University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Frontline Workers Serving Students: A Study on the Well-being of Student Affairs
Professionals During the COVID-19 Pandemic
by
Jennifer Christine Villicaña

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2022

© Copyright by Jennifer Christine Villicaña 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Jennifer Christine Villicaña certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Monique Datta
Kimberly Hirabayashi
Bryant Adibe, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic created high levels of occupational stress within organizations leading
to a negative impact on employee well-being. This research examined organizational and
leadership practices in higher education institutions implemented during the COVID-19
pandemic that positively impacted the well-being of student affairs professionals. The social
cognitive theory (SCT) served as a theoretical foundation and informed this field-based study.
The methodological approach was quantitative via a survey. The findings established that higher
levels of burnout, fatigue, and emotional exhaustion result in student affairs professionals
reporting higher levels of employee ineffectiveness. Additionally, higher levels of organizational
support in forms of equipment and care resulted in employees having lower perceptions of
employee ineffectiveness. The study’s results also revealed that flexible work, psychological
support, work benefits, communication, equipment and safety, social support, and other types of
support supported the well-being of student affairs professionals during the COVID-19
pandemic. Of those the most effective strategies were flexible work options, psychological
support, and the work benefits granted. Based on the findings, the study generated five
recommendations for practice. The recommendations are to increase organizational culture of
care and trust, increase student affairs leaders’ capacity for leading effectively, increase or
sustain flexible work options, and for colleges and universities to invest in their employees.
Keywords: employee well-being, employee effectiveness, workplace well-being,
wellness, organizational change, organizational culture, student affairs professionals, higher
education, COVID-19 pandemic

v
Acknowledgments
I want to thank my chair and dissertation committee, Dr. Bryant Adibe, Dr. Kimberly
Hirabayashi, and Dr. Monique Datta. I appreciate your guidance and support – and Dr. Datta
thank you for believing in me since my first term in the program. Additionally, a huge thank you
to Dr. Dennis Hocevar and Dr. Carey Regur for their support as well in the dissertation process.
Thank you to those that came before me and served as role models and inspired me to
reach higher, Dr. Nancy Reyes, Dr. Claudia Aguilar, and Dr. Leslye Salinas. ¡Gracias, Doctoras,
and Go Bears!
Thank you to my colleagues in Cohort 16, Terrence Chandler-Harrison and Caroline
Fraissinet. You both were not only wonderful classmates but true friends, thank you for allowing
me to be part of your doctoral journey and for being a part of mine. We did it!
Next, I want to thank the many University of California, Berkeley, work colleagues that
supported me in one way or another throughout this journey. A huge thank you to Yvette Flores,
Sumi Godfrey-Wong, Dr. Garrett Naiman, José Rivas, and Esmeralda Navarro, to name a few. I
am also forever grateful to my regional teams: Team Compass, Team East San José, and Team
West County Best County. Thank you for allowing me to grow and learn alongside you all.
Furthermore, I want to thank my second family, my lovely sorority sisters de Lambda
Theta Alpha for always cheering me on and reminding me to follow my dreams and never quit.
In particular, thank you to my beloved astonishing and exemplary chapter sisters. Thank you also
to Lucy Rios for your unwavering support, you are next! Lizbeth Huerta, your constant texts of
encouragement, voice messages, and more were instrumental in my hardest and longest days.
Most importantly, I want to thank my family and wonderful husband. Thank you to my
mother Maria T. Alcaraz Villalpando for paving the way for our family. Being first is definitely

vi
not easy and I thank you for pushing through so many challenges so I can have a better life;
allowing me to be the first in our family to receive a doctorate degree. Thank you to my little
brother, Benjamin A. Villalpando, who would bring me snacks or stay up late with me in
solidarity as I wrote this dissertation. Daddy, Benjamin V. Villalpando, thank you for always
telling me that I am bright, and I could do it. To the love of my life, Gilberto Villicaña, Jr., Esq.,
thank you for your unconditional love and support. Thank you for always encouraging me, being
my number one cheerleader, and reminding me every Thursday night after class, especially at the
beginning of the program, that I belonged and could do it! Thank you for holding it down for our
family while I completed this degree.
Finally, this could not be possible without the grace of God. I am thankful to have gone
through this program, as I now feel better equipped to continue fulfilling my life’s purpose and
vocation of serving others.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ...........................................................................................1
Context and Background of the Problem .............................................................................1
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions ...................................................................2
Importance of the Study .......................................................................................................3
Overview of Theoretical Foundation and Methodology ......................................................4
Definitions............................................................................................................................4
Organization of the Dissertation ..........................................................................................5
Chapter Two: Literature Review .....................................................................................................6
Well-Being ...........................................................................................................................7
Causes and Consequences of Low Well-Being .................................................................14
Strategies for Employee Well-Being .................................................................................16
Measuring Well-Being .......................................................................................................24
Theoretical Foundation ......................................................................................................26
Summary ............................................................................................................................29
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................30
Research Questions ............................................................................................................30
Overview of Design ...........................................................................................................30
Research Setting.................................................................................................................30
The Researcher...................................................................................................................31
Data Source ........................................................................................................................32

viii
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................................39
Ethics..................................................................................................................................40
Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................41
Research Question 1: How Have Burnout, Emotional Exhaustion, and Fatigue
Impacted Employee Beliefs About Their Effectiveness Throughout the COVID-19
Pandemic? ..........................................................................................................................42
Research Question 2: What Specific Strategies Have Organizations and Leaders
Implemented That Support the Well-Being of Their Employees During the COVID-
19 Pandemic? .....................................................................................................................60
Summary ............................................................................................................................77
Chapter Five: Recommendations ...................................................................................................79
Discussion of Findings .......................................................................................................79
Recommendations for Practice ..........................................................................................84
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................89
Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................90
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................91
References ......................................................................................................................................93
Appendix A: Survey Protocol ......................................................................................................108

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Demographics of Participants (N = 409) 35
Table 2: Survey Responses on Burnout 42
Table 3: Survey Responses on Fatigue 44
Table 4: Survey Responses on Effectiveness 45
Table 5: Survey Responses on Organizational Support 46
Table 6: Survey Responses on State of Effectiveness and Well-Being Relative to Before the
Pandemic 48
Table 7: Item-Total Statistical Analysis for Employee Ineffectiveness 49
Table 8: Descriptive Statistics for Measure of Employee Ineffectiveness 50
Table 9: Statistical Analysis for Independent Variables 53
Table 10: Correlations Between Variables 55
Table 11: The Relationship of Employee Ineffectiveness with Demographic Characteristics 57
Table 12: The Relationship of Employee Ineffectiveness With Work Characteristics 58
Table 13: Summary of Findings and Frequencies by Number of Occurrences 60
Table 14: Summary of Findings and Frequencies by Number of Respondents (n = 262) 61
Table 15: Summary Table of Open-Ended Question 1 64
Table 16: Summary Table of Open-Ended Question 2 68
Table 17: Summary Table of Open-Ended Question 3 71
Table 18: Summary Table of Open-Ended Question 4 75
Table A1: Survey Questions 108
Table B1: Open-Ended Question 1: What Policies or Practices, if Any, Did Your
Organization Implement to Support Your Well-Being During the Pandemic? 114
Table B2: Open-Ended Question 2: Which of These Organization Policies or Practices Did
You Think Was Most Effective? 115
Table B3: Open-Ended Question 3: What Policies or Practices, if Any, Did Your Direct
Supervisor Implement to Support Your Well-Being During the Pandemic? 116

x
Table B4: Open-Ended Question 4: Which of These Direct Supervisor Policies or Practices
Did You Think Was Most Effective? 117
Appendix C: Code Book 118

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Theoretical Foundation 28
Figure 2: Total Survey Respondents by Years in the Profession 36
Figure 3: Employee Ineffectiveness 52
Figure 4: Themes for Open-Ended Question 1 by Percent of Respondents (n = 262) 63
Figure 5: Themes for Open-Ended Question 2 by Percent of Respondents (n = 262) 67
Figure 6: Themes for Open-Ended Question 3 by Percent of Respondents (n = 262) 70
Figure 7: Themes for Open-Ended Question 4 by Percent of Respondents (n = 262) 74

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
In the United States, employees face high levels of stress in the workplace, negatively
impacting their well-being. According to Gallup (2020), employees who experience burnout
from untreated chronic stress are 63% more likely to take a sick day and 2.6 times as likely to
look for a new job actively. The evidence further highlights that the novel coronavirus disease
(COVID-19) exacerbated levels of psychological distress, burnout, and stress across industries
(Gallup, 2021; Keeter, 2020; Warren & Bordoloi, 2020). In fact, during the COVID-19
pandemic, 57% of those in the workforce experienced daily stress in the United States compared
to 43% of employees globally (Gallup, 2021). This study addressed how the COVID-19
pandemic created high levels of occupational stress within higher education institutions leading
to a negative impact on student affairs professionals’ well-being.
Context and Background of the Problem
Approximately one-fifth of the nation’s population was enrolled in college or university
in Fall 2019 (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], n.d.-a). During the COVID-19
pandemic, higher education institutions quickly pivoted to meet the needs of the time. Student
affairs professionals were behind the critical work of supporting students beyond academics.
Student affairs personnel work in various departments including admissions, advising services,
campus and Greek life activities, financial aid, housing, outreach, and more. For this reason, this
field-based study recruited a diverse sample of student affairs professionals who responded to a
call for participants (a) through an email sent to various student affairs list serves, including
Council for Opportunity in Education TRIO network, (b) at an annual conference for members of
the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), or (c) through various
2

LinkedIn and Instagram posts I posted with the study details and survey link to different student
affairs groups and affiliates.
Traditionally, student affairs professionals have provided hands-on assistance, which
became particularly challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic (Best College Reviews, 2021;
NASPA, n.d.). Nevertheless, they continued to serve students who were facing many
unprecedented challenges. During the COVID-19 pandemic, inequities were magnified, which
compelled university leaders to pay more attention and implement interventions and preventions
(Brazeau et al., 2020; Warren & Bordoloi, 2020).
The profession has had high burnout, turnover, and job stress over time (Chessman, 2021;
Mullen et al., 2018). As a result, college and university leaders began to address employees’
well-being even before the pandemic. Travia et al. (2020) indicated in their study examples of
different institutions across the United States that have developed new programming addressing
the specific needs of university staff and the evolution of their working definition of well-being.
Ultimately, higher education institutions and their leaders may consider drawing attention to the
well-being of student affairs professionals to ensure quality service to students and aid in their
success (American College Health Association [ACHA], 2020; Mullen et al., 2018; Prasath et
al., 2021; Tuzovic & Kabadayi, 2021).
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this project was to examine organizational and leadership practices in
higher education institutions implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic that positively
impacted the well-being of student affairs professionals. I also sought to establish the current
state of well-being and beliefs about effectiveness of student affairs professionals. Moreover, this
3

study aimed to uncover strategies that can be sustained beyond the COVID-19 pandemic to
better support the well-being of employees. I used the following questions to guide this study:
1. How have burnout, emotional exhaustion, and fatigue impacted beliefs about
employee effectiveness throughout the COVID-19 pandemic?
2. What specific strategies have organizations and leaders implemented that support the
well-being of their employees during the COVID-19 pandemic?
Importance of the Study
Current research demonstrates negative consequences of low levels of employee well-
being at the individual and organizational levels. On the one hand, Maslach’s (1976) seminal
piece described service workers experiencing negative feelings towards those they were serving
because of being burned out. Researchers call organizations and their leaders to pay close
attention to employees experiencing burnout. Evidence over the years has demonstrated that such
employees are less effective and less impactful with their work and have higher absenteeism
(Harter et al., 2016; Schaufeli et al., 2009). Research illustrates a detrimental impact beyond the
work setting when employers do not address the well-being of employees. For example, Prime et
al.’s (2020) article noted negative consequences for the employee’s family members’ well-being
during the COVID-19 pandemic. On the one hand, employees who were caregivers faced
increased daily stressors having a ripple effect on children and others due to their work and home
lives converging, negatively impacting others in the home (Prime et al., 2020). These findings
are significant to note for organizations and their leaders to consider.
The implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on organizations and their employees will
be seen for years to come (Carnevale & Hatak, 2020). Hence, it is essential that organizations
and leaders work to build capacity for a workplace that fosters employee well-being. Deloitte
4

(2021) recommended that organizations and leaders support employee well-being and become
adaptive to strengthen their organizational resiliency, which is vital in times of crisis like the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Overview of Theoretical Foundation and Methodology
This study utilized the SCT as a theoretical foundation. SCT informed this study’s
approach by considering what Bandura (2005) postulated about the personal, behavioral, and
environmental elements that interplay and influence one another. The application of this
theoretical foundation offered understanding how organizations and leaders as part of their
environment influence employees’ beliefs and cognitive competencies concerning their well-
being and effectiveness, their behavior, and vice-versa. To examine and underscore the strategies
organizations deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic that supported the well-being of
employees and the possibility of using these strategies beyond the crisis, the study’s
methodological approach was quantitative with close-ended and open-ended questions, using a
survey to collect data.
Definitions
The key terms imperative to this study were burnout, emotional exhaustion, fatigue, and
well-being.
Burnout serves as a metaphor for when employees face emotional, physical, and mental
exhaustion from chronic workplace stress (Schaufeli et al., 2009; World Health Organization
[WHO], 2019).
Emotional exhaustion, as it relates to the workplace, is experiencing tension, strain, and
fatigue and is a prominent factor in burnout (Bryson et al., 2014).
5

Fatigue is a characteristic of emotional exhaustion that forms from profuse tiredness and
lack of energy mentally or physically or both (Better Health, n.d.).
Well-being is beyond physical and mental good health, and it includes many key aspects
of a good life (Pendell, 2021).
Organization of the Dissertation
The study has five chapters. This chapter imparted pertinent background information, the
context of the study, noted its purpose, and presented the importance of the study. In addition, I
provided key concepts and definitions. Chapter Two includes a review of the literature regarding
the different approaches to well-being, the uniqueness of addressing well-being in the workplace
and in higher education institutions, and the causes and consequences of low well-being.
Additionally, Chapter Two discusses strategies for well-being and ways to measure well-being.
Chapter Three dives into the methodology, design of the study, data source, instrumentation, and
the data collection used for this study. Chapter Four discusses the survey results and analysis
addressing each research question. The final chapter, Chapter Five, presents the overall findings
and five recommendations for practice based on the study’s findings.

6

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This study examined the strategies that higher education institutions and leaders
implemented to support student affairs professionals’ well-being during a time of high
uncertainty and fear brought forward by the novel coronavirus pandemic. A literature review on
employee well-being was necessary to understand the current landscape.
COVID-19, a respiratory disease, spread worldwide, causing illness to an extraordinary
number of people, and claiming the lives of 1,006,451 people in the United States to date
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], n.d.). Subsequently, governments imposed
stay-at-home orders, lockdowns, and shutdowns to abide by the social distancing regulations,
quarantine needs, and isolations warranted (Suppawittaya et al., 2020). These government orders
forced individuals to change key areas of their everyday lives, prompted them to reassess
priorities, and magnified that they could no longer take their well-being for granted (Brazeau et
al., 2020).
In the United States, Gallup (2021) reported that the COVID-19 pandemic effects had
impacted 50% of people by “a lot.” Which ultimately exacerbated the levels of occupational
stress within organizations leading to a negative impact on employee well-being across industries
(Gallup, 2021; Paredes et al., 2021; Suppawittaya et al., 2020). Even so, symptoms of ill-being
were present before this crisis; 76% of employees described experiencing burnout on the job at
least sometimes (Gallup, 2020). Burnout is a symptom that is all too familiar to human service
professionals, such as student affairs staff (Sonnentag, 2015). Student affairs professionals faced
burnout, fatigue, and emotional exhaustion during the pandemic as they swiftly had to adapt to
serve students (Brazeau et al., 2020). Many student affairs professionals were on the frontline
7

serving 19.7 million students, approximately one-fifth of the nation’s population, during the
COVID-19 pandemic (Epstein & Lofquist, 2021; NCES, n.d.-a).
Identifying successful practices that boosted the well-being of employees across
industries and globally is key to ensuring that effective strategies continue in the aftermath of the
COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, I provide a general overview of well-being in this literature
review, defines well-being in the workplace and higher education context, and frames subjective
well-being and positive psychology. Then, the review highlights the causes of ill-being (low
well-being) and discusses strategies researchers have found to support employee well-being. The
chapter will end with ways scholars have measured well-being.
Well-Being
Although the study of well-being can date back to Aristotle’s writings, scholars and
practitioners conceptualize well-being differently. There is no uniform definition as it continues
to evolve (Dodge et al., 2012). Defining well-being is complex because even those in the same
industry do not always align in their definitions and what they deem part of well-being. Diener et
al. (2009) and Dodge et al. (2012) partly attributed this complexity to well-being’s multifaceted
essence.
Researchers continue to grapple with what Dodge et al. (2012) argued are descriptions of
well-being rather than a definition. On the one hand, researchers like Searle (2008) have defined
well-being as an individual’s view of themselves and how they are faring in life from social to
health. Though others propose well-being is “the balance point between an individual’s resource
pool and the challenges faced” (Dodge et al., 2012, p. 230).
Scholars have also struggled to delineate the literature on this topic, causing even more
challenges in addressing needs adequately (De Simone, 2014). Regardless, organizations and
8

leaders see the need to sustain, revamp, or implement strategies that positively impact their
employees’ well-being through the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. The alternative,
researchers posit, has dire consequences for organizations if not addressed.
General Well-Being
Well-being was primarily limited to studying one’s physical health. The scope of general
well-being recently evolved to include various dimensions of life like career, social, financial,
physical, and community (Clifton & Harter, 2021; De Simone, 2014; Gallup, 2020; Travia et al.,
2020). Diener et al. (2009) argued that general well-being is a self-assessment of all key
components of one’s life. Other scholars specify what well-being should include, context-free
measures of life experiences and job-related experiences (De Simone, 2014).
As a result of the various outlooks to promote positive well-being, researchers argue that
multiple components impact well-being. Clifton and Harter (2021) conducted a worldwide
survey via Gallup that illustrated five aspects of well-being. These elements included (a) career;
individuals enjoying and having a purpose, (b) social; individuals having meaningful
relationships, (c) financial; individuals possessing money management and means, (d) physical -
individuals maintaining good health and energy, and (e) community; individuals liking where
they live (Clifton & Harter, 2021). Although they found all elements necessary, career well-
being impacted others like financial and social facets, arguing for organizations and leaders to
focus on what they can control in the workplace.
Tuzovic and Kabadayi (2021) articulated that during the COVID-19 pandemic, prevalent
factors impacting general well-being included physical, mental, social, and financial well-being.
Furthermore, they argued for an overarching approach to examine each level of the impact (i.e.,
macro, meso, and micro levels). Lomas (2019), on the other hand, found that psychological,
9

physical, and sociocultural circumstances affect well-being. The psychological aspect
encompasses using one’s strengths, managing emotions, and more. Physicality pertains to health,
safety, job control, and sociocultural embodies relationships (Lomas, 2019). Overall, the
literature demonstrated that while there is overlap between what scholars deem as components of
well-being, there is a lack of focus on the study of well-being (Danna & Griffin, 1999; De
Simone, 2014).
Well-Being in the Workplace
The topic of addressing employee well-being had garnered interest from leading
organizations and leaders before the COVID-19 pandemic. The current circumstances caused by
the pandemic led organizations and leaders to expedite their quest for understanding well-being
as an avenue for cultivating a resilient and engaged workforce (Gallup, 2021; Lee et al., 2021).
As Pendell (2021) found that “the costs of poor employee well-being go far beyond insurance –
they ultimately impact employee engagement, productivity and performance” (paras. 8). In
parallel, a meta-analysis conducted by Nielsen et al. (2017) conveyed those employees with a
strong level of well-being tend to perform well and conversely.
Earlier works of well-being in the workplace have detailed three facets of well-being:
feelings of displeasure to pleasure, anxiety to comfort, and depression to enthusiasm (Warr,
1987). Researchers since have advocated for expanding the realm of employee well-being for a
more holistic approach. However, organizations and leaders constantly fear overstepping
personal boundaries and going into uncharted areas. Pescud et al.’s (2015) qualitative study
containing 10 focus groups illustrated that employers only deemed some aspects of well-being
appropriate to be charged by them. Employers classified health and lifestyle choices as
inappropriate and too personal to address in the workplace.
10

Other literature indicated that initiatives geared toward enhancing employee well-being
failed to address the workplace and its environment first (Pfeffer, 2018). Scholars like Bryson et
al. (2014) declared it is a missed opportunity to not address the workplace environment first
since the organization’s makeup and attributes shape a person’s well-being. Likewise, De
Simone (2014) claimed the precursors of well-being in the workplace include work setting,
personality traits, and occupational stress shaping the outcomes that manifest at the individual
and organizational level. Others like Sonnentag (2015) described job-related well-being in detail
to contain work engagement, job satisfaction, job attachment, job involvement, and job morale.
Despite the incongruence across and within industries on the definition of employee well-
being, employers have deployed many strategies to foster and support the well-being of
employees. In the following sections, a few tactics implemented will be explored.
Well-Being in Higher Education
The understanding and approaches to cultivating the well-being of faculty, staff, and
students vary among colleges and universities. Scholars who conducted a qualitative study of 10
colleges and universities uncovered variations of the well-being definition even within the same
campus (Travia et al., 2020). The study also illuminated a shift in terminology from wellness to
well-being despite lacking an agreed-upon definition. Travia et al. (2020) also revealed that
campuses did not know why this shift occurred. Due to the diversity and understanding of well-
being in higher education, it is evident through the literature that there is a challenge to measure
campus-wide well-being. Similarly, it has been difficult for colleges and universities to
implement well-being programs and evaluate such programs’ effectiveness seamlessly (Travia et
al., 2020). Despite the American College Health Association’s (2020) attempt to provide a
foundation for campuses to become healthy all around.
11

Since no college campus is alike, university leaders may need to consider their
employees’ unique needs paired with culturally responsive actions to strengthen well-being. It is
also worthwhile for colleges and universities to notice that programming and efforts to support
well-being tend to be student-centered and often do not meet the needs of faculty and staff
(Tapps et al., 2016). A study that surveyed 438 university employees, for example, identified
wanting programming in strength training, stress reduction, and managing overall wellness,
whereas students historically have prioritized other parts of well-being (Tapps et al., 2016).
Perhaps higher education institutions could invest in surveying their faculty and staff to identify
their specific needs and adjust resources accordingly. A survey may benefit them since there is a
limited understanding of well-being in the student affairs realm.
University leaders for some time have known that job stress and burnout in the field of
student affairs is prominent (Mullen et al., 2018). Chessman (2021) looked at 2,414 people’s
professional experiences, revealing that work quality elements such as job satisfaction, job stress,
and autonomy strongly correlated with student affairs professionals’ well-being outcomes.
Mullen et al. (2018) also noted that higher job stress and burnout correlated with job
dissatisfaction and intention to leave their job. Moreover, reports have indicated that the
profession has many competing priorities, adding to the tensions of being student-facing during
the COVID-19 pandemic, which magnified their sentiments of stress and burnout. Prasath et al.’s
(2021) study of student affairs professionals mirrored the experiences of academic staff in the
previous study, demonstrating that occupational stress is negatively related to well-being.
Consequently, if student affairs staff are not well and cannot perform, quality services to
students could be compromised (ACHA, 2020; Mullen et al., 2018). University employees’ well-
being is worth investigating since, like the service industry; student affairs professionals
12

constantly interact with those they serve which are the students (Prasath et al., 2021; Tuzovic &
Kabadayi, 2021).
Subjective Well-Being
To understand the range of approaches to well-being, scholars have expounded on
various theories. For example, Diener’s (1984) early works outlined subjective well-being
(SWB) to encompass a person’s life experience, which translates to that person’s self-assessed
happiness. In essence, SWB is not simply general well-being but rather a method for
understanding well-being (Diener et al., 2018). Other researchers are in congruence with this
approach and explain SWB to come from the individual’s perspective and analysis of their
positive and negative reactions to life experiences (Bryson et al., 2014; Diener et al., 2018;
Schultz et al., 2015; Tenney et al., 2016). Accordingly, SWB can manifest itself in the workplace
through job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and positive affect (De Simone, 2014). On
the other hand, Tay and Diener (2011) found in their sample of respondents from 123 countries
across industries, informed by needs theories, that employers must meet the basic needs of
employees to have an optimal SWB. These needs can range from activities that engage mastery,
promote social relationships, and meet physical needs.
Scholars measure SWB in two ways: hedonic and eudemonic approaches, including job
involvement and work engagement (Bryson et al., 2014; De Simone, 2014). Bryson et al.’s
(2014) study reported that SWB could result in higher levels of job performance depending on
the context. Organizational leaders can leverage this insight to ensure the success of their
organizations. There are many benefits from improved SWB since it stimulates better
performance at the individual and organizational levels (Tenney et al., 2016). These positive
effects can also manifest in allowing employees to think more creatively, effectively problem
13

solve, improve attitudes to work, and improve employees’ physiology and health (Bryson et al.,
2014). Comparably, Tenney et al. (2016) found that SWB can expound low stress, low anger,
low sadness, frequent positive feelings, and high job satisfaction, which yields better health,
lower absenteeism, greater self-regulation, strong motivation, enhanced creativity, positive
relationships, and lower turnover. Researchers argued that further analysis is needed to
demonstrate the exact conditions of the working environment that influence employees’ SWB
(Bryson et al., 2014).
Positive Psychology
Another approach to advancing well-being is through the lens of positive psychology.
The study of positive psychology is what makes life worthwhile (Peterson et al., 2008). Theorists
in this realm argue that building people’s psychological capital can positively impact well-being.
Rabenu et al. (2017) defined psychological capital as an individual’s state of development
involving self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience. In general, this includes having robust
coping strategies in times of crisis, as those strategies can significantly impact well-being and
performance (Rabenu et al., 2017). However, not well-being on performance countering other
scholars’ results mentioned in the previous sections (Rabenu et al., 2017).
In a study that examined 540 university employees, before and during the COVID-19
pandemic, revealed that having coping strategies was indicative of strong psychological capital
(Prasath et al., 2021). This study further highlighted that those participants with the
psychological capital that nurtured a strong well-being indicated positive life satisfaction,
resilience, physical health, and work outcomes. Prasath et al. (2021) also uncovered that hope
was an essential factor during the pandemic, whereas before the COVID-19 pandemic, it had not
been a strong predictor of well-being.
14

Overall, this reveals that it is imperative to have a strong psychological capital that
equates to strong well-being to combat stressors of everyday life but distinctly when a crisis like
a pandemic amplifies those stressors. Some of the expected COVID-19 pandemic stressors
outlined by AXA Asia and Columbia University WHO Centre for Global Mental Health (2020)
were (a) high ambiguity and uncertainty, (b) change in work demands, structure, and processes,
(c) risk of infection, (d) social isolation, (e) having loved ones sick or loss of loved ones, (f)
financial and job security concerns, and more. These are in addition to the stressors found
explicitly in the profession, such as the uncertainty of the timing of return to work in person
paired with safety concerns, and they must continue providing quality services to students
regardless of what they may be facing given the pandemic (Prasath et al., 2021).
Causes and Consequences of Low Well-Being
The consequences of low levels of well-being, referred to as ill-being are profound for
employees and organizations. Consequently, it is crucial to understand the causes of decreased
well-being to avoid its negative ramifications. Scholars have found that unaddressed ill-being is
exacerbated, resulting in higher stress, emotional exhaustion, and fatigue, which contribute to
burnout and higher absenteeism (Harter et al., 2016; Memon et al., 2014; Sonnentag, 2015).
Gallup (2020) and Harter et al. (2020) found evidence that as employee engagement
decreases, their performance does too, which is rooted in employee burnout. Job-related
emotional exhaustion is a central element of job burnout manifested through feelings of tension,
strain, and fatigue (Bryson et al., 2014). In addition, ill-being in the workplace can also cause
depression (Sonnentag, 2015). According to the WHO (2019), burnout is an occupational
phenomenon that results from chronic stress and other factors. These elements include (a)
feelings of energy depletion or exhaustion, (b) increased mental distance from one’s job, or
15

feelings of negativism or cynicism related to one’s job, and (c) reduced professional efficacy
(WHO, 2019).
Nevertheless, the definition of burnout also varies depending on cultural context. In some
countries, it is a medical diagnosis and, in others, a non-medical diagnosis (Schaufeli et al.,
2009). This phenomenon surfaced in the 1970s and has propelled scholars to examine job stress,
especially in the helping professions (Schaufeli et al., 2009). Schaufeli et al. (2009), through
their review of literature, generated the understanding of burnout as “the metaphor [that]
describes the exhaustion of employees’ capacity to maintain an intense involvement that has a
meaningful impact at work” (p. 205).
The top five factors causing burnout in the workplace that led to ill-being include unfair
treatment, unmanageable workload, unclear communication from managers, lack of manager
support, and excessive time pressure (Gallup, 2020). In that same study, Gallup (2020) found
that employee burnout undermines productivity, and people are 2.6 times as likely to be actively
looking for another job. They concluded that emotional exhaustion, fatigue, and stress lead to
burnout, impacting work performance. Hence, Sonnentag (2015) expressed that ill-being is
detrimental to the individual experiencing it and may hinder their ability to perform within the
organization.
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, many shifted to remote or virtual work, which
posed many obstacles for employees. Before this crisis, scholars had outlined that remote work
had many social and professional isolation symptoms, manifested in personal lives, and
decreased social ties (Charalampous et al., 2019). Studies further showed that shifting to remote
learning and working from home posed challenges favoring inequities, blurring the lines between
16

personal and professional lives, and forcing workplaces to face issues of technology, physical,
and socio-psychological (Carnevale & Hatak, 2020; Giurge & Bohns, 2020).
Lingelbach et al. (2021) found in an online survey of 173 participants that those younger
but over 18 and at greater risk of infection had low mental well-being during the pandemic.
Organizations and leaders may want to invest in support measures that enhance the well-being of
their employees and confront ill-being, especially in critical times. To this point, some scholars
and practitioners have developed ways to cultivate a work culture that promotes and aids
employee well-being. The following section will unpack a few notable strategies found in the
review of the literature.
Strategies for Employee Well-Being
Most studies describing strategies for employee well-being have focused on what the
individual can do to augment their well-being in the workplace. However, due to the COVID-19
pandemic, work for many as they knew it transformed. Individuals no longer had control over
many elements that promoted their well-being (Warren & Bordoloi, 2020). Accordingly,
researchers argued for organizational and leader-led strategies that allow employees to thrive
(Pacheco et al., 2020; Warren & Bordoloi, 2020). Therefore, this quantitative study sought to add
to the literature on what organizations and leaders can employ to encourage employee well-being
during times of change. The following analysis includes current practices in the field and
describes strategies rooted in organizational and support from others. Additionally, this section
will underline the protocols that effectively supported employee well-being during the COVID-
19 pandemic.
17

Organizational Support
Organizations are responsible for ensuring their employees are healthy and well. Maslach
(2011) and other scholars have advocated for organizations to assess the work environment and
implement measures beyond the individual level. The following sub-section describes strategies
from human resources management practices to organization-wide culture shifts that support the
well-being of employees.
Human Resources Management
Human resources management practices and theories in the past have addressed the
interconnection between employees’ well-being and the organization’s policies and procedures.
Sonnentag’s (2015) work revealed that placing workplace interventions can aid job-related well-
being. These interventions include job redesign by increasing job control, reducing job stressors,
or increasing job resources. Empirical studies like Holman et al.’s (2019) demonstrated the
beneficial effects of these interventions on job-related well-being. Though the intervention
programs’ degree of impact on employee well-being varies. The most optimal interventions are
customized for the workplace context and the employees’ specific needs.
There are tiers of interventions that have different effects. Sliter and Yuan (2015)
described and differentiated between primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions. Firstly, as
described in the previous sub-section, there are those interventions that stem from work redesign
and organizational change to eliminate work environment stressors. Next, secondary
interventions pull from positive psychology approaches and engage the individual employee to
train them on managing stress, using coping strategies, and more. The last type of intervention
does not prevent ill-being but instead addresses the adverse effects of ill-being. The literature
indicated that waiting to reach this last stage could have more significant negative impacts.
18

Though, most interventions placed by organizations are after the fact, also known as employee
assistance programs (Sliter & Yuan, 2015).
Focusing on the first and second tiers of interventions, a study of 300 employees and 34
immediate supervisors showed that various HR practices impact employee performance and
well-being (Khoreva & Wechtler, 2018). For example, this study revealed that motivation-
enhancing practices increased psychological well-being; in contrast, skill and opportunity-
enhancing programs augmented physical and social well-being. Additionally, Akhtar et al.’s
(2017) study of 450 respondents showed that emotional intelligence affects employee
engagement and well-being. Thus, they recommended including retention strategies conducive to
enhancing emotional intelligence (Akhtar et al., 2017).
Other interventions are widely known as wellness or well-being programs. Edwards and
Marcus (2018), for instance, in their pilot study, found that participants that engaged in a
workplace well-being program described having less stress and feeling better in aspects ranging
from emotional to physical. Ryan et al. (2021) also argued that workplace well-being programs
could impact physical and psychological well-being based on their qualitative analysis of 23
studies.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, scholars argued there was insufficient current research
or interventions responsive to constant change and a long-sustained crisis period (Pacheco et al.,
2020). Nevertheless, they noted that resilience-centered workplace interventions should be at the
forefront during a time of change and crisis like this. These interventions can be in the form of
stimulating job security and resiliency practices. Regardless, Pacheco et al. (2020) contended
that these practices yield optimal results when systems and structures are already in place to
stimulate well-being. Such as a study based on a review of 74 studies (Daniels et al., 2021).
19

Systems and structures that nurture workplace health and psychological well-being programs
need to have continuity. Learning structures that favor everyone’s needs to remain on the same
page and governance structures that enable leaders to model the importance and benefits of such
programs.
Organizational Culture
Organizational culture interventions and strategies go hand in hand with the practices HR
can implement. Empirical evidence suggests organizations approach employee burnout that
yields ill-being through holistic approaches. Gallup (2020) recommended focusing on (a)
embedding well-being into the overall organizational culture, (b) equipping managers with tools
and resources to prevent burnout, and (c) cultivating an employee experience that reduces
burnout.
Rasool et al.’s (2021) quantitative study of 301 workers reported that organizations could
benefit from ensuring the work environment is not toxic and breaking any barriers to this extent.
Organizations benefit because the workplace’s physical environment and climate influence
employee well-being. If addressed successfully, employee engagement also increases.
Contributing to the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, a quantitative study of 265
employees and 112 supervisors indicated that the more employees perceive their organization as
supportive, the more employees’ self-efficacy increases (Caesens & Stinglhamber, 2014). Their
finding is critical as self-efficacy affects work engagement, contributing to higher levels of
employee well-being. Caesens et al. (2017) further supported this notion with their two studies
with more than 1,000 participants. Low job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, and
psychosomatic strains hinder employee well-being. Sentiments of dehumanization and lack of
20

perceived organizational support greatly influenced forecasting of decreased employee well-
being (Caesens et al., 2017).
Additional ways to enhance perceived organizational support that amplify employee
well-being include HR practices in the previous section around job security, personal and
professional development opportunities, training for specific needs, and more (Caesens et al.,
2017). Perceived organizational support produces higher levels of well-being among employees
who want to feel supported and cared for. When employers fulfill this need, it can enhance
employees’ work performance, experience, and well-being, impacting organizational
performance and outcomes.
Other organizational culture shifts contributing to positive well-being are job control and
crafting, autonomy, development opportunities, and more. Pfeffer (2018) advocated for
organizations to be wary of micromanagement and implement a flat organizational structure to
avoid this. To make strides toward this structure, organizations can ensure all roles have a sense
of autonomy, control of their work, and positive interpersonal contact (Bryson et al., 2014;
Pfeffer, 2018). Organizations that successfully promote this see the benefits from their
employees’ increased motivation, job satisfaction, and performance, contributing significantly to
their overall well-being (Pfeffer, 2018). Furthermore, a timely recommendation from Brazeau et
al. (2020) was to minimize emotional exhaustion during the COVID-19 pandemic among faculty
and staff members. They recommended determining flexible work schedules, being intentional
about providing guidance and mentoring to those off-campus, and reallocating resources to
minimize emotional exhaustion.
Perceptions of fairness and equitable practices in the workplace also support this goal
(Pfeffer, 2018). Van Wingerden et al.’s (2017) study added to the conversation with their quasi-
21

experimental design informed by the JD-R theory, highlighting the importance of job crafting as
an intervention for 71 teachers. The results indicated an increase in job crafting, basic need
satisfaction, and work engagement amongst the intervention group due to job crafting training,
which supports overall employee engagement and well-being (van Wingerden et al., 2017). This
finding is consistent with Kim and Beehr’s (2018) study outcomes of 325 full-time employees
where job crafting supported employees’ well-being.
Organizations’ successes in improving employee well-being have resulted from other
support systems and ensuring employees know their strengths. This strategy, in turn, promotes a
positive work experience leading to work engagement and performance, which nurtures
employee well-being (Bakker et al., 2019; Clifton & Harter, 2021). Overall, organizations that
have made progress towards implementing systemic changes to enable employees’ skillset,
autonomy, and work-life balance appeared to do well or very well amidst the COVID-19
pandemic (Deloitte, 2021). These organizations have already taken steps toward building a
culture of resiliency that promotes employee well-being.
Support From Others
Researchers have found that social support from the organization leaders, such as their
direct supervisor and engagement with other employees, increases employee well-being. This
section will highlight the parameters for this support and the implications for each kind.
Social Support Provided by Direct Supervisors
The direct supervisor has the most significant impact on the employee’s work experience
and workplace well-being. Employees’ well-being is greatly affected by their perceived
relationship from everyday interactions with their leaders (Caesens et al., 2017; Ellis et al.,
2019). The leadership member exchange (LMX) theory informs this, as evidenced in a study of
22

129 employees across industries (Ellis et al., 2019). Audenaert et al. (2017), in a time-lagged
study, correspondingly found that when they used psychological empowerment as described by
LMX, it brought about strong well-being. Another study detailed that these positive sentiments
are omnipresent when employees perceive supervisor support as that can mitigate their perceived
stress (Caesens et al., 2014).
Scholars also found in a study of 468 employees that perceived organizational support
paired with the supervisor’s ability to meet the needs of employees predicted higher levels of
well-being (Gillet et al., 2012). The student affairs profession already has high turnover due to a
lack of job satisfaction, which can lead to ill-being, but adequate supervision could produce
different outcomes (Tull, 2006). Since adequate supervision can provide a conducive
environment to being well, one with low stress and no burnout (Mullen et al., 2018; Tull, 2006).
Day et al. (2017) further highlighted the impact of social support via the supervisor. The
supervisor can contribute to lower levels of emotional exhaustion and fewer negative health
symptoms. Supervisor support is even more critical in times of change, such as what COVID-19
caused. Ultimately, they concluded that employers should allocate resources to train supervisors
on effective leadership strategies based on their study of 202 respondents (Day et al., 2017).
Withal, the leadership style that reduces burnout is transformational leadership (Day et
al., 2017). Pinck and Sonnentag (2018) provided evidence for this notion as their study of 65
leaders and 153 employees in different fields saw a positive correlation between transformational
leadership and employees’ well-being. On the other hand, Arnold’s (2017) review of 40 studies
on transformational leadership and its direct pronouncement on employee well-being had
varying results. Nevertheless, transformational leadership generally incites positive well-being
(Arnold, 2017).
23

Furthermore, Barling and Frone (2017) framed passive leadership as negatively
impacting employee well-being, creating significant ambiguity, role conflict, and more. Their
sample of 2,467 workers specifically demonstrated that psychological work fatigue resulted in
employees’ ill-being. In a study conducted by Guidetti et al. (2018) with 632 respondents of
employees in the administrative public sector, results illustrated that during times of change and
the anticipation of the implications of such change resulted in higher burnout and lower work
engagement. As a result, they argued that social support is crucial, particularly from the
employee’s direct supervisor during times of change (Guidetti et al., 2018). Ultimately, due to
the tremendous impact supervisors can have on employees, investing in developing supervisors’
coaching skills is critical (Clifton & Harter, 2021).
Other Types of Social Support
Support from others as mentioned previously, has been shown to contribute to the well-
being of employees positively. Aside from support from direct supervisors and work colleagues,
evidence shows that support from family and friends can also help mitigate stress that comes
from the workplace. Pfeffer (2018) found that those with close relationships typically have
someone to turn to when things are not going well and can help process work-related stressors.
However, this study simultaneously showed that most workplaces are transactional and that
building close relationships at work can be challenging. Moreover, organizations have
sometimes even had intentional barriers to stop employees from building friendships in the
workplace (Pfeffer, 2018).
Therefore, organizations and leaders benefit from assessing if their work environments
are conducive to building relationships, collaboration, and more. Pfeffer (2018) provided the
following as a starting point: (a) demonstrate commitment to offering help, (b) encourage people
24

to care for one another, and (c) be mindful of the language used to engage with one another.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, having a social network to lean on is even more imperative due
to the high stress, exhaustion, and isolation people are experiencing. Paredes et al. (2021) noted
that of the 711 respondents from their online survey, those with higher levels of resiliency and
subsequently higher SWB reported lower levels of perceived COVID-19 threat and stress. This
study’s results align with other findings as resiliency is cultivated in a community with others.
Other effects the workforce experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic differed from
what researchers might have expected. For instance, Syrek et al.’s (2021) study of 253
participants during the COVID-19 pandemic found that employees were grateful to have a job
amidst the economic and job insecurities which propelled job satisfaction. However, they were
less engaged at work (Syrek et al., 2021). These are well-being factors, leaving scholars puzzled
and warranting additional research. Regardless of the COVID-19 pandemic, higher education
institutions are long overdue in moving the work forward to improve employee well-being.
Travia et al. (2020) determined that the first step for universities and colleges should be
to define well-being to serve as a foundation uniformly. While at the same time, higher education
leaders keep their campus’ cultural context and specific needs in mind. This strategy could be
beneficial since there is no shortage of interest in wellness programs; employees are eager to
participate in bettering themselves and their work colleagues (Tapps et al., 2016).
Measuring Well-Being
Well-being, as mentioned earlier, varies in definition, by industry, and by the strategies
espoused to address ill-being. Measuring well-being is no different. For this study, emotional
exhaustion, fatigue, and burnout paired with the belief in their effectiveness as an employee was
25

examined. There are various ways to measure these variables, as a result, this is not an
exhaustive list but rather a focused shortlist.
Recently, Pradhan and Hati (2019) developed a new scale for measuring employee well-
being. The development of this measure came to fruition after a deep analysis of the various
instruments that measure employee well-being more generally. This new scale includes 31
psychological, social, workplace, and SWB items. While there are some limitations and further
research is needed, it is crucial to note that researchers examined seminal pieces and early
contributions to the field to create this new scale. On the other hand, SWB has been the source of
discussion among researchers due to the nature of the measures. SWB measures rely on self-
reports (Diener et al., 2018). Scholars like Keyes (2005) have developed an instrument for a
holistic well-being approach, including emotional, psychological, and social elements.
Maslach Burnout Inventory
Maslach’s (1976) seminal work has informed many scholars’ approaches to
understanding emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment for over
30 years. Many studies in this literature review deployed a version of the Maslach Burnout
Inventory (MBI) to assess participants’ burnout levels concerning employee well-being. Key
areas measured are emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment. Warr
(2007) and Bakker et al. (2002) spoke on the validation of MBI as an instrument to assess these
areas.
Fatigue Assessment Scale
For assessing fatigue, Michielsen et al. (2004) constructed the Fatigue Assessment Scale
(FAS), a unidimensional fatigue questionnaire with 10 items that are concise and accessible. The
FAS questionnaire poses questions about physical to mental exhaustion. Measuring fatigue is
26

appropriate when trying to understand an individual’s well-being since this is an element of
burnout that can produce ill-being when present.
Perceived Stress Scale
Cohen et al. (1983) coined the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) to measure stress that hinders
strong well-being. Researchers use this tool in a way that participants can evaluate situations in
their life that are stressful. The stressful situations in their life can include unpredictable,
uncontrollable, or overloading circumstances. This scale has been deemed reliable and valid
based on three studies that measured stress.
Q12 Employee Engagement Survey
Gallup (n.d.), over the years, has refined a worldwide survey that seeks to measure the
engagement of employees based on 12 items. Employee engagement is arguably one of the most
visible indicators of employee well-being (Akhtar et al., 2017; Rasool et al., 2021). Similarly,
Nielsen et al. (2017) argued that employees with strong well-being perform and engage at higher
levels.
Theoretical Foundation
The SCT was the theoretical foundation of this study’s approach as it aligns well with the
theory of change guiding this study. A theory of change indicates how a researcher frames a
problem and how they believe it should be addressed based on literature, values, understanding
of the problem space, and more (Tuck & Yang, 2014). Subsequently, the theory of change for
this study identified the ideal state as organizations and leaders confronting and dismantling the
barriers to strengthening and nurturing employees’ well-being. The ideal state warrants strategies
and allows for a suitable environment that positively impacts the well-being of employees, who
can then engage in a sustainable way for their own and the organization’s sake.
27

With SCT grounding this study, I leaned into the reciprocal relationships between the
person, their behavior, and the environment and applied them to this study to understand the
problem space. Specifically, I hoped to draw insights from the interplay between the employee’s
state of being and their beliefs about their effectiveness paired with their environment.
Specifically, during the COVID-19 pandemic as that may have influenced their perception of
effectiveness and the psychological capital they practiced, along with the behavior that then
influenced their environment. The study aimed to uncover how the variables relate to each other
and consider their interrelationships. All while accounting for an employee’s well-being being
affected by many facets and conditions of the employee’s life. Simply with the presence of
fatigue, which is a characteristic of emotional exhaustion and can ultimately lead to burnout, can
shift employee effectiveness.
The theoretical foundation, as seen in Figure 1, begins by considering the environment
the COVID-19 pandemic has created and the workplace stress that can largely influence the
employees’ beliefs about their effectiveness and the person’s other internal factors, including
burnout, fatigue, and emotional exhaustion. Meanwhile, the habits and lifestyles depicted
influence the person’s behavior. The coping mechanisms and work habits they practice can
reinforce or correct behaviors. Next, I considered the person’s knowledge, motivation,
personality, attitudes, and beliefs, which can largely influence their behavior. The literature
reviewed in Chapter Two highlighted that a person’s psychological capital is key to building a
resilient employee. The person’s behavior can reveal how they utilize their skills, such as coping
skills, lifestyle, financial habits, self-efficacy, and their level of effectiveness and how those
manifests in their environment. Likewise, the employee’s behavior can rewire a person’s
attitudes, motivation, knowledge, and more. The employee’s relationship with their environment
28

and vice-versa also dictates how their workplace, home, social network, or global events interact
with their person. All variables interact with one another, and not one manifests in isolation.

Figure 1
Theoretical Foundation

29

This study focused mainly on environmental factors that impact employees’ well-being
and perception of effectiveness at work. Strategies for nurturing the well-being of employees
which impacts their beliefs about their effectiveness were illustrated in this figure under the
environment which influences the person and behavior. As the literature demonstrated,
organizations and leaders can implement tactics outside the person to aid in this endeavor. These
strategies included organizational and social support from the employee’s direct supervisor,
family, or others.
Summary
In summary, the topic of employee well-being is ever evolving. The literature continues
to grow especially given recent events such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic brought
to the forefront the need to address and prioritize the well-being of employees. This chapter
discussed the overall state of the study of well-being, provided key definitions, outlined factors
that impact well-being, causes and consequences for low well-being, strategies for well-being,
and lastly, how to measure well-being. This chapter as well expanded on the theoretical
foundation guiding this study. This study sought to fill a gap in the literature by assessing the
belief of employee effectiveness among student affairs professionals during the COVID-19
pandemic, the strategies organizations and leaders implemented that supported the well-being of
employees during a critical time, and how the person, behavior, and environment influence one
another.

30

Chapter Three: Methodology
Chapter Three outlines the methodology used in this study. The chapter will also provide
an overview of the study’s research setting, data source, validity, reliability, and ethics.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. How have burnout, emotional exhaustion, and fatigue impacted beliefs about
employee effectiveness throughout the COVID-19 pandemic?
2. What specific strategies have organizations and leaders implemented that support the
well-being of their employees during the COVID-19 pandemic?
Overview of Design
I designed the study within a thematic dissertation group of several doctoral students. In
general, the study’s instrumentation was shared across multiple studies with a few varying
questions regarding demographics and formatting of the open-ended questions. Each researcher
also conducted the study in different industries, and thus, had different samples of participants.
The study’s methodological approach was quantitative, rooted in research questions examining
potential causal and descriptive effects or outcomes. The data collection method for both
research questions was a survey (questionnaire) with both close-ended and open-ended
questions.
Research Setting
Data was gathered directly from student affairs professionals to capture their lived
experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Student affairs professionals are university
employees that hold a wide range of roles, from leadership to frontline positions across various
departments (Pritchard & McChesney, 2018). As a result of the nature of the profession, student
31

affairs staff often sacrifice their well-being to serve students (Naifeh, 2019). The study solicited
responses from student affairs professionals nationwide to undertake this pressing issue and shed
light on sustainable practices beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. It is also important to note that it
was nearly impossible to survey the entire profession; thus, a sample was invited to take the
survey online via Qualtrics. Later, I will detail further reasons for this approach in the
participants’ sub-section under data source.
The Researcher
Through inquiry, I aimed to understand the levels of employee stress and the need to
support employee well-being. More specifically, I looked forward to examining higher education
institutions’ practices that effectively supported the well-being of student affairs professionals
during the COVID-19 pandemic. My intersectional identities of being a Latina woman
millennial, daughter of immigrants, first-generation professional, student affairs leader, and more
informed my approach to this research study. My lived experiences of constantly needing to
negotiate and advocate for prioritizing employees’ well-being and my own shaped my
perspective. Additionally, my lived experiences propelled me to utilize my privilege to advance
and uplift others, especially underrepresented communities, in research. While the profession is
not gender, racially, or ethnically diverse nor representative of the student population at colleges
and universities in the United States (Pritchard & McChesney, 2018), encouraging a diverse
group of professionals to participate in this study was a priority for me. I made this a priority
because Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) have disproportionately faced higher
levels of occupational stress and were disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic
(CDC, 2020). To garner a representative yet purposeful sample, I followed previously outlined
protocols (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
32

Moreover, many of my intersectional identities, as illustrated by Morgan’s (2014)
“Intersecting Wheel of Privilege, Domination, and Oppression,” intersected with the topic at
hand. I am aware of my bias and position concerning this study. I am no longer a direct service
provider but a member of a university’s student affairs leadership team. I do not have the same
perspective and experience as those I hoped to impact with my research positively. This
positioning relative to the topic required me to approach this study with humility, openness, and
most importantly, to elevate the voices of those directly impacted. I mitigated any issues of bias
by ensuring the survey instrument was peer-reviewed and piloted. I also designed the study to be
quantitative to understand phenomena as much as possible through measurement espousing
objectivity.
Data Source
This study was reviewed and approved by the University of Southern California’s
Institution Review Board (IRB). I recruited respondents to take the online survey created and
stored on the Qualtrics platform after obtaining IRB approval.
Survey
As Robinson and Firth Leonard (2019) stated, a survey lends itself to examining
opinions, attitudes, and behavior, which is the goal inherent to the two research questions for this
study. Scholars also noted that using a quantitative design will facilitate deduction, objectivity,
and generality (Morgan, 2014). As a result, a survey was disseminated to gain information on the
student affairs professionals’ beliefs about employee effectiveness and opinions on what leaders
implemented that supported the well-being of employees during the COVID-19 pandemic. This
study’s survey had 26 questions in total. These questions included nine demographic questions,
13 Likert-like close-ended questions, and four open-ended questions, as seen in Appendix A.
33

Due to the nature of the study, a survey instrument with close-ended and open-ended
questions was the most appropriate for this study as it typically yields many respondents
efficiently and cost-effectively and draws in a variety of attitudes, thoughts, perceptions, beliefs,
and more (Johnson & Christensen, 2015; Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019). Additionally,
Robinson and Firth Leonard (2019) noted that a benefit of having a quantitative study is that it
provides a standardized process that lends itself well to running a comparative analysis, for
example, between subgroups.
Participants
The target participants for this field-based study were student affairs professionals
working in higher education institutions in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. I
recruited a nonprobability sample utilizing a combination of convenience and snowball sampling
to capture the diversity of the population (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The nonprobability sample helped capture a robust yet purposeful sample of participants and
their experience in the profession during these unprecedented times.
Given that there are a variety of titles university employees may hold and there are many
departments and divisions they are housed in, the population of the student affairs profession was
difficult to quantify. Nonetheless, I proposed a sample size of 384 based on the literature
reviewed in Chapter Two and the available data on student and academic affairs professionals. It
was estimated that in Fall 2020, in 6,440 institutions, there were about 181,283 employees in this
field (NCES, n.d.-b). With all this information, I aligned with other empirical studies and what
software such as Raosoft recommended.
The survey was ultimately distributed via Qualtrics to 638 participants via three channels.
An email was sent to various student affairs list serves, including Council for Opportunity in
34

Education TRIO network. A call for participants was also communicated at an annual conference
for members of NASPA. Thirdly, various LinkedIn and Instagram posts where the study details
and survey link were posted to different student affairs groups and affiliates. The total usable
sample size was 409. Some respondents were omitted as they contained incomplete answers to
questions necessary for the final analysis. Most incomplete answers were associated with the
close-ended questions needed for analysis.
Although 409 participants comprised the total usable sample, 262 responded to the open-
ended questions. I then performed a power analysis for the Pearson correlation, indicating that
the observed power for identifying a moderate correlation (r = .30) as statistically significant was
1.000 with N = 409. For testing mean differences with an effect size of .50, which is considered a
medium effect using Cohen’s (1988) criteria, the observed power was .999. Thus, the odds of
identifying a difference with an effect size of .50 or greater as statistically significant were .999
(assuming the two groups had about the same number of cases).
Overall, 60.9% (n = 249) of the study participants identified as female and 46.7% (n =
191) identified as White or European American. A total of 34.5% (n = 141) participants work or
worked at a public university and more specifically, 54.5% (n = 222) indicated they had worked
or work at a minority-serving institution. A minority-serving institution (MSI) is a designation a
college or university may receive based on its mission and operations set up to serve minority
populations of students (Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Civil Rights, n.d.). Minority-serving
institutions include Historically Black College or University, Hispanic Serving Institution, Asian
American Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institution, and more. Additional
demographic details on the survey respondents are highlighted in Table 1.

35

Table 1
Demographics of Participants (N = 409)
Characteristic n %
Gender

Female
249 60.9%
Male
148 36.2%
Race/Ethnicity

White or European
American
191 46.7%
Latinx or Hispanic
100 24.4%
Black, African, or African
American
48 11.7%
Asian or Asian American
23 5.6%
American Indian or Native
Alaskan
12 2.9%
Multi-ethnic
27 6.6%
Institution type

Public university
141 34.5%
Community college
95 23.2%
Private university
81 19.8%
Liberal arts college
42 10.3%
Technical/vocational college
15 3.7%
For-profit college
13 3.2%
Minority-serving institution

Yes
222 54.3%
No 165 40.3%

In addition, respondents were able to select more than one department or work unit in
student affairs that best described their own, thus, the percentages equal more than 100%. While
it was an extensive list of departments or units to select from, it was not exhaustive. The top five
36

departments or units represented in this sample were 44% (n = 180) from academic services,
17.1% (n = 77) from admissions and enrollment, 13.4% (n = 55) from career and employment
services, 13.4% (n = 55) from diversity and inclusion, and 13.2% (n = 54) from outreach and
recruitment. Participants also indicated the percentage of their role was student-facing. Sixty
percent (60.3%, n = 247) indicated an option from a list whose role was 51% or more student-
facing, and 27.5% (n = 113) indicated an option below 50%. Lastly, participants indicated the
number of years in the student affairs profession based on several categorical options. Thirty-
nine percent (39.9%, n = 163) of participants selected the category three to five years (see Figure
2).

Figure 2
Total Survey Respondents by Years in the Profession

37

Instrumentation
The instrument for this study was a self-administered online survey using the Qualtrics
platform. The survey measured the constructs of burnout, fatigue, emotional exhaustion,
organizational support, and perceptions of effectiveness and well-being, addressing both research
questions. As shown in Appendix A, the survey included nine demographic questions, 13 Likert-
like questions, and four open-ended questions for a total of 26 questions. The demographic
questions, Questions 1–9, were included initially to disaggregate the data and potentially aid
employers in implementing targeted strategies for specific demographics. Demographic
questions were worded with the utmost sensitivity and aligned with the current terminology most
used by each subgroup (Rosenberg, 2017).
For survey questions, Questions 10 and 11, I adopted the items measuring burnout and
emotional exhaustion from Maslach Burnout Inventory Two Item (MBI-2) (Bakker et al., 2002;
Maslach & Leiter, 2021; West et al., 2012). The following four questions, Questions 12–15,
came from the FAS (Michielsen et al., 2004). While I addressed perceptions of employee
effectiveness with Questions 16-18, informed and adapted by the PSS modified to the context of
work (Cohen et al., 1983). Two items assessed organizational support from Gallup’s Q12
Employee Engagement Survey (Q12), Questions 19 and 20 (Gallup, n.d.). Finally, for Questions
21 and 22, the researchers in the thematic dissertation group and I piloted two items to measure
employees’ pre-pandemic and current state of well-being and perceptions of effectiveness.
The four open-ended questions at the end of the survey aimed to facilitate opinions on
what strategies were effective and impactful for their well-being implemented by the university
as the organization and the direct supervisor.
38

Data Collection Procedures
After review and approval from the University of Southern California’s IRB, the
procedures for collecting data were distributing the online survey via Qualtrics to student affairs
professionals via email to two student affairs professional networks and sent via other social
networking platforms as detailed in the participants sub-section. The survey was available for
approximately four weeks with a deadline for completing the survey of April 1, 2022.
Participants were able to complete the survey within 8 to 10 minutes. The survey was
intentionally concise since scholars recommend minimizing the time needed to complete a
survey as much as possible as survey fatigue and nonresponse can negatively impact data
collection (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019). Moreover, the survey was confidential.
The call for participants communications included details on the study, and the Qualtrics
survey reiterated in the introduction details about consent. I reassured respondents that their
responses would remain confidential and that they had the opportunity to be entered into a
drawing for 1 of 20 $10 gift cards as compensation for the time it took to participate in this
study. Respondents then provided their email if they desired to enter the drawing. Lastly,
Robinson and Firth Leonard (2019) recommended that the researcher monitor data collection
throughout the collection process, and I was able to do that using the Qualtrics platform.
Data Analysis
Upon collecting the data from Qualtrics at the close of the survey, the raw data was
password-protected in a cloud management system. For Research Question 1, using SPSS
statistical analysis software, the data analysis began with descriptive statistics of 13 Likert-like
scale survey items. I utilized multiple measures and grouped each item in the original
measurement scale from which I adapted or adopted it. Afterward, data analysis continued with a
39

statistical analysis of the dependent and independent variables. The statistical analysis included
computing the composite scores for the variables of burnout, fatigue, and perceptions of
employee effectiveness (employee ineffectiveness). I also calculated the dependent variable’s,
employee ineffectiveness, mean, median, mode, skewness, kurtosis, and Cronbach’s alpha. Next,
I did a statistical analysis of the independent variables of burnout, fatigue, emotional exhaustion,
organizational support in the form of equipment, and organizational support in the form of a
supervisor or someone at work caring and correlational analysis of those variables. Demographic
and work characteristics were analyzed using ANOVA and t-tests to observe any differences in
the means. Lastly, for Research Question 2, using qualitative data analysis and research software
ATLAS TI, a codebook was developed, and the open-ended responses were then coded into
themes and sub-themes accordingly. The frequencies for each theme were calculated by
occurrences and the number of participants.
Validity and Reliability
Salkind (2014) described validity as the extent to which the survey measures what the
purpose outlines and reliability as the extent to which the results would be consistent with similar
studies. To ensure I administered a high-quality survey, I enacted different strategies to
maximize the reliability and validity of the survey. Using mainly a survey with a standardized
process and close-ended questions increased the instrument’s reliability (Robinson & Firth
Leonard, 2019; Salkind, 2014).
For example, the survey items were adopted from instruments like the MBI-2, based on
Maslach’s work that has been validated for over 30 years, adding to the construct validity
(Salkind, 2014). MBI-2 outcomes in the original study exhibited strong associations (p ≤ 0.008)
with each outcome (West et al., 2012). Other items from scales that measure fatigue and stress
40

were derived from tested instruments that indicated reliability and validity when measuring
fatigue and perceived stress (Cohen et al., 1983; Michielsen et al., 2004). The items measuring
fatigue came from a 10-item scale with a Cronbach’s alpha of .87 in the original study
(Michielsen et al., 2004). Meanwhile, the perceived stress items have shown to be highly reliable
and valid with the full scale and each factor having a Cronbach’s alpha exceeding .70 (Smith et
al., 2014). At last, the total target number of participants was within the margin error of 5% and a
confidence level of 95%, given the population size.
Ethics
There were many considerations concerning the involvement of human participants in
this research. First and foremost, as previously mentioned, this study received approval from the
IRB of the University of Southern California. Several doctoral students, including me, developed
the survey protocol and reviewed them extensively to address potential bias. As Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) described, I also navigated other considerations related to consent by obtaining
informed consent before participants engaged in the survey. Qualtrics also allowed me to display
an opening message where all survey details were made accessible to facilitate the process. It is
also important to note that participants were able to withdraw from the study at any time.
Regarding confidentiality, I did not collect or extract names or other identifiers from the
Qualtrics platform. Contact information was only used to randomly select 20 participants to
receive compensation for participating in the survey. The following chapter will detail the
findings of this study.

41

Chapter Four: Findings
This study examined higher education institutions’ organizational and leadership
practices that improved student affairs professionals’ well-being and the beliefs about their
effectiveness at work during the COVID-19 pandemic. I sought to establish these professionals’
current state of well-being and how they compared their effectiveness and well-being to before
the pandemic. Furthermore, I investigated strategies that supported the participants’ well-being.
The subsequent sections provide the overall results and findings to address the research
questions:
1. How have burnout, emotional exhaustion, and fatigue impacted beliefs about
employee effectiveness throughout the COVID-19 pandemic?
2. What specific strategies have organizations and leaders implemented that support the
well-being of their employees during the COVID-19 pandemic?
Relevant to Research Question 1 addressed whether burnout, fatigue, emotional
exhaustion, organizational support in the form of equipment, and organizational support in the
form of a supervisor or someone at work caring were associated with employees’ self-reported
ineffectiveness. Thus, the dependent variable is the employees’ perceptions of their
effectiveness, and the other variables are independent. Response analysis addresses the second
research question on specific strategies to support well-being during the pandemic. The
discussion regarding each research question outlines the statistical measure used, a summary of
results, and findings.

42

Research Question 1: How Have Burnout, Emotional Exhaustion, and Fatigue Impacted
Employee Beliefs About Their Effectiveness Throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic?
To address the first research question, three themes emerged from the data analysis. The
first was that participants felt burned out and were callous toward others. Second, respondents
had difficulty controlling things in their lives but felt confident in their ability to handle work
problems when they were piling up. Third, participants perceived organizational support. The
following sections also present statistical analysis of the dependent variable.
Student Affairs Professionals Are Burned Out and Callous Towards Others Since Taking
the Job
Respondents reported feeling burned out from their work, with 56.4% experiencing
burnout at least a few times a month or more. Overall, Question 10 measured sentiments of
burnout and emotional exhaustion. Regarding whether participants became more callous toward
people since taking their jobs, 26.9% responded they had become so at least a few times a month
or more (Table 2), which warrants further analysis of the state of student affairs professionals.
Table 2
Survey Responses on Burnout
Survey question n M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Burnout Never
A few
times a
year or
less
Once a
month or
less
A few
times a
month
Once a
week
A few
times a
week
Every
day
Q10. I feel
burned out
from my work.
408 3.85 1.65 4.9% 20.0% 18.3% 27.4% 7.3% 14.4% 7.3%
Q11. I have
become more
callous toward
people since I
took this job.
407 2.54 1.45 30.1% 27.9% 14.7% 15.9% 7.1% 3.7% 0.2%

43

Note. Response at the low-end range = 1 and response at the high-end range = 7. The table
overall details the distribution of responses, means, and standard deviations.

Student Affairs Professionals Are Mentally and Physically Exhausted Yet Manage to
Concentrate When Doing Something
Respondents reported feeling mentally and physically exhausted (Table 3). Forty-eight
(48.7%) reported regularly to always feeling mentally exhausted. Similarly, 45.3% reported
feeling physically exhausted regularly to always, and 55% reported having energy for everyday
life. In addition, 2.7% of respondents noted they never have enough energy for everyday life,
which could be due to an array of reasons. Furthermore, the results indicate that 63.6% could
regularly to always concentrate when they were doing something.

44

Table 3
Survey Responses on Fatigue
Survey question n M SD 1 2 3 4 5
Fatigue Never Sometimes Regularly Often Always
Q12. Mentally, I feel
exhausted.
406 2.78 1.06 4.9% 45.7% 23.5% 16.6% 8.6%
Q13. Physically, I feel
exhausted.
404 2.69 1.01 5.4% 48.2% 23.7% 15.2% 6.4%
Q14. I have enough
energy for everyday
life. (Reversed coded)
408 3.14 0.98 2.7% 42.1% 27.6% 21.8% 5.6%
Q15. When I am doing
something, I can
concentrate quite well.
(Reversed coded)
408 2.98 0.99 2.0% 34.2% 31.5% 24.0% 8.1%

Note. Response at the low-end range = 1, and response at the high-end range = 5. The table
overall details the distribution of responses, means, and standard deviations.

Respondents Experience Difficulties Controlling Things in Their Life but Felt Confident in
Their Ability to Handle Work Problems Even Though They Were Piling Up
A total of 21.7% of respondents indicated that, in the last month, they fairly often or very
often felt unable to control the important things in their lives, revealing that their outlooks on life
can take a toll due to their states of being. The impact goes beyond a perception of effectiveness
at work. On the other hand, 54% of respondents felt confident in their ability to handle work
problems, perhaps because they believed they had the skills and training to do their jobs or
perceived they had the organizational support to do their jobs right. Despite their beliefs in their
ability to handle work problems, 18.6% of respondents reported that, in the last month, they at
least fairly often felt they could not overcome difficulties at work. Overall, this finding indicates
45

that beliefs about the ability to succeed in their roles are not an issue. Rather, respondents may be
overextended, as prior research documents capacity as a concern in the profession. Table 4
summarizes the responses to Questions 16, 17, and 18.

Table 4
Survey Responses on Effectiveness
Survey question n M SD 1 2 3 4 5
Effectiveness Never
Almost
never
Sometimes
Fairly
often
Very
often
Q16. In the last month,
how often have you
felt that you were
unable to control the
important things in
your life?
408 2.88 0.88 4.2% 29.1% 44.7% 18.3% 3.4%
Q17. In the last month,
how often have you
felt confident about
your ability to handle
your problems at
work? (Reversed
coded)
407 2.37 0.89 0.5% 8.1% 36.9% 35.9% 18.1%
Q18. In the last month,
how often have you
felt difficulties at
work were piling up
so high that you could
not overcome them?
406 2.82 0.92 6.8% 26.9% 46.9% 14.2% 4.4%

Note. Response at the low-end range = 1, and response at the high-end range = 5. The table
overall details the distribution of responses, means, and standard deviations.

46

Student Affairs Professionals Perceive Organizational Support
Sixty percent (60.7%) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they had the
materials and equipment to do their work right (Table 5). Also, 67.9% agreed or strongly agreed
that their supervisor or someone at work cared about them as a person. These findings are
noteworthy since equipment and care influence employees’ perceptions of organizational
support. Thus, the finding that 15.9% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with
Question 19 requires further analysis. A reason for this result could be that, at the time of this
study, campuses were once again pivoting to either hybrid or fully in-person work, and with any
change, there are challenges from operational and equipment gaps to higher-level issues.

Table 5
Survey Responses on Organizational Support
Survey question n M SD 1 2 3 4 5
Organizational support
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Q19. I have the
materials and
equipment I need to
do my work right.
(Reversed coded)
406 3.57 0.99 2.7% 13.2% 22.7% 46.0% 14.7%
Q20. My supervisor or
someone at work cares
about me as a person.
(Reversed coded)
407 3.82 1.03 3.2% 8.1% 20.3% 40.3% 27.6%

Note. Response at the low-end range = 1, and response at the high-end range = 5. The table
overall details the distribution of responses, means, and standard deviations.

47

Respondents’ Perceptions of Effectiveness and Well-Being Was Impacted by the COVID-
19 Pandemic
Forty-nine percent (49.6%) of participants indicated experiencing somewhat less or
significantly less effectiveness in their work than before the pandemic. On the other hand, 21.5%
reported more or significantly more effectiveness. Generating findings and best practices from
those who perceived an increase in their effectiveness is imperative. Those findings and best
practices can support other student affairs professionals, which was the goal of Research
Question 2 and is further discussed in this chapter’s next section.
Respondents also indicated their well-being was negatively impacted by the pandemic,
with 63% experiencing somewhat less or significantly less well-being. Nevertheless, 18.3%
reported more or significantly more well-being than before the pandemic (Table 6). As the
understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic’s impacts on employee effectiveness and well-being
unfolds, considering the many factors that influence effectiveness and well-being is critical.

48

Table 6
Survey Responses on State of Effectiveness and Well-Being Relative to Before the Pandemic
Survey question n M SD 1 2 3 4 5
Before pandemic
relative to now

Significantly
less
Somewhat
less
Same More
Significantly
more
Q21. How do you
compare your current
effectiveness in your
work relative to
before the pandemic?
(Reversed coded)
407 3.31 1.00 7.8% 41.8% 28.4% 16.9% 4.6%
Q22. How do you
compare your current
well-being relative to
before the pandemic?
(Reversed coded)
403 3.54 1.05 13.4% 49.6% 17.1% 13.2% 5.1%

Note. Response at the low-end range = 1, and response at the high-end range = 5. The table
overall details the distribution of responses, means, and standard deviations.

Statistical Analysis of Dependent Variable
This section provides the statistical analysis for the dependent variable of perceptions of
employee effectiveness. I measured perceptions of employee effectiveness with a composite
score from four items. Questions 17 and 18 were the only ones used from the PSS (Table 7),
instead of the original three items from PSS. The two remaining items that also measured
perceptions of employee effectiveness were Questions 21 and 22. The decision to measure the
dependent variable this way was based on the internal consistency and frequencies run in the
statistical software of IBM SPSS; the following sub-sections provide further details regarding
this decision.
49

Table 7
Item-Total Statistical Analysis for Employee Ineffectiveness

Scale mean
if item
deleted
Scale
variance if
item deleted
Corrected
item-total
correlation
Cronbach’s
alpha if item
deleted
Q17. In the last month, how often
have you felt confident about your
ability to handle your problems at
work? (Reversed coded)
9.68 4.544 .413 .524
Q18. In the last month, how often
have you felt difficulties at work
were piling up so high that you
could not overcome them?
9.21 4.647 .349 .567
Q21. How do you compare your
current effectiveness in your work
relative to before the pandemic?
(Reversed coded)
8.72 4.168 .418 .516
Q22. How do you compare your
current well-being relative to
before the pandemic? (Reversed
coded)
8.50 4.136 .381 .547

Reliability
The dependent variable’s internal consistency reliability, Cronbach’s alpha, was .609.
This reliability score was close to the research standard for most types of reliability of .70 or
higher (Salkind & Frey, 2020). Removing any of the four items would have reduced reliability.
Thus, all four items measuring perceptions of employee effectiveness were kept, as shown in
Table 7.
Descriptive Statistics
The following narrative details the descriptive statistics for the dependent variable of
perceptions of employee effectiveness using IBM SPSS. Salkind and Frey (2020) articulated that
descriptive statistics describe a sample. Thus, these statistics are a way to describe and analyze
50

self-reported results of employee ineffectiveness. The distribution was near normal for a sample
of 409. Presented in Table 8 are the details on the mean, median, and mode (3.00) on a scale of
one to five. These numbers demonstrated that the distribution approximated normal as the mean,
median, and more are very similar (Hocevar, 2022b).

Table 8
Descriptive Statistics for Measure of Employee Ineffectiveness
Mean 3.01
Median 3.00
Mode 3.00
Standard deviation .654
Variance .427
Skewness -.305
Standard error of skewness .121
Kurtosis -.265
Standard error of kurtosis .241

Note: N = 408. The scale ranges from 1 to 5. Employee ineffectiveness is a composite measure.

51

The skewness statistic further helps me observe a normal distribution. Hocevar (2022b)
noted that a perfectly normal curve skewness statistic is 0, and in this variable, the skewness is -
.305. This statistic was within the range of +1 or -1; therefore, I can conclude that this
distribution was approximately normal (Hair et al., 2021). Moreover, the kurtosis was -.265,
which is close to zero and within the +1 or -1 range. This statistic closely aligns with a normal
distribution of kurtosis of 0, and I can use parametric statistics since it is within range (Hocevar,
2022b). I had confidence that the Type I error was less than .05. These findings indicate that
error was not responsible for the differences; actual differences were likely present (Salkind &
Frey, 2020). Figure 3 is a histogram depicting an approximately normal curve line for employee
ineffectiveness.

52

Figure 3
Employee Ineffectiveness

Note: Distribution for employee ineffectiveness (n = 408, M = 3.01, SD =.654), a composite
measure.

Statistical Analysis of Independent Variables
This section presents the statistical analysis for the independent variables of burnout,
fatigue, emotional exhaustion, organizational support in the form of equipment, and
organizational support in the form of a supervisor or someone at work caring. Some of these
variables were also reorganized based on the internal consistency and frequencies run in the
53

statistical software of IBM SPSS. The measures for the variables of burnout and fatigue
remained the same. A single item from PSS measured emotional exhaustion: Question 16, “in the
last month, how often have you felt that you were unable to control the important things in your
life.” Finally, I separated organizational support into two independent variables, one measuring
organizational support in the form of equipment and one measuring it in the form of care because
of their internal consistency. Table 9 shows the statistical analysis for all the independent
variables.

Table 9
Statistical Analysis for Independent Variables
Independent variable M SD ɑ
Burnout 3.19 1.32 .619
Fatigue 2.90 0.74 .710
Emotional exhaustion 2.88 0.88 N/A
Organizational support: Equipment 3.57 0.99 N/A
Organizational support: Care 3.82 1.03 N/A

Note. N = 406

54

Reliability
The measure for burnout consisted of two items, and four items measured fatigue. Both
variables were near or exceeded the research standard for most types of reliability of .70 or
higher (Salkind & Frey, 2020). The remaining independent variables were single-item measures
due to having a low Cronbach’s alpha when tested in their original scale, as seen in Table 9.
Correlational Analysis of Variables
This section includes a correlational analysis of the independent variables of burnout,
fatigue, emotional exhaustion, organizational support in the form of equipment, organizational
support in the form of a supervisor or someone at work caring, and the dependent variable. This
type of analysis was needed because I sought to identify the strength of relationships among
variables (Salkind & Frey, 2020). To test the hypothesis, I used a Pearson correlation at a p < .05
level. Table 10 highlights the comparisons of the correlations between variables.

55

Table 10
Correlations Between Variables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
Burnout --
Fatigue
Pearson
correlation
.65* --
Emotional
exhaustion
Pearson
correlation
.42* .46* --
Organizational
support: Equipment
Pearson
correlation
-.31* -.35* -.17* --
Organizational
support: Care
Pearson
correlation
-.23* -.21* -.11* .29* --
Employee
ineffectiveness
Pearson
correlation
.46* .55* .32* -.27* -.25* --

Note. Listwise n = 406.
*p < .05. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Burnout, Fatigue, Emotional Exhaustion, and Organizational Support Impact Perceptions of
Employee Effectiveness
As shown in Table 10, all correlations were statistically significant at the p < .05 level
and in line with the literature. The results indicated that higher levels of burnout, fatigue, and
emotional exhaustion are associated with the self-reporting of higher levels of employee
ineffectiveness, and the correlations were in the moderate to large range. Also, higher levels of
organizational support (equipment) and organizational support (care) were associated with lower
levels of employee ineffectiveness.
Regarding the correlations between independent variables, the correlation was strongest
between burnout and fatigue with a positive strong correlation. Fatigue and employee
56

ineffectiveness also had a positive strong correlation. Next, fatigue and emotional exhaustion had
a positive moderate to strong correlation, as did burnout and emotional exhaustion. Furthermore,
burnout and fatigue had a moderate inverse correlation with organizational support (equipment).
Emotional exhaustion and employee ineffectiveness had a positive moderate correlation.
Organizational support (equipment) and organizational support (care) also had a positive weak to
moderate correlation. In addition, burnout and fatigue had a weak to moderate inverse correlation
with organizational support (care). Lastly, a weak relationship between emotional exhaustion and
organizational support variables was also statistically significant.
Perceptions of Employee Effectiveness Differed Across Demographic and Work Characteristic
Groups
This section provides the differences in perceptions of employee effectiveness among
demographic and work characteristics. Table 11 outlines the means and standard deviations for
the demographic characteristics, and Table 12 reports on the work characteristics. I used one-
way ANOVA and t-tests to analyze the differences among characteristics.

57

Table 11
The Relationship of Employee Ineffectiveness with Demographic Characteristics
Demographic
characteristics
n Employee ineffectiveness
M SD F Sig.
Gender 397 3.00 0.64 1.839 .176
Female 249 3.04 0.62
Male 148 2.95 0.68
Race/ethnicity 401 3.01 0.65 2.090 .066

American Indian or
Native Alaskan
12 2.50
a
0.79

Asian or Asian
American
23 3.08
b
0.74

Black, African, or
African American
48 3.04
b
0.46
Latinx or Hispanic 100 3.10
b
0.65

White or European
American
191 3.00
b
0.65
Multi-ethnic 27 2.92
a
0.71

Note. Statistically differing groups are indicated by shared superscripts.

58

Table 12
The Relationship of Employee Ineffectiveness with Work Characteristics
Work characteristics n Employee ineffectiveness
M SD F Sig.
Years in the
profession
408 3.01 0.65 1.185 .317
Less than 1 year 17 2.75 0.78
1–2 years 55 2.94 0.69
3–5 years 163 3.07 0.62
6–10 years 83 3.01 0.67

11 or more years
90 2.99 0.65
Percentage of role that
is student-facing
360 3.03 0.65 2.884 .004
0–20% 22 2.77 0.64
21–30% 20 2.83 0.57
31–40% 32 2.73 0.66
41–50% 39 3.24 0.61

51–60% 40 2.93 0.67
61–70% 45 3.22 0.68
71–80% 52 3.07 0.67
81–90% 55 3.10 0.57

91–100%
55 3.07 0.63
Institution type 386 3.02 0.65 1.410 .220
Community college 95 3.04 0.65
For-profit college 13 2.75 0.80
Liberal Arts college 42 2.90 0.53
Private university 81 3.13 0.71
Public university 140 3.03 0.65

Technical/
vocational college
15 2.83 0.56
Minority-serving
institution
387 3.00 0.03 .397 .529
Yes 222 2.98 0.04
No 165 3.03 0.05

After analyzing both demographic characteristics, one yielded a statistically significant
difference in the measure of perceptions of employee effectiveness. Race and ethnicity were
borderline significant, and American Indian or Native Alaskan and Multi-ethnic participants
59

differed in their level of employee effectiveness from other racial and ethnic groups. A lower
mean equals lower employee ineffectiveness (more effective) than others. Gender had no
statistically significant difference, but males self-reported a slightly higher effectiveness rating.
After analyzing work characteristics, the percentage of the role that was student-facing
resulted in a statistically significant difference in the measure of perceptions of employee
effectiveness. While years in the profession had no significant differences, the percentage of the
student-facing role was statistically significant at p = .004. The more the role was student-facing,
the higher the participants’ reported ineffectiveness. Next, the characteristic of institution type
had no significant differences. However, it is worth noting that technical or vocational college
employees had the lowest score of ineffectiveness, while those working for a private university
had the highest. The MSI group had no significant differences. Finally, I ran a t-test for each
department where the respondents worked, resulting in no significant differences. The highest
mean was for those working in residence programs; this signifies they reported higher levels of
employee ineffectiveness. The lowest mean was for those who worked in career and employment
services or diversity and inclusion, scoring lower in employee ineffectiveness overall.
In summary, the results pertaining to Research Question 1 were that burnout, fatigue, and
emotional exhaustion impacted respondents’ beliefs about their effectiveness throughout the
COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, burnout, fatigue, and emotional exhaustion were strongly,
moderately to strongly, or moderately correlated with employee ineffectiveness. The following
section discusses specific strategies that supported well-being.
60

Research Question 2: What Specific Strategies Have Organizations and Leaders
Implemented That Support the Well-Being of Their Employees During the COVID-19
Pandemic?
This study also sought to understand the strategies that higher education institution
leaders implemented to support student affairs professionals’ well-being. A total of 262
respondents answered the four open-ended questions at the end of the survey. Table 13 details
the number of times a code appeared per theme by open-ended question. A more detailed table of
all the themes and sub-themes is in Appendix B, and the codebook is in Appendix C.

Table 13
Summary of Findings and Frequencies by Number of Occurrences
Theme Organization
strategies
Most
effective
organization
strategies
Supervisor
strategies
Most
effective
supervisor
strategies
Total
Flexible work 155 109 88 62 414
No supervisor strategy - - - - 176
Psychological support 32 18 63 43 156
No org strategy - - - - 137
Communication 26 12 48 28 114
Work benefits 58 25 11 5 99
Equipment and safety 32 10 10 8 60
Social support 9 2 7 7 25
Other support 1 0 1 0 2

Note. No strategy themes indicated a response of none, no strategy, no effective strategy, N/A, or
similar answer for all four open-ended questions.

61

The results revealed seven general themes: flexible work, psychological support,
communication, work benefits, equipment and safety, social support, and other support. Two
additional themes captured when there was no strategy or no effective strategy. For no
organization-based strategies, the code appeared 137 times across both Open-Ended Questions 1
and 2, while no supervisor strategy was recorded 176 times for both Open-Ended Questions 3
and 4. Table 14 summarizes the number of respondents per theme per question and gives a theme
total.

Table 14
Summary of Findings and Frequencies by Number of Respondents (n = 262)
Theme Organization
strategies
Most effective
organization
strategies
Supervisor
strategies
Most effective
supervisor
strategies
Total per theme
n % n % n % n % n %
Flexible work 136 51.9 107 40.8 74 28.2 60 22.9 174 66.4
Psychological
support
27 10.3 18 6.9 53 20.2 41 15.6 75 28.6
Work benefits 52 19.8 24 9.2 11 4.2 5 1.9 64 24.4
Communication 23 8.8 11 4.2 42 16 28 10.7 59 22.5
Equipment and
safety
27 10.3 10 3.8 9 3.4 8 3.1 38 14.5
Social support 9 3.4 2 0.8 7 2.7 7 2.7 16 6.1
Other support 1 0.4 0 0 1 0.4 0 0 2 0.8

Note. The number of respondents per question per theme is outlined. Totals are the number of
respondents per theme.
62

The following sections address the findings from responses to each open-ended question
and provide a brief analysis for each. I coded the data with qualitative analysis and research
software ATLAS TI.
Strategies Implemented by Colleges and Universities That Supported Student Affairs
Professionals’ Well-being
The responses to Open-Ended Question 1 addressed the organizations’ policies or
practices to support respondents’ well-being during the pandemic. Figure 4 presents the
percentage of respondents who stated a strategy implemented for each theme. Fifty-one percent
(51.9%) of people who responded indicated that flexible work was a strategy that supported their
well-being. Flexible work strategies ranged from allowing employees to modify their work
location (i.e., remote or hybrid) to providing time for wellness during work hours or allowing
employees to adjust their work hours and schedules.
Additionally, 19.8% of respondents noted work benefits supported their well-being. The
phrase “work benefits” refers to benefits sustained or added for employees during the pandemic,
such as compensation, learning and development opportunities, or wellness resources. Next,
10.3% of respondents described equipment and safety as supporting their well-being. This
strategy included the equipment employees needed to do their job right and what institutions
implemented as COVID-19 safety measures. In addition, 10.3% of respondents reported
psychological support strategies supported their well-being. Psychological support ranged from
interpersonal or individualized strategies that met employees’ needs, such as compassion,
support, and trust. Then, 8.8% noted that communication also supported their well-being during
the pandemic. Finally, 0.4% reported other support strategies that supported them during this
time.
63

Figure 4
Themes for Open-Ended Question 1 by Percent of Respondents (n = 262)

The top four policies or practices (themes) were flexible work, work benefits,
psychological support, and equipment and safety. Table 15 further illuminates these top four
strategies with a summary of responses to the first open-ended question.

64

Table 15
Summary Table of Open-Ended Question 1
Question Strategy Sample responses
What policies or
practices, if any, did
your organization
implement to
support your well-
being during the
pandemic?
Flexible work Giving us self-care time during the work
week
Flexible work schedule, remote work
Work benefits COVID leave. Optional furloughs.
Expanded mental health services through
apps
Added stipend to paycheck to offset costs of
working remotely
Various mental health conferences,
professional development trainings, and
resources
Freezing unused vacation time
Equipment and
safety
Mask mandate and vaccine requirement
Support purchases for in-home office
Psychological
support
Flexible with work/life balance
Small gifts and words of appreciation,
check-ins when working remotely, trust,
daily guidance, and operational plans

Moreover, a few responses stood out from the top themes. Primarily, flexible work
options impacted participants’ overall well-being. One respondent wrote,
Working from home has tremendously helped my well-being. My current department
continues to offer a hybrid model so that I can work from home part of the time, which
helps me to recharge and bring my best self to work on the days that I do come in; I
found I was getting very burned out coming in 5 days a week because I am introverted.
65

A second respondent stated, “No Zoom meetings before 9 am, 1 hour of self-care time per week,
1 Zoom-free Friday a month, [and] leadership calling employees to talk about how they are
handling the pandemic. A third noted, “My employer was VERY flexible during the first 2 years
of the pandemic. But now that there is pressure to return back to in-person learning, there is still
flexibility, but it is slowly being tightened up.” A fourth response was, “Flexible/supportive with
medical/health appointments and adjusted work schedule to care for self and family.”
About work benefits that were added or sustained during the COVID-19 pandemic, one
respondent stated, “Mental health counseling and creating an organization for BIPOC women.”
Another mentioned, “A couple of workshops on self-care when it became evident we were
taking on a lot of student issues that were crossing over into helping them with mental health.
One small financial incentive of $500 recognition for extra work at the end of 2021 for all
classified employees.”
Lastly, two responses described psychological support provided to employees during
these unprecedented times. One stated, “As an institution, nothing. Our department leadership
did a great job of creating a culture of care through one-on-one check-ins, Zoom-free Friday
afternoons, and blocking our specific time on our calendars for student meetings to not become
overwhelmed.” The other noted,
I have worked for the same public university for the past 3 years. … In the first year, I
felt totally supported. … The flexibility was nice, and I did not feel obligated to push
myself to work when I was sick. I became MORE likely to advocate for recovery days as
needed.

66

Most Effective Strategies Implemented by Colleges and Universities That Supported
Student Affairs Professionals’ Well-Being
Open-Ended Question 2 addressed the most effective strategies for supporting student
affairs professionals’ well-being during the pandemic. Figure 5 shows the total percentage of
respondents who mentioned each theme. While more than one practice or policy could have been
mentioned per theme, it was counted once under the total percentage of respondents to avoid
duplicates. Approximately 40% of respondents indicated that flexible work was the most
effective in supporting their well-being. Other respondents noted work benefits, psychological
support, communication, and equipment and safety. None reported other types of support
strategies as most effective.

67

Figure 5
Themes for Open-Ended Question 2 by Percent of Respondents (n = 262)

The top two strategies (themes) were flexible work and work benefits. As mentioned,
flexible work ranged from allowing employees to modify their work location or work hours to
providing wellness time. Work benefits that colleges and universities sustained or added were
compensation, learning and development opportunities, and wellness resources. Table 16
provides a summary of the responses provided for the top two themes.

68

Table 16
Summary Table of Open-Ended Question 2
Question Strategy Responses
Which of these
organization
policies or
practices did
you think was
most effective?
Flexible work Remote work supported with student contact tools.
Mental health and flex work schedules.
I appreciated having no meetings on Friday so I can get
time to do my work and not worry about having to
prepare or join a meeting.
Working from home was a good option. However, there
were technology challenges.
The decision that my individual department made to
continue to offer work hybrid has been fantastic for
my well-being and productivity.
Flexibility with working from home. The pandemic
really highlighted how we can be just as effective
working from home.
The time to disconnect from the computer during the
workday.
Work benefits Employee wellness programs, including counseling
Mentorship
COVID-19 sick leave

Ultimately, flexible work surfaced as the most effective strategy. A few responses stood
out from the top themes. One respondent stated, “Remote work for sure. Has allowed me to have
a more life-work balance rather than work-life balance.” Another wrote, “Flexible scheduling is
effective at supporting employees in balancing work and family/home responsibilities, and also
helps reduce our carbon footprint and transportation costs for employees.” A third participant
noted,
[Working from home] and working less hours actually positively impacted my well-being
and mental health. As an introvert, I felt I was able to focus more, stay on task, and work
at a pace that allowed me to take breaks when needed. Currently, back in office, I share
an office with two other staff, which contributes to a less than effective work schedule.
69

Lastly, one respondent highlighted “The mental health day, which was actually only 4 hours so
1/2 a day.”
The second most effective strategy was work benefits. The following response highlights
the sentiments regarding the work benefits granted during the pandemic: “Added stipend to
paycheck to offset costs of working remotely. … University programming … to lift spirits, to
explain psychological toll of pandemic. … I love working for my university.”
Strategies Implemented by Supervisors That Supported Student Affairs Professionals’
Well-being
This section presents the analysis of the responses to Open-Ended Question 3, “What
policies or practices, if any, did your direct supervisor implement to support your well-being
during the pandemic?” Figure 6 demonstrates the percentage of respondents who reported a
strategy for each theme. Approximately 28% of respondents indicated that their direct
supervisors deployed flexible work as a strategy to support their well-being. Other responses
were psychological support, communication, work benefits, equipment and safety, and other
types of support strategies.

70

Figure 6
Themes for Open-Ended Question 3 by Percent of Respondents (n = 262)

The top three strategies were flexible work, psychological support, and communication.
Once again, flexible work ranged from the direct supervisor allowing employees to modify their
work location or hours to providing time for wellness. Psychological support strategies were the
interpersonal or individualized strategies direct supervisors engaged with to meet their
employees’ needs, such as compassion, support, and trust. Finally, communication occurred via
check-ins, phone calls, emails, one-on-ones, and other means. The topics ranged from covering
71

COVID-19 updates and changes to communicating clear expectations. Table 17 displays a
summary of responses regarding the top three strategies.

Table 17
Summary Table of Open-Ended Question 3
Question
Strategy
Responses
What policies or
practices, if
any, did your
direct
supervisor
implement to
support your
well-being
during the
pandemic?
Flexible work Flexible work hours. Not holding us to
the typical 9 to 5 work day
Really supportive with us taking Zoom
breaks, adjusting work time to fit
family needs, encouraging us to work
smarter and not harder
I think being understanding and flexible
about virtual work options and hybrid
work more so than the larger
university as a whole
Remind us to take time off.
Psychological support She trusted us to get our work done and
wasn’t overly concerned with “optics”
but rather what was practical and
effective.
Being understanding of the transition
and trying to balance
work/home/family
More verbal encouragement
Communication Weekly 1:1s focused on personal
support vs. professional, continual
transparency with expectations,
overall relaxed/supportive demeanor
Trusting and open communication. My
supervisor listens and is empathetic.
Virtual check-ins, open communication
about expectations

72

Additionally, a few responses stood out from the top three themes. Respondents spoke
about their ability to have flexible work. One stated, “One of my direct supervisors cut down our
meetings or let us meet via phone call, which was different and helpful. He also allowed us to
work half days when the days were slow or students were unresponsive.” Another participant
noted,
Compensated time was always given by several of my supervisors. In essence, if we were
to, say, volunteer for different events or to co-present when we were not expected to, we
could redeem said time during the regular work week. Say we volunteer our time at an
event on Saturday for 3 hours. And the following Friday, we wanted to log out or leave
for the day early, we were now able to. That give-and-take relationship incentivized us to
go beyond the expectations.
A third respondent stated, “My supervisor allowed us to have a flexible schedule, work whenever
it was best for us. Whether that be early mornings, late nights, weekends; She let us do what is
best for us.” A fourth participant discussed,
My direct supervisor was unable to implement any policies as her director did not
allow anything. Practices she did implement were reinforced breaks, team debriefs,
time off the screen, etc. It was kind as she had seen me as a person and taught me to
put myself and health first before work. Especially with COVID at its peak.
Furthermore, supervisors implemented strategies of psychological support, and
respondents highlighted the following in their open-ended responses. One participant wrote,
My direct supervisor assured us that when the policy was not quite set for return to
work, that he would ensure we could work in whatever means we were comfortable
with. For example, we had to do an in-person event at the height of the Delta variant
73

wave, and he said that if I felt uncomfortable while at the event, that I could leave,
and he would cover for me. That made me feel really listened to, and while I wound
up being okay at the event, his willingness to look out for us was a direct contributing
factor to why I actually felt comfortable enough to work the in-person event.
A second response was “making sure the team’s communication was built on trust, not
everything had to be another Zoom meeting. People had more autonomy to work in a way that
was best for them while considering how they communicated with the team.” A third participant
noted, “My supervisor also encouraged our staff to pull back from responsibilities we were
taking out outside of our academic advising purview.” The fourth noteworthy response stated,
She was GREAT! … Checked in on us personally, understood life upheaval that the
pandemic brought to us. Allowed us to do our jobs remotely and did not
micromanage. We still served students and were effective amidst Zooming and
reduced in-person contact due to students going online.
Finally, communication was another strategy supervisors utilized. The following is an
example of a response that stood out and highlighted this strategy: “Openness to talk about
current state: emotional, mental, physical and supportive of needs without being punitive.”
Most Effective Strategies Implemented by Supervisors That Supported Student Affairs
Professionals’ Well-being
Open-Ended Question 4 asked which strategies were most effective. Figure 7 describes
the total percentage of respondents who noted each theme. Like Open-Ended Question 2, this
means that more than one practice or policy could have been mentioned per theme, but it was
counted once under the total percentage of respondents to avoid duplicates. Approximately 22%
of respondents indicated that flexible work most effectively supported their well-being during the
74

COVID-19 pandemic. Others noted psychological support, communication, equipment and
safety, and work benefits.

Figure 7
Themes for Open-Ended Question 4 by Percent of Respondents (n = 262)

75

The top three strategies were flexible work, psychological support, and communication.
Previous sections defined flexible work. Psychological support included supervisors meeting
employees’ needs by displaying compassion and trust and providing support. Communication
ranged from one-on-one check-ins to phone calls and team meetings. The topics spanned from
sharing COVID-19 updates and changes to communicating clear expectations and checking in on
a personal level. A summary of responses in Table 18 displays the top three most effective
supervisor strategies.

Table 18
Summary Table of Open-Ended Question 4
Open-ended question Strategy Responses
Which of these direct
supervisor policies or
practices did you
think was most
effective?
Flexible work Work from home option
Mental health days
Schedule flexibility
Psychological support Giving the team trust and autonomy
Encouragement
Being there/seeing me as a person first,
employee second
Real and sincere support and concern.
Communication The communication of expectations and
flexibility was really nice.
Listening to understand
Open communication

76

In summary, flexible work was the most effective strategy direct supervisors
implemented. Some responses stood out from the top theme of flexible work. One respondent
stated,
Overall, a flexible work model (choosing or planning when to WFH or come into the
office) and compensated hours (either overtime or early off days) have been the most
effective practices implemented. I feel in control, and I feel fairly compensated.
Another stated, “The flexibility with work hours was really great for my mental health. It
allowed me to step/work from outside on my porch access the sun and nice days. The
communication of expectations and flexibility was really nice. A third participant’s response also
discussed flexibility: “Agreeing to let me work remotely at my discretion even after stay-at-home
practices were lifted. Giving me agency to choose my workplace and my schedule has given me
flexibility to do my work more effectively.”
The second most effective strategy direct supervisors implemented was psychological
support. Respondents detailed the psychological support they received. One stated, “Having help
answering student queries was wonderful, but the overall workload was still more than pre-
pandemic.” Another noted,
My direct supervisor cares deeply for his staff. We are very fortunate that he looks out for
our well-being and has advocated for us with policy and practice within the office. I
never felt that he judged me when I brought any concerns to him, and he is careful to
always follow up and give me updates on any challenges related to COVID.
A third response was, “The permission to just ‘be.’ allowed to own anxiety about the state of the
world and to be vocal.” Another participant stated that their supervisor “expressed care and
concern for employees’ mental health and well-being. … I felt valued and treated as a full
77

person, not just a worker.” A fourth answer discussed that supervisors “know how challenging
this time has been and appreciate our time and commitment to students and acknowledge this
AND trust us to do our work and support our student’s success.”
The final strategy that direct supervisors implemented was communication. A response
that stood out stated, “My direct supervisor … is careful to always follow up and give me
updates on any challenges related to COVID.”
Response analysis yielded seven primary themes: flexible work, psychological support,
work benefits, communication, equipment and safety, social support, and other support. Some
strategies were reported to be more effective than others. The respondents mostly mentioned
practices or policies related to flexible work, psychological support, and communication.
Summary
This chapter provided an overview of the study’s results to answer the two research
questions. This quantitative study aimed to examine higher education organizational and
leadership practices implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic that increased the well-being
of student affairs professionals. In response to Research Question 1, the findings demonstrated
that burnout, fatigue, and emotional exhaustion impacted respondents’ beliefs about their
effectiveness. Equipment and care were associated with beliefs about effectiveness. Also,
participants who had a role with more student-facing responsibilities reported higher
ineffectiveness due to burnout, fatigue, and emotional exhaustion. American Indian or Native
Alaskan and multi-ethnic participants differed from other racial and ethnic groups because they
reported effectiveness at higher rates than participants.
Seven themes emerged to address Research Question 2. The respondents provided
specific insight into strategies that improved well-being and identified the most effective ones.
78

The most salient themes were the strategies of flexible work, psychological support, work
benefits, communication, equipment and safety, social support, and other support. The following
chapter will discuss the findings further and present the recommendations for addressing how the
COVID-19 pandemic created high occupational stress, reducing employee well-being.

79

Chapter Five: Recommendations
This study aimed to examine higher education organizational and leadership practices
during the COVID-19 pandemic that benefited student affairs professionals’ well-being. I
established these professionals’ current well-being and how they compared it and their
effectiveness to before the pandemic. Then, I uncovered how participants’ institutions and
leaders supported employee well-being beyond the pandemic. This chapter provides an overview
of the findings and outlines five recommendations to address the problem of practice. The
chapter also includes the study’s limitations, delimitations, and recommendations for future
research. The chapter concludes with a brief overview of the entire study.
Discussion of Findings
The study’s findings illustrate the relationship between student affairs professionals’
perceptions of effectiveness with burnout, emotional exhaustion, fatigue, organizational support
in the form of equipment, and organizational support in the form of a supervisor or someone at
work caring. Strategies for supporting these professionals’ well-being are also highlighted based
on the findings.
Burnout, Fatigue, and Emotional Exhaustion Impact Beliefs About Effectiveness
Respondents were burned out, confirming the literature on burnout and job stress as
prevalent in their profession (Chessman, 2021; Mullen et al., 2018). This study found that the
participants had become callous towards others since taking on their roles. Another study about
student affairs professionals during the pandemic uncovered that they faced burnout, fatigue, and
emotional exhaustion due to the pressure of adapting to serve students in a different modality,
losing a sense of job control, and inability to do what they do best (Brazeau et al., 2020). Since
this was not a causal study, the findings did not indicate the reasons for burnout and fatigue;
80

however, the results demonstrate respondents experienced mental and physical exhaustion.
Despite the fatigue, they managed to concentrate when doing something.
This study demonstrated the COVID-19 pandemic’s effect on respondents’ perceptions of
effectiveness and well-being. Nielsen et al. (2017) observed that employees with strong well-
being tend to do well in their jobs and vice-versa. Thus, these findings are noteworthy because,
according to NCES (n.d.-a.), student affairs professionals serve nearly one-fifth of the student
population every day, and their service could suffer due to low well-being (ACHA, 2020; Mullen
et al., 2018).
Moreover, the findings highlighted that the perceptions of employee effectiveness
differed across work characteristics. Similar to the literature, the more a role is student-facing,
the higher fatigue levels observed. Sonnentag (2015) highlighted high fatigue levels among
human service professionals. In this study, respondents sought to provide quality service to their
students during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet despite their efforts, many with predominantly
student-facing roles felt ineffective. As they experience burnout, fatigue, and emotional
exhaustion, their beliefs about their effectiveness suffer. The pandemic, workplace stress, and
everyday life stressors impacted them as persons and vice-versa. The next sub-sections present
strategies that supported respondents’ well-being.
Student Affairs Professionals Perceive Organizational Support
This study’s results revealed specific strategies organizations and leaders implemented to
support employees’ well-being. One was organizational support. The study found that lower
levels of employee ineffectiveness were associated with organizational support in terms of
equipment and someone at work who cared about them as a person. The findings align with
similar research (Caesens et al., 2017; Gallup, 2020). This study also observed that when
81

employees had the equipment to do their job right, such as a monitor or a desk chair while
remote, they perceived overall higher well-being. Participants noted that having COVID-19
safety measures and mandates as a form of organizational support lessened their anxiety and
stress. These preventive measures included mask mandate, social distancing, vaccine mandate,
on-campus testing, and more. Many institutions provided employees with free personal
protective equipment and testing.
The study also highlighted flexible work, which improved employees’ well-being.
Flexible work, as another form of organizational support, included allowing employees to
modify their work location and hours to integrate wellness hours. This strategy mirrored Brazeau
et al.’s (2020) argument for minimizing emotional exhaustion during the COVID-19 pandemic
by allowing flexible work schedules. Many campuses mandated student affairs professionals to
work from home to comply with government-imposed preventive measures. Others extended
flexible work options to include work from home, hybrid, or a return to campus. Campuses
extended this flexibility to include work delivery methods, allowing employees to deliver certain
services virtually. The ability to control their work contributed to the employee’s overall well-
being in this study, as Bryson et al. (2014) and Pfeffer (2018) found. Overall, some participants
reported they modified their service hours or took time off to take care of themselves,
contributing to their overall well-being and effectiveness.
Additional or sustained official work benefits also supported respondents’ well-being.
Prior research discusses the positive effects of this support. These work benefits were increased
pay, stipend, and additional paid sick leave. These benefits can enhance perceived organizational
support that boosts employee well-being (Caesens et al., 2017). Other benefits were learning and
development opportunities or extended wellness services and resources. In particular, some
82

campuses provided a wellness application called Calm to their employees at no cost. Other
campuses provided free online counseling services, sustained their prior wellness programs, or
extended their wellness workshop offerings. This finding also aligns with prior research that
found workplace wellness programs improve physical and psychological well-being (Ryan et al.,
2021).
The more employees perceive their organization as supportive, the more their self-
efficacy increases, increasing their effectiveness (Caesens & Stinglhamber, 2014). As a result,
colleges and universities could benefit from this study’s findings as they strategize to increase
resources and funding. When student affairs professionals feel supported by their campus
regarding equipment and care, their perceptions of effectiveness also increase. Thus, the study
added to Sonnentag’s (2015) work on organizational support measures to increase employees’
effectiveness. Nonetheless, every college or university campus may have different needs and
capacities, so one size may not fit all (Travia et al., 2020).
Student Affairs Professionals’ Interactions with Supervisors and Peers Matter
Some of the practices discussed in this study highlight the importance of working
relationships. Some strategies fostered positive interactions with direct supervisors and enabled
peer support. In general, communication, psychological support, and different social types of
support practices benefit well-being. Though the types and flow of communication varied, it was
found to be imperative. Campuses and direct supervisors maintained contact with their staff
through check-ins, emails, phone calls, town halls, and one-on-one meetings. The topics
discussed included sharing COVID-19 updates, changes, and expectations. Clear communication
and manager support are critical, and gaps in these practices cause burnout (Gallup, 2020).
83

Respondents benefited from psychological empowerment and various forms of
psychological support from their direct supervisor or campus leaders. Psychological support
included leaders or supervisors showing compassion, expressing concern for their employees,
and seeing them as people first. Additionally, calls for employees to prioritize themselves, their
family, and their health improved their well-being. This type of psychological support indeed
strengthens the well-being of others (Lomas, 2019). The findings in this study also support
previous literature that found that the relationship between the employee and their supervisor is
imperative to their well-being, as the supervisor can help prevent emotional exhaustion (Caesens
et al., 2017; Day et al., 2017; Ellis et al., 2019).
Psychological empowerment cultivates strong well-being (Audenaert et al., 2017).
Expressing trust is also pivotal. For example, Chessman (2021) found that job autonomy strongly
correlates with well-being outcomes. Likewise, in this study, direct supervisors supported the
well-being of their staff by giving them the flexibility to adjust their workload and
responsibilities and approving accommodations, which increased their autonomy. Another
psychological support strategy was supporting respondents with their workload or work matters.
This study found that direct supervisors who provided good leadership and guidance,
encouragement, and praise on work accomplishments, supported employees’ well-being. Thus,
employers must meet employees’ basic needs to optimize their well-being, including providing
opportunities to foster social and healthy work relationships (Tay & Diener, 2011).
In parallel, another type of support found in this study was providing a space conducive
to positive working relationships, such as social activities and gatherings. The community spaces
that supported employee well-being enabled discussions on the impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic, promoted socializing via virtual events, and established affinity groups. Guidetti et al.
84

(2018) also argued that peer support, in general, is essential, and direct supervisors must support
their employees.
This study’s findings revealed that some of the effective strategies were flexible work
options; psychological support, including aspects of communication; and work benefits. These
findings align with prior research that found that organizations and leaders can implement tactics
outside of the person to aid their well-being and effectiveness. These strategies include
organizational and peer support that allows employees to thrive (Pacheco et al., 2020; Warren &
Bordoloi, 2020). Organizational and peer support is critical and warranted to support well-being,
especially in times of crisis.
Recommendations for Practice
This study’s findings and the literature reviewed bring further attention to student affairs
professionals’ current state. To avoid compromising the quality of student service, colleges and
universities must be receptive and prioritize the well-being of the professionals who serve them.
The following sub-sections detail five recommendations for practice to address the occupational
stress at higher education institutions that damage student affairs professionals’ well-being.
Recommendation 1: Increase Organizational Practices That Foster a Culture of Care
The first recommendation is for campus leaders to foster a culture of care. While 63% of
participants reported somewhat less or significantly less well-being than before the COVID-19
pandemic, they also indicated that having campus leaders and their direct supervisors express
concern and seeing them as people first improved their well-being. Leaders should implement
practices similar to those identified by the study participants. These are (a) showing compassion,
(b) considering the different ways the pandemic affected employees’ lives, (c) expressing the
importance of prioritizing one’s well-being and family needs, and (d) advocating for self-care.
85

The following participant’s statement summarizes why these practices would be effective: their
direct supervisor “expressed care and concern for employees’ mental health and well-being. …
[As a result,] I felt valued and treated as a full person, not just a worker.
Furthermore, another respondent said, “My direct supervisor cares deeply for his staff.
We are very fortunate that he looks out for our well-being and has advocated for us with policy
and practice within the office. I never felt that he judged me when I brought any concerns to
him.” Thus, a culture of care will entail a human-centered approach that cultivates an
environment that reduces burnout, encourages and understands employees, models well-being
practices, and reinforces the importance of self-care and co-care. Strides toward a culture of care
are imperative to addressing the needs of student affairs professionals, as 56.4% of respondents
reported feeling burned out and, in general, experienced mental and physical exhaustion during
the COVID-19 pandemic.
For this organizational shift, campus leaders should survey employees to understand their
current landscape and identify the challenges and opportunities to cultivate an organizational
culture of care. Planning and strategy implementation would then need to follow while soliciting
feedback and adjusting according to the employees’ needs and campus context. A culture of care
is recommended at all levels. However, local leaders can begin addressing this culture among
their direct reports after surveying their needs via one-on-one check-ins or team meetings. After
all, employees’ well-being is affected by their perceived relationship with their leaders from
everyday interactions (Caesens et al., 2017; Ellis et al., 2019). This local level approach already
showed positive results in this study, as respondents experienced higher levels of well-being and
perceived their effectiveness at work to be higher. This recommendation is further informed by
86

Caesens et al.’s (2017) finding that when employees feel supported and cared for, their work
performance, work experience, and well-being improve.
Recommendation 2: Increase Organizational Practices That Cultivate a Culture of Trust
The second recommendation is for college and university leaders to cultivate a culture of
trusting employees. This recommendation stems from this study’s results, which indicated that
an effective psychological support strategy that promoted well-being was trusting student affairs
professionals in their roles. Another component of trust was giving employees the flexibility to
adjust their workload or responsibilities. Others were approving or providing accommodations
and increasing employees’ autonomy.
The strategies for a culture of care recommended previously, together with cultivating a
culture of trust, could help to reduce burnout and its negative effects like callousness. About 30%
of respondents stated they had become more callous towards people at least a few times a month
or more since taking their role. Thus, colleges and universities are encouraged to reimagine how
student affairs professionals acquire a true sense of autonomy and how they cultivate a sense of
trust. There are other avenues colleges and universities could explore to ensure there are
qualified people delivering quality student services. Moreover, it is worth noting that 54% of
respondents reported they fairly often or very often felt confident in their ability to handle work
problems. A culture of trusting employees will propel them to thrive since they will feel in
control of their work and have positive interpersonal contacts (Bryson et al., 2014; Pfeffer,
2018).
Recommendation 3: Increase Student Affairs Leaders’ Capacity for Leading Effectively
The third recommendation is to increase student affairs leaders’ capacity for leading by
providing learning and development opportunities that help these leaders advance their
87

knowledge and practice to promote a culture of care, implement a culture of trust, and provide
psychological support to employees to promote their well-being. The study found that
employees’ well-being improves when their leaders and direct supervisors provide role-specific
assistance, general guidance in times of change, encouragement, praise, compassion, care,
flexibility, and trust. For example, a respondent mentioned their direct supervisor “checked in on
us personally, understood life upheaval that the pandemic brought to us. Allowed us to do our
jobs remotely and did not micromanage.”
Other respondents expressed their well-being improved when direct supervisors or
department leaders knew how to coach them, provided guidance on daily operational needs,
could help with certain work duties, and communicated well. A total of 22.5% of participants
noted communication was an effective leadership strategy that supported their well-being.
Campuses and supervisors communicated with their employees via check-ins, phone calls,
emails, town halls, and applications like Slack. While the frequency of communication varied,
the topics discussed were generally around sharing updates, changes, expectations, and overall
checking in. As a result, another recommendation is training on effective communication for
those with direct reports, emphasizing how to effectively communicate during times of change or
crisis.
Hence, colleges and universities could benefit from increasing student affairs leaders’
capacity for leading by providing them training and removing barriers to the psychological
support and communication their teams need. A supervisor who meets employees’ needs
increases their well-being (Gillet et al., 2012). One participant detailed how their direct
supervisor supported their well-being despite facing barriers: “My direct supervisor was unable
to implement any policies as her director did not allow anything. Practices she did implement
88

were reinforced breaks, team debriefs, time off the screen, etc. It was kind as she had seen me as
a person and taught me to put myself and health first before work. Especially with COVID at its
peak.”
Recommendation 4: Increase or Sustain Flexible Work Options
The fourth recommendation is that colleges and universities increase or sustain their
flexible work location and schedule options beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. It is worthwhile to
investigate how student affairs professionals can continue to meet their job duties while having
flexible work options. Increasing or sustaining flexible work options could further advance the
organizational goal of a culture of care and trust. About 66% of the open-ended question
respondents reported their well-being was “most effectively” supported when the university or
college provided flexible work options.
Aside from modifying work schedules and locations, other options may arise based on
the need and capacity. As the student affairs field evolves, so can service delivery. This study’s
results revealed that the profession had never pivoted to providing virtual services in exponential
numbers, yet 49.9% of the survey respondents reported their current effectiveness at work
compared to before the pandemic was, at the minimum, the same. Interventions like flexible
work options benefit job-related well-being and support Holman et al.’s (2019) findings of
promoting well-being by increasing job control, reducing job stressors, or increasing job
resources.
Recommendation 5: Invest in Employees
The final recommendation is for colleges and universities to invest in student affairs
professionals’ work benefits to cultivate an organizational culture of care and increase student
affairs leaders’ capacity for leading. The findings indicate three types of investments are
89

effective: (a) compensation, (b) learning and development opportunities, and (c) wellness
resources or services. Nearly one-fourth of survey respondents indicated the work benefits
supported their well-being during the pandemic. Specifically, they expressed the benefits of paid
leave time for self-care and wellness resources.
Further investing in employees will require multiple layers of interventions and change.
Institutions of higher education can begin by surveying their employees to learn what benefits
would be most helpful and valuable given the current context to prioritize resources. Some needs
could be met at a lower cost and sooner than others by examining what is already within reach.
Perhaps an existing amenity on campus can be positioned in a free or low-cost way for
employees to use to aid in their cultivation of strong well-being. The goal is to embed well-being
strategies into the organizational culture, equip managers with tools and resources to prevent
burnout, and cultivate an employee experience that reduces burnout (Gallup, 2020). The
following section will outline this study’s limitations and delimitations.
Limitations and Delimitations
This quantitative study had limitations and delimitations. For example, Robinson and
Firth Leonard (2019) discussed that the limits of administering surveys include potential
sampling and measurement errors. Respondents may not have been candid in their responses,
and there is no opportunity to further examine something in-depth due to the nature of the
closed-ended questions in this survey design. Another limitation in this study includes the
reliability of the measurements. I did my due diligence and primarily used three to seven items to
measure a specific construct as recommended by other scholars (Hocevar, 2022a). There were
some single-question measurements only after reliability tests showed they were not reliable
enough via Cronbach’s alpha. I anticipated this limitation as phenomena such as well-being and
90

effectiveness rely on participants’ self-reporting. This correlational study’s internal validity was
also a limitation, as correlation does not prove causation (Hocevar, 2022a; Salkind & Frey,
2020).
The delimitations of this study were the inclusion of only student affairs professionals in
the United States who worked at a college or university during the COVID-19 pandemic, the
sample, and the overall objective to highlight strategies to support employee well-being beyond
the pandemic. The decision regarding participants was due to my interest and for reasons of
practicality.
In addition, I studied a sample of student affairs professionals within the scope mentioned
for practical reasons. Individuals invited to participate were from two professional associations
and my network. As a result, the study’s findings have limited external validity. Finally, the third
delimitation was that this study focused on organizational strategies instead of what the student
affairs professionals can do to support their well-being. The following section will provide
recommendations for future research based on the study’s limitations and delimitations.
Recommendations for Future Research
Three recommendations for future research surfaced from the data analysis and
identification of the study’s limitations and delimitations. A primary limitation of this study was
the reliability of some measurements. This study’s results showed that some scales were not
reliable enough via Cronbach’s alpha even though most items were adapted or adopted from pre-
existing scales with documented reliability. As a result, a recommendation is that future research
should identify other items to add or replace items that measure organizational support more
adequately. The second recommendation is to include measures for social support that
disaggregate those from the direct supervisor and peers at work. Lastly, given that this study
91

found statistically significant differences with respondents with a 50% or more student-facing
role, the recommendation is to replicate this study within that population to gain further insight
into supporting their well-being. Alternatively, other scholars could replicate this study to
establish the generalizability of this type of research (Hocevar, 2022a).
In summary, this study’s findings, limitations, and delimitations informed the three
recommendations for future research. These recommendations may help higher education leaders
understand strategies that support student affairs professionals’ well-being and where to focus
their efforts.
Conclusion
This study examined organizational and leadership practices at higher education
institutions implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic that improved student affairs
professionals’ well-being. First, the study established that these professionals are burned out
from their work, and more than half of the participants compared their current well-being relative
to before the COVID-19 pandemic as somewhat or significantly less. The evidence further
demonstrated that the participants experiencing burnout, fatigue, and emotional exhaustion
reported being less effective and impactful in their work. A notable number of respondents also
indicated being more callous towards people since taking on their roles. This finding matters
since most participants indicated their position was 51% or more student-facing. Student affairs
personnel fundamentally cannot serve students well if they are not well themselves. Thus, higher
education leaders are urged to implement intentional and sustainable strategies that promote their
employees’ well-being. The consequences of not doing so are dire.
Addressing the high levels of occupational stress within higher education institutions that
harm employees’ well-being requires reimagining or expanding strategies to support them. As
92

Maslach (1976) described, “steps can be taken to reduce the occurrence of burnout because many
of its causes are rooted not in the permanent traits of people, but in specific social and situational
factors that can be changed” (p. 21). This study provided significant insight into the strategies
that supported student affairs professionals’ well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. The
five recommendations could be a starting point for colleges and universities to tailor their
strategies and sustain them beyond the pandemic. As student affairs leaders, we must move
beyond performative actions and create viable and intentional practices to promote employee
well-being for the sake of the students, employees, and those around them.

93

References
Akhtar, M. W., Ghufran, H., & Fatima, T. (2017). The effect of emotional intelligence on
turnover intentions; The role of employee well-being, engagement and perceived
organizational support. Jinnah Business Review, 5(2), 69–80.
https://doi.org/10.53369/SKYE6894
American College Health Association. (2020). The healthy campus framework.
https://www.acha.org/App_Themes/HC2020/documents/The_Healthy_Campus_Framew
ork.pdf
Arnold, K. A. (2017). Transformational leadership and employee psychological well-being: A
review and directions for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
22(3), 381–393. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000062
Audenaert, M., Vanderstraeten, A., & Buyens, D. (2017). When affective well-being is
empowered: The joint role of leader-member exchange and the employment relationship.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(15), 2208-2227.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1137610
AXA Asia and Columbia University WHO Centre for Global Mental Health. (2020). Supporting
mental health of employees during and beyond COVID-19: A toolkit for business leaders
and managers. Institute for Employment Studies. https://www.employment-
studies.co.uk/system/files/resources/files/AXAEMHGuide.pd
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2002). Validation of the Maslach Burnout
Inventory - general survey: An internet study. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 15(3), 245–
260. https://doi.org/10.1080/1061580021000020716
94

Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R. (2019). Daily strengths use and employee
well-being: The moderating role of personality. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 92(1), 144–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12243
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford University.
Barling, J., & Frone, M. R. (2017). If only my leader would just do something! Passive
leadership undermines employee well-being through role stressors and psychological
resource depletion. Stress and Health, 33(3), 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2697
Best College Reviews. (2021, October 22). What is student affairs?
https://www.bestcollegereviews.org/faq/what-is-student-affairs/
Better Health. (n.d.). Fatigue.
https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/fatigue
Brazeau, G., Frenzel, J. E., & Prescott, W. A., Jr. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic across the
academy: Facilitating wellbeing in a turbulent time. American Journal of Pharmaceutical
Education, 84(6), 688–691. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe8154
Bryson, A., Forth, J., & Stokes, L. (2014). Does worker wellbeing affect workplace
performance? Department of Business Innovation and Skills.
http://affinityhealthhub.co.uk/d/attachments/does-worker-wellbeing-affect-workplace-
performance-1597230050.pdf
Caesens, G., & Stinglhamber, F. (2014). The relationship between perceived organizational
support and work engagement: The role of self-efficacy and its outcomes. European
Review of Applied Psychology, 64(5), 259–267.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2014.08.002
95

Caesens, G., Stinglhamber, F., Demoulin, S., & De Wilde, M. (2017). Perceived organizational
support and employees’ well-being: The mediating role of organizational
dehumanization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(4), 527–
540. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1319817
Caesens, G., Stinglhamber, F., & Luypaert, G. (2014). The impact of work engagement and
workaholism on well-being: The role of work-related social support. Career
Development International, 19(7), 813–835. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-09-2013-0114
Carnevale, J. B., & Hatak, I. (2020). Employee adjustment and well-being in the era of COVID-
19: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Business Research, 116,
183–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.037
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). United States COVID-19 cases, deaths, and
laboratory testing (NAATs) by state, territory, and jurisdiction.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020, July 24). Health equity considerations and
racial and ethnic minority groups. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
ncov/community/health-equity/race-ethnicity.html
Charalampous, M., Grant, C. A., Tramontano, C., & Michailidis, E. (2019). Systematically
reviewing remote e-workers’ well-being at work: A multidimensional approach.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(1), 51–73.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1541886
Chessman, H. M. (2021). Student affairs professionals, well-being, and work quality. Journal of
Student Affairs Research and Practice, 58(2), 148–162.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2020.1853556
96

Clifton, J., & Harter, J. (2021). Wellbeing at Work: How to build resilient and thriving teams.
Gallup Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(
2nd ed.). Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches
(
5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Daniels, K., Watson, D., Nayani, R., Tregaskis, O., Hogg, M., Etuknwa, A., & Semkina, A.
(2021). Implementing practices focused on workplace health and psychological
wellbeing: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, Article 113888. Advance
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113888
Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and
synthesis of the literature. Journal of Management, 25(3), 357–384.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500305
Day, A., Crown, S. N., & Ivany, M. (2017). Organisational change and employee burnout: The
moderating effects of support and job control. Safety Science, 100, 4–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.03.004
Deloitte. (2021). Building the resilient organization: 2021 Deloitte global resilience report.
https://www2.deloitte.com/dk/da/pages/about-deloitte/articles/2021-deloitte-global-
resilience-report.html
De Simone, S. (2014). Conceptualizing wellbeing in the workplace. International Journal of
Business and Social Science, 5(12), 118–122.
97

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
Diener, E., Lucas, R., Schimmack, U., & Helliwell, J. (2009). Well-being for public policy:
Series in positive psychology. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195334074.001.0001
Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2018). Advances and open questions in the science of
subjective well-being. Collabra. Psychology, 4(1), 1–49.
https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.115
Dodge, R., Daly, A., Huyton, J., & Sanders, L. (2012). The challenge of defining wellbeing.
International Journal of Wellbeing, 2(3), 222–235. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v2i3.4
Edwards, A. V., & Marcus, S. (2018). Employee perceptions of well-being programs. Journal of
Social, Behavioral and Health Sciences, 12(1), 100–113.
https://doi.org/10.5590/JSBHS.2018.12.1.07
Ellis, A. M., Bauer, T. N., Erdogan, B., & Truxillo, D. M. (2019). Daily perceptions of
relationship quality with leaders: Implications for follower well-being. Work and Stress,
33(2), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2018.1445670
Epstein, B., & Lofquist, D. (2021, April 26). U.S. Census Bureau today delivers state population
totals for congressional apportionment. U. S. Census Bureau.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/2020-census-data-release.html
Gallup. (n.d.). Gallup ’s employee engagement survey: Ask the right questions with the Q12
survey. Retrieved July 22, 2021, from https://www.gallup.com/workplace/356063/gallup-
q12-employee-engagement-survey.aspx
98

Gallup. (2020). Gallup ’s perspective on employee burnout: Causes and cures.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/282659/employee-burnout-perspective-paper.aspx
Gallup. (2021). State of the global workplace: 2021 report.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace.aspx#ite-
350777
Gillet, N., Fouquereau, E., Forest, J., Brunault, P., & Colombat, P. (2012). The impact of
organizational factors on psychological needs and their relations with well-being. Journal
of Business and Psychology, 27(4), 437–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9253-2
Giurge, L. M., & Bohns, V. (2020, April 3). 3 tips to avoid WFH burnout. Harvard Business
Review. https://hbr.org/2020/04/3-tips-to-avoid-wfh-burnout
Guidetti, G., Converso, D., Loera, B., & Viotti, S. (2018). Concerns about change and employee
wellbeing: The moderating role of social support. Journal of Workplace Learning, 30(3),
216–228. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-09-2017-0083
Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A primer on partial least
squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Agrawal, S., Blue, A., Plowman, S. K., Josh, P., & Asplund, J.
(2020). The relationship between engagement at work and organizational outcomes:
2020 Q12® Meta-Analysis. Gallup. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/321725/gallup-
q12-meta-analysis-report.aspx
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Agrawal, S., Plowman, S. K., & Blue, A. (2016). The relationship
between engagement at work and organizational outcomes: 2016 Q12® Meta-Analysis.
99

Gallup. https://www.gallup.com/services/191558/q12-meta-analysis-ninth-edition-
2016.aspx
Hocevar, D. (2022a). Limitations of quantitative research [Handout]. Department of
Organizational Change and Leadership, University of Southern California.
Hocevar, D. (2022b). SPSS example of skewness and kurtosis [Handout]. Department of
Organizational Change and Leadership, University of Southern California.
Holman, L. F., Nelson, J., & Watts, R. (2019). Organizational variables contributing to school
counselor burnout: An opportunity for leadership, advocacy, collaboration, and systemic
change. The Professional Counselor, 9(2), 126–141. https://doi.org/10.15241/lfh.9.2.126
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Keeter, S. (2020). A third of Americans experienced high levels of psychological distress during
the coronavirus outbreak. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2020/05/07/a-third-of-americans-experienced-high-levels-of-psychological-distress-
during-the-coronavirus-outbreak/
Keyes, C. L. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete
state model of health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 539–548.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.539
Khoreva, V., & Wechtler, H. (2018). HR practices and employee performance: The mediating
role of well-being. Employee Relations, 40(2), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-08-
2017-0191
Kim, M., & Beehr, T. A. (2018). Can empowering leaders affect subordinates’ well-being and
careers because they encourage subordinates’ job crafting behaviors? Journal of
100

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(2), 184–196.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051817727702
Lee, T. C., Yao-Ping Peng, M., Wang, L., & Hung, H. K. (2021). Factors influencing employees’
subjective wellbeing and job performance during the COVID-19 global pandemic: The
perspective of social cognitive career theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.679600
Lingelbach, K., Piechnik, D., Gado, S., Janssen, D., Eichler, M., Hentschel, L., Knopf, D.,
Schuler, M., Sernatinger, D., & Peissner, M. (2021). Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic
on psychological well-being and mental health based on a German online survey.
Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 655083. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.655083
Lomas, T. (2019). Positive work: A multidimensional overview and analysis of work-related
drivers of wellbeing. International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 3, 69–96.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-019-00016-5
Maslach, C. (1976). Burned-out. Human Behavior, 5(9), 16–22.
Maslach, C. (2011). Burnout and engagement in the workplace: New perspectives. The European
Health Psychologist, 13(3), 44–47.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2021, March 19). How to measure burnout accurately and
ethically. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/03/how-to-measure-burnout-
accurately-and-ethically
Memon, M. A., Salleh, R., Baharom, M. N. R., & Harun, H. (2014). Person-organization fit and
turnover intention: The mediating role of employee engagement. Global Business and
Management Research, 6(3), 205–209.
101

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Michielsen, H. J., De Vries, J., Van Heck, G. L., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Sijtsma, K. (2004).
Examination of the dimensionality of fatigue, the construction of the Fatigue Assessment
Scale (FAS). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20(1), 39–48.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.20.1.39
Morgan, D. L. (2014). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods. Sage Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781544304533.n3
Mullen, P. R., Blount, A. J., Lambie, G. W., & Chae, N. (2018). School counselors’ perceived
stress, burnout, and job satisfaction. Professional School Counseling, 21(1), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X18782468
Naifeh, Z. (2019). Social connections matter: A look into new student affairs professional
wellness and attrition intentions. The Journal of Campus Activities Practice and
Scholarship, 1(2), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.52499/2019014
NASPA. (n.d.). About student affairs. https://naspa.org/about/about-student-affairs
National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.-a). Back to school statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372#College_enrollment
National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.-b). Staff by employment status and occupational
category: Fall 2020.
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/SummaryTables/report/400?templateId=4000&year=2020&exp
and_by=0&tt=aggregate&instType=2
Nielsen, K., Nielsen, M. B., Ogbonnaya, C., Känsälä, M., Saari, E., & Isaksson, K. (2017).
Workplace resources to improve both employee well-being and performance: A
102

systematic review and meta-analysis. Work and Stress, 31(2), 101–120.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2017.1304463
Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Civil Rights. (n.d.). Minority serving institutions program.
U.S. Department of the Interior. https://www.doi.gov/pmb/eeo/doi-minority-serving-
institutions-program#:~:text=MSIs%20are%20institutions%20of%20higher,whereas%
20others%20serve%20urban%20neighborhoods
Pacheco, T., Coulombe, S., Khalil, C., Meunier, S., Doucerain, M., Auger, E., & Cox, E. (2020).
Job security and the promotion of workers’ wellbeing in the midst of the COVID-19
pandemic: A study with Canadian workers one to two weeks after the initiation of social
distancing measures. International Journal of Wellbeing, 10(3), 58–76.
https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v10i3.1321
Paredes, M. R., Apaolaza, V., Fernandez-Robin, C., Hartmann, P., & Yañez-Martinez, D. (2021).
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on subjective mental well-being: The interplay of
perceived threat, future anxiety and resilience. Personality and Individual Differences,
170, 110455. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110455
Pendell, R. (2021, March 22). Wellness vs. wellbeing: What ’s the difference? Gallup.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/340202/wellness-wellbeing-
difference.aspx?version=print
Pescud, M., Teal, R., Shilton, T., Slevin, T., Ledger, M., Waterworth, P., & Rosenberg, M.
(2015). Employers’ views on the promotion of workplace health and wellbeing: A
qualitative study. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 642–651. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-
015-2029-2
103

Peterson, C., Park, N., & Sweeney, P. J. (2008). Group well-being: Morale from a positive
psychology perspective. Applied Psychology, 57(s1), 19–36.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00352.x
Pfeffer, J. (2018). The overlooked essentials of employee well-being. The McKinsey Quarterly,
3, 1–7.
Pinck, A. S., & Sonnentag, S. (2018). Leader mindfulness and employee well-being: The
mediating role of transformational leadership. Mindfulness, 9(3), 884–896.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0828-5
Pradhan, R. K., & Hati, L. (2019). The measurement of employee well-being: Development and
validation of a scale. Global Business Review, 23(2), 385–407.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150919859101
Prasath, P. R., Bhat, C. S., Mather, P. C., Foreman, T., & James, J. K. (2021). Wellbeing,
psychological capital, and coping of university employees during the COVID-19
pandemic. Journal of the Professoriate, 12(1), 1–30.
Prime, H., Wade, M., & Browne, D. T. (2020). Risk and resilience in family well-being during
the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Psychologist, 75(5), 631–643.
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000660
Pritchard, A., & McChesney, J. (2018). Focus on student affairs, 2018: Understanding key
challenges using CUPA-HR data. College and University Professional Association for
Human Resources. https://www.cupahr.org/surveys/research-briefs/
Rabenu, E., Yaniv, E., & Elizur, D. (2017). The relationship between psychological capital,
coping with stress, well-being, and performance. Current Psychology (New Brunswick,
N.J.), 36(4), 875–887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9477-4
104

Rasool, S. F., Wang, M., Tang, M., Saeed, A., & Iqbal, J. (2021). How toxic workplace
environment effects the employee engagement: The mediating role of organizational
support and employee wellbeing. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 18(5), 2294. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052294
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage
Publications.
Rosenberg, S. (2017, March 13). Respectful collection of demographic data. Medium.
https://medium.com/@anna.sarai.rosenberg/respectful-collection-of-demographic-data-
56de9fcb80e2
Ryan, J. C., Williams, G., Wiggins, B. W., Flitton, A. J., McIntosh, J. T., Carmen, M. J., & Cox,
D. N. (2021). Exploring the active ingredients of workplace physical and psychological
wellbeing programs: A systematic review. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 11(5),
1127–1141. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibab003
Salkind, N. J. (2014). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Sage Publications.
Salkind, N. J., & Frey, B. B. (2020). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (7th
ed.). Sage Publications.
Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2009). Burnout: 35 years of research and
practice. Career Development International, 14(3), 204–220.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430910966406
Schultz, P. P., Ryan, R. M., Niemiec, C. P., Legate, N., & Williams, G. C. (2015). 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
Searle, B. (2008). Well-being: In search of a good life? Policy Press.
105

Sliter, M., & Yuan, Z. (2015). Workplace stress. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International
Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed., pp. 733–739). Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.22041-2
Smith, K. J., Rosenberg, D. L., & Timothy Haight, G. (2014). An assessment of the
psychometric properties of the perceived stress scale-10 (PSS10) with business and
accounting students. Accounting Perspectives, 13(1), 29–59.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3838.12023
Sonnentag, S. (2015). Wellbeing and burnout in the workplace: Organizational causes and
consequences. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, 25(2),
537-540. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.73021-2
Suppawittaya, P., Yiemphat, P., & Yasri, P. (2020). Effects of social distancing, self-quarantine
and self-isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic on people’s well-being, and how to
cope with it. International Journal of Science and Healthcare Research, 5(2), 12–20.
Syrek, C., Kühnel, J., Vahle-Hinz, T., & de Bloom, J. (2021). Being an accountant, cook,
entertainer and teacher—all at the same time: Changes in employees’ work and work-
related well-being during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. International Journal
of Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12761
Tapps, T., Symonds, M., & Baghurst, T. (2016). Assessing employee wellness needs at colleges
and universities: A case study. Cogent Social Sciences, 2(1), Article 1250338.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1250338
Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023779
106

Tenney, E. R., Poole, J. M., & Diener, E. (2016). Does positivity enhance work performance?
Why, when, and what we don’t know. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 27–46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002
Travia, R. M., Larcus, J. G., Andes, S., & Gomes, P. G. (2020). Framing well-being in a college
campus setting. Journal of American College Health, 70, 758–772.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2020.1763369
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014). R-words: Refusing research. In D. Paris & M. T. Winn (Eds.),
Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry for youth and communities (pp.
223– 247). Sage Publications.
Tull, A. (2006). Synergistic supervision, job satisfaction, and intention to turnover of new
professionals in student affairs. Journal of College Student Development, 47(4), 465–480.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.0053
Tuzovic, S., & Kabadayi, S. (2021). The influence of social distancing on employee well-being:
A conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 32(2),
145–160. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-05-2020-0140
van Wingerden, J., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2017). Fostering employee well-being via a job
crafting intervention. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100, 164–174.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.03.008
Warr, P. (1987). Work, unemployment, and mental health. Oxford University Press.
Warr, P. (2007). Searching for happiness at work. The Psychologist, 20(12), 726–729.
Warren, M. A., & Bordoloi, S. (2020). When COVID-19 exacerbates inequities: The path
forward for generating wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 10(3), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v10i3.1357
107

West, C. P., Dyrbye, L. N., Satele, D. V., Sloan, J. A., & Shanafelt, T. D. (2012). Concurrent
validity of single-item measures of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization in
burnout assessment. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27(11), 1445–1452.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2015-7
World Health Organization. (2019). Burn-out an “occupational phenomenon ”: International
classification of diseases. https://www.who.int/news/item/28-05-2019-burn-out-an-
occupational-phenomenon-international-classification-of-diseases

108

Appendix A: Survey Protocol
Welcome Message
Welcome and thank you for participating in the Frontline Workers Serving Students
study. This study aims to uncover organizational and leadership practices implemented during
the COVID-19 pandemic that positively impacted the well-being of student affairs professionals
in the United States. All responses will remain anonymous. This survey will take about 8–10
minutes to complete.
More details about this study can be found HERE. If you have any questions, please
contact Jennifer C. Villicaña at jcvillic@usc.edu.

Table A1
Survey Questions
Question Response options Research
question
Concept
Are or were you a
student affairs
professional at any
point during the
COVID-19 pandemic
in the United States?
Yes
No
Confirmation of
eligibility in the
study
Select the state where
you work(ed).
[drop-down of all U.S. states,
including an option of “Somewhere
else outside the U.S.”]
Confirmation of
eligibility in the
study and to
disaggregate data
Select your institution
type.
Community college
For-profit college
Liberal arts college
Private university
Public university
Technical/vocational
college
To disaggregate
data
109

Question Response options Research
question
Concept
Is your college or
university a minority-
serving institution
(i.e., Historically
Black College or
University, Hispanic
Serving Institutions,
Asian American
Native American
Pacific Islander-
Serving Institution,
etc.)?
Yes
No
Don’t know
To disaggregate
data
What department/unit
best describes yours?
Academic services (i.e., academic
advising, tutoring, assessment,
research, and student support)
Admissions and enrollment,
Alumni and advancement/
development
Athletics and recreation
Campus/Greek life and activities
Career and employment services
Counseling, health, and wellness
Disability services
Diversity and inclusion
Experiential education
Financial aid
Multicultural services
On-campus dining
Orientation
Outreach and recruitment
Residence programs
Student conduct
My unit/department or something
closely related is not listed above.
To disaggregate
data
How many years have
you been a student
affairs professional?
Less than 1 year
1–2 years
3–5 years
6–10 years
11 or more years
To disaggregate
data
What percentage of
your role is student-
0%
1–10%
To disaggregate
data
110

Question Response options Research
question
Concept
facing? 11–20%
21–30%
31–40%
41–50%
51–60%
61–70%
71–80%
81–90%
91–100%
What is your gender? Female
Male
Non-binary
Other [fill in the blank]
Prefer not to say
To disaggregate
data
What is your ethnic
background?

American Indian or Native Alaskan
Asian or Asian American
Black, African, or African
American
Latino/a/x/e or Hispanic
Middle Eastern/North African
(MENA or Arab Origin)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander Native
White or European American
Biracial or Multiracial
Other [fill in the blank]
Prefer not to answer
To disaggregate
data
I feel burned out from
my work.
Never
A few times a year or less
Once a month or less
A few times a month
Once a week
A few times a week
Every day
1 Burnout,
emotional
exhaustion
I have become more
callous toward people
since I took this job.
Never
A few times a year or less
Once a month or less
A few times a month
Once a week
A few times a week
1 Burnout,
emotional
exhaustion
111

Question Response options Research
question
Concept
Every day
Mentally, I feel
exhausted.
Never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Always
1 Fatigue

Physically, I feel
exhausted.
Never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Always
1 Fatigue
I have enough energy
for everyday life.

Never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Always
1 Fatigue
When I am doing
something, I can
concentrate quite
well.
Never
Sometimes
Regularly
Often
Always
1 Fatigue
In the last month, how
often have you felt
that you were unable
to control the
important things in
your life?
Never
Almost never
Sometimes
Fairly often
Very often
1 Employee
effectiveness
In the last month, how
often have you felt
confident about your
ability to handle your
problems (at work)?
Never
Almost never
Sometimes
Fairly often
Very often
1 Employee
effectiveness
In the last month, how
often have you felt
difficulties (at work)
were piling up so high
that you could not
overcome them?
Never
Almost never
Sometimes
Fairly often
Very often
1 Employee
effectiveness
112

Question Response options Research
question
Concept
I have the materials and
equipment I need to
do my work right.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
1 Employee
effectiveness
My supervisor or
someone at work
seems to care about
me as a person.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
2 Employee
effectiveness
How do you compare
your current
effectiveness in your
work relative to
before the pandemic?
Significantly less effective
Somewhat less effective
Same
More effective
Significantly more effective
1 State pre and
during pandemic
Please note for the following questions well-being is defined by how you evaluate your life,
including career, physical, social, community, and financial elements. It also includes
positive emotion, engagement, positive relationships, accomplishment, satisfaction, and
meaning.
How do you compare
your current well-
being relative to
before the pandemic?
Significantly less well-being
Somewhat less well-being
Same
More well-being
Significantly more well-being
2 State pre and
during pandemic
What policies or
practices, if any, did
your organization
implement to support
your well-being
during the pandemic?

Which of these did you
think was most
effective?
Open-ended response. 2 Strategies
What strategies, if any,
did your direct
supervisor implement
to support your well-
being at work during
Open-ended response. 2 Strategies
113

Question Response options Research
question
Concept
the pandemic?

Which of these did you
think was most
effective?

114

Appendix B: Themes and Sub-themes by Number of Occurrences per Open-Ended
Question
Table B1
Open-Ended Question 1: What Policies or Practices, if Any, Did Your Organization Implement
to Support Your Well-Being During the Pandemic?
Theme Sub-theme Total
Communication 26
1.1 Flow
1.2 Type
7
19
Equipment and safety 32
1.1 COVID-19 safety
1.2 Equipment
17
15
Flexible work 155
1.1 Location
1.1a Hybrid
1.1b Remote
1.2 Schedule
1.2a Wellness hours
1.2b Work hours
106
18
89
52
20
32
Psychological support 32
1.1 Compassion
1.2 Trust
1.3 Work support
12
11
10
Work benefits 58
1.1 Compensation
1.2 Learning & development
1.3 Wellness resources
29
2
27
Other support 1
Social support 9

115

Table B2
Open-Ended Question 2: Which of These Organization Policies or Practices Did You Think Was
Most Effective?
Theme Sub-theme Total
Communication 12
1.1 Flow
1.2 Type
5
8
Equipment and safety 10
1.1 COVID-19 Safety
1.2 Equipment
5
5
Flexible work 109
1.1 Location
1.1a Hybrid
1.1b Remote
1.2 Schedule
1.2a Wellness hours
1.2b Work hours
77
9
69
33
13
20
Psychological support 18
1.1 Compassion
1.2 Trust
1.3 Work support
10
8
6
Work benefits 25
1.1 Compensation
1.2 Learning & development
1.3 Wellness resources
15
2
8
Social support 2

116

Table B3
Open-Ended Question 3: What Policies or Practices, if Any, Did Your Direct Supervisor
Implement to Support Your Well-Being During the Pandemic?
Theme Sub-theme Total
Communication 48
1.1 Flow
1.2 Type
12
36
Equipment and safety 10
1.1 COVID-19 Safety
1.2 Equipment
6
4
Flexible work 88
1.1 Location
1.1a Hybrid
1.1b Remote
1.2 Schedule
1.2a Wellness Hours
1.2b Work Hours
37
5
32
51
22
29
Psychological support 63
1.1 Compassion
1.2 Trust
1.3 Work support
33
18
18
Work benefits 18
1.1 Compensation
1.2 Learning & development
1.3 Wellness resources
4
2
5
Other support 1
Social support 7

117

Table B4
Open-Ended Question 4: Which of These Direct Supervisor Policies or Practices Did You Think
Was Most Effective?
Theme Sub-theme Total
Communication 28
1.1 Flow
1.2 Type
11
17
Equipment and safety 8
1.1 COVID-19 Safety
1.2 Equipment
4
4
Flexible work 62
1.1 Location
1.1a Hybrid
1.1b Remote
1.2 Schedule
1.2a Wellness hours
1.2b Work hours
28
6
22
35
17
18
Psychological support 43
1.1 Compassion
1.2 Trust
1.3 Work support
17
17
12
Work benefits 5
1.1 Compensation
1.3 Wellness resources
3
2
Social support 7

118

Appendix C: Code Book
Code Sub-code Definition
Communication Flow Orgs/supervisors maintained
communication between
employee/supervisor/org. The topics
covered ranged from sharing COVID-19
updates and changes, to communicating
clear expectations, etc.
Type Orgs/supervisors maintained
communication between
employee/supervisor/org. If specific
modalities were listed, they are under
this code. Examples include via check-
ins, phone calls, emails, town halls, 1-1s,
etc.
Equipment and safety C19 safety Orgs/supervisors mandated preventive
measures such as masks, social
distancing, vaccines, on-campus testing,
etc.
Equipment Orgs/supervisors provided employees with
the equipment or tools needed to do their
work, PPE, or provided vaccines/testing.
Flexible work Location Orgs/supervisors made or allowed
modifications to employee’s work
location such as working from home,
hybrid, or from the office.
Location: Hybrid Orgs/supervisors made or allowed
modifications to employee’s work
location to a hybrid model and/or from
the office.
Location: Remote Orgs/supervisors made or allowed
modifications to employee’s work
location such as working from home and
performing duties remotely/virtually.
Schedule Orgs/supervisors made or allowed
modifications to employee’s work
schedule such as adjusting work
schedule to account for wellness hours or
119

Code Sub-code Definition
alternative work hours.
Schedule: Wellness hours Orgs/supervisors made or allowed
modifications to employee’s work
schedule by giving them explicit time
blocks/days (time off) for self-care,
mental health, or wellness, etc.
Schedule: Work hours Orgs/supervisors made or allowed
modifications to employee’s work
schedule to flex work hours, change
service hours, protect/respect certain
hours, etc.
Phycological support Compassion Orgs/supervisors expressed concern, saw
their employees as ‘people first’, told
them to prioritize self/health/family, etc.
Expressed care for employees on a
personal level. Also, orgs/supervisors
encouraged employees to take breaks
(but in this code, did not give explicit
time off for breaks).
Trust Orgs/supervisors gave employees the
flexibility to adjust their
workload/responsibilities, approved
accommodations, increased employees’
autonomy. Demonstrated trust in their
employees.
Work support Orgs/supervisors provided leadership,
assistance, encouragement, or praise to
employees on work related matters (not
on a personal level in this code).
Work benefits Compensation Orgs/supervisors sustained or added
benefits for employees such as an
increase in pay, stipend, or added benefit
(of monetary value) like COVID Sick
Leave.
Learning & development Orgs/supervisors provided mentorship
opportunities or professional
development, etc.
Wellness resources Orgs/supervisors sustained or added
benefits for employees like giving
120

Code Sub-code Definition
employees access to wellness
workshops, wellness applications, or
counseling services, etc.
Other support -
Social support Orgs/supervisors provided a space
conducive to forming positive working
relationships and social activities. Such
as community spaces, social events,
affinity groups, etc.
No org strategy Orgs did not implement any strategies to
support or effectively support the well-
being of the employee.
No supervisor strategy Supervisors did not implement any
strategies to support or effectively
support the well-being of the employee.
Org strategy Q1: What policies or practices, if any, did
your organization implement to support
your well-being during the pandemic?
Org strategy: ME Q2: Which of these organization policies
or practices did you think was most
effective?
Sup strategy Q3: What policies or practices, if any, did
your direct supervisor implement to
support your well-being during the
pandemic?
Sup strategy: ME Q4: Which of these direct supervisor
policies or practices did you think was
most effective?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Military spouse well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on physician burnout in LA County Hospital settings

PDF

Physician burnout during a global pandemic: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of COVID-19 on the wellbeing of veterinarians

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

“It was a shitshow”: testimonios of Latina student affairs mother-practitioners navigating personal and professional worlds during COVID-19

PDF

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

PDF

Retaining and supporting BIPOC professionals in PWIs: addressing PWIs equity gap

PDF

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

PDF

Departure from the student affairs profession: a study of professionals who left the field

PDF

The great balancing act: women seeking work-life balance during COVID-19

Asset Metadata

Creator Villicaña, Jennifer Christine (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 08/04/2022

Defense Date 07/07/2022

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

Tag COVID-19 pandemic,employee effectiveness,employee well-being,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational change,organizational culture,student affairs professionals,wellness,workplace well-being

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Adibe, Bryant (committee chair), Datta, Monique (committee member), Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee member)

Creator Email jcvillic@usc.edu,jennifercvillicana@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111376114

Unique identifier UC111376114

Legacy Identifier etd-VillicaaJe-11101

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Villicaña, Jennifer Christine

Type texts

Source 20220804-usctheses-batch-969 (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. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

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