Lived experiences of diverse university staff during COVID-19: an examination of workplace wellbeing

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographics of participants in both the pre-interview questionnaire and interview.

ID	Length of service (years)	Grade	Role (PS = Professional Services)	single parent	Caring responsibilities?	Age	Disability?	Interview/Questionnaire
1	10	7	PS	Live with friends	No	41–50	Yes	Both
2	8	8	PS	Live with family	Yes	51–60	Yes	Questionnaire
3	3	6	PS	Live with others	No	31–40	No	Both
4	18	7	PS	Live with others	No	41–50	Yes	Both
5	3	9	PS	Live with friends	No	41–50	No	Both
6	3	6	PS	Live with family	Yes	31–40	No	Both
7	8	8	Research	Live with family	Yes	41–50	No	Both
8	16	8	PS	Live with family	Yes	41–50	No	Both
9	3	7	PS	Live with partner (unmarried)	No	21–30	Yes	Both
10	19	7	PS	Live alone	No	51–60	Yes	Both
11	30	8	PS	Live with family	No	41–50	No	Both
12	3	6	PS	Live with family	No	31–40	No	Questionnaire
13	4	7	PS	Live with friends	No	41–50	Yes	Both
14	2.5	8	PS	Live with family	Yes	31–40	No	Both
15	20	7	PS	Live with family	No	61–70	Yes	Both
16	1	7	Research	Live alone	No	21–30	No	Questionnaire
17	30	9	Clinical Academic	Live with family	Yes	61–70	No	Both
18	10	7	PS	Live alone	No	41–50	Yes	Questionnaire
19	6	6	PS	Live alone	No	51–60	No	Both
20	3	9	PS	Live alone	No	51–60	Yes	Questionnaire
21	5	9	PS	Live with family	Yes	41–50	No	Questionnaire
22	12	7	PS	Live with family	Yes	41–50	No	Questionnaire
23	3	8	PS	Live with family	No	41–50	No	Questionnaire
24	5	8	PS	Live with family	Yes	31–40	No	Questionnaire
25	10	7	PS	Single parent	Yes	41–50	No	Questionnaire
26	1	6	PS	Live with family	Yes	31–40	Yes	Questionnaire
27	8	9	PS	Live with family	Yes	41–50	No	Both
28	3	6	PS	Live alone	No	41–50	No	Questionnaire
29	1	6	PS	Live alone	No	21–30	Yes	Questionnaire
30	5	7	PS	Live alone	No	41–50	No	Questionnaire
31	5	8	Research	Live alone	Yes	31–40	No	Both
32	7	6	PS	Live with family	No	21–30	No	Both
33	6	5	PS	Live with family	Yes	51–60	Yes	Questionnaire
34	3	8	PS	Live with family	Yes	41–50	Yes	Both
35	1.5	7	PS	Live with family	Prefer not to say	31–40	No	Questionnaire
36	2	8	Research	Live with family	No	31–40	No	Both

Table 2. Example interview questions.

Describe a typical day of work prior to the pandemic, for example, type of duties, location of work, hours of work, interaction with colleagues/employers.

How did this change and how did you find working during the pandemic and the lockdown periods?

How was your wellbeing at work?

Do you feel that your identity, such as your gender, ethnicity or disability, had an impact on your experience of work during the pandemic? If so, in what way?

What do you think about the support received from the university during the pandemic/lockdown? – Was it sufficient/well-supported in your work – how? – Not sufficient – how?

Table 3. Wellbeing themes and definitions.

Theme	Definition
Salience of ethnic, religious and gender identities	The impact of different identities on experiences of working during the pandemic and also the impact that the pandemic had on identities
Disabilities and adjustments	The support and reasonable adjustments given by the organisation to those with disabilities; also covers particular experiences of individuals as a result of their disability through the pandemic
Emphasis on parents and carers	The perception of the environment and culture within the organisation where those with caring responsibilities were given additional focus, support and understanding
Struggles with parenting/caring responsibilities	Challenges due to having caring responsibilities and how these changed throughout the pandemic with enforced homeworking and absence of/changes to childcare
Adjustment to working from home	The experience of, and feelings about, transitioning to working from home
Institutional support for wellbeing	Perceptions of the support, including practical and emotional support offered by the organisation (as distinct from individual managers and colleagues within the organisation)
Wellbeing support from managers/colleagues	The flexibility, supportive communication and other forms of support offered by line managers and/or colleagues
Anxiety and trauma from the pandemic	Emotional reactions to the pandemic, including mental health issues, health concerns and general worries
Pressures from work	Challenges around workload, demands of the job and meeting the requirements of their role during a difficult period
Communication and interaction with colleagues	How communication with colleagues was affected by the pandemic and the period of working from home
Communication from the wider institution	Perspectives on the quality and value of communication and guidance from the organisation

Table 4. Themes with workplace strategies and wider implications.

Theme	Issue	Workplace strategies	Implications	APEASE
Salience of ethnic, religious and gender identities	Awareness of identity and lack of diversity in the workplace	Organisations can employ various strategies to enhance communication and transparency regarding diversity and inclusivity issues in the workplace. For instance, promotion of education on inclusive language and awareness of diverse ethnicities, races and cultures through workshops, training and the availability of resources including relevant literature.	Research suggests that feelings of inclusivity among employees can lead to higher productivity, collaborative working, sense of belonging and overall enhanced wellbeing (Bourke and Titus 2019).	Affordable – Low cost if training/workshops are in-house but higher cost if training is bespoken and tailored Practical – Yes, needs to be uniformity in policy and implementation across the board Equitable – Yes, inclusive Acceptable – Yes Safe/side effects – None foreseen Effective – Recommended by McGregor-Smith (2022) and Mmeje et al. (2020)
Disabilities and adjustments	Challenges related to disabilities	Managers should ensure that the process of asking for reasonable adjustments is simple and accessible and flexible working patterns are offered (Olsen 2021). This could be supported by the organisation signing up to the UK government’s Disability Confident Scheme (DWP 2014).	Employers have a duty to ensure safety of work environment (home or office) for all staff and even more so for disabled staff. Provision of the right equipment and ensuring reasonable adjustments are made can minimise any negative impact on disabled staff and their wellbeing. Addressing individual needs and regular communication with disabled staff can result in a more comfortable work environment and enhanced wellbeing.	Affordable – Dependant on reasonable adjustments Practical – Dependant on the adjustment requested Equitable – Yes, inclusive Acceptable – Yes, will be welcomed by staff with disabilities Safe/side effects – None foreseen Effective – Recommended in DWP (2014), Olsen (2021), and Taylor et al. (2022)
Emphasis on parents and carers	More support focused on parents/carers and less on others	There needs to be uniformity of support provided across all staff (CIPDa 2021) and clarity in communication that support can be accessed by anyone. Leniency and flexible working arrangements should be offered based on individual circumstances.	It is suggested that favouring a particular group(s) of employees can lead to resentment, demotivation and even disengagement from work due to a perception of inequity experienced by other groups in the workplace (Delouya and Hartmans 2022). Tackling these perceptions from employees can improve fairness and ensure no group is feeling left out and without support.	Affordable – Low/no cost Practical – Yes Equitable – Yes, helps with equity and inclusion Acceptable – Yes Safe/side effects – None foreseen Effective – Recommended in guidance by CIPD (CIPDa 2021)
Struggle with parenting/caring responsibilities	Challenges related to having young children at home while working	Organisations should foster a workplace culture that supports parents/carers by promoting flexible policies such as parental leave and creating a culture where workers are aware of and can readily access these policies (Feeney and Stritch 2019).	Inadequate support for parents and carers can exacerbate problems with employee wellbeing such as lack of sleep, fatigue, lack of personal and work boundaries and mental health issues, among others (University of Oxford 2021). Hence, it is vital to address needs of parents and carers and provide adequate support.	Affordable – Low to medium cost dependent on provision Practical – Yes Equitable – Yes, inclusive Acceptable – Yes, will be welcomed by parents and carers Safe/side effects – None foreseen Effective - Recommended in Feeney and Stritch (2019)
Adjustment to working from home	Lack of boundary between work and personal life	Managers should work with employees on an individual basis to ensure work/life balance by creating boundary management strategies and role modelling a work-life balance (e.g. switching off work/not emailing at certain hours).	Employee mental health difficulties have been linked to absenteeism, poor productivity and higher staff turnover (Parsonage and Saini 2018).	Affordable – Low cost Practical – Yes, easily applied Equitable – Yes Acceptable – Yes, can lower work pressures Safe/side effects – None Effective – Recommended in Mellner, Aronsson, and Kecklund (2015) and Braun and Peus (2018)
Pressures from work	Increase in workload	Regular communication/guidance on managing workload should be offered to all employees and this can be facilitated through management software and regular communication with team managers.	High workload is inversely related to productivity (Bruggen 2015) and ensuring employees have adequate support to manage workload can, in turn, increase productivity and decrease employee stress and risk of burnout.	Affordable – Yes, if software already licensed is used Practical – Yes Equitable – Yes, aims to support employees with work pressures Acceptable – Yes Safe/side effects – None Effective – Recommended by Bhui et al. (2012)
Institutional support for wellbeing	Superficial support lacking empathy	An emphasis on data led strategies for wellbeing can ensure employees feel supported emotionally (CIPDa 2021). Collecting employee wellbeing data can help ensure support is tailored and matches individual needs.	Targeted workplace interventions which consider individual needs can be more effective than blanket mental health strategies (Akerstrom et al. 2021).	Affordable – Low-cost Practical – May require training Equitable – Yes, would encourage communication and ensure strategies are in line with employee needs Acceptable – Yes Safe/side effects – None Effective – Recommended in CIPD guidance (CIPDa 2021)
	Unhealthy workplace atmosphere	Organisations need to recognise the effect of the work environment on employee wellbeing and implement a framework (e.g. Talking Toolkit; HSE 2021) to manage stress at work and create an environment more conducive to employee wellbeing.	High pressured deadlines and consistently high workloads are negatively associated with employee wellbeing (e.g. Bowling et al. 2015). A framework like the Talking Toolkit provides a systematic way of having conversations about work-related stress and the work environment with managers, setting targets and ensuring changes are made at an organisational level to foster a healthy environment at work.	Affordable – Medium cost Practical – May require time and targeted changes dependent upon issues raised Equitable – Encourage an open environment where issues are discussed and help build a trusting relationship between employees and the larger organisation Acceptable - Yes Safe/side effects – None Effective – Recommended by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE 2021)
Wellbeing support from managers/colleagues	Lack of recognition of individual needs (e.g. mental health, bereavement)	Training managers to be advocates of wellbeing can help ensure tailored wellbeing support is available to all employees.	Research shows that wellbeing support from managers can be most effective in improving employee wellbeing (Limeade and Quantum Workplace 2015). Providing training to managers to ensure they are well-equipped to handle issues such as bereavement can have a positive effect on employee wellbeing.	Affordable – Low cost Practical – Yes, may require manager training Equitable – Yes Acceptable – Yes, especially for staff with specific needs Safe/side effects – None Effective – Recommended in CIPD (2021); Dimoff and Kelloway (2019)
Anxiety and trauma from the pandemic	Acknowledgement of stresses associated with pandemic	Availability of a service for employees to discuss anxieties (such as an Employee Assistance Programme; EAP) can aid in cultivating a ‘safe’ workplace. It can help ensure pandemic guidelines are in place and employees are able tocommunicate any worries to managers.	Fears and anxieties about the pandemic can lead to employee stress, mental health difficulties and even burnout (CDC 2021 ). Further to this, issues surrounding long COVID, and associated absenteeism need to be addressed and managed by organisations. In ensuring employee anxieties are listened to and effective support is available to them, organisations can combat these concerns effectively.	Affordable – Forums can be low cost, EAP may have a higher cost Practical – Depends on provision Equitable – Yes, will be welcomed by employees as a means of dealing with stress Acceptable – Yes Safe/side effects – None Effective – Recommended in Brooks and Ling (2020) and Mun et al. (2022)
Communication and interaction with colleagues	Isolation	Several strategies can help ward off feelings of employee isolation. These include regular ‘check-ins’ by colleagues and managers, social events (remote or in-person) and a ‘buddy’ system at the workplace.	Research has demonstrated the negative effects of loneliness on employee stress, burnout and productivity (Lunstad 2018; Wright and Silard 2020). Cultivating a workplace culture of social connectedness and regular communication may ensure employees do not feel lonely or isolated.	Affordable – Low cost for regular check-ins and a ‘buddy’ system; medium cost for social events Practical – Yes Equitable – Yes Acceptable – Yes Safe/side effects – None Effective – Recommended in Greenwood and Krol (2020)
	Daily/frequent face-to-face interaction found to be draining by those identifying as ‘introverts’	Allowing flexibility in communication channels among employees based on individual personality and needs can help accomodate various employee personality types (O'Donovan 2017).	Learning about employee needs based on what part of the introvert-extrovert spectrum they fall on can help instil a workplace that is a suitable environment for everyone to work effectively (Schwartz et al. 2019).	Affordable – Low/no cost Practical – Yes, easily implemented based on individual needs Equitable – Yes Acceptable – Yes Safe/side effects – None foreseen Effective – Recommended in Donova (2017); Greenwood and Krol (2020)
Communication from the wider institution	Lacking empathy and connection	Frequent communication, e.g. daily or weekly emails, is advised and other channels of communication can also notify the university community of new wellness programmes and resources (Wray and Kinman 2021).	Communication is essential for supporting wellbeing but must be strategic, offering wellness opportunities and resources (Amaya et al. 2017).	Affordable – Low/no cost Practical – Yes, can be implemented with some support from mental health advisors/practitioners Equitable – Yes, inclusive Acceptable – Yes, will be welcomed Safe/side effects – None foreseen Effective – Recommended in Wray and Kinman (2021)

Bourke, J., and Titus, A. (2019). Why Inclusive Leaders are Good for Organisations, and How to Become One. Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2019/03/why-inclusive-leaders-are-good-for-organizations-and-how-to-become-one

 Google Scholar

McGregor-Smith, R. 2022. “Race in the Workplace: The McGregor-Smith Review.” [UK Governmnet report], https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-08/race-in-the-workplace-the-mcgregor-smith-review.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Mmeje, O., E. A. N. Price, T. R. B. Johnson, and D. E. Fenner. 2020. “Galvanizing for the Future: A Bottom-up Departmental Approach to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 223 (5): 715.e1–715.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2020.07.030.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Olsen, J. 2021. “Employers: Influencing Disabled People’s Employment Through Responses to Reasonable Adjustments.” Disability & Society, https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2022.2099251.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Department for Work & Pensions (DWP). 2014. “Disability Confident Employer Scheme and Guidance.” Accessed 9 November, 2022. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/disability-confident-campaign.

 Google Scholar

Taylor, H., R. Florisson, M. Wilkes, and P. Holland. 2022. The Changing Workplace: Enabling Disability-Inclusive Hybrid Working. London: Work Foundation.

 Google Scholar

CIPDa. 2021. Health and Wellbeing at Work Survey 2021. London, UK: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

 Google Scholar

Delouya, S, and A. Hartmans. 2022. Resentment is Mounting as Some Employees are Forced Back to the Office and Some are Allowed to Work from Home. Insider, [online], https://www.businessinsider.com/hybrid-work-back-to-office-work-from-homeresentment-culture-2022-11?r=US&IR=T

 Google Scholar

Feeney, M. K., and J. M. Stritch. 2019. “Family-friendly Policies, Gender, and Work–Life Balance in the Public Sector.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 39 (3): 422–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X17733789.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

University of Oxford. 2021. “Parental Mental Health Worsens Under New National COVID-19 Restrictions”. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-01-19-parental-mental-health-worsens-under-new-national-covid-19-restrictions.

 Google Scholar

Parsonage, M., and G. Saini. 2018. “Mental Health at Work.” The business costs ten years on. https://www.mhs-training.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/The-Business-Costs-of-Mental-Health-at-Work-Centre-for-Mental-Health.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Mellner, C., G. Aronsson, and G. Kecklund. 2015. “Boundary Management Preferences, Boundary Control, and Work-Life Balance among Full-Time Employed Professionals in Knowledge-Intensive, Flexible Work.” Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies 4 (4): 7. https://doi.org/10.19154/njwls.v4i4.4705.

 Google Scholar

Braun, S., and C. Peus. 2018. “Crossover of Work–Life Balance Perceptions: Does Authentic Leadership Matter?” Journal of Business Ethics 149 (4): 875–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3078-x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bruggen, A. 2015. “An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship Between Workload and Performance.” Management Decision 53 (10): 2377–89. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2015-0063.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bhui, K. S., S. Dinos, S. A. Stansfeld, and P. D. White. 2012. “A Synthesis of the Evidence for Managing Stress at Work: A Review of the Reviews Reporting on Anxiety, Depression, and Absenteeism.” Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/515874.

 Google Scholar

Akerstrom, M., L. Corin, J. Severin, I. H. Jonsdottir, and L. Bjork. 2021. “Can Working Conditions and Employees’ Mental Health be Improved via job Stress Interventions Designed and Implemented by Line Managers and Human Resources on an Operational Level?” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18 (4): 1916. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041916.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Health and Safety Executive (HSE). 2021. “Talking Toolkit: Preventing Work-Related Stress.” https://www.hse.gov.uk/stress/assets/docs/stress-talking-toolkit.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Bowling, N. A., M. G. Alarcon, B. C. Bragg, and M. J. Hartman. 2015. “A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Potential Correlates and Consequences of Workload.” An International Journal of Work, Health & Organisations 2 (2): 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2015.1033037.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Limeade and Quantum Workplace. 2015. “Well-Being and Engagement Report.” https://www.limeade.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/QW-LimeadeWellBeingEngagementReport-final-1.pdf.

 Google Scholar

CIPDb. 2021. A Guide to Preventing and Reducing Stress at Work. Guidance for Line Managers. London, UK: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

 Google Scholar

Dimoff, J. K., and K. Kelloway. 2019. “Mental Health Problems are Management Problems: Exploring the Critical Role of Managers in Supporting Employee Mental Health.” Organizational Dynamics 48 (3): 105–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2018.11.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

CDC. 2021. Healthcare Workers: Work Stress and Mental Health. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, [online], https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/healthcare/workstress.html

 Google Scholar

Brooks, C. D., and J. Ling. 2020. ““Are We Doing Enough”: An Examination of the Utilization of Employee Assistance Programs to Support the Mental Health Needs of Employees During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Journal of Insurance Regulation 39 (8): 2–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.52227/23478.2020.

 Google Scholar

Mun, S., Y. Moon, H. Kim, and N. Kim. 2022. “Current Discussions on Employees and Organizations During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Literature Review.” Frontiers in Psychology 13, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.848778.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lunstad, H. 2018. “Fostering Social Connection in the Workplace.” American Journal of Health Promotion 32 (5): 1307–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117118776735a.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wright, S., and A. Silard. 2020. “Unravelling the Antecedents of Loneliness in the Workplace.” Human Relations 74 (7): 1060–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726720906013.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Greenwood, K., and Krol, N. (2020). Eight Ways Managers Can Support Employees’ Mental Health. Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2020/08/8-ways-managers-can-support-employees-mental-health

 Google Scholar

Schwartz, L., M. El-Banna, J. F. Conroy, and J. Browne. 2019. “What’s Your Style? Enhanced Interprofessional Communication and Practice Using the Communication Wheel.” Nurse Educator 44 (1): 20–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000509.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wray, S., and G. Kinman. 2021. “Supporting Staff Wellbeing in Higher Education.” Project Report. Education Support: London, UK. https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/47038/.

 Google Scholar

Amaya, M., B. M. Melnyk, B. Buffington, and L. Battista. 2017. “Workplace Wellness Champions: Lessons Learned and Implications for Future Programming.” Building Healthy Academic Communities Journal 1 (1): 59–67. https://doi.org/10.18061/bhac.v1i1.5744.

 Google Scholar