Remote and on-site work stress severity during the COVID-19 pandemic: comparison and selected conditions.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to explore whether remote and on-site work stress during the COVID-19 pandemic was experienced with different severity. The second goal was to investigate stress conditions at both working modes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study involved 946 individuals working in the education system and BSS sector in different Polish organizations. The following tools were used the Brief Scale of Vocational Stress by Dudek and Hauk, the Polish version of the scales to measure work-family conflicts by Grzywacz, Frone, Brewer and Kovner, Meyer and Allen's Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment Scales in the Polish adaptation by Banka, Wolowska and Bazinska, the Satisfaction with Job Scale by Zalewska. RESULTS: The analysis of intergroup differences revealed that remote work stress severity was significantly lower than on-site work stress severity. The regression analyses proved that work-family conflict and job satisfaction were significant predictors of remote and on-site work stress. Continuance commitment positively predicted on-site work stress. Both models turned out to be statistically significant. The variables included in the models explained 39% and 35% of the variability of the remote work and on-site work stress, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Remote work is associated with lower stress severity than on-site work. For both types of work, the higher the level of work-family conflict, the higher the level of stress severity, but the higher the job satisfaction, the lower the stress severity. Continuance commitment is positively related to on-site stress, which means that people who work for an organization and see no alternative feel more stressed. Such an effect was observed only in the case of on-site work. The study findings are discussed in light of previous research, and implications for organizational practice are considered. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2023;36(1)96-111.