear that they may not be smart or
talented enough to achieve their goals.

9
Grounded theory: A format that seeks to discover or construct theory from data which is
systematically obtained and analyzed using comparative analysis.
Internet broadband and Wi-Fi: High-speed internet access in businesses and homes.
Growth mindset: A growth mindset is the belief that one can improve their abilities and
talents with effort and persistence, not just talent or luck.
Microaggressions: A statement, action, or incident regarded as an instance of indirect,
subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group such as a racial
or ethnic minority.
Mindfulness: A mental state achieved by focusing one’s awareness on the present
moment, while calmly acknowledging and accepting one’s feelings, thoughts, and bodily
sensations, used as a therapeutic technique.
Operational excellence: Implementing organizational strategies that maintain or enhance
business performance and occurs when organizations implements and executes its day-to-day
business operations better than its competitors in their industry.
Participants’ information and consent form: forms introduced for signature in order to
achieve informed consent of interviewees.
Remote work: Flexible work arrangement whereby employees work in locations, remote
from their central offices, whereby the worker has no personal contact with team members, but
able to communicate and stay in touch using technology.
Scientific culture: A scientific-leaning organizational culture implying scientists
challenge accepted explanations of facts and propose new and original ways of interpreting them.
For these scientific-heavy organizations, originality, independence of thought and dissent were
characteristics of the scientific culture, and therefore a challenge to established cultural values.

10
Self-efficacy: The belief that one can achieve what one sets out to do.
Socioeconomic impacts of remote work: The shift to remote work has affected social
classes of employees differently and inequitably.
Socioeconomic status (SES): An economic and sociological combined total measure of a
person’s work experience or family’s economic access to resources and social position in
relation to others.
Software as a service (SaaS): A way of delivering and accessing software applications
over the internet—as a service instead of installing and maintaining software
Synchronous work: Working to complete tasks without waiting for team members to
complete their tasks.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation follows a traditional five-chapter model. Chapter One addresses the
introduction of the problem of practice which is the inequitable experiences of remote employees
of color in the biotechnology organizations in the United States who faced less favorable remote
work experiences resulting from an interplay of race, lower SES factors, and little access to
technology. It also includes the purpose of the project, research questions, the importance of
conducting this study, an overview of the methodology, and definitions of key words and phrases
utilized within the dissertation. Chapter Two is a comprehensive review of the literature,
including both the modern and historical contexts pertinent to SES factors impacting employees
of color in biotechnology. Chapter Three outlines the research methodology and triangulation
with historic and modern artifacts, sampling criteria, and the interview protocols. Chapter Four
describes and synthesizes the research findings. Lastly, Chapter Five discusses the
recommendations based on the outcome of the study.

11
Summary
This project specifically analyzed remote work enablement factors as well as benefits and
challenges impacting employees of color in biotechnology organizations and whether their
organizations have stepped up efforts to support all employees equally and equitably via fair
resource allocation. One noticeable advantage of remote work, I think, is that it is an equalizer,
with equity of voice, created through online videoconference meeting software applications like
Zoom where rank and file employees can for example openly tell the CEO or their senior
managers: “You are on mute!” followed by laughter and/or amusement in organizational All
Hands meetings, and not get retaliated against. Working remotely can be a great equalizer.
There is therefore a need to explore a path for remote employees of color empowerment
socioeconomically with the capability of responding to increasing complexity in the world
through the application of equitability and the capacity to work without hindrances. While it is
prudent for a study to be conducted on how biotechnology organizational leaders respond and/or
support their employees in making their teams individually and collectively feel safe, this study’s
narrow focus is an interplay of SES factors impacts individual remote employees of color.

12
Chapter Two: Literature Review
This exploratory study examines the inequitable experiences of remote employees of
color in biotechnology organizations in the United States who face less favorable remote work
experiences resulting from an interplay of race, lower socio-economic status (SES) factors, and
little access to technology. These population under study may lack equitable resources in their
remote working conditions in biotechnology organizations in the United States brought about by
their lower SES factors and little access to technology in their lived experiences and background.
And yet organizations evaluate these particular group of remote employees via punitive
performance reviews and proximity bias (Udavant, 2022), a bias that occurs when companies
prefer, then favor employees working and living closer to the workplace by providing them more
opportunities to succeed simply because they are physically present. The main topics to be
addressed in this problem include: equality, equity, economics, and race in the workplace;
biotechnology organizations in the United States; broadband internet Wi-Fi tools; historical
perspectives and trends; drivers and future outlook of remote work; requirements, technology,
tools, and best practices; benefits of remote work for organizations and employees; challenges of
remote work for organizations and employees; and finally, negative physical and mental aspects
of remote work.
Socioeconomic Status Factors
Working remotely may cause systemic inequities based on employee SES factors, as
some classes of employees enjoyed better workplace setups than others due to their historical
economic status backgrounds. Socioeconomic status is defined as an economic and sociological
combined total measure of a person’s work experience or family’s economic access to resources
and social position in relation to others (American Psychiatric Association, 2022). Employees of

13
color with lower SES usually have less access to financial, educational, social, technological and,
health resources than higher SES White counterparts. American Psychiatric Association (2022)
found that SES encompassed not just income but also educational attainment, financial security,
and subjective perceptions of social status and social class. American Psychiatric Association
(2022) surmised that SES may encompass quality of life attributes as well as the opportunities
and privileges afforded to a group of people within society, while also noting that employees of
color populations tended to suffer most from a lack of economic power, opportunities and
privileges. By evaluating SES factors at play, and its effects on employees of color,
recommendations could be proposed that may possibly level the inequities playing field and
support improvements in organizational practice that improve remote work as part of DWT
initiatives for organizations. There is minimal popular and scholarly literature on remote work
that is surveyed and contextualized for both professionals and organizations.
Equality, Equity, Economics, and Race in the Remote Workplace
The problem of practice is to explore the inequitable remote work experiences of remote
employees of color. Merriam-Webster (n.d.-a) found that employees of color are most severely
impacted by systemic racial injustices. Also due to a higher rate of SES (American Psychiatric
Association, 2022), there are negative attitudes and beliefs of remote work due to the disparity in
accessing remote work enablement (Clarke, 2020) tools for remote employees of color as
compared to their higher SES background White counterparts. Biotechnology is defined by the
Oxford (2022) dictionary as the exploitation of biological processes for industrial and other
purposes, especially the genetic manipulation of microorganisms (for the production of
antibiotics, hormones, etc.). In simpler terms, biotechnology, often abbreviated to biotech, is the
area of biology that uses living processes, organisms or systems to manufacture products or

14
technology intended to improve the quality of human life (Oxford, n.d.). Remote work as defined
by Gartner (2022) is a type of flexible working arrangement that allows an employee to work
from remote locations outside of corporate offices.
There could possibly be inequitable experiences due to an interplay of race and SES
factors impacting employees in biotechnology as far as remote work is concerned, which this
research will investigate. American Psychiatric Association (2022) defined SES as a condition,
state, social standing or class of an individual or group, measured as a combination of education,
income and occupation. Remote working was no longer optional during the pandemic (Wang,
2020) but instead, the COVID-19 outbreak has forced people to be working from home
irrespective of their preferences or abilities.
Inequities exist in our workplaces due to historical inequities impacting Persons of Color.
Brown (2019) found that almost always, an examination of SES often reveals inequities in access
to resources as well as revealing issues related to privilege, power, and control. Harper (2022)
wrote that while remote work boosted diversity, it undermined equity for employees of color —
even though working remotely provided much-appreciated shelter from the racist stereotypes,
microaggressions, racial tensions, and overt racism that many employees of color experienced in
on-site workplace settings—prior to the pandemic. Fitzgerald et al. (2014) defined DWT as the
use of new digital technologies, such as social media, mobile, analytics or embedded devices, in
order to enable major business improvements like enhancing customer experience, streamlining
operations or creating new business models. The United States Census Bureau (2014) found
racial differences in wealth, that for every dollar of wealth Whites have, Asian households have
83 cents, Blacks 6 cents, and Hispanics 7 cents. Table 1 lists SES factors.

15
Table 1
Socioeconomic Status by Race and Ethnicity
Indicator Whites Blacks Hispanics Asian Ratios
B/W H/W A/W
Education (% college
grad+), 20101
31 17.8 13 50.2 0.57 0.42 1.62
Median household
income, 20132
58,270 34,598 40,963 67,065 0.59 0.70 1.15
Median wealth, 20113
110,500 6,314 7,683 89,339 0.06 0.07 0.81
Non-home wealth,
20113
33,408 2,124 4,010 29,339 0.06 0.12 0.88
Home ownership,
2014 (%)4
72.3 42.1 44.5 -- 0.58 0.62 --
Note. From “Understanding Associations between Race, Socioeconomic Status and Health:
Patterns and Prospects” by D.R. Williams, N. Priest, & N. Anderson, Health Psychology, 35(4).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4817358/table/T1/? In the public domain.
1U. S. Census (2010),
2
(DeNavas-Walt and Proctor 2014),
3
(Vornovitsky, Gottschalck et al.
2014),
4
(Callis and Kresin 2015).
These SES factors impacting remote employees of color may highlight the differences
between equality and equity for employees trained as scientists and medical professionals in
biotechnology organizations. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, employees were being
tasked to work with their teams remotely, within an organizational work design perspective
without organizations addressing inequities that favor upper and middle-class employees while
disenfranchising poor classes through the massive, large-scale migration from on-site to remote
work. While this project did not examine that specifically, Parker (2014) defined work design as

16
the content and organization of one’s work tasks, activities, relationships, and responsibilities.
These may need to be reassessed due to the onset of remote work.
While equality in resource allocation is paramount, equity is equally important. Dressel
(2014) stated that the route to achieving equity will not be accomplished through treating
everyone equally but by treating everyone justly according to their set of SES factors and
circumstances. These inequities or disparities mostly affect remote employees of color, as
Jackson (2022) found that their efforts to participate in the economic process were traditionally,
and are still, regularly thwarted, prohibiting them acquiring household and commercial wealth.
These inequities can be blatant, as Jackson (2022) surmised that while remote employees of
color can apply for the same jobs as Whites and get them, White families are more than eight
times better off as far as economic status is concerned. This lack of participation in the economic
process means that lower-income remote employees of color are most impacted by inequities
brought about by working remotely. Socioeconomic equity is a tangible concept in which
resources and assets are distributed to all employees in an equitable manner to balance work
outcomes. These SES inequitable experiences need to be examined in greater detail.
The onset of remote work has caused systemic inequities based on SES factors, as some
classes of employees have better workplace setups than others. For example, some have home
offices, dedicated workspaces, privacy, and internet Wi-Fi access while others may require their
organizations to implement DEI programs to have these. Systemic inequities have exacerbated
the situation as the COVID-19 pandemic caused many hardships, ensuring that companies must
adjust from on-campus to remote working modes for continuity, profitability, and survival. Some
of these remote employees of color may face hardships like a lack of social contacts, no
dedicated workspace in the home, privacy; robust internet access, and child or pet care (Allen et

17
al., 2015). Allen et al. (2015) found that remote employees struggle with work-home interference
that could not be mitigated by job autonomy, and also noted that procrastination has been framed
as a trait-like variable in remote working literature, and, therefore, managers tend to provide
flexible work arrangements.
While they appear simple via a casual look, equality and equity are very complicated
terms. Organizations need not take them at face value. Some employees may tend to feel that
while equal treatment of employees is paramount, equitable treatment is more helpful. During
the COVID-19 pandemic, most employees were tasked to work from home, causing them to
have diverse remote work experiences as they balanced work and home life. Some shared their
home with family or roommates, while others cared for young children, other family members,
and even pets in the same spaces. Granted, during the pandemic, most biotechnology employees
were tasked to work remotely and provided with an equal amount of financial resources or the
same equipment for all. Most however disregarded inequities that would have required the
allocation of remote work resources based on SES factors. This situation appeared to be
prevalent, that even with equal resource support, employee access to them remained unequal.
Tokenism—whereby remote employees of color are leveraged for the organization’s
hackneyed DEI brand that has no real interest in their growth—may need to be completely
abandoned. Merriam-Webster (2023) defined tokenism as the practice of doing something (such
as hiring a person who belongs to a minority group) only to prevent criticism and give the
appearance that people are being treated fairly. The American Psychiatric Association (2020)
wrote that SES indicators that lead to inequities in employees working remotely may be typically
broken down into high, middle, and low levels to analyze employees’ triplicate conditions, which
are, in turn, affected and/or addressed by income, education and occupation. In this regard, SES

18
can be viewed in the lens of the economic and sociological combined total measure of a person’s
work experience or family’s economic access to resources and social position in relation to other
employees. Of note is that researchers are advised that when analyzing an employee’s SES, the
household income, earners’ education, and occupation should be examined in totality.
Figures 1 and 2 present the differences between equality and equity and showcase the fact
that equality means each individual or group of people receives the same resources or
opportunities while equity goes farther by recognizing that each individual receives resources
based on their SES circumstances at play. Jackson (2022) discussed that the truth is equality and
equity are not the same and that equality means each individual or group receives the same
resources or opportunities, a far cry from equity, which means that in some circumstances,
people need to be treated differently in order to provide meaningful equality of opportunity.
Figure 2 presents the difference between equality and equity.
Figure 1
Equity Versus Equality Video Image
Note. This figure illustrates the differences between equality and equity. From Equity vs.
Equality [Video] by Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2018, August 6, YouTube.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v = MlXZyNtaoDM) Copyright 2018 by Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation.

19
Figure 2
Equality Versus Equity
Note. This figure illustrates the differences between equality and equity. From Equality vs.
Equity by artist Angus Maguire. Peace Corps, 2022
(https://www.peacecorps.gov/educators/resources/equality-vs-equity/). In the public domain.
It is therefore paramount that biotechnological organizations understand that each
employee has a unique set of circumstances and lived experiences and must therefore aspire to
allocate remote work resources and opportunities according to their circumstances for employees
to reach an equal outcome. These employees of color diverse remote work experiences range
from bad home workplace setups or lack thereof, to a home office away from interruptions.
Another example of inequities is that some poor employees of color were less experienced in
remote work tools while some middle-class employees had better experience utilizing multiple
computers and screens. From a work design perspective, there is, therefore, a need for employers
to financially empower and train employees to respond to these issues of increasing complexity.

20
Biotechnology organizations view DEI implementation not just as the new fad, but as the
right thing to do. Buss (2022) indicated that over the last year, the most frequent action taken by
organizations on DEI has been to conduct DEI-focused employee listening, such as surveys and
focus groups, with 47% executing DEI moves. Also, 36% increased staff dedicated to DEI, 32%
increased their DEI budgets, 31% established new avenues for reporting DEI complaints, and
30% had disclosed DEI metrics publicly and invested more in employee resource and affinity
groups (Buss, 2022). Therefore, organizations need to be cognizant of the fact that there are
myriad SES factors that negatively impact some of their employees when they work remotely
off-site and SES comes to play in depicting an existential economic and social status classes in
society in which employees reside and strive to resolve them. American Psychiatric Association
(2020) found that a component of SES encompasses both income and educational attainment,
which is the extent an employee has attained their short or long-term educational goals. Many
remote employees of color are already disenfranchised by the leaky pipeline that affects
educational attainment. SES puts into consideration the completion of educational benchmarks
such as secondary school diplomas and bachelor’s degrees to represent academic achievement.
Equity aspects of remote work requires organizations to factor in their employees’ SES
aspects and be cognizant of the fact that one size does not fit all when it comes to remote work
resource allocation. In a survey of 568 workers, Global Workplace Analytics (2016) showed that
a typical telecommuter as non-Employee of Color, college-educated, 45 years or older, earning
an annual salary of $58,000 while working for an organization with more than 100 employees.
Also, the same survey found that 75% of employees who work from home earn over $65,000 per
year, putting them in the upper 80th percentile of all employees (Global Workplace Analytics,

21
2016). Basch et al. (2019) found that the emergency adaptation of remote work as a response to
COVID-19 raises questions about access of equity for employees of color.
The COVID-19 pandemic requires organizations to mobilize accordingly in such a
narrow preparation window to deal with the digital inequities that have existed and left
unaddressed for decades. For example, at the beginning stages of technological advances
(Williams, 2021), the so-called digital divide related more to access to technology and equipment
and that there was unequal access to technology that gave some advantages over others.
Williams (2021) noted that current data suggests that the divide has shifted substantially and that
even when access to technology is equal, inequities persist because some employees and
organizations do not have the necessary knowledge, training, and skills to take advantage of the
available technological resources. Pew Research Center (2021) found that eight-in-ten White
adults report owning a desktop or laptop computer, compared with 69% of Black adults and 67%
of Hispanic adults. Eight in ten White adults also reported having a broadband connection at
home, while smaller shares of 71% Black and 65% Hispanic adults said the same.
The COVID-19 worldwide pandemic took some employees of color casualties with it.
The Pew Research Center (2021) also reported that the pandemic took a notable toll on the
finances of lower-income Americans and that a quarter of home broadband users with annual
household incomes ranging from $30,000 to just under $50,000 say they have had trouble doing
so in the pandemic, as have 8% with household incomes ranging from $50,000 to $74,999.
Gartner (2020) indicated that in a recent webinar snap poll, 91% of attending human resources
(HR) leaders indicated that they have implemented ‘work from home’ arrangements since the
outbreak, but the largest challenge stems from the lack of technology infrastructure and lack of
comfort with new ways of working for all employees. The Pew Research Center reported that the

22
proportion of American adults with high-speed broadband service at home increased rapidly
between 2000 and 2010. In recent years, however, reliable broadband adoption growth has been
much more sporadic. Currently, roughly three-quarters of American adults boast of broadband
internet service at home. The COVID-19 pandemic forced organizations to reckon with digital
inequities that some were unaware existed. Because remote work was sometimes the main mode
of working at the beginning of the COVID-19 lockdown, equity issues arose with mostly the
lower-income, employees of color. There is still relatively little research in remote employees
with access to reliable broadband internet presently.
Digital Divide in Broadband Internet in Biotechnology Workplace
There is a remote workplace digital divide between employees of color and White
employees within the biotechnology organizations. There also appears a disenfranchisement as
far as access to the internet, hardware, and software is concerned. The digital divide may be
caused by the fact that remote work requires organizations to implement DWT initiatives. These
include moving organizational tasks, work, projects, data, and information into a decentralized,
virtual cloud environment which are then accessed securely by employees worldwide wherever
broadband internet Wi-Fi exist while providing tools and spaces to bridge the digital divide.
Digital workplace studies that focus on organizations’ use of new digital technologies
show a discrepancy in implementation. These studies reveal that organizations introduce digital
technologies to transform their workplace into a digital workplace (Dery et al., 2017). A recent
Gallup (2020) survey revealed that the number of United States employees who were working
from home because of COVID-19 pandemic concerns nearly doubled to 62% from March 2020.
American Community Survey (2018) noted that 85% of households—and growing—have
internet subscription to an internet service provider. Gallup (2017) in their State of the American

23
Workplace Report revealed that 39% of employees worked remotely in some capacity, which
grew by 4 percentage points to 43% in 2017. Tomer et al. (2020) found that the introduction of
broadband internet networks in the United States was indispensable, helping enhance
professional, personal, and social interactions, and that broadband and the digital services it
enabled were today intrinsically tied to collective health and equity outcomes. United States
Census Bureau (2018) defined broadband internet as anything faster than dial-up internet access
and is one of the social determinants of health (SDOH). Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention—CDC (2021) defined SDOH as conditions in the places where people live, learn,
work, and play that affect a wide range of health and quality-of-life-risks and outcomes. For
Americans, the introduction of internet broadband internet Wi-Fi services enabled remote work
earlier on, to become mainstream faster than other countries, expanding in leaps and bounds,
ensuring mostly equitable access to work for employees. Unfortunately, the current state of
American broadband access, adoption, and use is one of disparate outcomes (Tomer, et al.,
2020). American Community Survey (2018) found that 18.1 million—or 15%—of households
do not have subscriptions to any form of “broadband” internet service, compared to 99.6% of
households with plumbing, or to the effective 100% of households with access to electricity
(Figure 3).

24
Figure 3
Household Broadband Adoption by Subscription Type (United States, 2018)
Note. This figure demonstrates broadband adoption by subscription type. From Digital
Prosperity: How broadband can deliver health and equity to all communities by The Brookings
Institution, 2020, p 7. (https://www.brookings.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2020/02/20200227_BrookingsMetro_Digital-Prosperity-ResearchBrief_Final.pdf). Copyright 2020 by The Brookings Institution.
Technology, Tools, and Best Practices of Remote Work
Organizations of all shapes and sizes are undergoing a major digital transformation,
whether they like it or not. Digital transformation is defined as a concept that businesses should
use digital transformation to align technology, employees and business processes to improve
operational efficiency and meet organizational goals. “Digital transformation is the cultural,
organizational, and operational change of an organization, industry or ecosystem through a smart
integration of digital technologies, processes and competencies across all levels and functions in
a staged and strategic way” (i-SCOOP, 2016). The digitization of organizations is “argued by
some to be the leading driver of economic growth that leads to life-changing economic upheavals
[and] profound regional implications on businesses, jobs, and people” (Bukht & Heeks, 2017, p.
3). Remote work implementation requires organizations to prioritize DWT initiatives like

25
migrating employee’s projects, work tasks, data, and information into a cloud environment,
which is a decentralized, virtual location which can be accessed from anywhere in the world
where broadband internet Wi-Fi access is present. Organizations introduce remote work to
transform their workplace from an analog onsite work model into a digital workplace (Dery et
al., 2017) and gain competitive advantage and survive in case another worldwide pandemic like
COVID-19 occurred. Specifically, remote work is enabled via tools like the internet, computers,
portable video and audio devices, telephones, cellphones, software, television, and ebooks.
Digital transformation is broken down in many ways. Digitalization, in its broadest
definition, is the process of changing from analog to digital computerized systems, also known as
digital enablement. Digitization is a process that takes an analog process and changes it to a
digital form without any different-in-kind changes to the process itself (Gartner, 2022).
Digitalization is enabled by innovations produced by the digital sector, also referred to as the IT
or information and communication technologies (ICT) sector. This—digitally speaking—refers
to the goods, software, infrastructure, services, retail, and content produced by technology
companies to help capture, transmit, and display data and information electronically. Digital
work or job design topics still remains subjects to be exhaustively researched. Despite
considerable academic attention, the literature on digital work does not provide a commonly
accepted definition of the phenomenon (Jensen, 2018). Remote work requirements, tools and
best practices empower employees to work from their homes away from the traditional onpremises locations. Wiles (2020) found that many coronavirus contingency plans required
remote work and organizations needed to bolster their policies and prepare for future digital
workplaces and employee needs. For remote work to be successful, Wiles (2020) suggested that
biotechnology organizations’ HR departments needed to analyze employee responsibilities,

26
tasks, and roles to determine which work was suitable for a remote work model, and accordingly,
what kind of performance monitoring and support employees would need. These practices
reinforces innovative leaders and organizations (Dyer et al., 2008, 2009, 2019). Underlying these
practices was an intentional leadership style that promoted organizational culture.
Unfortunately, remote work cannot be implemented for all employees within
biotechnology organizations. Wiles (2020) found that remote work is not possible for some
employees whose job functions cannot be performed remotely. Therefore, HR departments may
choose job sharing methods like splitting shifts, providing free meals, drinks, and psychological
and mental health support to reduce anxiety. Wiles, 2020 noted that remote work is possible at a
cost whereby employees can function remotely with guidance and support for managers and
employees to navigate the logistical and cultural challenges of remote work. Also, remote work
is highly possible in that some employees may already have experience working remotely at least
some of the time, so organizations must continue to build team trust, manage employees
empathetically, support employees, and maintain a social connection.
Effective remote work technology is a vital enabler in steering business computer
systems and software off premises and into cloud computing on a massive scale. Cloud
computing is defined by Muratkar (2019) as the on-demand availability of computer resources,
especially data storage and computing power, without user’s direct active management and is
enabled via a cloud services platform via the internet with pay-as-you-go pricing. Cloud
computing, coupled with cybersecurity, makes remote work possible. Cybersecurity is the art of
protecting networks, devices, and data from unauthorized access or criminal use and ensuring
confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information. Microsoft Corporation (2022) defined
cloud computing as the delivery of computing services over the internet (the cloud) to offer

27
faster innovation, flexible resources, and economies of scale. The computer cloud refers to ondemand delivery of different computer services to vendor organizations through the internet,
including data storage, servers, databases, networking, and Software as a Service (SaaS;
Knowles et al., 2020). Through cloud computing for the storage and exchange of data, it enables
employees to connect in new ways, work more flexibly, and establish new forms of leadership
and work autonomy (Dittes et al., 2019). Similarly, the current digital era acts as a catalyst in
steering employees from off-premises to remote work.
These system mobility and remote working features are now the norm for many
organizations, especially biotechnology organizations. This has been exacerbated by the COVID19 worldwide pandemic that has forced many organizations to have employees work remotely to
curtail its spread, as mandated by federal, state, and local governments. Employees are now
equipped with various digital means to work, operate, and report on their task activities. Remote
work has widened skill pools with some hiring managers no longer focusing on locally-based
candidates, instead opting for geographically dispersed employees with the right skillsets to fill
open roles. Other tools are virtual, online videoconference meeting and collaboration
applications like Zoom. Smith (2022), a journalist at CNBC News Channel, noted that Zoom,
Inc.’s technology is superior to others when it comes to coordinating remote and hybrid
meetings—it is so easy to work and collaborate with team members that are remote and in the
office at the same time, and it makes collaboration really seamless. A Gartner (2020) survey of
800 global HR executives found that 88% of organizations encouraged or required employees to
work from home, regardless of whether they showed coronavirus-related symptoms or not, and
also found that nearly all organizations (97%) surveyed had canceled work-related travel, a more
than 80% increase since March 2020 at the onset of COVID-19 worldwide pandemic.

28
Tools and equipment that remote employees utilize in order to be effective in performing
their roles vary, depending on the organization and the need. Chokkattu (2022) noted that tools
mostly include these 11 main items: A home office or quiet place to work from away from
roommates, family members, children or pets; A robust, broadband internet Wi-Fi network
access; A laptop with an ergonomic setup if employees wish to work while standing; A
comfortable, flexible desk that employees can utilize while sitting or standing; An ergonomic,
comfortable desk chair; an ergonomic keyboard and mouse pad; One or multiple computer
monitor/s or screen/s; A laptop or stand-alone high-quality webcam for hosting meetings that
combines a great microphone or headphones; a white-noise machine; noise canceling device, and
finally; optional blue light filter or eye glasses, among others.
There are many ways to make working remotely successful. Tsedal (2022) identified five
ways to make working remotely work for both employees and employers. First is communicating
well and often, as well as selecting a communication tool that ensures employees relay messages
they need to convey. Email, chat, phone, web, and video conference each have their own place.
The second is to be a proactive manager and respond to employee requests promptly. The third is
to be a proactive team player as well and over-communicate if needed. The fourth is to get
personal, turn camera on where everyone can see each other in online meetings. The fifth
pertains to managers measuring team productivity through oversight and clear definitions around
work productivity, engagement, and communication. (Tsedal, 2022).
Remote work contains some downsides for the employee. Digital connectivity allows
work to encroach on times and spaces which were previously exclusively dedicated to private
life (Jensen, 2018). To enjoy autonomy and flexibility, digital workers and their organizations
are also required to develop robust strategies to provide balance and structure to the increasingly

29
blurred boundaries between private and work life (Dittes et al., 2019). This balance exposes both
the employee and the organization to encroachment issues that need to be defined.
Energy/Electric Power Insecurity Powering Remote Work
Energy insecurity is conceptualized as a household’s inability to meet its basic energy
need. Electrical energy, an overlooked but integral tool of remote work, needs to be classified as
one. However current electrical power policies combine to negatively affect employees of color
populations the most because of their lower SES factors in their background. An integral tool of
remote work that is most often overlooked is electrical energy that powers homes and, by
extension, computers that power remote work. Memmott (2020) stated that energy insecurity was
a growing public health threat among low-income populations in the United States and found
major sociodemographic disparities in energy insecurity among lower-income, lower SES
households before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Even before the pandemic, an Energy
Information Administration survey found that 31% of U.S. households faced challenges in
meeting energy needs, struggling with energy insecurity in 2015. This challenge worsened
during the COVID-19 pandemic when more people were mandated by federal, state, and local
governments to work from home and attend school online due to social distancing mandates.
Electrical bills are highly prioritized in most households due to its nature of powering the
home. According to the most recent results from an Energy Information Administration (2015),
about one in five households reported reducing or forgoing necessities such as food and medicine
to pay an energy bill, and 14% reported receiving a disconnection notice for energy service.
Households may also use less energy than they would prefer; 11% of households surveyed
reported keeping their home at an unhealthy or unsafe temperature to avoid incurring a larger
bill. A survey on energy insecurity (Memmott et al., 2021) found that lower-SES groups and

30
households with young children are all more likely to be energy insecure. Calma (2022) noted
that before the pandemic, nearly one in three U.S. households struggled to pay their electricity
bills or heat or cool their homes. The researchers found that people also suspended using power
at all times and only started using electricity during different times of the day.
Traditionally, residential energy utilization peaked in the mornings and evenings in U.S.
homes. The Energy Information Administration (2015) stated that historically, residential
electricity use peaked in the morning and evening, when people got ready for work and school,
and when they returned home. But with people spending more time at home, the peak hours
remained active all day long, reshaping the demand into one with more of a prolonged peak
consumption throughout the middle of the day (Energy Information Administration, 2015). This
may be interpreted as follows: remote work tools like electrical energy are not easily accessible
to most lower-SES employees of color populations and affects them more negatively than other
employee classes. Researchers into remote work need to classify electric power as a tool of
without which remote work cannot exist. The latest trend is that a few employees working
remotely for example, are bringing lawsuits against their employers for reimbursement of
electric power bills. For example, Lucas (2022) referenced a legal case whereby a remote
working computer engineer has sued his employer, seeking Amazon to begin paying for or
reimbursing internet and electricity costs for their employees. Although electricity is a remote
work tool, most organizations do not reimburse employee energy costs.
Legal Ramifications Impacting Remote Work
Legal challenges and ramifications impacting remote work have sprung up of late, pitting
employees against their employers in a quest for justice for those who feel remote work impacts
their finances negatively. They have now gone to court seeking legal or financial relief. Lucas

31
(2022) references a legal case whereby on the one hand a remote working Computer Engineer
sued his employer, Amazon, Inc., seeking his employer, and others, to start reimbursing for
internet and electricity costs for their employees. Although the State of California does, indeed,
require employers to reimburse for all business costs, a question is raised as to whether they need
to pay for the difference between remote employees’ regular and increased electricity use.
California Labor Code Section 2802 says an employee is entitled to be reimbursed by his or her
employer for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct
consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of
the employer. How that amount would that be calculated, is a question that comes up.
Employee represented by unions may also have a role to play in ensuring their members
get reimbursed for all costs by their employers. Uni Global Union (2022) advises the unions it
represents to push for remote employee rights to ensure freedom of association and collective
bargaining for remote employees while negotiating employment contracts with employers. Uni
Global Union (2022) noted that many employees argue that there should be a difference between
choosing to work remotely under ‘normal’ circumstances, which is not the same thing as during
the COVID-19 crisis since many workers assumed additional child-care and educational duties.
They also could not prepare their home-office environment in time; faced the additional
psychological and physical burdens of lockdown, confinement, and isolation and therefore
deserve compensation (Uni Global Union, 2022). Workplace Analytics (2022) reported that a
typical employer saved $11,000 per year for every full-time employee that worked from home
50% of the time. That’s over $1.1 million per year saved for every 100 half-time telecommuters.
These are very significant savings that many argue should be equally—or at least fairly shared
between organizations and employees.

32
Some employees have sued, seeking legal redress to request that a fair share of these $1.1
million per year savings be distributed between them and the organizations. Making a one-time
investment of $1,000, for example, to provide an employee with home-office furniture will pay
for itself in just a little over a month. Lucas (2022) quoted Amazon, Inc., in its defense to the
lawsuit, argued that these are COVID-19 related expenses weren’t the organization’s obligation
since it wasn’t its choice to send employees home to work remotely in the first place, but it was
following blanket state orders to send everyone home and that the law as written didn’t seem to
have an exception for emergencies. Due to legal reasons, biotechnology organizations are
recruiting remote employees from all States except Colorado. Desai (2022) noted that an obscure
Colorado labor law required that all companies in the State include salary details in job posting.
While some organizations have catered for remote work expenses incurred, lately, remote
employees have variously made complaints to Federal, State and local regulators about not being
paid for expenses related to working from home and are pushing for enactment of laws to cater
for this discrepancy. Time will tell where these lawsuits lead.
Historical Perspective, Trends and Future Outlook of Remote Work
The historical context and perspective of remote work is clear—that it is increasing
almost exponentially over the last couple of decades and based on these trends, it is only going to
continue over time. This number may be slated to rise due to the impacts of the pandemic and for
disaster risk mitigation by biotechnology organizations (Ding & Quan, 2021). This increase may
be attributed to the abrupt switching to remote work to comply with the COVID-19 mandates
and as part of the organizational risk mitigation and disaster recovery requirements.

33
History and Origins of Remote Work in the United States
The history and origins of remote work dates back to over 4 decades ago. The United
States Census (1980) wrote about its tracking of the very first official remote work metric ever
recorded, although different technological and communication systems were utilized at the time.
Gan (2015) traced remote work to its inventor, Jack Nilles, who in 1973 referred to remote work
in a founding document called The Telecommunications-Transportation Tradeoff. Gan (2015)
wrote that the document proposed telecommuting as an alternative to transportation—and an
innovative answer to traffic jams, urban sprawls, and scarcity of nonrenewable resources like oil
and gas. The U.S. Census (1980) found that 39.4% of remote employees at the time were private
company employees (not self-employed) and by 2010, remote employees had grown by over
59%. From 2005 to 2013 the number of U.S. remote employees rose by 80% (Tugend, 2014).
Kane and Tomer (2015) of the Brookings Institution found that the share of American
telecommuters had roughly doubled since 1980, up from 2.3% to 4.5% in 2014. Kane and Tomer
(2015) added that about 13% of all new remote employees between 2000 and 2014 were
telecommuters. The U.S. Census (2020) found that between 2000 and 2010, employees who
worked remotely at least 1 day per week increased by over 4 million to 35%, and the population
of occasional remote employees went up from 9.2 million to 13.4 million that same decade.
Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Remote Work
Pre-COVID-19 well planned remote working lived experiences were meaningfully
different for employees from mandatory remote work in response to that crisis or disaster.
Remote work had seen slow adoption, with some large corporations rescinding their budgetary
support for this practice even though various studies linked remote work to favorable
organizational outcomes (Neo, 2021). In a sequential-mixed-methods research, Neo (2021)

34
collected data from 100 IT remote employees using purposive sampling comprising online
questionnaires as the first step, followed by in-depth interviews with five managers. In that
study, Neo (2021), concluded that remote work support positively impacts employee satisfaction
and organizational citizenship behavior. These pre-COVID-19 requirements were mostly
voluntary for employees as opposed to the COVID-19 situation where most of these voluntary
remote work experiences became mandatory.
Pre-COVID-19, remote work was not widely utilized by many organizations. Kossek et
al. (2022) indicated that prior to the COVID-19 pandemic around March 2020, remote work was
not a widely used practice. Also, a recent American Community Survey (2017) noted that remote
employees in the United States who worked from home at least half of the time grew from 1.8
million in 2005 to 3.9 million in 2017, meaning that remote work at that time constituted just
2.9% of the total United States workforce. DeSilver (2020) noted that remote work was
considered a luxury for the relatively affluent prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, reserved for
such employees as higher-income, white-collar earners. DeSilver (2020) indicated that over 75%
of remote employees had an annual earning capacity above $65,000 and were white-collar
workers, and over 40% of these were executives, managers, or professionals, mostly White.
Because of this situation, prior to COVID-19, most workers had little remote working
experience, and neither they nor their organizations were prepared to support this new, emerging
practice. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, governing authorities like federal, state and
local governments issued social distancing mandates across the board. This forced organizations
to involuntarily shutter their on-premises offices and convert most of their onsite employees into
remote employees. This inadvertently led to what Kniffin et al. (2021) called a de facto global
experiment of remote working, making the current situation become the new normal. This

35
remote work data showed how COVID-19 had a lasting impact on how organizations do
business and how they mitigated disaster via disaster recovery. Disaster recovery was an
organization’s method of regaining access and functionality to its IT infrastructure after events
like a natural disaster, cyberattack, or even business disruptions related to the COVID-19
pandemic (VMware, 2023). The impact of remote work was extensive and long-lasting.
Figure 4
Residential Distribution of Employees of a Company Used as a Case Study in the
Telecommunications-Transportation Tradeoff

36
Note. This demonstrates residential distribution of employees of a company used as a case study
in the telecommunications-transportation tradeoff. From The TelecommunicationsTransportation Tradeoff: Options for Tomorrow by J. M. Nilles, 1973, BookSurge Publishing.
Copyright 1973 by BookSurge Publishing.
Figure 5
Organizational Evolution of Telecommuting at Two Different Companies
Note. This demonstrates organizational evolution of telecommuting at two different companies.
From The Telecommunications-Transportation Tradeoff: Options for Tomorrow by J. M. Nilles,
1973, BookSurge Publishing. Copyright 1973 by BookSurge Publishing.

37
Future Outlook of Remote Work
The future outlook of remote work is a mixed bag as remote work drivers, including
DWT and employee skill advancements, gain momentum. Many organizations are requiring
employees to return to the office to work on-premises after the COVID-19 pandemic. Gartner
(2020) revealed in their chief financial officer survey that some 74% of organizations have
budget allocations with the intent to shift some employees to remote work permanently.
Organizations are enabling digital workplace transformation (DWT). This requires
organizational employees to shift from a fixed to a growth mindset. Dweck (2006) indicated that
a growth mindset is the belief that you can improve your abilities and talents with effort and
persistence, not just talent or luck. A fixed mindset on the other hand is the belief that one’s
intelligence, talents and other abilities are set in stone. One believes that they're born with a
particular set of skills and that one can't change them, and if one has a fixed mindset, one will
likely fear that they may not be smart or talented enough to achieve their goals (Dweck, 2006).
Ding and Quan, G. (2021) found that 37% of jobs in the United States can be performed entirely
at home, with significant variation across cities and industries. These jobs typically pay more
than jobs that cannot be done at home and account for 46% of all U.S. wages. This number may
be slated to rise due to the impacts of the pandemic and for disaster risk mitigation by
biotechnology organizations (Ding & Quan, 2021). Twenty-nine percent of wage and salary
workers could work at home in their primary job in 2017–18, and 25% did work at home at least
occasionally. This is illustrated clearly in Figure 6.

38
Figure 6
Percent Wage/Salary Disparities Between Remote Employees of Color and Whites
Note. This illustrates the percentage of wage and salary workers able to work at home, 2017-18.
From 29 Percent of Wage and Salary Workers Could Work at Home in Their Primary Job in
2017–18 by United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. United States
(https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2019/29-percent-of-wage-and-salary-workers-could-work-athome-in-their-primary-job-in-2017-18.htm). In the public domain.
The COVID-19 worldwide pandemic accelerated remote work deployment for both
employees and organizations. Neely (2022) noted that the rapid changes brought on by the
COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the transition to remote work, requiring the wholesale

39
migration of nearly entire organizations to virtual work within weeks. The Pew Research
Institute (2021) noted that when it began systematically tracking Americans’ internet usage in
early 2000, only about half of all adults were already online, but, today, 93% of American adults
use the internet. The future outlook illustrates that remote work implementation may increase
exponentially as part of the new DWT model, which requires the application of digital
technologies that offer new ways for employee collaboration and bringing distributed remote
teams into virtual proximity to increase organizational effectiveness (Colbert et al. 2016).
Remote work has enabled biotechnology organizations to move with haste from their
analog, stand-alone, data center-based, onsite model towards a more decentralized, virtual cloud
environments within a DWT model. Sytch and Greer (2020) argued that the post-pandemic work
will be hybrid, that is, remote work away from onsite environments at least part of the time will
increase and become more prevalent in the future. Indeed, large technology companies like
Facebook and Twitter have announced that their employees may elect to work from home
permanently or indefinitely, post-pandemic.
Remote work is trending upwards since it was first tracked by the United States Census
in 1980 and recently since the COVID-19 pandemic in the first quarter of 2020. Kniffin et al.
(2021) noted that it was both a global health crisis and an international economic threat and the
business community had to improvise to survive the industry shutdowns that were implemented
and mandated across the world to curb the spread of the virus, which generated a wide array of
unique challenges for employees and employers. Kniffin et al. (2021) noted that at the individual
level, populations of shutdown-affected employees were turned overnight into (a) work from
home employees, (b) essential or life-sustaining workers (e.g., emergency room medical
personnel and supermarket staff), or (c) furloughed or laid-off employees seeking the nation-

40
specific equivalent of unemployment benefits. Kniffin et al. (2021) indicated that prior to the
COVID-19 situation, most workers had little remote working experience. The census data
continued to show growth: between 1980 and 2000, remote employees grew to become the
majority, over self-employed workers (Kniffin et al. (2021). Remote work is on the increase.
Employee remote work adoption has been tied to schedule flexibility (Shabanpour et al.,
2018). Upwork research estimates that one in four Americans or over 26% of the American
workforce will be working remotely through 2021 and that 22% of the workforce (36.2 million
Americans) will work remotely by 2025. An Owl Labs (2022) study showed more than 4.7
million employees worked remotely at least half the time in the United States while 16% of
organizations globally implemented remote work fully, with only 44% not allowing remote work
of any kind. These numbers quite are significant, showing positive movement towards remote
work direction.
Relevance
Exploring the history of remote work is relevant to this dissertation for two reasons. First,
it demonstrates how shifts in the economy and nature of work have always required innovation
and adaptation in remote work and DWT initiatives. Gartner (2020) survey revealed that 74% of
chief financial officers had allocated funds with the intent of shifting some employees to remote
work permanently. Second, a deeper look into remote work adaptation uncovers the need for an
organizational shift to adapt faster, as quicker adaptation generates earlier economic benefits for
them. This then leads them to have competitive advantage over their competitors.
Work-Life Balance
Work-life balance is a vital factor in the successful implementation of remote work
organizationally, in in the United States. Work-life balance can be loosely defined as the amount

41
of time one spends doing one’s job compared with the amount of time one spends with family
and doing that which one enjoys. It is a common term employed to describe finding balance
between work and personal commitments. Soni and Bakhru (2019) surmised that work-life
balance was not that simple and was not a division of equal number of hours to personal and
work life, as the term suggests. Martinez-Amador (2016) indicated that work-location enjoyment
mediated productivity, especially for remote employees who worked remotely more than 3 days
per week. But what was apparent to all these researchers was that working from home was
associated with greater work-life balance. Conversely, Gambhir (2020) argued that work-life
balance was impossible to accomplish and that during the COVID-19 pandemic, many remote
employees were still unable to switch off from work. There is a need for further research into the
work-life balance and wellness factor of remote employees and whether it is influenced by a lack
of organizational support combined with COVID-19 related stress. Work-life balance can be a
subjective application of time to the level of prioritization between personal and professional
activities in an employees’ life and the level to which work activities are carried to their homes.
Benefits and Challenges of Remote Work
There are remote work benefits and challenges for biotechnology organizations and their
employees. An example of benefits is when Neely (2022) noted that remote work enabled
organizations to build and lead a culture of trust and inclusivity in distributed teams across
geographical areas and time zones. Conversely, an example of challenges was when Uni Global
Union (2022) noted that challenges may include risks for employees linked to remote work, such
as these six challenges, including increased isolation and mental health issues; lower levels of
innovation and creativity; intensified workloads; longer working hours; digital connection
problems; and a blurring of professional and private life. There can include a myriad of these

42
five challenges: health and safety issues; the need for appropriate compensation; strains on the
employment relationship; worker surveillance, and notably; greater hurdles for trade unions to
organize, negotiate collective agreements, and communicate in an increasingly virtual and digital
format. The benefits for both organizations and their employees will be examined first, followed
by challenges for organizations and employees as well.
Benefits of Remote Work for Biotechnology Organizations
Many biotechnology organizations benefit when their employees engage in remote work
because it helps create organizational equity, efficiency and improve competitive advantage.
Biotechnology is defined by the Oxford (2022) dictionary as the exploitation of biological
processes for industrial, commercial, and other purposes. One advantage of remote work is the
equity of voice. For example, one noticeable advantage of remote work, was that it was an
equalizer, with equity of voice, created through online videoconference meeting software
applications like Zoom where rank and file employees can for example openly tell their CEO or
managers: “You are on mute!” followed by laughter and/or amusement in All Hands meetings,
and not get any repercussions for it.
There are actions that may be taken by organizations to build a remote work, talent-first
remote work-location strategy. Gartner (2020) identified four actions organizations may take to
build a talent-first remote work-location strategy that helped organizations as far as remote work
was concerned: gain a competitive advantage; meet and exceed diversity representation goals;
plan for long-term sustainability; and mitigate geopolitical risks. Neely (2022) noted that remote
work enabled organizations to build and lead a culture of trust and inclusivity in distributed
teams across geographical areas and time zones. Another benefit was that HR departments in
these organizations have appreciated the larger pool of qualified global job applicants.

43
Choudhoury (2020) noted that employers with liberal work from anywhere (WFA) arrangements
were 4.4% more productive than those following a more traditional work-from-home policy.
Consequently, WFA appear to be a more productive policy than work from home (WFH) policy.
This fact would need to be embraced, although employees may risk double taxation implications
(a tax principle referring to income taxes paid twice on the same source of income, which may
occur when income is taxed at both the corporate level and personal level).
Organizations benefit financially and protect their bottom line when employees work
remotely through onsite capital expenditures (CAPEX) and operating expenditures (OPEX)
savings. These savings may be in rent, utilities, building maintenance, cleaning, and provision of
restaurant and gymnasium facilities for employees as well as workplace equipment like furniture.
Lifesize Meeting Solutions (2022) summarized the benefits of remote work for companies as
follows: Real estate needs are significantly reduced when only a handful of staff members are
onsite, remote employees reduce the costs related to the necessities that keep an office operating,
and the average U.S. worker spends almost an hour a day commuting to and from work. That lost
time can be spent on work-related projects. Hiring remote employees in various strategic
locations allowed enterprise organizations have a greater presence in that region via employees
who knew the local language, culture, and customs. Therefore, organizational savings from the
purchase and/or expansion of onsite buildings and on electric power, water utilities, and the
provision of office meals was a realized, tangible benefit. Lastly, organizations also saved on
expenses like purchase of, or rental of work premises, and the provision of employee services
like outfitting breakrooms, gymnasiums, and cafeterias.
To this end, biotech organizations that had initially invested financial resources toward
CAPEX and OPEX expenditures appreciate these savings, financial resources that enhances their

44
competitive advantage and/or ensures their survival. For them, benefits may include significantly
reduced real estate needs since only a few staff members needed to be onsite. Also, remote
employees reduced the on-premises costs related to computers, phones, electricity, heating and
air conditioning bills and other necessities. The average United States worker spent almost an
hour a day commuting to and from work. That lost time could be better spent on work-related
tasks. Lastly, hiring remote employees allowed enterprise organizations to hire from an expanded
pool of candidates in geographically dispersed locations with internet access.
Remote work ensured these organizations built and enhanced a culture of trust and
inclusivity. Kanter (2020) noted that a leadership paradigm of the future has been thrust upon
organizations to overcome establishment challenges and produce significant innovation to
confront significant challenges like the COVID-19 worldwide pandemic. Neely (2022) noted that
to excel in the virtual-work landscape, organizations must learn how to build trust, increase
productivity, use digital tools intelligently, and remain fully aligned with their remote teams. To
this end, organizations have had to move employee projects, work tasks, data and information
into the cloud to empower and enable them to work remotely with internet access.
There are other organizational benefits associated with switching to a remote work job
design. Organizations offering workplace flexibility can distinguish themselves as employers of
choice (Kossek et al., 2014). To reiterate, organizations that offer the option of working away
from the central work site can attract the most qualified candidates for vacancies, regardless of
employer location. This, in turn fosters a happier employee and vibrant organizational culture.
Benefits of Remote Work for Biotechnology Employees
There are benefits not just for biotechnology organizations, but for employees as well.
Biotechnology organizations employees who work remotely save money, appear healthier, are

45
deemed happier, and have a stable mental health. Buffer (2022) found that there was a notable
alignment between the remote work experiences being overall positive, with 90% of remote
employees describing their experience as very or somewhat positive while only 10% said it was
somewhat or very negative. Lifesize Meeting Solutions (2020) noted that employees saved up to
$4,000 per year working from home, half of the year. Neely (2022) found that the resultant
benefits of remote working for workers included nonexistent commute times and some
organizations planned to permanently incorporate remote days or provide employees the option
to work from home full-time. Remote employees become happier, motivated and maintain
discipline that trickles down to organizational benefits, a plus for employees and organizations.
Remote employees gain freedom and flexibility as they gain work-life balance suitable
for their work and home life. This may include in areas like choosing their work locations and
whether or not to work synchronously (existing or occurring at the same time) or asynchronously
(not existing or happening at the same time) with their teams in different geographical locations.
Lumapps internet Report (2022) reported that remote employees had the freedom to manage
their own schedules and the flexibility to, for example, attend to medical appointments, watch
the kids’ soccer or basketball games, or provide caretaking for elderly parents’ shopping and
living support. Liu (2022) a journalist at CNBC News channel illustrated in her reporting that
Atlassian, an Australia-based software organization with employees around the world, allowed
its 7,388 employees to relocate to another city or country where the organization had an
established presence and accommodated time zones in their “Team Anywhere” policy.
Consequently, due to this flexible policy, nearly 300 Atlassian employees had the freedom to
move to a new country, and hundreds more relocated within Australia itself (Liu, 2022). This
was profound remoting.

46
Another noticeable remote work benefit was that employees working remotely were no
longer bound to one work location. Lumapps internet Report (2022) illustrated that remote
employees were no longer bound to a city that did not correspond to their standards or
preference, which also helped avoid unnecessary traveling, concluding that as long as an
employee has a good internet Wi-Fi connection one could work from any location in the world.
Lumapps internet Report (2022) also indicated that some employees were more productive if
working in total silence to focus, and that working from home allowed for creative thinking and
greater productivity as the adage “silence is golden” applied to some. This boon illustrated the
major WFA advantage for remote employees who were empowered with the freedom and
flexibility. While it is understandable that geographical and time zone flexibility for employees
was beneficial, it was appreciated that some essential employees needed to work onsite. For
example, those that worked in research and development facilities onsite; those needing secure
access to laboratory facilities in order to undertake research and development experiments; those
caretakers responsible for laboratory assets like live animal specimens, security and building
facilities; as well as personnel like landscapers, manufacturing and shipping and receiving. The
majority of employees could work remotely, subject to individual organizational HR evaluations.
Another benefit was that remote work could afford employees some level of work
schedule flexibility to balance their work and family or life responsibilities. Remote employees
reported perceptions of higher autonomy and higher psychological control over schedule
flexibility compared to their non-remote counterparts. Lastly, remote employees also benefited
from less distractions, spending more time focusing on their work tasks.

47
Challenges of Remote Work for Organizations
A myriad of challenges confront biotechnology organizations when employees transition
to remote work as this job design model becomes increasingly popular while their managers and
organizations struggle to cope with the fallout. One noticeable challenge for organizational
managers was that remote work success depended heavily on monitoring, and whether managers
could trust their employees to do their work even if they couldn’t see them, as well as hold them
accountable for delivery. Neely (2022) noted that for managers, it meant knowing how to lead
fully remote teams, developing ways to keep teams motivated, monitored, connected, and
productive while for executive leadership, shifting to remote work solutions meant rapidly
advancing the organizational digital footprint, moving business computer systems to the cloud,
utilizing cloud storage, considering and securing their organizations against increased
cybersecurity risks and exposure, embracing DWT and deploying new digital tools via SaaS
(Software as a Service) subscription models to increase workforce productivity. Examples
include prioritizing or fast-tracking expensive DWT initiatives, increasing of budget allocation,
as well as implementing employee and manager training. Kaufman et al. (2018) noted that some
organizations struggled to implement mindfulness employee training that enhanced selfregulation and facilitated flow states for employee optimal performance. Bhave (2020) noted
organizations were leaning more toward adopting and developing technologies to monitor
employees’ whereabouts in lieu of managing-by-walking-around or via sight lines. These
challenges need to be resolved for organizational survival, competitiveness, and risk mitigation.
Another challenge of remote work for organizations is a lack of employee leadership
grooming and advancement by managers through employee-manager shadowing due to lack of
proximity. This may be attributed to be proximity bias (Udavant, 2022). Scipioni (2022) quoted

48
former Google CEO of 14 years Eric Schmidt, a traditionalist, who said that it was important for
employees to be at the office, arguing that for decades, the in-office style had been proven
effective in leadership grooming. Scipioni (2022) quoted Schmidt’s example of conversations
about professionalism—which could be particularly necessary at organizations full of young
employees aged of 25 and 35—being harder to have virtually and that in-office settings were
best to more effectively develop their management styles. Mr. Schmidt stated that some workers
could possess specialized roles that did not require much in-person communication. Others may
dislike the office’s social nature, and many were probably not looking forward to reintegrating
lengthy commutes into their schedules. Mr. Schmidt affirmed in his speech that the large-scale
movement to permanently work remotely denies at least 30 to 40 years of workplace experience
to remote work employees (Scipioni, 2022). This remote work statement is debatable.
Mr. Schmidt’s answer summarized conversation that asserted that white-collar employees
were highly specialized and did not require a lot of in-person communication, as they disliked
office politics as a means of career progression and advancement and would rather their work
spoke for themselves as far as job promotion was concerned, which made a lot of sense.
Challenges of remote work may also lead to one of the prominent issues that employees contend
with, called proximity bias (Udavant, 2022). Proximity bias occurs when organizations prefer,
then favor employees working and living closer to the workplace, giving them more
opportunities to succeed because they were physically present.
Challenges of Remote Work for Biotechnology Employees
Many challenges beleaguer biotechnology employees as they navigate the difficult
remote work landscape imposed on them by their organizations without requisite skills and/or
training to maintain and sustain their roles while achieving positive job outcomes. For clarity,

49
maintain in this instance means to do what is needed to keep up and/or ensure something stays a
certain state or quality while sustain means to hold something at a certain level ensuring what is
being held does not quickly fall or fade if not sustained. For more clarity, things that are just
merely maintained would decay over a longer time period if neglected, while sustained things
require continuous, ongoing maintenance efforts to avoid decay. Remote work needs both.
Effective collaboration with team members is one of the key challenges of remote work
for biotechnology organizational employees. Neely (2022) found that for employees, it meant
having to learn to collaborate effectively with colleagues and team members who were virtual,
rarely seen in person, and not in real time. Korkmaz (2021) wrote that these limitations of
person-to-person contact had caused employees to rapidly implement, maintain and sustain new
“home offices,” a new business buzzword of 2020, which continue to describe the everyday life
of many white-collar employees. Bhave (2020) indicated that while organizations were adopting
and developing technologies to monitor employees’ whereabouts—for example with sociometric
sensors and badges in lieu of employees managing-by-walking-around or via sight lines—some
employees think this to be a violation of their privacy. Sociometric sensors, according to ItoMasui (2020) are wearable sensor technology that enables objective data collection of direct
human interactions and captures human interactions that correlate with social constructs such as
employee teamwork and productivity in the office. As a reminder, Udavant (2022) indicated that
one of the prominent issues that remote employees deal with may be proximity bias. Gartner
(2020) found that some remote employees missed working from the office with their teammates.
Thus, specific SES impacts of remote work would need to be studied further and addressed.
Remote employees need to aspire to achieve mastery versus success in remote work to
reduce negative mental effects. Mastery in this instance means not merely a commitment to a

50
goal but achieving a curved line of constant pursuit. Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory
applies to the employee’s ability and confidence of solving remote work problems in most
instances. Within remote work implementation initiatives, Zimmer et al. (2020) argued that a
research question that would need to be addressed—as far as DWT was concerned—was, “How
does an organization implement DWT by triggering deinstitutionalization of established
workplace practices and without disenfranchising the socioeconomically poor and employees of
color?” Organizations implementing remote work learning initiatives would need to create
mindful learning that may directly influence the development mastery experience by improving
the acquisition of knowledge, remaining open to feedback, and enhancing focus and awareness.
Mindful learning is a concept encouraging a more intentional and focused approach to learning,
which involves being present in the moment, fully engaged with the task at hand, and cultivating
a sense of curiosity and openness.
Remote employee best practices training by organizations is therefore key to the success
of remote work. Study findings by Davenport and Pagnini (2016) revealed that mindful learning
techniques were effective in improving mastery experience. A benefit offered by this research
model is that it may provide a concise causal model of the SES and other structural factors
associated with remote work utilization within organizations. The mindful learning model is also
generic enough to study the dynamics of remote work adoption and use in a wide range of
workplaces, and not just in biotechnology organizational settings. Its components (drivers,
processes, and impact/outcomes) provide broad categories capable of accommodating the
multiplicity of variables identified within the literature. It is also robust enough to be utilized in
its entirety or in its component parts of drivers, processes, and impact/outcomes to examine the
specific factors of remote work adoption within organizations. Some of these challenges for

51
remote employees of color result from long-standing inequities, enhanced by a lack of exposure
to remote work tools due to their lower SES poverty factors.
Negative Mental and Physical Aspects of Remote Work
Remote employees for the past couple of years have had to experience negative mental
health effects because the sudden change from on-premises to remote work burdened them. For
some employees, remote work caused socioeconomic, physical, psychological and mental health
challenges. Edmondson (2019) proposed a step-by-step organizational leader’s toolkit for
creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth to combat
the negative mental health challenges of remote work. Some employees have had to contend
with hospitalizations or death of themselves or of a close family member, friend or relative from
COVID-19, exacerbating mental health issues. Although this study focused on remote work preCOVID-19, it is worth mentioning that Kniffin et al. (2021) surmised that given the uncertainty
and breadth of the COVID-19 pandemic shock, work and organizational psychologists needed to
apply the field’s current knowledge for the purpose of sense-making. This would help employees
and organizations manage risks while simultaneously developing and applying remote work
DWT toolkit solutions (like cloud computing, remote access to cloud systems, etc.). As a result,
the over-extended use of digital technology may provoke technostress and/or burnout (Dittes et
al., 2019). Technostress was a worrying phenomenon within the remote work job design context.
There may not exist sufficient, large evidence-based research gathered regarding mental
aspects afflicting remote employees. Grant (2013) argued that remote employees were faced with
increased psychological challenges and risks regardless, especially during the COVID-19
worldwide pandemic. Scipioni (2022) in his CNBC news reporting quoted former Google CEO
Eric Schmidt discouraging remote work and highlighting the fact that there was much evidence

52
that humans were social, and that the current virtual tools were not the same as the informal
networks that occur within an organization. In a recent public opinion poll of 1000 remote
employees, American Psychiatric Association (2021) found that a 75% majority reported
negative mental health impacts including isolation, loneliness and difficulty getting away from
work or in front of the computer at the end of the day while 17% said they were impacted by
mental health factors all the time. The poll showed that while it kept employees safe from
COVID-19 and brought some benefits, remote work also meant many felt lonely and isolated.
Unfortunately for remote employees, organizations retaliated against employees who
were found to have sought mental health care. American Psychiatric Association (2021) also
found that 40% were concerned about retaliation from employers if they were to seek mental
health care or take time off for mental health self-care. The poll highlighted a disturbing lack of
the possibly hackneyed DEI initiatives since Black and Hispanic employees were somewhat
more concerned about retaliation than were their higher SES White counterparts with higher
access to technology. American Psychiatric Association (2021) wrote that one in 7 employees
reported that their employers offered mental health apps, such as Calm or Headspace, or mental
health training for supervisors and managers. However, other studies noted the hybridization of
work and leisure spaces may have had major critical implications on the time people dedicate to
work, family, and leisure and on their health, career, personal growth and relationships (Kossek,
2016). In a literature review by Wang (2020), who conducted a mixed-methods investigation to
explore the challenges experienced by 522 remote employees during the pandemic, he found that
virtual-work characteristics were linked to worker’s performance and well-being.
Due to these mental aspects of remote work, a United Nations (2015) report noted that in
the light of overall sustainable development, the well-being and the “full and productive

53
employment” of two of their 17 Sustainable Development Goals were seriously threatened.
United Nations (2015) observed that new research needed to be conducted due to the fact that
almost none of the studies were conducted at a time when remote work was practiced at such an
unprecedented scale as it had been during the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with unique
demands of that time. Also, some, if not most of the previously accumulated knowledge on
remote work may lack contextual relevance in the current COVID-19 crisis and therefore at the
very least, a need for investigative research on how this context shaped remote work experience.
Employees also become afflicted with stress and other mental illnesses as they navigate
the challenging remote work model. As family structures become more heterogeneous and
demanding, and work from home pressures increase, an organization’s culture is becoming one
of the main sources of stress, and there is a need for intervention to match the requirements of
work and life. (Beigi et al., 2018; Klein et al., 2019; Timms et al., 2015). Conversely, Allen et al.
(2015) found that while the direction of work–family conflict (work interference with family
versus family interference with work) made a slight difference in negative mental effects, the
significant effects were small in magnitude overall, but present, nevertheless. Sell (2021)
stressed the importance of organizational focus on the well-being of employees by highlighting
workplace leadership’s role in employee well-being. American Psychiatric Association (2020)
noted that employers increasingly recognized that untreated mental health conditions, like
depression and anxiety, led to costly organizational challenges, including: absenteeism;
significantly reduced productivity; and increased health care and disability costs.
Notwithstanding, organizations could mitigate mental issues via different approaches.
One of them could be via American Psychiatric Association’s provided resource—the Center for
Workplace Mental Health—whose mission was to provide tools, resources and information in

54
the form of issuing toolkits and webinars. American Psychiatric Association as an organization
had additional good news that was a resource for organizations: that the center recently released
an e-learning training for managers on supporting employees and their family’s mental health
needs. Post-COVID-19 pandemic, the external SES factors were persistent and continued to be
unabated. While organizations and employees were acclimatizing to this new reality and societal
upheaval, the American Psychiatric Association found that Americans struggled to cope with the
disruptions COVID-19 caused, with 78% of adults saying the pandemic was a significant source
of stress while 67% said they experienced increased stress over the course of that pandemic.
While remote work had largely beneficial consequences for some employees, others
experienced challenges due to its impromptu, mandatory implementation, and high-intensity
mode during COVID-19. American Psychiatric Association (2020) listed socioeconomic
stressors and trauma for friends and families of those who died from COVID-19, with trauma for
those infected, those who faced long recoveries, and for Americans whose lives were disrupted.
This included job loss, un-attendance to celebratory and life milestone events like graduations
and birthdays as financial distress continued unabated, long-term. For employees, some of these
challenges were: a growing sense of isolation, the tendency for lack of structure, the feeling of
career stagnancy, and the ever-shifting work-life balance (Lucid Content Team, 2021).
Negative mental health challenges provided some avenue for initiative employees and
managers inventing new work methods. In the absence of regular collaboration, employees, and
managers often scheduled meetings to ensure everyone stayed productive (Lucid Content Team
(2021). This became counterproductive because too many meetings could disrupt the natural
flow of work and individual productivity, create project delays in anticipation of upcoming
meetings, and take time away from hitting task deadlines, breeding resentment if the intent was

55
perceived as employee check-in. Sene (2019) found 82% of remote employees experienced
burnout. There was need for further study on remote work consequences on employees based on
socioeconomic mechanisms, especially in DEI perspectives on employees.
A lack of mindfulness leads to challenges of remote work. Mindfulness, according to
American Psychiatric Association (2021), is a mental state achieved by focusing one’s awareness
on the present moment while calmly acknowledging and accepting one’s feelings, thoughts, and
bodily sensations. Teletherapy subscriptions may be a new way for organizations to address
negative mental health in their employees (Cohen & Sherman, 2014) as an added option to their
medical subscriptions. Employees may benefit from employer-paid services like free immediate
access to teletherapy with a therapist of their choice and at a time that fits their schedule, and
through a medium of choice as often as they need (American Psychiatric Association, 2020).
Biotechnology Organizations and Employee Inequities
Biotechnology organizations in the United States foster employee inequities between
their highly qualified white-collar employees who can choose remote work with ease and
assembly line production employees who don’t have an option to work remotely. Richter (2022)
found that these organizations have experienced large-scale commercialization of their market
products and are fairly new to the scene. They could be labeled as a new age industry and even
possibly be compared or be placed in the same category and age group as information
technologies, big data, and artificial intelligence (Richter, 2022).
There is a fascinating historical context for biotechnology. The Biotechnology Innovation
Organization Magazine (BIOM, 2021) found that emerging, new age biotechnology
organizations over the last couple of decades emerged quickly, mostly in the east and west coasts
of the United States, experiencing exponential growth in both technological advancements and

56
business growth. BIOM (2021) defined biotechnology as technology based on biology,
harnessing cellular and biomolecular processes to develop technologies and products that help
improve and elongate human lives and the health of the planet. Biomolecular technologies were
utilized in biological processes of micro-organisms for more than 6,000 years (BIOM, 2021). For
making and preserving food products, the monetization of biotechnology was relatively new,
measured in tens, rather than hundreds of years and there were more than 250 biotechnology
health care products and vaccines available, many for previously untreatable, genetic diseases
(BIOM, 2021). Also, more than 13.3 million farmers worldwide used agricultural biotechnology
to increase yields, prevent damage, and reducing farming’s environmental impact (BIOM, 2021).
While biotechnology has become a partner in human longevity, its application extends
beyond human medical and therapeutic applications. BIOM (2021) noted that more than 50 biorefineries were currently being built across North America to test and refine technologies to
produce biofuels and chemicals from renewable biomass, which could help reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. Consequently, investors were amenable to lending to biotechnology start-ups due
to their high growth potential, for the hope of extracting a higher return on their investments.
Biotechnology organizations display many distinguishing characteristics. Professional
biotech engineers working in areas like research and development were highly specialized, some
requiring academic doctorates or master’s degrees to be hired. Also, its leadership and senior
scientists tend to be younger, high salaried, white-collar, higher or middle-class, White
individuals with advanced degrees in medicine, research, analytics or related fields. Inversely,
however, biotechnology organizations also tend to also hire blue collar, non-degree employees
for their pharmaceutical manufacturing production lines. Another characteristic was biotech
organizations tend to cluster in metropolis, increasing living expenses while driving away

57
employees of color yet conversely attracting affluent, middle-class employees. The differences in
employee classes tend to create imbalances and disparities in remote work outcomes.
Another unique characteristic for biotech was that they are led and staffed by younger
staff members. BIOM (2021) noted that due to the fact that degrees specific to biotechnology
specializations were taught in university colleges within the last 20 years (BIOM (2021).
Another notable fact was that entry-level, advanced-degree holders tend to be compensated at
lower levels than their senior-level counterparts. This exacerbates remote work inequities.
Lastly, commercialization of biotechnology by life sciences and drug manufacturing
organizations increased exponentially globally of late. This exposes inequities between highly
qualified white-collar employees and employees of color and blue-collar factory assembly line
workers. These inequities increased due to salary and a lack of exposure to remote work tools.
The Ecology of Human Development Conceptual Framework
Extant human ecology of human development theories posits there are interrelationships
between organic and inorganic elements impacting the life of a child and its environment. The
ecology of human development, also known as Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory,
posits that there are interrelationships within the environment a child grows up in that affect
every facet of their lives. Bubolz and Sontag (2009) wrote that interrelationships—both organic
and inorganic—evolved to serve a purpose in the explanation and understanding of social
organization concerned with human interactions and interdependence. Bronfenbrenner (1979)
showed that remote work could be viewed through this framework as an environmental attribute
enabling proximal processes’ progressively more complex personal environmental interactions.
These interactions contributed to positive outcomes for employers, employees, their
friends and their families. This ecological systems theory postulates that the individual was best

58
understood in the context of the interaction between the characteristics of the person and his or
her immediate environment. Bronfenbrenner (1979) organized the contexts of child development
into five nested, concentric circles of environmental systems, with bidirectional influences within
and among systems. This ecological systems theory emerged prior to the internet revolution and
the developmental impact of the available technology (like personal computers and cellphones)
was conceptually situated in the child’s microsystem. Bronfenbrenner (1989) posited that social
factors determined one’s way of thinking, the emotions one felt, and their likes and dislikes. This
theory provided that environmental influences on child development situated the child within a
system of relationships affected by multiple levels of their immediate, surrounding environment.
Creating a conceptual framework as a lens though which to view a research study was
key. Maxwell (2006) asserted that creating a conceptual framework for research was important
and emphasized that dissertations were intended to provide focus, design, and justification of a
study. Navarro et al. (2022) noted that the bioecological theory was developed in the 20th
century and required significant modifications to reflect some of the most ubiquitous contexts in
which adolescents learnt, played, and grew in—the technological and virtual ones. Drilling
(2021) illustrated that the difference between theoretical and conceptual frameworks was a scale
referring to the big ideas and to the smaller ones. The conceptual framework is therefore a set of
specific ideas that could be used within the larger theoretical contextual framework.
For this study, the specific human ecological theory being utilized as a conceptual
framework is the ecology of human development, also known as Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
systems theory. This theory was created by Bronfenbrenner (1979) and provides a viewpoint of
the “developing person, the environment, and the interaction between the two” (p. 3).
Bronfenbrenner’s theoretical framework focuses on the environment and the interactions

59
between individuals and their environment (Berry, 1995). The study’s social ecology model is
set within the five concentric systems of the ecological systems theory. The theory provides a
lens in which to view the interrelationship between the individual and the environment, to better
understand the socioeconomic barriers that impede remote employees of color from achieving
equity in remote work experiences in biotechnology organizations in the United States.
Proximal processes were applied to this research. The “form, power, content, and
direction of the proximal processes” (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 621) was under examination.
Coined by Bronfenbrenner (1979), proximal processes are the experiences the person actively
participates in, including the activities, roles, and relations that make up the microsystem in each
setting. The term specifically refers to the interaction between a child and their caregiver, which
may include parents, teachers, counselors, grandparents, or nanny. The framework’s proximal
processes constitute the “engines of development” (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000), which is
one of the most accepted explanations regarding the influence of social environments on human
development. Johnson and Puplampu (2008) modified this ecological systems theory, arguing
that the techno-subsystem began from the innermost ecological system in child development.
The system even preceded the microsystem, and went from the individual, out into more and
more complex and interconnected layers of the development of particular attributes. The technosubsystem will be the first of five concentric circles utilized in this study.
The conceptual framework resided in the understanding that the impacts of—and the role
of—SES factors played in impacting employees of color as far as remote work was concerned,
within biotechnology organizations in the United States. The basis of this research could help
deconstruct the complexity of issues associated with remote work. This framework could ensure
the identification of other variables that could influence the relationship between remote work’s

60
dependent and independent variables. Mensah et al. (2020) suggested that the theoretical
framework in a study was based on an existing theory, and a conceptual framework could be
developed from this theory. Mensah et al. (2020), found that the framework was to be used to
inform a conceptual framework which embodied specific direction by which the research has to
be undertaken. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) termed the theoretical framework as generating
elements of the research design and methods, whereas Robson and McCartan (2016) emphasized
variable relationships and research design. These factors are to be embraced in this study.
This study is to be viewed through the techno-subsystem, a new, inner layer preceding
the microsystem in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. This ecological system theory
innermost layer was proposed by Johnson and Puplampu (2008) and was a newer, inner layer.
This system was close to everyone and was so important and centrally located and related to
mental influences on child development (Johnson & Puplampu, 2008) and has to be related to the
remote employee as well. According to Johnson (2010), the techno-subsystem was a plug and
play system for remote work, and include the internet, computers, portable video and audio
devices, telephones, cellphones, software, television, and ebooks. This techno-subsystem
encompasses this study’s conceptual framework because it comes ready as a plug and play
system. This system and theory informs this new techno-subsystem: a new dimension of the
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) model of the ecological systems theory. This techno-subsystem
dimension within Bronfenbrenner’s theory illustrated both organic and inorganic external
environmental and SES factors that influence humanity due to the opportunities and resources
associated with one’s various demographics and upbringing. The techno-subsystem affected all
child development, including employees of color who had more, less or no exposure to the
internet, computers, and portable video and audio devices in their childhood and background.

61
To reiterate, the techno-subsystem as the innermost concentric circle in the ecological
system theory, grounded this research. Johnson and Puplampu (2008) suggested that the technosubsystem was an inner dimension preceding the microsystem. This included child interactions
with both organic and human elements (e.g., communicator) and inorganic or nonhuman (e.g.,
hardware) elements of information, communication, and recreation digital technologies
highlighted the importance of technology in children’s development. Johnson (2010) observed
that the ecological techno-subsystem include child interaction with both living (e.g., family,
peers) and nonliving (e.g., computers, video games) elements of communication, information,
and recreation technologies in immediate or direct environments. Common uses of the internet
during childhood include communicating (e.g., email), accessing information (i.e., visiting
websites), and playing video games. Johnson and Puplampu (2008) indicated that the technosubsystem provided a comprehensive framework of environmental influences on development by
situating the child within a system of relationships affected by multiple levels of the surrounding
environment. Bronfenbrenner (1979) argued that if one changes their environment, change
would be inevitable, and they would change. If one moved to another country, for example, with
a different culture, their identity would certainly change. The same could happen if one’s social
role in one of the five systems changed. The techno-subsystem emphasizes technology’s role in
child development, encouraging a holistic exploration of the developmental consequences of
internet use during childhood. The ecological techno-subsystem also provide a theoretical
framework for examining the impact of technological advances (inevitable and unimaginable) on
new and up-coming generations. The study was cognizant of any of these changes.
In this study therefore, the updated human ecological systems theory with the technosubsystem, was utilized. It starts from the remote employee of color as the central subject out

62
into more complex and interconnected layers of human development with particular attributes.
Updated by Johnson and Puplampu (2008) as the first ecological systems theory’s inner
concentric circle, the techno-subsystem includes the internet, computers, portable video and
audio devices, telephone and cellphones, software, television, and eBooks. This makes the
microsystem second in the ecology of human development. The microsystem refers to the
immediate environment and includes home and school interactions. The third is the mesosystem,
composed of connections between immediate environments (e.g., home-school interactions). The
fourth system, the exosystem, including environmental settings that indirectly affect child
development. Fifth is the macrosystem refers to overarching social ideologies and cultural
values. Lastly, the chronosystem traces the effect of time on systems developmental processes.
The conceptual model (Figure 7) showcases five nested structures of concentric systems,
or the levels of interrelationships individuals are exposed to in their environment
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). These interrelationships are both organic and inorganic (Bubolz &
Sontag, 2009). Johnson and Puplampu (2008) updated this ecological systems theory by adding
an inner concentric system called the techno-subsystem, which is being utilized in this study.
This updated new inner concentric system called the techno-subsystem explains
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory that explores the microsystem, mesosystem,
exosystem, and macrosystem through a lens that presumes the inner circles are influential in
shaping remote employees of color. Bronfenbrenner’s theoretical framework focuses on the
environment and the interactions between individuals and their environment (Berry, 1995).
Conversely, the techno-subsystem focuses on inorganic computer tools that employees of color
are exposed to.

63
Figure 7
The Ecology of Human Development of a Remote Employee of Color in Biotechnology
Note: Adapted from The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. By
U. Bronfenbrenner, 1979, Harvard University Press. Copyright 1979 by Harvard University
Press.

64
The ecology of human development, also known as Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems
theory, posits that there are interrelationships within a child’s growth environment that affect
every aspect of their life. This theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) is
well positioned to augment a layered systems‐oriented framework through which to view the
inequitable remote work experiences of employees of color and conceptualize the multilevel
factors and various spheres of influence at play within their organizations.
A conceptual picture (Figure 7) illustrates the first concentric system of the system of
interaction: the techno-subsystem (categorized also as immediate environment in my study)
which contain remote work choice. The second is the microsystem (categorized also as
individual determinants) which encompass employee preparedness and positive attitudes and
beliefs as factors. The third is the mesosystem (social and cultural environment category), which
covers work-life balance and no commute time benefits as well as no dedicated workspace and
mental health challenges factors. The fourth is the exosystem (on-premises environment
category), which encompasses organizational resources. The last concentric system of interaction
in this study is the macrosystem (organizational environment category) which includes
organizational processes and organizational DEI culture as factors. Lastly, the chronosystem is
the last, factor-less external concentric system tracing the effect of time on all systems and all
developmental processes, which is accorded minimal to no prominence in this study.
Techno-Subsystem (Immediate Environment)
The techno-subsystem is the innermost concentric system in this ecological systems
theory being utilized in this study. It is characterized in my study as individual determinants
within the conceptual framework, which is related to digital tools on the mental influences on
human development, including remote work choice theme, or the amount of say the worker has

65
in choosing to work remotely. The techno-subsystem clarifies this problem of practice because it
helps understand biotechnology organizations’ remote employees’ background and lived
experiences, literature surrounding remote work, the SES factors that impact remote work, and
the literature surrounding work-life-home balance and factors creating imbalances. It also applies
the researcher’s own knowledge to this problem of practice.
One theme, named remote work choice, was examined within the techno-subsystem in
the immediate environment category. This factor was addressed by RQ1: What factors do remote
employees of color in biotech take into consideration in deciding whether and how much to work
remotely? The study explored whether an employee’s SES background and lived experience—or
their exposure to technology while growing up—was a notable factor. Remote work choice, or
the amount of say an employee has in selecting whether or to work remotely, is categorized as
immediate environment in this study. It was classified this way because choosing remote work
during pre-COVID-19 pandemic was assumed to be an employee’s choice, or it was determined
by the employee at an individual level.
Microsystem (Individual Determinants
The second concentric system from the remote employee is categorized as individual
determinants in the conceptual framework. This study examined employee preparedness and
positive attitudes and beliefs as factors of remote work within this category. These factors were
addressed by RQ1: What factors do remote employees of color in biotech take into consideration
in deciding whether and how much to work remotely?
Employee Preparedness
Employee preparedness is extremely important when it comes to not just remote work
implementation, but other successful endeavors. Employee preparedness can also be thought of

66
as employee readiness to implement remote work initiatives successfully. This factor will
address employee preparedness at the time they began working remotely. The question was
designed to examine remote work training or best practices and from where or whether the
organization provided it. The findings were addressed via RQ1: What factors do remote
employees of color in biotech take into consideration in deciding whether and how much to work
remotely? This RQ addressed this factor in detail.
Positive Attitudes and Beliefs
Positive attitude and beliefs are needed to accomplish an endeavor. Therefore, employees
having a positive attitude and belief that they can confront the task, execute, and succeed is
paramount. RQ1 (What factors do remote employees of color in biotech take into consideration
in deciding whether and how much to work remotely?) addressed this factor as well.
Mesosystem (Socio-Cultural Environment)
The mesosystem is the third concentric system of the conceptual framework and is
categorized as the social-cultural environment in this study. It encompasses benefits and
challenges remote employees of color experience.
Benefits and Challenges of Remote Work
This study also polled remote employees of color to understand whether they were aware
of the benefits and challenges of remote work at the onset of working remotely. The factors
were: work-life balance benefit; no commute time benefit; no dedicated workspace challenge;
and mental health challenge.
Work-Life Balance
Work-life balance deserves to be highlighted here as one of the factors this study
explored. Specifically, it looked at whether work-life balance was a factor of consideration for

67
employees seeking to work remotely and what the participants’ view of work-life balance was.
RQ2 (What are the benefits and challenges that employees of color biotechnology employees
experience when working remotely?) examined these factors in the pre-COVID-19 timeline.
Exosystem (On-Premises Environment)
As the fourth category under this is categorized as on-premises environment in the
conceptual framework, this concentric system includes a close look at the impact of
organizational resources on the remote employees of color.
Remote work requires a myriad of organizational resources from a different mix of
stakeholders. Most importantly, from the organization, which tends to have deeper pockets and
stands to benefit the most—for example benefit competitively—by introducing DWT and remote
work resources to all employees in a more equitable manner. The question as to whether the
organization provides resources and help pay bills for remote work addresses whether work-life
balance was provided as an organizational resource at the onset of remote work. The interviews
carried out addressed RQ3: To what extent and how do remote employees of color perceive that
the organization has made efforts to address challenges faced in working remotely? This
question looked into what extent and how remote employees of color perceived that the
organizations had made strides into addressing challenges faced by employees working remotely.
Macrosystem (Organizational Environment)
Last, the macrosystem is the fifth system in this study and the category was the
organizational environment, which examined the impact of organizational processes and culture
on the Remote Employee of Color. This category includes the role/or lack thereof of
organizational processes and organizational culture in the successful implementation. RQ3 also
addressed this specific factor in detail.

68
Organizational Processes
This organizational processes factor was examined to discover whether organizational
processes in place at the remote employee of color’s onset of working remotely helped or
hindered remote work implementation and its successful execution. RQ3 (To what extent and
how do remote employees of color perceive that the organization has made efforts to address
challenges faced in working remotely?) addressed this specific factor in this study as well.
Organizational DEI Culture
A vibrant organizational culture is paramount to organizational effectiveness. The culture
of organizations is characterized by explicit and implicit norms, values, and behaviors that guide
the way activities are conducted and rewarded (Schein, 2017) identified three levels of
culture: artifacts (appear visible), espoused beliefs and values (may appear through surveys)
and basic underlying assumptions (unconscious, taken for granted beliefs and values which are
not visible). Adaptive organizational cultures facilitate the effective navigation of change and the
organization’s long-term survival (Costanza et al., 2016; Schein, 2017). Agile organizational
processes are known to be a driver of rapid driver or workplace transformation and whether there
is an agile process to push organizational change toward DWT. RQ3 (To what extent and how do
remote employees of color perceive that the organization has made efforts to address challenges
faced in working remotely?) addressed this.
Chronosystem
This last external concentric system, the chronosystem, traced the effect of time on all the
other five systems mentioned in this study. The chronosystem encompasses changes influencing
remote employees of color experiences over the lifespan of the other five systems or categories
and all developmental processes. However, the chronosystem was focused on less in this study.

69
The conceptual framework model for this research highlights both equity and equality for
remote employees of color. Conceptually, the example in Figure 8 illustrates that the box on the
left contain general components of the techno-subsystem being utilized while the middle box
highlights additional remote employees of color considerations.
Figure 8
Systems-Based Framework for Understanding Remote Work Adoption/Use
Note. Figure of systems-based framework for understanding remote work adoption.

70
Important components of this framework may include employee job satisfaction,
home/work-life balance, employee task performance (type, quantity, quality, frequency, etc.) and
employer monitoring; social presence and influence; new ways of organizing work via DWT;
mental health mitigation and access to therapy; and work expectations or desired job outcomes.
This framework adds value to the overall research plan, from developing the RQs through
analysis and presentation of findings.
Summary
The literature review aimed to achieve a better understanding of the SES factors
impacting remote employees of color in biotechnology organizations in the United States that
caused unequal remote work experiences. Extant remote work studies focus more on migration
toward remote work via the utilization of new DWT model as enablers of remote work for
example, but most don’t address the equitable experiences impacting employees of color
minorities. Also, most of the literature review found that extant research focused more on
advantages and disadvantages of remote work in general and not on the deeper issues and effects
equity and equality of remote work implementation on various stakeholders.
In this chapter, an extensive review of literature was carried out to showcase both
enablers and blockers of remote work and existing inequities in its implementation. In this study,
10 different remote work factors were examined, including: remote work choice; employee
preparedness; positive attitudes and beliefs; work-life balance benefit; no commute time benefit;
no dedicated workspace challenge; mental health challenge; organizational resources;
organizational processes, and organizational DEI culture. Biotechnology organizations
transitioning their employees to remote work must understand that at the very least, it may be
implemented in an inequitable manner. Using the literature review, coupled with

71
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory model enabled this study to focus more on
the employees of color within the techno-subsystem (immediate environment), microsystem
(individual determinants), mesosystem (social and cultural environment), exosystem (onpremises environment), macrosystem (organizational environment). Lastly, a cursory look at the
chronosystem highlighting changes influencing employees of color experiences over the lifespan
was examined in passing.

72
Chapter Three: Research Methodology
This chapter introduced both ontological and epistemological positions adopted in this
research project. It also covered the researchers’ philosophical worldview, research questions,
research design and methodology, population and sample, participant demographics, research
procedures; data collection; data analysis; and evidence of trustworthiness. Creswell (2018)
defined pragmatism as a worldview arising out of actions, situations, and consequences rather
than antecedent conditions. The research methodology utilized for this study was an exploratory,
qualitative research methodology via interviews. Creswell (2014) defined research as a problem
or an issue, topic, or question that leads to or motivates a study, responding to questions like:
what the need for this study is; and what problem influenced the need to undertake it. Decisive
action was taken. Research trustworthiness and credibility was upheld and demonstrated. Lastly,
the data collection process was captured for transferability, tested, evaluated with a scoping
study for refinement, which was utilized in every aspect of the final study and thesis delivery.
Research Questions
In this exploratory, qualitative research study examining the inequitable experiences of
employees of color in biotechnology organizations in the United States who face less favorable
remote work experiences resulting from an interplay of race, lower SES factors, and little access
to technology was examined. The research questions (RQs) utilized were categorized in many
forms including experiential and behavioral questions, opinion and values questions, feeling,
knowledge and sensory questions, and background and demographic questions that identify
characteristics of the person being interviewed. Appendix A attached to the back of this
dissertation includes the interview questions, and Appendix B displays the participant
information and consent form. Three RQs and 12 support research questions (SRQs) were

73
formulated in existing lingo and special terms commonly used by employees of color. The three
RQs that primarily guided this study:
1. What factors do remote employees of color in biotechnology take into consideration
in deciding whether or not and how much to work remotely?
2. What are the benefits and challenges that biotech employees of color experience
when working remotely?
3. To what extent and how do remote employees of color perceive that their
organization has made efforts to address challenges faced in working remotely?
Qualitative Design
An exploratory, qualitative semi-structured interview study was utilized in this study in a
phenomenological manner. In so doing, interviews collected a richer source of information from
a small number of participants regarding attributes, behavior, preferences, feelings, attitudes,
beliefs, opinions, and knowledge. Interviews were found to be most effective for qualitative
research because they helped me as a researcher explain, better understand, and explore research
subjects’ opinions, behavior, lived experiences and phenomenon. Qualitative interview studies
were utilized because they contain open-ended questions by design so that in-depth information
can be collected. The mode of data collection included utilizing face-to-face and remotely online
via Zoom—an innovative videoconferencing platform. Zoom was selected as a tool for data
collection because of its relative ease of use, cost-effectiveness, data management features,
security options and flexibility it afforded study participants. Purposeful sampling was utilized.
Twelve employees of color participants in various roles in biotechnology were contacted.
The interviews took between 30 to 45 minutes each, to complete. Thereafter, the
interview data was coded, decoded, and analyzed via a statistical analysis software application

74
called Qualtrics Online Survey. Transparency was a central tenet in this research and involved
showing the workings and revealing the process for analyzing data (Holiday, 2016). While
qualitative approaches tend to have smaller samples due to the participant’s proximity to the
topic studied, it was worth noting that employing both subjective and objective measures
increased the reliability of the results. The generalizable results and predictable outcomes were
determined, and the positivist approach reported to dominate the domain of strategy research
where it further stretched theories due to the aims and objectives to further generalize theory.
Creswell (2014) noted that a research problem was an issue, topic, or question that led to or
motivated a study to respond to the need for a study and what influenced the need to undertake it.
The researcher’s paradigm of inquiry or belief system, also known as philosophical worldview,
leaned more toward pragmatism.
The inequitable remote work experiences of remote employees of color in biotechnology
is a suitable topic for a qualitative research design like this one. The research design and
methodological approach was exploratory, qualitative, interview study. Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) noted that qualitative research was appropriate because it involves determining how
individuals interpret their experience and the meaning they attribute to it. Therefore, the purpose
of this study was to provide meaning into social processes and produce insights that have
practical contemporary use (Chesebro & Borisoff, 2007). Additionally, qualitative researchers
study phenomena in natural settings and posit individuals’ meaning through their experiences
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Studying such phenomena is vital to this research.
Qualitative interviews employ many aspects of qualitative procedures. Creswell (2018)
surmised that interview research may employ aspects of qualitative procedures. Reliance on
scientific methods on a sample population of between eight to 12 subjects was observed. The

75
participants were recruited voluntarily and were reminded as part of the exit procedures that their
information, interview responses, and any additional related information shared would be kept
confidential and their identities would remain anonymous. Yin (2014) explained that qualitative
methods provide comprehensive descriptions of the emerging phenomena and that collecting
data via interviews is different from most research processes because the interviewer must cater
to the interviewee’s availability and limiting the interviewer’s ability to control the environment.
The interview questions were semi-structured, ensuring that data collection required flexibility
(Yin, 2014), who also noted that, for these reasons, data collection could be complex, and the
interviewer needed to develop coping mechanisms assisting them in maintaining composure
during the data collection process if a participant became unexpectedly unwilling to continue.
This investigative approach researched concepts that had not been clearly studied and/or
defined. This research method gained popularity because it was a viable methodology that
employed qualitative procedures (Creswell, 2018). The qualitative methodology of interviews
was designed to collect a richer source of information from a small number of people about
attributes, behavior, preferences, feelings, attitudes, opinions, and knowledge. Such interviews
had been found to be most effective for qualitative research because they helped researchers
explain, better understand, and explore research subjects’ opinions, behavior, lived experiences,
and also usually contained open-ended questions so that in-depth information could be collected.
The mode of data collection included face-to-face conversations, and via Zoom.
Pilot Study
This research included a pilot study initially carried out on four participants prior to the
commencement of the one-on-one data collection interviews in a neutral environment. A pilot
study was a smaller-scale test of the researcher’s planned methods and procedures. Pilot studies

76
were used to evaluate the adequacy of their planned research methods and procedures (Polit &
Beck, 2017), a critical step in a research process, aiding in intervention development and testing.
The pilot study helped answer the following feasibility questions: Can I recruit my target
population? Can I randomize my target population? Will participants do what they are asked to
do? Are the assessments too burdensome or are they just about right? Are the interview
conditions acceptable to participants? Are the conditions trustworthy and credible? This pilot
study was performed to utilize power calculations to eliminate or minimize Type I Error or false
positive result and to get to the strong effective approximate size of 12 participants. It was also
used to obtain feedback on the effectiveness of the proposed list of questions and to gauge the
time it took to finish one interview from beginning to end. The pilot study helped update two
research questions regarding remote work and what steps organizations took to distribute remote
work resource equally and equitably. The pilot also helped update the time it took to complete a
single semi-structured interview and follow-up questions from 1 hour to between 30–45 minutes.
Population and Sample
In research, careful selection of appropriate respondents can provide data relevant to the
study. The target population for this study included first- or second-generation immigrant
employees of color with lower SES background factors with limited access to technology who
work remotely in biotechnology organizations in the United States. I used a purposive sampling
method (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and employees of color were the stakeholders of focus within
the updated Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological theoretical framework. Heavy reliance on
scientific methods on the population sample was adhered to. The exclusion criteria were White,
non-employees of color working onsite with no option of working remotely.

77
Overall, data was collected from 12 subjects. The data collection regimen from different
biotechnology organizations was adjusted to ensure that a truly qualitative research methodology
of semi-structured questions was conducted. This achieved targeted aims by ensuring that the
interviews achieved the right state, control, and timing. The participant questionnaire are
illustrated in Appendix B. Differences in answers were expected and justified as a result of
interviewing participants from different organizations and geographical locations.
Participant Demographics
The data collection regimen with the 12 participants from 12 different biotechnology
organizations was adjusted slightly to ensure that a truly qualitative research methodology of
semi-structured questions was conducted. Twelve participants were interviewed, and all of them
met or exceeded the minimum qualifications to participate, including being employees of color,
full-time employees and working remotely for biotechnology organizations. Participants’ ages
ranged from 26 and 58 years old, who are currently working remotely. The open, semi-structured
questions were utilized to achieve the targeted aims of the research by ensuring that interviews
achieved the right state, control and timing. The demographics are detailed in Table 2.
Table 2
Participant Demographics and Profile (N = 12)
n %
Employees of color 12 100
Males 9 75
Females 3 25
Postgraduate PhD degrees 8 67
Master’s/bachelor’s degree 4 33
First- or second-generation immigrants 11 92
Interview Phase I (pilot study) 4 33
Interview Phase II 8 67

78
Semi-structured Interviews
This qualitative interview study utilized a semi-structured format in the data collection
process. A semi-structured interview in its nature incorporated a sequence of open-ended
questions targeting specific, consistent data from each interviewee. This methodology was
utilized for flexibility and to allow for unexpected themes and ideas to emerge from respondents
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A detailed interview protocol was developed, the exact wording and
order of questions varied across each of the interviews, allowing for new ideas and themes to
emerge from each interviewee’s unique worldview and experience (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The semi-structured questions types included in the study were background and
demographic questions; experience and behavior questions; and opinion questions. This blend of
question types were commonly utilized in the semi-structured interviews in order to ensure that
the interviews achieved the right state, control, and timing. Background and demographic
questions (Patton, 2015) related to the respondent’s role and experience with the topic were
either asked in the interview or uncovered during pre-interview due diligence. Experience and
behavior questions (Patton, 2015) were asked related to respondent actions taken in remote work
while opinion questions were asked to gauge respondents’ thoughts on weaknesses, strengths,
challenges, and ideas for improvement of remote work. The blend of demographic, experience,
and opinion-oriented questions was appropriate given that RQs sought to uncover an
understanding of how remote employees of color approached their onset of their remote work.
Research Procedures
This research procedures section was divided into two sections. These were recruitment
strategy and research setting. Recruitment strategy was an exploratory, qualitative interview

79
design. Research setting was a one-on-one setting for the first four participants in the pilot study
and the rest were conducted remotely via Zoom online video-conference meeting application.
Recruitment Strategy
The research strategy of inquiry utilized was exploratory, qualitative interview design,
defined broadly as the preliminary research, to clarify the exact nature of the problem to be
solved. The selected methodology of interviews was influenced by the philosophical
underpinnings that were present in the researcher as the instrument of their research. Merriam &
Tisdell (2015) stated that the credibility and dependability of a study depended upon the ethics of
the investigator. This statement summed up the important of ethics in research. Triangulation
provided for consistent use of data collection techniques and analysis to present data credibly.
The study utilized convenience and snowball sampling in the recruitment process of
participants. Snowball sampling involved locating a few key participants who met the criteria for
the study, and convenience sampling includes finding participants based on location, time, and
availability of respondents (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Transparency was ensured that showed
the workings’ (Holiday, 2016) and revealed the process for analyzing data in this epistemological
stance. Participants were recruited from different biotechnology organizations that employed
remote employees of color. The interviews involved a one-on-one pilot study followed by
Zoom—an innovative videoconferencing platform—at different times. All the potential
participants were contacted directly via LinkedIn job board and/or WhatsApp, a social media
computer application. Potential participants were informed to contact me directly if they were
interested in volunteering to participate in the interviews. Volunteer participants were then
informed that they were under no obligation to participate. They received a participant’s
information and consent form (see Appendix A) to read, understand, append their name and sign

80
before conducting the interview. The participants who confirmed acceptance participated
interviews via Zoom—an innovative videoconferencing—for convenience and flexibility.
Pseudonym alphanumeric numbering system was assigned to each participant and utilized
throughout the study. In accordance with established protocols, no interviews were conducted
until participants read and signed a consent to participate form. Once participant selection was
done, I provided them with a guide of the study’s expectations and their rights as participants.
Research Setting
The study setting was both in a one-on-one setting for the first four participants in the
pilot study and the rest were conducted remotely via Zoom—an innovative videoconferencing
platform. Using Zoom allowed for optimal focus and concentration between the interviewer and
the participant, since all the interviews were conducted at participants’ convenience. Body
language came through as well. I availed myself during and after normal business hours, as well
as on weekends which allowed the participants to minimize any potential work and personal
distractions so they could solely concentrate on the interview. On average, each interview took
between 30 to 45 minutes, to complete. To increase the study strength, participants had a chance
to review transcripts to increase validity and reliability once they were completed. Participants
identified no changes or issues that would influence the interpretation of the data or study results.
Since this research utilized an exploratory, qualitative interview method, the design was
based—to some extent—on bringing together an interpretivist, phenomenological worldview or
assumptions as specific strategies of inquiry, and research method. The decision about choice of
a design was further influenced by the research problem or issue being studied (Creswell, 2018),
which was a need to explore the inequitable experiences of remote employees of color in
biotechnology organizations. The choice and decision included my personal lived experiences as

81
an Employee of Color with lower SES factors and little access to technology currently working
remotely for a biotechnology organization in the United States. The audience for this study may
include employees of color with lower SES factors working remotely as well.
Data Collection
The University of Southern California granted approval of this study (APP-23-00146).
Research participants followed the directions on the participant information and consent form
and invitation letter and were contacted to confirm their interest. Participants who confirmed
then completed and signed the consent form. The next step involved scheduling one-on-one pilot
interviews followed by individual interviews, which were also coordinated via LinkedIn Job
Board and/or via WhatsApp social media application. Once a date and time was confirmed, the
participants were sent a calendar invitation that provided the date, time, and Zoom information
for the interview. The interviews were then conducted via a secured Zoom link, which required a
unique pin code to access. Prior to the interview, participants were briefed of the purpose of the
interview and reminded that they did not need to answer any questions they did not feel
comfortable answering. The participants were also reminded that they could end the interview at
any time and their request would be honored immediately. The participants were also reminded
that their interview was being transcribed for later validation of the interview transcripts.
Participants acknowledged their understanding of the interview protocols and affirmed their
desire to move forward with the interview. The confidentiality agreement stated in the consent
form was reiterated and confirmed, specifically that their names would not be used and their
identity would instead be coded using an alphanumeric system.
Interviews followed only after all interview procedures and protocols were adhered to.
The data collection process included data from 12 participants who work remotely in

82
biotechnology organizations. Each participant voluntarily agreed to complete a taxonomy of
responses and participate in the study and expressed a desire to share their remote employees of
color lived experiences. Saturation, used in qualitative research and broadly defined as a criterion
for judging when to stop sampling the different groups pertinent to a category, was reached after
the eighth interview. Simply put, saturation is simply a criterion to base a decision of
discontinuing data collection and/or analysis. Fuchs and Ness (2015) indicated that failure to
reach saturation had an impact on research quality.
Zoom was used for the interview meetings while I transcribed the notes utilizing
Microsoft Word, a word processing application for post-interview transcript verification. Each
interview was conducted with the same consistency and methodology, by repeatedly asking 12
interview questions in a semi-structured manner. The interviews took 30 to 45 minutes, which
was in alignment with the interview protocols discussed with each participant. It was then
provided to the participants for member checking verification. After the 12 interviews were
verified through member checking, the data was systematically organized onto an Interview Data
Collection Template. This was followed by an algorithm of organizing data; the responses from
the participants were contained on one spreadsheet while a separate worksheet was labeled and
used to capture emergent themes and patterns. Using the Qualtrics Online Survey application
allowed for the process of coding and analysis to be an uninterrupted fluid process, uninhibited
by preconceived ideas and themes, aiding in the process of bias minimization.
Data Analysis
The 12 participants were each provided with an opportunity to respond to the RQs and
received the same instructions and protocols. The participant’s responses to the individual, semistructured questions were closely aligned. In a number of instances, participant responses were

83
close to verbatim of one another. This was a very important alignment to note because all of the
participants were biotechnology employees working remotely with similar circumstances. The
analysis of the raw data were completed via Qualtrics online survey application in three phases:
data coding; raw data analysis; and data bucketing. The data analysis regimen was utilized to
interpret the research study data.
Data Coding
To stay as close to the participants’ words and lived experiences as possible, each
transcript was read and coded independently. Grounded theory, coding techniques and a
codebook were utilized to gather all emerging categories from the text. This grounded theory
coding started with a line-by-line review of the text and created open codes that captured pieces
of text relevant to the three RQs. Since this was a qualitative, exploratory methodology, it was
subjected to non-probability sampling and had no pre-planned design for analysis within a
statistical design lens. Vaismoradi and Snelgrove (2019) noted that the differences between
qualitative content and thematic analysis is that quantitative takes a systematic approach such as
frequency of codes which heighten the risk of missing the context while thematic analysis relied
on the subjective interpretation of the researcher and personal insight for theme development.
Five categories were assigned using the methods recommended by Merriam and Tisdell
(2016). These categories were immediate environment (within the techno-subsystem), individual
determinants (microsystem), socio-cultural environment (mesosystem), on-premises environment
(exosystem), and organizational environment (macrosystem). This categorical data helped
identify related themes in the data and focused the study against the three guiding RQs. The use
of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory as the theoretical framework against
which data interpretation occurred aided in the understanding of determinants in the techno-

84
subsystem, microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem. Barriers such as no
dedicated workspace, no work-life balance, mental health challenges and commuting impacting
employees of color remote employees were examined within these organic and inorganic
interrelationships (Bubolz & Sontag, 2009). The open codes were then gathered into focused
codes to capture major coding themes emerging from the interviews. The decoding process was
followed by labeling to encode it, denoting the 95 process of coding which is a transitional
process between data collection and data analysis (Saldana, 2016). Flawlessness was adhered to.
Lastly, these categories were reorganized and revised to reach a broader understanding of
the patterns across all transcripts. Gibbs (2009) argued that what is valuable is multiple
comparative analysis techniques which would allow a researcher to go beyond simple coding and
retrieving to achieve more plausible and in-depth interpretations. Gibbs (2009) recommended
applying comparative strategies to generate findings via tables; case by case comparisons;
typologies; code and attribute tables. A comparative strategy (e.g., table, list, etc.) document for
the emerging findings was created. I translated the focused codes into broader themes and
subthemes to best represent study participants’ perceptions of remote work and capture any
emerging phenomenon. A process of cycling was used as it allowed the data to be reviewed
multiple times to identify the units of code or categories that existed.
Raw Data Bucketing
The study results were then subjected to a thorough analysis. Specifically, the study
results were integrated with RQs into a narrative for consistency (Vaughn & Turner, 2016) and
the analysis method identified patterns or themes in the data to provide insights reflecting a
deeper phenomenal understanding. The Qualtrics Online Survey statistical analysis software was
utilized in this research. It simplified the identification of themes and the creation of codes for

85
data analysis. One way this was done within the software was the process of bucketing, which
was utilized to create custom variables that combine values from previously existing variables
into new groups and prepare data for analysis. Bucketing had a similar approach as manual open
coding, a process of breaking up research data and labeling it with codes to enable the researcher
to continuously compare and contrast similar events in the data.
Values assigned with a bucketed variable were then applied to the data. Bucketing was
also an alternative to embedded data in situations where the researcher needed a variable to be
added retroactively. An important note was that bucketing could not be utilized to combine
different variables; it was only for combining different values of one variable. Once created,
bucketed variables were used in the Data and Weighting sections of the Data & Analysis tab of
the Qualtrics Statistical analysis software and in the Results section of the Reports tab.
Evidence of Trustworthiness
Credibility
Credibility, defined in qualitative research as a measure of the truth value or whether the
study’s findings are correct and accurate was ensured. During participant data collection process,
some provided more information about their remote work experiences than others. To obtain
substantial evidence, additional probing, effective and semi-structured follow-up questions were
asked to get to the bottom of the questions and to ensure that accurate comprehensive data was
collected. There was a sustained effort on the part of the researcher to ensure that there were no
deviations made from the proposal stated in Chapter Three.
The study utilized member checking, a critical data validation process. Member
checking, also known as participant validation, was simply a technique for exploring the
credibility of results and is the most critical provision used in study validity. During member

86
checking, participants had the opportunity to review the accuracy of their interview transcripts
and to discuss the interview and provide additional insight and clarification. Triangulation—
specifically data triangulation—was an additional form of credibility used to mitigate bias via
additional comparative data collected in the pilot study.
Transferability
Transferability, also known as generalizability, measures whether, or to what extent, a
research study’s results are applicable within other contexts, circumstances and settings was
applied. Transferability helps other researchers evaluate whether the results were applicable for
other situations. A comprehensive description of the data collection process was made available,
and the data analysis strengthened research transferability to the reader, stakeholders, scholarpractitioners, and future researchers.
Dependability
Dependability was ensured in order to measure or demonstrate the consistency and
reliability of the study’s results. To address issues of dependability the data triangulation and
member checking was utilized to ensure transferability. The research process included
participant data collected during the in-depth, semi-structured interviews, which were crossreferenced with the data collected during the pilot study, and a dual process of identifying themes
and codes. During the interviews, documenting and taking rich notes were used in aligning the
findings with research themes.
Confirmability
Confirmability, which is a way to prove that a qualitative study is neutral and not
influenced by the researcher’s assumptions or biases, was utilized. Ensuring confirmability in
this study provided an opportunity to approach and interpret the data with an open mind without

87
bias. It was critical to illustrate the transparency of the data while understanding the role of the
researcher and the data collection process. I served as an instrument of the research, collecting
data by asking the interview questions and taking notes. Research findings were written to
extrapolate participants’ remote work experiences and interpreted with a probable conclusion.
Panel of Experts Evaluation
This research involved a panel of experts whose main task was first, to explore the
feasibility of conducting interviews among a sizable number of geographically distributed
remote employees of color. The study was reviewed and approved by the University of Southern
California’s Institutional Review Board as well. Second, the panel of experts were to ensure
replicability of findings. Researchers have found that in research, reality is holistic,
multidimensional, and ever-changing. A panel of experts was therefore required to ensure
trustworthiness and credibility of this research.
Ethical Procedures
Participants received detailed information regarding the research process, the role of this
researcher, their role, and any questions they had pertaining to the proposed research and
interview process during the researcher’s first initial meeting with them. This negated the
statement that interviewing can result in threats or advantages to interviewees (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Interviewees received a detailed participant information and consent form to read,
understand and sign before commencement of the interviews in order to understand the
guardrails the research was going to stay within, the voluntary nature of the study and the
interview protocols. After the initial contact via LinkedIn job board and/or WhatsApp social
media messaging application, no interviews commenced without a prior signed consent form
from each participant. The consent form signature acknowledged that the interviewee had fully

88
read and understood the process in which they consented and were ready to participate. The
voluntary and anonymous nature of the interviews—and the fact that no personal identifiable
information (PII) was collected or used—was stated clearly in both the interview protocols and
consent form. Glesne (2016) agreed that through informed consent, interviewees needed to be
made aware of the voluntary nature of their participation and their freedom to choose to end the
interview at any time. No PII was collected or shared with anyone outside of the research
protocols at any given time before, during and after this study. For this study, internal validity
and credibility was ensured through multiple research systems checks and audits and extended to
a full-fledged data coding process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Role of the Researcher
As a researcher in this study, I am a first-generation employee of color, first generation
immigrant. I grew up in the East African country of Kenya—a former British Colony—and grew
up in a poor, lower SES background with little to no access to technology growing up. My lived
experience spans three continents: Africa, Europe, and now North America. I have experienced
racism and a lack of equality in life as well as struggled with a lack of equity in organizations
where I had to be a stellar performer regardless of these limiting factors. I also currently work
remotely for a biotechnology organization in the United States. I had never encountered any
computer tools until after high school when I got my first job after high school as research
assistant/computer operator at a non-governmental organization (NGO) African Medical &
Research Foundation (AMREF) in Kenya before immigrating to the United States as an
international university student to study computer science information systems. I understand that
the role of a researcher is to be an instrument of their research, meant to create themes that speak
to intended audiences. Specifically, the active role of the researcher was in generating themes,

89
which avoided the mistaken assumption that themes reside in the data, simply waiting to be
uncovered. This appreciation of researchers’ direct involvement of common theme development
(Vaismoradi et al., 2016) production was evident in this study.
I was therefore well positioned to first recognize, then avoid researcher bias, a situation
that could have formed when a researcher’s perspective influences the results of a study by
claiming an objective point of view. I paid close attention to avoid these and all other research
pitfalls like design, selection, and procedural biases. Design and selection bias may occur in the
initial planning stage of a study when a researcher chooses data collection and sampling methods
that omit information. Procedural bias may happen when various parameters of a process cause
inaccuracies and omissions in study results. I paid close attention against order effects bias as
well, which occurs when the sequence order of a researcher’s questions influences an
interviewee’s answers, leading to questions bias, which occurs when a researcher frames a
question to elicit a specific answer or respond with a certain emotion.
In a study, the halo effect bias—which may have arisen when a researcher perceives one
response as an interviewee’s overall perspective on a topic—was recognized and avoided.
Confirmation bias—which may have arisen when a researcher’s belief system informs their
protocols for data collection or analysis—was also confronted and avoided. Lastly, Indeed
Editorial Team (2021) indicated that researchers needed to watch out against cultural bias which
could occur when a researcher prioritized the values and standards of their culture while
assessing people from another culture. To guard against biases, I created a research plan,
evaluated a hypothesis, asked general questions before specifying, placed topics into categories,
summarized answers using original context, showed respondents the results, shared analytical
duties, reviewed research with peers, and maintained records (Indeed Editorial Team (2021).

90
Summary
This chapter’s main focus was explaining my philosophical world view as a researcher,
followed by research methods. In a phenomenological study, the world was perceived to be
socially constructed and subjective and it dealt with qualitative methods involving subjective
perspectives of people. Phenomenology, loosely defined as the study of the meaning of
phenomena was adhered to. Research planning involved a researcher (Creswell, 2018)
identifying whether to employ a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods design from the
outset. The research instruments were set up to qualitatively collect primary data via interviews
from research subjects. The preservation of research integrity was demonstrated in detail.
In this chapter also, the utilization of qualitative research was explored as the study
design and provided explanations on the reasoning behind the use of the design method. The
performance of the research via the RQs, methodology, and details regarding the sample
population, about inclusion criteria for participants, sampling and recruitment plans, procedures,
data analysis practice, forming credibility, and researcher positionality was illustrated in detail.
The utilization of a semi-structured interview method using Zoom—an innovative
videoconferencing platform—to interact with and question participants on key criteria including
the impact of race, lower SES factors, inequitable remote work experiences and professional and
organizational factors like resources, processes and culture helped enhance this study approach.
Chapter Four analyzed the data and presented the research findings from this qualitative study
utilizing the ecology of human development, specifically Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological
systems theory as a conceptual framework. This chapter also outlined the experience and
background of the researcher as an instrument of the research.

91
Chapter Four: Findings
This study explored the inequitable experiences of employees of color in biotechnology
organizations in the United States who faced less favorable remote work conditions resulting
from an interplay of race, lower socioeconomic status (SES), and little access to technology.
There were three RQs and 12 SRQs to be explored through the lens of Bronfenbrenner’s “human
ecology theory.” This chapter’s purpose was to present the qualitative study research findings.
This chapter included discussions on the pilot study, research setting, demographics, participant
data collection, data analysis, results and evidence of trustworthiness that concluded with a
summary of findings. Ten themes helped frame the participants’ experiences via
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory. These three RQs framed this study:
1. What factors do remote employees of color in biotechnology take into consideration
in deciding whether and how much to work remotely?
2. What are the benefits and challenges that remote employees of color in biotech
experience when working remotely?
3. To what extent and how do remote employees of color perceive that the organization
has made efforts to address challenges faced in working remotely?
This chapter analyzed in detail the 10 emergent themes and grouped them within the
human ecology theory, specifically Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. Table 3
illustrates the RQs utilized, in Column 1. Column 2 includes the five concentric systems from
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory and where they reside from the conceptual
framework, followed by the third column representing my categories in which the themes appear
within Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory’s five concentric systems.

92
Table 3
RQs, Ecological Systems, Categories and Themes
RQ Concentric system Category Theme
1 Techno-subsystem Immediate environment Remote work choice
1 Microsystem Individual determinants Employee preparedness
1 Microsystem Individual determinants Positive attitudes and beliefs
2 Mesosystem Socio-cultural environment Work-life balance benefit
2 Mesosystem Socio-cultural environment No commute time benefit
2 Mesosystem Socio-cultural environment No dedicated workspace challenge
2 Mesosystem Socio-cultural environment Mental health challenge
3 Exosystem On-premises environment Organizational resources
3 Macrosystem Organizational environment Organizational processes
3 Macrosystem Organizational environment Organizational DEI culture
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) concentric systems of interrelationships in Table 3 included the
techno-subsystem (immediate environment category) and encompassed remote work choice
theme. The microsystem (individual framework category) included the two themes of employee
preparedness and positive attitudes and beliefs. The mesosystem (socio-cultural environment
category) encompassed the four themes of work-life balance benefit, no commute time benefit,
no dedicated workspace challenge, and mental health challenge. The exosystem (on-premises
environment category) encompassed the one theme of organizational resources. Lastly, the
macrosystem (organizational environment category) which encompassed the two themes of
organizational processes and organizational DEI culture. The category column was followed by
the themes column, listing the10 themes. Of great importance to note is that Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological systems theory’s systems were non-linear. It is a collection of concentric systems of
interrelationships. Therefore, these 10 themes are not restricted to one system but surfaced in
multiple concentric systems or categories during the study.

93
Research Question 1: Deciding Factors to Consider Regarding Remote Work
Research Question 1 aimed to explore the employees of color’s immediate environment
and individual determinants that participants considered when deciding whether or not, and/or
what percentage to dedicate to working remotely. Specifically, question aimed to identify the
individual factors affecting remote work. This RQ addressed whether employees had a choice in
selecting remote work as a choice and/or the role individual factors like preparedness and
positive attitudes and beliefs played.
Three themes emerged from this question, which were: remote work choice (from the
techno-subsystem), employee preparedness and positive attitudes and beliefs (from the
microsystem). Was remote work choice extended to employees and whether they wanted to work
remotely, was the question. What was asked was whether participants voluntarily chose remote
work or whether they were pushed into it. This RQ aligns with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
systems theory’s techno-subsystem concentric system, which was the immediate environment
category, and the microsystem, which fits in the individual determinants category.
Remote Work Choice in the Techno-Subsystem (Immediate Environment Category)
Eight interviewees responded by confirming that they had some level of remote work
choice or had a say or decision-making. Remote work choice was the first theme to emerge in the
study. It was nested in Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) techno-subsystem within the immediate
environment category. Employee preparedness, a theme that appeared later nested in the
microsystem concentric system within the Individual determinants category appeared here as
well due to the interrelationships nature of the ecological systems theory. One participant alluded
to both themes by saying “I had a choice to start remote work. … I was prepared for it.”

94
The number increased to 12 saying yes when participants were asked whether they had a
choice to work remotely full-time or on a hybrid schedule after they had been working from
home for a while. An important note was that this study’s timeline was exploring remote work
pre-COVID-19. One participant discussed in detail her remote work decision-making that
informed her choice when responding to RQ1 when prodded further regarding what percentage
of remote work choice she had at the onset of remote work choice. She said,
One hundred percent! … It was absolutely my choice. … And I intentionally looked for a
company that would accommodate me and my remote work choice. … I turned down
companies that didn’t consider remote work as an employee choice, … and I interviewed
with a biotech company that would accommodate my preference from day one.
Another participant echoed a similar sentiment when she said “One hundred percent of course! ...
It was entirely my decision, and I was allowed to make it by myself without any influence from
anyone.” Yet another participant was more guarded in her response: “It was just up to my
manager to decide after I requested for it.”
This remote work choice theme, attributed to eight participants in this research finding is
in alignment with the literature review when DeSilver (2020), wrote that remote work was
considered a luxury for the relatively affluent and reserved for such employees as higher-income
earners prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Suffice it to say, the remote work choice theme was
apparent to these participants. This was understandable since they were highly skilled and well
credentialed white-collar professionals who had some flexibility of choice on whether or not to
work remotely, full-time or part-time on a hybrid schedule.
Conversely, some participants revealed that they did not have or were not afforded any
remote work choice as an option. Four participants indicated that they had no remote work

95
option or choice in selecting whether to work remotely. A couple of these four employees said
that it was because of the nature of their jobs that made their organizations not consider offering
them remote work. For example, one participant said,
I did not have any say in working remotely. None whatsoever. … For my particular role
at the time, this was by design. … Remote work was considered a perk at my company.
… It was my manager who instructed me to work remotely. … This was hard, … but
eventually, I got the hang of it … and ran with it, … and that was it.
Another participant echoed a similar sentiment that remote work choice was not made available
to them by their organizational management, saying,
It was simply up to my manager to let me know what was required of me. … As far as
working from home was concerned, … she provided direction that our department was
going to be allowed to implement remote work, … but on a trial, rotational basis to start.
Lastly, a senior research scientist and process engineer expressed the sentiment that he had no
remote work choice and that decision was made for him to work onsite. This was because he
needed to work onsite within a laboratory environment with equipment and animal specimens or
needed to utilize laboratory instruments for his work. The participant said,
None. The decision was made by the HR department in my company … and by senior
company leadership based on employee roles, … mine being one of them tasked to work
onsite because of my job’s nature. … I work with lab equipment and lab specimens. …
Like microbes and bacteria. … all day, … monitoring them, …their growth, … their
effects, … their behavior, … and I had to handle lab equipment for work … all day.
This outlier result is understandable and not surprising. Remote work choice, which was
a new age job design tool, was not available to all remote employees of color. Wang (2020)

96
noted in the literature review that it was important to note that remote work was optional preCOVID-19 for some, but it was no longer optional during the pandemic for most. And that the
COVID-19 outbreak forced people to work from home irrespective of their preferences or
abilities (Wang, 2020). Wang (2020) indicated that organizations had no choice but to task their
employees to work from home due to federal, municipal, and local stay-at-home social
distancing mandates, a factor that was not part of this study. While remote work choice was
found to be prevalent for many remote employees of color, it was important to appreciate that
some outlier results also emerged. A minority of participants—four to be exact—had no remote
work option extended to them by their managers. Some of them mostly due to the nature of work
or job roles.
Employee Preparedness Important in the Microsystem (Individual Determinants Category)
In still trying to answer RQ1, employee preparedness emerged as the second theme
overall in the study, followed by positive attitudes and beliefs appearing as a third overall theme
within the second microsystem concentric system. This concentric system was named as the
Individual determinants category in the conceptual framework. As far as the theme of employee
preparedness is concerned, 10 participants said they were prepared as the next reasonable step
after the techno-subsystem’s remote work choice was made by or for them. Remote work choice
appeared in this microsystem as well when some participants alluded tom the fact that they had
worked as consultants for a long time and had both remote work choice and employee
preparedness. Specifically, employee preparedness came second after the remote work choice or
decision was made. One of the participants said,
For me, 100%. … I had been working remotely as a consultant for so long. … So, I was
mentally and psychologically prepared to work remotely for my biotech company, and

97
when COVID-19 pandemic came, I was really a remote work pro. … Very familiar with
it. … I was way ahead of the curve at the time.
Another participant observed “I was 100% prepared. … I had a reliable network and
computer, … so, I felt good about starting remote work.” Yet another participant affirmed, “One
hundred percent. … I had been wanting to work remotely for a long time. … So, I was ready to
be flexible to work remotely when the time finally came.” One more participant was the most
direct: “One hundred percent! … I was very prepared.” Out of those who responded that they
were prepared, 7 confirmed that the organization prepared them via remote work and best
practices training, and the provision of resources. One of the participants said,
One hundred percent. … I had a computer that could be used for remote work, and my
organization provided me some Microsoft PowerPoint slides covering remote work and
the best practices for working remotely, successfully. … They also provided me with a
laptop computer, a desk, computer monitors, a printer, a computer mouse, telephone, and
other remote software tools like Zoom.
This preparedness finding aligns with the general feeling that having a positive attitude toward
any endeavor is paramount for success. This study finding differs slightly, however, from the
literature review’s minority view that remote employees of color’s higher rate of lower SES
(American Psychiatric Association, 2022) made them harbor negative attitudes and beliefs
toward remote work. Maybe they were apprehensive at first, but the results clearly indicated that
most participants were prepared mentally and psychologically to work remotely. The study
results also illustrated that the organization also played a role in preparing them via training, the
sharing of best practices, and the provision of organizational resources when a participant said,

98
“They [organization] also provided me with a laptop computer, a desk, computer monitors, a
printer, a computer mouse, telephone, and other remote software tools like Zoom.”
Therefore, employee preparedness was such a notable factor in the study as an individual
determinant of remote work, and that the organization’s role of resource provision was in tandem
successful implementation of remote work and whether employees of color became productive.
In this study, two outlier answers surfaced as a response. One participant indicated that
they were unprepared when it came to working remotely after the choice or decision was made
for or by them. They were neither prepared mentally nor psychologically. Neither did they have
the requisite skills or information and training regarding best practices for remote work. One
participant observed that,
Zero percent. I felt completely unprepared. ... I felt pushed. … I was very scared when
beginning remote work. … It was very scary to think that I would be disconnected from
my team. … Taking the first step was hard at the beginning. … So, I was not too sure.
A second participant was more detailed in their response of unpreparedness, saying,
I was only 40% prepared. … I felt completely unprepared. ... Uncertain of how the
technology and the communication part would work, … of not having technical
assistance from the onsite IT Team when I needed them … when I encountered technical
issues … and whether my manager would be understanding and extend missed deadlines
frequently … if and when I ran into issues.
For those participants who responded to the follow-up question: “Did the organization
prepare you?” Four participants responded that the organization did not prepare them and they
had to begin working remotely without organizational support in the form of processes, resources

99
and a cooperative culture at the, some having to rely on their own devices. One participant
observed,
No way! They did not prepare me … or provide any remote work resources. … The
company did not prepare me at all. … I had to begin working remotely on my own … by
myself … without any training or remote work practices, … and I had to learn the
nuances of remote work as I go … by myself, … and by the seat of my pants.
From these findings therefore, it can be deduced that when preparedness is missing, both the
employees and the organizations are ill-prepared and suffer. There were also interrelationships
between the techno-subsystem (remote work choice) and the microsystem (employee
preparedness and positive attitudes and beliefs) themes as they shared concentric systems.
Prior to COVID-19, remote work saw slow adoption as organizations navigated steep,
unfunded remote work implementation initiatives. Neo (2021) indicated that remote work had
seen slow adoption over the years with some large corporations rescinding their budgetary
support for this practice even though various studies linked remote work to favorable
organizational outcomes such as employee satisfaction, organizational performance, reduced
turnover intentions, higher employee commitment while only a minority of studies showed
debatable outcomes.
The conclusion was that if that remote work choice is afforded, preparedness followed,
that resulted in both the employee and organizational systems benefit. It was important to note
that remote work choice—a theme that appeared earlier on nested in the techno-subsystem—
appeared in this microsystem as well when some participants mentioned that they had worked as
consultants for a long time and had mastered remote work choice and employee preparedness.

100
Positive Attitudes and Beliefs in the Microsystem (Individual Determinants Category)
Positive attitude and beliefs as a theme emerged third overall in this study. The theme
resided in Bronfenbrenner’s second microsystem concentric system within the individual
determinants category. The first theme of the microsystem, called employee preparedness, was
discussed in detail in the subsection above. Important to note here was that themes appeared
interrelated and interchangeably in most of the human ecological concentric systems. The remote
work choice theme, nested in the techno-subsystem also appeared in this microsystem concentric
system. One participant mentioned that for them, remote work choice was paired with their
positive attitudes and beliefs when he said: “I had a choice to work remotely … together with a
belief that I would succeed.”
The “I can do it” attitude operationalizes remote work. Seven participants confirmed that
they already had cultivated a positive “I can do it” attitude towards remote work before they
began working remotely. Viewing positive attitude in the lens of a participants’ attitudes and
beliefs of remote work pre-COVID-19 pandemic was important. This result illustrated that most
participants were confident and motivated that they could succeed in working remotely because
they had positive attitudes and beliefs. One participant said, “I was mentally prepared to work
remotely. … When the time came, … I was ready.” Another one exclaimed,
My attitude? … Do you mean my positive attitude? … Of course, my attitude was
positive. … I am generally a very positive person with a positive attitude. … I faced
remote work with such an attitude. … What was the second one you mentioned? … Oh,
yeah, … And my beliefs did not change. … They stayed more or less the same … From
that time until today.

101
Another participant was more detailed as well when answering the positive attitude and beliefs
part of the question, saying,
At the beginning when I started thinking about it, I thought remote work was a luxury …
and not available or possible for just anybody out there, … like me … but once I started
working remotely, I loved it. … I am convinced it should be part of every employee’s
interview, hiring offer negotiations, and onboarding processes.
Finally, one other participant indicated that “Positive. I strongly believed at the time, … and I
still do, that any tasks that don’t require onsite hands-on is suited for remote work.”
Positive attitudes and beliefs were vital to the success of any undertaking. As discussed,
the American Psychiatric Association, (2022) indicated that due to a higher rate of SES for
remote employees of color, there were negative attitudes and beliefs regarding remote work. This
was due to the disparity in accessing remote work enablement (Clarke, 2020) tools like the
internet, computers and portable video and audio devices for employees of color as compared to
their White counterparts. This study findings confirm that fact.
There were some outliers in the findings. Four participants responded negatively that they
held apprehensive attitudes and beliefs and did not have an “I can do it” attitude towards remote
work. One participant stated,
At the time when I was to begin working remotely, I was worried. … I was not familiar
with remote work. … Or how it could apply to my job role and responsibilities before the
pandemic began. I also believed … correctly in my case … that working remotely would
be difficult … due to the many distractions I anticipated to encounter at home.
Still another participant with a negative attitude stated,

102
I wanted to work remotely at least one day per week. … I was not sure, … not ready to
work from home full-time at the time … all the time. … There was an assumption by
many of us at work that less work would be done when working at home. … We did not
know why we believed so at the time. … Maybe because of lack of training? … I didn’t
know at the time.
Also, regarding RQ1 outlier results, one participant said “I had no feelings one way or the
other”.” While another one said he had neutral feelings “I had no feelings one way or the other.”
A couple expressed concern that they would suffer negative, punitive annual performance
reviews that would deny them promotions, layoffs retention or as a worst case scenario get fired
if they failed to perform: “I was afraid I would be let go for non-performance”, one feared.
Summary
This section addressed RQ1 “What factors do remote employees of color in
biotechnology take into consideration in deciding whether or not and how much to work
remotely?” The results were varied and showed that not all participants experienced remote work
in the same way. Eight out of 12 participants had remote work choice, per the theme, in their
immediate environment category within the techno-subsystem. This initial theme was followed
by two more: employee preparedness and positive attitudes and beliefs to be successful. These
two themes fall within the individual determinants category in the microsystem concentric
system. Nicholas et al. (2015), illustrated in extant research that remote work led to a 13%
performance increase for remote employees, of which 9% was from working more minutes per
shift, aligned with this study, both studies showing that participants often felt more comfortable
working more hours remotely, while having more control in their home offices.

103
This research findings for RQ1 concerned the factors the participants considered when
deciding whether or not to work remotely. Most participants had remote work choice either to
make or it was afforded to them by the organization. The findings also showed that most of the
participants had positive “I can do it” attitudes and beliefs toward remote work, and that in doing
so, they would succeed. Conversely, four participants did not have any choice, mostly because of
their job responsibilities. Also, 10 participants mentioned employee preparedness was key while
7 mentioned positive attitudes and beliefs as remote work individual determinants. This finding
aligned with the literature review, when Udavant (2022) noted that some remote employees may
have been apprehensive toward remote work because of organizational discrimination via
proximity bias. This may have created negative attitudes and beliefs in some.
Research Question 2: Benefits and Challenges of Remote Work
Research Question 2 (What are the benefits and challenges that biotech employees of
color experience when working remotely?) examined the benefits and challenges of remote
work. The four overarching themes that emerged were work-life balance benefit, no commute
time benefit, no dedicated workspace challenge, and mental health challenge. These 4—which
were important determinants and drivers of remote work implementation—fell within the
mesosystem’s socio-cultural environment category. RQ2 was important in gauging research
subjects’ feelings regarding working remotely and to discover if they realized any benefits from
remote work. Conversely, it was important to find out if there were any factors that exacerbated
these challenges and gauge their feelings regarding them.
Work-Life Balance in the Mesosystem (Socio-Cultural Environment Category)
The study found that only one out of 12 participants did not consider Work-life balance
theme as their number one benefit. This data was generated in response to RQ2 and was

104
adequate to make a determination regarding this theme. It was worth noting that the employee
preparedness theme—that appeared earlier nested in the microsystem—also emerged in this
Mesosystem concentric system. For example, one participant noted, “I was prepared to work
remotely because I knew one of the benefits was work-life balance.” Also, the no commute time
benefit, nested within this same mesosystem was alluded to quite a bit as the two benefits of
remote work. For example, one of the participants, who worked as a consultant said, “Work-life
balance and no commute time benefits were huge remote work benefits for me.” This was a very
popular benefit and that is why 11 participants scored it highest above all other benefits of
remote work. This was the fourth theme to emerge, overall and it was nested within
Bronfenbrenner’s third concentric system: the mesosystem. One participant responded,
Better work-life balance was a very huge benefit for me, … very convenient for me. …
You can do other tasks for yourself during break time from work … like doing walking
exercises during my lunch break. … This was kind of missing when I worked onsite.
Another participant responded aptly “Better work-life balance did it for me.” When another
participant was pushed to choose between the two competing benefits of work-life balance and
no commute time benefits, which she had equally ranked, she said,
Okay, fine, … if you insist. ... I am speaking for myself here. … I would say the benefit
of no commute time is more important than the work-life balance benefit. … It trumps
work-life balance because I used to have a terrible commute. … At least 1 hour lost in
traffic each way, every weekday.
For some participants, work-life balance was not recognized as the top benefit. This aligned with
Gartner (2022) who recommended that to effectively manage remote work talent for work-life
balance, HR departments need to put into proper context remote work initiatives for the

105
organization. HR would need to establish team guidelines, for better communication and also
provide flexibility for employees’ remote work needs. The findings also confirmed MartinezAmador’s (2016) conclusion that work-location enjoyment mediated productivity for employees.
This was especially true for employees of color working more than 3 days per week remotely,
working from home was associated with greater work-life balance, possibly due to decreased
commute time and more time to deal with personal life (Martinez-Amador, 2016).
This work-life balance benefit finding aligned with the study findings of Ding and
Quan’s (2021) who found that 37% of jobs in the United States can be performed entirely at
home, mitigating unnecessary commuting, and saving employees’ time. A Global Workplace
Analytics (2020) survey revealed that currently, around 56% of employees in the United States
had a job that could be done from home at least part of the time due to it being information-based
and involving a lack of physical work requirements, while 37% of jobs in the United States can
be done solely at home (Dingel & Neiman, 2020). It was therefore a great benefit for
biotechnology organizations to implement work-life balance as innovators and be ahead of the
implementation curve. The finding also aligned with the work of Kossek et al. (2014) who found
that employers offered remote work for work-life balance, performance reasons, flexible
arrangements, and compressed workweeks. This resulted in better employee conditions.
As far as work-life balance was concerned, one participant noted, “I saved at least 2
hours per day without having to commute.” Yet another affirmed, “I can save time. … Time that
would be spent in traffic … in doing the actual work ... from home.” While another one just
simply said, “Not commuting is huge for me, … and I loved it!” This finding also aligned with
Martinez-Amador (2016) who found that work-location enjoyment mediated productivity, and
was associated with greater work-life balance, possibly due to decreased commute time and more

106
time to deal with personal life. This finding reinforced the fact that remote work was going to be
around as the new normal for a long time and organizations would need to be ready for remote
work expansion as one of the factors of job design.
No Commute Time in the Mesosystem (Socio-Cultural Environment Category)
The no commute time benefit was the second most named theme that emerged as a
benefit of remote work and fits within the mesosystem. Eight participants referenced it as one of
the benefits. Also, within this mesosystem, work-life balance appeared interchangeable with the
no commute time benefit. These were the two most mentioned benefits overall. One of the
participants responded,
Working remotely saves a lot of commuting time, … time spent in Bay Area traffic, …
and the costs associated with commuting. … It also saves time so you can do more work
from home. … Having no commute is very convenient for me.
This finding also aligned with the work of Martinez-Amador (2016) who found that worklocation enjoyment mediated productivity, and was associated with greater work-life balance,
possibly due to decreased commute time and more time to deal with personal life. This finding
reinforced the fact that remote work was going to be around as the new normal for a long time to
come and organizations would have to better brace themselves and hunker down indefinitely.
Conversely, some respondents did not feel that the no commute time benefit was a choice
or benefit for them. Four participants did not list the no commute time benefit theme as a benefit
for them. One participant noted that the decision was made by their HR department. Another
participant, a senior research scientist who worked in the laboratory in one biotechnology
organization, did not think they saw this as a benefit. This was because he utilized research
laboratory equipment on daily basis in their role that could not be taken home, and one of his

107
other job functions was to take care of live animals that were laboratory specimens. For him, the
no commute time benefit was not an option and he had to commute to office weekdays and on
alternating weekends. He expounded on his answer in detail,
For me, commuting in heavy Southern California traffic takes a lot of time, … but I have
no choice. … I work in the research lab. … So, I must commute to work every weekday.
… I have to go in on weekends too … Luckily, I go in the labs on alternating weekends.
This research finding also aligned with Wiles (2020) who indicated that remote work was not
possible for some employees in some job functions in biotechnology organizations. For example,
within biotechnology organizations, drug manufacturing assembly line workers, clinical workers,
and laboratory assistants could not work remotely (Wiles, 2020). For these particular employees,
digitizing and automating lab functions and processes or putting them on an alternating schedule,
defining tasks that can be worked in the labs and remotely, and scheduling when to do each may
be key to providing some commute time relief for them. In alignment to this finding, Kossek et
al., 2014) indicated that the no commute benefit could be utilized to attract, retain, and motivate
talent and support employees’ management of work-home responsibilities. A valid point made.
This study finding also aligned with Wiles’ (2020) who noted that biotechnology
organizations’ HR departments would need to analyze employee responsibilities, tasks, and roles
to determine which work could be subjected to a remote work model. Wiles’ (2020) observed
that the kind of performance monitoring and support employees required in these prevailing
situations needed to be determined. Another senior process scientist who needed to commute
daily noted that he had no choice of working remotely because he needed to work onsite to work
with laboratory specimens or needed to utilize laboratory instruments to work.

108
No Dedicated Workspace in the Mesosystem (Socio-Cultural Environment)
In answering RQ2, the no dedicated workspace challenge, a theme nested within the
mesosystem concentric circle within the socio-cultural environment category in the conceptual
framework was sixth to emerge overall. It was notable that the employee preparedness theme
appeared in this mesosystem concentric system as well due to their interrelationships. A
participant noted, “No dedicated workspace at home was a big challenge … Not good. … It
affected my preparedness.” Also, this no dedicated workspace challenge was mentioned in
tandem with the mental health challenge theme. Results-wise, the no dedicated workspace
challenge scored first with 10 participants listing it as an issue that afflicts remote employees of
color more. This was possibly because of their lower SES factors in their background and a lack
of traditional wealth enabling them to purchase their own home where they would have more
workspace autonomy compared to their White counterparts. One participant responded,
I don’t have a home office at home. … My home has no dedicated home-office room. …
So, I have cordoned off some workspace in the living room area. … I have lots of
distractions from people in the house. … Family members, … also the pets, … they come
looking for me where I am working. … All over the place needing attention from me.
Another participant spoke in similar terms, describing in detail regarding organizational resource
provision, saying,
For me, there was no adequate home-office facility or no dedicated workspace where I
could put my desk. … The space was nonexistent. … I had many distractions because of
it. … Family and pets were in the way of my work. … At home, I don’t have a dedicated
home office. … This was a major challenge for me, and it continued longer-term.

109
This finding aligned with Korkmaz (2021) who indicated that the limitations of person-to-person
contact caused employees to rapidly implement, maintain and sustain new “Home offices”, a
new business buzzword of 2020, which continues to describe the everyday life of many whitecollar employees. Extant Workplace Analytics (2022) research aligned with this finding, which
revealed that a typical employer saved $11,000/year for every full-time employee that worked
from home 50% of the time. That was over $1.1 million/year for every 100 half-time
telecommuters. Some employees wanted a share of these savings split between them and the
organizations. For example, a one-time investment of $1,000 to provide an employee with homeoffice furniture would pay for itself in a little over a month (Workplace Analytics, 2022). This
finding reinforced the challenge that most employees of color faced, having no dedicated
workspace and having to improvise to stay productive.
This study also revealed that a minority, or two participants, had a dedicated office or
workspace with a door they could close and lock to prevent distractions. One participant said,
I am one of the lucky ones … to own a home of my own. … I have a dedicated office in
the house, … a dedicated home office where I work from. … Plus, I am at home alone …
most of the weekdays since my teenage boys are gone to high school all day, … and I do
not have any pets in the house. … No distractions for me. … A perfect setup going.
This finding aligned with Chokkattu (2022) who noted that remote work enablement tools
mostly included these six main items: A home office or quiet place to work from away from
roommates, family members, children or pets; A robust, broadband internet Wi-Fi access; A
laptop or computer; An ergonomic chair or setup if employees wish to work while standing; A
comfortable, flexible desk that employees can utilize while sitting or standing; An ergonomic,

110
comfortable desk chair, etc. All these employees needed was for their organizations to provide
technology and DWT resources like furniture and software to complete the home-office setup.
Conversely, while most scrambled to find dedicated workspace, only two participants
claimed to have a dedicated and well-supplied home office that they could close the door to and
work without interruptions. It was telling that most of these employees of color did not own
homes, possibly due to an interplay of race, lower SES factors and lower access to technology.
Or if they did, they would share their homes with family members, roommates and pets. This
was a source of disruption concern for them, thus the no dedicated workspace challenge.
Mental Health Challenge in the Mesosystem (Socio-Cultural Environment)
This mental health challenge emerged seventh overall in response to RQ2 and resided
within the mesosystem. It was notable that the theme about no dedicated workspace was
mentioned in tandem with the mental health challenge theme when one participant noted, “My
challenges were “no dedicated workspace and mental health issues, in that order.”
In the study, nine participants scored it second highest. One participant said,
I felt alone. … Working from home by myself alone … away from my manager and my
team. … and the sickening feeling of being isolated was real for me. … From the rest of
my friends from work. … It was hard to deal with. … It took a toll mentally because of it.
Another participant noted that they faced loneliness at the onset of remote work, and it impacted
them mentally. The participant said,
Lack of in-person meetings and interactions was a big issue for me. … We are always in
screened Zoom meetings constantly. … I felt burnt out. … Not meeting and seeing my
co-workers physically to make small talk. … That was a big issue that I had to overcome

111
mentally. … Basically, I spoke face-to-face with very few people … The only people I
spoke with face-to-face during the week were few … mostly my two teenage boys.
Addressing mental health challenges for remote employees of color is key to organizational
development. Many participants felt that there is a stigma often associated with seeking mental
health help. Organizations need to encourage employees and equate the importance of mental
health to the importance of physical health and organizational profitability. This mental health
impact challenge finding aligns with Grant (2013), who argued that remote employees faced
increased psychological challenges and risks. Dittes et al. (2019) indicated that over-extended
use of digital technology might provoke technostress and/or burnout, leading to mental stress.
Also, there was alignment in the literature review whereby the American Psychiatric Association
(2021) found that out of 1000 surveyed, a majority 75% reported negative mental health impacts
and including isolation, loneliness, and difficulty getting away from work or in front of the
computer at the end of the day while 17% said they were impacted by mental health factors all
the time. Additionally, American Psychiatric Association (2021) found that about one in 7
employees reported their employer offered mental health applications, such as Calm or
Headspace, or mental health training for supervisors and managers and that Black and Hispanic
employees were somewhat more concerned about retaliation than were Whites. This was a
troubling statistic, indeed, that needs to be addressed by organizations.
Conversely, three participants noted that they did not have to overcome any mental health
stress at the onset of their working remotely. Some reported utilizing telehealth for counseling.
This finding aligned with Edmondson’s (2019) proposal of a step-by-step leader’s toolkit for
creating psychological safety in the workplace for counseling, learning, innovation, and growth.
Also, Grant (2013) argued that remote employees faced increased psychological challenges and

112
risks regardless of the COVID-19 worldwide pandemic, aligning with this finding. A change
management framework needed to be deployed in combating mental health challenges in
individual employees as well. Organizations could therefore champion providing direction,
confidence, and resilience and encourage intentional peer-to-peer interactions and subscribe
employees to telehealth, if they had not done so already.
Summary
Remote work benefits and challenges were important enablers or drivers in the successful
implementation of remote work for employees of color. Gauging and highlighting these drivers’
importance from research subjects to discover their feelings about them, and whether they
encountered them, was paramount to my study. For example, the work-life balance theme was
ranked first benefit by 11 of 12 participants. Biotechnology organizations may need to
implement work-life balance as innovators in order to stay ahead of the implementation curve,
which is a win-win for both organizations and employees. The second ranked benefit was the no
commute time benefit with eight participants while four did not rank it as a benefit. For those
that ranked these two benefits, organizations may step up their game by allowing employees to
work remotely indefinitely or implement a hybrid schedule to provide some commute relief for
those onsite employees by introducing a digital workplace. This is in alignment with Dery et al.
(2017), who noted that organizations introduced remote work to transform their workplace from
an analog onsite work model into a digital workplace. As far as challenges were concerned, for
the 10 participants who ranked the no dedicated workspace challenge first, the study found that
employees of color had challenges improvising by creating a dedicated workspace or section of
their home as a dedicated workspace while only two had full autonomy in creating a home-office
setup. Lastly, nine participants ranked the mental health challenge second. This aligned with

113
Gartner (2022) who indicated that job autonomy was negatively related to loneliness, leading to
mental health issues. The study found that organizations would serve themselves well providing
some training, direction, confidence, and resilience by encouraging intentional peer-to-peer
interactions. Subscribing employees into telehealth, if they have not done so already, may help.
Research Question 3: Organizational Factors at Play in Remote Work
This final RQ3 (To what extent and how do remote employees of color perceive that their
organization has made efforts to address challenges faced in working remotely?) explored the
extent to which participants perceived that the organization had made efforts to address their
challenges when working remotely. Specifically, this research question addressed organizational
factors at play in remote work and whether resources had been deployed to assist employees of
color. Three themes emerged addressing RQ3: organizational resources, organizational
processes, and organizational DEI culture. Organizational resources were encompassed in the
exosystem within the on-premises environment category, while organizational processes and
organizational DEI culture was encompassed in the macrosystem, within the organizational
environment category.
Organizational Resources in the Exosystem (On-Premises Environment Category)
The eighth emergent theme overall was organizational resources. This came about in the
examination of organizational factors that either drive, enable or impact remote work and resided
within Bronfenbrenner’s fourth concentric system called exosystem within the on-premises
environment category. The successful implementation and maintenance of remote work
initiatives required the deployment of organizational resources, both in deed and in kind in order
for remote employees to succeed in their projects and tasks and for the organization to succeed in
their bottom lines and gain competitive advantage over others. In the study, seven participants

114
responded that they were provided with some form of organizational resources. The context of
these three RQs was mostly to gauge organizational resource deployment for remote work and its
effectiveness. The ninth theme, named organizational processes residing within the macrosystem
fifth concentric system appeared as an interrelationship in this organizational resources section
within the exosystem as well. One participant excitedly said, “We have processes and resources
available for remote work.” As far as organizational resources are concerned, a participant said,
Yes, IT resources were provided. … My organization provided me with a laptop
computer, monitors, desk and chair, … and they also provided a work from home stipend.
… Like $150 per month to pay for the internet Wi-Fi, … and, no, … they do not
reimburse for electric bills, … but this internet stipend helps a lot. … I am happy with it.
A majority of participants confirmed that their organization provided resources like internet WiFi bill reimbursement, a key success factor of remote work implementation. Other resources
included a laptop computer, computer monitor/s, desk and computer software for remote work,
but unfortunately most did not have electrical bill reimbursement perk. Another participant said,
No, they don’t help pay any bills. … No internet Wi-Fi bills are paid. … No electrical
bills are paid by them either. … They provide very limited resources. … They can get
you a monitor if you ask, … but it takes a while. … It has to go through a long approval
chain … up to the department VP, … but it is challenging to request it and get it
approved.
It appeared that some participants felt their performance was eroded somewhat, when their
leadership allocated very minimal resources and did not factor equity into resource allocation.
This is in alignment with Dery et al. (2017), that organizations introduce remote work to
transform their workplace from an analog onsite work model into a digital workplace.

115
Research showed that many of the organizations allocated resources for remote work for
their employees equally, including the provision of a laptop computer, computer monitor/s, desk
and computer software for remote working and internet. But they did not do so in an equitable
manner in consideration of race, lower SES factors and little access to technology for employees
of color. This finding aligned with literature on energy insecurity when Memmott et al. (2021)
found that lower socioeconomic classes of employees of color including Blacks, Hispanics, those
without a college degree and households with young children were all the more likely to be
energy insecure. These lower SES employees of color who have lacked resources in their
background and lived experience, may need reimbursement of all or some of their internet, Wi-Fi
and electrical bills, which was not the case for five participants. It appeared organizations were
silently telling employees in an unspoken manner “Work from home at your own peril without
support since it is your choice to do so.”
Organizational resources were not always available when it came to remote employees of
color support in biotechnology organizations. Almost half or five participants felt that they had
to seek and find various, ample remote work resources on their own. For example, some were
just given a laptop and nothing else and left to their devices. A few lucky ones got a laptop and a
desk but did not get any reimbursement for their internet Wi-Fi, and none got reimbursed for
their electric power. One participant stated,
No! … Not really. … I wish they did! … The company just provided a laptop. That was
it. … I had to find my own resources like desk, printer, monitors, mouse and telephone,
… and I pay for my own internet Wi-Fi, … and, of course, I pay for electric bills myself.
This finding corresponds with Calma (2022) who indicated that before the pandemic, nearly one
in three United States households struggled to pay their energy bills.

116
For five participants who had to seek their own resources, half were consultants already
working from home at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. This was in alignment with Neely
(2022) who noted that the rapid and unprecedented changes brought on by COVID-19
worldwide pandemic had accelerated the transition to remote working, requiring the wholesale
migration of nearly entire organizations to virtual work in just weeks, leaving managers and
employees scrambling to adjust. This unprecedented adjustment required that organizations
implement DWT fast, via prioritization, budget allocation and training for quick implementation.
This massive transition forced organizations to rapidly advance their digital footprint, using
cloud, storage, cybersecurity, and tools to accommodate their new remote workforce (Neely,
2022). This enabled organizations to not only stay ahead of the implementation curve and
competitive advantage but also survive the COVID-19 without shuttering their doors.
The question for organizations going forward would be whether they should also
reimburse electric bills of employees of color with lower SES factors and little access to
technology in their background. The Energy Information Administration (2015) found that
nearly one in three U.S. households (31%) faced a challenge in meeting energy needs and
struggled with energy insecurity, facing a challenge in paying energy bills or sustaining adequate
heating and cooling in their homes. It is unprecedented and mind boggling that most
organizations did not consider electrical power a vital tool of remote work for reimbursement.
Organizational Processes in the Macrosystem (Organizational Environment Category)
RQ3 examined organizational factors that impact remote work; organizational processes
emerged as the ninth and second last theme. It resided in the macrosystem within the
organizational environment category. Nine participants responded that remote work
organizational processes were robust enough. In that breadth, the organizational resources theme

117
was exemplified when one participant said, “There are processes and resources available for us
for remote work.” These appeared interchangeable. For organizational processes theme, one
participant said,
It helps. … IT and remote work best practices and expectations training was provided. …
This also educates and helps me personally to ensure systems and data security while
working from home, … and that also helps me apply the security in my personal life.
Lastly, two themes of organizational processes and organizational DEI culture emerged in the
macrosystem and organizational environment category. Participants confirmed that
organizational processes and culture helped and enhanced remote work initiatives for them.
Four participants however, responded disapprovingly. They said that robust
organizational processes were nonexistent or those that were in place hindered or were not at par
with remote work implementation initiatives. One participant was very direct, saying,
Hinder! … The current processes only allow minimal remote work 1 day a week
maximum, … if at all. Plus, you must provide justification for wanting to work remotely.
It is a long, winded process … to request to do so.
A clear theme that emerged when addressing RQ3 was that while a majority of biotechnology
organizations had robust processes that supported remote work, a quarter still lagged behind, by
a lot. Organizations may need to introduce process agility, achievable by ensuring organizational
business processes were interconnected effectively as part of an organizational operational
system that allowed remote work as a vital part of job design. Process Agility was aptly and
loosely defined as a process focusing on organizational outcomes and products over outputs and
projects. In process agility, the governance of all decisions, processes, and work was directed
toward ensuring the continuous delivery of value and business outcomes. Conversely, business

118
agility required operations to adapt and continuously evolve as needed in service of creating
customer value. Organizational push towards process agility and operational excellence aids in
remote work deployments. Operational excellence means implementing organizational strategies
that maintain or enhance business performance and occurs when organizations implements and
executes its day-to-day business operations better than its competitors in their industry.
Organizational DEI Culture in the Macrosystem (Organizational Environment Category)
This was the 10th and last theme that emerged when RQ3 was asked of participants. This
organizational DEI culture theme appeared peppered in other concentric systems, for example in
the exosystem whereby organizational processes go hand in hand with organizational culture. As
a reminder, this theme resided within Bronfenbrenner’s fifth and last concentric system called
Macrosystem within the organizational environment category. Also due to the inter-relational
nature that exist within concentric systems, the ninth organizational processes theme from this
selfsame fifth exosystem appeared interchangeable as well, when a participant said,
Yes, organizational processes are there, … even the ones that guide remote work and
working from home. … We have a standard operating procedure document with
processes of remote work, … with best practices listed, … but while it is there, … we
lack a strong DEI culture, … which, in my view, is more important than remote work
processes alone.
According to these study results, only five participants said that their biotechnology
organizations had forward-looking, robust DEI initiatives. This was a worrying statistics because
Schein and Schein, 2017 noted that a vibrant organizational culture espoused organizational
effectiveness, characterized by explicit and implicit norms, values, and behaviors that guided the
way activities were conducted and rewarded. Adaptive organizational cultures were versatile and

119
facilitated the effective navigation of change and the organization’s long-term survival (Costanza
et al., 2016; Schein, 2017). DEI was vital for organizational adaptability and survival.
For remote work enablement unfortunately, a majority of seven participants noted that
their organization lacked a culture that promotes DEI initiatives. Simply put, they did not have
DEI enablement programs in place to facilitate a culture of inclusion embedded within their
scientific-leaning organizational culture that implied that scientists challenged accepted
explanations of facts and proposed new and original ways of interpreting them. For these
scientific-heavy organizations, originality, independence of thought and dissent were
characteristics of the scientific culture, and therefore a challenge to established cultural values.
One participant who spoke about organizational DEI programs, noted,
My organization has a very elaborate DEI culture in place. … A progressive culture, …
that promotes and supports remote work and provides $150 to me to help pay for my
internet Wi-Fi. … Not just for me but to all employees. … For me, I plan to continue
working from home full-time. ... All the time. … Going forward, … hopefully as long as
possible. … That is my sincere hope.
This finding illustrated that while there were some efforts made to treat all employees equally,
they were not treated equitably, even with a robust DEI culture present. This finding was
troubling on many levels. Research on creativity indicated that “promoting creativity without
attending to the subsequent psychological and behavioral changes decreases rather than
increases [emphasis added] organizational performance over the long run” (Ng & Yam, 2019, p.
1157). Most notably, when there was a lack of diversity in the workplace and discrimination or
harassment occurred, victims on the receiving end felt isolated. Brown (2019) found that almost
always, an examination of SES factors often revealed inequities in access to resources as well as

120
revealing issues related to privilege, power, and control. Some remote employees reported
isolation from team members and organizational perks due to working remotely. This social
isolation might end in the victim’s unwillingness to report prejudice issues as one of the most
significant effects of lack of diversity in the workplace. Ng (2023) indicated that for those
organizations that saw social justice, multiculturalism, and non-discrimination as the right thing
to do, they were also more profitable and generated better business outcomes. Proponents of DEI
and diversity in business suggested that including the viewpoints of marginalized groups like
employees of color remote employees could drive improvements in areas such as reduced
absenteeism; lower turnover; and increased productivity (Ng, 2023).
Notably, this study revealed that seven participants addressed this RQ3 head on. These
participants said that their organizations did not have DEI programs nor did they support it. One
participant replied with an emphatic “No” to whether their organization fosters a DEI
enablement culture and did not care to elaborate even when prompted to expound on their
answer. Of note, the eighth organizational resources theme from the fourth exosystem concentric
system emerged here as well, when a participant said, “Resources have not been allocated to DEI
programs yet. … Maybe they will soon. … We will keep petitioning HR for it.” As far as
organizational DEI culture theme is concerned, one participant said,
I plan to petition the organization at some point ... to let me work remotely because of a
lack of DEI program at work … or at least work on a hybrid schedule ... as some kind of
escape from subconscious, institutionalized discrimination that I face when working
onsite. … Like, work from home half the time at least, … but it is very hard work to
convince my manager, … but I’ll keep trying. … I have to try.

121
This study closely aligned with the work of Buss (2022), who noted that over the last year, the
most frequent action taken by companies on the DEI front had been to conduct DEI-focused
employee listening. Diversity, equity, and inclusion needed some attention from biotechnology
organizations (Givens, 2021).
Organizations that lacked robust DEI initiatives could deploy many tools at their disposal
to achieve culture change, such as diversity training, diversity audits, and anti-discrimination
policies (Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion, 2023). Edmondson (2019) proposed a step-by-step
leader’s toolkit for creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and
growth. Also, an American Psychiatric Association (2021) study of 1000 in the literature found
that 40% were concerned about retaliation from employers if they attempted to seek mental
health care or take time off for mental health self-care. This showcased a disturbing lack of DEI
initiatives in that employees of color were somewhat more concerned about retaliation than were
their White counterparts with higher SES and higher access to technology. The finding that a
majority of participants’ organizations had no DEI initiatives in place that allowed a remote work
culture was a wake-up call, since biotechnology organizations tended to be very progressive in
nature and ahead of the curve in organizational change management. This study found that lack
of organizational social support positively correlated with higher levels of remote work
challenges. To implement DEI, Buss (2022) noted that over the last year, the most frequent
action taken by companies on the DEI front had been employee listening sessions (Buss, 2022).
This was a positive way forward, to drive DEI culture implementation ensuring equity for all.
Summary
To recap, organizational factors that impact remote work per the emergent themes from
the study were organizational resources, organizational processes, and organizational DEI

122
culture. While most organizations allocate organizational resources for remote work to all
employees equally, many do not consider doing so in an equitable manner based on their
employees’ SES factors. Lower SES employees of color, who have traditionally lacked resources
in their background and lived experiences growing up, need more. For example, some of these
employees may need reimbursement of all or some of their internet, Wi-Fi and electrical bills.
Buss (2022) found that about four in 10 employers offer resources based on DEI many do not
offers mental health resources such as Calm or Headspace, or mental health training resources
for supervisors and managers. This is a positive development, but not enough. The study also
illustrated that while slightly more than half received remote work resources, almost half of the
participants felt that they had to seek and find various, ample remote work resources on their
own. Also, there is a stigma often associated with seeking mental health help, but organizations
should encourage employees and equate the importance of mental health to the importance of
physical health and organizational health and profitability.
Biotechnology organizations are without question becoming more diverse and globalized
as the study illustrates. This means that many professional employees and organizations must
adapt and update their current processes to modernize their business practices and digital tools.
They can do this by shifting processes. The study found that less than half of biotechnology
organizations have robust DEI programs. Compounding the lack of DEI programs by punishing
remote employees via Udavant (2022) who noted that some remote employees may have been
apprehensive toward remote work because of organizational discrimination via proximity bias
that may have created negative attitudes and beliefs and caused employees to be apprehensive.
As for organizational resources, remote work has enabled organizations to have
budgetary resources at their disposal. It was reported by a Workplace Analytics (2022) study that

123
that a typical employer saved $11,000/year for every full-time employee that worked from home
50% of the time. That was over $1.1 million/year for every 100 half-time telecommuters. Some
employees wanted a share of these savings split between them and the organizations. Making a
one-time investment of $1,000 to provide an employee with home-office furniture would pay for
itself in a little over a month (Workplace Analytics, 2022). Williams (2021) noted that the
technology divide has shifted substantially and that even when access to technology is equal,
inequities persist because some employees and organizations do not have the necessary
knowledge, training and skills to take advantage of the available technological resources. It
makes sense to share these resources with employees of color in an equitable manner at not much
cost to the organization. This finding reinforces the challenge that most employees of color had
no dedicated workspace, relying on improvisation to create a dedicated workplace.
As far as organizational DEI culture is concerned, this research only found that 42% of
organizations have such a program, in alignment with Buss (2022) noted that over the last year,
the most frequent action taken by companies on the DEI front has been to conduct DEI-focused
employee listening. Establishing a robust DEI culture will arrest this discriminatory practice in
the bud and enhance organizational culture of diversity, equity, and inclusiveness for all.
Conclusion
This study captured various viewpoints regarding the role human bioecological systems
play in these study participants’ experiences. Three themes that emerged for RQ1, which aimed
to explore participants’ immediate environment and individual factors were: remote work choice,
employee preparedness, and positive attitudes and beliefs. Four themes emerged for RQ2
regarding the benefits and challenges of remote work: work-life balance benefit, no commute
time benefit, no dedicated workspace challenge, and mental health challenge. Lastly, three

124
themes emerged regarding RQ3 about how participants perceived that the organization had made
efforts to address challenges they faced: organizational resources, organizational processes, and
organizational DEI culture.
Participants spoke candidly of positive and negative aspects and/or consequences within
each of the themes that led to both beneficial and challenging outcomes. One example where
prior research aligned almost perfectly with the study findings was that as far as organizational
DEI culture is concerned, this research only found that 42% of organizations have such a
program, in alignment with the work of Buss (2022). There were no secondary themes. The
results revealed information that organizations can utilize to implement or enhance DWT and
remote work initiatives, increasing and maintaining remote work productivity while decreasing
mental stress and burnout of remote employees. Prior research noted that tokenism may be
prevalent (Givens, 2021). This factor remains to be addressed by many organizations.
Chapter Five includes further discussion of the interpretation of these findings,
limitations of the study, recommendations, and implications for positive, tangible DWT and
remote work initiatives. There was a good balance of positive and negative outcomes for
participants.

125
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
This qualitative interview study illustrated the fact that remote work was an emerging job
design practice that was vital not only for biotechnology organizations adaptability, bottom line
and competitive advantage, but also for their survival. Specifically, the study examined
inequitable experiences of remote employees of color in biotechnology organizations in the
United States who face less favorable remote work conditions resulting from an interplay of race,
lower socioeconomic status (SES) factors, and little access to technology. Biotechnology
organizations tend to be adaptive, versatile with process agility. Adaptive organizational cultures
are versatile and facilitate the effective navigation of change and the organization’s long-term
survival (Costanza et al., 2016; Schein, 2017). This research study sentiment also aligns with
Dery et al. (2017) who wrote that organizations introduce remote work to transform their
workplace from an analog onsite work model into a digital workplace in order to gain
competitive advantage and survive in case another worldwide pandemic like COVID-19
occurred. The general problem of practice under examination is that while the number of remote
employees of color is increasing, organizational factors like resource allocation, organizational
processes and DEI culture lags behind, a misnomer, since these biotechnology scientific cultures
are known for their progressive, ahead of the curve inventions leadership.
There was minimal to no specific extant research on the inequitable conditions of remote
employees of color prior to this study. Therefore, there exists a lack of procedures and critical
programs that biotechnology organizations could look up to and reference in implementing
equity in remote work resource allocation that ensures equitable resource allocation based on
remote employees of colors’ lower SES factors and lived experiences that impacted them. These
employees of color were impacted by less favorable remote work experiences resulting from an

126
interplay of race, lower SES factors, and little access to technology. Biotechnology organizations
could mitigate these factors under their sphere of influence and control that eroded Employee of
Color performance. Organizations punishing these employees via negative performance reviews
and threats of firing because of non-performance need to be addressed as well. Some
organizations also discriminated and punished remote employees via proximity bias (Udavant,
2022). This study’s aim was to provide information which organizations could utilize to provide
a level playing field for all remote employees. This study may also contribute in a small way as a
reference point in helping organizations achieve equality and equity in remote work resource
allocation for all fairly. This study also included in-depth interviews with 12 participants from
biotechnology organizations who answered 12 interview questions based on three RQs that
anchored the study. This chapter included the discussion of findings, limitations and
delimitations of the study, my recommendations, implications, and finally the study conclusion.
Discussion of Findings
This is a brief analysis of the overall research findings. It includes commentary on the
usefulness of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory for remote employees of color. Given
the substantial scope of this study findings, and the implications that may need to be explored
further for synthesis, the recommendations attempt to reflect only the more critical takeaways
from the study itself as viewed in alignment with the literature review. These recommendations
are also made in view of the human bioecological systems. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological
system theory proposed that child development was a complex system of relationships affected
by multiple levels—and interrelationships—of concentric systems of interaction of the larger
environment, divided into five different systems: the microsystem, the mesosystem, the
exosystem, the macrosystem, and the chronosystem. Johnson and Puplampu (2008) updated the

127
theory by adding an inner concentric circle called the techno-subsystem, which was a central
tenet of the ecological systems theory utilized for this study. With the addition of the technosubsystem, they became six concentric circles in the system: the techno-subsystem, the
microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem, the macrosystem, and finally the chronosystem. In
this study, the chronosystem—changes that influenced remote work experiences over the
lifespan at this point in time—was more for reference purposes only.
The following is a brief analysis of the overall findings of this qualitative study. They
included a commentary on the usefulness of the human bioecological systems theory,
specifically Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory for remote work job design analysis.
Bronfenbrenner (1979) suggested that children’s use and exposure to information technology
during childhood including communication (for example email), accessing information (for
example visiting websites), and gaming (playing video games) was paramount to their
predispositions, and that the environment a child grew up in affected every facet of their adult
life. The ecological systems here meant a set of concentric systems.
The literature review was enlightening and thought-provoking, and it aligned with the
study findings. Some of it revealed that some amount of remote work was presumed to be a
luxury reserved for the well-educated and credentialed (DeSilver, 2020), higher-income earning,
white-collar White employees. This literature review revelation aligned with this research
finding, that some level of remote work choice or decision-making empowerment by the
employee was available to remote employees prior to the COVID-19 worldwide pandemic. And
it was available to most biotechnology organization’s higher-income, highly credentialed whitecollar employees. The findings confirmed that while race, lower SES factors and little access to
technology impacted the participants negatively, these factors were generally overcome through

128
academic qualifications and professional experience. The research also aligned with DeSilver’s
(2020) finding that over 75% of employees who worked from home were white-collar workers,
noting that over 40% of remote employees were executives, managers, or professionals, mostly
White. This literature review statistic matched with the interviewees’ demographics perfectly.
Twelve interviews were conducted to gain an in-depth understanding of the impact of the
inequitable experiences of employees of color in biotechnology organizations in the United
States. All 12 confirmed that they were remote employees of color impacted by lower SES
factors. They were also impacted by an interplay of race and little access to technology, in
alignment with the literature review by United States Census Bureau (2014) that indicated that,
by evaluating SES factors and their effects, proposal recommendations could be made to
improve remote work overall, as part of organizational DWT initiatives implementation and
maintenance. Recommendations are made herein, in view of this fact.
Another key finding was that at the onset of remote work, only seven participants held
positive attitudes and beliefs, which changed to all participants having positive “I can Do It”
attitude and belief after they had been working remotely for a while. This was because they
found out that remote work was good for work-life balance and no commute time, very tangible
benefits for them. This finding slightly differed with one literature review piece that employees
of color had a lower rate of SES (American Psychiatric Association, 2022) and therefore
harbored negative attitudes and beliefs toward remote work. These employees of color were
initially apprehensive at the onset but felt more confident as they deployed remote work.
The literature review also revealed that due to the disparity in accessing remote work
enablement (Clarke, 2020) tools, remote employees of color would have needed to work harder
and may have been unproductive, compared to their White counterparts with higher SES and

129
little access to technology. Examination of the data provided the recommended statistical test for
correlation analysis, where we found that remote work choice was strongly correlated with
positive attitudes and beliefs. Also, since the data provided the recommended statistical test for
paired differences, there was no statistically significant relationship between work-life balance
and positive attitudes and beliefs. In conclusion, study findings aligned with the literature review
that remote work prior to COVID-19 pandemic was for the highly credentialed white-collar
workers (DeSilver, 2020), and that while most workers had little remote work experience, they
developed positive attitudes and beliefs early, even though their organizations were not quick to
respond to this new, emerging practice (DeSilver, 2020) by providing resources, creating remote
work processes, and deploying a conducive DEI culture.
Implications
The general problem of this study was that while the number of remote employees of
color was increasing, organizational factors like resources, processes and a DEI culture were
lagging behind. A McKinsey (2022) survey revealed that 58% of Americans could work from
home, and 92 million do so currently, but organizations still preferred in-office workers. This
was a major disconnect that needed to be addressed to benefit both the organization and its
employees, so as not to lead to proximity bias (Udavant, 2022), one of the issues remote
employees had to contend with, which led to discrimination. Proximity bias occurred when
companies preferred and favored employees living closer to and working onsite, giving them
more opportunities to succeed simply because they were physically present. Minimal or lack of
research on the technology backgrounds and lived experiences of employees of color may have
caused a lack of programs for organizations to reference in implementing remote work equitably
via resource allocation. These inequitable factors may contribute to performance erosion.

130
Organizations making the right decisions today, planning for the future, and adapting as
they learned required a firm understanding of their employees’ remote work experiences
(McKinsey, 2022) and how they were changing. It is recommended biotechnology organizations
began this assessment process by examining their current state of remote work, business needs,
and risks to effectively navigate the nuances of remote and hybrid work strategies.
Implications for Social Change
The modern workplace is becoming more globalized. Digital workplace transformation
initiatives need to be hastened to replace legacy, analog systems to digitized, cloud systems
enabling employee access from anywhere, any time. Millennials and Generation Z were more
interested in having work-life balance enabled by remote work than they were concerned with
upward mobility (Ashgar, 2014). This concept and desire for work-life balance had also become
important to the current older workforce as well. Managers and organizational leaders alike have
had to struggle to find the balance between meeting their personal workforce goals (having
people in the office) with embracing the needs of the modern worker by offering remote work
(Ashgar, 2014; Gallup, 2017). This was an organizational challenge that needed to be addressed.
This study provided managers and organizational leaders with data and a taxonomy of
responses that showed what behaviors strengthened, maintained and eroded experiences of
remote employees of color. This data helped in demystifying the myth that remote employees
were impossible to manage and develop, and required unlimited resources that an organization
could ill afford. The information provided based on this study may assist organizational leaders
and managers who were either struggling with the current, increased requests for remote work as
part of the benefits package or with those planning to offer remote work as a permanent option.
There were more employees who were now requiring flexible working arrangements than in

131
prior generations (Gallup, 2017), and this study could assist organizational leaders in
understanding the needs of remote employees to ensure they could provide the support needed in
making the transition to a remote work job design successful.
These study results could also be used in the planning and preparatory phases of creating
organizational processes and building organizational cultures that support DEI and remote work.
As organizational leaders, managers, and stakeholders planned strategic objectives implementing
corporate policies and procedures friendly to remote work and DEI was a critical part of that
process. Organizational decision-makers could better manage the risks associated with
implementing new processes like remote work initiatives to their organizational practices when
they were armed with such data as the one derived from this study. This study provided data that
managers and leaders could utilize to design and develop onboarding programs, training, and
other supporting initiatives that prepared managers and employees for managing a remote
working relationship together, successfully. McKinsey, (2022) indicated that organizations
needed to make the right decisions today, plan for the future, and adapt as they learned, required
a firm understanding of their employees’ remote work experiences. For organizations, this may
mean that their leaders were aligned in prioritizing DEI and equal, equitable remote work
experiences for all as a competitive, strategic point of differentiation.
Implications for Theory
There were several implications for theory in this study. The study review of the
literature in Chapter Two revealed an extant gap in the literature in terms of finding information
on the remote work experiences of employees of color in biotechnology organizations whose
backgrounds included an interplay of race, lower SES factors and little access to technology. The
need to understand the phenomenon of their lived experiences was an important topic of interest

132
and study. The literature on remote work experiences was therefore limited to employees in the
traditional office sense and rarely included this new population demographics’ lived experiences.
This research contained an analysis of the data sourced from the participants which described
what they needed in order to strengthen, enhance and maintain their desired workplace
experiences. This research also contains additional information that could be used to gain a better
understanding of what types of organizational factors impact remote work—positively and
negatively—and those that eroded remote employees’ experiences. The findings from this
research provided enough data for the researcher to expand on the works of Gallup (2017) who
designed and developed a study on workplace experiences and the general understanding of the
impact of organizational processes and culture on them, as they alluded to the possibility, and the
identification of a new emerging remote work experiences theory.
Implications for Practice
Research findings presented in this study filled a gap in the literature regarding remote
work experiences of employees of color in biotechnology organizations who face inequitable
experiences resulting from an interplay of race, lower SES factors and little access to technology.
The findings also generated data that could be used by future researchers to further study,
analyze and identify remote work lived experiences and how organizational factors like resource
allocation, processes and DEI culture respond to remote employees equally and equitably. This
study provided a framework from which to identify the background and lived experiences of
employees of color remote employees, and how they differentiate from those of organizational
and traditional in-office, onsite, on-premises employees. This study produced evidence that
illustrated the impact of inequitable experiences of remote employees of color with lower SES

133
factors and little access to technology in their background and their need for additional attention
from their organizations to address resource provision in an equal and equitable manner.
The problem that initiated this study was thoroughly examined, and evidence adduced
that leaders, managers and stakeholders could utilize to improve employees of color remote
working conditions in their organizations. The findings could be used in the daily operational
management of organizations that employ remote employees. The results from this study could
also be used as a best practices template in managing and leading remote employees of color and
in strengthening their remote workplace experiences.
Usefulness of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory for Remote Work
This research study utilized the human ecology theory as a theoretical framework.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory viewed child development as a complex
system of relationships affected by multiple interrelationships within concentric systems of
interaction, divided into five systems: the techno-subsystem, the microsystem, the mesosystem,
the exosystem, the macrosystem, all encompassed by the sixth chronosystem. Bronfenbrenner
recognized multiple interrelationships of organic and inorganic elements in a developing child’s
life interacting with and affecting the child. His work looked beyond individual development,
taking into account wider influencing factors and the context (or ecology) of development. This
theory dictated that the individual influenced the environment (Rosa & Tudge, 2013).
In this study, the individual was the remote employee. Johnson and Puplampu (2008)
updated the theory by inserting an inner concentric system called the techno-subsystem, which
was the updated ecological systems theory utilized in this study to examine the role of the remote
employee’s immediate environment, individual determinants, socio-cultural environments, onpremises environment, and organizational environment. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems

134
theory was used as a theoretical framework for this study aligned well in understanding,
unmasking, and exposing the remote employee’s environments, benefits, and challenges as well
as organizational factors like resources, processes and culture that impact remote work. The
framework helped explore the participants’ remote work experiences and whether their
organizations equally and equitably allocated resources. The development of these explanations
emerged from participant data. The next section covers proposed recommendations that may
help alleviate inequitable remote work experiences for all, especially for employees of color.
Recommendations
This study generated 10 primary themes. Therefore, recommendations will be based on
these, in alleviating inequitable experiences of remote employees of color. To recap, the purpose
of this study was to explore inequitable experiences of remote employees of color in
biotechnology organizations in the United States who face less favorable remote work conditions
resulting from an interplay of race, lower SES, and little access to technology. The study
explored how organizations could implement equity in remote work experiences for all, in order
to achieve equality and equity in remote work-resource allocation.
This qualitative study provided a taxonomy of responses that began to add to the
scholarly information available on the topic of inequitable remote work experiences of remote
employees of color employees who faced less favorable remote work experiences from an
interplay of race, lower SES factors, and little access to technology. These recommendations aid
in the implementation and improvement of remote work experiences and work-life balance.
Figure 9 contains recommendations for remote employees of color in relation to the ecological
systems theory. These recommendations in Figure 9 should be viewed in the lens of The Prosci
ADKAR (Hiatt, 2006) organizational change management methodology (OCMM).

135
Figure 9
Recommendations for Remote Employees of Color in Relation to Ecological Systems
Note. Adapted from Bronfenbrenner’s Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature
and Design. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Harvard University Press.
These recommendations contained within Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems
theory should also be viewed through the lens of an organizational change management
methodology called The Prosci ADKAR (Hiatt, 2006) that I am proposing. The Prosci ADKAR
acronyms enumerated five outcomes—based on its ADKAR acronyms—that for meaningful

136
change to occur, an individual needed to methodically go through these steps: awareness, desire,
knowledge, ability, and reinforcement. Specifically, the ADKAR framework focuses on an
individual’s awareness of the need for change, their desire to participate in and support that
change, the knowledge on how to change, their ability to implement required skills and
behaviors, and reinforcement on how to sustain that change.
The results of this study provide key insights into participants’ remote work lived
experiences suitable for ADKAR. Yin (2014) alluded to the idea that qualitative research
methods would provide comprehensive descriptions of the emerging phenomena, which was
realized in this study. It was important to note that an important tactic of execution was the
methods and modes of communication in form of regular updates, reports on progress, and
celebration of success as important practices in ADKAR. Formal updates on a daily, weekly,
monthly, or on as needed basis go a long way in keeping employees engaged. To implement
ADKAR, biotechnology organizational leadership would need to hire an organizational change
management consultant (OCMC) or remote work subject matter expert (SME) to tactically lead
organizational remote work-strategic-initiatives implementation and execution.
Such a project could take 3, 6, 12, 18 or even up to 24 months to implement, depending
on organizational size and scope of change. Management could ensure the OCMC/SME subjects
the project to some form of revolving “wash, rinse and repeat” cycle until the strategic objectives
set forth for remote work (RW) are met and deployed in a more equal, equitable and fair manner,
leveling the playing field. Figure 10 is a detailed illustration of ADKAR as it pertains to—or
viewed in the lens of—remote work for employees of color. RW is an acronym short form for
remote work in Figure 10.

137
Figure 10
Prosci’s Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement (ADKAR) Model
Note. Adapted from ADKAR: A model for change in business, government and our community.
Edition 1 by J. M. Hiatt, 2006. Prosci Learning Center. Copyright 2006 by Prosci Inc.
To reiterate, ADKAR is an organizational change management methodology (OCMM) at
an individual level that is a robust system utilized to support organizations during disruptive
transformations (Hiatt, 2006). Developed by Prosci, the ADKAR model represented 5sequential
stages that individuals typically go through during change: awareness, desire, knowledge, ability,
and reinforcement (Hiatt, 2006). ADKAR was a powerful, yet simple model for facilitating
individual change. Hiatt (2006) indicated that its primary objective was to implement strategies
for effecting change, driving change, controlling change, and helping individuals adapt to
change. Hiatt (2006) noted that ADKAR had all important aspects of the change implementation
process identified by most OCCMs, having been tested and proved useful for changes of
different scale and scope at various organizations worldwide.

138
Techno-Subsystem (Immediate Environment) Recommendations
Within this techno-subsystem, a recommendation could be to enable employees of color
to make educated decisions or choose to readily work remotely. There was one theme that
resided within the techno-subsystem, immediate environment category, called employee choice.
A recommendation here would be to empower remote work choice for employees of
color. Remote work choice or decision to work remotely is paramount to the motivation and
success of the employees of color remote employee. A recommendation here—viewed in
ADKAR’s lens—would be for the organization to empower employees of color via the OCMC
to make them aware of the need to change and give them a say or ask them to choose whether
they want to pursue remote work. This would be accomplished via the utilization of ADKAR’s
Step 1: Planning Phase. This aligned with Wang (2020) who indicated that remote work was a
choice pre-COVID-19, but it longer became optional during the pandemic but instead forced
most employees to work from home irrespective of their preferences, abilities, or preparedness.
Affording choice enabled employees the feeling of ownership and motivated them for success.
Microsystem (Individual Environment) Recommendations
Within this microsystem, two recommendations are discussed based on the two themes
within this individual environment category. These themes were remote work preparedness and
Positive attitudes and beliefs that may mitigate inequitable experiences, ensuring productivity.
Embrace Employee Preparedness for Remote Employees of Color
Employee preparedness was a vital ingredient in remote work deployment for employees
of color, mostly at an individual level, to ensure they are productive and successful. Seven
participants in the study alluded to preparedness as their number one factor at the onset of remote
work, pre-COVID-19. The findings illustrated that first, employees were well prepared when

139
tasked to work remotely and second, its deployment was not done in a haphazard manner by
organizations. A recommendation would be to embrace employee preparedness for employees of
color by deploying ADKAR’s Step 2: Initiation Phase. This meant that the OCMC would need to
coach employees to aspire or desire to participate in this organizational change. Desire would
lead to motivation, which would then lead to preparedness of the remote employee to confront
remote work. This in turn makes the remote work initiative successful at an individual level.
This preparedness finding is vital for remote work deployment. There is alignment with
Neo (2021) who indicated that remote work had seen slow adoption over the years due to a lack
of preparedness, with some large corporations rescinding their budgetary support for this practice
even though various studies linked remote work to favorable organizational outcomes such as
employee satisfaction, organizational performance, reduced turnover intentions, higher employee
commitment, and some other studies have shown debatable outcomes. Therefore, pre-COVID-19
remote work needed employee preparedness, Neo (2021) noted COVID-19 forced remote work
irrespective of their preferences, abilities, or preparedness. Employee preparedness was negated.
There was also true alignment at an organizational role level. Wiles (2020) noted that for
remote work to be successful, HR departments needed to analyze employee responsibilities,
tasks, and roles to determine which work was suitable for a remote work model, and accordingly,
what kind of performance monitoring and support employees were needed in these prevailing
situations. However, some of the technologies being developed for remote work monitoring may
be intrusive. Bhave (2020) indicated that while employers were adopting and developing
technologies to monitor employees’ whereabouts, for example with sociometric sensors and
badges similar to managing-by-walking-around or via sight lines, employees thought was to be a
violation of their privacy. Sociometric sensors, according to Ito-Masui (2020) were wearable

140
sensor technologies that enabled objective data collection of direct human interactions and
captured human interactions that correlated with social constructs such as employee teamwork
and productivity in the office. This statement alluded more towards organizational preparedness
as opposed to the employee preparedness, a focus of the study.
Foster Positive Attitudes and Beliefs in Remote Employees of Color
Participants in the survey noted that positive attitudes and beliefs—to the fact that remote
work could be accomplished successfully—helped them overcome the fear of the unknown
(working away from the office). My recommendation here would be for the employees of color
to utilize ADKAR’s Step 2: Initiation Phase. In this phase, employees would have the desire and
motivation to participate in the change and make them feel they belonged and had a stake in the
game. Hiatt (2006) explained that the desire to change is enhanced in the change process when
the alternative of not implementing the change was worse, when the fear of penalty was high, or
when there was a desire to belong (Hiatt, 2006). Any desire or motivation that led to positive
attitudes and beliefs to confront remote work and accomplish needed tasks via ADKAR.
Mesosystem (Socio-Cultural Environment) Recommendations
Within this Mesosystem, I will discuss and make a couple of recommendations based on
the results of the survey and the four themes that emerged in this Individual environment
category. These four were: work-life balance benefit and no commute time benefit as well as no
dedicated workspace challenge and mental health challenge.
Enhance Work-Life Balance Benefit for Remote Work
The study illustrated that employees of color ranked work-life balance as the number one
benefit of remote work scored 11 out of 12. This benefit is important for remote work endeavors.
A recommendation would be to enhance work-life balance for the employees of color by

141
deploying ADKAR’s Step 3: Implementation Phase. In remote employees of color context, it
meant that they required to have knowledge transferred to them on not only how to change but
what the change entails or what was required of them. Hiatt (2006) observed that public
organizations that do not educate their primary stakeholders increased the risk of resistance to
change within the workforce. The change in this case would be employees’ onset to working
remotely, away from on-premises, which is a form of digital workplace transformation.
Knowledge through training would provide those best practices skills and training on the benefits
and challenges of remote work and how to guard against any pitfalls. Organizational leaders may
support remote work innovation, enhancement, and sustenance via strengths-based management
practices (Ding & Quan, 2021; Ding & Yu, 2021) like ADKAR OCMM.
Maintain the No Commute Time Benefit for Remote Work
In this study, two-thirds of the participants selected the no commute time benefit as the
second most important following work-life balance benefit. A recommendation would be for the
OCMC to also perform knowledge transfer to employees by deploying ADKAR’s Step 4: PostImplementation Phase at the remote employee individual level. Knowledge transfer (KT) could
include a raft of funding, best practices and remote work training, elimination of proximity bias,
performance metrics being implemented by organizations to monitor remote work and how
promotions will be handled in this new dispensation.
This would even help organizationally in recruiting more remote employees. Wiles, 2020
suggested that biotechnology organizations’ HR departments need to analyze employee
responsibilities, tasks, and roles to determine what kind of performance monitoring and support
employees need in these prevailing situations.

142
Mitigate No Dedicated Workspace Challenge
The study also illustrated that this no dedicated workspace challenge theme scored the
highest. Funding could address this, but ADKAR should continue to be utilized. ADKAR’s Step
4: Post-Implementation Phase at the remote employee individual level could work. The OCMC,
in coordination with DEI personnel, could supplement organizational funding via KT and
training on how to handle or not get bogged down remotely by home distractions during work.
Knowledge like “How do I set up a home office to work remotely: Tips and tricks to increase
productivity” could be imparted or transferred to employees by the OCMC. One participant
noted that “For me, there was no adequate home-office facility or dedicated workplace where I
could put my desk was lacking. … I had many distractions. … My home had no home office or
dedicated home-office.” Chokkattu (2022) noted that remote tools mostly included these five
main items: A home office or quiet place to work from away from roommates, family members,
children or pets; A robust, broadband internet Wi-Fi access; A laptop with an ergonomic setup if
employees wish to work while standing; A comfortable, flexible desk that employees can utilize
while sitting or standing; An ergonomic, comfortable desk chair, etc. Organizations could do
more here via resource allocation of furniture and other home-office resources like stationery.
Address Mental Health Challenge
This study found that mental health and psychological challenges afflicted remote
employees of color on a larger scale. This study found that nine out of 12 participants listed
mental health challenges as the second most recurring challenge they faced. A recommendation
here, just like above, would be for organizations to deploy ADKAR’s Step 4: PostImplementation Phase. Another recommendation would be to subscribe each employee to a
virtual mental care program, telehealth or telemedicine, where they could contact a psychologist

143
or counselor if needed. The OCMC could recommend that organizations supplement this service
by providing KT and technology training to mitigate against remote work challenges. The KT
would also be imparted on organizations to help employees of color overcome the stigma often
associated with seeking mental health help. Organizations could also encourage employees and
equate the importance of mental health to the importance of physical health and organizational
health and profitability. Grant (2013) argued that remote employees faced increased
psychological challenges and risks regardless. The OCMC could caution against burnout per
Dittes et al. (2019) who indicated that over-extended use of digital technology may provoke
technostress and/or burnout, leading to mental stress. KT may lead to positive attitudes and
beliefs, motivating remote employees more.
Exosystem (On-Premises Environment) Recommendations
Within this exosystem, I evaluate two recommendations regarding the organizational
resources theme which includes allocation to employees of color. Resources here may include
technology workplace systems, software, and DWT remote work enablement tools. Additional
resources mentioned were remote work best practices, KT, and training in finding and setting up
a suitable home workplace and overcoming mental health challenges when working remotely.
A recommendation here would be to allocate organizational resources equally and
equitably. The participants in the interviews noted that the provision of organizational resources
was a direct link to the success of their working remotely. They recalled difficulties in being
allocated various types of resources, from technology tools like laptops and software as well as a
lack of general training. A recommendation is for the OCMC to implement ADKAR’s Step 4 in
the implementation phase. If this step is implemented, it would give the remote employee the

144
ability to obtain and showcase required skills and behaviors in performing their work
successfully and keep the organization in maintaining a competitive advantage.
Macrosystem (Organizational Environment) Recommendations
Within the macrosystem, I will make two recommendations based on the two themes,
which may help remote work implementation initiatives and prevent employee burnout. These
two themes were organizational processes and organizational DEI culture.
Optimize Organizational Processes
Most participants agreed that organizational governance processes helped and enhanced
remote work initiatives and were the primary drivers of remote work implementation. A
recommendation would be for the OCMC to deploy ADKAR’s Step 5: Reinforcement. This step
requires organizations to sustain the change while rewarding remote employees who are
succeeding and coping with the new remote workplace. Step 5 in the implementation phase fits
in this section, as Hiatt (2006) indicated that reinforcement could not come before ability
because a person could not appreciate things unless it had been achieved. This could be followed
by rewards, which is a form of reinforcement of the new remote workplace deployment job
design. This also means that biotechnology organizations must drop the proximity bias (Udavant,
2022) policy. This was mentioned as one of the issues that remote employees encountered.
Strengthen Organizational DEI Culture
Strengthening organizational culture into a vibrant one is part and parcel of
organizational growth. A vibrant organizational culture is paramount, and espouses
organizational effectiveness, characterized by explicit and implicit norms, values, and behaviors
that guide the way activities are conducted and rewarded (Schein, 2017). To this end, adaptive
organizational cultures facilitate the effective navigation of change and the organization’s long-

145
term survival (Costanza et al., 2016; Schein, 2017). Agile organizational processes are known to
be a rapid driver or workplace transformation and whether there is an agile process to push
organizational change toward DWT. RQ3 (To what extent and how do remote employees of
color perceive that the organization has made efforts to address challenges faced in working
remotely?) addressed this factor in detail as well. Throughout the study, there were many
references made regarding organizational culture theme.
I will discuss two recommendations that may help these organizations ensure they
implemented remote work friendly processes and enhanced organizational DEI culture. Pew
Research Center (2021) found that eight in 10 White adults reported owning a desktop or laptop
computer, compared with 69% of Black adults and 67% of Hispanic adults. Eight in 10 White
adults also reported having a broadband connection at home, while smaller shares of Black and
Hispanic adults—71% and 65% respectively—said the same. Organizations should cultivate a
culture of equality for all, ensuring organizations treated their remote employees equitably. This
finding factored in remote employees of color’s SES factors in the allocation and distribution of
remote work resources. Examples would be to reimburse employees of colors’ internet,
telephone and even electrical bills to level the playing field and remote workplace deployment.
In the interviews, only five out of 12 participants noted that their scientifically leaning,
culture-based, organizations had any robust DEI programs. Brown (2019) found that an
examination of SES often revealed inequities in access to resources as well as issues related to
privilege, power, and control. A recommendation here would be for OCMC to urge organizations
to implement and strengthen their organizational DEI culture by deploying ADKAR’s Step 5:
Reinforcement in the final sustainment phase. This lack of DEI finding, was salient for these
progressive, forward-looking and kept ahead of the curve in organizational change management.

146
Participants said that a majority of their organizations did not have DEI embedded in
their culture while others made references to DEI in passing as window dressing. DEI ensured
not just equality but equity for all employees. Proponents of DEI and diversity in business
suggested that including the viewpoints of marginalized groups like remote employees of color
can drive improvements in areas such as reduced absenteeism; lower turnover and increased
productivity (Ng, 2023). Hiatt (2006) indicated that reinforcement could not come before ability
as a person could not appreciate things unless it had been achieved. Hiatt’s (2006) noted that his
ADKAR model aligned with an individual’s perspective for change in business, government, and
community. That is why it was applied in this study. Leaders could implement ADKAR by
working through Edmondson’s (2019) step-by-step leader’s toolkit for creating psychological
safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Finally, these scientific culturebased organizations’ DEI initiatives were not a moral obligation anymore. Instead, they were the
basis of a healthy organizational environment, paving the way for a more diverse workplace,
happier staff, improved productivity, and organizational competitive advantage. These proposed
practices aligned with the literature on innovative leaders and organizations (Dyer et al., 2008,
2009, 2019). Underlying these practices that strengthened organizational culture.
Summary
The organizational factors theme involved word phrases within the incidents provided
such as organization resources, organizational processes, DEI and organizational culture. All
participants confirmed they were from a lower SES factors background and were impacted by
organizational factors like resources distribution and the existence—or lack thereof—of
equality/equity policies as well as DEI and DWT initiatives. They mentioned that they were
impacted by the scientific organizational culture that tends to lean towards individualism in

147
nature. The research found that resources, policies, and DEI culture aligned with the
organizational factors category in the literature review, as Dery et al. (2017) indicated that many
organizations transformed from analog to digital technologies for a more digital workplace.
First, biotechnology organizations may need to understand that remote work is no longer
a perk that could be extended to a few employees in an ad hoc manner but need to be part of a
benefits package deal. These findings aligned with Harper (2022), who noted that while remote
work boosted diversity, it undermined equity for employees of color—even though working
remotely provided much-appreciated shelter from the racist stereotypes, microaggressions, racial
tensions, and overt racism that many employees of color experienced in on-site workplace
settings—prior to the pandemic. Organizations would need to ensure that remote work was
readily available to all, indiscriminately. Organizations may also phase out proximity bias
(Udavant, 2022). Also, an American Psychiatric Association (2021) study of 1000 found—when
asking the question, “Has your workplace become more or less supportive of employees who
may have mental health issues?”—a substantial number or 40% of employees were concerned
about retaliation from employers if they sought mental health care or take time off for their
mental health self-care. This was a disturbing statistic that affected more employees of color
when compared to their White counterparts. This statistic showed a lack of DEI initiatives in that
employees of color were concerned about retaliation than were their White counterparts with
higher SES and little access to technology. These practices aligned with the literature on
innovative leaders and organizations (Dyer et al., 2008, 2009, 2019). Underlying these practices
was an intentional leadership style that strengthened organizational culture.

148
Limitations and Delimitations
While qualitative study designs were appropriate for the research of phenomena
regarding which little was known such as this one, there were several limitations and restrictions.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated that the sample used in a study depended on the research
question, the data collected, the purpose of study, and the time and resources needed to conduct
qualitative research. The first limitation was the limited amount of research data collected from
the 12 participants. The literature and data on inequitable remote work experiences for remote
employees of color was not readily available, only some data on remote employees experiences
in general. Also, very little to no information was available in relation to the inequitable
experiences of remote employees of color, which was a concept that had not been thoroughly
studied, hence the need for this current study. The literature on traditional remote work
experiences, pre-COVID-19, was used as a foundational principle to build out the concepts and
experiences for remote employees of color remote work experiences.
Another possible limitation of this study—despite participants being assured of
confidentiality—included the data collection method of semi-structured interview and follow-up
questions. Participant subjects may have responded to the interview questions based on what
they either wanted the researcher to hear or what they felt their organizational leadership would
expect them to say. This limitation was not apparent, and may have been mitigated by member
checking, which was utilized to capture and solidify participants’ responses. There was no
evidence that this limitation was present and affected the research in any of the participants’
interviews or transcripts, as transcripts were provided back to participants to check and verify
accuracy. Since the interviews were conducted on different participants from different
organizations, unknown to each other and at different settings and times, each participant’s

149
response was unique to their interview and there were no signs or instances of a generalized or
pre-approved response or collaboration by any of them. A methodological triangulation was
utilized to mitigate any bias as evidence of trustworthiness.
This study had two primary delimitations: The first one was my focus on employees of
color in biotechnology organizations in the United States to only understand their inequitable
remote work experiences and factors on the interplay of race, lower SES factors, and little access
to technology. The final delimitation for this study was that I deliberately chose employees of
color within biotechnology organizations to narrow the scope. This narrow scope was selected
because the biotechnology sector seemed at the time to be the highest-ranked population that
employed remote employees of color worked in.
Future Research
While this dissertation narrowly focused on exploring the inequitable experiences of
employees of color in biotechnology organizations in the United States who faced less favorable
remote work conditions resulting from an interplay of race, lower socioeconomic status (SES),
and little access to technology, there is plenty of room for complementary research. The
following complementary future research could be done to examine how organizations could
identify which jobs could and could not be performed remotely and classify them to show vital
complementarities between jobs that could be performed remotely and those that could not (Ding
& Quan, 2021). Therefore, organizational leaders may need to incorporate different measures
together with these richer considerations as a fruitful avenue for future research. Additional
future research may be needed into what Ding and Quan (2021) indicated, that an individual
worker’s productivity may differ considerably when working at home rather than onsite and that
management would need to come up to speed with training and mitigation factors. The literature

150
review revealed that there was limited research on inequitable experiences of the population of
focus. Future research could include a quantitative exploratory study that could be used in
conjunction with the result of this study to provide a more complete analysis of the experiences
of remote employees of color.
A lot more research in different aspects of remote work was also needed. For example,
Zimmer et al. (2020) argued that a research question that could be addressed as far as DWT was
concerned was “How does organizations implemented DWT by triggering deinstitutionalization
of established workplace practices without disenfranchising the socioeconomically poor and
employees of color.” Another topic for future research could be not to just focus more on
advantages and disadvantages of remote work, but to also examine deeper issues and effects of
remote work on various organizational stakeholders, including minorities. Also, some, if not most
of the extant knowledge on remote work may lack contextual relevance in the current COVID-19
crisis and therefore at the very least, research was required in investigating how this context
shaped the experience of employees working remotely. Also, there was a need for further
research into the work-life balance and wellness factors of remote employees and whether it was
influenced by a lack of organizational support or not, combined with COVID-19 related stress.
It may also be prudent for future research to examine how biotechnology organizational
leaders responded and/or supported their employees in making their employee teams individually
and collectively feel safe and successful. Also, future research in the measurement of employee
well-being may help organizations design policies and choices focusing on better understanding
of employee well-being drivers. To stress the importance of this measurement, Wijngaards et al.
(2021) noted that what was measured affected what was done; and if the measurements were

151
flawed, resulting decisions may be distorted. These future research proposals could shed more
light on the topic of remote work as it became an indispensable job design perspective.
Several possible RQs could also focus future studies. How will artificial intelligence (AI)
change the nature of remote work? How has organizational culture’s change management models
been applied to biotechnology organizations? What are the risks of anticipating and
incorporating remote work organizational change models too quickly within biotechnology
organizations before they become mainstream in other organizations? Bronfenbrenner’s (1979)
human ecological theory may be a useful theoretical framework for contextualizing these RQs
within open-systems, unified model that facilitated actionable insight for organizational change.
Lastly, organizational leadership may incorporate these recommendations contained herein,
together with other richer complementary considerations as a fruitful avenue for future research.
Conclusion
This study sought to explore the inequitable experiences impacting employees of color in
biotechnology organizations in the United States who face less favorable remote work conditions
resulting from an interplay of race, lower socioeconomic status (SES) factors and little access to
technology. The comprehensiveness of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, combined
with extensive participant interview time as well as extensive participant remote work lived
experiences and diverse geographic and organizational characteristics represented, yielded robust
findings contained in this dissertation. employees of color in this study competently contributed
insights related to the definition; preferences; benefits and challenges of remote work; internal
individual factors; external organizational factors impacting remote work, limitations and
delimitations of the research, proposed recommendations on the enablers and implementation
effectiveness of remote work job design in biotechnology organizations.

152
It is important to note that most of these insights contained herein are robust enough to
apply not only to remote employees of color—who were implicitly required to cultivate a growth
mindset and move away from a fixed mindset—but also to other remote employees within
biotechnology organizations. Dweck (2006) indicated that a growth mindset was the belief that
one can improve their abilities and talents with effort and persistence, not just talent or luck. A
fixed mindset on the other hand was a belief that one’s intelligence, talents and other abilities
were set in stone. These findings do not just apply to biotechnology, but to other organizations
too. This is because they aligned—to some extent—to extant literature that cut across remote
employees, across organizations of all shapes and sizes, not just in the United States but to other
geographical regions worldwide. To recap, remote work was defined by Allen et al. (2015) as a
flexible work arrangement where employees work in locations that were remote from their
central offices or production facilities, and whereby the employee had no in-person contact with
team members but were nonetheless able to communicate and stay in touch with them utilizing
information technology. The study was conducted via the collection of data through a qualitative
interview method from 12 participants.
The study explored how individual remote employees of color related to their
organizations to demand equal and equitable resource allocation while ensuring a level playing
field for remote employees of color as compared to their higher SES White counterparts with
more access to technology. This study was to create a taxonomy of responses to the incidents
that were critical for implementing, maintaining and strengthening remote employees. Also, the
study illustrated that remote work helped create a taxonomy of benefits including organizational
equity of voice, efficiency, improved competitive advantage and survival or disaster recovery.
VMware (2023) defined disaster recovery was an organization’s method of regaining access and

153
functionality to its IT infrastructure after events like a natural disaster, cyberattack, or even
business disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
This study was anchored by three RQs where 10 primary themes emerged: remote work
choice, employee preparedness, positive attitudes and beliefs, work-life balance benefit, no
commute time benefit, no dedicated workspace challenge, mental health challenge,
organizational resources, organizational processes, and organizational DEI culture. They resulted
from polling, data collection, data analysis, and interpretation. The results from this study found
that lived experiences and organizational factors impacted remote employees of color.
While this factor was not under this study, the COVID-19 events of 2020 and 2021
highlighted unprecedented global workforce disruptions and subsequent disaster recovery
responses to these challenges by biotechnology organizations. This factor offered an opportunity
for remote work professionals and theorists to learn from what worked, what did not work, and
what could be better accounted for in theoretical perspectives. Bronfenbrenner (1979) ecological
systems theory is a theoretical framework that emphasizes the importance of being adaptable to
unanticipated changes. Therefore, the notion of applying this ecological systems theory and
exploring interconnectedness and complexity among remote employees of color and
organizations was paramount.
Exploring inequitable experiences may be often more pronounced in remote employees
of color. This was because many organizations were yet to factor in equitable DEI programs as
this study found, that only 42% had such DEI programs embedded in their organizational culture.
While allocating the same exact technology and DWT resources for remote work to all
employees equally regardless of their SES factors was good, it was not helpful because resources
were not allocated in an equitable manner. Organizations may be better served deploying

154
resources based on employee SES factors and lived experiences in order to better enhance
organizational and employee performance. Study participants felt that workplace performance
and productivity was strengthened and maintained when organizations allocated remote work
and DWT resources based on equity rather than on equality alone.
There was a need for organizations to implement equitable remote work programs.
Global Workplace Analytics (2020) found that currently, around 56% of employees in the United
States had a job which could be done from home at least part of the time due its informationbased nature that involved a lack of physical work requirements. It is up to organizations to
promote remote work creativity for their employees. Research on creativity indicates that
“promoting creativity without attending to the subsequent psychological and behavioral
changes decreases rather than increases [emphasis added] organizational performance over the
long run” (Ng & Yam, 2019, p. 1157). Also, 37% of jobs in the United States could be done
solely at home (Dingel & Neiman, 2020). It was disturbing that some organizations still
discriminated against remote work employees via proximity bias (Udavant, 2022). The United
Nations (2015) proposed new remote work research could be conducted into practices at a time
when remote work was practiced at such a wide scale during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was
a valid point for organizational exploration.
Biotechnology organizations needed to make the right decisions now, plan for the future,
and adapt quickly as they learnt, which require a firm understanding of their employees’ work
lived experiences (McKinsey, 2022) and how workplaces are being transformed. McKinsey
(2022) recommended organizations begin this assessment process by strategically examining the
current state of remote work for all employees, business needs, and risks so they can more
effectively navigate their remote and hybrid work strategies. The McKinsey (2022) study also

155
indicated that employees in the United States who were younger, more educated, and had higher
incomes tended to have more remote work options made available to them, which discriminated
against older and lower-income employees, mostly employees of color. This was affirmed in this
study because most of the participants were very well educated and were afforded better work
conditions due to preparedness and choice compared to their less educated counterparts.
This study may reduce a gap in the literature in relation to scholarly research on
inequitable experiences of remote employees of color working in biotech organizations in the
United States who face less favorable remote work experiences due to an interplay of race, lower
SES factors and little access to technology. There are potential study implications for future
research and additional positive social change. This data could be used to continue to explore the
inequitable remote work experiences of this focus population and how the overarching
phenomena of organizational resource allocation, processes and DEI culture impacts them.
Although the study’s findings confirmed how remote workplace experiences could be
strengthened, maintained, or otherwise eroded, a recommendation was to conduct additional
research on larger populations regarding inequitable remote work experiences. Using lived
experiences could provide an added layer of data to increase the scholarly understanding of
inequitable remote work experiences, organizational DWT initiatives, inequitable resource
allocation, processes and DEI cultures and their impact on remote work for employees of color.
The modern workplace was becoming more digitized, globalized, and virtual each passing day.
More research needed to be conducted to provide relevant data to organizational leadership and
management, their employees, their customers, stakeholders and the community of practice.
Although this study covered the pre-COVID‐19 era, the complexities of the pandemic
further illustrated the interconnectedness among remote employees, organizations, mental health,

156
and work-life balance. Contextualizing employees of color through Bronfenbrenner’s (2005)
bioecological lens could equip remote employees to make more sense of present circumstances.
Integrating Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) framework into current practices like job design could also
aid organizations in navigating across settings since they had a role to play as a major benefactor.
It was also discovered during the literature review that there was a stigma often associated with
employees seeking mental health help. Organizations should encourage employees and equate
the importance of mental health to the importance of physical health and organizational health
and profitability. Ensuring that employees’ equity needs, mental health, happiness, and
productivity as well as the hackneyed DEI initiatives were implemented and maintained for a
workforce not familiar with remote work was going to be the next challenge for organizations.
This study looked cursorily at employees of color self-discipline as a success factor of
remote work. Gartner (2022) indicated that self-discipline in remote work was a significant
moderator of several of these relationships. First, social support positively correlated with lower
levels of all remote working challenges. Second, job autonomy was negatively related to
loneliness. Third, workload and monitoring were both linked to higher work-home interference.
Fourth and last was that workload was additionally linked to lower procrastination. Gartner
(2022) recommended HR accomplish five things to mitigate remote work challenges: provide
direction, confidence, and resilience; contextualize remote work for the organization; encourage
intentional peer-to-peer interactions; establish team guidelines, and lastly; provide flexibility for
employees’ remote work needs. The International Journal (2023) found that organizations saw
social justice, multiculturalism, and non-discrimination as the right thing to do and as being more
profitable and generated better business outcomes. This meant that organizations with a robust
DEI culture were more likely to experience future growth and become more profitable than not.

157
This research overall revealed that biotechnology organizations needed to look into
leveling the playing field by allocating resources equally and equitably. Ensuring organizations
safeguarded the health, happiness, and productivity of a workforce that were not too familiar
with remote work to remain competitive was a priority. Organizations may need to accelerate
trends and processes that drive remote work past the immediate impacts of COVID-19. These
recommendations aligned with the literature review, as organizations needed to identify which
jobs could and could not be performed from home (Ding & Quan, 2021) and that management
would need to come up to speed with a determination method, system, training, and mitigation
factors. Organizations would also need to determine if there were important complementarities
between jobs onsite and remote jobs (Ding & Quan, 2021). This will serve organizations better.
Lastly, organizational leadership may incorporate these recommendations with these
richer considerations as a fruitful avenue for future research. Tokenism that leveraged employees
of color with no interest in their growth was pervasive. This research aligned with Harper (2022)
who affirmed that while remote work boosted diversity to some extent, it undermined equity for
employees of color—even though working remotely provided much-appreciated shelter from the
racist stereotypes, microaggressions, racial tensions, and overt racism that many employees of
color experienced in on-premises workplace settings. Finally, this study contributed to the
understanding of how employees, specifically remote employees of color could empower and
assert themselves in harnessing the benefits while also overcoming challenges of working
remotely—as an emerging job design trend—to achieve positive job outcomes for employees of
color personally while the organization generally achieved future growth and expansion,
profitability, disaster survival as well as post-disaster recovery.

158
References
Adom, D., Hussein, E. K., & Agyem, J. A. (2018). Theoretical and conceptual framework:
Mandatory ingredients of quality research. International Journal of Scientific Research,
7(1), 438–441.
Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting?
Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 16(2), 40–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615593273
American Psychiatric Association. (2020). Stress in America 2020. A national mental health
crisis.
American Psychiatric Association. (2021). APA 2021 public opinion poll: Workplace. Medical
leadership for mind, brain and body. https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/apa-publicopinion-poll-2021-workplace
Apollo Technical. (2022). Statistics on remote employees that will surprise you.
https://www.apollotechnical.com/statistics-on-remote workers/
Ashgar, R. (2014, January 13). What millennials want in the workplace (and why you should
start giving it to them). Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/robasghar/2014/01/13/whatmillennials-want-in-the-workplace-and-why-you-should-start-giving-it-to-them/
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry
Holt & Co.
Bhave, D. P., Teo, L. H., & Dalal, R. S. (2020). Privacy at work: A review and a research agenda
for a contested terrain. Journal of Management, 46, 127–164.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319878254

159
Bentley, T. A., Teo, S. T. T., McLeod, L., Tan, F., Bosua, R., & Gloet, M. (2016). The role of
organizational support in remote employee wellbeing: A socio-technical systems
approach. Applied Ergonomics, 52, 207-215.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.07.019
Biotechnology Innovation Organization Magazine. (2021). What is biotechnology.
https://www.bio.org/what-biotechnology
Bloom, N. A., J. Liang, J., Roberts, J., Ying, Z. J. (2015). Does working from home work?
Evidence from a Chinese Experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(1), 165–
218. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/does-working-homework-evidence-chinese-experiment
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. Annals of Child Development, 6, 187–
251.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives of human
development. Sage.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Developmental science in the 21st century:
Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and empirical findings. Social
Development, 9(1), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00114
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In
W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Theoretical models of human development (pp. 793–
828). Wiley.

160
Brown, J. D. (2019). Reflective practice of counseling and psychotherapy in a diverse society.
Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24505-4_4
Buffer. (2023). State of Remote Work. https://buffer.com/state-of-remote work/2023
Bukht, R., & Heeks, R. (2017). Defining, conceptualising and measuring the digital economy.
(Development Informatics Working Paper 68). SSRN.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3431732
Bullen, P. B. (2022). How to choose a sample size (for the statistically challenged). Tools4Dev.
https://tools4dev.org/resources/how-to-choose-a-sample-size/
Buss, D. (2022). 12 Ways Companies Are Boosting Their DEI. SHRM.
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/behavioral-competencies/global-andcultural-effectiveness/pages/12-ways-companies-are-boosting-their-dei.aspx
Calma, J. (2022). The uneven energy costs of working from home. The pandemic revealed the
vulnerability of many households to increased utility bills. The Verge.
https://www.theverge.com/23274595/work-from-home-wfh-energy-bills-utility
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Social determinants of health: Know what
affects health. https://www.cdc.gov/socialdeterminants/index.htm
Chesebro, J. W., & Borisoff, D. J. (2007). What makes qualitative research qualitative?
Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 8(1), 3–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17459430701617846
Chokkattu, J. (2022). Everything you need to work from home like a pro: Gear Team. Wired
Magazine. https://www.wired.com/story/work-from-home-home-office-gear-guide/
Clarke, C. (2020). BIPOC: What does it mean and where does it come from? CBS News.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/BIPOC-meaning-where-does-it-come-from-2020-04-02/

161
Cohen, G. L., & Sherman, D. K. (2014). The psychology of change: Self-affirmation and social
psychological intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 333–371.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115137
Colbert, A., Yee, N., and George, G. (2016). The digital workforce and the workplace of the
future. Academy of Management Journal, (59:3), 731–739.
Collins, C. S., & Stockton, C. M. (2018). The central role of theory in qualitative. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918797475
Costanza, D. P., Blacksmith, N., Coats, M. R., Severt, J. B., & DeCostanza, A. H. (2016). The
effect of adaptive organizational culture on long-term survival. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 31, 361–381.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Davenport, C., & Pagnini, F. (2016). Mindful learning: A case study of Langerian mindfulness in
schools. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1372. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01372
Dery, K., Sebastian, I. M., & van der Meulen, N. (2017). The digital workplace is key to digital
innovation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(2), 135–152.
DeSilver, D. (2020). Working from home was a luxury for the relatively affluent before
coronavirus. Not any more. World Economic Forum.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/working-from-home-coronavirus-workersfuture-of-work/
Ding, H., & Quan, G. (2021). How and when does follower’s strengths based leadership relate to
follower innovative behavior: The roles of self efficacy and emotional exhaustion. The
Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(3), 591–603. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.473

162
Ding, H., & Yu, E. (2021). Followers? strengths-based leadership and strengths use of followers:
The roles of trait emotional intelligence and role overload. Personality and Individual
Differences, 168, 110300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110300
Dingel, J., & Neiman, B. (2020). How many jobs can be done at home? (White paper). Becker
Friedman Institute for Economics at the University of Chicago.
https://doi.org/10.3386/w26948
Dittes, S., Richter, S., Richter, A., & Smolnik, S. (2019). Toward the workplace of the future:
How organizations can facilitate digital work. Business Horizons, 62(5), 649–661.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.05.004
Dressel, P. (2014). Racial equality or racial equity? The difference it makes. Race Matters
Institute. https://viablefuturescenter.org/racemattersinstitute/2014/04/02/racial-equalityor-racial-equity-the-difference-it-makes/
Drilling, L. B. (2018). Differences between conceptual and theoretical frameworks.
https://www.classroomsynonym.com
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Random House Publishing
Group.
Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H., & Christensen, C. M. (2019). The Innovator’s DNA, Updated, with a
new preface: Mastering the five skills of disruptive innovators. Harvard Business Press.
Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C. (2008). Entrepreneur behaviors, opportunity
recognition, and the origins of innovative ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,
2(4), 317–338. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.59
Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C. M. (2009). The Innovator’s DNA. Harvard
Business Review, 87(12), 60–67.

163
Energy Information Administration. (1990). Residential energy consumption survey United
States Government Printing Office.
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and
purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5, 1-4.
https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
Eurofound. 2017. Sixth European working conditions survey: Overview report (2017 update),
Fitzgerald, M., Kruschwitz, N., Bonnet, D., & Welch, M. (2014). Embracing digital technology:
A new strategic imperative. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55, 2.
Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The
Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408-1416. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2281
Gallup. (2017). State of the American workplace report.
http://www.gallup.com/reports/199961/state-american-workplace-report-2017.aspx?
Gambhir, M. K. (2020, May 21). Lockdown: Is Work-Life Balance Impossible while Working
from Home? The Quint. https://www.thequint.com/voices/opinion/work-from-homework-life-balance-challenges-pressures-domestic-chores-idea of-leisure
Gan, V. (2015, December 3) What telecommuting looked like in 1973. The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/12/what-telecommuting-lookedlike-in-1973/418473
Gartner (2020). Work from home in selected European countries in 2018. Statista.
https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2020-03-19-gartner-hr-surveyreveals-88--of-organizations-have-e
Gartner (2020). Gartner CFO survey reveals 74% intend to shift some employees to remote work
permanently. https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2020-04-03-gartner-

164
cfo-surey-reveals-74-percent-of-organizations-to-shift-some-employees-to-remote workpermanently2
Gerdtham, U.-G., Johannesson, M., & the Ulf-G. (2001). The relationship between happiness,
health, and socioeconomic factors: Results based on Swedish microdata. Journal of
Socio-Economics, 30(6), 553–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-5357(01)00118-4
Gibbs, G. (2009). Analyzing qualitative data (Series: The SAGE Qualitative Research Kit). Sage.
Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.
Global Workplace Analytics (2022). Telecommuting statistics.
https://globalworkplaceanalytics.com/telecommuting-statistics
Global Workplace Analytics. (2020). How many people could work-from-home. https://globalworkplaceanalytics.com/how-many-people-could-work-from-home
Grant, C. A., Wallace, L. M., & Spurgeon, P. C. (2013). An exploration of the psychological
factors affecting remote e-worker’s job effectiveness, well-being and work-life balance.
Employee Relations, 35(5), 527–546. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-08-2012-0059
Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for house. Administrative
Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice and Research, 12–22.
Harper, S. (2022). Remote work can boost diversity yet undermine equity for employees of
color. Forbes Magazine. https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaunharper/2022/07/22/avoidinginequitable-remote-work-consequences-for-diverse-employees/?
Hiatt, J. M. (2006). ADKAR: A model for change in business, government and our community.
Edition: 1. Prosci Learning Center.

165
Hickey, D., & Tang, N. (2015). Theoretical and applied approaches to remote work for academic
reference and instruction librarians. Library Staffing for the Future, 34.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S0732-067120150000034008
Holliday, A. (2016). Doing and writing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/BIPOC
Indeed Editorial Team. (201) How to avoid research bias. https://www.indeed.com/careeradvice/career-development/how-to-avoid-researcher-bias
i-SCOOP. (2016). Digital transformation: online guide to digital business transformation.
Ito-Masui, A., Kawamoto, E., Esumi, R., Imai, H., & Shimaoka, M. (2021). Sociometric
wearable devices for studying human behavior in corporate and healthcare workplaces.
BioTechniques, 71, 392–399. https://doi.org/10.2144/btn-2020-0160
Jackson, H. (2022). Equality or equity: Which Is Better? World in Black Newsletter.
https://wordinblack.com/2022/02/%ef%bf%bcequality-or-equity-which-is-better/
Jensen, T. B. (2018). Digital transformation of work. Scandinavian Journal of Information
Systems, 30(2), 27–40.
Johnson, G. (2010). internet use and child development: Validation of the ecological technosubsystem. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 176–185.
Johnson, G. M., & Puplampu, P. (2008). A conceptual framework for understanding the effect of
the internet on child development: The ecological techno-subsystem. Canadian Journal
of Learning and Technology, 34, 19–28. https://doi.org/10.21432/T2CP4T
Kaduk., Genadek, K., Kelly, E. L., & Moen, P. (2019). Involuntary vs. voluntary flexible work:
Insights for scholars and stakeholders. Community Work & Family, 22(4), 412–442.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2019.1616532

166
Kanter, R. M. (2020). Think outside the building: How advanced leaders can change the world
one smart innovation at a time. PublicAffairs.
Kniffin, K. M., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., Antonakis, J., Ashford, S. P., Bakker, A. B.,
Bamberger, P., Bapuji, H., Bhave, D. P., Choi, V. K., Creary, S. J., Demerouti, E., Flynn,
F. J., Gelfand, M. J., Greer, L. L., Johns, G., Kesebir, S., Klein, P. G., Lee, S. Y., . . .
Vugt, M. v. (2021). COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for
future research and action. American Psychologist, 76(1), 63–77.
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000716.
Kossek, E. E. (2016). Managing Work-Life Boundaries in the Digital age. Organizational
Dynamics, 45(3), 258–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2016.07.010
Kossek, E. E., Hammer, L. B., Thompson, R. J., & Burke, L. B. (2014). Leveraging workplace
flexibility: Fostering engagement and productivity. SHRM Foundation.
Kossek. E.E., & Lautsch, B. A. (2018). Work-life flexibility for whom? Occupational status and
work-life inequality in upper, middle, and lower level jobs. The Academy of Management
Annals, 12(1), 5-6. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0059
Langer, E. J. (2016). The power of mindful learning. Da Capo Lifelong Books.
LaRock, H. (2021). The best home office equipment for remote work. Wrkfrce Magazine.
https://wrkfrce.com/the-10-best-home-office/
Lifesize Meeting Solutions. (2022). How working from home saves your company money.
https://www.lifesize.com/en/blog/how-working-from-home-saves-your-company-money/
Liu, J. (2022). 4 people on how their company’s switch to work-from-anywhere spurred them to
move around the world. CNBC LLC. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/17/4-atlassianworkers-share-how-work-from-anywhere-spurred-them-to-move.html

167
Lucas (2022). Amazon engineer sues for work from home costs. Inc.com.
https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/amazon-engineer-sues-for-work-from-homecosts.html
Lucid Content Team. (2022). The negative effects of remote work (and how to combat them.
LucidChart. https://www.lucidchart.com/blog/disadvantages-of-working-from-home
Martinez-Amador, J. (2016). Remote and onsite knowledge worker productivity and
engagement: A comparative study of the effect of virtual intensity and work location
preference (Publication No. AAI28099821) [Doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve
University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Mathieu, C., Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Babiak, P. (2014). A dark side of leadership:
Corporate psychopathy and its influence on employee well-being and job satisfaction.
Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 83–88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.010
Maxwell, J. A. (2006). Literature reviews of, and for, educational research: A commentary on
Boote and Beile’s “scholars before researchers.” Educational Researcher, 35(9), 28–31.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035009028
Memmott, T., Carley, S., Graff, M., & Konisky, D. M. (2021). Sociodemographic disparities in
energy insecurity among low-income households before and during the COVID-19
pandemic. Nature Energy, 6, 186–193. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-00763-9
Mensah, R. O., Agyemang, F., Acquah, A., Babah, P. A., & Dontoh, J. (2020). Discourses on
Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks in Research: Meaning and Implications for
Researchers. Journal of African Interdisciplinary Studies, 4(5), 53–64.

168
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). BIPOC. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary.
Microsoft Corporation. (2022). What is cloud computing? https://azure.microsoft.com/enus/resources/cloud-computing-dictionary/what-is-cloud-computing/
Muratkar. A. (2019). Starting from the basics: Understanding what is Cloud Computing.
Navarro, J. L., & Tudge, J. R. H. (2022). Technologizing Bronfenbrenner: Neo-ecological
Theory. Current Psychology. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02738-3
Neeley, T. (2021). Remote work revolution: Succeeding from Anywhere. Harper Business.
Neo, H. T. (2021). An examination of the influences of telecommuting on employee satisfaction
and organizational citizenship behavior in the information technology industry in
Singapore. Edinburgh Napier University.
Ng, T. W. H., & Yam, K. C. (2019). When and why does employee creativity fuel deviance?
Key psychological mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(9), 1144–
1163. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000397
Nilles, J. M. (1973). The telecommunications-transportation tradeoff: Options for tomorrow.
BookSurge Publishing.
Osypuk, T. L., Joshi, P., Geronimo, K., & Acevedo-Garcia, D. (2014). Do social and economic
policies influence health? A review. Current Epidemiology Reports, 1(3), 149–164.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-014-0013-5
Owl Labs. (2022). State of Remote Work. https://owllabs.com/state-of-remote work/2022

169
Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Biotechnology. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary.
Retrieved August 31, 2022, from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/
Parker, S. K. (2014). Work design influences: A synthesis of multilevel factors that affect the
design of Jobs. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1).
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and
practice. Sage Publications.
Pew Research Center. (2020). Demographics of internet and home broadband usage in the
United States. https://www.pewresearch.org/Internet/fact-sheet/Internetbroadband/
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for
nursing practice (11th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Reynolds, B. (2017, June 21). Here are the key findings in the 2017 State of Telecommuting
Report. FlexJobs. https://www.flexjobs.com/employer-blog/key-findings-2017-state-oftelecommuting-report/
Rigotti, T., Yang, L.-Q., Jiang, Z., Newman, A., De Cuyper, N., & Sekiguchi, T. (2021,
January). Work-Related Psychosocial Risk Factors and Coping Resources during the
COVID-19 Crisis. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12307
Robinson, B. (2021, October 15). Remote employees report negative mental health impacts, new
study finds. Forbes Magazine.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrobinson/2021/10/15/remote workers-report-negativ
Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real world research (4th ed.). Wiley.
Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development: Its
evolution from ecology to bioecology. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5(4), 243–
258. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12022

170
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Schwartz-Ziv, M. (2021). How shifting from in-person to virtual-only shareholder meetings
affects shareholders’ voice (Finance Working Paper No. 748/2021). European Corporate
Governance Institute. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/08/18/how-shifting-from-inperson-to-virtual-shareholder-meetings-affects-shareholders-voice/
Scipioni, J. (2022). Ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt on why in-office work is better: “I don’t know
how you build great management?” virtually. CNBC LLC, A Division of NBC Universal.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/05/ex-google-ceo-eric-schmidt-on-why-people-shouldreturn-to-the-office.html?
Sene, A. (2019). Currents research 2019. Digital Ocean.
https://www.digitalocean.com/blog/currents-july2019
Sytch, M., & Greer, lindred I. (2020). Is your organization ready for permanent WFH?. Harvard
Business Review, https://hbr.org/2020/08/is‐your‐organization‐ready‐for‐permanent‐wfh
R. Shabanpour, N. Golshani, M. Tayarani, J. Auld, A.K. Mohammadian. (2018). Analysis of
telecommuting behavior and impacts on travel demand and the environment.
Smith, M. (2022). I started working at Zoom remotely almost two years ago: Here’s how my first
day at the office went. CNBC LLC. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/14/what-its-likereturning-to-zooms-office-after-working-from-home-for-two-years.html
Soni, P., & Bakhru, K. M. (2019). Understanding triangulated collaboration of work-life balance,
personality traits and eudaimonic well-being. Problems and Perspectives in Management,
17(2), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(2).2019.05

171
Sytch, M., & Greer, lindred I. (2020). Is your organization ready for permanent WFH? Harvard
Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/08/is-your-organization-ready-for-permanent-wfh
Tsedal, N. (2022). Remote work revolution for everyone. Harvard University Press.
https://www.edx.org/es/course/remote work
Tugend, A. (2014, March 7). It’s clearly undefined, but telecommuting is fast on the rise. The
New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2109). 29 percent of wage and salary workers could
work at home in their primary job in 2017–18. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2019/29-
percent-of-wage-and-salary-workers-could-work-at-home-in-their-primary-job-in-2017-
18.htm
Udavant, S. (2022). Employers risk neglecting remote BIPOC workers because of proximity
bias. https://prismreports.org/2022/07/29/employers-remote-bipoc-workers-proximitybias/
Uni Global Union. (2022) Key trade union principles for ensuring workers’ rights when working
remotely. https://uniglobalunion.org/wpcontent/uploads/uni_remote_work_guidelines_report.pdf
Vaismoradi, M., Jones, J., Turunen, H., & Snelgrove, S. (2016). Theme development in
qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Journal of Nursing Education and
Practice, 6, 6. https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v6n5p100
Vaughn, P., & Turner, C. (2016). Decoding via coding: Analyzing qualitative text data through
thematic coding and survey methodologies. Journal of Library Administration, 56, 41–
51. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2015.1105035

172
VMware, Incorporated. (2023). What Is Disaster Recovery?
https://www.vmware.com/topics/glossary/content/disaster-recovery.html
Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J., & Parker, S. K. (2021). Achieving effective remote working during
the COVID?19 pandemic: A work design perspective. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 16–59.
https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12290
Wijngaards, I., King, O. C., Burger, M. J., & van Exel, J. (2022). Worker Well-Being: What it Is,
and how it should be measured. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 17, 795–832.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-021-09930-w
Wiles, J. (2020). With coronavirus in mind, is your organization ready for remote work?
Gartner. http://www.gartner.com/with-coronavirus-in-mind-are-you-ready-for-remote
work
Williams, D. R., & Mohammed, S. A. (2013). Racism and Health II: A needed research agenda
for effective interventions. The American Behavioral Scientist, 57(8), 1200–1226.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213487341
Williams, D. R., Priest, N., & Anderson, N. B. (2016). Understanding associations among race,
socioeconomic status, and health: Patterns and prospects. Health Psychology: Official
journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychiatric Association, 35(4),
407–411. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/hea0000242
Williams, T. K., McIntosh, R. W., & Russell, W. B. (2021). Equity in distance education during
COVID-19. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 6(1), 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.46303/ressat.2021.1
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research. Sage.

173
Zimmer, M. P., Baiyere, A., & Salmela, H. (2020, June 15–17). Digital workplace
transformation: The importance of deinstitutionalising the taken for granted [Paper
presentation]. 28th European Conference on Information Systems, Marrakesh, Morocco.
https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2020_rp/112

174
Appendix A: Participant Information and Informed Consent (PIIC) Form
Study Title: Exploring inequitable experiences of employees of color in biotechnology
organizations in the United States who face less favorable remote work experiences
resulting from an interplay of race, lower socio-economic status factors, and little
access to technology.
Principal Investigator: Kirk Patrick Avugwi
CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRES THAT YOU MUST BE INFORMED ABOUT:
1. The nature and purpose of the study.
2. The procedures in the study and any drug or device to be used.
3. Discomforts and risks reasonably to be expected from the study.
4. Benefits reasonably to be expected from the study.
5. Alternative procedures, drugs, or devices that might be helpful and their risks and benefits.
6. Availability of medical treatment should complications occur.
7. The opportunity to ask questions about the study or the procedure.
8. The ability to withdraw from the study at any time and discontinue participation without
affecting your future care at this institution.
9. Be given a copy of the signed and dated written consent form for the study.
10. The opportunity to consent freely to the study without the use of coercion.
Interview Participants Information and Consent Form
This PICF is provided for review and signature in order to achieve informed consent for this research
study. Before commencement of each interview, participants will read, understand and sign this PICF
provided to introduce consent.
 Participants will be informed as to how data will be collected, stored, accessed and used.
 Participants will be assured of confidentiality measures taken to store their information securely in
a non-public, access computer protected with the multiple layers of security, tokens and passwords.
 Participants will be assured that the research data from interviews will not be traced back to them.
 No personal identifiable information (PII) such as emails; telephone #s or names will be collected.
 All other necessary PII will be replaced with pseudonym or participant number to prevent any
traceability back to them. The interview data will then be destroyed after a specified time period.
I have carefully read the information contained above and I understand fully my rights as a potential
subject in this study.
Date: ___________________ Time: ________________
Signature: _______________________________________

175
Appendix B: Interview Protocol
RQ Presumed related components
from conceptual framework
Interview questions
What factors do remote
employees of color in
biotech take into
consideration in
deciding whether and
how much to work
remotely?
Immediate environment
● Remote work choice
Individual determinants
● Preparedness
● Positive attitudes and
beliefs
SRQ1: How much (in percentage)
of a say did you have in
deciding to work remotely?
SRQ2: What factors did you
consider in deciding how much
to work remotely?
SRQ3: What were your attitudes /
beliefs about remote work
before pandemic?
SRQ3B: Have these beliefs
changed at all?
RQ2: What are the
benefits and
challenges that
employees of color in
biotech experience
when working
remotely?
Socio-cultural environment
● Work-life balance benefit
● No commute time benefit
● No dedicated workspace
challenge
● Mental health challenge
SRQ4: How prepared did you feel
to start remote work?
SRQ4B: Explain your
preparation—if well prepared,
what lived experiences helped
you feel prepared?
If unprepared, why did you feel
so?
SRQ5: Did the organization
prepare you?
SRQ6: Did you have prior
experience that prepared you
for remote work?
SRQ7: What are two big benefits
you experience in working
remotely?
SRQ8: What are two big
challenges you experience in
working remotely?
SRQ9: What does your ideal
working environment/day look
like?
RQ3: To what extent
and how do remote
employees of color
perceive that the
organization has made
efforts to address
On-premises environments
● Organizational resources
● Organizational
environment
SRQ10: Does your org provide
resources and help pay bills for
remote work?
SRQ11: Does your organization’s
processes help or hinder remote
work?

176
RQ Presumed related components
from conceptual framework
Interview questions
challenges faced in
working remotely?
● Organizational processes
● Organizational DEI culture
SRQ12: Does your organization
have DEI programs, and will
they support you working
remotely permanently?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Acculturative stress of Chinese international students in the United States

PDF

Management preconditions to mitigate virtual employee burnout

PDF

Inclusionary practices of leaders in a biotechnology company: a gap analysis innovation study

PDF

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

PDF

Employee engagement in a post-COVID era: the mediating role of basic psychological need satisfaction in remote and hybrid work environments

PDF

Information technology architects’ shift to remote work: an exploration of collaboration challenges

PDF

The influence of technology support on student retention

PDF

The underrepresentation of Black, indigenous, and people of color in executive-level information technology positions

PDF

Examining the pandemic’s impact on remote worker wellness in community colleges: organizational lessons and strategies

PDF

Participating in your own survival: a gap analysis study of the implementation of active shooter preparedness programs in mid-to-large size organizations

PDF

Exploration of the reasons for the overrepresentation of Black patients in schizophrenia clinical trials

PDF

Environmental influences on the diversity of professional sports executive leadership

PDF

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

PDF

An examination of soft skills in the virtual workplace

PDF

Cultivating capital in a distanced world: preparing business school undergraduate students to lead in the virtual world of work

PDF

The impact of school racial climate on the retention of teachers of color

PDF

Role understanding as a pillar of employee engagement: an evaluation gap analysis

PDF

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

PDF

Experiences of women of color leaders in academic libraries

PDF

Assessing the effects of electronic performance monitoring (EPM) on employee experience

Asset Metadata

Creator Avugwi, Kirk Patrick (author)

Core Title Exploring inequitable experiences of remote employees of color in biotechnology organizations in the United States who face less favorable remote work conditions…

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-12

Publication Date 10/06/2023

Defense Date 07/10/2023

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag biotechnology organizations,BIPOC,employees of color,inequitable remote work experiences,interplay of race,less favorable remote work conditions,little access to technology,lower socioeconomic status (SES) factors,OAI-PMH Harvest,people of color,remote work

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Filback, Robert (committee chair), Foulk, Susanne (committee member), Hinga, Briana (committee member)

Creator Email kxavugwi@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113758819

Unique identifier UC113758819

Identifier etd-AvugwiKirk-12413.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-AvugwiKirk-12413

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Avugwi, Kirk Patrick

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20231013-usctheses-batch-1101 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu