Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Problem

Higher staff turnover rates occurred at a university when flexible work schedules were selectively discontinued in some divisions after the COVID-19 pandemic workplace disruption.

Solution

Staff surveys and focus groups identified a strong positive connection between flexible work, job satisfaction, and supervisor support. Alongside collaborators, leadership workshop cohorts were developed for staff supervisors. Pre- and post-workshop surveys, interviews, and a split-test survey of non-managerial staff gauged if job satisfaction and belonging were influenced by the workshops and how flexible work was factored. Job satisfaction and communication improved for participants and their staff. Furthermore, their staff reported higher feelings of belonging.

Stakeholders

The intended audience for this article is HRD scholars, practitioners, and employers interested in improving job satisfaction and belonging for their employees.

Keywords

flexibility belonging job satisfaction cohorts staff development

Improving Job Satisfaction and Belonging Through Flexible Work and Leadership Workshops: An Action Research Study

When the COVID-19 pandemic forced university employees to move to remote work, many members of the administrative staff, particularly parents with children at home, expressed that they had a newfound balance of work and home life and were reluctant to give it up when in-person learning resumed. As a result the university, like many other employers, experienced higher employee turnover (11.6%) during the “Great Resignation” of 2021 (Hopkins & Figaro, 2021) than in the previous five years (7%), with many employees leaving for remote or hybrid positions. Low job satisfaction is associated with burnout, poor self-esteem, anxiety, depression, stress (Brown et al., 2012; Raiger, 2005), and employee turnover (Garg & Agrawal, 2020; Lin & Huang, 2020; Mudor, 2011). Therefore, improving staff’s job satisfaction was a critical staff retention strategy.

Feedback from employee exit interviews between 2020 and 2022 cited a lack of flexible work and a resulting decrease in job satisfaction in contributing to their decision to leave the university. However, creating a policy to maintain flexible work across roles and divisions on a residential campus proved challenging. There was skepticism among some leaders about the viability of long-term flexibility and concerns that allowing staff to work from home when students were back on campus would impact the students’ educational experiences and negatively influence student retention. Thus, there was an inherent tension between staff retention and student retention—both highly valued at the university, but with the potential for negative results on either side if the university leaned too heavily toward allowing staff flexibility or requiring staff to be predominantly in-office.

Background of the Study

The study was conducted at a small, private, master’s level university in a midsized city in the Northeastern region of the United States and focused on administrative, non-union, staff. The university’s first attempt at a flexible policy, called “telework,” was set up by the human resources department in the Summer of 2020 but only addressed the location of the job and was viewed as temporal in nature since there was still a lot of skepticism among senior leaders about the long-term viability of flexible work arrangements on a residential campus. It also left decisions on flexible arrangements to individual managers, leading to a confusing and disjointed implementation. Creating an inclusive and equitable flexible workplace for all was difficult because many roles and expectations were defined both managerially and functionally, causing inconsistency between divisions. Questions remained among many—evidenced in online survey feedback and semi-structured interviews—whether flexibility could be viable long-term for staff and how to make it equitable even when some positions required front-facing student interaction.

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions

The purpose of this action research study was to address increased employee turnover by exploring the impact of flexibility and supportive supervisors on staff members’ feelings of belonging and job satisfaction. The research questions were:

• What factors relate to overall job satisfaction and feelings of belonging among university administrative staff, and how does the university perform against those factors?

• What factors do administrative staff believe could improve their job satisfaction, and can training supervisors help improve job satisfaction and feelings of belonging for supervisors and staff?

The goal for this study was to identify factors that could improve job satisfaction for the university’s administrative staff to ultimately improve staff retention.

Literature Review

An extensive review of the literature particularly focused on human resource development (HRD) and human resource management (HRM) practices but not limited to journals focused in these areas. The keywords flexibility, hybrid, remote, job satisfaction, belonging, supervisor support, leadership development, cohorts, employee turnover, and retention were used in the search. Most of the research on these topics was found in HRM-focused journals, but, as the need for greater supervisor support was identified, a few articles were found that explored the impact of cohorts and discussions around implementing flexibility from the lens of HRD. Yet, gaps remain in recognizing the role that training and development should play in creating supervisory environments that can support staff members’ flexible work plans which ultimately impacts their job satisfaction and belonging.

In this literature review, three interrelated strands were found that support job satisfaction: a healthy work culture, a sense of belongingness, and well-supported flexible work. In addition, it was found that connections between flexible work, job satisfaction, and productivity have been adequately explored in HRM literature and flexibility has been an occasional topic in HRD journals. However, less discussed in both HRM and HRD literature has been the interconnected relationship between flexible work, job satisfaction, supportive supervisors, and belonging and how training and development can influence all four. These are explored in this research study and discussed in the results section. A brief review of the literature that provides a framework for employee job satisfaction follows.

Healthy Work Culture

Supervisor support for the pursuit of meaningful work (Neale-McFall, 2020), healthy work–life boundaries (Jackson & Fransman, 2018; Jijena Michel & Jijena Michel, 2015; Kamalaveni et al., 2019), and fair compensation (Kamalaveni et al., 2019)—all elements of healthy work culture—can improve employee job satisfaction and boost retention. Conversely, job insecurity and pay stagnation negatively impact job satisfaction and retention (Benson et al., 2020; Lin & Huang, 2020).

Job satisfaction and retention are also positively related to work–family enrichment policies that help employees balance work and home obligations, such as flexible work arrangements and support for family leave (Chang et al., 2014; Garg & Agrawal, 2020; Jijena Michel & Jijena Michel, 2015; Ohadomere & Ogamba, 2020) and it is particularly important for women with caregiving responsibilities (Chang et al., 2014). Job satisfaction and retention are associated with greater performance (Lin & Huang, 2020) and productivity (Lin & Huang, 2020; Mudor, 2011; Neale-McFall, 2020; Ohadomere & Ogamba, 2020).

Supportive supervisors (Marx et al., 2021; Raiger, 2005; Szyszko, 2021), mutual trust and respect (Hill et al., 2008), and family-friendly policies (Jijena Michel & Jijena Michel, 2015) are crucial elements in employee retention and engagement. In addition, leaders should cultivate a shared vision, emphasize everyone’s individual contributions, model caring communications, and regularly seek employee feedback (Vercio et al., 2021). Here, HRD professionals can support a robust training and development plan for supervisors to foster a healthy work culture and ensure that leaders are equitably implementing policies.

Belongingness

People have an innate and fundamental need for interpersonal attachments and to feel that they belong within a group (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Filstad et al., 2019; Maslow, 1943). When individuals feel valued as group members, their sense of belonging fosters social cohesion, loyalty, commitment, and solidarity (Antonsich, 2010). “Belongingness,” a desire to form significant, quality, and lasting relationships, relates to how employees assign meaning to their work (Rosso et al., 2010, p. 111). Belonging significantly affects employees’ emotional health, cognition, self-worth, and performance (Waller, 2020). It is cited as essential to employee motivation (Vercio et al., 2021), performance (Waller, 2020) and job satisfaction (Spehar et al., 2016; Webber & Rogers, 2018).

Contributing to feelings of belonging and job satisfaction is an inclusive leadership culture (Waller, 2020), meaningful collaborative relationships with colleagues (Byrd, 2022; Erickson & Ritter, 2001; Filstad et al., 2019), a sense of community (Vercio et al., 2021; Webber & Rogers, 2018), feelings of psychological empowerment in one’s work (Pathak & Srivastava, 2020; Waller, 2020), “harmonious passion” evidenced by self-determined performance (Spehar et al., 2016), and a sense of value in one’s work (Filstad et al., 2019; Hagerty & Patusky, 1995). HRD’s role in fostering belongingness again points to providing leadership training and coaching for supervisors that can help them understand the best ways to motivate and support their staff.

Flexibility

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic began in March 2020, studies showed that a flexible work environment could increase employee satisfaction and productivity (Hill et al., 2008, 2010; Kelliher & Anderson, 2010). The Great Resignation that started in 2021 added pressure on employers to keep flexible work and formalize policies and structures (Lipman, 2021). By identifying and addressing workplace flexibility barriers, establishing work–family enrichment policies (Jijena Michel & Jijena Michel, 2015), and creating a new flexible work culture of mutual trust and respect (Benson et al., 2020; Hill et al., 2008), employers can increase employee productivity and job satisfaction (Hill et al., 2010).

There is significant evidence that flexibility supports greater job satisfaction (Golden & Gajendran, 2019; Kelliher & Anderson, 2010; Mache et al., 2020; Ray & Pana-Cryan, 2021), collaboration (Mache et al., 2020), and retention (Hill et al., 2008; Marx et al., 2021; Richman et al., 2008). A combination of flexibility in both time and location is vital to increasing job satisfaction, well-being, and collaboration (Chung & Van Der Lippe, 2020; Dilmaghani, 2021). Employers can improve productivity and increase work–life integration for all employees, particularly parents with children at home (Chung & Van Der Lippe, 2020; Fuller & Hirsh, 2019) by formalizing workplace flexibility and creating work cultures based on mutual trust and respect (Hill et al., 2008, 2010; Jijena Michel & Jijena Michel, 2015).

However, for all its benefits, a practical, flexible work environment is challenging to create and maintain. If not managed well, it can create stress (Heiden et al., 2021; Jackson & Fransman, 2018; Ray & Pana-Cryan, 2021; Song & Gao, 2020), detachment (Das Swain et al., 2020), feelings of isolation (Shirmohammadi et al., 2022), a lack of work–life boundaries that add to stress (Xie et al., 2019), and feelings of exclusion (Byrd, 2022). Strong policies (Song & Gao, 2020; Weideman & Hofmeyr, 2020), supportive supervisors and colleagues (Bontrager et al., 2021), clear communication (Weideman & Hofmeyr, 2020), and adequate resources (Weideman & Hofmeyr, 2020) are essential to avoid these pitfalls. While HRD may not traditionally play a role in HRM policies around flexibility, strong partnership, and collaboration with colleagues on training supervisors on strong communication and performance, practices can help to avoid the pitfalls of a flexible work environment.

Theoretical Framework

Given the subjective nature of job satisfaction and feelings of belonging, both critical factors in strong employee retention, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs was selected as the theoretical framework (1943). Job satisfaction and belonging fall within a hierarchy of innate personal needs. According to Maslow’s theory of needs, after an individual’s basic physiological and safety needs are met, their psychological needs for belonging and esteem can be addressed; and only then can they achieve self-actualization (1943). The research approach in this study was based on Maslow’s needs theory. The proposition generated was that once staff members’ basic physiological and safety needs were accounted for they needed ample opportunities and support to form meaningful relationships (supporting belongingness), which would lead to greater self-esteem and could result in higher job satisfaction. It was theorized that allowing staff to pursue flexible work, which provided opportunities for self-direction and autonomy, could support greater feelings of job satisfaction. However, given the solo nature of remote work, the researchers wanted to be sure that people still felt meaningful connections with others. The tension between building and maintaining feelings of belonging for staff working in various locations was a potential challenge. The aim was to ensure that staff members’ desired flexibility did not come with the unintended cost of disconnection and lesser feelings of belonging. Maslow’s needs theory helped to keep both psychological and self-actualization goals at the forefront of the research.

Methodology

This study is grounded in a constructivist paradigm as part of the qualitative action research methodology, which is described below along with data collection and data analysis.

Description and Discussion on the Action Research Methodology

Action research grew out of the analysis of psychologist Kurt Lewin (1947). Lewin believed that knowledge was created by solving real-life problems and developed an approach to problem-solving that involved a collaborative cyclical process (Lewin, 1947). Paulo Freire, an adult educator, and philosopher working in the 1960s–1980s, believed that critical reflection was necessary to spur personal and social change. His goal with his research method was to empower poor and marginalized people (Macdonald, 2012). The influences of Lewin and Freire, which emphasized social justice and the participation of marginalized individuals, are evident in contemporary action research studies (Herr & Anderson, 2015). In action research, the researcher fully engages the subjects in planning, collecting data, taking action, and fact-finding to plan and take additional action (Coghlan, 2011). Using a constructivist paradigm, this action research study aimed to include all subjects as participants in the investigation to build a more equitable and lasting solution (Macdonald, 2012). Data from this study was grounded in this action research methodology (Herr & Anderson, 2015) within the qualitative research tradition (Stringer & Aragón, 2020) over two cycles of research and analysis.

Action research was a suitable methodology for this study because it emphasizes an egalitarian, action-focused approach where the researcher invites all staff to participate and not just those in power to identify solution (Stringer & Aragón, 2020). Each part of this action research study aligned with the qualitative research method: the topic of improving job satisfaction and feelings of belonging in the workplace; the data collection methods of focus groups, qualitative surveys, and interviews; and the analysis of drawing themes based on in vivo codes and descriptive feedback.

Given the subjective nature of this qualitative work exploring factors that influence job satisfaction and belonging, regular self-reflection and an acknowledgment of one’s positionality and biases were critical (Milner, 2007). As such, particularly given the primary researcher’s position of power, the team aimed to acknowledge and unpack how bias and power could impact the study and its results (Adams, 2022; Herr & Anderson, 2015).

Participant Selection

All 226 university administrative staff members—both managerial and non-managerial—were potential participants and were invited to participate in the study. Excluded were faculty and unionized workers whose work expectations were significantly different than the staff. Participation was entirely voluntary and staff participants were given opportunities to provide anonymous feedback via online surveys. For interviews and focus groups, participants were recruited to represent a meaningful cross-section of the university’s demographic base. Again, participation was entirely voluntary, and all interviewees were advised of the confidentiality of their responses and the option to end the interviews at any time.

Data Collection Methods

In Cycle 1, a mixed-methods anonymous survey was sent to all 226 university administrative staff representing all departments and job levels and received responses from 81 individuals. Qualitative data was collected from three stakeholder interviews with university leaders representing a cross-section of departments and two volunteer focus groups (n = 9), voluntarily recruited from outreach to all members of the researcher’s work division. In Cycle 2, the researchers conducted pre- (n = 31) and post-workshop (n = 24) mixed-methods anonymous surveys of the 37 supervisors who voluntarily participated in the workshops Table 1 provides the survey questions for both pre- and post-surveys.

Table 1.

Pre- and Post-workshop Participant Survey Questions.

Pre-workshop survey

1. Please rank the topics you would most like to address in the upcoming workshops (1 is most important and 5 is least):

• Work–life balance strategies

• How to manage a flexible team

• Collaborating with colleagues and direct reports more effectively

• A better understanding of technology tools that can help manage staff efficiently

• A deeper understanding of inclusive leadership practices

2. Is there anything specific you want to learn in this workshop?

3. Please rate your agreement with the statement: “I feel like I belong to a community at [university]”

4. Please rate your current job satisfaction

Post-workshop survey

1. How many of the four workshops did you attend?

2. Please drag and drop the topics below to rank those that you found most beneficial from the workshops (1 is most beneficial and 5 is least):

• Work–life balance strategies

• How to manage a team flexibly

• Collaborating with colleagues and direct reports more effectively

• A better understanding of technology tools that can help manage staff efficiently

• Management strategies

3. How effective were the workshops in providing you with practical tools to improve your leadership skills?

4. What skills or tools from the workshops do you intend to use with your direct reports?

5. How have you modified your approach to management since the workshops?

6. How did you feel about working with the same cohort of colleagues all four weeks?

7. What feedback do you have on the workshops?

8. Please react to the following statements:

• I feel like I belong to a community at [university]

• I formed new or stronger relationships with colleagues across the university through these workshops

• It is important to me to have strong workplace connections

9. Please rate your current job satisfaction

Demographics questions in both surveys

1. What best describes your current work situation at [university] [flexibility]?

2. How long have you managed staff at [university] (not counting student employees)?

3. What is your family situation?

4. What is your gender identity?

Ten semi-structured interviews were held with workshop participants representing the broader university managerial population. Table 2 outlines the semi-structured interview questions posed to each of the supervisory participants.

Table 2.

Supervisory Participant Interview Questions.

1. How would you describe your approach to managing your direct reports?

2. What is your perspective on managing a team flexibly?

3. Reflecting on the workshops, what stood out to you?

4. Describe your relationship with your cohort.

5. What effect did your workshop cohort have in providing new perspectives to improve your management skills?

6. Describe any tools or skills that you learned in the workshops that you found useful or thought-provoking.

7. In what ways have you created a sense of “teamwork” among your colleagues and direct reports?

8. To what extent do you feel that you belong to the [university] community? Has that changed or shifted over time?

9. How would you gauge your job satisfaction now compared to six months ago?

10. How do you think we can build greater job satisfaction for our staff, given all that you’ve learned and experienced in the last few months?

The interviewees were selected to reflect the demographics of the overall university population, which used criteria of gender, ethnicity, work division, and tenure at the university (less than two years compared to two years or greater).

The study concluded with two identical versions of an anonymous Qualtrics post-workshop survey of all 165 non-supervisory administrative staff (n = 61). Table 3 provides the questions posed to both Groups A and B.

Table 3.

Direct Report Survey Questions.

Please react to the following statements regarding your relationship with your supervisor (Likert-scale questions):
1. My supervisor and I communicate effectively
2. Communication with my supervisor has improved in recent months
3. My supervisor actively seeks my opinion and feedback on important issues that impact me and/or the team
4. My supervisor values work–life balance
5. My supervisor supports me in making decisions that are best for me personally and professionally
6. I feel like I belong to a community at [university]
7. My supervisor fosters a team environment
8. It’s important to me to feel a part of a community at work
9. How satisfied are you with your current work approach?
10. How has your supervisor impacted your job satisfaction?
11. How satisfied are you with the flexibility in your work environment?
12. What best describes your current work situation at [university]?
13. How long have you worked at [university]?
14. What is your family situation?
15. What is your gender identity?

This survey divided potential participants into two groups: Group A, who were direct reports to workshop participants, and Group B, whose supervisors did not participate. This split-test approach demonstrated the impact of supervisor participation in workshops on managing their direct reports. To analyze the data in both cycles, an inductive process with an in vivo and descriptive coding method for interviews, focus groups, and qualitative feedback from the survey was used (Miles et al., 2020). The essential emergent themes were identified (Miles et al., 2020; Saldaña, 2021) and conducted fact-checks by sharing compiled data and themes with the participants.

Data Analysis

The evaluation plan aimed to understand whether leadership workshops that offer flexible work best practices and opportunities for collaboration and discussion could influence supervisor management approaches and ultimately improve feelings of job satisfaction and belonging for their direct reports. The evaluation plan focused on the data collected from three populations: supervisors who participated in the workshops (“participants”), direct reports of supervisory participants (“Group A”), and direct reports of supervisors who did not participate (“Group B”). Figure 1 provides the top in vivo codes identified from all data collected in Cycle 2, which helped to shape the key themes and findings.

Figure 1.

Code frequency table of top 25 themes from in vivo coding.

The workshops focused on improving administrative staff’s job satisfaction and feelings of belonging by training supervisors on inclusive leadership skills, a sense of shared purpose, and meaningful interactions. This was achieved through a four-part weekly cohort model of one-hour Zoom workshops to enhance participation across the university’s various locations. During each one-hour session, participants learned about a particular leadership topic and were divided into small cohort groups of six to eight peers from across the university to break off into discussion based on crafted prompts. The cohorts remained the same throughout the four weeks to foster stronger connections and trust among participants.

The survey feedback and interview responses deepened an understanding of how managers can supervise their teams flexibly and effectively and identified additional opportunities to improve job satisfaction and belonging. These varied collection methods helped to understand whether there were improvements in job satisfaction and belonging for the supervisor participants and their direct reports. Additional information on staff schedules, such as how many days they were in the office versus working remotely, and demographic information on caregiving status, gender, and time working at the university added context and depth to the data collected.

Discussion of Findings

This action research study demonstrated that supervisor support is essential to foster feelings of belonging and job satisfaction, which may support retention. Both belonging and job satisfaction were substantially higher for participants’ direct reports than for direct reports of supervisors who did not participate. Furthermore, job satisfaction increased for the supervisors participating in the workshops, self-reported at 68% pre-workshop to 74% post-workshop. Four primary findings have emerged. First, job satisfaction and belonging have a positive relationship. Second, flexibility increases job satisfaction and belonging. Third, supportive supervisors strongly influence job satisfaction and belonging. Finally, providing leadership training to supervisors provided job satisfaction benefits. These findings are discussed next.

Finding 1: Job Satisfaction Is Positively Related to Belonging

This study confirmed a substantial positive connection between job satisfaction and feelings of belonging for supervisory workshop participants and their direct reports (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011; Spehar et al., 2016). Those who felt the most strongly that they belonged tended to have the highest levels of job satisfaction. Individuals with lower feelings of belonging typically also reported lower levels of job satisfaction. Of the supervisory participants, 78% agreed that they belonged to the university; of that group, 78% were also satisfied with their work situation. On the other hand, 8.3% of respondents somewhat disagreed that they belonged to the university, and only half of that group were somewhat satisfied (and none extremely satisfied) with their job situation.

Feedback from direct reports of supervisory participants (Group A) and the direct reports of nonparticipants (Group B) continued this positive connection between job satisfaction and belonging. In Group A, 71% of the respondents agreed that they belonged to the university community, and within that group, 95% were satisfied with their work situations. While their colleagues in Group B had substantially lower feelings of belonging and job satisfaction, the connection between these elements remained. In Group B, 58% agreed that they belonged to the university community; of that group, 78% were satisfied.

Of survey participants, 66.6% had flexible schedules, while 33.3% worked on-site or remotely. The gender ratio (34% men, 66% women) aligned with university management. The aim was to reduce self-selection bias by inviting all administrative staff and their supervisors to participate in the study and workshops.

Finding 2: Flexibility Increases Job Satisfaction and Belonging

Flexibility is frequently associated with increased job satisfaction in the literature, but its relationship with belonging is a newer area of study. Given the nuanced responses from supervisory participants, their direct reports (Group A), nonparticipants’ direct reports (Group B), and participants who identified as parents and caregivers on the intersections of flexibility, job satisfaction, and belonging, the findings in this area are broken down and discussed by intersection below.

Job Satisfaction and Flexibility in Staff

A positive relationship was identified between staff flexibility and job satisfaction in both research cycles, aligning with the literature. Group A had substantially more flexible workers than Group B, with 26% in-office daily or occasionally flexible and 74% flexible (hybrid or fully remote), compared to Group B’s 51% in-office daily or occasionally flexible and 48% flexible. Group A and B responses are analyzed collectively due to the differences in these populations regarding flexibility. In Cycle 2, 94% of direct reports in Groups A and B with regular flexibility (representing 62% of the total surveyed population) were satisfied with their work arrangements compared to 61% of staff who were in-office daily.

The Intersection of Belonging, Job Satisfaction, and Flexibility in Staff

This study introduces new insights into a positive interrelationship between flexibility, job satisfaction, and belonging for direct reports. The relationship between flexibility, job satisfaction, and belonging was positive for all surveyed direct reports (Groups A and B). Within Group A (workshop participants’ direct reports), 74% of those with some flexibility agreed that they belonged, compared to 58% of those who were in the office daily. Direct reports from nonparticipating supervisors (Group B) had lower overall feelings of belonging. However, those with flexibility still had a more significant agreement on belonging at 61% compared to 54% of those in-office daily. Flexible direct reports with higher belonging and job satisfaction talked about a supportive and collaborative environment, support for work–life balance, a team environment, and feeling empowered. Direct reports fully in-office with lower belonging and job satisfaction reflected more negatively, talking about hands-off supervisors and less accommodating senior leadership (i.e., the president, vice presidents, associate or assistant vice presidents, or deans) that made things difficult.

Supervisors should intentionally structure informal daily connections with newcomers, integrate frequent full-team online meetings, and assign “buddies” to newer employees to counteract any adverse effects of flexibility on feelings of belonging (Santhanam et al., 2022). Several supervisory participants in semi-structured interviews identified standing meetings and frequent check-ins as practices they implemented alongside flexible work. The interviewees (and the leadership workshops) stressed the value of these practices in keeping their remote and hybrid teams engaged and connected.

Online social networks can assist in creating feelings of belonging (Mache et al., 2020; Will, 2021). Supervisors can intentionally use these online social networks and interpersonal connections to help flexible workers feel included, another element of belongingness (Will, 2021). Given the implementation of Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and other online connections, cited in Cycle 1 surveys and covered as an essential practice in the Cycle 2 supervisor workshops, this literature evidence supports the finding that flexible workers had high feelings of belonging.

Increased self-regulation, essential for successful flexible work situations, contributes to higher belonging and job satisfaction for flexible staff than their fully in-office colleagues. Frequent in-person or virtual interruptions could decrease feelings of self-regulation and negatively impact job satisfaction while increasing feelings of belonging (Puranik et al., 2021). The findings support the increased feelings of belonging for flexible workers identified in the literature. Job satisfaction was 94% for direct reports from Groups A and B with flexible (hybrid, remote, or occasionally flexible) schedules compared to 61% satisfaction for direct reports from Groups A and B that were in the office daily. Frequent interruptions from staff using Microsoft Teams and Zoom to chat and meet with colleagues virtually can positively contribute to feeling connected and that they belong (Puranik et al., 2021). This new way of working may also mediate the isolating effects of working remotely and explain the boost in feelings of belonging reported by flexible workers. Furthermore, given the irregular rhythms of the post-COVID work environment, where schedules vary with a mix of virtual and in-person meetings and discussions, interruptions in-office may be just as frequent as when people work remotely.

Caregivers on Staff

This study reinforced the importance of flexibility for job satisfaction in parents and caregivers (collectively referred to as caregivers for the rest of this section), also noted in the literature as a critical factor for women in the workplace (Aldossari & Chaudhry, 2020; Erickson & Ritter, 2001; Kanji & Cahusac, 2015; Livingston, 2014; Neale-McFall, 2020). In both research cycles, the caregivers who did not have regular flexibility reported the highest dissatisfaction with their work arrangements. In Cycle 1, 40% of caregivers (all gender) and 75% of female caregivers without flexibility were dissatisfied with their work arrangements, compared to 5% of caregivers (all gender) and 6% of female caregivers with some flexibility, ranging from a few days per month to fully remote. In the Cycle 2 surveys of direct reports (Groups A and B), the gender differences were not notable, but the flexibility needs of caregivers were emphasized. Of all caregivers, 75% who worked in the office daily were dissatisfied with their work arrangements. This group is unfavorably compared to the 10% dissatisfaction of caregivers with regular flexibility.

Although the positive role of flexibility in job satisfaction for caregivers is well-established in the literature, how belongingness intersects with flexibility for caregivers has not been well-studied. Evaluating feelings of belonging in Groups A and B of caregivers of all genders, 61% with flexibility felt they belonged, compared to 28% who were in the office daily.

Supervisors’ Experiences with Flexibility, Job Satisfaction, and Belonging

Contrary to the literature and the staff survey feedback, there were no findings of a positive link between flexibility and job satisfaction in supervisory participants. In the post-workshop survey of supervisory participants, 33% were in the office daily or had occasional work-from-home options, and of that group, 85% reported satisfaction with their work situations. In comparison, those with regular flexibility were less satisfied. Of the 66% of supervisors with regular flexibility (hybrid to fully remote) in the post-workshop survey, only 68% were satisfied with their work arrangements. This finding is difficult to reconcile with the rest of the study results and the literature, which has not differentiated the experiences of supervisors and direct reports, but routinely showed positive connections between job satisfaction and flexibility (Dilmaghani, 2021; Golden & Gajendran, 2019; Kamalaveni et al., 2019; Kelliher & Anderson, 2010; Mache et al., 2020; Marx et al., 2021; Moors et al., 2014). However, this result may highlight supervisors’ uncertainty in finding a rhythm between flexible work and the expectations of their managerial roles. It also may reflect that the flexible supervisors were a more significant portion of the surveyed population (two-thirds of the group) and therefore had more varied experiences than the smaller in-office group.

The flexible supervisors’ lower job satisfaction may indicate the increased stress—and lack of a playbook for managing flexible teams in a changing post-COVID environment—that supervisors of flexible teams may be experiencing. Interpersonal connections can be easier to maintain for flexible workers who have long preexisting tenures in an organization (Chernoglazova, 2022). Semi-structured interviews, in which those with long tenures at the university expressed how this connection helped to increase their feelings of belonging, reinforced this point. Insights from the literature also show the challenging side of flexibility for some employees in the form of blurred lines between work and home life (Kim et al., 2020; Ray & Pana-Cryan, 2021), boundarilessness, job stress (Kim et al., 2020; Popovici & Popovici, 2020; Ray & Pana-Cryan, 2021; Xie et al., 2019), less informal contact with colleagues, and trouble building relationships (Will, 2021). These points could be particularly problematic for supervisors managing flexible staff, especially considering a new flexibility policy implemented just months before the post-workshop survey. Here, having survey or interview feedback from nonparticipating supervisors, who were not a part of this study, could lend additional insights into this surprising information.

While flexible supervisors had less satisfaction with their work arrangements than their in-office peers, they reported much higher feelings of belonging. The Cycle 2 post-workshop survey revealed that 66% of supervisory participants worked a flexible schedule and had high agreement (87.5%) that they belonged to the university community (but lesser job satisfaction at 66%). The flexible supervisors’ feelings of belonging were significantly higher than supervisors in-office daily or only occasionally flexible, who reported 62.5% agreement (but had higher job satisfaction at 85%). Perceived flexibility and supportive work–life policies have been associated with increased employee engagement (Richman et al., 2008), motivation (Cairns, 2013), and feeling connected to colleagues (Mache et al., 2020). These connections are essential to feelings of belonging (Filstad et al., 2019). These points may explain why flexible supervisors, who likely appreciated their managers’ support for flexibility, felt higher belonging than their in-office peers.

Finding 3: Supervisor Relationships Influence Job Satisfaction and Belonging

This study research affirmed the high value supportive supervisors provide to their direct reports’ overall satisfaction and belonging. Throughout the two cycles of surveys and interviews, positive relationships with supervisors were repeatedly emphasized as essential for staff to feel supported, connected, and satisfied in their roles. The positive association between supportive supervisors, job satisfaction, and belonging extends the literature that did not previously connect all three. These connections are explored separately below.

Supervisor Impact on Job Satisfaction

In Cycle 1, frequent supervisor communication and feeling supported by one’s supervisor, such as allowing flexibility, were found to be positively related. Almost all flexible staff (89%) agreed that their supervisors effectively communicated with them, compared to 72% of fully in-office staff. This positive trend continued with the feeling that the supervisor supported them in managing work and home obligations, where 91% of flexible respondents agreed, compared to 71% without flexibility. Feedback from the Cycle 2 survey of direct reports in Groups A and B amplified the value of supportive supervisors. Most direct reports that were extremely satisfied with their work arrangements also strongly agreed that their supervisors supported their work–life balance. Within Group A, 70% were extremely satisfied with their work arrangements; of that population, 90.5% also agreed that their supervisors supported work–life balance. In Group B, 29% were extremely satisfied; within that group, 89% agreed that their supervisor supported work–life balance.

Belonging

A direct connection was found between feelings of belonging and supervisor support. Those with high feelings of belonging also agreed that their supervisors supported their personal and professional decisions. This finding was sustained in the survey feedback of direct report respondents representing staff whose supervisors participated in the workshops (Group A) and those whose supervisors did not (Group B). In Group A, 70% of the respondents felt they belonged at the university. Of that segment, 100% agreed that their supervisors supported them in making decisions that were best for them personally and professionally. Group B did not share the high levels of belonging evident in Group A. Still, of the 58% who felt they belonged at the university, 83% expressed that their supervisors supported their personal and professional decisions.

As in the first finding, self-selection bias, brought on by good supervisors volunteering for the workshops, could play a role in the favorable results that showed strong supervisor support as contributing to staff belonging. However, given that both supervisor support and lack of support came through in the survey results from both research cycles, there is still evidence that supervisors—for good or for bad—significantly impact their direct reports’ feelings of belonging.

Finding 4: Leadership Training Provided Job Satisfaction Benefits

Leadership training workshops as a supervisor intervention was used to determine whether this could impact their feelings of job satisfaction and belonging and those of their direct reports (Group A). Survey and interview data confirmed an essential connection between increased job satisfaction for workshop participants. However, there are nuances between the interplay of the leadership workshops with job satisfaction and belonging when evaluating the three distinct populations of the workshop participants (supervisors), their direct reports (Group A), and the direct reports of nonparticipants (Group B). These nuances will be explored below.

Supervisor Participation in Leadership Workshops

A critical new finding was that leadership training workshops positively impacted job satisfaction and belonging for participants’ direct reports. Their direct reports (Group A) had the highest job satisfaction of all surveyed groups, at 90%. Nonparticipating supervisors’ direct reports (Group B) reported 74% job satisfaction. High job satisfaction extended to feelings of belongingness, with 70% of Group A feeling that they belonged, compared to 58% of those in Group B.

Given that the workshop content emphasized frequent communication, flexible management, and work–life balance, this finding confirms the importance of inclusive leadership practices and work–life balance to build belongingness (Byrd, 2022; Filstad et al., 2019; Shore et al., 2011; Vercio et al., 2021; Waller, 2020). Leaders who foster a dynamic process of building common goals, sharing activities, and actively achieving something together foster feelings of belonging (Byrd, 2022; Filstad et al., 2019; Pianese et al., 2022; Shore et al., 2011) and increase employee performance (Waples & Brock Baskin, 2021).

Providing supervisors with leadership training and building a sense of community among the participants can contribute to job satisfaction and the overall well-being of the supervisors’ direct reports (Bontrager et al., 2021; Kamalaveni et al., 2019; Waples & Brock Baskin, 2021; Wilson & Vanantwerp, 2021). The workshops covered the use of technology to help to build solid relationships and productivity (Mangla, 2021; Waples & Brock Baskin, 2021). Hence, the leadership workshops contributed positively to a strong sense of belonging and job satisfaction for workshop participants’ direct reports and added new insights to the literature.

Cohorts

The supervisory leadership workshops emphasized leadership practices and small group cohort discussions. The researcher assigned cohorts to group individuals with colleagues from across the university with whom they may otherwise not work closely. All participants (100%) placed a high value on the cohorts in the post-workshop survey. However, there was no firm consensus on whether the cohorts would have worked better with regroupings each week, as 54% enjoyed being with the same group, while another 46% wished that the groups changed week-to-week. Despite the divided opinions, there was observable value in the static cohorts, given that the findings showed that belonging was tied to a strong cohort connection—75% of those who enjoyed being with the same cohort each week also agreed that they belonged with the university community. The robust connection between feelings of belonging and a desire to collaborate with the same cohort suggested that strong cohort relationships increased feelings of belonging.

These findings support the value of cohorts in increasing belonging (Brouwer et al., 2019). Furthermore, employees who identified as members of their workplace community were likelier to feel positive emotions and participate in their workplace (Rusu & Colomeischi, 2020). Inclusion-focused training that promotes the development of a cohesive unit of people that celebrates individual teammates’ differences and uniqueness can help build optimal feelings of belonging (Davis et al., 2022). There is also a high value in significant positive relationships in work settings to increase feelings of belonging (Winter-Collins & McDaniel, 2000), reduce burnout, and increase job satisfaction (Charoensukmongkol et al., 2016).

Workshop Impact on Direct Reports

Survey responses revealed significant differences between Groups A and B, suggesting that the workshops positively helped supervisors change their management approaches. When comparing Groups A and B, participants’ direct reports (Group A) rated their supervisors higher in almost all areas, including job satisfaction, belonging, work–life balance support, inclusion in decision-making, and strong communication. Table 4 demonstrates noticeable differences between Groups A and B, particularly in areas of belonging, perceived supervisor communication, and a sense of a team environment. Increased job satisfaction and belonging for Group A direct reports of the participants—and increased job satisfaction ratings of the supervisors after workshops—signifies that leadership workshops are a valuable tool.

Table 4.

Direct Report Survey Responses on Supervisor Relationships.

Average responses to survey questions (1= lowest agreement/ 5 = highest agreement)
Scale of 1–5	My supervisor and I communicate effectively	Communication with my supervisor has improved in recent months	My supervisor seeks my opinion/feedback on important issues that impact me and/or team	My supervisor values work/life balance	My supervisor supports me in making decisions best for me personally/professionally	I feel like I belong to a community at Univ.	My supervisor fosters a team environment	It’s important to me to feel a part of a community at work	Satisfaction with current work approach	Satisfaction with flexibility in work environment
Average Group A	4.40	4.00	4.21	4.37	4.47	4.03	4.43	4.20	4.53	4.47
Average Group B	4.32	3.45	4.26	4.35	4.26	3.39	3.74	4.10	3.77	3.74
Difference	0.08	0.55	-0.05	0.02	0.21	0.64	0.69	0.10	0.76	0.73
% of respondents who were “somewhat” or “extremely” satisfied/“somewhat” or “strongly” agreed with the above statements:
Group A	90%	60%	80%	80%	83%	70%	83%	83%	90%	83%
Group B	90%	35%	87%	81%	81%	58%	61%	81%	74%	68%

Other factors can and probably did contribute to increased feelings of belonging and job satisfaction in the direct reports of workshop participants compared to direct reports to supervisors who did not participate. The supervisory participants may have been more attentive managers to start, evidenced by their desire to pursue supervisory training. Furthermore, Group A had a significantly higher percentage of flexible workers (74%) than Group B (48%). This is another crucial factor, given flexibility’s value in supporting job satisfaction both in this study and the literature (Golden & Gajendran, 2019; Hill et al., 2008, 2010; Kamalaveni et al., 2019; Kelliher & Anderson, 2010; Marx et al., 2021; Ray & Pana-Cryan, 2021; Will, 2021) and findings that links flexibility to belonging.

Belongingness and Relationships

A connection between relationships and belonging can be made when evaluating the trend between supervisors who participated in the workshops, their direct reports (Group A), and direct reports of nonparticipants (Group B). The supervisory participants had the highest agreement with feelings of belonging of all the groups surveyed at 78%, followed by their direct reports (Group A) at 70% agreement, and finally, the Group B direct reports of nonparticipants at 58% agreement. Figure 2 provides a striking visual representation of the differences in job satisfaction and belonging for all three surveyed groups—participants, their direct reports, and nonparticipants’ direct reports. This finding suggests that those with more meaningful relationships at the university, such as supervisor relationships, also have higher feelings of belonging.

Figure 2.

Job satisfaction and belonging in supervisors and staff.

This study affirmed that professional development programs can increase job satisfaction in participants. Additionally, it demonstrates that training supervisors in leadership practices can increase belonging and job satisfaction in their direct reports.

Support and Train Supervisors Through Leadership Workshop Cohorts

This study found a critical interrelationship between job satisfaction, belonging, and flexibility. It asserts that flexible work environments and meaningful supervisor relationships contribute to job satisfaction and belonging. It also concluded that leadership workshops and cohort discussion groups benefit supervisors and their direct reports, evidenced by job satisfaction and feelings of belonging. Given these findings, ongoing leadership training cohorts are a straightforward strategy to increase job satisfaction and belonging. This program can become more sustainable, impactful, and consistent across cohorts through monthly workshops via Zoom and grouping cohorts with people of similar managerial levels (i.e., associate directors, directors, assistant directors, associate vice presidents, and the like). An additional step to balance consistent relationships with interactions with new people may be to shuffle the cohort groupings every quarter. Additionally, recruiting a small committee of leaders to lead content for monthly meetings can draw on considerable internal expertise and build investment.

Focus on Belongingness Through Staff Cohorts

The supervisory cohorts had a positive impact on job satisfaction for participants and their direct reports rated their feelings of belongingness at higher levels than their colleagues whose supervisors did not participate. This positive outcome can be attributed to the workshop content, which focused on belongingness and inclusive leadership practices, and potentially the impacts of a cohort model to build positive connections for supervisors that “trickled down” to their relationships with their direct reports. Given the benefits that the leadership cohorts had on the supervisors and their teams, HRD professionals could explore a second workshop tract and cohort model that focuses on staff interested in improving their leadership skills. Engaging participants through the workshops and cohort discussion on elements of inclusive leadership (Waller, 2020) can help staff form connections with colleagues (Rusu & Colomeischi, 2020) and feel they are essential members of a group (Shore et al., 2011), which is essential to feelings of belonging.

Limitations

This study was conducted with administrative employees at a small private university, so it is important to note that the sample size was small. As the work environment continues to evolve, the study’s conclusions may not apply in the future. It is also important to keep in mind that some of the data collected were from people who already had flexible work options, so their opinions may not reflect those who do not have that option. As the COVID-19 pandemic fades and workplaces return to a more regular rhythm, the changing nature of work may also limit the study’s applicability.

While this study was site-specific and used an action research methodology, it still offers valuable insights and themes from which other institutions may benefit. Finally, it is important to acknowledge that a position of power as a senior administrator and researcher may have influenced some interviewees and focus group members to favor certain outcomes. The researcher aimed to mitigate this by emphasizing the importance of honest feedback and insights that would not be attributed to individual members to favor certain outcomes.

Implications for HRD Research, Theory, and Practice

Flexible work, a minor topic of discussion before the COVID-19 pandemic, is now ubiquitous and controversial among senior leadership in various organizations and sectors. Implementing flexibility equitably and across any organization is complicated since leaders must balance offering flexibility to staff with being present, visibly engaged, and customer oriented. However, compelling data from this study provides a strong argument for the benefits of flexibility for staff and the organization through increased job satisfaction. Furthermore, as the literature suggests, flexibility can potentially increase retention. While policymaking is not traditionally within the purview of HRD, the strong interrelation between a dynamic flexibility policy and an investment in supervisor training suggests the need for HRD professionals to work in close correlation with HRM staff to develop comprehensive position-focused flexibility policies alongside leadership training cohorts for supervisors to maximize job satisfaction and belonging results. HRD professionals can focus on establishing small training cohorts for supervisors and staff to help build a sense of community and provide training on inclusive leadership practices and how to make flexibility work.

A significant implication for HRD identified from this study is the overlap of HRD functions (e.g., interventions) and HRM practices (e.g., flexible work). Consistent with Werner’s (2014) prediction, the study suggests that HRD and HRM should engage in more collaborative research or risk becoming passing ships in the night. In addition, although an interdisciplinary field, HRD’s foundational theories have been grounded in adult learning, systems theory, human capital theory, and performance-based theories. This study found that needs theory (e.g., Maslow’s need theory) are relevant to the development and growth of people in organizations.

Future Research

This study found a positive connection between supervisor leadership workshops and job satisfaction and belonging in their direct reports. Still, questions remain if the supervisors who volunteered were already more attentive to their staff. A pre-workshop survey for supervisors’ direct reports in future studies could provide additional context to the changes observed in this study’s direct reports. In addition, evaluating supervisory workshop participants’ feelings of belonging and job satisfaction in comparison to those of nonparticipating supervisors through interviews and surveys of the nonparticipants is another future area of study. This would help to understand what factors can improve supervisors’ own job satisfaction in the future.

Conclusion

This study explored factors that contribute to job satisfaction and belonging among administrative staff at a small university. The research found a positive relationship between job satisfaction and feelings of belonging. Flexibility in work schedules helped improve job satisfaction and belonging, especially for caregivers. Supportive supervisors who emphasized communication and flexibility also positively impact job satisfaction and belonging. Leadership workshops for supervisors further increased belonging and job satisfaction among their subordinates.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

More than 200 university colleagues graciously gave their time to participate in this study. Vital support for the research came from Dr Gina Zanardelli, Dr Kari Thierer, and Dr William Ewell, who provided feedback, guidance, and insights throughout the process.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Carey Scheide Miller

Author Biographies

Carey Scheide Miller currently serves as Vice President of Development for the Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh and has over 24 years of experience in leadership in nonprofits and higher education. Recently earning a Doctor of Education in organizational leadership from Northeastern University, her research interests include identifying ways to foster a healthy, flexible, and productive work culture and environment.

Joan Giblin is an Associate Teaching Professor in the Graduate School of Education at Northeastern University. She serves as the Dissertation Lead for the EdD program. She has over 25 years of experience in higher education. Her research interests include job competencies and professional preparation in the field of higher education.

References

Adams

(2022). Pedagogical foundations for social justice education. In Teaching for diversity and social justice, (4). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003005759-3

Aldossari

Chaudhry

(2020). Women and burnout in the context of a pandemic. Gender, Work and Organization, 28(2), 826–834. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12567

Antonsich

(2010). Searching for belonging - an Analytical framework. Geography Compass, 4(6), 644–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00317.x

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529, https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Benson

W. L.

Probst

T. M.

Jiang

Olson

K. J.

Graso

(2020). Insecurity in the Ivory Tower: Direct and indirect effects of pay stagnation and job insecurity on faculty performance. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 41(3), 693–708. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831x17734297

Bontrager

Clinton

M. S.

Tyner

(2021). Flexible work arrangements: A human resource development tool to reduce turnover. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 23(2), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422320982930

Brouwer

Jansen

Severiens

Meeuwisse

(2019). Interaction and belongingness in two student-centered learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 97(1), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.07.006

Brown

Charlwood

Spencer

D. A.

(2012). Not all that it might seem: Why job satisfaction is worth studying despite it being a poor summary measure of job quality. Work, Employment & Society, 26(6), 1007–1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017012461837. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.neu.edu/stable/43495558

Byrd

(2022). Creating a culture of inclusion and belongingness in remote work environments that sustains meaningful work. Human Resource Development International, 25(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2022.2047252

10.

Cairns

T. D

(2013). What will tip the scales for flexible work arrangements-motivation or collaboration? Employment Relations Today, 40(2), 29–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/ert.21408

11.

Chang

Chin

(2014). Organizational work-family culture and working Mothers’ affective commitment: How career expectations Matter. Human Resource Management, 53(5), 683–700. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21581

12.

Charoensukmongkol

Moqbel

Gutierrez-Wirsching

(2016). The role of coworker and supervisor support on job burnout and job satisfaction. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-06-2014-0037

13.

Chernoglazova

(2022). Flexible work during COVID-19: A 10-day diary study on psychological safety, voice behaviour, inclusion, and belonging. Open Access Theses and Dissertations. https://dx.doi.org/10.26021/12677

14.

Chung

Van Der Lippe

(2020). Flexible working, work–life balance, and gender equality: Introduction. Social Indicators Research, 151(2), 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-2025-x

15.

Coghlan

(2011). Action research: Exploring perspectives on a philosophy of practical knowing. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 53–87. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.571520

16.

Das Swain

Saha

Abowd

G. D.

De Choudhury

(2020). Social Media and ubiquitous technologies for remote worker wellbeing and productivity in a post-pandemic world. In: 2020 IEEE Second International Conference on Cognitive Machine Intelligence. 28–31 October 2020. Atlanta, GA. https://doi.org/10.1109/cogmi50398.2020.00025

17.

Davis

A. S.

Kafka

A. M.

González-Morales

M. G.

Feitosa

(2022). Team belonging: Integrating teamwork and diversity training through emotions. Small Group Research, 53(1), 88–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964211044813

18.

Dilmaghani

(2021). There is a time and a place for work: Comparative evaluation of flexible work arrangements in Canada. International Journal of Manpower, 42(1), 167–192. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-12-2019-0555

19.

Erickson

R. J.

Ritter

(2001). Emotional labor, burnout, and inauthenticity: Does gender Matter? Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(2), 146. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090130

20.

Filstad

Traavik

L. E. M.

Gorli

(2019). Belonging at work: The experiences, representations and meanings of belonging. Journal of Workplace Learning, 31(2), 116–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/jwl-06-2018-0081

21.

Fuller

Hirsh

C. E.

(2019). Family-friendly” jobs and Motherhood pay penalties: The impact of flexible work arrangements across the educational spectrum. Work and Occupations, 46(1), 3–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888418771116

22.

Garg

Agrawal

(2020). Family-friendly practices in the organization: A citation analysis. International Journal of Sociology & Social Policy, 40(7/8), 559–573. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijssp-12-2019-0251

23.

Golden

T. D.

Gajendran

R. S.

(2019). Unpacking the role of a telecommuter’s job in their performance: Examining job complexity, problem solving, interdependence, and social support. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9530-4

24.

Hagerty

B. M.

Patusky

(1995). Developing a measure of sense of belonging. Nursing Research, 44(1), 9–13, https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-199501000-00003

25.

Heiden

Widar

Wiitavaara

Boman

(2021). Telework in academia: Associations with health and well-being among staff. Higher Education, 81(4), 707–722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00569-4

26.

Herr

Anderson

G. L.

(2015). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty. Sage Publications, Inc.

27.

Hill

E. J.

Erickson

J. J.

Holmes

E. K.

Ferris

(2010). Workplace flexibility, work hours, and work-life conflict: Finding an extra day or two. Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43), 24(3), 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019282

28.

Hopkins

D. J. C.

Figaro

D. K. A.

(2021). The great resignation: An argument for hybrid leadership. International Journal of Business and Management Research, 9(4), 393–400. https://doi.org/10.37391/ijbmr.090402

29.

Jackson

L. T. B.

Fransman

E. I.

(2018). Flexi work, financial well-being, work–life balance and their effects on subjective experiences of productivity and job satisfaction of females in an institution of higher learning. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v21i1.1487

30.

Jeffrey Hill

Grzywacz

J. G.

Allen

Blanchard

V. L.

Matz-Costa

Shulkin

Pitt-Catsouphes

(2008). Defining and conceptualizing workplace flexibility. Community, Work and Family, 11(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668800802024678

31.

Jijena Michel

R. D.

Jijena Michel

C. E.

(2015). Work schedule flexibility, work-family enrichment and job satisfaction. Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 25(1), 78–90. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=a9h&AN=108333763&site=ehost-live&scope=site&custid=s5071636

32.

Kamalaveni

Ramesh

Vetrivel

(2019). A review of literature on employee retention. International Journal of Innovative Research in Management Studies (IJIRMS), 4(4), 1–10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335677274_A_REVIEW_OF_LITERATURE_ON_EMPLOYEE_RETENTION

33.

Kanji

Cahusac

(2015). Who am I? Mothers’ shifting identities, loss and sensemaking after workplace exit. Human Relations, 68(9), 1415–1436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726714557336

34.

Kelliher

Anderson

(2010). Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and the intensification of work. Human Relations, 63(1), 83–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709349199

35.

Kim

Henly

J. R.

Golden

L. M.

Lambert

S. J.

(2020). Workplace flexibility and worker well‐being by gender. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(3), 892–910. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12633

36.

Lewin

(1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: II. Channels of group life; social planning and action research. Human Relations, 1(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100201

37.

Lin

C.-Y.

Huang

C.-K.

(2020). Employee turnover intentions and job performance from a planned change: The effects of an organizational learning culture and job satisfaction. International Journal of Manpower, 42(3), 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijm-08-2018-0281

38.

Lipman

(2021). The pandemic revealed how much we hate our jobs. Now we have a chance to reinvent work. Time. Retrieved May 27, 2021, from https://news.yahoo.com/pandemic-revealed-much-hate-jobs-094541648.html

39.

Livingston

B. A.

(2014). Bargaining behind the scenes. Journal of Management, 40(4), 949–977. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311428355

40.

Macdonald

(2012). Understanding participatory action research: A qualitative research methodology. The Canadian Journal of Action Research, 13(2), 34–50, https://doi.org/10.33524/cjar.v13i2.37

41.

Mache

Servaty

Harth

(2020). Flexible work arrangements in open workspaces and relations to occupational stress, need for recovery and psychological detachment from work. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, 15(1). 5, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12995-020-00258-z

42.

Mangla

(2021). Working in a pandemic and post-pandemic period – cultural intelligence is the key. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 21(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/14705958211002877

43.

Marx

C. K.

Reimann

Diewald

(2021). Do work–life Measures really Matter? The impact of flexible working hours and home-based teleworking in preventing voluntary employee exits. The Social Sciences, 10(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10010009

44.

Maslow

A. H.

(1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370, 396, https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346

45.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

Saldaña

(2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4 ed.). Sage Publications Inc.

46.

Milner

H. R.

(2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x07309471

47.

Moors

A. C.

Malley

J. E.

Stewart

A. J.

(2014). My family matters: Gender and perceived support for family commitments and satisfaction in academia among postdocs and faculty in STEMM and non-STEMM fields. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(4), 460–474, https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684314542343

48.

Mudor

(2011). Conceptual framework on the relationship between human resource management practices, job satisfaction, and turnover. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 2(2), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.22610/jebs.v2i2.220

49.

Neale-McFall

(2020). Job satisfaction, enrichment, and institutional policy: Listening to faculty Mothers. Journal of Women and Gender in Higher Education, 13(1), 56–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/19407882.2019.1622568

50.

Ohadomere

Ogamba

I. K.

(2020). Management-led interventions for workplace stress and mental health of academic staff in higher education: A systematic review. The Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice, 16(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmhtep-07-2020-0048

51.

Pathak

Srivastava

(2020). Journey from passion to satisfaction: Roles of belongingness and psychological empowerment. International Journal of Sociology & Social Policy, 40(3/4), 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-11-2019-0237

52.

Pianese

Errichiello

da Cunha

J. V.

(2022). Organizational control in the context of remote working: A synthesis of empirical findings and a research agenda. European Management Review. 20(2), 326–345, https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12515

53.

Popovici

A.-L.

(2020). Remote work revolution: Current opportunities and challenges for organizations. Ovidius Univ. Ann. Econ. Sci. Ser, 20(1), 468–472. http://stec.univ-ovidius.ro/html/anale/ENG/

54.

Puranik

Koopman

Vough

H. C.

(2021). Excuse me, do you have a minute? An exploration of the dark-and bright-side effects of daily work interruptions for employee well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(12), 1867–1884. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000875

55.

Raiger

(2005). Applying a cultural lens to the concept of burnout. Journal of Transcultural Nursing: Official Journal of the Transcultural Nursing Society, 16(1), 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043659604270980

56.

Ray

T. K.

Pana-Cryan

(2021). Work flexibility and work-related well-being. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(6), 3254, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063254

57.

Richman

A. L.

Civian

J. T.

Shannon

L. L.

Jeffrey Hill

Brennan

R. T.

(2008). The relationship of perceived flexibility, supportive work–life policies, and use of formal flexible arrangements and occasional flexibility to employee engagement and expected retention. Community, Work and Family, 11(2), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668800802050350

58.

Rosso

B. D.

Dekas

K. H.

Wrzesniewski

(2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30(1), 91–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001

59.

Rusu

P. P.

Colomeischi

A. A.

(2020). Positivity ratio and well-being among teachers. The mediating role of work engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(1608). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01608

60.

Saldaña

(2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (J. Seaman, 4th ed.). Sage Publications Ltd.

61.

Santhanam

Balaji

Joseph

S. Z.

(2022). Plug and play new joiners during pandemic times: Creating A sense of belongingness. Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results, 13(3), 1186–1190. https://doi.org/10.47750/pnr.2022.13.S03.186

62.

Shirmohammadi

W. C.

Beigi

(2022). Remote work and work-life balance: Lessons learned from the covid-19 pandemic and suggestions for HRD practitioners. Human Resource Development International, 25(2), 163–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2022.2047380

63.

Shore

L. M.

Randel

A. E.

Chung

B. G.

Dean

M. A.

Holcombe Ehrhart

Singh

(2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262–1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385943

64.

Skaalvik

E. M.

Skaalvik

(2011). Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leave the teaching profession: Relations with school context, feeling of belonging, and emotional exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(6), 1029–1038, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.04.001

65.

Song

Gao

(2020). Does telework stress employees out? A study on working at home and subjective well-being for wage/salary workers. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(7), 2649–2668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00196-6

66.

Spehar

Forest

Stenseng

(2016). Passion for work, job satisfaction, and the mediating role of belongingness. Scandinavian Journal of Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 17–27. https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2016_Spehar_etal__2016_Scand_J_Org_Psych.pdf

67.

Stringer

E. T.

Aragón

A. O.

(2020). Action research (5th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

68.

Szyszko

(2021). The effect of a remote working structure on perceived supervisor support and affective organizational commitment. (Doctoral Dissertation, Azusa Pacific University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Social Sciences. Ann Arbor. Publication Number, 28314528.

69.

Vercio

Loo

L. K.

Green

Kim

D. I.

Beck Dallaghan

G. L.

(2021). Shifting focus from burnout and wellness toward individual and organizational resilience. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 33(5), 568–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2021.1879651

70.

Waller

(2020). Fostering a sense of belonging in the workplace: Enhancing well-being and a positive and coherent sense of self (pp. 1–27). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02470-3_83-1

71.

Waples

E. P.

Brock Baskin

M. E.

(2021). Not your parents’ organization? Human resource development practices for sustainable flex work environments. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 23(2), 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422320982933

72.

Webber

K. L.

Rogers

S. M.

(2018). Gender differences in faculty member job satisfaction: Equity forestalled? Research in Higher Education, 59(8), 1105–1132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9494-2

73.

Weideman

Hofmeyr

K. B.

(2020). The influence of flexible work arrangements on employee engagement: An exploratory study. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(1), 1209. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v18i0.1209

74.

Werner

J. M.

(2014). Connecting the dots or ships passing in the night. In The Routledge companion to human resource development, 89–98.

75.

Will

(2021). Hybrid working may change our workplace social networks. What does it mean for inclusion? LSE business review. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2021/03/16/hybrid-working-may-change-our-workplace-social-networks-what-does-it-mean-for-inclusion/

76.

Wilson

Vanantwerp

(2021). Left out: A review of women’s struggle to develop a sense of belonging in engineering. Sage Open, 11(3), 215824402110407. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211040791

77.

Winter-Collins

McDaniel

A. M.

(2000). Sense of belonging and new graduate job satisfaction. Journal for Nurses in Staff Development: JNSD: official journal of the National Nursing Staff Development Organization, 16(3), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1097/00124645-200005000-00002, https://journals.lww.com/jnsdonline/Fulltext/2000/05000/SENSE_OF_BELONGING_AND_NEW_GRADUATE_JOB.2.aspx

78.

Xie

J. L.

Elangovan

A. R.

Hrabluik

(2019). Charting new terrain in work design: A study of hybrid work characteristics. Applied Psychology, 68(3), 479–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12169

Improving Job Satisfaction and Belonging Through Flexible Work and Leadership Cohorts

Abstract

Problem

Solution

Stakeholders

Keywords

Improving Job Satisfaction and Belonging Through Flexible Work and Leadership Workshops: An Action Research Study

Background of the Study

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions

Literature Review

Healthy Work Culture

Belongingness

Flexibility

Theoretical Framework

Methodology

Description and Discussion on the Action Research Methodology

Participant Selection

Data Collection Methods

Data Analysis

Discussion of Findings

Finding 1: Job Satisfaction Is Positively Related to Belonging

Finding 2: Flexibility Increases Job Satisfaction and Belonging

Job Satisfaction and Flexibility in Staff

The Intersection of Belonging, Job Satisfaction, and Flexibility in Staff

Caregivers on Staff

Supervisors’ Experiences with Flexibility, Job Satisfaction, and Belonging

Finding 3: Supervisor Relationships Influence Job Satisfaction and Belonging

Supervisor Impact on Job Satisfaction

Belonging

Finding 4: Leadership Training Provided Job Satisfaction Benefits

Supervisor Participation in Leadership Workshops

Cohorts

Workshop Impact on Direct Reports

Belongingness and Relationships

Support and Train Supervisors Through Leadership Workshop Cohorts

Focus on Belongingness Through Staff Cohorts

Limitations

Implications for HRD Research, Theory, and Practice

Future Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author Biographies

References