Enhancing Teacher Wellbeing and Engagement During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Critical Role of School Leaders in K-12 Schools in the UAE

Abstract

The success of institutions, especially during crises, heavily relies on the well-being of their employees. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted global economies, significantly impacting employees’ well-being, including teachers who faced job insecurity and the rapid transition to online teaching. This study explores the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on teachers’ well-being in 12 schools in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and how school leadership can enhance this well-being to foster organizational engagement. The findings reveal that the pandemic had positive and negative impacts on teachers, highlighting the critical role of leaders’ motivational language and self-determination in enhancing organizational engagement. This study contributes to existing literature by providing insights into the connection between leadership communication and employee well-being during crises, offering practical implications for educational leadership.

Plain Language Summary

Teachers’ Mental and Psychological Health and Their Work Engagement During Crisis

With the spread of COVID-19, employees’ mental and psychological health was negatively influenced. Teachers, specifically, worried about losing their jobs and rushed to acquire new skills to adapt to the new era of online learning. This unpredictable situation triggered the need to investigate the best ways to ensure employees’ wellbeing. Thus, this paper investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on teachers’ wellbeing in K-12 schools in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the role of school leadership in boosting teachers’ wellbeing for better organizational engagement. The results indicated that the pandemic had positive and negative effects on employees’ life and emphasized the leaders’ motivational language and self-determination factors in driving better organizational engagement.

Keywords

employees’ well-being motivational language organizational engagement coping strategies

Introduction

The COVID-19 virus emerged in December 2019 and was quickly classified as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) (Cucinotta & Vanelli, 2020). The virus resulted in global fear, causing widespread panic as governments raced to manage the pandemic and mitigate its impact on their respective countries (Sohrabi et al., 2020). Consequently, strict social distancing measures were imposed, significantly affecting contact-intensive industries, particularly the education sector, which faced numerous challenges due to the rapid transition to remote teaching (Leibovici et al., 2020). Many educational institutions struggled to remain operational, with some forced to shut down entirely.

These measures were implemented to decrease infection rates and safeguard employees and students. However, they also negatively impacted students’ learning outcomes (Merga et al., 2021) and employee well-being, as many institutions were compelled to downsize.

Teachers, particularly, worried about losing their jobs but managed to continue educating from home using online technologies. Beyond their physical, financial, and mental well-being, their social well-being also suffered due to the lack of interaction with colleagues and students. In the context of online teaching, teachers’ existing skills, along with newly acquired competencies, influenced their job prospects, financial stability, and mental health. Their ability to effectively use appropriate strategies became critical to their task performance. However, for many educators, the need to acquire new competencies during this period heightened stress levels, significantly impacting their work satisfaction and well-being (Tuzovic & Kabadayi, 2018).

The pandemic’s complex, uncontrolled, and unpredictable nature triggered the need to explore practical strategies to ensure employees’ well-being, given their strategic role in supporting their organizations to build resilience, adapt behaviors, and maintain effective communication (Lee, 2019). Therefore, this study aims to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on teachers’ well-being in K-12 schools in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and to examine how educational leaders’ motivational communication can enhance teachers’ crisis coping and engagement. Accordingly, the research is guided by the following questions:

How has the pandemic affected the employee well-being of teachers in K-12 schools in the UAE?

What is the role of the school leadership in enhancing employee well-being during and after the pandemic in K-12 schools in the UAE?

To what extent does employee well-being lead to better organizational engagement?

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework was designed to address the research gap and reinforce the best communication practices hypothesized to lead to employee well-being and engagement during a crisis. This framework integrates Motivational Language Theory (MLT), Self-Determination Theory (SDT), the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping, and Organizational Engagement to explore how leaders’ motivational language would enhance employees’ satisfaction and coping mechanisms and lead to better engagement. Specifically, Tao et al. (2022) indicate the logical relation between MLT and SDT and describe how each theory complements the other in leading to desired outcomes like work satisfaction, commitment, and better performance.

Motivational Language Theory (MLT)

MLT was first introduced by Sullivan (1988), and it presented a language framework to drive employees’ motivation and engagement. It comprises direction-giving language, empathetic language, and meaning-making language; the first two are used in this study. When motivational language is aligned with the leader’s actions, it yields desirable outcomes in employees’ behaviors and psychological states. MLT has proven effective in crisis communication within organizations (Tao et al., 2022), and this study aims to assess its impact on teachers’ satisfaction and well-being and their coping with crises.

Leaders’ Communication with stakeholders can be critical to navigating difficult situations successfully. Leaders’ effective use of motivational language is expected to enhance employees’ engagement and satisfaction by generating desired behavioral and psychological consequences in workers. As a result, employees’ personality, employment status, and satisfaction are improved. Directors would be appropriately leading if they used direction-giving language. They will avoid ambiguity if they inform their personnel about job needs, methods, and supplies through direction-giving language. The direction should be “Clear,”“Coherent,”“Consistent,” and “Credible” (Leonard et al., 2020; Mayfield & Mayfield, 2017).

On the other hand, Yue et al. (2021) reported that empathetic language was rarely used in leaders’ speeches, even though it is essential for increasing employee work satisfaction and engagement. Empathetic language demonstrates compassion and understanding, which can mitigate stress and enhance engagement, especially during crises (Mayfield & Mayfield, 2017). Leaders mostly use empathic language while applauding employees’ accomplishments and ideas, supporting workers facing setbacks and obstacles, paying attention to employees’ thoughts and feelings, and respecting their personal choices and aspirations (Sun et al., 2016). To counteract stress at work that is led by crisis, leaders should use empathetic language (Coombs, 2014).

Self-Determination Theory (SDT)

Before discussing the importance of employee well-being, it is vital to consider human beings’ basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. SDT posits that satisfying these needs enhances motivation, positive behaviors, and well-being (Deci et al., 2017). Autonomy calls for the enjoyment of one’s choice and behavior and approval of one’s choice. Relatedness is feeling connected, cared for, and mutually dependent on others (Tao et al., 2022). While competence is the person’s capability to achieve desired outcomes (Tao & Ji, 2020).

Researchers who investigated SDT discussed factors like qualities of work, leaders’ language, climate, rewards, and others in satisfying employees’ needs and driving desired positive and innovative work behavior and engagement. In crises, employees who feel autonomous, competent, and related to their environment are more likely to engage in positive coping strategies, seeing the crisis as a manageable challenge rather than a hindering threat (Deci et al., 2017; Tao et al., 2022).

Transactional Model of Stress and Coping

Coping is the person’s endeavor to decrease or tolerate intrinsic or extrinsic demands of his environment that exceed his abilities or resources (Folkman et al., 1986). Lazarus and Folkman (1984) identified a stress and coping model comprising two significant types of coping strategies: problem-solving-focused and emotion-relating-focused. Later, Latack (1986) termed the two types of control and escape coping in the work domain.

Control coping involves employees’ enthusiastic attempts to confront the problem, devise strategies and solutions, and take action to decrease or eradicate the source of stress (Fugate et al., 2008). On the other hand, escape coping involves employees attempting to avoid thinking about the problem by admitting there is nothing they can do to remedy it. Control coping is emphasized as a more effective strategy in work settings, including educational environments, where proactive problem-solving is critical (Jin, 2010).

Organizational Engagement

Engagement is defined by Saks (2006) as the individual’s being cognitively, emotionally, and behaviorally involved in performing their role in an organization. Welch (2011) elaborated on this definition by stating that the organization’s internal communication level influences this involvement. Therefore, organizational engagement is closely linked to the degree to which employees’ psychological needs are met, as conceptualized by SDT, and the effectiveness of leadership communication as per MLT. Engagement was selected as the outcome of this study framework due to its relation to the employees’ commitment, satisfaction, behavior, and stability at work (Tao et al., 2022).

Literature Review

According to the New Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, well-being is feeling at ease, healthy, and satisfied (Pradhan & Hati, 2022). Thus, employee well-being encompasses their physiological, psychological, and emotional health, as well as their satisfaction and enthusiasm. The WHO (2021) describes it as the capacity of each employee to comprehend his or her capability, manage the usual pressures of life, work efficiently, and contribute to his/her community.

The employees’ role is crucial to the success of any institution in times of crisis; therefore, many organizations have introduced a well-being approach to their organizational culture. They are working to improve employee mood and provide working conditions conducive to better results. For instance, around 80% of companies operating globally (and 71% in Poland) believe employee well-being is critical to their success (Juchnowicz & Kinowska, 2021).

Importance of Employee Well-being in K-12 School Context

Nielsen et al. (2017) stated that employee well-being includes an individual’s mental, physical, and emotional health inside and outside the workplace. Pradhan and Hati (2022) added that employee well-being includes psychological, social, workplace, and subjective well-being. Psychological well-being includes positive functioning and relatedness with others (Burns, 2016). These aspects align with autonomy, competence, and relatedness, as discussed by the SDT. Social well-being is about relationships and maintaining relations with social institutions and the community (Cicognani, 2014). Workplace well-being includes the quality and safety of the physical environment (Burke & Richardson, 2019). Subjective well-being is how one sees his/her life, mainly people’s affective reactions to their experiences (Mugizi et al., 2021).

Employee well-being is associated with traits of optimism, confidence, and sociability. Teachers’ conscious usage of strategies to improve their well-being positively influences their job performance and students’ learning (Turner & Thielking, 2019). Krekel et al. (2019) declare that employee well-being positively affects employee motivation, leading to better job outcomes. For example, Krishantha (2018) indicates that employee well-being reduces employee turnover and absenteeism. Employees’ well-being increases productivity across the board, and without it, the company may face financial and non-financial losses (Pradhan & Hati, 2022).

Research shows that employee well-being influences decisions such as resigning or staying at a job. It also considers work satisfaction (Pradhan et al., 2019), employee motivation, and commitment (Sivapragasam & Raya, 2018). Furthermore, employee well-being significantly impacts stress-coping behavior (Folkman, 1997), mental and physical health, and overall pleasure in both work and personal life (Diener & Oishi, 2000). Employee well-being affects both individual and organizational success. It has also been demonstrated that when companies prioritize employee well-being, they get a significant advantage in the long term (Pradhan et al., 2019).

The Role of Leadership in Enhancing Employee Well-being

It is argued that most educational leaders need more crisis leadership training and need to learn how to lead when a pandemic hits (McLeod & Dulsky, 2021). The role of school leaders is key in creating strong societies that are ready to face any danger or threat. Effective leadership is essential in crisis management and may save lives, restore faith in governmental institutions, and maintain infrastructure (Benlahcene & Abdullah, 2020).

Creating meaning in ambiguous situations is one of the most essential components of crisis leadership. The five parts of well-being evaluation include early detection, “sense-making,” critical decision-making, “collaboration,”“cooperation,” and “communication” (Boin et al., 2013). During the COVID-19 pandemic, school leaders faced various unique challenges, including a short time scale and ambiguity, which hampered rapid countermeasures. Therefore, successful crisis management necessitates collaborative sense-making: decision-makers must have a shared understanding of the issue to make well-informed judgments by effectively communicating with partners, legislators, and the public. Unfortunately, many school leaders could not effectively communicate with their subordinates, preventing effective leadership responses and collaboration. As Mncube and Olawale (2021) highlighted, consistent and participatory communication is crucial during crises, and leaders should welcome feedback from any helpful source.

Leadership styles, such as democratic leadership, play a significant role in managing crises. According to Mncube and Olawale (2021), democratic leadership enthusiasts believe such leadership styles encourage participation, idea exchange, honesty, trust, adaptability, and empathy. The theory also implies that school leaders have the responsibility to establish educational institutions around democratic principles, as well as foster meaningful involvement and decision-making to create an environment for respectful interactions, international collaboration, active engagement, and the establishment of socially, educationally, and culturally aware academic institutions. All of these are needed by school leadership in managing a crisis. Thus, in such a situation, the following is crucial: involving employees in the decision-making process, providing guidance to staff members, exhibiting trust in delegating authority, building a solid relationship, and establishing a culture of cooperation among staff members. All of the above would increase staff productivity, satisfaction, and commitment.

Restoring employee morale relies on leaders showing care, compassion, and respect. Tao et al. (2022) proposed that leaders’ motivational language boosts employees’ needs satisfaction during crises. Leaders’ attentive listening and inquiry about employees’ situations open channels of communication that emphasize employees’ feelings of relatedness (Van Quaquebeke & Felps, 2018). Through verbal assistance (e.g., encouraging words) and non-verbal gestures, and by being empathetic, sympathetic, and compassionate, leaders form emotional bonds with their staff during a crisis (Ulmer et al., 2017), and this drives an increase in employees’ satisfaction and engagement (Mayfield & Mayfield, 2017). Leaders benefit by understanding their workers’ problems, acknowledging their opinions, and praising their efforts to overcome obstacles. Employees should be told that anxiety during the pandemic is acceptable.

Teachers’ Coping Mechanism: Relation Between Self-determination and Coping Strategies

During the pandemic, many issues arose, such as employees’ personal and family well-being, job insecurity, anxiety, and sorrowful employees, and school leaders had to learn how to deal with them suddenly. Notably, the private education sector in the UAE was hugely affected during the lockdown, which resulted in anxiety, stress, and uncertainty among educational staff. While some lost their jobs, others’ health was severely affected. School leaders have unbelievable accountability vis-à-vis their employees who had to deal with the psychosocial effects of the pandemic (Abukari & David, 2021).

Understandably, employees suffered not only mentally due to high levels of stress and anxiety but also financially. According to Valentine et al. (2014), employees should be provided with sufficient information about the compensation they would get during lockdown situations and the pay that should be delivered on schedule. Moreover, employers should continue to provide primary benefits and maintain consistent payment processes. Hence, employees should be included when determining remuneration during lockdown scenarios. Also, employee expectations should be addressed in the pay plan, and employee contributions should be considered when deciding on salaries. (Mugizi et al., 2021). This was mainly because employees are attracted to and retained by compensation. Thus, remuneration or compensation determination is linked to employee well-being (Matino, 2018).

It is obvious that stress has increased during the pandemic since jobs were affected, insecurity about finances has risen, workplaces became unsafe on the health level, daily life was disrupted, and people had to become socially isolated. Different employees handle these changes differently depending on their personality traits. Accordingly, employees would need support from their leaders, who should improve their happiness levels and directly influence their performance at work. Happiness, consequently, boosts well-being on the physical level (Bartsch et al., 2020). Furthermore, it was proven that mental health is enhanced when social support is provided; empathy and shared responsibility assist employees in coping with stress caused by social isolation (Abel & McQueen, 2020).

To deal with any crisis, people should be competent and autonomous. They must be involved in their social surroundings to face challenges by controlling and overcoming them (Yeung et al., 2016). The satisfaction of these two psychological needs will consequently lead to either an improvement in task performance, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), or even both. Autonomy needs satisfaction, which is a necessity and a prerequisite for self-regulation, which impacts how much workers are prepared to invest in activities and job responsibilities. On the other hand, individuals who believe that their demand for competence has been met may be productive and confident in their ability to undertake and achieve desired results and adapt to changing settings, thus resulting in increased work performance (Chiniara & Bentein, 2016).

In contrast, employees who use escape coping passively strive to avoid or reduce the cause of stress. This may comfort them in the short term but will not allow them to perform a specific action to remove the source of stress. Hence, escape coping may lead to unwanted results (Tao et al., 2022). Thus, employees must relate their need to form the strongest relationship with control coping during a crisis. This means that employees’ sense of relatedness to their institution is their main reason to promote problem-solving-oriented coping behaviors (Kahn et al., 2013). The need for relatedness is related to a desire to experience a sense of belonging in a relationship or a community and based on the dialectic premise, which is based on Self- determination theories underlying organismic-dialectical meta-theory, human beings will naturally seek to incorporate not only through psychological elements into a coherent individuality (i.e., principles, desires, ideologies) but also to improve their assimilation in the social framework. Thus, satisfying relatedness needs enables the internalization of work-related legislation and requirements, which contribute to improved work-related attitudes and behaviors toward sociocultural settings (Dysvik et al., 2013).

Factors That Affect Employee Well-being in the Time of Pandemic

The concept of well-being is evaluated from various perspectives, including average lifespan, level of poverty, and environmental influences. Subjective or psychological assessments of a person’s well-being and an individual’s opinion of their standard of living and employment are added to the above. These are determined by three essential aspects: physiological, sociological, and psychological (Juchnowicz & Kinowska, 2021). Employee well-being includes progression, supervisory and physical workplace factors, as well as people’s physical and psychological health (Pradhan & Hati, 2022). Additionally, employee well-being includes (a) meaningful work, (b) an effective reaction to the work environment, (c) the ratio of job uplifts to job hassles, and (d) need satisfaction (Sirgy, 2012).

Juchnowicz and Kinowska (2021) believe that working exclusively remotely negatively affects employees’ well-being regarding workplace relationships and work/life balance. They also conclude that the pandemic triggered unexpected organizational variations (e.g., working remotely, digital collaboration) and influenced workers (e.g., through social isolation, pressure, and unemployment). Therefore, the pandemic negatively affected well-being, job satisfaction, and family life. Accordingly, employee well-being became a priority for employers. Research indicates that psychological well-being is the most important well-being factor at work, taking into consideration six dimensions: 1) positive perceptions toward oneself, 2) trusting social interactions, 3) a sense of liberty from undesirable rules that regulate everyday life, 4) the potentials to regulate and make a significant contribution to one’s environment, 5) maintaining a “work/life balance,” and 6) dealing with the double obstacles of home childcare and the increased workload.

Moreover, social support and workplace relationships are crucial to well-being. Social support is the key to increasing happiness and physical health. It assists employees in overcoming stress since it brings empathy and shared responsibility to fight social distance. Unfortunately, social support becomes very limited when working remotely (Juchnowicz & Kinowska, 2021). Another important issue faced in such a situation is the psychosocial effect of the pandemic, which is mainly about the fear, stress, mental health issues, and uncertainties that employees and employers must deal with (Abukari & David, 2021). Well-being is about being happy, content, and motivated and about being able to enjoy positive experiences both at work and at home. Added to these characteristics are some main ingredients to healthy well-being: a feeling of purpose, pleasant and cordial connections with others, and control over one’s life (Pradhan & Hati, 2022).

Methodology

This study uses a mixed-method approach to explain the relationships between variables through rich data triangulation (Creswell, 2014). An explanatory sequential mixed method approach was adopted in this study to avoid bias and reduce the weaknesses of each type of instrument.

Sampling and Context

The study was conducted in private schools in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The total population (N) was estimated at approximately 500 teachers, and a sample (n) of 207 teachers was initially targeted, representing 41.4% of the total population. 207 male and female teachers participated in the study by answering a quantitative survey and a qualitative one. After data cleaning, responses that needed to be completed or met the inclusion criteria (e.g., missing demographic information or inconsistent responses) were discarded, resulting in 145 usable survey responses. Convenience sampling was used as it is more suitable in an educational setting. Teachers willing to participate answered the survey and participated in the focus group. Data collection took place over 4 months, from January to April 2022.

Data Collection

A three-section survey and focus group meetings were used to collect data. The survey was designed to serve the purpose of the study. Data was collected using quantitative and qualitative measures to ensure validity and trustworthiness (Zohrabi, 2013). The quantitative phase is essential in looking at the cause-and-effect relationships (Muijs, 2004); therefore, the first section of the survey had four questions about the demographic of the participants, and the second section incorporated all the elements of the theoretical framework into a five-point Likert scale adapted from Tao et al. (2022) study. The adaptation of the survey from Tao et al. (2022) was justified based on its established reliability and relevance to the study’s variables; ethical measures were implemented, including obtaining permission from the original authors and adapting the language to suit the local context while ensuring clarity and comprehensibility.

The second section was divided into eight factors; the first two were from the MLT: direction-giving language and empathetic language. Factors 3, 4, and 5 were the three components of the SDT, which are autonomy needs satisfaction, relatedness needs satisfaction, and competence needs satisfaction. Factor 6 was control coping, and factor 7 was escape coping; both are adopted from the transactional model of stress and coping. The last factor (8) was related to organizational engagement. This section was composed of 38 items. The validity of the measurement model was confirmed through factor analysis, ensuring factor loadings were greater than 0.50 and convergent validity was assessed using the average variance extracted (AVE) criteria from Fornell and Larcker (1981).

The qualitative data was collected from a group of open-ended questions in the third section of the survey and two focus groups, one with female teachers and the other with male teachers. Each focus group consisted of 8 to 10 participants, selected based on their willingness to share insights on their coping strategies during the pandemic. The focus group discussions (FGDs) explored themes such as leadership communication, personal well-being, and coping mechanisms. Participants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure diversity in gender, years of experience, and teaching levels.

Results

The SPSS software v.25 was used to get descriptive statistics such as means, frequencies, and standard deviation to compute the normality test and Cronbach’s alpha to determine reliability and to come up with the bivariate analysis of variance. Items of scale were extracted using a principal component analysis method and a Promax rotation since factors were correlated. We retained factors with an Eigenvalue > 1, and factors loading > 0.4 were considered loading on a factor. Moreover, Cronbach’s alpha evaluates the adequacy of all factors. The t and ANOVA tests were used to compare two and three or more means.

Detailed Analysis of Statistical Results and Integration with Qualitative Findings

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the employee well-being scale was performed using SPSS AMOS v.24. The root means square error of approximation (RMSEA) statistic, the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), and the comparative Fit Index (CFI) assessed the goodness-of-fit of the model as these are the most common indices. Values of RMSEA of 0.06 or less stipulate a good-fitting model, and a value larger than 0.10 indicates an impoverished model. In contrast, TLI and CFI values greater than 0.90 suggest a satisfactory model fit (Byrne, 2013).

Qualitative Analysis Integration

Thematic analysis was used to interpret the qualitative data collected from open-ended survey questions and the focus groups. Braun and Clarke (2006) consider thematic analysis an effective procedure for identifying, interpreting, and reporting themes found in data that answer “how” questions. It helps in revealing the deep meaning of participants’ responses.

Statistical Analysis

Cronbach’s alpha was used to measure internal consistency and reliability. Cronbach’s alpha value must be a minimum of .7 (Brace et al., 2009). The results revealed a high level of internal consistency and reliability as the Cronbach’s alpha values of the eight factors were as follows: factor 1 (.90), Factor 2 (.95), Factor 3 (.91), Factor 4 (.89), Factor 5 (.88), Factor 6 (0.76), Factor 7 (0.85) and Factor 8 (0.94).

Sociodemographic Characteristics of Participants

A total of 145 participants enrolled in the study. The highest percentage was aged between 25 and 35 years old (42.8%). Most of the participants were females (60%), and 83.4% of them were holders of a bachelor’s degree, 15.2% had a master’s degree, and 1.4 had a Ph.D. degree. 40.4% of the participants had more than 10 years of experience.

Descriptive Statistics

The factors’ scores had a normal distribution since the skewness and kurtosis values varied between −2 and +2 (Table 1).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

	Mean	Std. Deviation	Skewness	Kurtosis
Eight factors	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic
Direction Giving (F1)	3.17	0.93	−1.214	0.876
Empathetic language (F2)	2.83	1.17	−.819	−0.460
Autonomy Need Satisfaction (F3)	2.33	1.09	−.286	−0.807
Relatedness Need Satisfaction (F4)	2.84	0.90	−.660	−0.004
Competence Need Satisfaction (F5)	3.53	0.52	−1.399	2.525
Control Coping (F6)	3.34	0.55	−.731	−0.246
Escape Coping (F7)	2.62	0.97	−.525	−0.238
Organizational Engagement (F8)	3.06	0.94	−1.069	0.562

The results indicated that the direction-giving factor (M = 3.17, SD = 0.93) was often always displayed by the school leaders according to their employees’ opinions, while Empathetic Language (M = 2.83, SD = 1.17) was sometimes too often used by the school leaders. The first two factors of the Self-determination Theory, Autonomy Need Satisfaction (M = 2.33, SD = 1.09) and Relatedness Need Satisfaction (M = 2.84, SD = 0.9) were fairly displayed by the employees while they often practiced Competence Need Satisfaction (M = 3.53, SD = 0.52). The employees often used Control Coping strategies (M = 3.34, SD = 0.55), but sometimes they might resort to Escape Coping strategies (M = 2.62, SD = 0.97). Results showed that employees are often engaged in their organization (M = 3.06, SD = 0.94).

Interpretation of Quantitative Results and Addressing Research Questions

Research Question 1: How has the pandemic affected the employee well-being of teachers in K-12 schools in the UAE?

The analysis showed significant correlations between leadership communication factors (F1 and F2) and well-being factors (F3, F4, F5). Specifically, Direction Giving (F1) was strongly related to Autonomy Need Satisfaction (F3) (β = .67, p < .001), suggesting that clear directives from school leaders play a crucial role in enhancing teachers’ sense of autonomy and control, which is vital for their well-being. Qualitative data supported these findings, with teachers reporting that supportive leadership helped them cope better during the pandemic.

Research Question 2: What is the role of school leadership in enhancing employee well-being during and after the pandemic in K-12 schools in the UAE?

The Empathetic Language (F2) factor was significantly correlated with Relatedness Need Satisfaction (F4) (β = .59, p < .001), indicating that empathetic communication from leaders contributes significantly to meeting teachers’ psychological needs for relatedness. This was echoed in the qualitative feedback, where teachers frequently mentioned the importance of feeling understood and supported by their leaders, which helped reduce stress and foster a positive work environment.

Research Question 3: To what extent does employee well-being lead to better organizational engagement?

The results highlighted that all well-being factors (F3, F4, F5) were significantly correlated with Organizational Engagement (F8). Specifically, Competence Need Satisfaction (F5) showed a strong relationship with engagement (β = .29, p < .05), demonstrating that when teachers feel competent, they are more likely to be engaged with their work. The integration of qualitative data further illustrated that teachers who felt their professional skills were acknowledged and developed by their leaders were more committed to their schools, thereby enhancing overall engagement.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Employees’ Well-being Scale and the Correlation Between Factors

The CFA results reinforced the eight-factor structure of the well-being scale with fit indices as follows: χ²/df = 1225.35/637 = 1.92; CFI = 0.87; TLI = 0.85; RMSEA = 0.067; 95% CI [0.061, 0.073]. The correlations between factors are summarized in Table 2 which confirms the significant relationship between F1 and F3 (β = .67, p < .001), F4 (β = .49, p < .001), F5 (β = .30, p < .05), and F8 (β = .43, p < .001), while F1 is not significantly related to the coping factors F6 (β = .20, p < .05) and F7 (β = .05, p < .05). F2 reported to be significantly correlated with F3 (β = .78, p < .001), F4 (β = .59, p < .001), F5 (β = .21, p < .05), and F8 (β = .58, p < .001), but it also shows no relation to the coping factors F6 (β = .19, p < .05) and F7 (β = .14, p < .05). The self-determination theory factors (F3, F4, and F5) were found to have a significant correlation with all other factors. F3 is significantly correlated to F6 (β = .35, p < .001), F7 (β = .28, p < .05), and F8 (β = .59, p < .001). F4 is significantly correlated to F6 (β = .49, p < .001), F7 (β = .48, p < .001), and F8 (β = .65, p < .001). The coping factors (F6 and F7) are correlated to organizational engagement (F8). F6 is significantly correlated to F8 (β = .41, p < .001), and F7 is significantly correlated to F8 (β = .31, p < .05). These indices confirm the scale’s robustness and applicability in assessing employee well-being within the context of this study.

Table 2.

Correlation Between Employees’ Well-being Factors.

Correlations between factors	r	SE	p
F1 F3	.67	0.11	<.001
F1 F4	.49	0.08	<.001
F1 F5	.30	0.04	.003
F1 F6	.20	0.03	.050
F1 F7	.05	0.05	.570
F1 F8	.43	0.07	<.001
F2 F3	.78	0.14	<.001
F2 F4	.59	0.11	<.001
F2 F5	.21	0.05	.023
F2 F6	.19	0.05	.061
F2 F7	.14	0.07	.112
F2 F8	.58	0.10	<.001
F3 F6	.35	0.05	.001
F3 F7	.28	0.07	.005
F3 F8	.59	0.11	<.001
F4 F6	.49	0.05	<.001
F4 F7	.48	0.07	<.001
F4 F8	.65	0.09	<.001
F5 F6	.69	0.03	<.001
F5 F7	.18	0.03	.067
F5 F8	.29	0.04	.003
F6 F8	.41	0.04	<.001
F7 F8	.31	0.06	.002

Note. F1: Direction Giving; F2: Empathetic Language; F3: Autonomy need Satisfaction; F4: Relatedness Need satisfaction; F5: Competence Need satisfaction; F6: Control Coping; F7: Escape Coping; F8: Organizational Engagement.

Qualitative Analysis

All participants’ answers to the open-ended and focus group answers were subject to thematic analysis. An inductive approach was used to assign codes based on the participants’ responses rather than directly linked to the specific question asked (Braun & Clarke, 2006). They were compared, analyzed, and then grouped into subthemes, later grouped into themes. Five primary themes emerged, including coping mechanisms, leadership support, and barriers faced by teachers. For instance, one theme highlighted that teachers who received clear direction and empathetic communication from their leaders reported lower stress levels and higher job satisfaction, consistent with the quantitative findings on the importance of leadership communication in promoting well-being.

Facilitators

School teachers detailed various facilitators that helped them survive the COVID-19 pandemic. These factors were at the personal and professional levels.

Teachers’ Positive Coping Mechanisms

Almost all approached teachers mentioned that they tried to get their best out of the COVID-19 pandemic and its related national physical and social distancing measures. Resorting to God and reminding oneself of the essence of life and daily living were among the factors mentioned to help overcome the pandemic.

Teachers also reported that they took the time of the pandemic as a chance to learn more about themselves and their capabilities to learn new skills and information.

In addition, teachers mentioned that they took time for themselves to do sports/more physical activity, meditation, and focus on positive thinking. For example, a female teacher said, “I spent more time with my family and did meditation.”

Most importantly, teachers highly repeated that they followed all preventive measures and social distancing and hoped for the best.

Also, teachers’ interaction with their students was mentioned as a factor that helped teachers to overcome this period, as reflected in the statement of one of them: “I tried to give my best to my students during this period and to provide them with all needed learning and psychological support. At the same time, their feedback and positive interaction with me were critical factors to support my mental health in return.”

The Positive, Supportive Role of School Leaders

The positive engagement of school leaders with the teachers was a significant factor that helped teachers overcome this period with the minimum difficulties. Approached teachers highlighted that the school leaders were very supportive in various ways.

Empathetic language: School leaders’ empathetic language and psychosocial support to teachers helped schoolteachers overcome the pandemic and its related challenges and difficulties. A male teacher explained, “The school leader showed a high level of understanding and compassion. This helped us to perform better with less stress.”

Direction giving: Teachers highlighted the positive effects of the guidance and directions they received from school leaders in what relates to COVID-19 and its recommended preventive measures on their personal safety and psychosocial well-being during the pandemic. A female teacher stated, “The school leaders maintained continuous communication with us and provided us with needed guidance and advice about COVID-19.”

Autonomy satisfaction: Teachers discussed how the school leaders adopted an approach that encouraged them to work autonomously as stated: “The school leaders gave me a margin of freedom in what relates to the best way for me to use educational tools to be able to educate students most effectively and efficiently” (Male teacher).

Providing teachers with technical support and the materials needed at home was also highlighted as a significant factor in enabling teachers to work correctly. A female teacher highlighted that in her statement, “The school’s leader provided us with laptops and needed technical IT support to be able to teach remotely effectively.”

Competencies need satisfaction: The schools invested during the pandemic in the capacity building of their teachers s to enable them to cope better and adapt to remote teaching. Teachers expressed satisfaction with these capacity-building efforts and their positive impact on productivity, self-confidence, and empowerment: “The school provided us with training programs and workshops that enabled us to work remotely using recent technologies.”

Barriers

Various factors served as barriers that made it harder for some teachers to cope with the pandemic. Those barriers were reported by teachers as the following.

School Leaders’ Negative Engagement

Noting that most teachers highlighted the support they received from their leaders, some mentioned that their leaders did nothing to support them during the pandemic. Other teachers mentioned that their school leaders reduced their salaries, which imposed more stress on them.

It was also reported that some leaders made decisions without engaging teachers and this did not help them work effectively and efficiently: “I was exhausted due to extra duties and work. These additional tasks took over my role in educating the students, and I ended up working extra hours to finalize them all.”

Relationship satisfaction: Teachers mentioned that some leaders assigned more tasks and asked for more time for work, so they had to reduce the time spent with their family members to work.

Other mentioned working more and being obsessed with proving themselves worthy for the school because the leaders let go of their colleagues without prior notice: “They dismissed my colleagues from work which put additional pressure on us physically and psychologically.”

Effect of COVID-19 on Teachers’ Lives

The COVID-19 pandemic and its related preventive and social/physical distancing measures affected peoples’ lives at various levels. Within this study, teachers highlighted the effect of the pandemic on their lives at personal and professional levels. Teachers highlighted that the pandemic made them realize more about the importance of personal hygiene and how to take care of themselves.

Also, teachers reported that the pandemic taught them the importance of patience and perseverance in overcoming challenges: “The pandemic increased my ability to face challenges and taught me the importance of patience.”

Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic helped teachers to cope with challenges: “The pandemic taught me the meaning of being resilient and to know when to lean so that the hard times pass.”

Believing in oneself is critical. Teachers discussed how the pandemic made them believe in themselves and their capabilities, as one stated, “I discovered my capabilities and learned that I can do whatever I want to and that I am capable of living in any situation and adapting.”

Teachers also mentioned that the pandemic made them realize the importance of being compassionate with each other and supporting each other in every possible way: “I learned the importance of working as part of a group and supporting each other during times of hardships.”

Knowing that the pandemic necessitated the adoption of new working modalities, teachers reported learning new soft skills and being more technology friendly.

Teachers learned the importance of always being proactive: “The crisis made me realize the importance of always setting a plan B in work and in life to be able to adapt quickly to any faced challenge.”

In addition, teachers mentioned becoming more capable of working under stress and needing to deliver and provide all needed support to students no matter the situation.

Working in a group and maintaining continuous clear and positive communication with peers and students was also discussed as an enabling factor to ensure the success of remote teaching: “I learned the power of working in a group and supporting each other in helping every member succeed. Nothing is impossible when working in a group.”

Discussion

How has the Pandemic Affected the Employee Well-Being of Teachers in K-12 Schools in the UAE?

The quantitative and qualitative data results indicated positive and negative impacts on teachers due to the pandemic. These effects spanned across social, physical, emotional, and professional domains. In line with Tuzovic and Kabadayi’s (2018) findings, teachers reported diverse opinions about the impact of the pandemic on their lives. Many developed positive coping strategies such as turning to religious beliefs, practicing meditation, or engaging in physical activities like sports, which helped them manage stress from job insecurity and financial strain. Additionally, the pandemic heightened their awareness of personal hygiene and social interactions, consistent with the findings of Juchnowicz and Kinowska (2021), which highlighted the negative impact of remote work on social connections.

Teachers coped by enhancing family relationships and improving communication with students and colleagues through online platforms, demonstrating resilience and maintaining social well-being even under constraints, echoing Yeung et al. (2016) observations on control coping. The qualitative data highlighted how these adaptations helped teachers overcome isolation stress, as Abel and McQueen (2020) noted. Professionally, despite increased workloads and the need for new skills, many teachers reported improved self-belief and competency, aligning with the broader narrative of resilience and professional growth during crises.

However, some teachers faced challenges exacerbated by unsupportive school leadership, which mirrored the observations of Valentine (2014), who noted the critical role of clear communication and adequate information in reducing stress. These teachers experienced increased workloads and poor communication from leaders, which compounded their difficulties, as Juchnowicz and Kinowska (2021) reported.

What is the Role of the School Leadership in Enhancing Employee Well-Being During and After the Pandemic in k-12 Schools in the UAE?

The quantitative results proved the significant relationship between the leaders’ motivational language (empathetic language and direction giving) and the three elements of self-determination theory: autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs. However, the impact on coping mechanisms was mixed; leaders’ direction-giving had a limited effect on control coping, while empathetic language did not significantly influence either control or escape coping strategies. This highlights the complexity of leadership’s role in crisis contexts, suggesting that while motivational language can foster a sense of belonging and emotional support, its direct impact on coping strategies may be less predictable (Tao et al., 2022).

Teachers highlighted the positive engagement of leaders who used empathetic and supportive language, which fostered a sense of understanding and compassion. This emotional connection was crucial for enhancing teacher engagement and satisfaction, consistent with findings from Ulmer et al. (2017) and Mayfield and Mayfield (2017). Moreover, clear communication from leaders helped boost teachers’ psychosocial well-being, aligning with Van Quaquebeke and Felps’ (2018) research on the importance of clarity in leadership communication during crises.

Leaders who facilitated autonomy by providing teachers with the freedom to plan and execute their work effectively reduced stress and increased job satisfaction, as noted in the work of Mncube and Olawale (2021). This empowerment was critical, particularly during the crisis, where autonomy and competence were directly linked to enhanced productivity and engagement. However, some teachers reported negative experiences where leaders’ passive roles and additional pressures, such as salary reductions, adversely affected their well-being. This resonates with Matino’s (2018) study on the adverse effects of inadequate compensation on employee motivation and satisfaction. Furthermore, the fear of job loss, as highlighted by Abukari and David (2021), intensified stress levels among teachers, leading to a need for more supportive leadership practices.

To What Extent Does Employee Well-Being Lead to Better Organizational Engagement?

Quantitative results revealed that teacher engagement was significantly linked to the components of self-determination theory, suggesting that when needs for autonomy and competence are met and well-being is ensured, engagement levels rise, partially aligning with Chiniara and Bentein’s (2016) findings. As Welch (2011) discussed, effective internal communication is pivotal in influencing engagement; teachers involved in decision-making and received clear instructions felt more committed to their roles. Additionally, supportive leadership fostered by emotional relatedness created a sense of belonging, further driving engagement and innovation among teachers.

The findings emphasize the critical role of capacity building in enhancing teacher well-being and supporting their engagement with organizational goals. Teachers who felt equipped and confident due to ongoing capacity-building efforts reported higher satisfaction and productivity levels, illustrating the connection between professional development and employee engagement during challenging times.

Limitations, Recommendations, and Conclusion

Despite its contributions, the study has a few limitations that need to be addressed by future research. First, even though the study proved certain relationships between variables, a longitudinal design might be used by further studies to establish causal relationships, which would provide a deeper understanding of the dynamics between variables. Second, we recommend that future studies be conducted in other types of organizations and explore different employee work factors, as this would broaden the application of the findings and lead to a better understanding of the elements that contribute to employees’ well-being in times of crisis. Additionally, the scope of the findings could be extended if the study is replicated in the context of other types of crises, allowing for a comparison of leadership impacts across various situations.

This study contributes to understanding school leaders’ critical role in enhancing employee well-being during crises. Specifically, the research provides evidence that leaders’ motivational language, clarity of instructions, and open communication are pivotal in enhancing employees’ well-being and need satisfaction, fostering greater work commitment and organizational engagement. The findings show that effective leadership supports teachers in managing the immediate challenges posed by crises and contributes to their long-term professional resilience and satisfaction.

The study also extends the current knowledge on the multifaceted impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on teachers’ well-being, highlighting social, physical, emotional, and professional dimensions. It emphasizes the role of control coping mechanisms among teachers. It demonstrates how school leaders can effectively support their staff through tailored leadership strategies that address individual needs, enhancing overall productivity and commitment. By integrating these insights, the study adds a nuanced perspective on how leadership approaches can be optimized to support educators in crisis contexts, contributing valuable guidance for policymakers and educational leaders.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the educational institution and all the teachers for their support and contributions to this research.

ORCID iDs

Soulafa Al Khatib

Zeina Hojeij

Ethical Considerations

This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines and approved by Zayed University under Ethics Application Number (ZU22_023_F). All procedures involving human participants were performed in compliance with the relevant ethical standards.

Consent to Participate

Participants were provided with detailed information about the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits, and their right to withdraw at any time without consequence. A written consent form was obtained from all participants who responded to the surveys, and informed oral consent was sought from the participants who participated in the focus groups.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available and some tables were added to the main documents.

References

Abel

McQueen

(2020). The COVID-19 pandemic calls for spatial distancing and social closeness, not for social distancing! International Journal of Public Health, 65(3), 231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-020-01366-7.

Abukari

David

S. A.

(2021). Leading education in times of crisis: Perils or opportunities? Journal for Researching Education Practice and Theory, 4(2), 1–13.

Bartsch

Weber

Büttgen

Huber

(2020). Leadership matters in crisis-induced digital transformation: How to lead service employees effectively during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Service Management, 32(1), 71–85. https://doi-org.zulib.idm.oclc.org/10.1108/JOSM-05-2020-0160

Benlahcene

Abdullah

N. A. S. B

. (2020, October 14–15). Public leadership in times of crisis: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia. The International Seminar on Regional Politics, Administration and Development 2020 (INSORPAD2020), STISIPOL Raja Haji, Riau, Indonesia. https://repo.uum.edu.my/id/eprint/27997

Boin

Kuipers

Overdijk

(2013). Leadership in times of crisis: A framework for assessment. International Review of Public Administration, 18(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2013.10805241

Brace

Kemp

Slengar

(2009). SPSS for Psychologists (4th ed.). Macmillan.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi-org.zulib.idm.oclc.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Burke

R. J.

Richardsen

A. M.

(2019). Increasing occupational health and safety in workplaces: Individual, work and organizational factors. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Burns

(2016). Psychosocial well-being. In Pachana

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Geropsychology. Springer.

10.

Byrne

B. M.

(2013). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.

11.

Chiniara

Bentein

(2016). Linking servant leadership to individual performance: Differentiating the mediating role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness need satisfaction. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.08.004

12.

Cicognani

(2014). Social well-being. In Michalos

A. C.

(eds.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_2797

13.

Coombs

W. T.

(2014). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding. Sage Publications.

14.

Creswell

J. W.

(2014). Research design (4th ed.). Sage.

15.

Cucinotta

Vanelli

(2020). WHO Declares COVID-19 a Pandemic. Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 91(1), 157–160. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v91i1.9397

16.

Deci

E. L.

Olafsen

A. H.

Ryan

R. M.

(2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-11310

17.

Diener

Oishi

(2000). Money and happiness: Income and subjective well-being across nations. In Diener

Suh

E. M.

(Eds.), Culture and subjective well-being (pp. 185–218). The MIT Press.

18.

Dysvik

Kuvaas

Gagné

(2013). An investigation of the unique, synergistic and balanced relationships between basic psychological needs and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(5), 1050–1064. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12068

19.

Folkman

(1997). Positive psychological states and coping with severe stress. Social Science & Medicine, 45(8), 1207–1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(97)00040-3

20.

Folkman

Lazarus

R. S.

Dunkel-Schetter

DeLongis

Gruen

R. J.

(1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 992–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.992

21.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

22.

Fugate

Kinicki

A. J.

Prussia

G. E.

(2008). Employee coping with organizational change: An examination of alternative theoretical perspectives and models. Personnel Psychology, 61(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00104.x

23.

Jin

(2010). Making sense sensibly in crisis communication: How publics’ crisis appraisals influence their negative emotions, coping strategy preferences, and crisis response acceptance. Communication Research, 37(4), 522–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210368256

24.

Juchnowicz

Kinowska

(2021). Employee well-being and digital work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Information, 12(8), 293. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12080293

25.

Kahn

W. A.

Barton

M. A.

Fellows

(2013). Organizational crises and the disturbance of relational systems. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 377–396. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43700496

26.

Krekel

Ward

De Neve

J. E.

(2019). Employee well-being, productivity, and firm performance. Saïd Business School WP, 1–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3356581

27.

Krishantha

(2018). Employee wellbeing–effectiveness on motivation and organizational performance. International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, 7(7), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.14299/ijoart.07.07.006

28.

Latack

J. C.

(1986). Coping with job stress: Measures and future directions for scale development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 377–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.377

29.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.

30.

Lee

(2019). Crisis perceptions, relationship, and communicative behaviors of employees: Internal public segmentation approach. Public Relations Review, 45(4), Article 101832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101832

31.

Leibovici

Santacreu

A. M.

Famiglietti

(2020). Social distancing and contact-intensive occupations. On the economy, St. Louis FED. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2020/march/social-distancing-contact-intensive-occupations

32.

Leonard

H. B.

Howitt

A. M.

Giles

D. W.

(2020). Crisis Communication for Covid-19 (1–9) [Program on Crisis Leadership]. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/research-initiatives/crisisleadership/files/PCL_Crisis-Communications_Web20200427.pdf

33.

Matino

(2018). Effectiveness of employees compensation-measured by customer satisfaction (Study Conducted at Private Banks of Ethiopia_Snnpr_Wolaita Sodo Branches). Business and Economics Journal, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.4172/2151-6219.1000341

34.

Mayfield

(2017). Motivating language theory: Effective leader talk in the workplace. Springer.

35.

McLeod

Dulsky

(2021). Resilience, reorientation, and reinvention: School leadership during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 637075. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.637075

36.

Merga

M. K.

Malpique

Mat Roni

Valcan

Ledger

(2021). Teachers’ perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 on writing instruction in Australia. Issues in Educational Research, 31(4), 1138–1155. http://www.iier.org.au/iier31/merga.pdf

37.

Mncube

Olawale

B. E.

(2021, November). Leadership and management in the context of COVID-19 stringency: Are democratic principles a solution? Proceedings of ICERI2021 Conference (held virtually), 8, 10049–10055. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2021.1973

38.

Muijs

(2004). Doing quantitative research in education. Sage.

39.

Mugizi

Rwothumio

Amwine

C. M.

(2021). Compensation management and employee wellbeing of academic staff in Ugandan Private Universities during COVID-19 lockdown. Interdisciplinary Journal of Education Research, 3(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.51986/ijer-2021.vol3.01.01

40.

Nielsen

M. B.

Ogbonnaya

Känsälä

Saari

Isaksson

(2017). Workplace resources to improve employee well-being and performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Work & Stress, 31(2), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2017.1304463

41.

Pradhan

R. K.

Hati

(2022). The measurement of employee well-being: Development and validation of a scale. Global Business Review, 23(2), 385–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150919859101

42.

Pradhan

R. K.

Dash

Jena

L. K.

(2019). Do HR practices influence job satisfaction? Examining the mediating role of employee engagement in Indian public sector undertakings. Global Business Review, 20(1), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150917713895

43.

Saks

A. M.

(2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169

44.

Sirgy

M. J.

(2012). Effects of income and wealth on subjective QOL. In The Psychology of Quality of Life (pp. 81–94). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4405-9_5

45.

Sivapragasam

Raya

(2018). HRM and employee engagement link: Mediating role of employee well-being. Global Business Review, 19(1), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150917713369

46.

Sohrabi

Alsafi

O’neill

Khan

Kerwan

Al-Jabir

Agha

(2020). World Health Organization declares global emergency: A review of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19). International Journal of Surgery, 76, 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.02.034

47.

Sullivan

J. J.

(1988). Three roles of language in motivation theory. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 104–115. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.430679

48.

Sun

P. C.

Pan

F. T.

C. W.

(2016). Does motivating language matter in leader–subordinate communication? Chinese Journal of Communication, 9(3), 264–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2016.1206029

49.

Tao

Y. G.

(2020). Firm-determined or consumer-determined corporate social responsibility (CSR)? Examining the effects of choice-of-cause in cause-related marketing. International Journal of Business Communication. 61(2), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420918397

50.

Tao

Lee

Sun

J.-Y.

(2022). Enhancing Employee Engagement via Leaders’ Motivational Language in times of crisis: Perspectives from the COVID-19 outbreak. Public Relations Review, 48(1), 102–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102133

51.

Turner

Theilking

(2019). Teacher wellbeing: Its effects on teaching practice and student learning. Issues in Educational Research, 29(3), 938–960. https://www.iier.org.au/iier29/turner2.pdf

52.

Tuzovic

Kabadayi

(2018). The influence of social distancing on employee well-being: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 32(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-05-2020-0140

53.

Ulmer

R. R.

Sellnow

T. L.

Seeger

M. W.

(2017). Effective crisis communication: Moving from crisis to opportunity. Sage Publications.

54.

Valentine

Meglich

Mathis

R. L.

Jackson

J. H.

(2014). Human resource management. Cengage Learning.

55.

Van Quaquebeke

Felps

. (2018). Respectful inquiry: A motivational account of leading through asking questions and listening. Academy of Management Review, 43(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0537

56.

Welch

(2011). The evolution of the employee engagement concept: Communication implications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16(4), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281111186968

57.

World Health Organization (2021). Health and well-being. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/major-themes/health-and-well-being

58.

Yeung

N. C.

Wong

C. C.

Huynh

H. C.

(2016). The roles of needs satisfaction, cognitive appraisals, and coping strategies in promoting posttraumatic growth: A stress and coping perspective. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 8(3), 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000091

59.

Yue

C. A.

Men

L. R.

Ferguson

M. A.

(2021). Examining the effects of internal communication and emotional culture on employees’ organizational identification. International Journal of Business Communication, 58(2), 169–195. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281111186968

60.

Zohrabi

(2013). Mixed method research: Instruments, validity, reliability and reporting findings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3, 254–262. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.2.254-262