The present study aimed to examine the actual and perceived overall impact of the COVID-19 crisis on employees’ work and private life along with the consequences for MWB and general SRH in the German and Swiss working populations. The first objective of the study was to assess the perceived positive and negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis on work and private life in Germany and Switzerland as well as related actual changes in work and private life routines. Although the research has thus far mostly emphasized the negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the working population [29], our data show that more than 40% of participants perceived no negative changes and over 10% even positive shifts in both work and private life. This can be partly explained by looking at the proportion of employees that experienced changes in their daily routines. Regarding the changes in work life routines, overall, 28% of participants were affected by a change in their employment contract and 49% by changes in the quantity of work time. This result is almost identical to the findings for the German sample in the Eurofound report [8]. Regarding private life, quantity of leisure time changed for 58% and quantity of caring duties for 25%. Finally, about half the participants in our sample reported to WFH at least part of their work time, and 20% of those did so for the first time. This finding is also in line with Eurofound’s data [8] showing that 24% of participants reported WFH for the first time. Overall, the proportion of people affected by changes in work and private life is comparable but hardly exceeds 50%.
Looking at the second objective relating to the factors associated with perceived impact on work and private life, a temporary reduction in contracted work hours (i.e., mandatory short-time work) and changes in work time were strongly associated with reporting deterioration of work life. This is in line with previous research suggesting that employees whose contract had been reduced or terminated due to the lockdown measures were particularly vulnerable to developing mental health problems [7, 9]. For those affected by short-time work, fear of losing their job significantly contributed to the distress and negatively affected MWB [3]. As one would expect, the few who lost their jobs were most negatively affected by the crisis. Further, an increase in caring duties and, perhaps more surprisingly, changes in leisure time were associated with perceived deterioration of work life. Changes in private life routines, such as amount of leisure time, may require efforts for readjustments that can also interfere with work life. Finally, older employees in the 61–65 age group had a higher OR of reporting deterioration of their work life. An explanation can be that older workers may be more sensitive to changes in daily structure and less flexible in adapting to a new situation, such as mandatory WFH, reduced live contact with colleagues, and the use of remote work technology.
In contrast, the COVID-19 measures also seem to have related to some positive shifts in work life. WFH was most strongly associated with perceived positive impact of the COVID-19 crisis on work life. Interestingly, the group that reported WFH for the first time had the highest odds of experiencing a positive shift in their work life as a result of the COVID-19 lockdown, supporting evidence from Ipsen and colleagues [21]. This positive impact of WFH might be explained by various benefits, such as a reduction or absence of commute time, more job autonomy, more opportunities to try out new things, and general increased flexibility in the organization of the workday. Further, a decrease in work time was negatively associated with perceived positive impact on work life. Indeed, a reduction in work time may not only cause financial problems but may also reduce important daily routines and social contact at work, thus impeding perceived improvement of work life. In contrast, an increase in leisure time was associated with perceived positive impact of the COVID-19 crisis on work life. From the resource perspective, more time for leisure may allow for better recovery from work and rebuilding of personal resources [30, 31], which can then help an individual deal with work demands. Finally, the oldest age groups, 54–60 and 61–65 years, were less likely to report an improvement in their work life. As in the case of deterioration of work life, older employees may struggle more with the new situation and may be less successful in transforming the new situation to their benefit.
Regarding the perceived impact on private life, participants living alone showed significantly higher odds of reporting a deterioration of their private life compared to those living with a partner, family, or in a shared housing. The COVID-19 lockdown substantially restricted possibilities for social interactions beyond one’s own household, particularly affecting people living alone. Individuals who live alone and have restricted social contact over a longer period may experience high levels of loneliness [8]. This, in turn, threatens their MWB [32]. Interestingly, participants over 60 years old had a significantly lower OR of reporting the deterioration of their private life. Older employees may be more resilient to situational changes outside of their household as a result of having well-established private life routines that help them cope with adverse situations. As such, they might be less dependent on the number of social contacts beyond their household, and they may have developed more mature emotion regulation strategies than the younger generation, which allows them to better cope with difficulties in private life [33].
Perceived positive impact of the COVID-19 crisis on private life was strongly associated with an increase in leisure time, living with others, changes in employment contract, WFH, and an increase in caring duties. Increase in leisure time and changes in employment contract (i.e., mandatory short-time work) imply that employees can devote more time and attention to their private life. An increase in WFH reduces or eliminates commuting, which is generally one of the most cited benefits of WFH [21]. WFH also allows for more interaction with family at home. Those experienced in WFH showed a stronger positive relationship than those who were new to WFH, probably as the latter had initially had to organize their workspace and set new routines, which imposed additional strain on them. The positive association with living with others shows the importance of having opportunities for direct exchange in such a crisis situation. This could also explain that an increase in caring duties, allowing for more exchange with family members, was associated with perceived positive shifts in private life.
Finally, our third objective was to investigate how perceived overall impact of the COVID-19 crisis on work and private life and actual changes induced by the lockdown measures were associated with MWB and SRH. Previous evidence has shown that these two health domains are not separate. Low SRH has been associated with increased odds of depression [22], displaying the relevance of SRH for psychologically demanding situations, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results suggest a strong negative association between perceived negative impact on work and private life and MWB, and a positive association between perceived positive impact on private life and MWB. This indicates that the perceived negative impact of the crisis on both life domains has had severe consequences for MWB. In contrast, it seems that those who were able to cope with the COVID-19 crisis and translate the lockdown measures into some positive shifts in their private life, for instance, by engaging in new leisure activities or spending more time with family or friends, also benefited from the crisis in terms of increased MWB. Similar associations emerged between perceived impact and SRH, although the association with perceived negative impact on work life was less pronounced than in the case of MWB, and there was no significant association between perceived positive impact and SRH. It seems that SRH was more affected by perceived changes in private life rather than in work life. It is interesting, however, that the perceived negative impact had such a strong association with SRH, which is more stable over time than MWB.
Regarding the impact of actual changes, mandatory short-time work showed a strong negative association with both MWB and SRH. Mandatory short-time work leads to significant financial losses and, perhaps more importantly, to a loss of daily structure and routines, which seem to have detrimental effects on both MWB and SRH. Conversely, an increase in leisure time was positively associated with MWB, and the link was even stronger with SRH. Plausibly, an increase in leisure time provides extra opportunities for individuals to engage in meaningful activities that provide them with important resources that benefit their MWB and SRH. Looking at the overall strength of the associations, it seems that MBW may be more affected by the perceived impact, as both are cognitive-emotional domains and are more dependent on the cognitive appraisal of one’s situation and emotional experience. However, SRH may be more affected by actual changes in work and private life that increase or decrease opportunities to engage in activities that are perceived as beneficial to health.
Limitations and strengths
The contribution of this study should be considered in light of its research limitations. A major limitation is the cross-sectional design, which allowed us only to infer associations between variables but did not provide evidence of the directions of the associations or potential causality. Furthermore, the analyzed data stem from self-rating scales, and self-reported data may be influenced by common method biases [34], such as social desirability bias [35], particularly as COVID-19 is currently a dominant topic. Nevertheless, an online survey was the method of choice because it allowed for collecting a large amount of current data within a short period of time, which was a requirement to obtain valid data that accurately reflect the acute COVID-19 crisis situation. Further, we did not control for all variables that might have affected the results. For instance, coping with a crisis and MWB differ individually and may be influenced by variables such as personality traits, resilience, or coping style [36–39]. However, our study aimed to provide a broad picture of both the negative and positive impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on a large, diverse sample of the working population. Thus, it was beyond the scope of this study to investigate individual differences and characteristics. In addition, a more complete, lengthy survey would have reduced the participation rate.
Indeed, a strength of the present study is the relatively large sample size that allowed us to conduct a detailed analysis and explore different subgroups within the sample. Another strength is the time point of the data collection, as we launched the survey at the beginning of April 2020, close to the first peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in Germany and Switzerland, when the lockdown measures were initiated. This enabled us to capture a valid picture of the immediate impact of the lockdown measures. Moreover, the participants were asked about the present situation, which adds to the validity of the collected data compared to a retrospective survey design, in which participants must think back to the past. Finally, the combination of a subjective evaluation of the impact of the crisis with relevant, standardized public health indicators of MWB and SRH increases the relevance of the results to public health research and policymaking.