International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET)

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET)
Volume 11, Issue 4, April 2020, pp. 409-426, Article ID: IJARET_11_04_039
Available online athttp://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/issues.asp?JType=IJARET&VType=11&IType=4
ISSN Print: 0976-6480 and ISSN Online: 0976-6499
© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed
ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE,
OPPORTUNITIES, CHALLENGES AND
PSYCHOLOGICAL WELLBEING OF THE
REMOTE WORKING EMPLOYEES DURING
COVID-19 PANDEMIC: A GENERAL LINEAR
MODEL APPROACH WITH REFERENCE TO
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY IN
HYDERABAD
Dr. KDV Prasad
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
Telangana, India
Dr. Mruthyanjaya Rao Mangipudi

Karvy Stock Broking Limited, Financial District, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, India
Dr. Rajesh W. Vaidya

Assistant Professor, Faculty In-charge Training and Placement, (DMT)
Shri Ramdeobaba College of Engineering & Management, Nagpur, India
Budumuru Muralidhar
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
Telangana, India
ABSTRACT
In this empirical study we are presenting the results of our survey research on
remote working by employees of IT and E-Commerce industry employees during the
Coronavirus (Covid-19) Pandemic with reference to Hyderabad Metro. An empirical
survey was carried out during the lockdown period, 25 March 2020 - 20 April 2020
using research survey instrument, an undisguised questionnaire. The eight
independent factors Team work, Communication, Peer, Job related factors,
Organization Policies, Organization Climate, Job Satisfaction, Psychological factors
dependent factor psychological wellbeing of the employees. The Psychological
wellbeing was measured using the modified and shortened version of 18-item version
scale of Ryff and Keyes using six factors - Self-acceptance, Personal growth, Purpose
in life, Environmental mastery, Autonomy and Positive relations with others. The
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 409 editor@iaeme.com

Dr. KDV Prasad, Dr. Mruthyanjaya Rao Mangipudi, Dr. Rajesh W. Vaidya,
Budumuru Muralidhar
survey instrument validity and reliability was assessed using Cronbach alpha (overall
C-alpha measured at 0.92) for all the items and Split-Half (odd-even) Correlation
0.82 whereas Split-Half with Spearman-Brown Adjustment at 0.94. The results from
the General Linear Model Multivariate analysis indicate Communication,
Organization climate, Organization Policies, Job Satisfaction and Psychological
factors significantly influencing the psychological wellbeing of employees in
information technology sector during the survey period of Covid-19 pandemic.
Keywords: COVID-19, psychological wellbeing, Cronbach alpha, Remote working,
Autonomy
Cite this Article: Dr. KDV Prasad, Dr. Mruthyanjaya Rao Mangipudi, Dr. Rajesh W.
Vaidya, Budumuru Muralidhar, Organizational Climate, Opportunities, Challenges
and Psychological Wellbeing of the Remote Working Employees during Covid-19
Pandemic: A General Linear Model Approach with Reference to Information
Technology Industry in Hyderabad, International Journal of Advanced Research in
Engineering and Technology (IJARET), 11(4), 2020, pp. 409-426.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/issues.asp?JType=IJARET&VType=11&IType=4
1. INTRODUCTION
The recent Covid-19 outbreak changed working landscape to a great extent. The institutions
and organizations of both public and private sector should reflect on their learnings from
employees working remotely and its arrangements. The institutions and the organizations to
give more liberty to the employees to adjust their working schedules to suit to their well-
being. It is not only for the employee, individually, but to every organization and the society,
and the world as a whole to get tuned to this new situation. The working class slowly emerges
and tries to adjust and deliver its best as responsible members of a natural ecosystem. Every
human resource within a working landscape attempts to balance his/her own needs with the
needs of the environment.
The work from home has become a buzz phrase, in particular with the Information
Technology (IT) and the IT enabled Sector, mainly to ensure engaging the workforce, to reach
out to the internal and the external stakeholders, to retain the talent and maintain attrition rate
to its low on one hand. The situation throws down challenges for many of the people to either
up-skilling or re-skilling on a war-foot basis without giving any time, else they may become
vulnerable to the exercise of trimming the team size by the companies. Remote working has
become an essential work-practice. It saves the commuting time, the overheads and the
resources associated with physical office management. The work practice in all the sectors,
where the productivity, services and solutions can be managed without the necessity of being
physically present, such as information technology, pharma, healthcare, research and
development, eCommerce, etc., However, it is not possible to manage the workforce belong
to unskilled and unorganized sector, which constitute a considerable number of total
workforce.
As far as information technology sector is concerned, they are finding the ways and means
to figure out the activities that can be accomplished remotely using latest communication
technologies like Microsoft Teams, Zoom, Skype, WhatsApp, bluejeans, Webex, Hangouts
etc. Several organizations irrespective of the sector convenes virtual meetings/conferences/
workshops/seminars via the above mentioned communication tools. It is expected that some
of the people would suffer from post-pandemic stress and some of the people might realize
their inner strengths and display a great amount of gratitude with what they have. This would
mean the employees would go through a lot of emotional journey, and their psychological

Organizational Climate, Opportunities, Challenges and Psychological Wellbeing of the Remote
Working Employees during Covid-19 Pandemic: A General Linear Model Approach with
Reference to Information Technology Industry in Hyderabad
well-being would have its own impacts, which will be revealed, studied and understood only
by undertaking another research post-pandemic and compare the situation.
1.1. What is Remote Work?

Remote work is a working practice that encourages professionals to work beyond the
conventional office setting. This is based on the idea that there is no need for work to be
performed in a particular location. When compared of commuting to workplace every day and
work from a fixed desk, remotely working by the people carrying out their activities and
tasks, and achieve their goals anywhere they opt yields much more productivity. The
employees have reasonable control to plan their days to see that their professional and
personal lives can be existed to their fullest potential and satisfaction and coexist peacefully
(Remote year, 2020).
This is a conceptual shift and remote work has capitalized on that independence. The
beauty of remote work is the fact that an employee can choose to work in a way that makes
work-life balance perfect. However, some employees need to visit to the office
monthly/fortnight to have face to face peer meetings with an opportunity to work remotely for
the majority of the working week, but have to commute to in-person meetings at the office
one day a week. Another concept co working spaces and sharing economies are on rise where
an organization or an employee. The co working spaces are hubs of productivity, community,
and technology, offering great scope for network connectivity to get the work done. The co
working spaces fall between full traditional workplace and remote work or work from home.
The benefits and advantages of remote work increase productivity, work-life balance,
saving the commuting time and office resources, and provide more flexible lifestyle. This
helps women to overcome genetic/gynecology challenges so she can attend the office tasks at
her comfort. An employee also could pursue his/her long standing hobbies, professional
pursuits etc., which could not be fulfilled due to time constraints or due to lack of freedom at
workplace to pursue them. Remote employees are less stressed compared to in-office counter
parts with decreased absenteeism and better health and well ness (Royal Society for Public
Health in the UK, 2014, PGi 2014). It was also observed a renewed passion for their with
motivation in the employees working remotely.
As part of benefits to the employer higher productivity as the employee puts more effort,
increased cost savings as the decrease in office rent, infrastructure and maintenance costs, and
higher employee engagement. One study report that the employees are ready to quit the
present job one that offer remote working (in a survey by TINYpulse)
3. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A remote employee who is hired by a company but operates beyond the conventional office
environment-working from a nearby coworking room, from home, in any city around the
globe. This idea requires a lot of consideration about a competent, working style employee
with a meaningful discussion with the boss. Employees can create a remote work case to get
peer acceptance (Remote work 2020). Several remote work challenges like different time
zones, over working, bead health habits, distractions in the home,
The world has turned into remote working or work from home concept wherever possible
due to Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) an infectious disease caused by a severe acute
respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) a mutated virus which is less virulent in
India. The disease was first identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, China and spread
globally, resulting into pandemic. The availability of tools like team viewer, splashtop,

Budumuru Muralidhar
Microsoft remote desktop, zoom, Microsoft teams, and owl are some of the communication
tools essential for remote working, work prioritization are reported and solutions were provide
by (Melanie Pinola, 2020.) The SCIKEY MindMatch stud reported that 99.8% workforce in
IT sector incapable of remote working as reported in Economic Times. Felstead and Henseke
(2017) critically assessed the win-win situation when more and more work is being detached
from place for both employers and employees. The results were reported analyzing labour
market data, based on the factors knowledge economy, the growth in flexible employment and
organizational responses.
Daniel Wheatley (2017) reported the positive impact of of flexible working arrangements
(FWAs), and positive effects for men and women on job satisfaction using the British
Household Panel Survey and Understanding Society, 2001–10/11. Standy Stples (2001)
reported the differences remote working employees and non-remote workers, and mentioned
that Interpersonal trust of the employee in the peer is strongly associated with higher self-
perceptions of performance, higher job satisfaction and lower job stress and weak support of
physical connectivity and its impact. (i. e., the availability of IT) on job satisfaction,
supporting the enabling role of IT. The remote workers and peer of higher level of
interpersonal trust due to frequent communications. The remote working can improve
employee improve employee productivity, creativity and morale when it right done and
perfectly planned Zara Greenbaum (2019). Kristen Senz 2019 reported the benefits of the
remote working to the companies the gain could add $1.3 billion in each year Based on a
patent's average value, this productivity gain could add $1.3 billion of value to the US
economy in an year based on the patent average.
Adam Hickman and Jennifer Robison (2020) reported from Gallup Research data that
remote work improves business outcomes, attracts talent and an engaged workforce has the
best financial outcomes. Hickman A reported the how the workplace isolation will influence a
remote worker because of lack of management acumen, organizational expertise, to
development implement strategies on remote work policies and procedures. Based on the
above literature survey the following research gap is identified.
What are the common understandings about how workplace isolation may influence a
remote employee’s performance in a customer service organization in the United States?the
Social Exchange Theory (Emerson 1976), which is dependent on mutually agreement and
gratifying among both the sides involving communication is the basis of this theory.
Emerson’s (1976) theory, explains that a social exchange is needed among remote workers
and their employer to preserve a remote employee from experiencing workplace isolation.
This conceptual framework is essential for employee psychological wellbeing and remote
worker experience stress because the absence of social exchange with in-office worker). The
free access to technology, peers, and more free communication can avoid the risk of remote
working challenges (Greer and Payne, 2014). Therefore, psychological wellbeing of a remote
worker depends human interaction, a social aspect and missing elements remote working.
Therefore, the outcome variable psychological wellbeing also included.
4. RESEARCH QUESTION
There is any correlation between the organisational and individual factors psychological well-
being of remote working employees during Covid19-Pandemic?
Is there are any challenges and opportunities of the employees working remotely and
psychological well-being during Covid-19 lockdown?

4.1. Research Gap

The Government of Indian announced a three-week lock during 24 March to 14 April and
extended till 3 May 2020. The idea behind the lock down is to contain the spread of the virus
maintaining social distance among the human beings. Therefore, several organisations
decided wherever possible, that their employees will be allowed to work remotely. The
remote working options was followed almost all sectors of employees. As the Covid-19
Pandemic was reported during December 2019, there no specific research articles, reviews of
reports available in particular, related to remote working during Covid-19 or any similar
situation in the past. Further, there is not a single article reported on the psychological
wellbeing of the remote working employees during any pandemic time in the past. Therefore,
the authors considered to carry out this study surveying the remote working employees during
March 24 to 20 April 2020 and reported the results.
5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Theoretical Framework: The author followed the modified version of the model proposed by
Anderson et al. (2015) with challenges and opportunities as predictors of the Psychological
wellbeing of Remote worker.
Figure.1 This diagram depicts how an employee is subjected to his/her well-being and the factors that
affect the ecosystem within and outside the organization.

Budumuru Muralidhar
Hypotheses
After reviewing the research an identifying the problem the following hypotheses were
framed
Ho1: Employee individual, organisational, and external factors significantly influence the
psychological well-being of an employee during Covid-19 Pandemic
H11: Employee individual, organisational, and external factors does not significantly influence
the psychological well-being of an employee during Covid-19 Pandemic
H02: There are significant gender and age differences on factors effecting the psychological
wellbeing of the employees in IT sector
H12: There are no significant gender and age differences on factors effecting the
psychological wellbeing of the employees in IT sector
Estimation of sample size: As the population size is unknown the researchers used
Cochran (1977) formula to estimate the sample size for this empirical study. Cochran (1977)
developed a formula to calculate a representative sample for proportion as
z2pq
no= ------
e2
where no is the sample size, z is the selected critical value of desired confidence level, p is
the estimated proportion of an attribute that is present in the population, q 1 p and e is the
desired level of precision and this formula was used as IT sector where population is
unknown assuming the maximum variability which is equal to 50% (p=0.5) and taking 95%
confidence level with ±5% precision, the required sample size is
p = 0.5 and hence q = 1-0.5 = 0.5; e = 0.05 and z = 1.96
(1.96)2(0.5)(0.5)
no = -------------------- = 384.16 = 384
(0.05)2
Therefore, we have chosen a sample size of > 384 i.e. 400
The sample demography and description are presented in Tables 1 and 2 and the study
variables both dependent and independent are presented in Table 3.
Table 1. Demography of the sample

Gender Frequency Percent
Men 228 57
Women 172 43
Total 400 100
Source: Primary data
Table 2 Sample description

Age group Number of respondents
20-30 160
31-40 100
41-50 80
51-60 60
Source: Primary data

Table 3 Independent factors that measured dependent factor psychological wellbeing

Factor Description No items
1 Team Work 4
2 Communication 5
3 Peer 3
4 Job related factors 5
5 Organization Policies 6
6 Organization climate 5
7 Job Satisfaction 4
8 Psychological factors 5
Dependent factors - psychological wellbeing
Factor Description No items
1 Environment Mastery 3
2 Positive Growth 3
3 Positive Relations 3
4 Self-Acceptance 3
5 Autonomy 3
6 Purpose of Life 3
Based on shortened version psychological wellbeing scale Ryff and Keyes (1995)
6. RESEARCH INSTRUMENT
Measurement of internal, external, and organization factors: A standardized, undisguised
research instrument based on five point Likert Type scale, with rating scale of Strongly agree
=5; Agree = 4; Neutral =3; Disagree =2; Strongly disagree 2 were used to measured Team
work, Peer, Organizational climate, Organizational policies, Job related factors
Communication, Job satisfaction and Psychological factors following the model of Prasad et
al. (206, 2017, 2018). The total items measured are 37
Measurement of psychological wellbeing based factors: A shortened version of 18-point
scaler developed by Ryff and Keyes (1995) was used. This is a 7-point rating scale with
Strongly agree = 7, Somewhat agree = 6, A little agree = 5, Neither agree nor disagree = 4, A
little disagree = 3, Somewhat disagree = 2, Strongly disagree =1 and the factors measured are
Autonomy, Environmental Mastery, Personal Growth, Positive Relations, Purpose in Life and
the Self-Acceptance with 3 items for each factors.
There are some items worded in the opposite way on measurement scale. Reverse-scored
measured using the following method
((Number of points on the scale) + 1) - (Answer from the respondent)
For example, if Question 1 is a 7-point scale and the respondent answered 3 on Question
1, the recoded answer was: (7 + 1) - 3 = 5, therefore 5 was entered for this response.
As we have used to types of Likert scales one with 5 point and other with 7-point scale.
For easy analysis we have transformed the two Likert scales used into one 5-point common
scale of Likert type. The linear transformation procedure was used to convert the 7 point scale
to a 5-point scale. In the 7-point liker type scale minimum is 1 and maximum is 7 and using a
two stage calculation 1) first finding linear transformation to make the new scale 0 as
minimum and 1 as. maximum, and following this method transformation was made to make
7-point scale to a five-point scale using the following formula.

Budumuru Muralidhar
X = (x - a) / (b - a)
Just substitute a for x to make the result as 0, and then substitute b for x to see that the
result is 1. This will be continued in the stage two using new minimum to be A and the new
maximum to be B. The transformation will be:
Y = (B - A) * X + A
Substitute 0 for X to see that the result is A, and 1 for X to see that the result is B.
Combining all whole first transformation in place of X in the second:
Y = (B - A) * (x - a) / (b - a) + A.
For converting 7-point scale to be converted to a 5-point scale. Since the minimum of the
7-point scale is 1, we have a=1, b=7 in the first transformation. Similarly, for the second
transformation, we have A=1, B=5. Putting them together we get:
x1 x2
1 1.0 Strongly agree
2 2.5 (average of 2+3) = somewhat agree and A little agree
3 4.0 Neither Agree and Nor disagree
4 5.5 Somewhat disagree and A little disagree
5 7.0 Strongly disagree
In particular, notice that 1 is sent to 1, and 7 to 5
7. DATA ANALYSIS
We have applied statistical techniques that suits for the study to draw the inferences and
conclusions from primary data. We used descriptive statistics, standard deviation and
dispersion methods. Psychological wellbeing was categorized as low, medium and high level.
All the data analysis was carried out using statistical package for social sciences ver 26.
7.1. Reliability Methods

The internal consistency, reliability of the questionnaire was measured estimating Cronbach
alpha values, Split-Half (odd-even) Correlation, Split-Half with Spearman-Brown
Adjustment. The values in the Table 4 indicate the survey instrument is reliable and
consistent.
Table 4. Independent and dependent factors of the study

Factor Description C-alpha Split-Half (odd-even) Split-Half with
Correlation Spearman-Brown
Adjustment
1 Team Work 0.66 0.44 0.61
2 Communication 0.70 0.63 0.77
3 Peer 0.78 0.63 0.77
4 Job related factors 0.66 0.59 0.74
5 Organization Policies 0.81 0.67 0.80
6 Organization climate 0.75 0.51 0.67
7 Job Satisfaction 0.85 0.75 0.86
8 Psychological factors 0.81 0.63 0.77
Psychological wellbeing (Dependent factors)
Factor Description
1 Environment Mastery 0.80 0.58 0.73
2 Personal Growth 0.73 0.54 0.70
3 Positive Relations 0.87 0.66 0.79

4 Self-Acceptance 0.81 0.71 0.83

5 Autonomy 0.85 0.63 0.77
6 Purpose of Life 0.80 0.64 0.78
0.78 Overall-Psychological Wellbeing 0.96 0.92 0.96
Overall-Independent Factors 0.92 0.88 0.94
Overall C-alpha :0.93
8. RESULTS
General Linear Model (GLM) Multivariate analysis: In our empirical study the dependent
variable psychological wellbeing an outcome variable is measured with six subscales,
Environment Mastery, Personal Growth, Positive Relations
Self-Acceptance, Autonomy and Purpose of Life against 8 independent variables Team
Work
Communication, Peer, Job related factors, Organization Policies, Organization climate,
Job Satisfaction, Psychological factors that effecting the psychological wellbeing of the
employees in Information Technology Sector.
The General Liner Model multivariate analysis was carried as we are interested to
measure effect of independent variable on each of the psychological wellbeing factors as
described earlier. In GLM model more than one dependent variable can be predicted using
independent variables, and we also studied to observe if there are any significant age group
and gender differences that effect the psychological wellbeing of the employees. The detailed
results are presented below
Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Table 5 Box's Test of Equality of Covariance Matricea
Box's M 44.771
F 2.056
df1 21
df2 97921.377
Sig. 0.290
a
Tests the null hypothesis that the observed covariance matrices of the dependent
variables are equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Team Work + Communication + Peer + Job Related +
Organisation Policy + Organization Climate + Psychological + Job Satisfaction +
Gender
The null hypothesis for this test is that the observed covariance matrices for the dependent
variables are equal across groups. As the result for the test is non-significant test result (i.e.
one with a large p-value) indicates that the covariance matrices are equal (Table 5).
We have used the Bartlett's test (Snedecor and Cochran, 1989) to test all the samples have
equal homogeneity of variances to carry out the GLM analysis. The results indicate Bartlett’s
test of Sphericity significant (0.00) indicates the matrices for all the three variables are not
identity matrix (Table 6), so the null hypothesis is rejected. The data generated through the
responses are fit for carrying our further analysis.

Budumuru Muralidhar
Table 6. KMO and Bartlett's Test statistic of independent factors

Bartlett’s test pf Sphericitya
Likelihood Ratio 0.000
Approx. Chi-Square 875.923
Df 20
Sig. 0.000
Tests the null hypothesis that the residual covariance matrix is proportional to an
identity matrix.
organization Policy + Organization Climate + Psychological + Job Satisfaction +
Gender
The homogeneity of variance in the same is measured using Leven’s test of equality of
error variances. The significance of Levene's test is > 0.05, which suggests that the equal
variances assumption is not violated (Table 7)
Table 7. Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

F df1 df2 Sig.
Environment Mastery 1.424 1 380 0.234
Personal Growth 0.261 1 380 0.610
Autonomy 0.602 1 380 0.439
Self-Acceptance 0.564 1 380 0.453
Purpose Of Life 0.382 1 380 0.537
Positive Relations 0.417 1 380 0.519
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal
across groups.
Organisation Policy + Organization Climate + Psychological + Job Satisfaction +
Gender
Table 8. General Linear Model: Multivariate testsa

Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Partial Eta
Squared
Intercept Pillai's Trace 0.128 4.295b 6.000 375.000 0.000 0.128
Wilks' Lambda 0.872 4.295b 6.000 375.000 0.000 0.128
Hotelling's Trace 0.146 4.295b 6.000 375.000 0.000 0.128
Roy's Largest 0.146 4.295b 6.000 375.000 0.000 0.128
Root
Team Work Pillai's Trace 0.024 .715b 6.000 375.000 0.638 0.024
Wilks' Lambda 0.976 .715b 6.000 375.000 0.638 0.024
Hotelling's Trace 0.024 .715b 6.000 375.000 0.638 0.024
Roy's Largest 0.024 .715b 6.000 375.000 0.638 0.024
Root
Communication Pillai's Trace 0.077 2.449b 6.000 375.000 0.027 0.077
Wilks' Lambda 0.923 2.449b 6.000 375.000 0.027 0.077
Roy's Largest 0.083 2.449b 6.000 375.000 0.027 0.077
Root
Peer Pillai's Trace 0.057 1.764b 6.000 375.000 0.109 0.057
Wilks' Lambda 0.943 1.764b 6.000 375.000 0.109 0.057
. Hotelling's Trace 0.060 1.764b 6.000 375.000 0.109 0.057
Roy's Largest 0.060 1.764b 6.000 375.000 0.109 0.057
Root
Job Related Pillai's Trace 0.020 .596b 6.000 375.000 0.733 0.020

Wilks' Lambda 0.980 .596b 6.000 375.000 0.733 0.020

Roy's Largest 0.020 .596b 6.000 375.000 0.733 0.020
Root
Organisation Pillai's Trace 0.097 3.141b 6.000 375.000 0.006 0.097
Policy
Wilks' Lambda 0.903 3.141b 6.000 375.000 0.006 0.097
Roy's Largest 0.107 3.141b 6.000 375.000 0.006 0.097
Root
Organization Pillai's Trace 0.086 2.755b 6.000 375.000 0.014 0.086
Climate
Wilks' Lambda 0.914 2.755b 6.000 375.000 0.014 0.086
Roy's Largest 0.094 2.755b 6.000 375.000 0.014 0.086
Root
Psychological Pillai's Trace 0.069 2.170b 6.000 375.000 0.048 0.069
factors
Wilks' Lambda 0.931 2.170b 6.000 375.000 0.048 0.069
Roy's Largest 0.074 2.170b 6.000 375.000 0.048 0.069
Root
Job Pillai's Trace 0.166 5.826b 6.000 375.000 0.000 0.166
Satisfaction
Wilks' Lambda 0.834 5.826b 6.000 375.000 0.000 0.166
Roy's Largest 0.199 5.826b 6.000 375.000 0.000 0.166
Root
Gender Pillai's Trace 0.019 .581b 6.000 375.000 0.745 0.019
Wilks' Lambda 0.981 .581b 6.000 375.000 0.745 0.019
Roy's Largest 0.020 .581b 6.000 375.000 0.745 0.019
Root
a. Design: Intercept + Team Work + Communication + Peer + Job Related + Organisation Policy + Organization
Climate + Psychological + Job Satisfaction + Gender
b. Exact statistic; c. Computed using alpha = .05
From the results of multivariate test it is evident that the independent factors Team work,
Job Related Factors and Peer not significantly contributing to psychological wellbeing of the
employees. The other five independent variables Communication Wilks λ=0.903, (F6,
176)=3.141, p=0.027, η2=0.077; Organisational Policies λ=0.923, (F6, 176)=2.449, p=0.006,
η2=0.097 Organisation Climate λ=0.914, (F6, 176)=2.755, p=0.014, η2=0.086 Job satisfaction
λ=0.834, (F6, 176)=5.826, p=0.005, η2=0.166 and Psychological Factors λ=0.931, (F6,
176)=2.170, p=0.005 η2=0.019 are influencing the psychological wellbeing of the employees
(Table 8).
A separate ANOVA was run for each dependent variable and with each independent
factor and the results are: The team work is not significantly influencing the psychological
wellbeing. Communication is influencing only the factor personal growth Personal Growth
F(1, 181)= 4.735, p=0.031 η2=0.025; Peer = F(1, 181) = 6.408, p =0.012; η2=0.034;
Organization policies and organization climate are influencing all dependent factors except
personal growth; psychological factors are influencing all the psychological wellbeing factors,
and so on. As the results in Table No. Test of Between-subjects effects it is evident that
statistically significant gender differences were observed and influencing the psychological
wellbeing of employees (Table 9).

Budumuru Muralidhar
Table 9. General Linear Model: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source Type III df Mean F Sig. Partial Eta
Sum of Square Squared
Squares
Corrected Model Environment Mastery 43.889a 9 4.877 7.542 0.000 0.273
Personal Growth 48.868b 9 5.430 9.104 0.000 0.312
Autonomy 54.483c 9 6.054 8.360 0.000 0.294
Self-Acceptance 44.397d 9 4.933 6.928 0.000 0.256
Purpose of Life 45.845e 9 5.094 7.076 0.000 0.260
Positive Relations 40.046f 9 4.450 6.324 0.000 0.239
Intercept Environment Mastery 13.246 1 13.246 20.485 0.000 0.102
Personal Growth 10.945 1 10.945 18.351 0.000 0.092
Autonomy 8.797 1 8.797 12.149 0.001 0.063
Self-Acceptance 10.351 1 10.351 14.537 0.000 0.074
Purpose of Life 7.859 1 7.859 10.917 0.001 0.057
Positive Relations 12.079 1 12.079 17.167 0.000 0.087
Team Work Environment Mastery 0.252 1 0.252 0.389 0.534 0.002
Personal Growth 0.394 1 0.394 0.660 0.418 0.004
Autonomy 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 0.989 0.000
Self-Acceptance 0.304 1 0.304 0.427 0.514 0.002
Purpose of Life 0.833 1 0.833 1.157 0.284 0.006
Communication Environment Mastery 0.105 1 0.105 0.162 0.687 0.001
Personal Growth 2.824 1 2.824 4.735 0.031 0.025
Autonomy 0.011 1 0.011 0.016 0.901 0.000
Self-Acceptance 0.528 1 0.528 0.742 0.390 0.004
Purpose of Life 0.007 1 0.007 0.010 0.921 0.000
Peer Environment Mastery 1.994 1 1.994 3.084 0.081 0.017
Personal Growth 0.859 1 0.859 1.441 0.232 0.008
Autonomy 4.640 1 4.640 6.408 0.012 0.034
Self-Acceptance 2.494 1 2.494 3.502 0.063 0.019
Purpose of Life 2.603 1 2.603 3.616 0.059 0.020
Job Related Environment Mastery 0.294 1 0.294 0.454 0.501 0.003
Personal Growth 0.073 1 0.073 0.122 0.728 0.001
Autonomy 0.015 1 0.015 0.020 0.888 0.000
Self-Acceptance 0.093 1 0.093 0.131 0.718 0.001
Purpose of Life 0.149 1 0.149 0.207 0.650 0.001
Organisation Environment Mastery 6.093 1 6.093 9.422 0.002 0.049
Policy
Personal Growth 7.026 1 7.026 11.780 0.001 0.061
Autonomy 4.498 1 4.498 6.211 0.014 0.033
Self-Acceptance 1.265 1 1.265 1.777 0.184 0.010
Purpose of Life 3.386 1 3.386 4.703 0.031 0.025
Organization Environment Mastery 6.401 1 6.401 9.899 0.002 0.052
Climate
Personal Growth 8.318 1 8.318 13.946 0.000 0.072
Autonomy 3.830 1 3.830 5.289 0.023 0.028
Self-Acceptance 3.239 1 3.239 4.549 0.034 0.025
Purpose of Life 4.275 1 4.275 5.939 0.016 0.032
Psychological Environment Mastery 0.021 1 0.021 0.032 0.858 0.000
Personal Growth 0.515 1 0.515 0.864 0.354 0.005

Autonomy 3.392 1 3.392 4.685 0.032 0.025

Self-Acceptance 1.061 1 1.061 1.490 0.224 0.008
Purpose of Life 0.837 1 0.837 1.163 0.282 0.006
Job Satisfaction Environment Mastery 5.551 1 5.551 8.584 0.004 0.045
Personal Growth 1.484 1 1.484 2.488 0.116 0.014
Autonomy 16.539 1 16.539 22.842 0.000 0.112
Self-Acceptance 13.515 1 13.515 18.981 0.000 0.095
Purpose of Life 9.410 1 9.410 13.071 0.000 0.067
Gender Environment Mastery 0.228 1 0.228 0.353 0.553 0.002
Personal Growth 0.207 1 0.207 0.348 0.556 0.002
Autonomy 0.108 1 0.108 0.150 0.699 0.001
Self-Acceptance 0.001 1 0.001 0.001 0.976 0.000
Purpose of Life 0.154 1 0.154 0.213 0.645 0.001
Error Environment Mastery 117.037 380 0.647
Personal Growth 107.954 380 0.596
Autonomy 131.058 380 0.724
Self-Acceptance 128.880 380 0.712
Purpose of Life 130.308 380 0.720
Positive Relations 127.358 380 0.704
Total Environment Mastery 2539.321 390
Personal Growth 2805.979 390
Autonomy 2521.799 390
Self-Acceptance 2530.552 390
Purpose of Life 2535.778 390
Positive Relations 2564.665 390
Corrected Total Environment Mastery 160.926 389
Personal Growth 156.823 389
Autonomy 185.541 389
Self-Acceptance 173.277 389
Purpose of Life 176.152 389
Positive Relations 167.404 389
a. R Squared = .273 (Adjusted R Squared = .237)
b. R Squared = .312 (Adjusted R Squared = .277)
c. R Squared = .294 (Adjusted R Squared = .259)
d. R Squared = .256 (Adjusted R Squared = .219)
e. R Squared = .260 (Adjusted R Squared = .223)
f. R Squared = .239 (Adjusted R Squared = .201)
g. Computed using alpha = .05
The results of separate ANOVA for each psychological wellbeing factors against each
independent variable are presented in Table 10. The factor Team Work is not statistically
significant on influencing the psychological wellbeing of an employee, whereas organization
climate is statistically significant and influencing all the six factors of psychological
wellbeing. Likewise Organization policies are influencing all the five factors of psychological
wellbeing except Self-Acceptance, and so on. There were no significant gender differences
were observed on the results are not statistically significant and the gender is not the predictor
of psychological wellbeing.

Budumuru Muralidhar
Table 10. Results of ANOVA for all the independent factors against dependent factors (psychological
wellbeing)a
Independent factor Dependent factor ANOA results
Team Work - Not significant
Gender No significant gender differences
Communication Personal Growth F(1, 380)=4.735, p=0.031, η2 =0.025
Peer Autonomy F(1, 380)=6.408, p=0.012, η2=0.034
Positive Relations F(1, 380)=5.398, p=0.006, η2=0.004
Job related Environment Mastery F(1, 380)=0.454, p=0.050, η2=0.003
Organization Policies Environment Mastery F(1, 380)=9.422, p=0.002, η2=0.049
Personal Growth F(1, 380)=11.780, p=0.001, η2=0.061
Autonomy F(1, 380)=6.211, p=0.014, η2=0.033
Purpose of Life F(1, 380)=4.703, p=0.037, η2=0.025
Positive Relations F(1, 380)=7.275, p=0.008, η2=0.039
Organization Climate Environment Mastery F(1,380)=9.899, p=0.002, η2= 0.052
Personal Growth F(1,380)=5.289, p=0.023, η2= 0.028

Autonomy F(1,380)=13.946, p=0.000, η2=0.072
Self-Acceptance F(1, 380)=4.549, p=0.034, η2=0.025
Purpose of Life F(1,380)=5.939, p=0.016, η2=0.032
Positive Relations F(1,380)=8.466, p=0.004, η2=0.045

Psychological factors Autonomy F(1, 380)=4.685, 0.032, η2=0.025
Job Satisfaction Environment Mastery F(1, 380)=8.584, 0.004, η2=0.045
Autonomy F(1, 380)=22.842, 0.00, η2=0.112
Purpose of Life F(1, 380)=13.0712, 0.000, η2=0.67
a
Note: Only significant results are presented from General Linear Model: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
The Age Group is not statistically significant in influencing the psychological wellbeing
of the employees (Table 11).
Table 11. Effect of Age Group on psychological wellbeing of the employees

Source factor Type III df Mean F Sig. Partial Eta
Sum of Square Squared
Squares
Gender * Age Environment 4.449 3 1.483 2.328 0.076 0.038
Group Mastery
Personal Growth 2.937 3 0.979 1.637 0.182 0.027
Autonomy 5.266 3 1.755 2.454 0.065 0.040
Self-Acceptance 4.332 3 1.444 2.046 0.109 0.034
Purpose of Life 4.170 3 .1.390 1.932 0.126 0.032
Therefore, we partially accept the null hypothesis Ho1: Employee individual,
organisational, and external factors significantly influence the psychological well-being of an
employee during Covid-19 Pandemic and accept the alternate hypothesis H12: There are no
significant gender and age dfferences on factors effecting the psychological wellbeing of the
employees in IT sector
9. DISCUSSION
We have carried out this study to measure the psychological wellbeing of the information
technology employees during the lockdown period (24 March – 24 April 2020) applying a
survey questionnaire on the remote working employees. There are several literature is

available in general on remote work and its effects, however we have not found any single
research study on remote work and how it will effect employees psychological wellbeing
during any pandemic type of situations. We believe this is the first such type of study and to
make the study more comprehensive we have measured how the eight independent factors are
effecting the every factory of psychological wellbeing. Though, there is no research available
using GLM Multivariate model our results in line with the similar studies carried out by Gu et
al. (2019) and psychosomatic wellbeing among Chinese nurses; Adam Steptoe et al. (2015)
psychological wellbeing and ageing; and Brim et al. (2019) How healthy are we.
We have used several reliability methods like Cronbach alpha, Split-Half (odd-even)
Correlation and Split-Half with Spearman-Brown Adjustment to make the research instrument
more consistent and reliable. We have used a shortened version of psychological wellbeing
scale with 18 items with 6 factors developed by Ryff and Keyes (1995). The point scale was
converted to a 5 point Likert type scale using linear transformation procedures for easy data
analysis and interpretations.
We have identified the following challenges generally a remote employee can experience
which need to be mitigated by suitably modifying organizational policies so employee can
work with minimum disturbance during pandemic period. On the positive part of the side
there are several opportunities for the employer, elaborated as under
 Communication
 Remote workers will have communication problems because of internet glitches,
employee may be able to divulge his ideas/feeling to the peer in group
communication, and are not part of the routine person to person meetings, so the delay
in communicating of decisions.
 Workplace isolation is another problem for the older employees who are not
technology savvy
 Fear of 24/7 reporting and burnout
 Some peers believe that they should work full 40 hrs for week however for in-office
employee the times includes the 2-Tea/Coffee and 1 lunch break. There is a chance of
employee burnout for unnecessary policing. The organization can overcome this
problem through time logins and allied mechanisms.
 Employee really don’t work
 There is a misconception that actually employee doesn’t work to his/her full potential,
and will work only to the targeted tasks which are important and other time the
employee will relax. Though the quantification of a service and intangible benefit is
difficult the managers should find a way out overcome this misconception.
 Another challenge is some jobs can be worked remotely with frequent physical
presence in traditional office. The organizations should develop a policy document so
to define which job can be done remotely working at home and which tasks need
employee presence.
 Working too much
 Prioritizing work
 Interruptions

Budumuru Muralidhar
 Lack of human interaction and loneliness

 Different working zones
 Bad health habits
Opportunities
 Saving communication time
 Saving in office costs
 Social support
 Flexible working hours
 Must complete the job
 Minimal supervision which increases the decision making knowledge of an employee
 No workplace group politics
10. CONCLUSIONS
Authors propose to carry out the similar type of study in other sectors in particular health and
banking sector. A study on occupational stress causing during the pandemic period will be
immensely beneficial for the organisations to modify the strategies and decide future course
of action. Another area of important is agricultural sector, in particular seed industry which is
the backbone of our country. The behavioral changes of employees need to be studied with
appropriate survey instrument.
The survey instrument i.e. survey questionnaire is available at:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdrdUb2lt1oxw0kj3zMAX62_0C1gVbEsQQ
gRQl-skmKX6e2Ug/viewform
ACKMNOWLEDGMENT
We thank all respondents who took out their valuable time responded to our questionnaire.
REFERENCES
[1] Adam Steptoe, A., Deaton, A., & Stone, A. A. (2015). Psychological wellbeing, health
and ageing. Lancet, 385(9968), 640.Hickman and Jennifer Robison (2020).
[2] Anderson, A. J., Kaplan, S. A., & Vega, R. P. (2015). The impact of telework on
emotional experience: When, and for whom, does telework improve daily affective well-
being?. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 882-897.
[3] Annamalai, S., & Nandagopal, R. (2014). Occupational Stress: A study of Employee
Stress in Indian ITES Industry (Vol. 1). Allied Publishers.
[4] Brim, O. G., Ryff, C. D., & Kessler, R. C. (Eds.). (2019). How healthy are we?: A
national study of well-being at midlife. University of Chicago Press.
[5] Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling Techniques: 3d Ed. New York: Wiley
[6] Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
[7] Cronk, B. C. (2019). How to use SPSS®: A step-by-step guide to analysis and
interpretation. Routledge.

[8] Felstead, A., & Henseke, G. (2017). Assessing the growth of remote working and its
consequences for effort, well‐being and work‐life balance. New Technology, Work and
Employment, 32(3), 195-212.
[9] Greer, T. W., & Payne, S. C. (2014). Overcoming telework challenges: Outcomes of
successful telework strategies. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 17(2), 87.
[10] Gu, B., Tan, Q., & Zhao, S. (2019). The association between occupational stress and
psychosomatic wellbeing among Chinese nurses: A cross-sectional survey. Medicine,
98(22).
[11] Hickman, A. (2019). Workplace Isolation Occurring in Remote Workers. Doctoral
Dissertation. Walden University.
[12] https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8181&context=dissertation
sHo, R. (2006). Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis and `interpretation
with SPSS. CRC Press.
[13] Is Working Remotely Effective? Gallup Research Says Yes. Gallup Workplace.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/283985/working-remotely-effective-gallup-research-
says-yes.aspx
[14] Kristen Senz. (2019). How Companies Benefit When Employees Work Remotely.
Research and Ideas. Blog. https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/how-companies-benefit-when-
employees-work-remotely
[15] Levene, H. (1960). In Contributions to Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of
Harold Hotelling, I. Olkin et al. eds., Stanford University Press, pp. 278-292.
[16] Melanie Pinola. 2020. The 7 biggest remote work challenges (and how to overcome
them). https://zapier.com/blog/remote-work-challenges/
[17] Prasad, K. D. V., & Vaidya, R. (2018). Causes and Effect of Occupational Stress and
Coping on Performance with Special Reference to Length of Service: An Empirical Study
Using Multinomial Logistic Regression Approach. Psychology, 9(10), 2457-2470.
[18] Prasad, K. D. V., Vaidya, R., & Anil Kumar, V. (2018). Association among occupational
stress factors and performance at workplace among agricultural research sector employees
at hyderabad, India. Pacific Business Review International (TSI), 10(7), 27-36.
[19] Prasad, K. D. V., Vaidya, R., & Kumar, V. A. (2016). Teacher’s Performance as a
Function of Occupational Stress and Coping with Reference to CBSE Affiliated School
Teachers in and around Hyderabad: A Multinomial Regression Approach. Psychology,
7(13), 1700-1718.
[20] Remote working and its effects. Royal Society for Public Health in the UK, (2014), PGi
[21] Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being
revisited. Journal of personality and social psychology, 69(4), 719.
[22] SCIKEY MindMatch. (2020). 99.8% workforce in IT sector incapable of remote working:
Study. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/ites/99-8pc-workforce-in-it-sector-
incapable-of-remote-working-study/articleshow/75080948.cms
[23] Snedecor, George W. and Cochran, William G. (1989), Statistical Methods, Eighth
Edition, Iowa State University Press.
[24] Staples, D. S. (2001). A study of remote workers and their differences from non-remote
workers. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing (JOEUC), 13(2), 3-14.

Budumuru Muralidhar
[25] What is Remote work? (2020). https://remoteyear.com/blog/what-is-remote-work

[26] Wheatley, D. (2017). Employee satisfaction and use of flexible working arrangements.
Work, employment and society, 31(4), 567-585.
[27] Working from home 101: Every remote worker's guide to the essential tools for
telecommuting. (2020). ZDNet. https://www.zdnet.com/article/remote-working-101-
professionals-guide-to-the-tools-of-the-trade/
[28] Zara Greenbaum. (2019). The future of remote work. Monitor on Psychology. 50(9)54
American psychological association https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/10/cover-remote-
work

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET)

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

Dr. Mruthyanjaya Rao Mangipudi

Dr. Rajesh W. Vaidya

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 409 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 410 editor@iaeme.com

1.1. What is Remote Work?

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 411 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 412 editor@iaeme.com

4.1. Research Gap

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 413 editor@iaeme.com

Table 1. Demography of the sample

Table 2 Sample description

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 414 editor@iaeme.com

Table 3 Independent factors that measured dependent factor psychological wellbeing

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 415 editor@iaeme.com

7.1. Reliability Methods

Table 4. Independent and dependent factors of the study

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 416 editor@iaeme.com

4 Self-Acceptance 0.81 0.71 0.83

Overall C-alpha :0.93

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 417 editor@iaeme.com

Table 6. KMO and Bartlett's Test statistic of independent factors

Table 7. Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

Table 8. General Linear Model: Multivariate testsa

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 418 editor@iaeme.com

Wilks' Lambda 0.980 .596b 6.000 375.000 0.733 0.020

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 419 editor@iaeme.com

Table 9. General Linear Model: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 420 editor@iaeme.com

Autonomy 3.392 1 3.392 4.685 0.032 0.025

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 421 editor@iaeme.com

Personal Growth F(1,380)=5.289, p=0.023, η2= 0.028

Self-Acceptance F(1, 380)=4.549, p=0.034, η2=0.025

Purpose of Life F(1,380)=5.939, p=0.016, η2=0.032

Positive Relations F(1,380)=8.466, p=0.004, η2=0.045

Table 11. Effect of Age Group on psychological wellbeing of the employees

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 422 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 423 editor@iaeme.com

 Lack of human interaction and loneliness

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 424 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 425 editor@iaeme.com

[25] What is Remote work? (2020). https://remoteyear.com/blog/what-is-remote-work

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 426 editor@iaeme.com

You might also like