Navigating the new normal: How workplace isolation impacted teleworkers’ psychological well-being in Covid-19? The roles of perceived organizational support and job insecurity

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

During the Covid-19 period, academics have given great importance to the concept of teleworking. However, despite this interest, empirical studies investigating the effect of workplace isolation on employees’ behavior during Covid-19 are limited.

OBJECTIVE:

This study aims to investigate the relationship between workplace isolation and psychological well-being in light of the mediating role of perceived organizational support and the moderating role of job insecurity.

METHODS:

Within the scope of the research, teleworkers in accordance with the isolation rules was used as a criterion for the selection of the participants. In this vein, data collected from 382 respondents were investigated using structural equation modelling analysis.

RESULTS:

The results indicate that (1) workplace isolation positively relate to perceived organizational support and negatively related to psychological well-being, (2) perceived organizational support positively relate to psychological wellbeing, (3) perceived organizational support mediates the relationship between workplace isolation and psychological well-being, and (4) job insecurity moderates the relationship between perceived organizational support and psychological well-being.

CONCLUSIONS:

It is imperative to understand telework employees’ psychological and emotional processes, which have gained speed in the last year, in adapting to the new order. This study is critical in understanding the psychological processes of teleworkers.

Keywords

Teleworking workplace social isolation job security Covid-19 psychological well-being employment

1 Introduction

There has been a significant change in the use of technology in professional environments due to the Covid-19 pandemic [1]. The teleworking model was widely used by companies during this period to improve employee productivity and participation [2]. “Telework”, which has been an important issue in the literature in recent years, is the fulfilment of the duties and responsibilities of the employee at its work from a place other than the workplace on certain days of the week or every day of the week [3]. Despite being a relatively new concept, the teleworking model became the most preferred working model worldwide during the Covid-19 epidemic [3, 4].

It is crucial to acknowledge the significant differences between traditional teleworking and the telework model that was necessary due to the Covid-19 pandemic [5]. Although both rely on the same fundamental principle of telework, they differ significantly in several key areas. Traditional telecommuting was usually a choice that employees made freely to improve their work-life balance or create more flexibility in their schedules [6]. In contrast, Blahopoulou et al. [7] states that the telework model that emerged during the Covid-19 pandemic was not a choice but rather a necessity. In addition, sudden adjustment without preparation was a significant challenge for many employees who had to quickly adapt to this new work mode [1]. The work location is one of the key distinctions between traditional telework and Covid-19 telework. The ability of employees to choose their workspace was a feature of traditional setup [4]. Due to an increase in quarantine measures during the Covid-19 pandemic, employees were forced to work from home, resulting in a more restrictive telework model [8]. Teleworking has become the norm for professionals due to the unique challenges presented by the Covid-19 pandemic. Workplace isolation for employees has become inevitable due to these sudden and profound changes in organizational structures, which severely limit their social environment needs [9].

Workplace isolation is defined as the absence of satisfactory friendships or access to social networks at work [3, 10]. Teleworkers who have limited physical contact with their workplace and co-workers have high levels of isolation in their social and professional relationships at work [1, 4]. In addition, the researchers noted that there are several reasons why teleworkers have a high perception of isolation. First of all, in non-traditional business structures such as Teleworking, communication only with the help of various technological tools causes some communication barriers [5, 11]. The employees indicated that there is limited communication with technological tools and that they are deprived of non-verbal communication, such as gestures [12].

The major disadvantage of teleworking is that one cannot see one’s colleagues face-to-face at the workplace and has limited interaction with them. Ollo-López et al. pointed out that teleworkers are more disadvantaged than office employees in terms of being noticed as the most important reason for their high isolation level compared to office employees [13]. Stating that since their work and contribution to the organization are less visible, employees in the office have described themselves as ‘Invisible’ [5]. A highly inverse relationship was found between face-to-face communication and isolation [8, 13]. Past studies have shown that being away from the workplace environment increases employees’ perceptions of isolation, decreases their access to information, and increases the time they seek information [9, 10]. Therefore, we can state that workplace isolation is more than expected in people working remotely [6]. For this reason, teleworkers will be one of the most suitable samples when studying the structure and effects of workplace isolation [4, 9].

This study fills a gap in the literature by investigating the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic’s transition to telework on employees’ workplace isolation, psychological well-being and job insecurity, perceived organizational support. Due to the adoption of the telework model by the pandemic, previous studies that focused on traditional workplaces are no longer fully valid [12, 14]. Similarly, it has been observed in isolation literature that a significant percentage of studies on psychological well-being and perceived organizational support deal with employees who work in a traditional work environment [15, 16].

Social isolation literature has been prioritised in literature for the past decades, but it is aimed at contributing to the limited studies on workplace isolation [4, 10]. The research answers the following research questions:

What was the impact of workplace isolation on psychological well-being and perceived organizational support during the transition from traditional to COVID-19 telework?

What is the effect of job insecurity on the relationship between perceived organizational support and psychological well-being during the Covid-19 epidemic period?

How can organizations increase psychological well-being by understanding the experiences of teleworkers during the pandemic, and what targeted interventions and policies can be implemented to achieve this?

The emergence of teleworking as a contingency plan amid the Covid-19 pandemic has diverged from the conventional work model, creating a fresh area of study that scholars need to explore [14]. Delving into workplace isolation and scrutinizing its impacts at an individual level would significantly enrich both academic literature and practical applications [17]. This study was carried out with participants who worked remotely during the Covid-19 era. Furthermore, as part of the research, two additional fundamental hypotheses concerning the workplace support perceived by teleworkers were tested to enhance the existing literature. While it is well established that workplace support positively influences employees’ psychological processes in an office setting, there is a dearth of studies in this domain catering to telework groups [3, 15].

Accordingly, we investigate (i) the role of workplace isolation experience on perceived organizational support; (ii) the role of workplace isolation experience on psychological well-being; (iii) the role of perceived organizational support on psychological well-being; (iv) the mediating role of perceived organizational support in the relationship between workplace isolation and psychological well-being and (v) the moderating role of perceived job insecurity on the relationship between perceived organizational support and psychological well-being were investigated. With this study, a comprehensive evaluation of the attitudes and behaviours of teleworkers is aimed. Figure 1 provides a pictorial description of the research framework. The theoretical foundations and development of the hypotheses are discussed in the following section.

Fig. 1

Research model.

2 Literature review

2.1 Workplace isolation

The concept of workplace isolation is taken from the structure of Durkeim’s isolation approach and adapted to the workplace context [18]. In his monumental work ‘Suicide’, Durkheim defined isolation as the state in which individuals feel detached or isolated from social groups due to shared values or lack of common norms. Durkheim’s isolation approach has a significant impact on social and business life [19]. In the business world, this can be described as constant changes in market dynamics and organizational structures, which can result in employees feeling isolated and disconnected. Such circumstances can make it difficult for employees to find a sense of purpose or belonging, which can lead to increased mental health problems [20].

When looking at modern workplace dynamics, Durkheim’s approach of isolation offers valuable insight [18]. The global pandemic has accelerated the current trend towards telework, which can lead to physical separation between employees, potentially worsening feelings of isolation [21]. Teleworking conditions could worsen the situation, as physical separation can intensify feelings of disconnection [19]. Durkheim described a state of isolation that can be exacerbated by the fast-paced and impersonal nature of many modern workplaces [20]. This workplace isolation not only affects individual employees but can also have broader impacts on organizational performance and health. Therefore, recognizing and addressing workplace isolation is crucial, and Durkheim’s approach offers a valuable framework for understanding and dealing with these challenges [21].

Social and physical isolation is seen as a source of stress and difficulty for employees in modern organizational structures. When employees are accepted as members of a group, they can access the resources they need more quickly [22]. The fact that the employees who make up the group share their own opportunities and information creates a facilitating structure for the whole group. Otherwise, it will be impossible or longer than expected for the employee who is outside the group and cannot establish meaningful relationships [23]. Based on Munir and his colleagues’ [17] research, this study conceptualizes workplace isolation as a psychological construct based on the feeling of being disconnected from employees in their relationships with their supervisors and colleagues. Another important reason for the emergence of workplace isolation is the social relationships established with the manager and team members. Perceptions of isolation consist of not receiving adequate mentoring and career support from their managers and lack of opportunities for social and emotional interaction with the team [24].

Studies have shown that the perception of isolation occurs when employees lack social and emotional interaction with team members [22]. The perception of workplace isolation is closely related to the low social and emotional interaction of the employees in their workplace and their feeling of not becoming a part of the team. Employees reported that they could not adapt to their environment and did not have meaningful relationships [23]. Subsequent research has shown that employees with high workplace isolation have several negative orientations, such as low productivity and a tendency to quit [9]. Therefore, understanding workplace isolation has become a significant phenomenon for researchers.

On the other hand, in the literature, workplace isolation is considered a three-dimensional structure consisting of physical distance, information sharing, and social relations [22, 25]. The primary source of workplace isolation is the physical distance of the employees from the workplace environment [4, 17]. The physical distance between teleworkers and the work environment poses a challenge in terms of collaboration, coordination, and socialization [9, 12]. While the employees stated that technological devices cannot replace face-to-face communication, they emphasized the importance of physical distance [11]. Secondly, it indicates that employees have access to formal and informal information during their workplace isolation [22]. Additionally, remote team members, such as teleworkers, are often overlooked in information sharing and reporting chains [18]. Studies have shown that higher levels of workplace isolation exist when employees feel they are experiencing high levels of information isolation. It has been proven that employees evaluate their relationships more meaningfully when included in formal and informal information [17]. This situation causes blurring of both knowledge and the social context. The last dimension of workplace isolation is the loss of non-verbal cues during information transfer due to teleworkers’ lack of face-to-face interaction [12, 25]. This situation causes blurring of both knowledge and social context [9, 26]. For these reasons, teleworkers constitute the most appropriate examples for examining social isolation.

3 Hypothesis development

3.1 The relationship between workplace isolation and perceived organizational support

This paper contends that workplace isolation is related to perceived organizational support to influence individuals’ beliefs about the organization. Blau’s social exchange theory provides a powerful framework for understanding POS [27]. According to Blau, social exchanges involve a series of interactions that create obligations characterized by the principle of reciprocity [28]. In the organizational context, if employees perceive that their organization is supportive, they will feel obligated to respond by being more assertive and performing better [27, 29]. Therefore, organizations that want to improve POS should focus on creating an environment in which employees feel valued and recognized, thus developing a sense of mutual obligation and reciprocity [28].

Perceived organizational support (POS) is a fundamental concept in organizational behavior and human resource management [29]. This refers to an employee’s perception of the extent to which their organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being [15]. However, teleworkers’ workplace isolation can potentially negatively impact their perceived organizational support [5]. Firstly, the phenomenon of workplace isolation manifests itself as employees feeling a significant disconnection or estrangement from their social cohorts due to an absence of shared principles within their work environment [30]. This sense of detachment could adversely influence the cultivation of robust interindividual rapports amongst colleagues. These bonds are quintessential for nurturing an atmosphere wherein employees perceive appreciation and endorsement from their organization [31]. Moreover, a pivotal element highlighted in scholarly conversations on workplace isolation is the ‘quality of the relationship’ that each employee fosters with peers and managerial staff [32]. Through various studies, it has been ascertained that employees often experience a deficit of social support when they encounter a void of meaningful interpersonal connections at their place of employment [33]. Consequently, this discovery has underscored that those experiencing elevated levels of workplace isolation harbor sentiments of being devoid of adequate professional and career-oriented support [34]. Additionally, when considering the impact of both social and physical isolation in contemporary organizational structures, it emerges as a source of stress and challenges for the workforce [32]. Nestled within this adverse psychological framework, an employee may find themselves oblivious to any positive sentiments and conduct they might potentially demonstrate within their organization [30, 31]. To reiterate a widely acknowledged premise, employees who are integrated into supportive groups within their work milieu are more adept at garnering necessary resources with minimal exertion [35]. In stark contrast, individuals grappling with feelings of workplace isolation experience a profound breach in their connections with supervisors and collaborators alike. These employees will need to devote disproportionately more energy and time to access resources at work [31, 33]. This scenario inevitably leads to a considerable decrement in their perceived social support.

There is not enough study in the literature examining the relationship between workplace isolation and POS [22, 36]. Understanding and explaining the mechanisms that workplace isolation evaluates individuals’ social relations as meaningless or perceived organizational support has great importance and will significantly contribute to the literature. Therefore, the following hypothesis is offered:

H1: There is a negative relationship between workplace isolation and perceived organizational support.

3.2 The relationship between workplace isolation and psychological well-being

This paper contends that workplace isolation is related to perceived organizational support to its influence on employees’ psychological well-being. Psychological well-being is the person’s having a pleasant emotional and cognitive impact and a high level of satisfaction with his/her position [37]. In essence, psychological well-being consists of feeling good and functioning effectively, having a sense of purpose, managing stress, and having self-esteem and strong relationships and [38].

On the other hand, Durkeim’s social isolation approach, in which people perceive physical and social separation from the group negatively, has been endorsed for a long time [29]. From Durkeim’s perspective of social isolation, this means a lack of support and protection, critical factors in giving meaning to life [28]. First, the perception of social isolation is a concept that draws attention to the lack of meaningful relationships between individuals in their society [23, 39]. Workplace isolation will cause employees not to have sufficient social interaction and to feel socially isolated. Research has indicated that people who suffer from social problems in their workplace are affected by this in their private lives [4]. In addition to having negative consequences for social relations, workplace isolation is an essential source of stress discussed in the literature [1]. Secondly, it is stated that teleworkers work long hours in order to reduce the workplace isolation in their workplace and to be ‘Visible’ [5]. The work-life balance of these employees, whose working hours are extended, deteriorates, and their private lives are adversely affected. This situation will cause them to restrict the private time they allocate to themselves, and their psychological well-being will decrease significantly [24].

Finally, in our sample, the participants are working remotely. When working remotely, physical distance and lack of social communication cause dissatisfaction [4]. Since virtual communication networks are not sufficient in non-verbal communication channels, employees stated that they could not feel sufficient intimacy. Social isolation has an unfavorable effect on the psychological well-being of individuals and on solidarity and social cohesion within society [40]. Upon the above explanations, we hypothesize that workplace isolation will affect a person’s psychological well-being. Therefore, the following hypothesis is offered:

H2: There is a negative relationship between workplace isolation and psychological well-being.

3.3 Role of perceived organizational support and psychological well-being

This paper also proposes that perceived organizational support is related to psychological well-being. The literature has defined psychological well-being as having no negative emotions and individuals having high psychological life satisfaction [15]. Studies have shown that workplace experiences positively influence psychological well-being level [41]. The experiences of the employees at the workplace where they spend most of their time significantly affect their psychological state. Based on the social change, the perceived organizational support describes the links between employees and the organization [42]. Perceived organizational support, as understood through Blau’s social exchange theory, means that employees believe the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being, thereby fostering a sense of security within the organization [28]. This perception also encourages employees to reciprocate by showing their commitment and support towards the organization’s objectives [29].

Organizational support perception depends on the degree to which the organization attaches importance to the employee’ contribution and psychological well-being [43]. Organizations meet the needs of employees to build trust, approval, and social identity. The perceived organizational support helps to increase employee performance and ensures sufficient organizational commitment [44]. On the other hand, it positively increases the psychological well-being of individuals [45, 46]. Recent studies have shown that high POS also has positive effects on employees’ psychological well-being both inside and outside the workplace [15, 16]. Employees who feel supported by the workplace will want to reciprocate this positive organizational attitude and will continue to work in a more positive mood. [30]. Additionally, a high POS can provide indications that assistance will be available when needed. This support causes employees to predict the future with more confidence and higher subjective psychological well-being [28].

On the other hand, workplace isolation can lead to negative experiences for employees, including not receiving recognition from colleagues, missing opportunities for informal interaction with colleagues, and not feeling like they belong to a group [47, 48]. The effects of social and organizational engagement on employee well-being during telework were examined in a study and it was found that teleworkers experience isolation, which negatively affects their well-being [49]. The importance of perceived organizational support was emphasized to mitigate the negative effects of isolation. When employees feel supported by their organizations, it has a positive impact on their workplace experiences and can counteract some of the negative aspects of isolation [50, 51]. Perceived organizational support played an important role in reducing negative effects [52]. It is clear from these studies that organizations need to focus on strengthening support structures to help remote workers overcome the challenges of isolation.

The shift to teleworking during the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a feeling of isolation among employees, affecting their psychological health [53]. Measuring the mediation effect in this relationship is important because it helps understand the process or mechanism by which workplace isolation affects psychological well-being. By identifying perceived organizational support as a mediator, we can recognize its role in influencing outcome (psychological well-being) and take steps to strengthen this support to reduce the negative effects of workplace isolation. Employees who felt their organizations supported them were less likely to respond to negative experiences than expected [1]. Therefore, it is hypothesized that

H3: There is a positive relationship between perceived organizational support and psychological well-being.

H4: Perceived organizational support positively mediates the relationship between workplace isolation and psychological well-being.

3.4 The moderating role of job insecurity

Job insecurity is the feeling of powerlessness, uncertainty, and helplessness that the employee feels when she/he is not secure about her/his current job’s continuity. Job insecurity, which appears as a social phenomenon, is experienced as a subjective perception [54]. Consistent with the literature on job insecurity, it is argued that it will cause negative feelings such as anxiety, depression, lack of self-confidence, and dissatisfaction in employees and can negatively change their feelings towards the workplace [55]. In this sense, we note that the higher the job insecurity of employees, the lower the relationship between perceived organizational support and psychological well-being [56].

The literature supports that employees who feel insecure about their jobs have less faith that their organizations care about their well-being [56]. This perception of decreased organizational support may guide to further declines in psychological well-being [55]. This means that job insecurity appears to prevent positive beliefs about the work environment even among employees who have positive attitudes towards their jobs.

Many studies have directly investigated the moderating role of job insecurity in the relationship between POS and psychological well-being [57, 58]. A meta-analysis indicated that job insecurity significantly reduced the positive relationship between POS and psychological well-being. In another study, a meta-analysis was performed with 535 independent samples [59]. This meta-analysis found that job insecurity significantly reduced the positive relationship between perceived organizational support and both job satisfaction and organizational commitment [60].

These meta-analyses ensure robust demonstration that job insecurity treats as a bumper, avoiding corporations from efficiently supporting the psychological well-being of their employees [57 , 60]. When employees are unsecured about their jobs, they are less likely to utility from their company’s endeavor to ensure support, even if those efforts are favorable.

Furthermore, the perception of job insecurity of employees means that they face the loss of all material and moral gains from the workplace [57]. For this reason, the employee’s belief in job insecurity is an important phenomenon that suppresses positive beliefs about his job. Studies have shown that employees who have a high fear of being fired during this period have significant negative effects on their working styles and behaviors [39]. Even if the employee has positive feelings about the work environment, job insecurity will negatively affect personal psychological well-being and reduce the relationship between them [58].

Finally, job insecurity or the threat of job loss is considered a source of stress that negatively impacts mental and physical health. The lack of job security of employees will cause them to constantly feel anxious and worried about their future [59]. The literature emphasizes that it cannot realistically interpret the positive support in the work environment of employees under intense job loss stress [54, 56]. As a result, employees who experience job insecurity will be under the influence of these negative feelings [55]. It is very important to understand how the new work order affects the perceptions of teleworkers [60]. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

H5: Job insecurity negatively moderates the relationship between perceived organizational support and psychological well-being.

4 Research design

4.1 Measures

Multi-item scales were adopted based on the previous studies to test the hypotheses of the study. Besides, 5-point Likert scales ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5) were used for measuring the variables of the present study. Participants were asked to evaluate the items related to workplace isolation, perceived organizational support, job insecurity, and psychological well-being within the context of quarantine and teleworking.

Workplace isolation was measured using the 3-item scale of Orhan, Rijsman, and Van Dijk [10]. Sample items include the following: “ I feel I miss a lot of information when I am not seeing people I work with.” and “ I often miss the opportunity to meet key people who I work with.” Bandara and Senanayaka [62] provided evidence for internal consistency and construct validity. In this study, this scale showed good reliability (α= .72).

Perceived Organizational Support was assessed with 8-item scale adapted from Eisenberger et al. [45]. Sample items include: “The organization values my contribution to its psychological well-being in quarantine.” and “The organization really cares about my psychological well-being in quarantine.” Previous studies have shown that the scale has internal reliability and validity [63]. In this study, this scale showed good reliability (α= .85).

Job insecurity was measured using 4-item scale from Vander Elst et al. [64]. Sample items include: “I feel insecure about the future of my job.” and “I think I might lose my job in the near future.” De Cuyper et al. [44] confirmed reliability and internal consistency. In this study, this scale showed good reliability (α= .83).

Psychological well-being was measured using 6-item scale from Grossi et al. [65]. Sample items include: “ I felt downhearted and blue during the past month.” and “I was emotionally stable and sure of myself during the past month.” Prior studies supported the reliability and internal construct validity of the scale [46, 47]. In this study, this scale showed good reliability (α= .79).

4.2 Sampling

Information was obtained during the Covid-19 epidemic in Turkey between April and May 2021. At the time the research was conducted, Covid-19 was spreading rapidly and Turkey was the country with the fifth highest number of cases worldwide. In addition to current limitations on social interaction and educational opportunities, the COVID-19 pandemic has also seen the continuation of flexible and teleworking techniques in the workplace. As a result, participants were working remotely and working from home during this time.

During the sampling process, we used convenience sampling technique due to accessibility, convenience, availability, and time constraints for participants in the pandemic situation in the country [65]. During the data collection process, we selected key participants who had been actively working in different positions for at least a year. This sampling procedure is consistent with previous studies In this context, the research is compatible with the literature in terms of generalizability and representativeness of the material [45, 66].

We contacted participants through phone calls and online means, according to the literature. The established criteria for inclusion in our study were the following: a minimum of one year of employment (67); full-time employment status (68), and adherence to post-COVID-19 isolation rules as a teleworker, whether partially or fully [26]. These guidelines were established after a comprehensive review of the relevant literature.

In this context, data were collected through an online survey using the Google form, and an online survey link was distributed through personal and professional networks. In addition, in the opening section of the survey, the definition of “workplace isolation” was clearly given to the participants, and all items of the survey were adapted to be limited to the scope of working life only. In the online survey prepared using the Google form, each participant is limited to one answer. Participants could not answer the survey on their second entry via Google form. After the explanation about the purpose of the research, participants were asked to indicate that they agreed to participate in the current study by ticking the phrase “I agree to participate in the research” at the beginning of the survey. All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards [69].

Participants were also informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any stage. Participation in the research is voluntary, and participants who fill out the survey are deemed to have agreed to participate in the study. All participants were informed that all information shared would be kept confidential and used only for academic purposes. We also emphasized that there were no right or wrong answers to the questions, and participants were asked to choose the answer that best suited them.

In total, 450 surveys were collected and after eliminating ineligible surveys (incomplete surveys, respondents with less than one year of work experience, and respondents working in organizations that do not use telecommuting), 382 valid surveys were collected. samples were obtained, resulting in an approximately 85% response rate.

In terms of demographic characteristics (see Table 1), 50.5% of the respondents were female, average working experience in the current organization was 8.56 years (SD = 7.43), and the average age was 37.2 years (SD = 8.56). In terms of education, 52.1% had a bachelor’s degree, followed by 34% with a graduate degree, 7.1% with high school, and 6.8% with a college degree. In terms of position, 62.6% were working as white-collar, 13.4% were working as blue-collar employees, and 24.1% were working in other positions. Besides, participants were working for 4.12 week (SD = 1.46) on average following workplace isolation rules. 57.4% were working from home, 32.7% were working in alternating work schedules, and 9.9% were dependent on other working schedules. Additionally, 49.5% of organizations were operated locally, 25.4% of them were operated nationally, and 25.1% were operated internationally.

Table 1
Demographic profile of the sample

Demographics Category N %

Age 18–25 19 5

26–35 168 44

36–45 132 34.6

46–55 47 12.3

≥56 16 4.2

Gender Female 193 50.5

Male 189 49.5

Education High school 27 7.1

College degree 26 6.8

Bachelor’s degree 199 52.1

Graduate degree 130 34

Sector Public 159 41.6

Private 223 58.4

Position White-collar 239 62.6

Blue-collar 51 13.4

Other 92 24.1

Work experience 1–5 158 42.2

6–10 135 36.1

≥11 81 21.7

Working status Working from home 219 57.4

Working in alternating 125 32.7

work schedules

Other 38 9.9

Activity area Local 189 49.5

National 97 25.4

International 96 25.1

Demographics	Category	N	%
Age	18–25	19	5
	26–35	168	44
	36–45	132	34.6
	46–55	47	12.3
	≥56	16	4.2
Gender	Female	193	50.5
	Male	189	49.5
Education	High school	27	7.1
	College degree	26	6.8
	Bachelor’s degree	199	52.1
	Graduate degree	130	34
Sector	Public	159	41.6
	Private	223	58.4
Position	White-collar	239	62.6
	Blue-collar	51	13.4
	Other	92	24.1
Work experience	1–5	158	42.2
	6–10	135	36.1
	≥11	81	21.7
Working status	Working from home	219	57.4
	Working in alternating	125	32.7
	work schedules
	Other	38	9.9
Activity area	Local	189	49.5
	National	97	25.4
	International	96	25.1

5 Analysis and results

5.1 Measure validity and reliability

After the data collection, we assessed reliability and validity of the variables by using confirmatory factor analysis [70]. After eliminating ten problematic items having low factor loading with the step-by-step procedure (4 items from perceived organizational support, 1 items from workplace isolation, and 2 items from psychological well-being), the results indicated that the models adequately fit the data (χ2(109) = 246.209, CFI = .94, IFI = .94, TLI = .93, χ2/df = 2.26, RMSEA = .057).

The results show that the factor loadings were above the cutoff value suggested by Hair et al. [48]. Cronbach’s alphas and composite reliability for each variable was above the threshold value suggested by Fornell and Larcker [70] (See Table 2). However, AVE score for physical isolation was lower than the cut-off value and then the factor analysis was repeated after the elimination of physical isolation construct from the model. Final measurement model also adequately fits the data (χ2(59) = 145.434, CFI = .95, IFI = .95, TLI = .94, χ2/df = 2.47, RMSEA = .062).

Table 2
Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Constructs Factor Loadings CR AVE Cronbach’s α

Information Isolation .72 .56 .72

I feel I miss a lot of information when I am not seeing people I work with. .74

I often miss the opportunity to meet key people who I work with. .76

Perceived Organizational Support .85 .53 .85

The organization values my contribution to its well-being in quarantine. .74

The organization really cares about my well-being in quarantine. .76

The organization cares about my general satisfaction at work in quarantine. .81

The organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work. .78

Job Insecurity .83 .56 .83

Chances are, I will soon lose my job. .78

I am sure I can keep my job. (R) .58

I feel insecure about the future of my job. .71

I think I might lose my job in the near future. .90

Psychological wellbeing

I felt bothered by nervousness or by my “nerves” during the past month. .62 .80 .50 .79

I felt energy, pep, or vitality during the past month. .75

I was emotionally stable and sure of myself during the past month. .67

I felt cheerful, lighthearted during the past month. .78

Constructs	Factor Loadings	CR	AVE	Cronbach’s α
Information Isolation		.72	.56	.72
I feel I miss a lot of information when I am not seeing people I work with.	.74
I often miss the opportunity to meet key people who I work with.	.76
Perceived Organizational Support		.85	.53	.85
The organization values my contribution to its well-being in quarantine.	.74
The organization really cares about my well-being in quarantine.	.76
The organization cares about my general satisfaction at work in quarantine.	.81
The organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work.	.78
Job Insecurity		.83	.56	.83
Chances are, I will soon lose my job.	.78
I am sure I can keep my job. (R)	.58
I feel insecure about the future of my job.	.71
I think I might lose my job in the near future.	.90
Psychological wellbeing
I felt bothered by nervousness or by my “nerves” during the past month.	.62	.80	.50	.79
I felt energy, pep, or vitality during the past month.	.75
I was emotionally stable and sure of myself during the past month.	.67
I felt cheerful, lighthearted during the past month.	.78

For the discriminant validity, as recommended by Fornell and Larcker [70], we found that the squared root of AVE for all constructs was greater than the correlations between pairs of the construct. Table 3 shows the correlations between all research variables. According to the results, isolation was significantly correlated with perceived organizational support (r = .10, p < .05), job insecurity (r = .21, p < .01), and psychological well-being (r = –.24, p < .01). Besides, perceived organizational support was significantly correlated with job insecurity (r = –.34, p < .01), and psychological well-being (r = .15, p < .01). Finally, job insecurity was significantly correlated with psychological well-being (r = –.17, p < .01). On the other hand, moderate correlations existing between all these variables also confirmed the discriminant validity.

Table 3

Discriminant Validity

Dimensions	1	2	3	4
Workplace Isolation	(.75)
Perceived Organizational Support	.10^*	(.81)
Job Insecurity	.21^**	–.34^**	(.75)
Psychological Well-Being	–.24^**	.15^**	–.17^**	(.71)
Mean	2.46	3.43	1.91	3.07
S. dev.	1.13	1.02	.98	.91

^*p < .05; ^**p < .01; Values along the diagonal are the square root of AVE.

5.2 Common method variance assessment

Harman’s one-factor test was used for assessing the common method bias [70]. As a result, multiple factors (explaining 63% of total variance) with an eigenvalue greater than one and one-factor solution explained 28.13% of the variance, confirming the absence of common method variance. Additionally, common latent factor analysis was used, and the measurement model with and without common latent factor was compared to assess the common method bias. Results showed that the change in fit indexes was not significant, confirming absence of common method variance (model with common latent factor CFI = .95, IFI = .96, TLI = .94, χ2/df = 2.50, RMSEA = 0.063; model without common latent factor CFI = .95, IFI = .95, TLI = .94, χ2/df = 2.47, RMSEA = .062).

5.3 Hypotheses testing

The aforementioned hypotheses were tested with structural equation modelling and the model fits the data well (CFI = .97, IFI = .97, TLI = .96, χ2/df = 2.27, RMSEA = .058). As shown in Table 4, isolation was positively related to perceived organizational support (β= .13, p < .05), thus supporting H1. Furthermore, we found that isolation was negatively related to psychological well-being (β= –.27, p < .001), thereby supporting H2. Findings also indicated that perceived organizational support was positively related to psychological well-being (β= .19, p < .001), supporting H3.

Table 4
Model Results

Hypothesized Path Path Coefficient t value Results

H1 Workplace Isolation ⟶ Perceived Organizational Support .13^* 2.085 Unsupported

H2 Perceived Organizational Support ⟶ Psychological Well-Being .19^ 3.412 Supported

H3 Workplace Isolation ⟶ Psychological Well-Being –.27^ –4.266 Supported

Hypothesized Path		Path Coefficient	t value	Results
H1	Workplace Isolation ⟶ Perceived Organizational Support	.13^*	2.085	Unsupported
H2	Perceived Organizational Support ⟶ Psychological Well-Being	.19^**	3.412	Supported
H3	Workplace Isolation ⟶ Psychological Well-Being	–.27^**	–4.266	Supported

^*p < .05; ^**p < .001.

For testing mediating and moderating effects, the bootstrapping method through PROCESS macro 3.4 was used in SPSS 21.0 following the recommendations of Preacher and Hayes [71]. Particularly, PROCESS produces asymmetric confidence intervals for the indirect effect [72] and, thus, obtains more reliable and valid results, more accurate type I error rates than the traditional stepwise approach, and more powerful results than other common tests as the Sobel test [72]. Bootstrapping with PROCESS macro builds confidence intervals for indirect and interaction effects by empirical approximation of the sampling distribution [72]. In terms of predicting the results, if zero is not between the lower and upper limit of the bootstrapped confidence interval, the indirect and interaction effect is regarded as significant. In this vein, moderation analysis was conducted by using Model 1 in PROCESS with 5000 bootstraps resamples and 95% bias-corrected confidence interval. Additionally, the mediation analysis was performed by using Model 4 in PROCESS with 5000 bootstraps resamples and 95% bias-corrected confidence interval.

In terms of the mediating analysis stated in Table 5, isolation is positively associated with perceived organizational support (β= .09, p < .05; 95% CI: 0.03–0.18) and psychological well-being (β= –.19, p < .001; 95% CI: –.27––.11). Perceived organizational support is positively associated with psychological well-being (β= .14, p < .001; 95% CI:.08–.25). Besides, perceived organizational support mediated the relationship between isolation and psychological well-being (β= .16, p < .001; 95% CI:.07–.25), thus supporting H4.

Table 5

Results of Mediating Analysis

Direct and Indirect Effects	95% CI
	β	LL	UL
Direct Effects
Workplace Isolation ⟶ Perceived Organizational Support	.09^*	.03	.18
Perceived Organizational Support ⟶ Psychological Well-Being	.14^**	.08	.25
Workplace Isolation ⟶ Psychological Well-Being	–.19^**	–.27	–.11
Indirect Effect
Workplace Isolation⟶Perceived Organizational Support⟶ Psychological Well-Being	.16^**	.07	.25

^*p < .05; ^**p < .001.; CI = Confidence interval; LL = Lower Limit; UL = Upper Limit.

According to the moderation analysis results in Table 6, perceived organizational support (β= .14, p < .001; 95% CI:.08–.25) and job insecurity (β= –.16, p < .001; 95% CI: –.25––.06) is positively associated with psychological well-being. Job insecurity also moderated the relationship between perceived organizational support and psychological well-being (β= –.11, p < .001; 95% CI: –.19––.03), hence supporting H5.

Table 6

Results of Moderating Analysis

	Model 1			Model 2
	95% CI			95% CI
	β	LL	UL	β	LL	UL
Main Effects
Perceived Organizational Support ⟶ Psychological Well-Being	.14^**	.08	.25	.10^*	.11	.49
Job Insecurity ⟶ Psychological Well-Being	–.16^**	–.25	–.06	–.16^**	–.26	–.05
Interaction Effect
Perceived Organizational Support^*Job Insecurity ⟶ Psychological Well-Being				–.11^**	–.19	–.03

^**p < .001 ^*p < .01 CI = Confidence interval; LL = Lower Limit; UL = Upper Limit.

We also plotted this interaction effect and examined the simple slopes, following the guidelines of Aiken and West [73]. As depicted in Fig. 2, the positive relationship between perceived organizational support and psychological well-being was weaker in the presence of high job insecurity rather than low job insecurity.

Fig. 2

Moderating effect of job insecurity on relationship between perceived organizational support and employee wellbeing.

6 Discussion

Teleworking is one of the most preferred working methods during the Covid-19 pandemic [3]. Therefore, it is important to understand the attitudes and behaviours of teleworkers during Covid-19.

We expected to find a negative relationship between workplace isolation and POS, as described in the first hypothesis. The results indicated that a significant relationship was found between these variables. Unexpectedly, the relationship between the variables is positive, indicating that employees with a high level of workplace isolation perceive high perceived organizational support from their workplaces. However, we should also point out that, unlike other studies, this study was conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic. The literature supported that physical separation can negatively impact workplace isolation and its outcomes [19]. However, the Covid-19 pandemic is considered a very extraordinary experience for employees [74]. Employees evaluated the physical separation and even isolation they experienced during this period as a positive experience [30]. At the same time, they thought that not only they but also their colleagues had negative experiences such as workplace isolation during this chaotic period [32]. These findings are parallel to the Social Identity Theory put forward by Tajfel and Turner, which states that our sense of self mostly comes from the groups we are a part of [75]. Additionally, the proactive measures taken by organizations during Covid-19 can be interpreted as strong organizational support because they help maintain the positive self-concept associated with being part of the organization [33, 76]. As a result, we assume that employees may have perceived the workplace isolation they experienced during the Covid-19 pandemic as a positive and general experience experienced by all their colleagues.

In the study, we found support for our second hypothesis stating that workplace isolation among telework employees has a negative effect on employee psychological well-being. Employees who thought they could not establish meaningful relationships in their work life and were isolated from their colleagues also had low psychological well-being. In other words, consistent with Durkeimin’s isolation approach, employees’ high isolation at work also affects their general psychological well-being [29]. The isolation experienced in the workplace is parallel to Prasad’s [77] study in terms of affecting their psychological well-being. Being isolated can cause individuals to leave society and to have negative evaluations of themselves.

This study also showed that the increase in POS levels of telework employees has a positive effect on their psychological well-being. This information, which is in parallel with the Social Exchange Theory, shows that if employees believe that they are supported by their organizations, their entire lives and psychological health will be positively affected [28]. This study is consistent with the POS and personal psychological well-being studies of Evanoff et al. [42].

The mediation effect of POS on the relationship between workplace isolation experience and psychological well-being, can be explained as employees who feel excluded or lonely from the workplace feel better when they believe they are supported and considered by their organization. Teleworking has several known difficulties for employees. Studies have shown that workplace isolation is one of them. [11]. As stated in the social exchange theory, even the strong negative emotions experienced by employees when they believe that their organizations value them do not negatively affect their mood [29].

An explanation for the moderating effect of job insecurity on the relationship between POS and psychological well-being might be that the probability of leaving the job causes the loss of support from the organization. We observed that working in an organization that pays attention to the employees’ development and psychological well-being positively affects their psychological well-being. However, the probability of employees losing their jobs will affect them negatively. Consistent with the literature, the stronger the beliefs about job insecurity, the lower the positive effect of perceived organizational support on psychological well-being [54, 59].

6.1 Theoretical Implications

This study widens the available teleworking literature by investigating the interrelated variables of workplace isolation, perceived organizational support, psychological well-being, and job insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic. It supports the impression that workplace isolation plays a crucial role in shaping teleworkers’ experiences [30, 31].

Firstly, the current study supports existing literature by indicating the negative impacts of workplace isolation on teleworkers’ psychological situation during the Covid-19 pandemic [17, 25]. Although there are extensive studies in the literature on social isolation, workplace isolation emerges as a popular concept after Covid-19 [32, 60]. It has brought a new perspective to the still limited workplace isolation literature, both with its special sample group and by examining issues that are extremely important for business life, such as well-being and POS.

Moreover, the important role of POS in development psychological well-being is underlined by this study. This is consistent with previous studies highlighting the importance of organizational support in employee mental health [28, 29]. It also demonstrates the impact of this type of support in reducing the negative impact of workplace isolation. This finding provides an important theoretical contribution to the teleworkers’ literature, which is extremely popular with researchers [5, 78]. This is an important takeaway for managers and organizations to improve the mental health of teleworkers.

In addition, the study bring to light the moderating effect of job insecurity on the relationship between POS and psychological well-being. This finding is consistent with research supporting the negative impact of job insecurity on employees’ mental health [56, 57]. The research highlights the need for organizations to address the issue of job insecurity and provide a sense of security to teleworkers.

6.2 Managerial implications

During the Covid-19 pandemic, many organizations have had to switch to teleworking to adhere with lockdown and social distancing measures [5]. Although most organizations have since returned to on-site working, the effects of teleworking during the pandemic have been substantial and should not be disregarded [34].

Furthermore, the pandemic has highlighted how important it is for businesses to be ready for unforeseen circumstances and emergencies that can need a switch to telework [78]. Therefore, this study examining the teleworkers’ experiences during Covid-19 can offer insightful information on how organizations might better support and manage teleworkers in similar situations. It also clarifies potential long-term issues and remedies related to teleworking.

This study, which addresses the psychological workplace isolation, perceived organizational support, well-being and job insecurity of teleworkers during the Covid-19 period, is of extremely critical importance for the well-being of employees [79]. A study conducted by Sahai et al. (2021) found that one of the biggest challenges facing teleworkers during the pandemic was workplace isolation [4]. Teleworkers who have limited face-to-face interactions with colleagues and managers’ report feeling disconnection, loneliness and a lack of support from their organizations. This can greatly impact employees’ mental health and overall well-being.

Furthermore, job insecurity has also been a major concern for teleworkers during the pandemic. Wilson et al. (2021) found that teleworkers experienced higher levels of job insecurity compared to on-site workers [57]. This is due to the uncertainty caused by the pandemic, as well as the shift to teleworking, which can lead to changes in job roles and responsibilities.

However, it was underlined that corporate support for teleworkers during the Covid-19 period is one of the most important factors that affect the well-being of employees. Wu et al. (2021) found that teleworkers who did not receive adequate support from their organizations reported higher levels of job stress and burnout [52]. This highlights the importance of perceived organizational support in ensuring the well-being of teleworkers in times of crisis.

As a result, it is of great importance to conduct studies on the well-being of teleworkers, workplace isolation, job insecurity, and institutional support for teleworkers, in order to understand the general well-being of employees working remotely. To support their employees and promote a healthy work environment, it is important for organizations to recognize and address the challenges faced by teleworkers during this time [7]. For this reason, teleworking, which has become an integral part of modern working culture, continues to maintain its prevalence after the epidemic period is over [51]. This will not only benefit organizations in understanding and improving their teleworking policies, but will also contribute to the well-being of their employees.

6.3 Limitations and future suggestions

When interpreting the results of this study, it is useful to consider some limitations. First, the data from this study were collected from employees who worked remotely during the period when restrictions and disease were most intense in Turkey due to the pandemic. People were expected to get used to the new working order and lifestyle before data were collected. Although the process of getting used to the new order was expected, this situation may have created some bias in the participants. For this reason, it will be useful to re-evaluate and even compare the study after a different period.

The second limitation to be specified is that only the employees’ business relations were taken into consideration within the scope of the study. Communications and relationships within the scope of the job were ignored during the study. It will be useful to measure individuals’ isolation level in daily life and their work environment in order to make a comprehensive evaluation.

The third limitation of this study is that it is carried out in Turkey. Turkey is a collectivist society as a source of ongoing roots and traditional structures. Unlike individualist societies, being a group member and acting together with the group are more prominent in collectivist societies. Different cultural structures affect the attitudes and behaviors of individuals or groups and cause different practices [58]. Examining the perception of intercultural workplace isolation will make an essential contribution to the literature. Lastly, it will be useful to collect and data from different cultures and countries and make a comparative analysis for generalization and understanding of workplace isolation.

Declarations

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors have no acknowledgements.

Funding

No funding was received for conducting this study.

References

McGuire

, Workplace Social Isolation Perceptions,Workplace Deviance Behaviors, and HEXACO Personality Factors (Doctoral dissertation, Adler University).

Moens

, Lippens

, Sterkens

, Weytjens

, Baert

. The COVID-19 crisis and telework: A research survey on experiences, expectations and hopes. The European Journal of Health Economics. (2022); 23(4):729–53.

Chong

, Huang

, Chang

. Supporting interdependent telework employees: A moderated-mediation model linking daily COVID-19 task setbacks to next-day work withdrawal. Journal of Applied Psychology. (2020); 105(12):1408.

Sahai

, Ciby

, Dominic

. Workplace isolation amongst home-based teleworkers: Can psychological capital make a difference? Human Systems Management. 2022);41(3):327–39.

Labrecque

, Lecours

, Gilbert

, Boucher

. Workers’ perspectives on the effects of telework during the COVID-19 pandemic on their well-being: A qualitative study in Canada. Work. 2023);74(3):785–98.

Nakrošien

, Bučiūnienėq,

, Goštautaitėq,

, Working from home: Characteristics and outcomes of telework. International Journal of Manpower. 2019); 40(1):87–101.

Blahopoulou

, Ortiz-Bonnin

, Montañez-Juan

, Torrens

Espinosa G

, García-Buades

. Telework satisfaction, wellbeing and performance in the digital era. Lessons learned during COVID-19 lockdown in Spain. Current Psychology. (2022);41(5):2507–20.

Franklin

, Gkiouleka

. A scoping review of psychosocial risks to health workers during the Covid-19 pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. (2021);18(5):2453.

Angel-Alvarado

, Belletich

, Wilhelmi

. Isolation at the workplace: The case of music teachers in the Spanish primary education system. Music Education Research. (2021); 23(3):300–10.

10.

Orhan

, Rijsman

, Van Dijk

. Invisible, therefore isolated: Comparative effects of team virtuality with task virtuality on workplace isolation and work outcomes. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones. 2016); 32(2):109–22.

11.

Even

. The evolution of work: Best practices for avoiding social and organizational isolation in telework employees. Available at SSRN 3543122. 2020 Feb 23.

12.

Van Zoonen

, Sivunen

. The impact of remote work and mediated communication frequency on isolation and psychological distress. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2022); 31(4):610–21.

13.

Ollo-López

, Goñi-Legaz

, Erro-Garcés

. Home-based telework: Usefulness and facilitators. International Journal of Manpower. (2021);42(4):644–60.

14.

Tunk

, Kumar

. Work from home-A new virtual reality. Current Psychology. (2023):42:30665–77.

15.

Caesens

, Stinglhamber

, Demoulin

, De Wilde

. Perceived organizational support and employees’ well-being: The mediating role of organizational dehumanization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology.(2017);26(4):527–40.

16.

Rasool

, Wang

, Tang

, Saeed

, Iqbal

. 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.(2021);18(5):2294.

17.

Munir

, Khan

, Sadiq

, Ali

, Hamdan

, Munir

. Workplace isolation in pharmaceutical companies: Moderating role of self-efficacy. Social Indicators Research. (2016);126:1157–74.

18.

Berkman

, Glass

, Brissette

, Seeman

. From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Social Science & Medicine. (2000);51(6):843–57.

19.

Durkheim

. Suicide:Astudy in sociology. Routledge; 2005 Aug 4.

20.

Clegg

, Cunha

, Rego

. Explaining suicide in organizations: Durkheim revisited. Business and Society Review. (2016);121(3):391–414.

21.

Courpasson

, Younes

, Reed

. Durkheim in the neoliberal organization: Taking resistance and solidarity seriously. Organization Theory.(2021);2(1):2631787720982619.

22.

Shagirbasha

, Iqbal

, Madhan

, Chaudhary

, Dhall

. Workplace isolation during COVID-19 and work–family conflict among academicians: Interplay of psychological stress and organizational identification. International Journal of Manpower. (2023);45(1):133–54.

23.

Huyghebaert

, Gillet

, Audusseau

, Fouquereau

. Perceived career opportunities, commitment to the supervisor, social isolation: Their effects on nurses’ well-being and turnover. Journal of Nursing Management. 2019);27(1):207–14.

24.

Arman

, Gillberg

, Norbäck

. Alone at work: Isolation, competition and co-dependency in flexibilised retail. Economic and Industrial Democracy. 2021); 42(4):1254–81.

25.

Zhou

. A review of researches workplace loneliness. Psychology. 2018); 9(5):1005–22.

26.

Gao

, Sai

. Towards a ‘virtual’world: Social isolation and struggles during the COVID-19 pandemic as single women living alone. Gender, Work & Organization. (2020);27(5):754–62.

27.

Blau

. Justice in social exchange. Sociological Inquiry. (1964); 34(2):193–206.

28.

Kurtessis

, Eisenberger

, Ford

, Buffardi

, Stewart

, Adis

. Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management. (2017);43(6):1854–84.

29.

Suifan

, Abdallah

, Al Janini

. The impact of transformational leadership on employees’ creativity: The mediating role of perceived organizational support. Management Research Review. 2018);41(1):113–32.

30.

Sahai

, Ciby

, Kahwaji

. Workplace isolation: A systematic review and synthesis. International Journal of Management (IJM). 2020);11(12):2745–58.

31.

Van Zoonen

, Sivunen

, Blomqvist

. Out of sight–Out of trust?Ananalysis of the mediating role of communication frequency and quality in the relationship betweenworkplace isolation and trust. European Management Journal. 2023.

32.

Shagirbasha

, Iqbal

, Madhan

, Chaudhary

, Dhall

33.

Rasool

, Wang

, Tang

, Saeed

, Iqbal

34.

Chun

, Sagas

, Wendling

. The intervening effects of perceived organizational support on COVID-19 pandemic stress, job burnout and occupational turnover intentions of collegiate sport athlete-facing professionals. Sustainability. 2022);14(11):6807.

35.

Van Zoonen

, Sivunen

. The impact of remote work and mediated communication frequency on isolation and psychological distress. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. (2022);31(4):610–21.

36.

Ryff

. Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics. 2013); 83(1):10–28.

37.

Matera

, Paradisi

, Boin

, Nerini

. Perceived mattering in the face of COVID-19: Links with emotion regulation and psychological well-being. Psychology & Health. 2022);37(12):1471–91.

38.

, Zhang

, Mao

, Wang

. How social isolation and loneliness effect medication adherence among elderly with chronic diseases: An integrated theory and validated cross-sectional study. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 2020); 90, 104154.

39.

Kim

, Kim

, Newman

, Ferris

, Perrewé

. The antecedents and consequences of positive organizational behavior: The role of psychological capital for promoting employee well-being in sport organizations. Sport Management Review. 2019);22(1):108–25.

40.

Eisenberger

, Rhoades Shanock

, Wen

. Perceived organizational support: Why caring about employees counts. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. (2020);7:101–24.

41.

Evanoff

, Strickland

, Dale

, Hayibor

, Page

, Duncan

, Kannampallil

, Gray

. Work-related and personal factors associated with mental well-being during the COVID-19 response: Survey of health care and other workers. Journal of Medical Internet Research. (2020);22(8):e21366.

42.

Eisenberger

, Cummings

, Armeli

, Lynch

. Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1997);82(5):812.

43.

Vega

, Brennan

. Isolation and technology: The human disconnect. Journal of Organizational Change Management. (2000);13(5):468–81.

44.

Rhoades

, Eisenberger

. Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology. (2002);87(4):698.

45.

Cheng

, Yi

. Hotel employee job crafting, burnout, and satisfaction: The moderating role of perceived organizational support. International Journal of Hospitality Management. (2018);72:78–85.

46.

Bjørnstad , Siv , Patil , Grete

, Raanaas , Ruth

. Nature Contact and Organizational Support During OfficeWorking Hours: Benefits Relating to Stress Reduction, Subjective Health Complaints, and Sick Leave. Work. 2016:9–20.

47.

Liston-Heyes

, Juillet

. Employee isolation and support for change in the public sector: A study of the internal audit profession. Public Management Review. 2019);21(3):423–45.

48.

Michalos

. editor. Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2014 Jan 1.

49.

Brown

, Leite

. The effects of social and organizational connectedness on employee well-being and remote working experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. (2023);53(2):134–52.

50.

Henssler

, Stock

, van Bohemen

, Walter

, Heinz

, Brandt

. Mental health effects of infection containment strategies: Quarantine and isolation—a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience. 2021);271(2):223–34.

51.

, Ren

, Wang

, He

, Xiong

, Ma

, Fan

, Guo

, Liu

, Zhang

. The relationship between job stress and job burnout: The mediating effects of perceived social support and job satisfaction. Psychology, Health & Medicine. (2021);26(2):204–11.

52.

Côté

, Lauzier

, Stinglhamber

. The relationship between presenteeism and job satisfaction: A mediated moderation model using work engagement and perceived organizational support. European Management Journal. (2021);39(2):270–8.

53.

Darvishmotevali

, Ali

. Job insecurity, subjective well-being and job performance: The moderating role of psychological capital. International Journal of Hospitality Management. (2020);87:102462.

54.

Lee

, Huang

, Ashford

. Job insecurity and the changing workplace: Recent developments and the future trends in job insecurity research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. (2018);5:335–59.

55.

Jung

, Jung

, Yoon

. COVID-19: The effects of job insecurity on the job engagement and turnover intent of deluxe hotel employees and the moderating role of generational characteristics. International Journal of Hospitality Management. (2021);92, 102703.

56.

Wilson

, Lee

, Fitzgerald

, Oosterhoff

, Sevi

, Shook

. Job insecurity and financial concern during the COVID-19 pandemic are associated with worse mental health. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. (2020);62(9):686–91.

57.

Jiang

, Lavaysse

. Cognitive and affective job insecurity: A meta-analysis and a primary study. Journal of Management. 2018);44(6):2307–42.

58.

Richter

, Näswall

. Job insecurity and trust: Uncovering a mechanism linking job insecurity to well-being. Work & Stress. 2019);33(1):22–40.

59.

Soomro

, Ali

, Nabi

, Ahmed

. Job insecurity in COVID-19: A longitudinal study. Human Systems Management. (Preprint). (2023);19, 1–3.

60.

Cheng

, Chan

. Who suffers more from job insecurity? A meta-analytic review. Applied Psychology. 2008);57(2):272–303.

61.

Jiang

, Lavaysse

. Cognitive and affective job insecurity: A meta-analysis and a primary study. Journal of Management. 2018);44(6):2307–42.

62.

Lynch

, Eisenberger

, Armeli

. Perceived organizational support: Inferior versus superior performance by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1999);84(4):467.

63.

Vander Elst

, De Witte

, De Cuyper

. The Job Insecurity Scale: A psychometric evaluation across five European countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2014);23(3):364–80.

64.

De Cuyper

, Mäkikangas

, Kinnunen

, Mauno

, Witte

. Cross-lagged associations between perceived external employability, job insecurity, and exhaustion: Testing gain and loss spirals according to the conservation of resources theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2012);33(6):770–88.

65.

Grossi

, Groth

, Mosconi

, Cerutti

, Pace

, Compare

, Apolone

. Development and validation of the short version of the Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWB-S). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. (2006); 4:1–8.

66.

Hair

Jr , Howard

, Nitzl

. Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research. 2020);109:101–10.

67.

Huang

, Yao

, Gu

, Wang

, Ren

, Wang

, Hu

, Guo

, Liu

, Xu

, Zhang

. 1-year outcomes in hospital survivors with COVID-19: A longitudinal cohort study. The Lancet. 2021);398(10302):747–58.

68.

Beland

, Brodeur

, Wright

. COVID-19, stay-at-home orders and employment: Evidence from CPS data.

69.

Ashcroft

. The declaration of Helsinki. In: Emanuel EJ, Grady CC, Crouch RA, Lie RK, Miller FG, Wendler DD, editors. The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. Oxford University Press; 2008 Apr 18.

70.

Fornell

, Larcker

. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981);18(1):39–50.

71.

Preacher

, Hayes

. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods. 2008);40(3):879–91.

72.

Hayes

. Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs. 2009);76(4):408–20.

73.

Aiken

. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publications Google Schola. (1991);2:513–31.

74.

Al Riyami

, Razzak

, Al-Busaidi

. Work from home and workplace ostracism, beyond the COVID-19 pandemic: Moderating effect of perceived organizational support. International Journal of Manpower. 2023.

75.

Mäkiniemi

, Oksanen

, Mäkikangas

. Loneliness and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: The moderating roles of personal, social and organizational resources on perceived stress and exhaustion among Finnish university employees. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021);18(13):7146.

76.

Tajfel

, Turner

. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Political psychology 2004 Jan 9 (pp. 276–293). Psychology Press.

77.

Ipsen

, Kirchner

, Andersone

, Karanika-Murray

. Becoming a distance manager: Managerial experiences, perceived organizational support, and job satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022);13:916234.

78.

Baker , Paul

, Moon , Nathan

, Ward , Andrew

. ‘Virtual Exclusion and Telework: Barriers and Opportunities of Technocentric Workplace Accommodation Policy’. 1 Jan. 2006:421-430. Print.

79.

Parent-Lamarche , Annick , Boulet , Maude . ‘Employee Well-being in the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Moderating Role of Teleworking During the First Lockdown in the Province of Quebec, Canada’. 1 Jan. 2021:763–775.