University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content PROMOTING WELL-BEING AMID A GLOBAL PANDEMIC:
EVALUATING THE IMPACT ON NONPROFIT EMPLOYEES
by
Janice Lumen Andrade
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2023
Copyright 2023 Janice Lumen Andrade

ii
Dedication
This dissertation stands as a testament to the unwavering support and presence of my
cherished family and friends, who have steadfastly stood by my side throughout this
transformative journey.
To my parents (RIP mom) and siblings, your unwavering love, encouragement, and
belief in me have been the driving force behind my journey to this accomplishment. You've been
my pillars of strength, always there to support and inspire me. This achievement reflects the
values and resilience you've instilled in me.
To my beloved husband, Charles, your role as my anchor and primary support system has
been immeasurable. Navigating the realms of parenting, professional commitments, and guiding
me through this intricate process has undoubtedly been a challenge, yet your unwavering
dedication and encouragement have been my constant companions. You have embodied the
spirit of my firmest advocate, propelling me forward even in the face of adversity.
To my precious children, Jayla and Jade, and to our upcoming arrival, baby boy Jr., my
drive to accomplish this feat has been fueled by the desire to show you that no goal is
unattainable. Although you may be too young to retain memories of the time and effort poured
into this doctoral journey, remember that every step was taken with your futures in mind. May
my achievement serve as a beacon, reminding you that the potential within you knows no
bounds.
This dedication is a testament to the unbreakable bond that binds us together, and it
symbolizes the depth of gratitude and love I hold for each of you. Your steadfast presence has
been the source of my strength, and with this accomplishment, I hope to inspire you to pursue
your dreams with unwavering determination.

iii
Acknowledgements
I extend my heartfelt appreciation to my exceptional classmates from cohort 11, who
have journeyed alongside me through the intricate pathways of doctoral courses. Our tight-knit
group has been a source of camaraderie and unwavering support, infusing every challenge with
shared laughter and determination. Your camaraderie has illuminated my path, and I am
immensely grateful for your presence on this transformative journey.
My deepest gratitude extends to my dedicated dissertation chair, Dr. Hirabayashi. Your
steadfast belief in my potential, even during the most arduous moments, has been a beacon of
encouragement. Through the highs and lows, your unwavering guidance and unwavering belief
in my capabilities have been the wind beneath my wings. Your dedication to my success has left
an indelible mark on my academic journey.
To my esteemed committee members, Dr. Canny and Dr. Malloy, your invaluable
expertise in my chosen field and your generous investment of time have been pivotal to reaching
this significant milestone. Your insights and guidance have not only refined the trajectory of my
research but have also enriched my understanding of the subject matter.
This journey would not have been possible without the collective support of my
classmates, advisors, and mentors. Each one of you has played an integral role in shaping this
accomplishment, and I am profoundly grateful for your unwavering faith in my potential.

iv
Table of Contents
Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………………ii
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………….... iii
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………….. vi
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………… vii
Chapter One: Introduction….……………………………………………………………………..1
Context of the Field of Practice …………………………………………………………..2
Importance of the Study …………………………………………………………………..2
Research Questions ……………………………………………………………………….4
Global Performance Goal . ...………………………………………………………………5
Stakeholder Group of Focus ……………………………………………………………...5
Definitions ………………………………………………………………………………...5
Chapter Two: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework……………………………………7
Employee Stress…………………………………………………………………………...7
Effects of Stress on Employees …………………………………………………………...9
Coping Strategies for Stress ……………………………………………………………..13
Employee Stress in Nonprofit Organizations …………………………………………...15
Employee Well-being Programs ………………………………………………………...16
Programs and Strategies to Manage Employee Well-being …………………………….17
Indicators of Employee Well-being ……………………………………………………..18
Outcomes of Employee Well-being ……………………………………………………..19
Measurement of Employee Well-being …………………………………………………20
Theoretical Framework ………………………………………………………………….20
Chapter Three: Methodology ……………………………………………………………………29
Research Questions ……………………………………………………………………...29
Research Design …………………………………………………………………………29
Participating Stakeholders ………………………………………………………………30
Sampling Criteria ……………………………………………………………………….30
Sampling Recruitment Strategy ………………………………………………………31

v
Instrumentation ………………………………………………………………………….32
Validity and Reliability ………………………………………………………………….33
Data Analysis ……………………………………………………………………………36
Chapter Four: Findings ………………………………………………………………………….37
Demographics …………………………………………………………………………...37
Research Question 1 …………………………………………………………………….42
Research Question 2 …………………………………………………………………….53
Research Question 3 …………………………………………………………………….57
Chapter Five: Discussion ……………………………………………………………………….59
Limitations and Delimitations …………………………………………………………...67
Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………….67
Recommendations for Future Research …………………………………………………73
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………75
References ……………………………………………………………………………………….78
Appendix A: The Researcher ..…………………………………………………………………86
Appendix B: Employee Well-Being Survey …………………………………………………….87
Appendix C: Ethics …...………………………………………………………………………100

vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Construct Validity and Reliability……………………………………………………...34
Table 2: HTMT Ratio between Organizational Culture and Well-being……………………….. 35
Table 3: Fornell Larcker Criterion for Discriminant Validity…………………………………... 35
Table 4: Cross Loadings for Assessment of Discriminant Validity…………………………….. 35
Table 5: Demographic Profile of Respondents…………………………………………………..38
Table 6: Descriptive Statistics of Employee and Operation Budget……………………………..41
Table 7: Organizational Culture………………………………………………………………….42
Table 8: Stress Management Trainings Received………………………………………………..43
Table 9: Organizational Policies on Well-being…………………………………………………45
Table 10: Support Resources……………………………………………………………………. 46
Table 11: Frequency of Experiences of Stress…………………………………………………...47
Table 12: Stress Triggers………………………………………………………………………... 48
Table 13: Stress Manifestations………………………………………………………………….49
Table 14: Sources of Training……………………………………………………………………50
Table 15: Employee Well-being…………………………………………………………………52
Table 16: Assessment of the Perceptions of Employees on their Organizational Culture……… 54
Table 17: Assessment of the Perceptions of Employees on their Well-being…………………... 56
Table 18: Relationship between Organizational Culture and Employee Well-being……………58

vii
Abstract
The global pandemic has undoubtedly introduced unprecedented challenges to employee
well-being, making it essential to understand the factors that contribute to successful well-being
programs. Guided by Clark and Estes’s (2008) modified gap analysis framework, this study
utilized a quantitative, survey design to explore: (1) the availability of mental health resources
and support, adherence to well-being policies, and frequency and triggers of workplace stress, (2)
the influence of demographic variables on perceptions of organizational culture and well-being,
and (3) the relationship between organizational culture and employee well-being.
After collecting primary data using a survey questionnaire, 150 completed responses
were retained after data cleansing. Findings revealed that most respondents agreed that their
organization prioritized employee well-being (63%) and set clear expectations for utilizing
available resources (60%). However, 19% disagreed with these statements, indicating room for
improvement in some organizations. Additionally, only 56% believed employee well-being was
fully embedded in the organizational culture, indicating a need for further integration of these
values. Stress management training was provided through workshops (26%), while mental health
days were the most common well-being support resource (38%). However, a significant
proportion of employees lacked access to these resources, highlighting the need for
comprehensive support mechanisms in nonprofit organizations.
The frequency of workplace stress was reported, with the majority experiencing stress
sometimes (44%), usually (39%), or always (17%). The most common stress trigger was a heavy
workload or excessive responsibility (77%), followed by lack of decision-making power, unclear
expectations, and poor management. The study examined stress manifestations in personal lives,
with anxiety being the most common (82%), followed by blowing up with family or friends

viii
(33%) and depression (35%). This highlights the broader impact of workplace stress beyond the
job itself and underscores the importance of addressing workplace stress in nonprofit
organizations.
Demographic variables significantly influenced perceptions of organizational culture and
well-being. Females, the 25-34 age group, and the Hispanic ethnicity had more positive
perceptions of organizational culture. Females and those earning $50,001 to $75,000 had more
positive perceptions of well-being. A weak positive relationship was found between
organizational culture and employee well-being (correlation coefficient = 0.256), indicating that
as perceptions of organizational culture improved, there was a slight increase in employee
wellbeing. The relationship was statistically significant, emphasizing the importance of fostering
a supportive organizational culture to promote employee well-being.
Overall, the findings of this study suggest that there is a need for increased attention to
employee well-being in nonprofit organizations. The findings highlight the need for improved
support mechanisms, stress management training, addressing workload and job demands, and
fostering a culture that prioritizes well-being and organizational culture to enhance employee
well-being in nonprofit organizations, particularly during a global pandemic. Addressing
workplace stress and fostering a healthy work environment are crucial for ensuring a resilient
and productive workforce. By taking these steps, nonprofit organizations can help to improve the
mental health and well-being of their employees, which can lead to several benefits, including
increased job satisfaction, productivity, and turnover intention.
Keywords: Employee well-being, nonprofit employee, pandemic, organizational culture, training

1
Chapter One: Introduction
Managing employees’ well-being and stress during a global pandemic directly affects
their health and happiness. Nonprofit employees often face pressure to deliver quality service in
fast-paced environments, which can impact both their own outcomes and those of the customers
(Hamann & Foster, 2014). Stress, as defined by Ganster and Rosen (2013), is the process
through which environmental events trigger a series of cognitive and physiological reactions that
ultimately influence well-being. Work stress, on the other hand, is characterized by workplace
psychological experiences and demands (stressors) that lead to both short-term and long-term
changes (strains) in mental and physical health (Ganster & Rosen, 2013).
The enhancement of employee health and well-being commences when organizations
prioritize their employees (DeJoy & Wilson, 2003). By optimizing employees’ work-life
balance, organizations not only foster healthier environments but also harness their human
capital to the fullest (DeJoy & Wilson, 2003). Employee well-being, as defined by Grawitch et
al. (2006), encompasses an array of factors including physical health, mental health, stress,
motivation, commitment, job satisfaction, morale, and climate. The problem I aimed to address
in practice pertains to how employees manage their well-being and stress within nonprofit
organizations amid a global pandemic.
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a pandemic as an epidemic that spans
worldwide, crosses international boundaries, and affects many people (Porta, 2014). According
to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), COVID-19 is an illness caused by a
virus that spreads from person to person (CDC, 2020). The uncertainty created by COVID-19
has significantly impacted employees across the United States, thereby affecting organizations'
capacity to deliver high-quality outcomes.

2
Preceding the COVID-19 pandemic, both employers and employees grappled with the
challenge of maintaining a balanced blend between work and personal life (MetLife, 2020).
Employees are more likely to excel when offered support for financial wellness along with a
flexible approach to work. Notably, employees identified their top three stressors as personal
finances (34%), work-related issues (32%), and personal or family health concerns (19%). In the
context of COVID-19, two out of three employees have reported heightened stress levels
compared to pre-pandemic times. Those indicating elevated stress due to COVID-19 also
disclosed lower levels of overall well-being. Employees' mental health suffered due to concerns
about contracting the virus themselves or having friends or family members contract it, while the
implementation of social distancing measures further exacerbated their stress.
Context of the Field of Practice
The scope of this study encompasses 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations operating within
urban communities in the western region of the United States. These nonprofits are dedicated to
delivering community programming, human services, and direct client engagement. Their
collaborative efforts extend to local community organizations and other stakeholders, facilitating
the provision of essential resources and services to individuals, families, and entire communities.
Their overarching mission revolves around maximizing resource availability for the benefit of
their communities. The emphasis on the nonprofit sector in this study is rooted in its pivotal role
in community strengthening through service delivery. With a focus on underserved communities,
the nonprofit sector assumes a significant advocacy role.
Importance of the Study
The pressing demand for direct services within disadvantaged, low-income, and minority
populations underscores the necessity of assessing the impact of stress during the COVID-19

3
pandemic. As indicated by the American Psychological Association (APA, 2020), a multitude of
Americans have been affected by the pandemic, grappling with job loss, financial strain, and
uncertainty about their personal lives and the nation's future. The pandemic has emerged as a
profound national mental health crisis, with nearly 78% of respondents in the APA's study
identifying it as a major stressor for most Americans. Furthermore, 67% acknowledged
experiencing heightened stress during the pandemic compared to the previous year (APA, 2020).
The repercussions of the pandemic are palpable across work, education, healthcare,
relationships, and the broader economy. Among the respondents, 67% expressed a sense of
dwindling hope and an inability to plan due to the pandemic's impact (APA, 2020).
Notably, specific communities bore a disproportionate brunt of the pandemic's effects.
For instance, 21% of households earning under $50K reported family members being laid off
due to the pandemic, and a substantial 73% of the population identified financial concerns as a
significant source of stress. Housing costs also emerged as a prominent stressor for 58% of
respondents (APA, 2020). Additionally, more than half of employed respondents underscored
the considerable stress associated with job stability (APA, 2020).
Retaining highly qualified and motivated employees is of paramount importance in
ensuring the provision of essential human care to communities in need. The core mission of
nonprofit organizations revolves around offering services, goods, and resources that aid
individuals and communities in functioning effectively. This, in turn, fosters the development of
healthy communities, contributing to social and economic stability and mobility. The absence of
these direct services would impede the progress of underserved communities. To effectively
fulfill this mission, nonprofit organizations must prioritize employee well-being and stress
management. Consequently, this study delved into the challenges faced by nonprofit leaders in

4
implementing stress management strategies within their work environments. In line with findings
from MetLife's (2020) annual U.S. employee benefit trends study, a noteworthy 58% of
employees experiencing difficulties at work reported that their employers do not offer mental
health programs to address the demands of balancing work-related stressors. It is especially
critical to provide mental health support to frontline employees, including essential workers, as
they face an elevated risk of exposure to COVID-19.
Research Questions
The objective of this study was to pinpoint obstacles and optimal approaches for effective
employee well-being programs, along with proposing recommendations for their enhancement.
The study aimed to assess the extent of employee well-being and stress management practices
within nonprofit organizations amidst a global pandemic. The investigation centered on the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors (Clark & Estes, 2008) essential for
empowering human-services employees within nonprofits to adeptly manage their stress and
well-being during such a global crisis. This study was guided by three research questions that not
only steered the inquiry but also framed the gap analysis concerning knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences:
1. What organizational mental health resources and support are available to employees
in the workplace to promote their well-being and address their mental health needs?
2. Do perceptions of organizational culture and their personal well-being differ by
participant demographics?
3. Is there a significant correlation between participants’ perceptions of organizational
culture and their well-being?

5
Global Performance Goal
This study assessed the implementation of stress management strategies within nonprofit
organizations with the aim of enhancing employee well-being. The overarching global aspiration
of this study was for nonprofit human-services employees to possess the capacity to effectively
handle their stress and maintain well-being amidst a global pandemic. Initiatives aimed at
augmenting employee well-being and refining stress management practices not only contribute
to organizational health but also address the amplified challenges posed by the pandemic on both
employers and employees. To facilitate enduring transformation within their communities, it is
imperative that employees are equipped to navigate stress, supported by the organization's
efforts.
Stakeholder Group of Focus
The stakeholders involved in this study encompass nonprofit employees across the entire
spectrum of hierarchy, ranging from executive directors to frontline employees, including
essential workers. The composition of nonprofit organizations typically includes individuals in
senior and middle management positions, such as executive directors, human resource managers,
program directors, program managers, supervisors, as well as frontline staff. These pivotal
stakeholders play a direct role in influencing an organization's capacity to realize its mission and
vision effectively.
Definitions
Nonprofit organizations: These are entities formed for purposes beyond generating profit for
owners or investors, instead focusing on providing public or mutual benefits (Salamon, 1999).
Employee well-being: The concept of well-being lacks a singular definition. As per the CDC
(2018), well-being encompasses a broad understanding that involves positive emotions, life

6
satisfaction, and a sense of fulfillment (National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion, 2018). Well-being is generally associated with self-perceived health,
longevity, positive behaviors, mental and physical health, social connectedness, productivity, as
well as various elements within the physical and social environment (National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 2018).
COVID-19: COVID-19, commonly known as coronavirus disease, is an infectious respiratory
ailment resulting from the SARS-CoV-2 virus, first identified in 2019. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC, 2021) has elucidated that the virus predominantly spreads
through respiratory droplets expelled when an infected individual coughs, sneezes, or talks. It's
worth noting that some infected individuals may remain asymptomatic (CDC, 2021). Symptoms
of COVID-19 encompass fever or chills, cough, difficulty breathing or shortness of breath,
fatigue, muscle or body aches, headaches, loss of taste or smell, sore throat, congestion or runny
nose, nausea or vomiting, and diarrhea.
Stress management: Stress management, as per Corsica (2011), involves the process of acquiring
and applying an array of cognitive and behavioral techniques aimed at effectively handling and
coping with stress.

7
Chapter Two: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework
This literature review addresses the pressing challenge of mitigating stress and promoting
employee well-being during the context of a global pandemic. It begins by examining the
heightened employee stress within work environments significantly impacted by the COVID-19
pandemic. Subsequently, it delves into the intricate relationship between employee stress and its
effects on individuals within the workplace. The review then navigates through various coping
strategies employees commonly employ during periods of stress, particularly in the midst of a
crisis, followed by an exploration of employee stress specifically within nonprofit organizations.
Furthermore, the literature elucidates the landscape of employee well-being programs and
strategies designed to effectively manage and enhance employee well-being. In addition, it
scrutinizes employee well-being from multiple perspectives, delving into the indicators of
wellbeing, its outcomes, and the metrics used for its measurement. Additionally, the literature
sheds light on the application of Clark and Estes's (2008) gap analysis framework, which offers a
lens of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences utilized within the context of this
study.
Employee Stress
Globally, an estimated 284 million individuals are diagnosed with anxiety disorders each
year (Global Change Data Lab, 2017). Surpassing three-quarters of adults, more than 75%,
encounter symptoms of stress (APA, 2020). Notably, COVID-19 has emerged as a substantial
source of tension in the United States. Nearly 65% of American adults express that the current
health situation and the uncertainties surrounding it are inducing stress (APA, 2019).
Approximately 60% of American adults have been profoundly affected by COVID-19, leading
to substantial lifestyle adjustments (APA, 2019). With the influx of COVID-19 cases into the

8
United States, a state of emergency was declared by the president.
To curb the spread of the virus and safeguard individuals, stay-at-home orders were
instituted, curtailing various forms of social interaction with friends and family. This physical
distancing strategy-imposed limitations on Americans and significantly reshaped their day-today
lives. Parents were compelled to adapt to the challenges of having their children engage in
distance learning from home. Many individuals faced job losses, prompting others to modify
their work schedules and routines to accommodate remote work arrangements. However,
frontline employees were required to persist in their duties, exposing them to elevated risks of
contracting COVID-19, which in turn escalated their mental, physical, and emotional stress.
While stress is widespread, its consequences can also be profoundly costly. By the
second quarter of 2020, the pandemic had obliterated 195 million full-time positions within the
global service sector (Nebehay, 2020). Every year, roughly five million deaths are attributed to
mood and anxiety disorders worldwide (Walker et al., 2015). An estimated eight out of ten
Americans have specifically attributed their stress to the impact of COVID-19 (APA, 2020).
Over the past three decades, employee stress has surged by almost 20%, while a mere 30% of
employees feel genuinely motivated and engaged in their work (Dai et al., 2021).
Since the declaration of the coronavirus outbreak as a global health emergency in early
2020, frontline employees have grappled with heightened workplace stress (Voorhees et al.,
2020). The pandemic has imposed additional burdens on frontline workers, compelling them to
enforce extra rules and guidelines, particularly those related to social distancing. The new norm
has prompted frontline employees to deal with challenges stemming from customer backlash, as
some consumers, customers, and clients resist complying with mask-wearing and social
distancing mandates when entering workplaces. Drawing from several interviews conducted
with frontline employees in industries such as retail, hospitality, and personal services, it was

9
revealed that stress levels have risen due to their potential exposure to customers who may be
unwell or refuse to adhere to safety protocols (Voorhees et al., 2020). These employees
expressed the gravity of their situation, noting that they felt their lives were at stake due to
insufficient protective measures by their employers (Voorhees et al., 2020).
Frontline employees, encompassing hospital personnel, caregivers, support staff, and
administrators, find themselves at the forefront of exposure to COVID-19 patients, putting not
only their health but potentially their family members' well-being at risk. The onset of the
pandemic in March 2020 marked a global spread of COVID-19, leading to the infection of 3,000
healthcare workers and tragically claiming the lives of 22 (Adams & Walls, 2020). The
mounting influx of COVID-19 patients poses the peril of depleting the already strained
healthcare workforce. The issue of inadequate personal protective equipment (PPE) for
healthcare workers also came under public scrutiny (Berry & Stuart, 2021).
In an abrupt turn, essential service workers—ranging from grocery store clerks to
sanitation, transportation, and delivery workers, along with police, fire personnel, and those in
nonprofit human-services—voiced a pressing demand for enhanced protection for themselves
and their workplaces in response to the COVID-19 crisis (Berry & Stuart, 2021). The unforeseen
stress brought about by the pandemic has the potential to inflict enduring and adverse effects on
employees' well-being.
Effects of Stress on Employees
The pandemic has subjected employees to a persistent stream of work-related stressors.
Heightened stress among adults can trigger detrimental behavioral changes, including increased
bodily tension, heightened irritability leading to sudden anger outbursts, and unforeseen mood
fluctuations (APA, 2020). Profound economic shifts like business closures, lockdowns, and the

10
need for enhanced hygiene practices have yielded both immediate and lasting impacts on
employees' lives (Spurk & Straub, 2020). Among the sectors deeply affected, healthcare has
borne the brunt due to the surge in patients contracting COVID-19.
Numerous employees navigating work responsibilities amid a global pandemic have
grappled with diverse stressors that impair their job performance. For instance, medical
professionals are confronted not only with the health and well-being of their patients but also
with the potential exposure of their own family members to COVID-19 due to their work
(Daphna-Tekoah et al., 2020; Gohar et al., 2020; Moitra et al., 2021; Ripp et al., 2020; Shanafelt
et al., 2020). This additional stress of intertwining work responsibilities with personal life, which
could significantly impact patients' health and well-being, underscores the augmented stressors
employees face during a global pandemic. Another poignant example of the pandemic's impact
on employees across various industries is the surge in depression, anxiety, and other substantial
stressors (Daphna-Tekoah et al., 2020; Moitra et al., 2021).
As noted by Moitra et al. (2021), employees are confronted with an array of
psychological challenges during a pandemic, encompassing depression, anxiety, insomnia,
fatigue, and workplace burnout. Research highlights a notable upswing in depression rates
amidst the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison to the periods before its emergence (Moitra et
al., 2021). Frontline workers must navigate the transition to altered workflows and work
practices, necessitating adjustments for both their emotional and physical well-being (Ripp et al.,
2020). The toll on frontline workers has manifested in various short-term stress
symptoms, spanning from irritability, anger, and nervousness to anxiety, denial, and diminished
motivation. Other employees grapple with a distinct set of symptoms, including fatigue, feelings
of being overwhelmed, sadness, depression, and burnout. Stress tends to disrupt employees'

11
sleep patterns and hinder their ability to concentrate on routine tasks. A pervasive concern
shared by many employees revolves around the risk of exposure to the coronavirus while at
work (Moitra et al., 2021).
Within the healthcare sector, the pandemic exacerbated staff shortages (Gohar et al.,
2020). The initial phases of the pandemic witnessed a surge in employee requests for leaves of
absence, driven by physical or mental health concerns, thereby amplifying the workload on other
employees (Gohar et al., 2020). The absence of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE),
as highlighted by Moitra et al. (2021) and Shanafelt et al. (2020), contributed to heightened
anxiety among employees. Those in direct contact with COVID-19 patients grappled with
insomnia and anxiety (Moitra et al., 2021). It is noteworthy that households with infants and
senior citizens, who are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, reported more prevalent instances
of insomnia and anxiety (Moitra et al., 2021).
Frontline workers grapple with the challenge of differentiating their health and wellbeing
from their professional responsibilities. Often, they find themselves extending their limits to
maintain their physical and psychological well-being while prioritizing patient care (Hamouche,
2020; Haque, 2021; Ripp et al., 2020). A compelling example lies in the experiences of doctors
who, during the pandemic's onset, faced personal emotional struggles even as they provided
immediate patient care (Creese et al., 2021). The healthcare realm posed the formidable task of
harmonizing work, personal life, and family commitments (Creese et al., 2021; Ripp et al.,
2020).
Shanafelt et al. (2020) outlined eight distinct sources of anxiety for healthcare workers:
inadequate access to personal protective equipment (PPE), the risk of contracting and
transmitting COVID-19 to their families, insufficient access to COVID-19 testing, lack of

12
workplace support in case of infection, inadequate childcare resources, absence of personal and
familial support, limited medical training in new departments, and dearth of accessible
information about COVID-19. Stemming from these sources of anxiety, five distinct employee
requests emerged: the need to be heard, protected, prepared, supported, and cared for (Shanafelt
et al., 2020).
The pandemic has imposed a significant toll on essential workers who were mandated to
continue their work duties. As outlined by Hamouche (2020), the impact of COVID-19 has had
adverse effects on employees' mental well-being. In light of this, Creese et al. (2021)
underscored that individuals who served on the frontlines during the peak of the pandemic would
inevitably require substantial support in the long term. Frontline workers, having endured
countless sleepless nights and extended shifts, are acutely aware of the physical and emotional
strain they have borne (Creese et al., 2021). The traumatic implications of the pandemic have left
many individuals grappling with extreme exhaustion. In light of these challenges, a meticulously
designed well-being program becomes essential, one that directly addresses the taxing
experiences endured throughout the pandemic (Creese et al., 2021). Encouraging employees to
communicate their experiences is crucial in preventing burnout. Organizations must take the
initiative, lend an attentive ear to their employees, acknowledge their individual experiences, and
furnish them with appropriate support to effectively navigate their roles (Creese et al., 2021).
Operating through a pandemic brings forth an unsettling sense of personal jeopardy
among employees, largely due to the pandemic's marked morbidity rates (Lai et al., 2020).
Frontline employees, tasked with shouldering significant stress amid the crisis, often grapple
with the ramifications of poor mental health, which poses a serious personal challenge. The
strain of a pandemic instigates pronounced exhaustion within employees, eroding their

13
motivation and diminishing their capacity to derive satisfaction from their work. This, in turn,
contributes to escalated turnover rates, diminished productivity, and a pervasive sense of job
dissatisfaction (Fauzi et al., 2020). Employee distress stems from multifaceted emotions and
concerns, spanning fears linked to COVID-19, individual well-being, the health of their families,
navigating substantial work transitions, and contending with feelings of isolation (Lai et al.,
2020).
Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, a host of external stressors coupled with relationship
instability have emerged, as highlighted by Pietromonaco and Overall (2020). Families have
grappled with the intricate task of maintaining a delicate equilibrium between work and family
life during these challenging times (Fisher et al., 2020). For parents, the pandemic has brought
forth heightened stress, particularly when working from home while concurrently supporting
their children's distance learning endeavors (Fisher et al., 2020). Several challenges have become
evident within this context. The scarcity of computers for facilitating distance learning at home,
along with issues related to internet accessibility, further compounded by language barriers, pose
significant impediments for parents and family members in comprehending and participating in
the distance learning process (Fisher et al., 2020). Moreover, parents' ability to both engage with
the learning material and monitor their child's academic performance is hindered (Fisher et al.,
2020). Additionally, for some children, the home environment may not provide the conducive
setting required for healthy development.
Coping Strategies for Stress
Employees employ a range of coping mechanisms to contend with stress, as illuminated
by Umucu and Lee (2020), who identified both adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies.
Among these strategies, self-distraction, denial, substance use, behavioral disengagement,

14
venting, planning, reliance on religion, and self-blame have been found to be positively linked to
perceived stress. In contrast, coping approaches like active engagement, planning, soliciting
emotional and instrumental support, fostering positive reframing, resorting to religion, humor,
and embracing acceptance are all recognized as adaptive strategies (Umucu & Lee, 2020). Amid
the challenges posed by COVID-19, certain employees have adopted specific stress-coping
tactics, such as meticulously adhering to stringent protective measures—regularly washing
hands, donning masks, and wearing appropriate protective attire (Cai et al., 2020).
Maintaining employee well-being in times of crisis is even more challenging, especially
given that numerous organizations lack the comprehensive resources to effectively address these
challenges. Fostering an environment wherein employees recognize their supervisors as attentive
listeners holds profound implications for employee well-being and organizational dynamics.
These implications extend to employee proactivity and commitment to the organization,
influencing decisions to remain within it (Lloyd et al., 2014).
Parmer (2019) underscores that employees regularly encounter stress-inducing situations
within the organizational context. Such stress not only impairs employees' psychological
wellbeing but also casts a shadow on their job performance, thereby exerting a potential ripple
effect on the company's overall performance. In this context, the ability to eliminate stressors
and possess short-term coping skills assumes paramount significance, equipping individuals to
become influential team members.
Even though many employees are hesitant to seek assistance, reaching out for help stands
as a viable strategy for managing the stress stemming from the pandemic, particularly in
uncharted roles that demand employees to surpass their typical job responsibilities (Shanafelt et
al., 2020).

15
Employee Stress in Nonprofit Organizations
Employees in the nonprofit sector experience both advantages and disadvantages.
Nonprofit work is inherently mission-driven, fostering a strong sense of purpose. However,
under normal circumstances, this sector may introduce a certain degree of stress that
distinguishes it from the for-profit counterpart. Strategies such as cultivating positive
relationships to enhance communication, providing opportunities for employee training and
advancement, and recognizing compensation as crucial but not the sole motivator for employee
behavior contribute to the unique work environment. Despite often modest salaries, these
approaches foster organizational commitment and reinforce job embeddedness (Searight, 2019).
Entering the nonprofit workforce is often driven by a specific mission and objective.
Unfortunately, burnout frequently looms, and even though employees hold positive attitudes
toward the organization's mission, this sentiment does not singularly dictate their decision to
remain (Brown et al., 2004). A study by Hamann and Foster (2014) revealed that nonprofit
employees grapple with heavier workloads compared to their for-profit counterparts, while both
nonprofit and public sector employees face elevated stress levels. According to Selden and Sowa
(2015), turnover rates within nonprofit organizations are primarily influenced by onboarding
practices, followed by leadership succession, compensation, and employee relations.
Crises, though unexpected, occur with notable frequency, underscoring the vital necessity
of preparedness in their management (Teffali et al., 2019). Nonprofit organizations, when
confronted with crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, are compelled to address employee
stress directly due to its direct impact on decision-making processes. Instances of natural
disasters, terrorist attacks, sabotage, accidents, and technological disruptions yield grave
consequences unless met with swift and comprehensive responses (Coombs, 2007). Effective

16
crisis management entails the identification, assessment, and timely response to the situation at
hand (Kienzle et al., 2010). Many individuals, unless trained within crisis management systems
and protocols, find themselves uncertain about how to navigate such circumstances. Specialized
training, preparedness measures, and robust communication are pivotal aspects of readying for
effective crisis management.
The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina stands as a poignant illustration of the
indispensability of crisis preparation. The catastrophe witnessed in New Orleans could have been
mitigated or altogether averted, thereby preventing the loss of thousands of lives and the plight
of individuals stranded on rooftops awaiting rescue (Spence et al., 2016). Regrettably, nonprofit
organizations often fall short in offering employees coping strategies to enhance their well-being
and harmonize work-life balance.
The subsequent section delves into strategies that employees can individually and
professionally employ to navigate crises. This emphasis on personal and professional coping
mechanisms is particularly pertinent for frontline organizations and their employees, who furnish
essential goods and services. Equipping such entities with comprehensive plans and resources is
imperative for effectively tackling profound challenges, including a pandemic (Koonin, 2020). A
meticulously devised plan stands to alleviate employee stress and contribute to a reduction in
adverse outcomes (Koonin, 2020).
Employee Well-Being Programs
The term "well-being" encompasses various definitions, all pointing toward a general
comprehension that includes positive emotions, life satisfaction, and a sense of fulfillment
(WellBeing Concepts, 2018). Well-being is inherently tied to self-perceived health, longevity,
the adoption of healthy behaviors, management of mental and physical health, establishment of

17
social connections, productivity, and the influence of factors within the physical and social
environment (Well-Being Concepts, 2018).
Developing a health-oriented workplace yields numerous advantages for both employers
and employees. A well-constructed work environment should actively contribute to the overall
health and wellness of employees. As highlighted by Munn (2018), nonprofit organizations have
effectively harnessed non-monetary measures to prevent employee overexertion, offering
flexible hours, fostering a positive workspace, maintaining open communication through regular
check-ins, and upholding organizational transparency.
Programs and Strategies to Manage Employee Well-Being
Effectively managing stress and preserving well-being in times of crisis necessitates the
provision of comprehensive programs aimed at alleviating stress. Searight (2019) advocates for
organizations to adopt retention strategies to curb high turnover rates and bolster employee
wellbeing. These strategies encompass enhancing workplace communication, valuing
employees, cultivating effective leadership styles, facilitating work-life balance, and furnishing
avenues for employee training and career progression.
Jaskyte et al. (2010) underscore the transformative potential of promoting employee
creativity and implementing innovative organizational strategies. Such endeavors yield positive
outcomes, catalyze significant shifts in organizational culture, and elevate leadership attitudes,
behaviors, and relationships. Surviving within an organization during a crisis mandates the
pursuit of equilibrium between work and personal life, coupled with the adoption of effective
practices to stave off burnout.
Vaziri et al. (2020) proposed a set of steps designed to guide employees in adhering to
best practices during substantial crises. These steps offer organizations and employees effective

18
tools for troubleshooting when issues arise. For instance, Vaziri et al. (2020) advocate for the
establishment of policies and protocols that facilitate the effective management of both work and
family responsibilities. Moreover, they highlight the importance of training managers in the art
of compassion during crisis periods and underscore the significance of recognizing and
rewarding supervisor behaviors rooted in compassion. The integration of novel technologies that
bolster remote work capabilities is also advised. This entails offering comprehensive support
services and training to employees in relation to these new technologies, as well as furnishing
guidance on diverse coping mechanisms.
Throughout the crisis, Vaziri et al. recommend a focus on instilling compassion among
leaders and the recognition of leaders who actively demonstrate this trait. The primacy of an
"employee-health-first" policy is emphasized, along with the provision of support encompassing
technology training, fostering family work-life equilibrium, and dispensing real-time guidance
on problem-solving coping strategies.
Indicators of Employee Well-Being
Assessing employee well-being can be achieved through various approaches. Nielsen et
al. (2017) discuss the "happy worker–productive worker" thesis, suggesting a reciprocal
relationship between high levels of well-being and optimal performance among workers.
However, organizations must grasp the strategies to cultivate such contented and productive
employees.
Mindfulness and meditation have emerged as effective tools for enhancing employee
well-being. Ravalier et al. (2016) underline the positive effects of mindfulness and meditation
practices. While mindfulness has demonstrated compelling short-term impacts on well-being,

19
other meditation techniques show moderately favorable longer-term effects lasting up to three
months post-intervention completion.
Nonetheless, further investigations are essential to unravel the enduring effects of
meditation and mindfulness techniques (Ravalier et al., 2016). Schultz et al. (2014) concur that
both autonomy support and mindfulness directly contribute to employees' work well-being.
Poulsen and Ipsen (2017) elaborate on the mixed well-being experiences of remote employees.
Managing remote work necessitates a dual focus on both well-being and performance. Working
conditions in clients' environments significantly influence performance, with indicators of
employee well-being serving as a gauge of organizational support for employees. The
forthcoming section will delve into the methodologies employed for measuring employee
wellbeing.
Outcomes of Employee Well-Being
The evaluation of employee well-being holds paramount importance for the success of
any organization. The practices adopted within human resource management wield a significant
influence on employee well-being, often yielding more positive outcomes than negative. Central
to this dynamic is the fostering of support and the cultivation of trust, both of which are
instrumental in nurturing employee well-being. These findings bear relevance to a diverse range
of stakeholders including human resource practitioners, management, policymakers, and
business practitioners, as highlighted by Baptiste (2008).
Insights from Wright and Cropanzano (2004) underscore the correlation between psychological
well-being (PWB), elevated levels of happiness, and enhanced job performance. Individuals with
higher levels of PWB are more likely to derive positive work experiences compared to those
with lower PWB. Furthermore, the impact of employee well-being extends to job performance,

20
employee retention, and even cardiovascular health (Wright & Huang, 2012). The
comprehension of the outcomes stemming from employee well-being sets the stage for our
subsequent section, which focuses on the delineation of employee well-being indicators.
Measurement of Employee Well-Being
Employee well-being encompasses an assessment of an employee's physical health,
mental health, and social interactions. The precise metrics employed for measuring employee
well-being can exhibit variations contingent on the specific organizations conducting the
evaluation. While well-being is inherently subjective, its measurement carries immense
significance due to its capacity to furnish insights into an employee's comprehensive experience
and performance within the workplace. The measurement of employee well-being serves as a
catalyst for enhancing not only the employee's workplace engagement but also their physical,
mental, and social well-being in both their professional and personal spheres.
This responsibility falls squarely on the organization, encompassing tasks such as
equipping employees with requisite training, fortifying their readiness for crises, and nurturing a
sense of trust so profound that employees are assured of prioritization in times of need (Ripp et
al., 2020; Vaziri et al., 2020). A proactive approach that champions peer support, advocates for
social connections, heightens safety awareness, fortifies mental health support, and furnishes the
essential resources indispensable for fulfilling job responsibilities can circumvent distress and
communication breakdowns (Ripp et al., 2020).
Theoretical Framework
This study has utilized a tailored gap analysis framework, built upon the foundation laid
by Clark and Estes (2008), to delve into the dimensions of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences. Rooted in its origins, the gap analysis framework operates as a

21
strategic tool to discern organizational performance impediments, facilitating more informed and
efficacious decision-making (Clark & Estes, 2008). In this pursuit, the establishment of precise
and distinct performance objectives for both the organization and its employees emerges as a
vital strategy for enhancing overall performance. The principal aim of the gap analysis is to
engender performance enhancement by bridging the chasm between the organization's
performance aspirations and its present standing (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Integral to this analysis is the exploration of the underpinnings that contribute to
performance disparities. This entails a comprehensive examination of stakeholder knowledge
and competencies, motivational drivers, and the larger organizational factors that collectively
influence performance outcomes (Clark & Estes, 2008). The overarching goal is to furnish
organizations with tangible, ambitious, and current objectives, thus empowering every employee
to collectively realize the broader organizational mission (Clark & Estes, 2008). Consequently,
this study casts its focus on delineating individual, team, and organizational goals as part of its
endeavor to ameliorate these performance gaps.
The classification of knowledge encompasses four distinct types: factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive, as outlined by Krathwohl (2002). Each type serves as a
foundational facet in understanding and functioning effectively within diverse situations.
The first category, factual knowledge, encompasses rudimentary information such as
terminology, details, and elements requisite for adept performance within any given context. For
instance, nonprofit employees necessitate an understanding of the factors influencing stress
reduction and the sustenance of well-being.
Conceptual knowledge, the second type, delves into comprehension of specific principles
and structures pertaining to a particular realm or circumstance. This knowledge seeks to

22
elucidate the rationale behind fundamental practices. In the context of nonprofit work, it is
crucial to comprehend the significance of establishing clear objectives. This awareness
empowers nonprofit employees to recognize the imperative of managing employee well-being
and stress, thus mitigating the likelihood of rapid burnout.
Procedural knowledge, constituting the third category, encapsulates the ability to execute
actions and tasks effectively. In the nonprofit sphere, this translates to grasping the successful
strategies integral to augmenting well-being and diminishing stress.
The fourth type, metacognitive knowledge, centers on an individual's cognizance of their
cognitive processes within a given scenario. In the nonprofit domain, it entails understanding
one's capacity to navigate stress and cultivate well-being within the work environment. This
metacognitive awareness empowers nonprofit employees to make informed decisions about their
well-being management strategies.
Together, these knowledge categories form a comprehensive framework that underpins
effective functioning and decision-making across diverse situations, ultimately enriching the
nonprofit work experience.
Motivation constitutes another pivotal aspect in bridging performance gaps,
encompassing active choice, mental exertion, and persistence, all of which culminate in
heightened performance levels (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Central to motivational
influences are stakeholders' vested interests, proficiency, and utility values, which collectively
contribute to bolstering motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The cultivation of motivation hinges upon several key factors, including an individual's
recognition of the benefits associated with stress mitigation techniques. For instance, employees
must acknowledge the advantages of such strategies to navigate high-stress situations adeptly.

23
Values play a crucial role in this process, as they empower individuals to articulate their
viewpoints and preferences, thereby contributing to heightened performance levels. Moreover,
an individual's self-belief in their capacity to execute a particular skill significantly impacts their
motivation. Self-efficacy, in particular, emerges as a critical determinant of an individual's
motivation. In the context of nonprofit work, employees must possess the confidence to employ
strategies that enhance employee well-being and reduce stress.
It is notable that an array of reasons for unmet performance objectives are intrinsically
linked to deficiencies in motivation among individuals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Thus, instilling a
sense of self-assuredness in one's ability to leverage stress mitigation techniques effectively
during high-stress periods is paramount. Consequently, addressing motivational influences forms
a foundational tenet in comprehending the gap analysis central to this research. By cultivating
motivation, organizations lay the groundwork for fostering enhanced employee engagement and
performance, particularly amid challenges such as crises or stress-inducing scenarios. The
final determinant of performance gaps is organizational influences, encompassing work
processes, material resources, and the prevailing work culture, all of which exert an impact on an
individual's performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). A crucial facet of organizational influences is
encapsulated within cultural models, which pertain to the cognitive behaviors and often
inconspicuous elements characterizing specific work environments (Rueda, 2011). These
cultural models shape individuals' perceptions, interactions, and behaviors within the
organization.
The establishment of a shared set of values that prioritize employee well-being and stress
reduction in the workplace exemplifies the role of cultural models. Notably, cultural settings
primarily encompass the observable and tangible aspects of the work environment (Clark &

24
Estes, 2008). In the context of nonprofit organizations, it is imperative that employees are
equipped with the necessary resources to effectively manage their well-being and stress levels.
Performance discrepancies tend to arise when organizational goals, policies, and
procedures deviate from the prevailing organizational culture (Clark & Estes, 2008). The
misalignment between these elements can lead to challenges in achieving desired outcomes.
Consequently, fostering effective change emerges as a pivotal objective for successful
organizations, as they strive to harmonize various organizational influences to drive optimal
performance (Clark & Estes, 2008).
In summary, a comprehensive understanding of the interplay among knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences allows organizations to pinpoint the underlying causes
of performance gaps and implement targeted strategies for improvement. This research
framework facilitates a holistic approach to enhancing employee well-being, managing stress,
and navigating crises, particularly within nonprofit organizations.
A conceptual framework serves as the foundation for shaping research expectations and
guiding the investigation's direction. Maxwell (2013) offers a comprehensive definition,
characterizing a conceptual framework as a network of interconnected concepts, assumptions,
beliefs, theories, and ideas that collectively elucidate the dynamics within a particular context.
This framework is not a fixed construct but an evolving one, subject to revisions and refinements
as the research progresses (Maxwell, 2013). At its core, a conceptual framework presents a
tentative theory about the phenomenon under investigation, offering an organized structure to
explore and understand it (Maxwell, 2013).
The fundamental purpose of a conceptual framework, as described by Maxwell (2013),
lies in its ability to delineate and describe the pivotal concepts that are central to the research

25
inquiry. This framework not only provides a roadmap for the research's various stages but also
plays a crucial role in shaping the research's sampling strategy, data collection methods, and
subsequent data analysis procedures (Maxwell, 2013). In this manner, it ensures that the research
process remains guided by a clear and coherent structure.
Furthermore, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) introduce the term "theoretical framework" as
an alternative to "conceptual framework." This framework encompasses a broader spectrum of
terms, concepts, models, ideas, and thoughts, extending beyond specific theories. By adopting
this perspective, researchers have the flexibility to draw upon a diverse range of theoretical
underpinnings that contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the subject under
investigation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
In essence, both terms, whether conceptual framework or theoretical framework, refer to
a structured system of concepts and ideas that provide a framework for research design,
execution, and interpretation. This framework guides researchers in their pursuit of
understanding complex phenomena and offers a coherent structure for navigating the research
process.
The interrelationship between knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
aligns well with the context of this research. While these factors are often discussed
independently for the sake of analysis and understanding, they are intricately interconnected in
practice, especially when considering their impact on employees' ability to achieve the desired
goals of a nonprofit organization.
The effectiveness of employee well-being programs and strategies depends on the
collaboration and synergy of these factors. Employees' knowledge and skills enable them to
understand and apply stress management techniques and well-being practices effectively.

26
Motivation plays a crucial role in driving employees to actively engage in these practices, as well
as to seek continuous improvement and adaptation. Organizational influences, encompassing
culture, resources, and work processes, create an environment that either supports or hinders
employees in their pursuit of well-being.
These factors do not operate in isolation but interact to shape employees' experiences,
reactions, and ultimately their ability to fulfill the stakeholder goal of achieving improved
wellbeing. Addressing any gaps or deficiencies in knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences is essential for the successful implementation of employee well-being strategies
within a nonprofit organization. By acknowledging and optimizing these interconnections,
organizations can create a holistic approach to enhancing employee well-being and effectively
supporting their mission and goals.
Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework, which explains the knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational influences. The figure also shows the organization’s cultural
settings and model influences. Clark and Estes (2008) emphasized the importance of
stakeholders’ knowledge and motivation in achieving the organization’s performance goals.

27
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
In Figure 1, the outer blue circle represents the organizational influence of nonprofit
employee perception and feedback. The two green circles represent the knowledge and
motivation of employees. The left green circle related to knowledge includes influences such as
triggers of stress, understanding how to manage stress and the capacity to engage in well-being
self-reflection. The right circle related to motivation includes influences such as the expectancy
value, self-efficacy, and confidence in utilizing mitigation techniques. These circles overlap
slightly to illustrate relationships between knowledge and motivation. These influences,
organization, knowledge, and motivation contribute to the organization’s ability to accomplish
Organization
Nonprofit employee perception and feedback
Knowledge
Triggers of Stress
(Conceptual),
Managing Stress
(Procedural),
Well-being
Self-Reflection
(Metacognitive)
Employee access to stress management and
well-being resources
Motivation
Expectancy Value,
Self-efficacy,
Confidence in
Utilizing
Mitigation

28
its goal of supporting nonprofit employees to have access to stress management and well-being
resources.

29
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this research study was to examine barriers to and practices for effective
employee well-being programs in nonprofit organizations, particularly in the context of
wellbeing and stress management during a global pandemic. This chapter provides an overview
of the methodology employed in the study. It begins by offering a background of the research,
followed by the identification of the research design and research questions that steer the
investigation. Moreover, this chapter delves into the study's target population, methods for data
collection, the instruments used and their validity and reliability, as well as the statistical and
data analysis techniques applied.
Research Questions
1. What organizational mental health resources and support are available to employees in
the workplace to promote their well-being and address their mental health needs?
2. Do perceptions of organizational culture and their personal well-being differ by
participant demographics?
3. Is there a significant correlation between participants’ perceptions of organizational
culture and their well-being?
Research Design
This research employed a quantitative survey design to address the research questions
outlined in this study. As outlined by Creswell (2014), quantitative research methods involve the
collection of numerical data from a subset of a population, offering a snapshot of the entire
population using a smaller sample size. Such methods facilitate the collection and analysis of
numerical data to make inferences about a larger population (Creswell, 2014). Additionally,
quantitative analysis enables the exploration of relationships between various variables

30
(Creswell, 2014). To gather data for this study, a survey was selected as the primary instrument.
Boo and Froelicher (2013) highlighted that surveys are effective tools for collecting substantial
amounts of data, offering versatility, generalizability, and efficiency. Given this, a survey proves
to be well-suited for this study as it enables a comprehensive exploration of how nonprofit
employees manage their well-being and cope with stress during a global pandemic. The survey's
purpose was to draw meaningful insights regarding nonprofit organizations and their impact on
providing strategies for employee well-being and stress management within the work
environment.
Participating Stakeholders
The target population for this study encompassed employees at all levels within nonprofit
organizations who were affected by the pandemic. This influential group boasts a diverse range
of experiences, both positive and negative, which can contribute significantly to enhancing their
organization's endeavors to refine employee well-being and stress management strategies. As per
the National Council of Nonprofits (2019), the 1.3 million charitable nonprofit organizations in
the United States play a vital role in nourishing, supporting, educating, and uplifting their
communities. Nonprofit employees are pivotal in sustaining these organizations, and their
knowledge and motivation hold the key to the successful implementation of initiatives aimed at
enhancing work-life balance. Ultimately, a total of 196 participants accessed the survey.
Following the exclusion of incomplete survey responses, the final dataset for this study was
based on 150 participants.
Sampling Criteria
Criterion 1. The primary eligibility criterion for participation was affiliation with a
nonprofit organization, regardless of whether the individual held a full-time or part-time

31
position. It is noteworthy that the knowledge and motivation of each participant exert an impact
on the overall performance of the organization, irrespective of their specific employment status.
Criterion 2. The second inclusion criterion mandated that participants had prior
experience working in nonprofit organizations both before and during the pandemic. The World
Health Organization (WHO) identified the emergence of COVID-19 in late 2019. In the
southwestern region of the United States, official implementation of the stay-at-home order
commenced in mid-March 2020. Participants who had been employed by their respective
organizations both preceding and during the pandemic were able to provide insights into the
contrasting work experiences pre and post COVID-19. Expanding the temporal scope of
participants' employment to encompass the pre-pandemic period enabled an examination of the
circumstances leading up to the pandemic, disparities in work schedules, and the overall
repercussions of this transition on employee well-being and stress levels.
Criterion 3. The third inclusion criterion stipulated that participants were employed
within nonprofit organizations located in the western region of the United States. The
geographical scope of this study is directly tied to this specific area. By narrowing down the
geographic focus, the research can now concentrate on discerning trends specific to this region.
The western region of the United States comprises states such as Alaska, Arizona, California,
Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Sampling Recruitment Strategy
Taking into consideration the specified sampling criteria, a nonprobability method
involving purposeful convenience and non-discriminative snowball sampling was employed to
recruit participants for this study. Convenience sampling was utilized to identify participants
who were readily accessible and could serve as valuable sources of data for the research

32
(Lavrakas, 2008). This approach facilitated the collection of primary data and insights from a
selected sample of nonprofit employees within nonprofit organizations. To further bolster the
participant pool, a snowball sampling strategy was implemented, leveraging various
communication channels such as email, text messaging, staff meetings, newsletters, and social
media platforms.
To initiate the recruitment process, an initial email was dispatched to close acquaintances
and colleagues holding leadership positions within nonprofit organizations situated in the target
locations. Subsequently, through phone calls, emails, and social media interactions, they were
requested to share the survey with their respective staff members and incorporate it into their
organizational newsletters to enhance participation. New participants who came forward were
then encouraged to disseminate the survey among their fellow employees and coworkers who
might not have participated yet. To maintain engagement, periodic reminders were dispatched to
ensure that participants completed the survey. The overarching goal was to amass a substantial
number of responses from a diverse range of nonprofit employees, thereby ensuring
comprehensive insights into employee well-being and stress across various organizations.
To enhance survey participation, an introductory email was crafted to introduce myself and
elucidate the study's objectives. This approach aimed to foster a sense of connection and
engagement with potential respondents, while also assuring them of the confidentiality and
anonymity of their provided information.
Instrumentation
The survey encompassed a diverse range of question types, including demographic
queries, multiple-choice questions, ordinal inquiries, Likert scale assessments, and open-ended
prompts. Its construction aimed to evaluate the extent to which nonprofit employees are inclined

33
to initiate employee well-being initiatives within their respective organizations. Moreover, the
survey sought to delve into the organizational influences that impact employee knowledge and
motivation regarding the management of their stress and well-being. The survey comprised a
total of 33 questions, categorized as follows: 12 demographic questions, nine inquiries
concerning the correlation between organizational culture and employee stress, and 12 questions
pertaining to how demographic and organizational factors influence employee knowledge and
motivation in the context of stress and well-being management.
Efforts were made to keep the survey concise, facilitating respondents' ability to provide
swift and accurate answers. The survey was meticulously designed and administered through the
online platform Qualtrics. Respondents were directed to access the study by clicking on a
provided link, which was disseminated via various communication channels such as text
messages, emails, and social media platforms including Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn. The
convenience of online administration allowed for efficient collection of responses, which were
then consolidated and managed through the Qualtrics website database.
Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability are essential when conducting survey research to ensure that the
questions on the survey answer the research questions posed in the study. Validity explains how
well a survey fulfills its intended purpose of collecting data for the actual research, while
reliability helps ensure consistency in the measurement of the study providing stability and
repeatability (Salkind, 2017; Taherdoost, 2016). To corroborate this study’s validity and
reliability, the survey was taken by a large random sample of nonprofit employees. Once
the results were cleaned for missing data. A construct validity and reliability statistics for the
latent constructs of “Organizational Culture” and “Well-being” was conducted. Indicator

34
loadings for both constructs are all above the threshold of 0.5, indicating acceptable convergent
validity (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). The Cronbach's alpha values for both
constructs were well above the 0.7 threshold, Table 1, suggesting good internal consistency
(Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). Similarly, both constructs exhibit composite reliability (rho_a and
Table 1
Construct Validity and Reliability
Latent
Construct
Indicators Indicator
Loading
Cronbach's
alpha
Composite
reliability
(rho_a)
Composite
reliability
(rho_c)
Average
variance
extracted
(AVE)
O_Culture
OC_1
OC_2
0.892
0.903 0.887 0.899 0.93 0.815
Well-being
OC_3 0.914
WB_1
WB_2
WB_3
WB_4
0.691 0.696
0.781
0.751
0.811 0.817 0.861 0.508
WB_5 0.635
WB_6 0.714
rho_c) above the recommended threshold of 0.7, indicating that the constructs are reliable (Hair
et al., 2010). Finally, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for both constructs are above the
threshold of 0.5, further confirming their convergent validity (Hair et al., 2010).
The Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio between “Organizational Culture” and
“Wellbeing” value of 0.274 is below the threshold of 0.85 (Table 2), suggesting discriminant
validity between the two constructs (Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015). The Fornell-Larcker
criterion for discriminant validity was also run, Table 3. The square root of the AVE for each
construct (diagonal values) is larger than the correlation between the constructs (off-diagonal

35
values), confirming discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Table 4 presents the
crossloadings of the indicators on the constructs. Each indicator loads more highly on its own
construct than on the other construct, which is another confirmation of discriminant validity
(Hair et al., 2010).
Table 2
HTMT Ratio between Organizational Culture and Well-being
Well-being
Organizational Culture 0.274
Table 3
Fornell Larcker Criterion for Discriminant Validity
Well-being
Well-being Organizational Culture
0.713
Organizational Culture 0.248 0.903
Table 4
Cross Loadings for assessment of Discriminant Validity
OC_1
Organizational culture Well-being
0.892 0.219
OC_2 0.903 0.251
OC_3 0.914 0.193
WB_1 0.219 0.691
WB_2 0.194 0.696
WB_3 0.193 0.781
WB_4 0.14 0.751

36
WB_5 0.107 0.635
WB_6 0.16 0.714
In conclusion, the latent constructs “Organizational Culture” and “Well-being” demonstrate
good convergent validity, discriminant validity, and reliability, indicating that the measurement
model is robust and fit for further analysis.
Data Analysis
After the survey concluded, the collected data was extracted into an Excel file, consisting
of two distinct files – one encompassing numeric response and another containing text-based
response. Additionally, the data was imported into SPSS software for comprehensive data
analysis. To address the initial two survey questions, an assortment of analytical techniques was
employed. For Likert-type questions posed in questions 1 and 2, descriptive analysis that
consisted of frequencies and percentage were computed. This provided an understanding of the
percentage of stakeholders who strongly agreed or agreed in contrast to those who leaned toward
strong disagreement or disagreement. To ascertain the central tendencies within the dataset,
metrics like mean and standard deviation were calculated. These indices offered insights into the
average levels of respondents' reactions. In addition, a chi-square analysis was computed to
answer question 2 to determine differences between the categorical variables.
To respond to question 3, a Pearson correlation analysis was performed. This statistical
method enabled the investigation of potential relationships between different variables within the
dataset. Upon receipt of all survey responses, a comprehensive descriptive statistical analysis
was executed. This process facilitated a holistic comprehension of the trends and patterns within
the data. For addressing open-ended questions, a coding approach was adopted. This
methodology was employed to identify recurring themes that emerged from the participants'

37
narrative responses, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of qualitative data alongside
quantitative insights.
Chapter Four: Findings
The aim of this research study was to examine the well-being of nonprofit employees amid
a global pandemic. The analysis of this study focused on answering the following research
questions:
1. What organizational mental health resources and support are available to
employees in the workplace to promote their well-being and address their mental health
needs?
2. Do perceptions of organizational culture and their personal well-being differ by
participant demographics?
3. Is there a significant correlation between participants’ perceptions of
organizational culture and their well-being?
Demographics
This demographic exploration serves as an important foundation for the research, as it
allows us to establish the general profile of respondents and potentially identify subgroups of
interest for subsequent analysis. The sample consisted of 150 individuals, predominantly aged
between 25 and 34 years old (55%), signifying a relatively young workforce (Table 5). The age
distribution skews towards the younger end, with only 3% of the respondents falling in the 55-64
age group, highlighting a potentially youthful dynamism in the nonprofit sector. Gender
distribution was significantly skewed towards females, who accounted for 89% of respondents.
In terms of ethnic diversity, the respondents were diverse, with the highest representation from
the Hispanic group (41%), followed by White (26%), African American (20%), and Asian

38
(14%). This diversity may potentially reflect the inclusive nature of the nonprofit sector, which
often serves a wide range of communities.
Table 5
Demographic Profile of Respondents (n=150)
Demographic Category Frequency Percent
Age
18-24
25-34
35-44
8
83
39
5%
55%
26%
45-54 15 10%
Gender
Ethnicity
55-64 5 3%
Female
Male
134 16 89%
11%
White
Hispanic
Asian
38
60
21
26%
41%
14%
Marital Status
Highest level
of Education
Income
African American 29 20%
Married Single 64
86
43%
57%
High School Diploma or Equivalent
Bachelor
Masters +
16
68
66
11%
45%
44%
Less than $25,000
$25,001 to $50,000
$50,001 to $75,000
$75,001 to $100,000
14
22
52
35
9%
15%
35%
23%
$100,000 to $125,000 9 6%
$125,001 to $150,000 11 7%
Employment status
Type of Employment
More than $150,000 7 5%
Salary
Hourly
89
61
59%
41%
Full Time
Part Time
136 14 91%
9%

39
When considering marital status, the sample was somewhat more balanced, with single
individuals slightly outnumbering those who are married (57% versus 43%). This may be
reflective of the younger age demographic previously noted. The educational attainment of
respondents was primarily at the bachelor's level or higher, with 45% holding a bachelor's degree
and 44% possessing a master's degree or higher. This high level of educational attainment may
speak to the skills and qualifications needed in the nonprofit sector.
Income distribution was widely dispersed, with the largest group earning between
$50,001 and $75,000 (35%). The income brackets indicate a range of socioeconomic status
among respondents, which may impact factors such as job stability and financial security,
particularly important in the context of a global pandemic. Regarding employment status, most
respondents were salaried employees (59%), and a significant majority were employed full-time
(91%). This suggests a workforce that is largely committed to their roles on a long-term, fulltime
basis.
Overall, these demographic characteristics offer an insightful picture of the nonprofit
employee landscape during a global pandemic. The analysis provides a basis for further
examination of the interplay between these demographic factors and variables related to
employee well-being, stress, and coping mechanisms.
Two key variables of interest in our study: the number of employees and the operational
budget of the organizations where the respondents are employed are critical in understanding the
resources and capacities of nonprofit organizations in the context of a global pandemic and the
associated challenges. The variable “Number of Employees” has 145 valid responses, indicating
that this variable has minimal missing data. The number of employees in the surveyed
organizations ranges considerably, from a minimum of just one employee to a maximum of

40
150,000. The mean number of employees across these organizations is 2,712.63, with a
substantial standard deviation of 14,058.45. This large standard deviation indicates a high degree
of variability in organization size, with some very large organizations skewing the distribution.
This is further confirmed by the high positive skewness value of 8.696, suggesting that the
distribution is heavily skewed to the right with a long tail of organizations with a large number of
employees. The extremely high kurtosis value of 86.115 indicates a leptokurtic distribution with
a sharp peak and heavy tails, again confirming the presence of outliers with a large number of
employees.
The “Operational Budget” variable had 78 valid responses, suggesting that there is more
missing data for this variable due to 150 respondents who took the survey, as shown in Table 6.
The operational budgets of the organizations span a range, from a minimum of $3,000 to a
maximum value that is not fully displayed in the table. The mean operational budget is
approximately $1.314 billion, with a considerable standard deviation of around $11.32 billion.
This high standard deviation, similar to the “Number of Employees” variable, indicates a wide
spread of budget sizes among the organizations. The skewness value of 8.830 suggests a strong
rightward skew in the distribution of operational budgets, indicating that a few organizations
with extremely high budgets are pulling the mean upward. The kurtosis value of 77.978 suggests
a leptokurtic distribution, with a sharp peak and heavy tails, indicative of the presence of outliers
with very large budgets.
Taken together, these statistics suggest that the nonprofit sector represented in this
sample is highly diverse, encompassing small organizations with a handful of employees and
minimal budgets, as well as extremely large organizations with thousands of employees and
billion-dollar budgets. This variability may have significant implications for how these

41
organizations are able to navigate and respond to the challenges of a global pandemic, which
should be further explored in subsequent analyses.
Table 6
Descriptive Statistics of Employee and Operation Budget
Number of
Employees
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Std.
Error Statistic Std.
Error
145 149,999 1.00 150,000 2,712.63 14,058 8.71 0.20 86.12 0.40
Operational
Budget 78 99,999,997,000 3,000 100,000,000,000 1,314,603,413 11,319,798,312 8.83 0.27 77.98 0.54
Valid N
(listwise) 77

42
Research Question 1
What mental health resources and support are available to employees in the workplace to
promote their well-being and address their mental health needs? The table below presents
findings on organizational culture, specifically in relation to how employee well-being is
prioritized and supported within the respondent's nonprofit organizations. Respondents were
asked to indicate their agreement with three statements about their organization's approach to
employee well-being, as shown in Table 7.
Table 7
Organizational Culture
Disagree Neutral Agree Total

My organization prioritizes employee wellbeing.
N % N % N % N %
29 19% 27 18% 94 63% 150 100%
My organization's leadership sets clear
expectations for employees to utilize
available resources to maintain their
wellbeing.
28 19% 32 21% 90 60% 150 100%
Employee well-being is embedded in the
culture at my non-profit organization. 31 21% 35 23% 84 56% 150 100%
TOTAL 88 20% 94 21% 268 60% 450 100%
Regarding the statement "My organization prioritizes employee well-being," most
respondents (63%) agreed. This suggests that most of the surveyed nonprofit organizations place
a high importance on the well-being of their employees. However, a noteworthy 19% disagreed
with this statement, pointing to a subset of organizations where there may be room for
improvement in prioritizing employee well-being. The second statement, "My organization's
leadership sets clear expectations for employees to utilize available resources to maintain their

43
well-being," also received a majority agreement (60%). This indicates that in many
organizations, leadership is proactive in setting expectations for employees to use available
resources to promote their own well-being. It is noteworthy that 19% disagreed, suggesting that
in some organizations, there may be a lack of clear communication or expectations set by
leadership regarding the use of well-being resources. The final statement, "Employee well-being
is embedded in the culture at my non-profit organization" received slightly less agreement than
the previous two statements, with 56% of respondents agreeing. This may suggest that while
many organizations prioritize employee well-being and set clear expectations for the use of
wellbeing resources, fewer have succeeded in fully embedding these values into their
organizational culture.
The table presents data on the various forms of stress management training received by
respondents within their nonprofit organizations, as shown in Table 8. In the context of a global
pandemic, stress management training can play a critical role in supporting employee well-being
and resilience. The most common form of stress management training provided was through
workshops, with 26% of respondents indicating they had received such training. However, this
still implies that many respondents (74%) did not receive stress management training through
workshops.
Table 8
Stress Management Trainings Received (N =150)
No Yes

Workshops
N % No N % Yes
111 74% 39 26%
Training 117 78% 33 22%
Staff Meetings 115 77% 35 23%

44
Handouts 136 91% 14 9%
Other Methods of Training 128 85% 22 15%
Similarly, 22% of respondents reported receiving stress management training, although it
is not specified what type this training was. This again leaves a substantial majority of
respondents (78%) who have not received any form of specified stress management training.
Stress management information disseminated during staff meetings was slightly more common,
with 23% of respondents indicating that they had received such information. This finding
suggests that staff meetings are being utilized as a platform to share stress management
strategies, but again, most respondents (77%) reported not receiving this form of training.
Handouts were the least common method of providing stress management training, with
only 9% of respondents reporting they received handouts. This suggests that written materials
are less commonly used in these organizations to provide stress management training. Finally,
15% of respondents reported receiving stress management training through other unspecified
methods, leaving 85% who did not receive training through these other methods.
The results of the questions on the presence and adherence to organizational policies and
procedures that promote employee well-being in the respondent's nonprofit organizations are
provided below. These aspects are crucial as they form the framework through which
organizations can institutionalize practices that foster a healthy working environment,
particularly important in the context of a global pandemic.
Regarding the presence of well-being policies, two-thirds of respondents (67%) reported
that their organization has policies and procedures that promote employee well-being, as shown
in Table 9.

45
Table 9
Organizational Policies on Well-being
No Yes

My organization has policies and procedures that promote employee wellbeing.
N % N %
50 33% 100 67%
My organization adheres to the policies and procedures that promote
employee well-being. 59 39% 91 61%
This finding suggests that a significant majority of surveyed nonprofit organizations have
recognized the importance of formalizing their commitment to employee well-being through
documented policies and procedures. However, it is worth noting that one-third of respondents
(33%) reported that their organization does not have such policies, indicating a need for
improvement in these organizations. When respondents were asked about adherence to these
well-being policies, the positive response rate dropped slightly, with 61% reporting that their
organization adheres to the policies and procedures that promote employee well-being. This
suggests that while having well-being policies in place is important, ensuring adherence to these
policies is also crucial and may represent a challenge in some organizations.
Table 10 below provides an overview of the availability of various support resources that
can foster employee well-being in the surveyed nonprofit organizations, as shown in Table 10.
These resources, which include mental health days, dedicated time for self-care, quiet rooms, no
meeting days, and other unspecified support mechanisms, are important elements of an
organizational environment that provides support of employee well-being, particularly during a
global pandemic.

46
Table 10
Support Resources (N = 150)
No Yes

Mental Health days
N % No N % Yes
93 62% 57 38%
Dedicated Time 111 74% 39 26%
Quiet rooms 133 89% 17 11%
No meeting days 120 80% 30 20%
Others 102 68% 48 32%
According to the data, the most common support resource provided was mental health
days, with 38% of respondents reporting that their organization offers this resource. Finally, 32%
of respondents reported access to other unspecified support resources. This relatively higher
percentage suggests that some organizations may be providing alternative or innovative support
resources not covered in the other categories.
Overall, these findings suggest that while some nonprofit organizations are providing
resources to support employee well-being, there is substantial room for improvement. Many
employees in the surveyed organizations do not have access to these crucial resources, which can
play a significant role in promoting well-being and managing stress during a global pandemic.
Amidst the pandemic, employees seamlessly transitioned to remote work. Striving to
juggle professional tasks and household obligations, we included inquiries about stress to assess
whether work-related pressures, manifestations, and triggers were contributing to an unhealthy
impact on their overall well-being. The data on the frequency of stress experienced by
respondents in their nonprofit workplaces was reported by the respondents, as shown in Table
11. This is a critical aspect of understanding the well-being of employees, particularly in the
context of a global pandemic which is likely to have exacerbated workplace stressors.

47
Table 11
Frequency of Experiences of Stress
N Percent
Never 1 1%
Sometimes 66 44%
Usually 58 39%
Always 25 17%
According to the data, only 1% of respondents reported never experiencing stress,
indicating that stress is a common experience for almost all employees in the surveyed nonprofit
organizations. The most common response was 'sometimes', reported by 44% of respondents.
This suggests that for nearly half of the respondents, stress is an intermittent experience, possibly
tied to specific events, projects, or periods of the year. A significant proportion of respondents
reported experiencing stress 'usually' (39%) or 'always' (17%).
Provided below is an overview of various factors that could potentially trigger stress
among respondents in their nonprofit workplaces. Understanding stress triggers is an essential
step in devising strategies to mitigate stress and promote employee well-being, particularly in the
context of a global pandemic that may have heightened these triggers. The most commonly
reported stress trigger was "Having a heavy workload or too much responsibility," with 77% of
respondents indicating that this was a stress trigger for them, as shown in Table 12.
Table 12

48
Stress Triggers
No Yes

Having a heavy workload or too much responsibility
N % No N % Yes
34 23% 116 77%
No say in the decision-making process 73 49% 77 51%
Unclear expectations of your work 73 49% 77 51%
Having poor management 73 49% 77 51%
Working long hours 91 61% 59 39%
Being unhappy in your job 97 65% 53 35%
Being insecure about your chance for advancement or risk of termination 109 73% 41 27%
Company isn't supportive 125 83% 25 17%
Facing discrimination or harassment at work 125 83% 25 17%
Having to give speeches in front of colleagues 125 83% 25 17%
Working under dangerous conditions 129 86% 21 14%
Other triggers 141 94% 9 6%
Approximately half of the respondents reported that "No say in the decision-making
process," "Unclear expectations of your work," and "Having poor management" were stress
triggers, indicating that issues related to job control, role clarity, and management quality are
significant stressors for many employees in these nonprofit organizations. Less common stress
triggers included "Working long hours" (39%), "Being unhappy in your job" (35%), and "Being
insecure about your chance for advancement or risk of termination" (27%). These factors may be
particularly relevant in the context of a global pandemic, which may have led to increased work
hours, job dissatisfaction, and job insecurity due to economic uncertainties. The least commonly
reported stress triggers were "Company isn't supportive," "Facing discrimination or harassment
at work," "Having to give speeches in front of colleagues," "Working under dangerous
conditions," and "Other triggers," each reported by less than 20% of respondents. While these
factors may not be widespread, they are still relevant and potentially serious stressors for those
who reported them.

49
Overall, these findings indicate that stress in the surveyed nonprofit organizations is
triggered by a variety of factors, most related to high job demands and low job control. This
suggests that interventions to reduce stress and promote well-being in these organizations should
focus on managing workload, enhancing employee participation in decision-making, clarifying
job roles, and improving management practices.
The frequency of manifestations of stress among respondents in their personal lives was
recorded. Understanding how workplace stress spills over into personal life is crucial, as it
provides insights into the broader impacts of workplace stress beyond the confines of the job
itself. Table 13 shows the most reported manifestation of stress was anxiety, with 82% of
respondents reporting experiencing this.
Table 13
Stress Manifestations
Freq Percent
Anxiety 123 82%
Blowing up with family/friends 49 33%
Depression 53 35%
Others 21 14%
Approximately one-third of respondents reported that stress manifested as blowing up with family
or friends (33%) and depression (35%). A smaller proportion of respondents (14%) reported other
unspecified manifestations of stress. This category could include a wide range of symptoms and
impacts, reflecting the multifaceted and individualized nature of stress responses. Overall, these
results suggest that in the surveyed nonprofits, workplace stress is not only a work-related issue,
but also impacts employees' personal lives, contributing to anxiety, relationship problems,
depression, and other negative effects. This underscores the importance of addressing workplace

50
stress, not only to promote employee well-being and productivity at work, but also to prevent
harmful consequences for employees' personal well-being.
An overview of the various sources from which respondents have received stress
management training was also investigated. Understanding the sources of training can offer
insights into the opportunities and challenges associated with different training providers and
inform strategies to enhance the provision of stress management training in the nonprofit sector.
The most reported source of stress management training was personal or professional
development activities, reported by 58% of respondents, as shown in Table 14. This suggests
that many employees in the nonprofit sector are proactive in seeking out opportunities to develop
their stress management skills outside of their workplace. Such activities might include attending
workshops or seminars, participating in online courses, or undertaking other self-directed
learning initiatives.
Table 14
Sources of Training
Community Recreation Center
Freq Percent
12 8%
Current employer 51 34%
No Training 29 19%
Personal/Professional Development 87 58%
Previous employer 28 19%
Read a book on Stress Management 59 39%
Others 8 5%
The second most common source of training was the current employer, reported by 34%
of respondents. This finding indicates that nonprofit organizations are providing stress
management training to their employees. However, there is room for improvement in the
provision of employer-provided stress management training. Reading a book about stress

51
management was also a relatively common source of stress management training, reported by
39% of respondents. This suggests that written resources are an important avenue for learning
about stress management techniques, potentially offering a flexible and accessible way for
employees to gain these skills.
Fewer respondents reported receiving training from previous employers (19%),
community recreation centers (8%), or other sources (5%). Furthermore, it is noteworthy that
19% of respondents reported receiving no stress management training. This suggests that a
significant minority of employees in the nonprofit sector have not received any formal training
in stress management, which could leave them ill-equipped to manage workplace stress,
particularly in the challenging context of a global pandemic. These findings suggest that stress
management training for employees in the nonprofit sector is obtained from a variety of sources.
However, there is a clear need for increased provision of stress management training,
particularly from employers.
Table 15 below presents data on respondents' beliefs and confidence regarding their
ability to manage stress and support their overall well-being in the context of their work in
nonprofit organizations. Understanding these personal perspectives is important as they can
influence how employees respond to workplace stressors, and their capacity to maintain their
well-being, particularly during challenging times such as a global pandemic.
Table 15
Employee Well-being (N = 150)
Disagree Neutral Agree
N
%
Disagree N
%
Neutral N
%
Agree

52

I believe it is important to manage my stress as an overall
part of my well-being.
5 3% 4 3% 141 94%
I understand my personal well-being influences how well I
am able to perform my role at the organization. 4 3% 4 3% 142 95%
I feel confident in my ability to support my own overall
wellbeing. 9 6% 34 23% 107 71%
I feel confident in my ability to address my stress levels. 12 8% 32 21% 106 71%
I can stay motivated during stressful events that are beyond
my control. 20 13% 39 26% 91 61%
During stressful situations, I feel confident in my abilities to
create positive outcomes. 15 10% 34 23% 101 67%
Many respondents agreed with the statements "I believe it is important to manage my
stress as an overall part of my well-being" (94%) and "I understand my personal well-being
influences how well I am able to perform my role at the organization" (95%). Regarding their
confidence in supporting their own well-being and addressing stress levels, 71% of respondents
agreed with both statements. This suggests that most respondents feel equipped to manage their
stress and well-being. However, it also implies that approximately a quarter to a third of
respondents do not feel confident in these areas, which could represent a significant barrier to
effective stress management. When asked about their ability to stay motivated during stressful
events beyond their control, 61% of respondents agreed, while 67% felt confident in their
abilities to create positive outcomes during stressful situations.
In conclusion, these findings suggest that while most respondents in the surveyed
nonprofit organizations recognize the importance of managing stress for their well-being and
job performance, and feel confident in their ability to do so, there is a significant minority who
may need additional support in these areas.

53
Research Question 2
How do demographic variables influence individuals' perceptions of their overall
organizational culture and well-being? A distribution of employees' perception of organizational
culture by various demographic factors was conducted utilizing chi square. This analysis allowed
us to understand how employees' perceptions of organizational culture vary across different
demographic variables such as gender, age, ethnic group, marital status, highest level of
education, income, employment status, and type of employment.
Organizational Culture
For gender, a higher proportion of total females (52%) agreed that the organization has a
good culture, compared to the total of males (8.67%). This suggests that females have a more
favorable perception of organizational culture, although the chi-square test (3.376) indicates that
this difference is not statistically significant. In terms of age, the majority of employees in the
25-34 age group (28.67%) agreed with the positive perception of organizational culture. This
trend continues for the 35-44 (18%) and 45-54 (8.67%) age groups. However, the chi-square
statistic (10.808) implies that these differences among age groups are significant at the 5% level
or 0.05 threshold, as shown in Table 16.
Table 16
Assessment of the Perceptions of Employees on their Organizational Culture
Disagree Neutral Agree Total Chi square
Female
Male
29(19.33%)
1(0.67%)
27(18%)
2(1.33%)
78(52%)
13(8.67%)
134(89.33%)
16(10.67%) 3.376
Variable Categories
Organizational Culture

54
Gender
Age
18-24
25-34
35-44
1(0.67%)
18(12%)
8(5.33%)
2(1.33%)
22(14.67%)
4(2.67%)
5(3.33%)
43(28.67%)
27(18%)
8(5.33%)
83(55.33%)
39(26%)
10.808
45-54 2(1.33%) 0(0%) 13(8.67%) 15(10%)
Ethnicity
55-64 1(0.67%) 1(0.67%) 3(2%) 5(3.33%)
White
Hispanic
Asian
9(6.08%)
11(7.43%)
2(1.35%)
3(2.03%)
18(12.16%)
6(4.05%)
26(17.57%)
31(20.95%)
13(8.78%)
38(25.68%)
60(40.54%)
21(14.19%) 12.812*
Marital Status
African American
Married
2(1.35%) 19(12.84%) 29(19.59%)
10(6.67%) 41(27.33%) 64(42.67%)
1.012
Highest level of
Education
Single 17(11.33%) 19(12.67%) 50(33.33%) 86(57.33%)
High School
Diploma or
Equivalent
Bachelor
1(0.67%)
12(8%)
3(2%)
14(9.33%)
12(8%)
42(28%)
16(10.67%)
68(45.33%) 3.684
Income
Masters +
Less than $25,000
$25,001 to $50,000
$50,001 to $75,000
$75,001-$100,000
6(4%)
12(8%)
6(4%)
12(8%) 37(24.67%) 66(44%)
3(2%)
6(4%)
12(8%)
5(3.33%)
10(6.67%)
10(6.67%)
28(18.67%)
24(16%)
14(9.33%)
22(14.67%)
52(34.67%)
35(23.33%) 7.190
$100,000-$125,000 2(1.33%) 1(0.67%) 6(4%) 9(6%)
$125,001-$150,000 2(1.33%) 1(0.67%) 8(5.33%) 11(7.33%)
Employment
status
Type of
Employment
More than $150,000
Salary
Hourly
Full Time
Part Time
1(0.67%)
18(12%)
1(0.67%)
13(8.67%)
5(3.33%) 7(4.67%)
55(36.67%)
36(24%)
89(59.33%)
61(40.67%) 0.260
27(18%)
2(1.33%)
80(53.33%)
11(7.33%)
136(90.67%)
14(9.33%) 2.296
* chi square significant at 0.05
Regarding ethnicity, the Hispanic group (20.95%) had the highest agreement on positive
organizational culture, followed by White (17.57%), African American (12.84%), and Asian
(8.78%) groups. The chi-square statistic (12.812) suggests that these differences are statistically
significant at the 5% level or 0.05 threshold. When it comes to education, individuals with a

55
Master’s degree or higher (24.67%) were most likely to agree with a positive perception of
organizational culture, followed by those with a Bachelor's degree (28%). The chi-square
statistic
(3.684) indicates that these differences are not statistically significant.
Across income levels, those earning $50,001 to $75,000 (18.67%) were most likely to
agree with the statement about a positive organizational culture. The chi-square statistic (7.190)
suggests that this difference is not statistically significant. In terms of employment status and
type, the majority of those agreeing with a positive perception of organizational culture were
full-time salaried employees (36.67%). The chi-square statistics for employment status (0.260)
and type (2.296) indicate that these differences are not statistically significant.
In conclusion, while there are noticeable differences in employees' perceptions of
organizational culture across various demographic factors, only age and ethnic group showed
statistically significant differences. This suggests that these two factors might play a more
critical role in shaping employees' perceptions of organizational culture in the organization under
study.
Well-being
In terms of gender, a larger proportion of females (74%) agreed that they perceive their
wellbeing positively compared to males (10.67%). This suggests that females may have a more
favorable perception of their wellbeing, as shown in Table 17. The chi-square test (5.662)
indicates that the difference is statistically significant at the 5% level or 0.05 threshold. Agewise,
the largest proportion of positive wellbeing perceptions was found among the 25-34 age group
(47.33%), followed by the 35-44 age group (20.67%), and the 45-54 age group (8.67%). The chi-

56
4(2.67%) 5(3.33%)
29(19.59%) 38(25.68%)
25(16.89%) 29(19.59%)
Married 52(34.67%) 64(42.67%)
1.01 Single 75(50%) 86(57.33%)
56(37.33%) 66(44%)
13(8.67%) 14(9.33%)
square statistic (2.920) suggests that the differences among age groups are not statistically
significant.
Table 17
Assessment of the Perceptions of Employees on their Well-being
Disagree Neutral Agree
2(1.33%) 21(14%) 111(74%) 134(89.33%)
Gender 5.662
Male
0(0%)
0(0%)
18-24 0(0%) 0(0%)
25-34 1(0.67%) 11(7.33%) 71(47.33%) 83(55.33%)
Age 35-44 1(0.67%) 7(4.67%) 31(20.67%) 39(26%) 2.920
45-54 0(0%) 2(1.33%) 13(8.67%) 15(10%)
55-64 0(0%) 1(0.67%)
White 1(0.68%) 8(5.41%)
Hispanic 0(0%) 7(4.73%) 53(35.81%) 60(40.54%)
Ethnicity 5.75
Asian 1(0.68%) 2(1.35%) 18(12.16%) 21(14.19%) African American 0(0%) 4(2.7%)
1(0.67%) 11(7.33%)
Marital Status
1(0.67%) 10(6.67%)
Highest level of
Education
High School
Diploma or
Equivalent
Bachelor
0(0%)
1(0.67%)
3(2%)
9(6%)
13(8.67%)
58(38.67%)
16(10.67%)
68(45.33%) 0.56
Masters + 1(0.67%) 9(6%)
Less than $25,000 0(0%) 1(0.67%)
$25,001-$50,000 0(0%) 2(1.33%) 20(13.33%) 22(14.67%)
$50,001-$75,000 1(0.67%) 9(6%) 42(28%) 52(34.67%)
Income $75,001-$100,000 0(0%) 4(2.67%) 31(20.67%) 35(23.33%) 17.50**
$100,000-$125,000 0(0%) 1(0.67%) 8(5.33%) 9(6%)
Employment
status Salary Hourly
1(0.67%)
1(0.67%)
15(10%)
6(4%) 1.53
Variable
Employee Well-being
Categories Total Chi square
Female
16(10.67%) 16(10.67%)
8(5.33%) 8(5.33%)

57
$125,001-$150,000 0(0%) 4(2.67%) 7(4.67%) 11(7.33%) More than $150,000 1(0.67%)
0(0%)
** chi square significant at 0.01
With regards to ethnicity, the Hispanic group had the highest agreement on positive
wellbeing (35.81%), followed by the White (19.59%), African American (16.89%), and Asian
(12.16%) groups. The chi-square statistic (5.75) suggests that these differences are not
statistically significant. Examining marital status, single employees (50%) were more likely to
agree with a positive perception of their wellbeing than married employees (34.67%). However,
the chi-square statistic (1.01) indicates that this difference is not statistically significant.
When considering education, individuals with a Bachelor’s degree (38.67%) and those
with a Master’s degree or higher (37.33%) were most likely to agree with a positive perception
of wellbeing. The differences among these groups are not statistically significant. Across income
levels, those earning $50,001 to $75,000 had the highest proportion of positive wellbeing
perceptions (28%). The chi-square statistic (17.50) implies that this difference is statistically
significant at the 1% level or 0.01 threshold. In terms of employment status and type, full-time
salaried employees (48.67%) were more likely to agree with a positive perception of wellbeing
than hourly employees (36%). However, the chi-square statistics for employment status (1.53)
and type (0.85) indicate that these differences are not statistically significant.
In conclusion, while there are noticeable differences in employees' perceptions of
wellbeing across various demographic factors, only gender and income level showed statistically
Type of
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
2(1.33%)
0(0%)
20(13.33%)
1(0.67%) 13(8.67%) 14(9.33%)
0.85
54(36%) 61(40.67%)
114(76%) 136(90.67%)

58
significant differences. This suggests that these two factors might play a more critical role in
shaping employees' perceptions of their wellbeing in the organization under study.
Research Question 3
Is there a significant relationship between organizational culture and the well-being of
individuals within a nonprofit organization? A Pearson correlation coefficient that measures the
relationship between the variables of organizational culture and employee wellbeing was
conducted. The correlation coefficient was 0.256, which denotes a weak positive relationship
between organizational culture and employee wellbeing, Table 18. This implies that as
perceptions of organizational culture improve, there is a corresponding slight increase in
employee wellbeing. However, the strength of this relationship is fairly weak.
Table 18
Relationship between Organizational Culture and Employee Well-being
Employee Well-being
Organizational Culture 0.256**
The double asterisks (**) next to the correlation coefficient indicate that this relationship
is statistically significant. This means that the correlation observed in this study is unlikely due
to random chance, and there is a statistically significant relationship between organizational
culture and employee wellbeing in the population from which the sample was drawn.
In conclusion, the data indicates a statistically significant but weak positive relationship
between organizational culture and employee wellbeing. This suggests that interventions aimed
at improving organizational culture may also enhance employee wellbeing, although the effect

59
size is likely to be small. Further research is needed to identify other factors that could have a
stronger influence on employee wellbeing and to explore the complex interplay between these
factors.
Chapter Five: Discussion
A quantitative survey design was utilized to identify the prevalence of employee
wellbeing and stress management initiatives in the nonprofit sector. The primary objectives of
this research were to explore the availability of mental health resources and support within the
workplace to enhance employee well-being and address mental health needs. Additionally, the
study investigated how demographic variables impact individuals' perceptions of overall
organizational culture and well-being. Lastly, the research examined whether a significant
relationship exists between organizational culture and the well-being of individuals within
nonprofit organizations. The conceptual framework chosen for this study was the gap analysis
framework (Clark & Estes, 2008). The gap analysis framework was ideal for this study because it
focuses on how organizations can improve their work environments (Clark & Estes, 2008). By
identifying the performance gaps, the goal of the study was to help close those gaps. This study
showed that organizational factors can affect employee’s motivation. With Clark and Estes’s
(2008) modified gap analysis framework guiding the study, three research questions were
examined:
1. What organizational mental health resources and support are available to employees
in the workplace to promote their well-being and address their mental health needs?
2. Do perceptions of organizational culture and their personal well-being differ by
participant demographics?
3. Is there a significant correlation between participants’ perceptions of organizational
culture and their well-being?

60
Research Question 1
Research question 1 aimed to explore the mental health resources and support available
to employees in nonprofit organizations to promote their well-being and address their mental
health needs, especially in the context of a global pandemic. The findings suggest that, in
general, the surveyed nonprofit organizations are taking steps to prioritize and support employee
well-being, particularly in the context of a global pandemic. However, there appears to be
variability in how fully these values are embedded in organizational culture and the clarity of
expectations set by leadership. This highlights the need for ongoing efforts to embed well-being
into the culture of nonprofit organizations and ensure clear communication from leadership
about the use of well-being resources. This aligns with previous research indicating that
organizational culture and leadership are critical in promoting employee well-being and
resilience, particularly in times of crisis (Shuck, et al.,2011).
The findings further explored the availability of stress management training and support
resources within nonprofit organizations. The most common form of stress management training
reported was workshops (26%), followed by unspecified stress management training (22%).
While staff meetings were utilized as a platform to disseminate stress management information
(23%), handouts were the least common method of providing training (9%). In terms of support
resources for employee well-being, mental health days were the most common (38%), but most
respondents (62%) still did not have access to them. Dedicated time for self-care was less
commonly provided (26%), leaving 74% without this resource. Quiet rooms, providing space for
relaxation during the workday, were available to only 11% of respondents. No meeting days,
offering uninterrupted work time, were provided to 20% of respondents. Additionally, 32% of
respondents reported access to other unspecified support resources. The frequency of workplace

61
stress was reported by respondents, with only 1% reporting never experiencing stress. The
majority reported experiencing stress sometimes (44%), usually (39%), or always (17%). The
study also explored various factors that trigger stress in nonprofit workplaces. The most common
stress trigger was having a heavy workload or too much responsibility (77%), followed by lack
of decision-making power, unclear work expectations, and poor management (each reported by
approximately 50% of respondents).
However, this still implies that most respondents (62%) do not have access to mental
health days, which are recognized as a valuable resource for employees to rest and recharge
(Mann & Holdsworth, 2003). Dedicated time for self-care was reported by 26% of respondents,
suggesting that this is less commonly provided. With 74% of respondents not having access to
dedicated self-care time, this suggests a potential area for improvement in many organizations.
Quiet rooms, which can provide a space for relaxation and stress relief during the workday
(Sonnenfeld & Peiperl, 1988), were the least commonly provided resource, with only 11% of
respondents reporting access to these. This low percentage points to a significant gap in the
provision of this resource. No meeting days, which can provide employees with uninterrupted
time to focus on their work and reduce the stress associated with constant meetings (Perlow,
2012), were available to 20% of respondents. This suggests that while some organizations are
taking steps to reduce meeting-related stress, the majority are not offering this resource.
Overall, these findings suggest that while some forms of stress management training are
being provided in the surveyed nonprofit organizations, the majority of employees have not
received this training. This underlines a significant area for improvement in supporting employee
well-being amid a global pandemic. Research has demonstrated the effectiveness of stress
management training in improving employee well-being and job performance (Richardson &

62
Rothstein, 2008), suggesting that increasing the provision of such training could have substantial
benefits in the nonprofit sector.
Also examined was the frequency of stress manifestations among respondents in their
personal lives, providing insights into the broader impacts of workplace stress beyond the job
itself. The most reported manifestation of stress was anxiety, experienced by 82% of
respondents. This finding aligns with previous research showing that high job demands,
including heavy workloads, can lead to stress and burnout (Maslach, et al., 2001). Anxiety is a
common response to stress and can have significant impacts on individuals' mental and physical
health, as well as their social and occupational functioning (American Psychiatric Association,
2013). Additionally, approximately one-third of respondents reported stress manifesting as
blowing up with family or friends (33%) and depression (35%). A smaller proportion of
respondents (14%) reported other unspecified manifestations of stress, highlighting the
individualized nature of stress responses. These findings highlight the interpersonal and
psychological toll of workplace stress, which can strain personal relationships and contribute to
serious mental health problems (Frone, 2000).
This is a cause for concern, as chronic stress can have serious implications for physical
and mental health, job satisfaction, productivity, and turnover intention (Melamed, Shirom,
Toker, Berliner, & Shapira, 2006). The fact that over half of the respondents fall into these
categories suggests that frequent and potentially chronic stress is a significant issue in the
surveyed nonprofit organizations. Overall, these findings underline the importance of addressing
workplace stress in the nonprofit sector. While some degree of stress is inevitable in any job, the
high levels of frequent or chronic stress reported by respondents indicate that more needs to be
done to mitigate these stressors and support employee well-being. This may involve reviewing

63
workload and job demands, improving support resources and stress management training, and
fostering a culture that prioritizes well-being, as indicated by previous findings in this study.
The study also investigated the various sources from which respondents received stress
management training. Personal or professional development activities were the most common
source (58%), indicating that many nonprofit employees proactively seek opportunities to
develop stress management skills outside of the workplace. The second most common source
was the current employer (34%), suggesting that a substantial number of nonprofit organizations
provide stress management training to their employees. However, given that only just over a
third of respondents reported this, there is room for improvement in employer-provided stress
management training. Reading a book about stress management was also a relatively common
source of training (39%), indicating the importance of written resources in learning stress
management techniques.
Regarding their beliefs and confidence in managing stress and well-being, a significant
majority of respondents agreed that managing stress is essential for overall well-being (94%) and
that personal well-being influences job performance (95%). Around 71% of respondents felt
confident in supporting their well-being and addressing stress levels, indicating that a majority
feel equipped to manage stress effectively. However, approximately a quarter to a third of
respondents did not feel confident in these areas, which may present a barrier to effective stress
management. These findings suggest a high level of awareness among respondents about the
connection between stress management, well-being, and job performance, aligning with prior
research on the impact of well-being on work outcomes (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000). The
study also explored respondents' ability to stay motivated during stressful events beyond their
control, with 61% agreeing with their ability to do so. Additionally, 67% felt confident in their

64
abilities to create positive outcomes during stressful situations. These findings suggest that a
substantial proportion of respondents possess resilience, a trait that can buffer the negative
effects of stress and promote well-being (Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004).
The findings from research question 1 provide valuable insights into the status of mental
health resources, organizational policies, and support mechanisms available to employees in
nonprofit organizations. The study highlights areas where improvement is needed to better
support employee well-being, particularly in the context of a global pandemic that may have
exacerbated workplace stressors. The results underscore the importance of fostering a supportive
organizational culture and providing comprehensive resources to promote the well-being of
employees in special education nonprofit settings. Overall, the results shed light on the various
stress manifestations experienced by nonprofit employees in their personal lives, emphasizing
the importance of understanding the broader impact of workplace stress. The findings underscore
the need for comprehensive stress management training in the nonprofit sector, both from
employers and through personal development activities. Additionally, the study highlights the
importance of promoting employees' beliefs and confidence in managing stress and well-being to
create a healthier and more resilient workforce in special education nonprofit settings.
Research Question 2
Research question 2 investigated how demographic variables influence individuals'
perceptions of overall organizational culture and well-being in the workplace. The analysis
utilized chi-square to examine how employees' perceptions vary across different demographic
factors, including gender, age, ethnic group, marital status, highest level of education, income,
employment status, and type of employment.

65
Regarding organizational culture, the data showed that a higher proportion of females
(52%) had a positive perception of the organization's culture compared to males (8.67%). While
females tended to have a more favorable perception, the chi-square test indicated that this
difference was not statistically significant. However, age-wise, there were significant differences
among groups, with employees in the 25-34 age group (28.67%) having the highest agreement
with a positive organizational culture.
Ethnicity played a significant role in perceptions of organizational culture, with the
Hispanic group (20.95%) having the highest agreement, followed by White, African American,
and Asian groups. These differences were statistically significant. When considering education,
individuals with a Master's degree or higher (24.67%) were most likely to agree with a positive
perception of organizational culture. However, income levels and employment status and type
did not show statistically significant differences in perceptions of organizational culture.
Regarding well-being, a larger proportion of females (74%) had a positive perception
compared to males (10.67%), and this difference was statistically significant. Among age groups,
the 25-34 age group (47.33%) had the highest agreement with positive well-being perceptions.
Ethnicity did not show significant differences in perceptions of well-being, but income levels
had a significant impact, with those earning $50,001 to $75,000 (28%) having the highest
proportion of positive well-being perceptions.
Marital status did not show significant differences in perceptions of well-being, but
education played a role, with individuals with a Bachelor's degree (38.67%) and those with a
Master's degree or higher (37.33%) being more likely to agree with a positive perception of
wellbeing. Employment status and type did not demonstrate statistically significant differences
in perceptions of well-being.

66
In conclusion, the results provide valuable insights into how demographic variables
influence individuals' perceptions of organizational culture and well-being. Gender, age,
ethnicity, income, and education were found to have notable impacts on these perceptions, while
marital status and employment status and type did not show significant differences. These
findings can inform strategies to improve organizational culture and employee well-being,
particularly in the context of special education settings where addressing individual needs is
crucial for fostering a healthy and productive work environment.
Research Question 3
Research question 3 investigated whether there is a significant correlation between
organizational culture and the well-being of individuals within nonprofit organizations. To assess
this relationship, a correlation coefficient was calculated to measure the association between the
variables of organizational culture and employee well-being.
The correlation coefficient obtained was 0.256, indicating a weak positive relationship
between organizational culture and employee well-being. This means that as perceptions of
organizational culture improve, there is a slight increase in employee well-being. However, the
strength of this relationship is relatively weak, suggesting that other factors may also play a
significant role in influencing employee well-being. The correlation coefficient indicated that the
relationship is statistically significant. This means that the observed correlation is unlikely to be
due to random chance. Instead, it indicates that there is a meaningful and statistically significant
relationship between organizational culture and employee well-being within the population from
which the sample was drawn. This finding aligns with previous research suggesting that
organizational culture can have a significant impact on employee wellbeing (Kilroy, Flood,
Bosak, & Chênevert, 2016). A positive organizational culture, characterized by supportive
management, good interpersonal relationships, clear role expectations, and fair reward systems,

67
has been associated with higher levels of employee wellbeing (Nielsen, Randall, Yarker, &
Brenner, 2008).
In conclusion, the results of this study suggest that there is a statistically significant but
weak positive relationship between organizational culture and employee well-being in nonprofit
organizations. While improving organizational culture may have a slight positive impact on
employee well-being, other factors may also influence well-being outcomes. These findings can
inform nonprofit organizations in their efforts to create a supportive and healthy work
environment that promotes the well-being of their employees, particularly in the context of
organizational leadership emphasizing special education and inclusion in the classroom.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study had important limitations and delimitations. A limitation is the characteristics
of the study that has impacted the interpretation of the results of the study that are out of the
researcher’s control (Simon & Goes, 2013). A limitation of this specific study is a sample that
does not represent the target population. Due to the survey being distributed to nonprofit
organizations and encouragement of leaders to send it to their staff, access to the study was open
to everyone. The possibility of truthfulness from the respondents may have impacted the survey
results. Additionally, the mixture of closed and open-ended questions was challenging to
analyze. While the mixed-method approach helped to gather more information, the interpretation
of the respondents’ answers was complicated since a specific range of answers was not provided.
Delimitations are the characteristics that arise from the limitations within the boundaries
of the study. The delimitations for this study only focused on employees working in nonprofit
organizations during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study only evaluated how nonprofit
organizations implement stress management strategies to improve employee well-being.

68
Recommendations for Practice
Despite the presence of policies and procedures aimed at addressing employee well-being
in the wake of the pandemic, numerous nonprofit organizations appear to fall short in offering
comprehensive stress management training or self-care strategies that effectively address the
enduring impact of the crisis. The research findings underline the imperative for nonprofit
organizations to take more proactive measures in cultivating an environment conducive to
fostering employee well-being.
The study underscores that nonprofit organizations must enhance their efforts to create an
environment that prioritizes the well-being of their employees, particularly during times of crisis.
This involves not only formulating appropriate policies and procedures but also equipping
employees with the necessary tools and resources to navigate the challenges that arise. By doing
so, these organizations can ensure that their employees are adequately supported while
simultaneously upholding their mission of providing essential services. In conclusion, the study
underscores the pressing need for nonprofit organizations to not only have policies in place but
to also actively cultivate an atmosphere that promotes employee well-being, especially during
times of crisis.
Recommendation 1
The foremost recommendation advocates for nonprofit organizations to offer
comprehensive stress management, wellness, and safety training programs for their employees.
As indicated by the survey findings, the pandemic has led to an escalation in employee stress
levels, consequently impacting their overall well-being. To address this, it is imperative for
nonprofit organizations to implement robust stress management training initiatives that explicitly
communicate shifts in the organizational culture aimed at mitigating employee stress.

69
Furthermore, providing free wellness training sessions that encompass self-care and
wellness strategies can significantly benefit employees in navigating their workdays more
effectively. These training programs could include workshops focusing on delineating
boundaries, seeking support when needed, enhancing physical activity, embracing outdoor
experiences, offering health screenings, delivering nutrition education, and more. Additionally,
the importance of continuous personal safety training should not be underestimated, as it plays a
vital role in managing stress and fostering mental well-being, particularly in the context of
potential future crises. By investing in such training opportunities, nonprofit organizations can
empower their workforce with the tools necessary to proactively manage stress and bolster
overall well-being.
Conceptual knowledge represents a more intricate form of knowledge that involves
structured and organized information (Krathwohl, 2002). This type of knowledge entails
grasping the interconnectedness among the diverse array of influences within the broader
organizational framework, which allows them to operate in synergy. It encompasses awareness
of principles, generalizations, and theories that serve to elucidate and tackle these influences
(Krathwohl, 2002). Furthermore, conceptual knowledge encompasses the comprehension of the
presence and intricate interplay of factors that contribute to success within the organizational
context.
Organizations that proactively offer self-care strategies to manage potential future crises,
whether on a local or global scale, can play a crucial role in assisting employees to effectively
navigate the stress induced by unforeseen emergencies. The survey findings reflect that a
substantial number of respondents acquired coping mechanisms to deal with the stress
precipitated by the pandemic. As highlighted in the literature review, it falls within the purview

70
of organizations to equip employees with appropriate training to prepare them for crisis
situations and to foster a sense of trust and prioritization from leadership, especially during times
of need (Ripp et al., 2020; Vaziri et al., 2020). By promoting peer support, facilitating social
connections, heightening safety awareness, augmenting mental health support, and furnishing the
necessary resources, organizations can preclude distress and communication breakdowns,
ensuring a more resilient and effective workforce (Ripp et al., 2020).
Recommendation 2
The second recommendation centers on nonprofit organizations directing their attention
towards employee well-being by implementing new policies and procedures. It is imperative for
these organizations to give precedence to fostering a work environment that promotes a healthy
work-life balance among their employees. This can be effectively achieved through the provision
of flexible work hours, opportunities for remote work, granting employees greater autonomy in
their roles, and offering essential financial support when needed.
Promoting a healthy work-life balance encompasses more than merely allowing for lunch
breaks; it involves creating an environment that actively supports employee well-being.
Nonprofits can further this cause by designating specific spaces within the workplace dedicated
to self-care activities. These spaces could include meditation rooms, fitness facilities, spa-like
environments, or recreation areas, among other self-care strategies. By taking such measures,
nonprofit organizations demonstrate their commitment to fostering employee well-being and
creating an environment that encourages self-care and stress management.
In essence, the second recommendation underscores the significance of nonprofit
organizations reevaluating their policies and procedures to prioritize employee well-being. By
embracing flexible work arrangements and providing dedicated spaces for self-care, these

71
organizations can create a workplace that truly supports the holistic well-being of their
employees.
Work processes, resources, and workplace culture stand as illustrative instances of
organizational influences with the potential to significantly shape stakeholder performance
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizational culture encapsulates a constellation of values, beliefs, and
behavior patterns that collectively define the fundamental essence of an organization. This
cultural framework profoundly impacts how stakeholders operate within the organization and
interact with its broader environment (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Organizations that provide healthy snacks, promoting fitness, and investing in appropriate
and comfortable office equipment, such as ergonomic chairs among other things make a
difference in the work environment. As mentioned in the literature review, Munn (2018) stated
that there are ways to improve employee well-being by using effective non-monetary methods to
ensure employees were not overworked, offered flexible hours, cultivated a positive work
environment, communicated check-ins with employees, and had organizational transparency.
Recommendation 3
The third recommendation revolves around the imperative of involving nonprofit
employees directly in organizational decisions related to employee wellness. Given the
demanding nature of serving a high volume of clients on a daily basis, employees in nonprofit
organizations are particularly susceptible to burnout. This vulnerability often translates into
elevated turnover rates within the nonprofit sector. To address this pressing issue, it is essential
for nonprofit organizations to afford their employees the opportunity to contribute firsthand
insights regarding organizational changes that directly impact their well-being.

72
To effectively foster employee well-being, it is paramount for management to prioritize
and incorporate employee input into the development of wellness initiatives. A proactive
approach involves establishing a wellness committee, composed of employees who are tasked
with crafting wellness content and strategies tailored to the unique needs of the workplace. This
committee can play a pivotal role in devising innovative solutions and driving positive changes
that enhance employee well-being.
By actively seeking employee involvement and feedback, nonprofit organizations can
create a more inclusive and supportive work environment. This approach demonstrates an
organizational commitment to prioritizing the well-being of their employees and ultimately
works to combat burnout and reduce turnover rates, while simultaneously nurturing a more
resilient and engaged workforce.
Knowledge emerges as a pivotal factor that significantly influences organizational
performance and enhancement. Often, stakeholders may find themselves unaware of the gaps in
their own knowledge and skill sets. Recognizing these knowledge gaps is essential, as it enables
them to thoroughly analyze and assess challenges, thus paving the way for the achievement of
performance objectives (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Clark and Estes (2008) delineate knowledge as encompassing both the information an
individual possesses and the way they execute tasks. In contrast, motivation serves as the
impetus that initiates and sustains engagement. Clark and Estes (2008) expound on motivation,
categorizing it into three distinct indices: active choice, persistence, and mental effort. These
indices collectively contribute to driving individuals toward achieving their goals and
maintaining their dedication and involvement in various undertakings.

73
The established wellness committee holds the crucial responsibility of gathering valuable
data pertaining to effective well-being strategies, with a focus on inclusivity and customization.
This committee serves as a channel for employees to share insights and ideas on enhancing their
own work environments, ensuring that the devised strategies are reflective of their needs and
preferences. By leveraging the collective wisdom and experiences of the workforce, the
committee can create a comprehensive strategy that accommodates a diverse range of needs.
As organizational leaders collaborate with employees in shaping these new support
initiatives, they demonstrate a profound commitment to their employees' well-being on multiple
fronts. This approach entails addressing not only mental health concerns but also encompassing
broader aspects such as financial stability, food security, access to childcare, and more. The
collaborative efforts of management and employees facilitate the identification of gaps that
might otherwise be overlooked. This two-way communication enables organizations to
proactively address emerging issues, thereby fostering a workplace environment that actively
safeguards employees' well-being.
To ensure the continued effectiveness of well-being practices and support initiatives,
regular evaluation and adaptation are essential. As Creese et al. (2021) aptly note, employees
require a meticulously designed well-being program that directly addresses the unique
challenges posed by the pandemic. Open discussions about employees' experiences are
imperative to prevent burnout, and organizations must proactively take charge by attentively
listening to their employees' voices, acknowledging their experiences, and providing the
necessary support to empower them in their roles.
In conclusion, the establishment of a wellness committee that collaborates closely with
employees represents a powerful strategy for crafting comprehensive and effective well-being

74
initiatives. Through ongoing communication, data collection, and adaptation, organizations can
cultivate a supportive and inclusive environment that nurtures employees' mental, emotional, and
physical well-being, particularly in the face of the challenges posed by a global pandemic.
Recommendations for Future Research
While this study contributes valuable insights into the influence of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors on employee well-being strategies and stress management
within nonprofit organizations during a pandemic, there are noteworthy limitations that suggest
avenues for future research.
Firstly, the current study primarily captures the immediate experiences of employees
during the pandemic, without considering the potential long-term effects. A fruitful area for
future investigation lies in documenting how employees' perceptions of well-being evolve once
the pandemic subsides, and they are no longer operating in high-stress situations. Understanding
the lasting impacts and whether organizational strategies for employee well-being persist beyond
the crisis can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness of these
interventions.
Additionally, while this study sheds light on the role of policies and procedures in
promoting self-care and well-being, a deeper exploration is warranted. Future research could
delve into how nonprofit organizations modify their policies and procedures to instill a culture
that prioritizes employee well-being. Investigating the sustained integration of these practices
into the organizational fabric could offer insights into the institutionalization of employee
wellbeing strategies.
Another promising avenue for research is the evaluation of new work benefits that
emerge post-crisis. Organizations often reassess their benefit packages in response to significant

75
events. Examining the nature of these newly introduced benefits and their impact on employee
well-being can provide a richer understanding of post-crisis organizational responses.
Furthermore, an intriguing direction for future inquiry is the examination of emerging
employee wellness programs in the aftermath of the pandemic. The effectiveness of these
programs, their alignment with employee needs, and their impact on organizational performance
could offer insights into the evolving landscape of employee well-being initiatives.
In conclusion, this study marks a pivotal step in understanding the complex interplay
between knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors in influencing employee well-being
strategies and stress management. However, its limitations present exciting opportunities for
future research that can contribute to a more holistic comprehension of how nonprofit
organizations can continually enhance employee well-being in the face of crises and beyond.
For future research, it is important to examine one form of nonprofit organization at a
time so that it is easier to track results. An important factor to consider when creating the survey
is to use questions with a range of premeditated answers. Open-ended questions in the survey
were difficult to analyze because the respondents interpreted the questions differently. It would
also be equally important to investigate how nonprofit managers deal with their own well-being
while ensuring that their employees are taken care of. Future research can examine the
importance of workplace wellness, safety practices, and the emotional and physical demands of
the job.
The high representation of younger, educated females, particularly from the Hispanic
community, also raises interesting questions for future research. For example, how do these
demographic variables intersect with experiences of stress and coping strategies in the nonprofit
sector? Are there unique stressors or resilience factors that emerge for these groups? These

76
demographic insights provide a solid foundation for the subsequent stages of the research on
mitigating stress amid a global pandemic within the nonprofit sector.
Conclusion
The analysis of organizational culture findings uncovered significant insights. A
substantial majority of respondents (63%) affirmed that their respective organizations place a
strong emphasis on prioritizing employee well-being, which underscores the prevalent
dedication of many nonprofit organizations to their employees' welfare. Nonetheless, a
noteworthy 19% expressed disagreement with this assertion, highlighting the existence of room
for enhancement in certain organizations' commitment to employee well-being.
The study further delved into the leadership's role in guiding employees to utilize
available resources for sustaining their well-being. It revealed that 60% of respondents concurred
that their organization's leadership establishes transparent expectations for employees in this
regard. However, 19% held a contrary view, indicating a potential need for improved
communication and guidance from leadership in some organizations regarding the utilization of
well-being resources.
Regarding the integration of employee well-being into the organizational culture, 56% of
respondents confirmed its presence, suggesting that while many organizations emphasize
wellbeing and establish expectations for resource utilization, fewer have completely ingrained
these principles into their cultural fabric.
Overall, the findings portray most surveyed nonprofit organizations having established
well-being policies and adhering to them. Nonetheless, a considerable subset of organizations
either lacks these policies or does not fully implement them. This highlights the continued
necessity for fostering the development and enactment of well-being policies across the

77
nonprofit sector. This aligns with prior research that underscores the pivotal role of
organizational policies in fostering employee well-being, consequently yielding positive
outcomes like enhanced job satisfaction, increased productivity, and improved employee
retention (Guest, 2017). Aligned with the research questions, the primary objective of this
study was to discern the obstacles to and effective practices for successful employee well-being
programs within nonprofit organizations, with an emphasis on offering suggestions for program
enhancement.
While numerous nonprofit organizations have developed policies and procedures addressing
employee well-being in light of the pandemic, a significant number still fall short in delivering
stress management training and self-care strategies to address the enduring repercussions of the
crisis.
Incorporating these suggestions into future research endeavors can contribute to a more
comprehensive and nuanced understanding of employee well-being, stress management, and
organizational strategies within nonprofit organizations. This holistic approach will aid in the
development of tailored interventions and policies that promote employee well-being in diverse
nonprofit settings. Employee well-being encompasses a multifaceted spectrum, extending
beyond the physical work environment to include health, safety, culture, and work-life balance.
Recognizing the demands placed on nonprofit organizations and the essential services they
provide, fostering a culture of well-being becomes pivotal. The far-reaching effects of the
COVID-19 pandemic have underscored the significance of addressing mental health, motivation,
and productivity challenges. By adopting holistic strategies that encompass physical, mental, and
emotional well-being, nonprofit organizations can nurture a resilient workforce equipped to
thrive in the face of adversity.

78
References
Adams, J. G., & Walls, R. M. (2020). Supporting the health care workforce during the COVID19
global epidemic. Journal of the American Medical Association, 323(15), 1439–1440.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.3972
American Psychological Association. (2020). Stress in America 2020: A national mental health
crisis. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2020/report-october
Baptiste, N. R. (2008). Tightening the link between employee wellbeing at work and
performance. Management Decision, 46, 284–309.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740810854168
Berry, L. L., & Stuart, B. (2021). An “essential services” workforce for crisis response. Journal
of Public Policy & Marketing, 40(1), 92–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743915620928111
Boo, S., & Froelicher, E. S. (2013). Secondary analysis of national survey datasets. Japan
journal of nursing science, 10(1), 130-135.
Brown, W., Yoshioka, C. F., & Munoz, P. (2004). Organizational Mission as a Core Dimension
in Employee Retention. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 22(2).
Cai, H., Tu, B., Ma, J., Chen, L., Fu, L., Jiang, Y., & Zhuang, Q. (2020). Psychological impact
and coping strategies of frontline medical staff in Hunan between January and March
2020 during the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Hubei, China.
Medical Science Monitor, 26, Article e924171.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020, December 29). CDC 2020 in Review [Press
release]. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p1229-cdc-2020-review.html
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. IAP.
Coombs, W. T. (2007). Crisis management and communications. Institute for Public Relations.
Corsica, J. A. (2011). Stress Management. In J. S. Kreutzer, J. DeLuca, & B. Caplan (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-
79948-3_429
Creese, J., Byrne, J. P., Conway, E., Barrett, E., Prihodova, L., & Humphries, N. (2021). “We all
really need to just take a breath”: Composite narratives of hospital doctors’ well-being
during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 18(4), 2051. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042051
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods
approaches. SAGE.

79
Dai, G., Ferry, K., Spencer, S., & Blazek, S. (2021). Purpose and Purposefulness at Work: The
Impact on Employee Engagement and Organizational Commitment. Journal of
Organizational Psychology, 21(6), 55-72.
Daphna-Tekoah, S., Megadasi Brikman, T., Scheier, E., & Balla, U. (2020). Listening to hospital
personnel’s narratives during the COVID-19 outbreak. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(17), Article 6413.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176413
DeJoy, D. M., & Wilson, M. G. (2003). Organizational health promotion: Broadening the
horizon of workplace health promotion. American Journal of Health Promotion, 17(5),
337–341. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-17.5.337
Fauzi, M. F. M., Yusoff, H. M., Robat, R. M., Saruan, N. A. M., Ismail, K. I., & Haris, A. F. M.
(2020). Doctors’ mental health in the midst of COVID-19 pandemic: The roles of work
demands and recovery experiences. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, 17(19).
Fisher, J., Languilaire, J. C., Lawthom, R., Nieuwenhuis, R., Petts, R. J., Runswick-Cole, K., &
Yerkes, M. A. (2020). Community, work, and family in times of COVID-19. Community
Work & Family, 23(3), 247–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2020.1756568
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. Hair, J.
F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th
ed.). Prentice Hall.
Ganster, D., & Rosen, C. (2013). Work Stress and Employee Health: A Multidisciplinary
Review. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1085–1122.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313475815
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
Global Change Data Lab. (2017). Our world in data.
Gohar, B., Larivière, M., & Nowrouzi-Kia, B. (2020). Sickness absence in healthcare workers
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Occupational Medicine, 70(5), 338–342.
https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqaa093
Grawitch, M. J., Gottschalk, M., & Munz, D. C. (2006). The path to a healthy workplace: A
critical review linking healthy workplace practices, employee well-being, and
organizational improvements. Consulting Psychology Journal, 58(3), 129–147.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.58.3.129

80
Guest, D. E. (2017). Human resource management and employee well-being: Towards a new
analytic framework. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(1), 22-38.
Hamann, D. J., & Foster, N. T. (2014). An exploration of job demands, job control, stress, and
attitudes in public, nonprofit, and for-profit employees. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 34(4), 332–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X13491119
Hamouche, S. (2020). COVID-19 and employees’ mental health: Stressors, moderators and
agenda for organisational actions. Emerald Open Research, 2, 15–.
https://doi.org/10.35241/emeraldopenres.13550.1
Haque, A. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic and the role of responsible leadership in health
care: Thinking beyond employee well-being and organisational sustainability. Leadership
in Health Services, 34, 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHS-09-2020-0071
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135.
Jaskyte, K., Byerly, C., Bryant, A., & Koksarova, J. (2010). Transforming a nonprofit work
environment for creativity: An application of concept mapping. Nonprofit Management
& Leadership, 21(1), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.20013
Kienzle, J., Guelfi, N., & Mustafiz, S. (2010). Crisis management systems: A case study for
aspect-oriented modeling. In S. Katz, M. Mezini, & J. Kienzle (Eds.), Transactions on
aspect-oriented software development VII (pp. 1–22). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16086-8_1
Kilroy, S., Flood, P. C., Bosak, J., & Chênevert, D. (2016). Perceptions of high-involvement
work practices and burnout: the mediating role of job demands. Human Resource
Management Journal, 26(4), 408-424.
Koonin, L. M. (2020). Novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak: Now is the time to
refresh pandemic plans. Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 13(4),
298–312.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An Overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Krueger, R., & Casey, M. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Sage
Publications.
Lai, J., Ma, S., Wang, Y., Cai, Z., Hu, J., Wei, N., Wu, J., Du, H., Chen, T., Li, R., Tan, H.,
Kang, L., Yao, L., Huang, M., Wang, H., Wang, G., Liu, Z., & Hu, S. (2020). Factors

81
associated with mental health outcomes among health care workers exposed to
coronavirus disease 2019. JAMA Network Open, 3(3), Article e203976.
Lavrakas P.J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Sage publications.
Lloyd, K. J., Boer, D., Keller, J. W., & Voelpel, S. (2015). Is my boss really listening to me? The
impact of perceived supervisor listening on emotional exhaustion, turnover intention, and
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(3), 509–524.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2242-4
Mann, S., & Holdsworth, L. (2003). The psychological impact of teleworking: stress, emotions,
and health. New Technology, Work and Employment, 18(3), 196-211.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual review of
psychology, 52(1), 397-422.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Melamed, S., Shirom, A., Toker, S., Berliner, S., & Shapira, I. (2006). Burnout and risk
of cardiovascular disease: evidence, possible causal paths, and promising research
directions. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 327-353.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
MetLife. (2020). MetLife employee benefit trends: Navigating together: Supporting employee
well-being in uncertain times. https://www.metlife.com/employeebenefittrends/ebts2020-holistic-well-being-drives-workforce-success/
Moitra, M., Rahman, M., Collins, P. Y., Gohar, F., Weaver, M., Kinuthia, J., Rössler, W.,
Petersen, S., Unutzer, J., Saxena, S., Huang, K. Y., Lai, J., & Kumar, M. (2021). Mental
health consequences for healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping
review to draw lessons for LMICs. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, Article 602614.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.602614
Munn, J. (2018). Employee Retention Using Nonfinancial Means: Addressing Human Resource
Challenges for Nonprofits.
Nonprofit Impact on Communities. (2019). National Council of Nonprofits.
https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/about-americas-nonprofits/nonprofitimpactcommunities
Nebehay, S. (2020, May 5). “Layoffs, closures to wipe out 6.7% of working hours worldwide in
second quarter. Reuters Business News https://www.reuters.com/article/ushealthcoronavirus-unemployment/layoffsclosures-to-wipe-out-6-7-of-workinghoursworldwide-in-secondquarter-ilo-idUSKBN21P265

82
Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Yarker, J., & Brenner, S. O. (2008). The effects of transformational
leadership on followers’ perceived work characteristics and psychological well-being: A
longitudinal study. Work & Stress, 22(1), 16-32.
Nielsen, K., Nielsen, M., Ogbonnaya, C., Känsälä, M., Saari, E., & Isaksson, K. (2017).
Workplace resources to improve both employee well-being and performance: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Work and Stress, 31(2), 101–120.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2017.1304463
Parmer, L. (2019). The relationship between eliminating stressors, developing resiliency,
shortterm coping skills, and team development behaviors. Journal of Organizational
Psychology, 19(5), 114–128. https://doi.org/10.33423/jop.v19i5.2514
Perlow, L. A. (2012). Sleeping with your smartphone: How to break the 24/7 habit and change
the way you work. Harvard Business Press.
Pietromonaco, P. R., & Overall, N. C. (2020). Applying relationship science to evaluate how the
COVID-19 pandemic may impact couples’ relationships. The American Psychologist,
76(3), 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000714
Porta, M. (Ed.). (2014). A dictionary of epidemiology. Oxford university press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780199976720.001.0001
Poulsen, S., & Ipsen, C. (2017). In times of change: How distance managers can ensure
employees’ wellbeing and organizational performance. Safety Science, 100(A), 37–45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.05.002
Ravalier, J., Wegrzynek, P., & Lawton, S. (2016). Systematic review: Complementary therapies
and employee well-being. Occupational Medicine, 66(6), 428–436.
https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqw047
Ripp, J., Peccoralo, L., & Charney, D. (2020). Attending to the emotional Well-Being of the
health care workforce in a New York City health system during the COVID-19
pandemic. Academic Medicine, 95(8), 1136–1139.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003414
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Sage Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Matching the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Salamon, L. (1999). America’s nonprofit sector: A primer. The Foundation Center.

83
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (6th ed.). SAGE.
Shuck, B., Reio, T. G., Jr., & Rocco, T. S. (2011). Employee engagement: An examination of
antecedent and outcome variables. Human Resource Development International, 14(4),
427-445.
Schultz, P., Ryan, R., Niemiec, C., Legate, N., & Williams, G. (2014). Mindfulness, work
climate, and psychological need satisfaction in employee well-being. Mindfulness, 6(5),
971–985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-014-0338-7
Searight, T. M. (2019). Strategies for reducing nonprofit organizations’ employee turnover
(Publication No. 13865957) [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global.
Selden, S. C., & Sowa, J. E. (2015). Voluntary turnover in nonprofit human service
organizations: The impact of high performance work practices. Human Service
Organizations, Management, Leadership & Governance, 39(3), 182–207.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2015.1031416
Shanafelt, T., Ripp, J., & Trockel, M. (2020). Understanding and addressing sources of anxiety
among health care professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 323(21), 2133–2134.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.5893
Simon, M. K., & Goes, J. (2013). Scope, limitations, and delimitations.
Sonnenfeld, J. A., & Peiperl, M. A. (1988). Staffing policy as a strategic response: A typology of
career systems. Academy of Management Review, 13(4), 588-600.
Spence, L., Lachlan, K. A., & Griffin, D. R. (2016). Crisis Communication, Race, and Natural
Disasters. Journal of Black Studies, 37(4), 539–554.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934706296192
Spurk, D., & Straub, C. (2020). Flexible employment relationships and careers in times of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 119, Article 103435.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103435
Stevanovic, P., & Rupert, P. A. (2004). Career-sustaining behaviors, satisfactions, and stresses of
professional psychologists. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 41(3),
301.
Taherdoost, H. (2016). Validity and reliability of the research instrument; how to test the
validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research. How to test the validation of a
questionnaire/survey in a research (August 10, 2016).

84
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of
Medical Education, 2, 53-55.
Teffali, S., Matta, N., & Chatelet, E. (2019). Managing stress with experience feedback in crisis
situation. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing,
33(2), 206–225. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060419000106
Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions to
bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 86(2), 320-333.
Umucu, E., & Lee, B. (2020). Examining the impact of COVID-19 on stress and coping
strategies in individuals with disabilities and chronic conditions. Rehabilitation
Psychology, 65(3), 193–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000328
Vaziri, H., Casper, W. J., Wayne, J. H., & Matthews, R. A. (2020). Changes to the work–family
interface during the COVID-19 pandemic: Examining predictors and implications using
latent transition analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(10), 1073–1087.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000819
Voorhees, C. M., Fombelle, P. W., & Bone, S. A. (2020). Don’t forget about the frontline
employee during the COVID-19 pandemic: Preliminary insights and a research agenda
on market shocks. Journal of Service Research, 23(4), 396–400.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520944606
Walker, E. R., McGee, R. E., & Druss, B. G. (2015). Mortality in mental disorders and global
disease burden implications: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry,
72(4), 334–341. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.2502
Well-Being Concepts. (2018). National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion, Division of Population Health. https://www.cdc.gov/hrqol/wellbeing.htm
Wright, T., & Huang, C. (2012). The many benefits of employee well-being in organizational
research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1188–1192.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1828
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as
predictors of job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 84-94.

85
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2004). The role of psychological well-being in job
performance. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 338–351.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2004.09.002

86
Appendix A: The Researcher
As a nonprofit program director, I acknowledge that I possess my own biases inherent to
the nonprofit field. Nevertheless, I took specific steps to ensure the impartiality and fairness of this
study. Notably, I deliberately recruited participants from organizations outside of my own. I
remained conscious of the potential assumptions and biases that may arise during the survey
process.
To mitigate any possible assumptions and biases, I meticulously crafted a comprehensive
research questionnaire. This survey was designed to be inclusive, aiming to reach nonprofit
employees spanning a wide geographical region. Importantly, the respondents were selected
without any influence or impact from my role as a program director. It's crucial to note that the
survey did not request any identifiable information from the participants. This approach was taken
to preserve the anonymity and confidentiality of the respondents.

87
Appendix B: Employee Well-Being Survey Questions
Q1 How old are you?
o Under 18 (1)
o
18-24 years old (2)
o
25-34 years old (3)
o
35-44
years old (4)
o
45-54 years old (5)
o
55-64 years old
(6) o 65+ years old (7)
Q2 What is your gender?
o
Male (1) o Female (2) o Other (4) o Prefer
not to answer (5)
▢ White (1)
▢ African-American (2)
▢ Latino or Hispanic (3)

88
Q3 Please specify your ethnicity (Check all
that apply)
Q4 What is your marital status?
o
Single (1) o Engaged (3) o Married (4) o
Divorced (5) o Widowed (6) o Prefer not to answer
(7)
Q5 What is the highest degree or level of school you completed? o
Did not graduate from high school (1) o High School Diploma or
▢ Asian (4)
▢ Native American (5)
▢ Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (6)
▢ Prefer not to answer (7)

89
Equivalent (2) o Associates degree (for example AA, AS) (3) o
Bachelor’s degree (for example BA, BS) (4) o Master’s degree (for
example MA, MS, MEng, MEd, MSW, MBA) (5)
o
Professional degree beyond bachelor’s degree (for
example MD, DDS, DVM, LLB, JD) (6) o Doctorate degree
(for example: PhD, EdD) (7) o Prefer not to answer (8)
Q6 Which of these describes your income?
o
Less than $25,000 (1) o $25,001
to $50,000 (2) o $50,001 to $75,000
(3) o $75,001 to $100,000 (4) o
$100,000 to $125,000 (5) o $125,001
to $150,000 (6) o More than $150,000
(7) o Prefer not to answer (8)

90
Q7 What is your current employment status?
o
Salary (1) o Hourly (2) o Other: If so, please
explain (3)
_________________________________________________
_ o Prefer not to asnwer (4)
Q8 Which of these describe you?
o
Full-time employed (1)
o
Part-time employed (2)
o
Other: If so, please explain. (3)
_________________________________________________
_ o Prefer not to answer (4)
Q9 If employed part-time, how many hours per week do you work? (Enter number of hours)
________________________________________________________________
Q10 What is your position/role in your organization? (Enter name of your position/role).

91
________________________________________________________________
Q11 Approximately, how many people work in your organization? (Enter number of employees)
________________________________________________________________
Q12 Approximately, what is your organization’s operational budget? (Enter number of budget)
________________________________________________________________
Page Break
Q13-15 Please state how much you agree or disagree with these statements:
Strongly
disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly
Agree (5)
My
organization
prioritizes
employee
well-being.
(1) o o o o o
My
organization’s
leadership
sets clear
expectations
for employees
to utilize
available
resources to
maintain their
well-being.
(2) o o o o o

92
Employee
well-being is
embedded in
the culture at
my non-profit
organization?
(3) o o o o o
Page Break
Q16
Does your organization provide stress management training? (If yes, answer the next question)
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Q17 How does your organization provide stress management training? (Check all that apply)
Q18 My organization has policies and procedures that promote employee well-being.
oYes (1)
▢ Workshops (1)
▢ Training (2)
▢ Staff Mettings (3)
▢ Handouts (4)
▢ Other: please explain (5) __________________________________________________

93
o No (2)
Q19 My organization adheres to the policies and procedures that promote employee well-being.
oYes (1)
o No (2)
Q20 My organization provides the following resources to support employee well-being.
__________________________________________________
Q21 Which resources, not currently provided by your organization, would you find most helpful
to reduce stress if they were available?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
▢ Dedicated Time (1)
▢ Quiet rooms (2)
▢ No meeting days (3)
▢ Mental Health days (4)
▢ Other: If so, please explain. (5)

94
Page Break
Q22
How often do you experience stress?
o Never (1)
o Sometimes
(2) o Usually
(3) o Always
(4)
Q23 What are triggers that increase stress? (Check all that apply)
▢ Being unhappy in your job (1)
▢ Having a heavy workload or too much responsibility (2)
▢ Working long hours (3)
▢ Working under dangerous conditions (5)
▢ Being insecure about your chance for advancement or risk of termination (6)

95
▢
Having poor management, unclear expectations of your work, or no say in the decisionmaking
process (4)
__________________________________________________
Q24 Stress manifests in my life in the following way for me… (Check all that apply)
__________________________________________________
Q25 How do you generally cope with stress?
▢ Having to give speeches in front of colleagues (7)
▢
(8)
Facing discrimination or harassment at work, especially if your company isn't supportive
▢ Other: If so, please explain. (9)
▢ Depression (1)
▢ Anxiety (2)
▢ Blowing up with family/friends (3)
▢ Other: if so, please explain. (4)

96
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Q26 I understand how well-being impacts not only my job performance but impacts all aspects
of my life. o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Q27 I have received training on methods and techniques to help reduce overall stress levels from
the following sources: (Check all that apply)
__________________________________________________
▢ Read a book (1)
▢ Previous employer (2)
▢ Current employer (3)
▢ Community Recreation Center (4)
▢ Personal/Professional Development (5)
▢ I have not received training (6)
▢ Other: If so, please explain. (7)

97
Page Break
Q28-33 Please state how much you agree or disagree with these statements:
Strongly
Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4)
Strongly
Agree (5)
I believe it is
important to
manage my
stress as an
overall part
of my
wellbeing. (1) o o o o o
I understand
my personal
well-being
influences
how well I
am able to
perform my
role at the
organization.
(2) o o o o o
I feel
confident in
my ability to
support my
own overall
wellbeing. (3) o o o o o
I feel
confident in
my ability to
address my
stress levels.
(4) o o o o o

98
I can stay
motivated
during
stressful
events that
are beyond
my control.
(5) o o o o o
During
stressful
situations, I
feel confident
abilities to in my o o o o o
create
positive
outcomes. (6)
End of Block: Question Tour Block 1

99
Appendix C: Ethics
The paramount aspect of conducting research is ensuring the safety and well-being of
participants, with the aim of preventing any harm resulting from the study (Glesne, 2011). The
foundational principles of validity and reliability in research significantly hinge on the
researcher's values and ethics (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As a quantitative researcher, the
primary focus lies in upholding ethical considerations and fostering transparency throughout the
research, particularly concerning research participants (Glesne, 2011). The research journey
necessitates consistent moral decision-making to uphold principles of respect, beneficence, and
justice for all participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
To commence the research process, informed consent forms were administered to all
participants. These forms served as vital tool for conveying that participation in the research is

100
voluntary, that responses will remain confidential, and that participants had the autonomy to
withdraw from the study at any point without repercussions (Glesne, 2011; Krueger & Casey,
2009). In a further measure to ensure the safety and mitigate any potential risks to research
participants, the study undergone a rigorous review by the institutional review board (IRB)
before commencement. Rubin and Rubin (2012) underscore the significance of IRBs in
upholding ethical research standards, emphasizing their role in guaranteeing adherence to ethical
guidelines.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

An evaluation of employee perceptions of onboarding experiences: an evaluation study

PDF

Military spouse well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Evaluation of a post work related injury total wellness program designed for fire and police department employees

PDF

Evaluation of mental health support and needs for emergency department providers

PDF

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

PDF

A nonprofit study evaluating board chair onboarding practices for effective governance

PDF

Managers’ roles in supporting employee engagement in Jewish nonprofit organizations

PDF

Development of employee well-being initiatives to improve engagement and performance: an innovative study

PDF

Understanding workplace burnout in the nonprofit sector

PDF

The underrepresentation of Asian American Pacific Islanders serving in the senior and executive leadership ranks in the U.S. Navy SEALs

PDF

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

PDF

Transgender experience in the U.S. military: opportunities for effective inclusion

PDF

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

PDF

Understanding the gaps for neurotypical managers to support college-educated autistic employees across industries

PDF

Exploring mindfulness with employee engagement: an innovation study

PDF

Why are they still here: a look at employee retention amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Evaluating the effectiveness of global residence in improving resident cultural intelligence

PDF

Looking through the staff lens: membership retention strategies in 501c6 nonprofit organizations

Asset Metadata

Creator Andrade, Janice Lumen (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-12

Publication Date 10/20/2023

Defense Date 08/30/2023

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

Tag employee well-being,nonprofit employee,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational culture,pandemic,training

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee chair), Canny, Eric (committee member), Malloy, Courtney (committee member)

Creator Email janicelandrade@gmail.com,jlandrad@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113758997

Unique identifier UC113758997

Identifier etd-AndradeJan-12428.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-AndradeJan-12428

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Andrade, Janice Lumen

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20231020-usctheses-batch-1102 (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