Navigating the terrain of grief can be particularly difficult when trying to meet the demands of a career and employment. Grief occurs as the result of losing something or someone held dear and can cause debilitating feelings of distress as well as impaired cognitive and physical functioning (Crunk et al., 2017). The majority of eligible adults (60%) in the United States work (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020). Up to three-fourths of the population may be grieving at any given time (Wilson et al., 2018). Consequently, most of the population will likely experience loss and grief while employed. Since the physical and psychological effects of grief can significantly alter someone’s ability to perform job duties at an optimal level, billions could be lost annually as the result of decreased productivity, absenteeism, mistakes, turnover, and accidents (Barclay & Kang, 2019; Hazen, 2008). Employers are likely to be faced with bereaved employees and need to prepare for effective responses.
Despite the prevalence of grief, research suggests that the standard ways employers support grief do not match the bereaved employee’s needs because it is geared toward efficiency, strategic goals, and hierarchical-societal understandings of grief (Barclay & Kang, 2019; Flux et al., 2019). This article will explore professional and societal norms concerning grief support: whether the support provided by employers is sufficient, and if the support impacts employee engagement, loyalty, and satisfaction. Finally, the impacts to organizations will be considered and remediation efforts will be presented to help employers show better care to grieving employees.
Professional and Societal Norms in Relation to Grief
Grief in the workplace has been studied for several decades, yet a gap between the support organizations provide and the needs of bereaved employees remains. Pratt (1981) suggested that how employers respond and react to grief has affected how society approaches bereavement. Barclay & Kang (2019) highlight that how employers approach grieving employees is rooted more in a strategic than human focus, promoting efficiency and productivity rather than the health and healing of the griever. These notions were affirmed through studies that report bereaved employees do not feel the bereavement leave, flexibility, or even compassion shown by the employer is sufficient to meet their needs (Barclay & Kang, 2019; Flux et al., 2019; Wilson et al., 2020). Furthermore, some studies indicate that many individuals feel pressure to return to normal, appear composed and professional, and to suppress expressions of grief (Bauer & Murray, 2018; Kenny et al., 2019; Pitman et al., 2018).
Professional Norms
Historically, work has been a place for productivity and professionalism, and likely is not regarded as the proper setting for personal issues, emotions, or distractions. Grieving employees have reported feeling conflict, pushing aside inner grief for half or more of their waking hours while feeling the need to mourn, causing the bereaved employee to retreat or avoid social interactions due to feeling like they have to hide their emotions and avoid talking about the loss (Bauer & Murray, 2018; Gibson et al., 2010). Blocking grief could stifle the grieving process or disenfranchise what the employee is dealing with; leading to prolonged or complicated grief and/or negative outcomes such as depression, suicidality, anxiety, relationship issues, self-identity problems, immunocompromised systems, and substance abuse (Bauer & Murray, 2018; Crunk et al., 2017; Pitman et al., 2018).
Despite the consequences of grief suppression, typical employer grief responses promote reclaiming normalcy in support of the company’s strategic vision, rather than supporting employee wellness through the entire grieving process (Barclay & Kang, 2019; Wilson et al., 2020). This is illustrated by organizations providing few bereavement days or funeral hours and scarce reintegration accommodations that require employees to resume full job duties before they feel ready; failure to acknowledge the employee loss; and lacking emotional support or inadequate notification/information about available resources (Barclay & Kang, 2019; Flux et al., 2019; Tehan & Thompson, 2012; Trimble, 2010; Wilson et al., 2020). Also, due to a lack of understanding or discomfort with grief, co-workers may actually withdraw from the grieving employee instead of showing care (Tehan & Thompson, 2012). This signals to the employee that when at work, they need to conceal their grief, appear capable, and be productive, which aligns with some societal norms.
Societal Expectations
Robson and Walter (2012) explained the need for a standardized and hierarchical system for grief support based on societal expectations to ensure order and fairness. Participants reported that they thought spouses, parents, children, and siblings would experience the most significant levels of grief, reflecting society’s expectations of mourning and what relationships are socially acceptable to support (Robson & Walter, 2012). Doka (2008) suggested that when a person grieves a relationship that does not conform to the prescribed list of endorsed relationships, the individual’s grief goes unrecognized and likely unsupported. Eyetsemitan (1998) studied grief support based on the strength of attachment felt by the bereaved and explained that although some participants reported a strong attachment to the deceased, the corresponding bereavement support received was unequal to the loss felt. Grief support based on a standardized understanding may leave many disregarded and unsupported. Societal norms and expectations stigmatize the idiosyncratic nature of grief, causing conflict between what the grieving people need and how they feel they are expected to act or appear, which could cause the bereaved to feel ashamed, confused, frustrated, and even isolated (Doka, 2008; Kenny et al., 2019; Pitman et al., 2018). A lack of social grief support might not be tied to peoples’ insensitivity but rather may be the result of not knowing how to show care, feeling awkward, like the support is unwanted, or uncomfortable with the emotionality of the situation (Sandberg & Grant, 2017; Tehan & Thompson, 2012).
Organizational Grief Support and Responses
Formal grief responses encompass bereavement leave, employee assistance programs, and counseling services (Barclay & Kang, 2019). Informal responses could include acknowledgment, empathy, flexibility, and other support methods. Flux et al.'s (2019) meta-analysis assessed employer grief support and categorized various methods as instrumental, informational, and emotional. Instrumental support is comprised of bereavement leave, flexible accommodations, and practical support, which might involve funeral attendance, alerting others of the loss, sending a sympathy card, or providing a meal. Informational support is helpful not only for the bereaved employee but also for managers and colleagues as this method provides guidance about grief, best practices, resources, and how to support someone after loss (Flux et al., 2019). Emotional support consists of acknowledging the employee’s loss while being empathetic to the grief they are experiencing (Flux et al., 2019). Emotional support could include check-ins with the bereaved employees after returning to work to remind them they are cared about, inquire about how they are feeling, and to assess if further assistance is needed.
Acknowledgement
Bereaved employees feel recognition of their loss is important as it validates their grief, which may make them feel more comfortable expressing emotions and subsequently more valued (Flux et al., 2019; Gibson et al., 2011; Trimble, 2010). Acknowledgment typically comes from direct supervisors and colleagues, while recognition from the executive or administrative level is uncommon (Trimble, 2010). When loss goes unrecognized, the individual may experience negative impacts to their wellness that subsequently impair their ability to perform at their best (Gibson et al., 2011; Tehan & Thompson, 2012).
Empathy
Empathy shows the employee they are valued and can be demonstrated by providing encouragement, comfort, and compassion, being present, and allowing the employee to mourn or discuss one’s feelings (Flux et al., 2019). Despite research supporting the efficacy of empathy during grief, prior studies indicate that many participants felt their employer did not show empathy, they felt pressure to return to normal and perform at pre-loss levels, they were required to provide proof of death for benefits, or the bereaved employee was even reprimanded for displaying expressions of grief in the workplace (Bauer & Murray, 2018; Flux et al., 2019; Gibson et al., 2010, 2011; Wilson et al., 2020). Displaying empathy can be accomplished through encouragement and listening, but also through allowing flexibility as the employee returns to work.
Flexibility
Reintegration processes help the bereaved employee acclimate to work after loss; promote healthy grief progression; include flexible or reduced work schedules, locations, or duties; and task assistance (Flux et al., 2019; Trimble, 2010; Wilson et al., 2020). Designating a private location for moments when the employee needs to express mourning is another example of reintegration accommodations (Wilson et al., 2020). Flexibility can help the bereaved address post-loss business, such as settling financial and estate affairs, while supporting healthy grieving, which may require counseling or reduced responsibilities (Blackburn & Bulsara, 2018; Kenny et al., 2019). Grief can cause cognitive, emotional, and physical impairments, including impaired concentration, confusion, unreliable sensory responses, trouble sleeping, fatigue, distress, and anxiety which can diminish the employee’s ability to focus, perform job duties, or even control their emotions (Berk, 2014; Fox et al., 2014; Tehan & Thompson, 2012; Wilson et al., 2020). Multiple studies show that employees were provided little to no flexibility, resumed full job duties immediately or before they felt ready, and reintegration processes are uncommon (Eyetsemitan, 1998; Flux et al., 2019; Wilson et al., 2020).
Check-Ins
Check-ins are simply reaching out to the employee to extend comfort, reassurance, allowing them to talk about their grief, while also providing the supervisor an opportunity to evaluate how well the employee is reintegrating back into their job duties. Kutach (2019) studied the impact that an employee’s loss and grief had on their teams and reported that when a supervisor took the bereaved to lunch to listen and show support, it was well received and appreciated. Trimble (2010) explained that bereaved employees felt it was helpful to have some space to talk about what happened, particularly if the listener has gone through a commensurate experience. Despite discomfort, often resulting from a lack of training and formal bereavement policies, checking in on colleagues shows genuine interest, support, and empathy, which may maintain or improve employee commitment, satisfaction, and engagement (Flux et al., 2019; Kutach, 2019).
Organizational Impacts of Grief
The most significant impact on organizations is cost. The toll grief takes on an employee’s mental, emotional, and physical well-being affects their capacity to fully perform their job duties. Additionally, the employee may have post-loss obligations they need to address or counseling needs that take them away from work. This results in more absences, diminished productivity, or increased mistakes and accidents, which is estimated to cost organizations billions annually (Barclay & Kang, 2019; Fox et al., 2014). Furthermore, when employees do not feel supported, loyalty to the organization may decrease and result in turnover, which has been estimated to cost an employer up to 150% of the employee’s annual salary (Vinerean, 2015). By not providing adequate grief support, organizations are potentially stifling or disenfranchising employee grief, which could lead to reduced feelings of safety and security as well as decreased productivity, employee morale, and satisfaction (Tehan & Thompson, 2012). Research indicates that employer supports, wellness assistance, benefits, and work-life balance policies matter and are associated with job satisfaction, commitment to the organization, and employee engagement (Afif, 2018; Barclay & Kang, 2019; Kim & Ryu, 2017; Polo-Vargas et al., 2017; Rajput et al., 2016).
Method
The purpose of this research was to determine whether significant relationships exist between employers’ grief responses and employees’ post-loss perceptions. The organizational response factors considered were bereavement leave, reintegration accommodations, and provided support. Employee factors included engagement, loyalty, and satisfaction. The target audience was identified to be adults in the workforce who have experienced loss and grief while employed.
Participants
Participants were adults (21 years or older) in North America who had worked while grieving. Recruitment was done through snowball sampling and referrals using social media networks (SMNs). No specific gender, sexual orientation, racial/ethnicity, educational, socioeconomic, or religious criteria were applied for participation. These methods were chosen to increase the size, geographic reach, and characteristics of the research sample that would likely be much smaller if limited to the researcher’s primary contacts. Participants accessed an anonymous survey via SurveyMonkey after agreeing to an informed consent document.
Measures
A custom survey was developed by the researcher, drawing upon prior studies and literature related to grief, attachments, loyalty, commitment, support, bereavement leave, and reintegration processes. The survey included socio-demographic questions and key content related to the research question.
The survey was reviewed and edited by a doctoral-level psychologist with a specialization in survey design. A pilot test using a sample of colleagues was conducted to ensure question clarity, flow, and applicability as well as to establish the expected duration of the instrument. To determine internal consistency, the researcher ran Cronbach’s Alpha tests to establish reliability coefficients. Although the research used a custom survey, alpha scores over 0.8 indicate that the internal consistency of the main factors is fairly reliable.
Procedures
This exploratory study is quantitative and correlative, taking data collected from the surveys and converting it into quantitative factors that were statistically analyzed to determine relationships between organizational responses and employee loyalty, engagement, and satisfaction. A bespoke survey was designed to gather meaningful information that answers the specific research question. The instrument was reviewed and piloted as described in the Measures section, and feedback was used to enhance the survey.
The survey took approximately 15 minutes to complete and was active for 30 days. After the survey was completed, the data was automatically aggregated into SurveyMonkey. Responses were then exported into the software Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) to be sorted and reviewed. Subsequently, errors and discrepancies were considered, removed, and documented as necessary.
Data Management
All the results were presented in aggregate form to protect subjects’ identities. The software used for data analysis was accessible only by using a strong password known to the researcher. The dataset contained no coded identifiers and, as such, was completely anonymous. All electronic data was stored on an encrypted flash drive. No data was stored on any computer hard drive.
Results
Demographics
The study recruited 215 participants. Of this total, 198 fit all criteria for participation, and 127 fully completed the survey. The majority of participants presented were female (71.7%), white (89%), Christian (72.4%), and married (61.4%). All participants were high school graduates, and 96.1% had some college education or degree, such as a bachelor’s, master’s, doctorate, or vocational degree. Most respondents resided in Missouri (71.7%), and the remainder were distributed throughout the United States, with the exception of one participant from Canada. The most concentrated age range was between 30 and 38 years old (49.6%).
Most of the participants responded that at the time they became bereaved, they had been with their employer for less than five years (63.8%), were employed full time (87.4%), and worked for a company with more than 100 employees (61.4%). The most reported company type was for-profit (43.3%), followed by not-for-profit (15%) and then governmental (13.4%).
The respondents reported working for a wide range of industries and job types, including healthcare, education, design/engineering, finance, entertainment/hospitality, and retail sales, with the highest concentrations in education, healthcare, and finance. Participants’ position types ranged from administrative (8.7%), operational/front line (7.1%), customer-facing (14.2%), manual labor (4.7%), professional (21.3%), manager/supervisor (14.2%), and executive (3.1%).
Organizational Support Provided
About 30% of the respondents indicated no support was provided to them. Only 35% had access to an EAP, and 6% were provided counseling services. Table 1 highlights different methods of employer-provided support and reported prevalence.
The overwhelming majority of participants did not receive flexibility in workloads, but of the few who were provided some accommodation, 41% still did not feel ready to resume job duties when they did. Over 40% of participants did not feel that their employer allowed for comfortable grieving, which might suggest that respondents did not feel their grief expressions were satisfactorily supported. Just 44.8% of respondents felt that their post-loss workloads met their needs.
Acknowledgement of loss from coworkers and direct supervisors was frequently reported; however, acknowledgement from human resources and executives was much less. Just over a third of employees reported check-ins from the organization post-loss. The emotional impacts from support indicate that professional norms affect the bereaved; respondents reported they needed to appear composed and professional (47.2%), or felt they had to conceal grief expressions (32.3%) and return to normal (35.4%).
Impacts of Organizational Responses on Employee Engagement, Satisfaction, and Loyalty
Overall engagement levels declined as a result of organizational responses, and many participants are either indifferent or in disagreement with the post-loss engagement statements. It appears the most frequently selected level of agreement for all engagement items is "neither agree or disagree" which may mean bereaved employees are more apathetic, unmotivated, and/or unenthused, perhaps as a result of the care provided, but possibly as a side-effect of grieving. Agreement with loyalty and satisfaction items generally declined post-loss, albeit not as severely or consistently as engagement.
Around a fourth of the sample (26.8%) marked not applicable for their level of agreement concerning plans to stay with their pre-loss employer. Interestingly, just over half remain employed with their pre-loss employer, while just less than half no longer work for their pre-loss employer. An essential finding to note is that employers’ responses to and support of bereaved employees can produce a positive impact on how valued they feel, evidenced by more participants choosing “agree” for feeling valued post-loss than agreement with any other loyalty element, which may impact their decision to stay.
Nearly half of the participants (45.7%) expressed some level of disagreement, and another 20% were indifferent concerning feeling satisfied with how their employer reached out and distributed information about resources available. Although most of the sample (53.6%) reported that they are in some level of agreement concerning feeling supported by their employer post-loss, nearly 30% of participants reported disagreement to some degree. Over three-fourths of participants (75.6%) reported feeling supported by their co-workers, which may support the notion of work being a possible place for social support and that co-workers may seem like family. Many respondents (55.9%) suggested they are satisfied with the empathy that their employer provided; however, nearly half reported feelings of indifference or disagreement.
Multiple engagement, loyalty, and satisfaction items appear to be related, which may illustrate that employer grief support and responses impact how engaged, loyal, and satisfied the employee feels post-loss. Feeling satisfied with the empathy the employer showed is strongly correlated with feeling supported r(126)=.814, p=.000, feeling like the support met their needs r(124)=.855, p.000, and feeling valued r(127)=.714, p=.000. Feeling supported by the employer is moderately to strongly related to the employee feeling valued based on employer-provided support r(126)=.758, p=.000 and like their needs were met r(123)=.721, p=.000. The quality of employer support matching employee needs is strongly and positively correlated with the employee feeling valued as a result of the support r(124)=.777, p=.000, is moderately or strongly associated with increased feelings of loyalty r(124)=.703, p=.000, speaking highly of the employer support r(124)=.670, p=.000, heightened engagement r(124)=.676, p=.000, and being enthusiastic toward work r(123)=.668, p=.000. Feeling valued based on the employer support provided is strongly and positively correlated with other loyalty items and feeling engaged r(127)=.776, p=.000, or enthusiastic toward their work r(126)=.745, p=.000. Given the moderate to high and positive correlations discussed, it appears that organizational grief responses matter and could be effective in moderating the negative impacts of grief on employees.
Potential Impacts on Employers
Grief costs organizations through diminished engagement, loyalty, and satisfaction, and may be even more expensive when adequate support is not provided. These costs are illustrated through impaired capacity to perform job duties, increased absences, and separation from the employer. The effects of grief on employees’ productivity are illustrated through employees reporting not being able to perform at full capacity (pre-loss levels) upon returning to work. Generally, respondents perceived their ability to perform improved with time; however, many participants, even if just temporarily, felt their capacity to perform was affected. One interesting finding is that at the one-year mark, participants who felt very incapable of performing job duties increased. Reduced capacity could be indicative of presenteeism, but also shows enhanced support may be needed after the initial shock of loss to ensure employee safety and reintegration into work.
Absenteeism is illustrated as the majority of participants (66.1%) indicated they took leave beyond the bereavement leave provided for their loss. Within the first month post-loss, nearly half the participants (49.6%) reported taking between one to seven days, while 16.5% reported using more than eight days of leave. During the six months following bereavement, employees reported taking leave between one and seven days (38.6%), eight to fifteen days (14.2%), more than 15 days (3.1%), or over 30 days (3.9%) due to grief. This represents absenteeism costs to the organization and supports the idea that a few bereavement days do not support employee needs.
A slight majority (55.1%) of participants reported they still work for their pre-loss employer. Meaning, just less than half (44.1%) have separated from their pre-loss employer. Of the 56 employees who reported separation from their pre-loss employer, about 54% quit. Of the remaining participants who left their employer, 11% were terminated, 7% were furloughed, and 30% chose “other” as the reason for separating. Although it is inconclusive as to why the employees left, it highlights the possibility of employee turnover and related expenses. Ensuring employees feel supported and valued may improve retention, benefiting the employee, their team, and the organization as a whole.
Discussion
The findings of this research suggest that how employers react to and support employee grief may have a significant impact on how the employee feels about their job and organization post-loss. Since organizations require employees for their success and employees cannot avoid becoming bereaved and experiencing grief, this uncomfortable topic is worth discussing and researching. Further attention is warranted to better understand the impacts of grief in the workplace, the impacts of organizational responses on the workforce, and cost-effective interventions that can be easily adapted to moderate negative effects.
In line with prior research, most of the participants indicated they received bereavement leave between one to three days or up to a week of leave (Bauer & Murray, 2018). This may support the notion that organizational bereavement leave is more strategic than compassionate. The majority of participants reported taking additional days off to grieve, mirroring prior suggestions that the leave employers provide is insufficient (Wilson et al., 2020). Many respondents indicated that they did not receive a lighter workload post-loss and in the first month post-loss, only 42.5% of participants felt capable or very capable of performing job duties. This may illustrate some level of presenteeism, when an employee is present but not able to contribute at their best, costing the employer in productivity (Fox et al., 2014). Finally, less than half of employees remained with their pre-loss employer, which could cost organizations more in turnover and replacement costs than it would have to maintain the employee.
Future Research
Based on the results of this study, employers are still not providing the emotional support essential for the bereaved individual, affirming that professional grief responses remain unevolved, necessitating enhancements to bridge the gap between strategic and human needs. Since organizations need to maintain a profit to keep people employed and they want to retain quality employees, as it is expensive to replace them, it is important that employees remain engaged, loyal, and satisfied with the employer. Business continuity planning should consider the high probability of an employee experiencing loss and identify systems and resources necessary to cover essential business operations resulting from these types of life disruptions. Such plans could direct staff on how to address a grieving employee empathetically and effectively; share about available internal and external resources; provide guidance on check-ins and continued emotional support; and a continuity plan for job duties and flexible accommodations.
Of the participants who said their supervisor recognized their loss, approximately 45% reported not feeling satisfied with how the organization reached out and shared available resources. This may indicate that how an organization reaches out and shares information is insufficient. An inexpensive and fairly easy way an organization can support its bereaved employees is by checking in and supplying information that is accurate. Information should include offered resources as well as external support available to them. Companies could even partner with nonprofits that specialize in grief support or social support groups to provide free or low-cost, quality care to employees.
Other avenues for future research include exploring executives vs. non-executives’ perspectives on engagement, loyalty, and satisfaction in response to organizational bereavement support and responses; regional differences; part-time employees’ perspective of support; the attitudes of employees at large organizations as opposed to smaller organizations; and which types of reintegration processes moderate grief the most.
As the instrument for this study was custom-made, the reliability and validity of the survey should be retested. Future researchers could take some of the ideas from this study and create an instrument with variables that are easier to evaluate for more definitive conclusions. For example, instead of combining the independent variable with the dependent variable in one item and asking participants to mark their level of agreement with the item, the items could be separated to allow for more robust and unambiguous statistical analysis. This may clarify the results of the correlational analysis.
Limitations
The exploratory nature of this study is limiting, and the subject matter can be one that is undesirable to discuss. Although 215 people started the survey, the completion rate is relatively low, as 17 participants did not meet the criteria to fill out the survey, another 71 participants were eliminated from the final data set for not completing the demographic section or were removed for leaving multiple fields incomplete. Based on this information, the completion rate was about 60%. The level of confidence (95%) and margin of error (9%) is acceptable for an exploratory study, and further research involving a larger sample is suggested to reveal more nuances and connections between variables.
The sample is concentrated in Missouri (the researcher’s state of residence) and may not accurately represent the feelings of employees or the practices of organizations in other regions. The sample lacks diversity in ethnicity, gender, age range, and religious views, as the majority of participants are white, Christian females between 30 and 38 years old. Differing generational, gender, cultural, and spiritual views may not be captured in this sample. A larger and more diverse sample would provide more generality.
Additionally, the survey was completed through self-reporting and online methods. Although this method made it so the participants could complete the survey from anywhere, anytime, and is also cost-effective, there are some limitations. For example, some individuals may not be as tech-savvy and could have struggled with the online instrument. Other issues may be that the answers may not be reflective of the participants’ true feelings or experiences.
Due to the time the survey was administered, the impacts of COVID-19 may have skewed results, as current economic conditions may leave those with jobs feeling more loyal and willing to accept less than satisfactory conditions, given the weaker job market. During the pandemic, more of the workforce was remote than ever before, which may have skewed results concerning flexible working conditions and reintegration processes. Future research regarding the impact of grief on employees when given the option to work from home during a specified period of time would provide additional insights into whether the location of work has a moderating effect on the level and duration of the employee’s grief.
Conclusion
The most notable finding of this research is that the level of agreement with engagement, loyalty, and satisfaction items noticeably declined post-loss. Additionally, correlational analyses affirm that bereavement leave, reintegration accommodations, and provided support impact post-loss employee engagement, loyalty, and satisfaction, as positive and moderate to high associations between several variables were observed.
This study provides preliminary data that suggests the quality of an employer’s response and support for bereaved employees remains insufficient, as the majority of respondents reported needing to take time off in excess of the bereavement leave provided, not receiving flexible work accommodations, and that post-loss workloads did not meet their needs. There is also evidence that the quality of post-loss communication is inadequate, as almost half of the participants indicated they were not satisfied with how their organization reached out and shared information regarding available resources, and several were unsure if they even had access to formal support. Aligned with prior studies, professional and societal norms do appear to influence the strategic approach taken, as many participants felt they needed to suppress grief, return to normal, and appear professional. The results signify the importance of treating employees as humans and not pawns of productivity, as the organizational response and support of grief appear to impact how interested, satisfied, and loyal employees are in their work and to their organization post-loss.
Given the high costs to organizations, it is crucial that employers consider adopting a more proactive approach that prepares them for how to effectively respond to and support grief. The hope of this study is to help create a better understanding of grief in the workplace, illustrate how conventional responses to grief are largely inadequate, and subsequently cultivate improved and supportive working environments for a company’s most important asset: its people.