The Empirical Research on Professional Isolation During Remote Work in Context of COVID-19 and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Sequential Mediation Effect of Psychological Empowerment and Affective Organizational Commitment

While much has been studied about the positive and negative effects of discretionary remote work as an alternative work arrangement, little has been written about in the context of mandated remote work. The COVID-19 pandemic forced many organizations to impose remote work as a new mode of working arrangements. This abrupt change yielded positive and negative physical, social, and psychological outcomes. Drawing from the job demand and resource model and self-determination theory, this study examines the effects of professional isolation on organizational citizenship behavior, proposing the sequential mediation of psychological empowerment and affective organizational commitment as intrinsic motivators. An online survey was conducted. A total of 162 full-time remote workers (56 male (34.6%), 106 female (65.4%)) in Korea were analyzed. This study revealed that psychological empowerment and affective commitment fully mediate the relationship between professional isolation and organizational citizenship behavior. Contrary to expectation, however, the relationship between professional isolation and organization was found to be nonsignificant. Implications for practice, theory, and future research are discussed.


Introduction
With the recent advancement of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and the wide availability of high-speed internet, remote working, also known as teleworking or telecommuting, has become one of the popular work environments adopted by many companies (Allen et al., 2015). It has become the new norm adopted by many companies only after the outbreak of Covid-19. Prior to the pandemic, such working arrangement was limited to specific occupations or not widely preferred (Kossek & Lautsch, 2018). However, in the effort to contain the spread of the pandemic and minimize face-to-face interaction, there has been a dramatic surge of remote work, effectively changing the nature of work for many workers across the board. According to the recent data provided by Statistics Korea on labor participation rate (2021), the number of teleworkers was 503,000 as of the second quarter of 2021, signifying a 530% year-over-year (YoY) increase. In addition, the proportion of remote workers in total wage workers (20.22million) also increased from 0.5% to 2.5% in a year (Statistics Korea, 2021).
The abrupt shift to remote work has changed the workplace environment of many workers (Buomprisco et al., 2021). Given that the concept of the workplace includes work in a particular environment, relationships with members of the organization, and employees' personal lives (Solomon et al., 2006), the sudden transition to remote work has significantly impacted employees. As a result, corporations and their members sought to adapt to the new working environment, but concerns regarding the effectiveness of remote work still exist (Kwon, 2020;Bernstein et al., 2020).
Although numerous studies have examined the effects of remote work, only a limited number of studies on compulsory remote work exist (Lee, 2022;Lee & Jung, 2021). Specifically, existing research on remote work has been conducted in a situation where remote work is rarely practiced and has been limited to specific occupations (Wang et al., 2020). In other words, previous studies have limitations as they are not widely generalizable in that there may be significant differences in results due to various contextual factors such as differences in occupation, frequency of remote work, and voluntariness, resulting in selection bias (Lapierre et al., 2016).
Thereby, it is necessary to shift the focus to the situation where remote work is no longer a free discretionary choice by a compulsory requirement.
Among the major challenges caused by remote work, the most frequent consequence is isolation or disconnection from the organization (Harrington & Santiago, 2006). Isolation in the workplace refers to a condition caused by physical separation from professional peers while lacking mentoring and opportunities for professional interaction, collaboration, and development (Kutoane et al., 2021;Diekema, EunKyung Noh․Ki -Hak Lee / The Empi ri cal Research on Professi onal I sol ati on Duri ng Remote Work i n Context of COVI D-19 and Organi zati onal Ci ti zenshi p Behavi or: Sequenti al Medi ati on Effect of Psychol ogi cal Empowerment and Affecti ve Organi zati onal Commi tment -515 -1992). Despite the existing literature indicate the negative outcomes of professional isolation (Golden et al., 2008;Bauer & Silver, 2018) and the high possibility of remote work becoming the new normal in the post-COVID era (Prescott et al., 2022;Best, 2021), comparatively little research has addressed the professional isolation in the context of compulsory remote work, particularly in the context of Korea.
Consequently, the primary goal of the current research is to explore the effects of professional isolation during compulsory remote work on organizational performance.
The Job Demand-Resource (JD-R) model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) serves as a primary theoretical framework for the present study. JD-R model is a well-established and well-supported model in the field of occupational psychology to explain how working conditions affect employees' well-being and performances (Heckenberg et al., 2018;Lenthall et al., 2009).
Specifically, it was designed to explain which combinations of job demands and resources influence job-related outcomes (i.e., burnout and work engagement) through motivation and exhaustion. Due to its characteristics, the JD-R model is evaluated as a universal concept that can be applied in various occupational situations (Jones & Fletcher, 1996); thus, professional isolation caused by mandated remote work as a consequence of COVID-19, too, can be explained using the JD-R model as creating relevant job demands that influence employees' organizational performances. Furthermore, Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000) which demonstrates the relationship between the fulfillment of three needs -autonomy, competence, and relatednessand its performance outcome through the mediating role of motivation, is integrated into the present study as another framework to explain why professional isolation caused by perspectives (Organ, 1988). For that reason, the academic interests on OCB and its mechanisms have surged. contexts, either directly (Ibrahim & Aslinda, 2015) or through mediating role of organizational commitment (Noor, 2009;Kim et al., 2020). Both psychological empowerment (Saleh et al., 2020;Hepkema, 2011) and affective organizational commitment (Purnama, 2013;Farzaneh et al., 2014) (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Furthermore, a lack of resources impedes job demand and the achieving of work goals which evokes withdrawal behavior or reduced motivation/disengagement to prevent further energy depletion (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014

Self-Determination Theory
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) posits that employees have three needs: a need for autonomy, a need for competence, and a need for relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000).  Gajendran & Harrison, 2007) and experience increased productivity due to fewer distractions than office workers and less communing time ensuing higher self-competence (Kanellopoulos, 2011;Sherry & Salvador, 2002 Moreover, remote work traditionally had been considered the prerogative of high-skilled, high-paid, white-collar occupations (Tavares, 2017). Nonetheless, the outbreak of the

Professional Isolation
Professional isolation refers to a state of mind that occurs when one is physically separated from others in the workplace and perceives reduced developmental opportunities and executive compensation compared to onsite employees (Golden et al., 2008;Kurland & Bailey, 1999;Diekema, 1992). The relationship with members of the organizations, especially supervisors, plays a crucial role in attitudes and performance towards remote work (Gibson et al., 2002;Baruch, 2001 (Lee, 2020). Since the evaluations of employees tend to be determined by subjective evaluation of the supervisors, the notion that "being early at the office than others and frequently making face-to-face reports to the supervisors ensure promotions and increase in rewards" is prevalent (Lee, 2020). Due to this organizational culture, remote workers may perceive working from home negatively affecting the evaluation since they cannot display their efforts, loyalty, sincerity, and commitment to the organization (Lim, 2021).  Organ (1988), is defined as "individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization." OCB is an essential concept for an organization because it facilitates optimal organizational functioning and performances and contributes to an increase in organizational effectiveness without increase in labor cost (Organ, 1988;Van Dyne et al., 2000); hence, it plays a pivotal role during the COVID-19 pandemic as such a dire situation requires employees to improve organizational capabilities in coping with crisis (Braun et al., 2013).

Some behavioral examples of OCB include
working extra hours to help coworkers, following novel rules and policies willingly, and helping the new employee "learn the ropes" (Kane, 2014). These actions indicate that employees are noble and capable of working beyond their work roles, job descriptions, and obligations (Romaiha et al., 2019). A notable characteristic of OCB is that managers do not directly compensate for the behavior; likewise, problematic OCB cannot be punished directly (Moorman & Blakely, 1995). Therefore, recognizing such behaviors is critical to both organization and employees as it may affect the overall performances. In general, the consensus on OCB is that it is a constructive, self-initiated, and voluntary behavior that aims to strengthen the organization's efficiency without expecting rewards in return (Yadav & Rangnekar, 2015).
OCB is a multi-dimensional construct (Smith et al., 1983;Podsakoff et al., 2000). Early OCB was recognized as a two-dimensional construct that consisted of altruism and generalized compliance (Smith et al., 1983). Organ (1988) later reconstructed its dimensions into five factors: altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy, sportsmanship, and civic virtue. Altruism refers to selfless behaviors aimed at helping others solve problems and do their tasks.
Conscientiousness demonstrates behavioral patterns of going beyond their formal job descriptions to improve individuals' and groups' efficiency.
Courtesy reflects on considerate behavior towards others to reduce the impact of the problems, and sportsmanship behaviors include tolerating impositions and inconveniences without complaining. Lastly, civic virtue is defined as taking an active interest in the organizations (e.g., reading emails, keeping abreast with organizational issues).
For example, while some studies which hypothesized the positive relationship between remote work and OCB due to its benefits (e.g.,
(2009) has shown that there is no relationship between remote work and OCB.
Moreover, little to no empirical research has investigated professional isolation during remote work and its relationship to OCB (Kane, 2014), especially in the context of compulsory remote work due to COVID-19. Regarding the relationship between remote work isolation and OCB, qualitative studies confirmed that physical separation and isolation are negatively related to discretionary-related behavior (Kurland & Cooper, 2002;Cooper & Kurland, 2002). Furthermore, Kane (2014) revealed that the relationship between remote work and OCB might not directly be mediated by professional isolation.
However, professional isolation mediated the relationship between the frequency of remote work and OCB.
Although there are limited research that examined the direct relationship between professional isolation and OCB, related studies on professional isolation revealed its association performance outcomes such as job satisfaction (Bauer & Silver, 2018;Bauer & Brazer, 2013), work performance (Mulki et al., 2008;Golden et al., 2008), turnover intentions (Orhan et al., 2016;Ahuja et al., 2002), and job engagement (Bentein et al., 2017). These findings indicate that OCB which is also a performance outcome can be negatively affected by professional isolation.
Consistent with these previous studies, this study proposes that professional isolation during compulsory full-time remote work is negatively associated with OCB.

Psychological Empowerment
Psychological empowerment refers to employees' intrinsic motivation to perform tasks reflecting a sense of self-control concerning one's work and an active engagement with one's work role (Spreitzer, 1995). The concept of psychological empowerment is rooted in empowerment theory (Rappaport, 1987) which highlights the importance of encouraging the contribution of individuals within a community to meet their needs and defend their rights (Lee, 2001;Farzaneh et al., 2014). Based on empowerment theory, Spreitzer (1995)  well on their tasks (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990), and self-determination is defined as the 'individual's independence in the initiation and continuation of tasks' (Spreitzer, 1995). Lastly, impact connotes individuals' perceived influence on their organization through their performances (Farzaneh et al., 2014). In other words, employees with high psychological empowerment tend to view themselves as independent, self-determined, and influential within the organization and in their tasks.
Although there is a dearth of research examining the relationship between professional isolation and psychological empowerment, previous literatures related to the psychological empowerment highlight the importance of employees' perceived work conditions. Existing literature suggests that remote work is inextricably linked to psychological empowerment (Colnaghi, 2021;Ollo-López et al., 2020;Naotunna & Zhou, 2016). Work settings where employees have development opportunities act as a job resource that increases motivation (e.g., empowerment) (Hackman & Oldham, 1976;Ryan & Deci, 2000). Intrinsic motivations attend to affective and cognitive components while Past research on remote work has demonstrated that as remote workers view themselves as 'free workers' who are independent, autonomous, and flexible, breaking away from oppressive employment practices (Donnelly, 2006;Knell, 2000), they tend to exhibit higher psychological empowerment than onsite workers (Redman et al., 2009). Though considering these past studies were conducted when remote work was a discretionary option, employees experiencing professional isolation due to compulsory remote work are likely to experience the converse, disempowerment. Psychologically empowered employees tend to exhibit more robust work engagement (Bhatnagar, 2012;De Villiers & Stander, 2011), job satisfaction (Beauregard, 2012;Wang & Lee, 2009), organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (Li et al., 2017). Turnipseed and VandeWaa's (2020) study on psychological empowerment and OCB revealed that psychological empowerment is directly linked to OCB, which indicates that empowered employees voluntarily engage in OCB that benefit their collogues and organization without expensing organization's capital.
No known study has empirically assessed the mediating effect of psychological empowerment on the relationships between professional isolation and OCB. However, drawing from previous literature mentioned above that remote work environment that induces professional isolation negatively affects the psychological empowerment (Farzaneh et al., 2014;Ollo-López et al., 2020) and psychological empowerment positively affects the OCB (Bogler & Somech, 2004;Turnipseed & VandeWaa, 2020), the present study suggests that psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between the professional isolation and OCB.

Affective Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment is generally conceptualized as a psychological state that characterizes an employee's relationship with the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Specifically, it refers to an individual's tendency to actively participate in the organization's goals and values, identify oneself as a member of the organization, experience a sense of oneness within the organization, and incline to give efforts to the organization (Meyer et al., 1993). Thatcher et al. (2003) Meyer, 1990;Meyer & Allen, 1991).
Each of these can be categorized, respectively, as desire ('want to'), perceived obligation ('ought to'), and perceived cost of leaving ('need to') (Meyer et al., 2004). First, AOC to an organization represents emotional and psychological attachment to the organization and an individual's desire to remain with the organization. Second, NOC refers to a feeling of obligation to stay with the organization as a means of reciprocation for benefits received (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Third, COC is associated with an individual's perceived judgment over the cost of leaving the organization compared to that of remaining (Huselid & Day, 1991;Allen & Meyer, 1990).
In other words, it is the propensity to remain in the organization when financial, material, and psychological opportunities incurred by members leaving the organization are greater than when they remain in the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990).
However, the three-component framework of organizational commitment proposed by Meyer and Allen (1991) has always been a topic of controversy and dilemma in defining organizational commitment due to its confounding and fragmented results (Mercurio, 2015;Fischer & Mansell, 2009;Fornes, Rocco & Wollard, 2008;Stazyk et al., 2011). Thus, responding to Meyer and Herscovitch's (2001) call for finding a "core essence" of organizational commitment, Mercurio (2015) concluded that the core essence of organizational commitment is affective commitment, and future research should focus on its lens to affective organizational commitment only. Therefore, the current study focuses on affective organizational commitment as a distinct construct rather than distinguishing it as a three-component construct.
Affective organizational commitment (AOC), as mentioned above, is defined as "the employee's emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization' (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Employees who exhibit high levels of AOC tend to be more productive and less likely to quit, while employees who are low in AOC are more likely to miss work and engage in counterproductive behaviors such as theft, sabotage, and aggression (Morrow, 2011;Meyer & Allen, 1997).
Organizational commitment is an intervening attitudinal construct, mediating between the antecedents and consequences (Iverson, McLeod, Erwin, 1996;Wiener, 1982). Paul et al. (2016) have proven that commitment plays a mediating role in facilitating the antecedents of OCB. In addition, according to Meyer and Allen (1997), employees are more committed if they are given "an opportunity to do important and challenging work, to meet and interact with interesting people, and to learn new skills and develop as a person." Furthermore, since psychologically empowered employees are apt to view themselves as self-governed, capable of performing their tasks, and influential within the organization, they are more inclined to respond by being more committed to their organizations (Spreitzer, 1996;Linden et al., 2000). Honold

Participants and Procedures
The data was collected from employees who are currently on remote work or have experience of remote work after the COVID-19 outbreak and mandated remote work was imposed, using a self-report questionnaire administered online   Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of participants.

Professional Isolation
Professional isolation was measured using the 4-items scale developed by Harrington and Santiago (2006), which was established based on Teo et al.'s (1998)

Measurement Model
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to demonstrate the discriminant validity of latent constructs included in the theoretical model. The item parceling technique (Little et al., 2013) was applied to OCB and psychological empowerment because the use of parceling results in the estimation of fewer model parameters and therefore results in a more optimal variable to sample size ratio and more stable parameter estimates, particularly with small samples (Bandalos, 2009;Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998;Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994).  Bentler & Bonett, 1980;Tucker & Lewis, 1973), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR; Bentler, 1995). An RMSEA value of <.05 indicates a "close fit," <.08 suggests a reasonable model-data fit, and <.10 indicates acceptable fit, and for CFI and TLI values of >.90 indicate adequate fit and > .80 indicates acceptable fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1992;Hu & Bentler, 1999). SRMR value of less than .08 suggests an acceptable fit, and less than .05 indicates a "close fit" (Bentler, 1995

Structural Model
Goodness-of-Fit The present study examines the mediation effects of psychological empowerment and AOC on the relationship between professional isolation and OCB. The goodness of fit of the structural model is presented in Table 5. The structural model based on the previous findings was found to be suitable for the data.

Direct effect between variables
The path coefficient according to the structural model of this study's model is shown in figure 2, and the path coefficient and significance level are presented in Table 6.

Mediation
The bootstrapping method was performed to   Furthermore, our result is also well-supported by the revised JD-R model (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), which highlights the role of the work engagement variable as a mediating variable between the job demand and its outcome. Another notable finding should be outlined.
As specified in the hypotheses above, this study supposed that professional isolation will predict low psychological empowerment and that low psychological empowerment will lead to low organizational commitment, which will, in turn, can gain confidence about their ability to perform their work (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2005), increased perceived control (Menon, 2001), less stress and burnout (Oyeleye et al., 2013;Schermuly et al., 2011). From the organization's perspective, they can expect lower absenteeism and turnover intentions (Bester et al., 2015;De Villiers & Stander, 2011;Peachey, 2002), increased work engagements (Bhatnagar, 2012;Gong et al., 2020), commitment (Aggarwal et al., 2018Avolio et al., 2004) and heightened job performance and therefore increased organizational citizenship behavior (Sajjad et al., 2011;Singh & Singh, 2018). Although this approach may seem superfluous, considering the conventional JD-R model posits that job demand and job resources provoke two separate processes, redefining the term was inevitable to explain how job demand leads to a decrease in motivation -rather than a strainand thereby results in a negative outcome. This study contributes to the JD-R model in that it jointly studied two seemingly separate processes.