This study contributes to HRM scholarship in three important ways. Firstly, at a conceptual level, it brings together the perspectives of POS and PSC to examine employee well-being as an organisationally shaped outcome within a digitally mediated university context. In doing so, the study extends existing scholarship that has typically examined these frameworks independently rather than in combination (Dollard & Bakker, 2010; Kurtessis et al., 2017; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). By positioning well-being within the intersection of organisational climate and employees’ interpretations of organisational practices, the study advances understanding of how institutional priorities and leadership behaviours are translated into everyday work experiences.

Secondly, the study makes an empirical contribution by offering large-scale qualitative insight into how staff experience organisational support within a South African distance-learning university. Research on employee well-being in higher education has frequently relied on quantitative survey approaches and has been dominated by studies conducted in Global North contexts. By contrast, this study provides contextually grounded qualitative evidence from a South African institution, thereby addressing an important gap in the literature (Abraham et al., 2025; Dlamini & Dlamini, 2024; Naidoo-Chetty & Du Plessis, 2021).

Thirdly, the study contributes methodologically by demonstrating the analytical value of large-scale qualitative data derived from open-ended survey responses (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2019, 2021). Analysing narrative responses from a broad group of employees allows for the identification of shared patterns in how organisational practices are interpreted across occupational groups. This approach highlights how employees collectively make sense of leadership practices, communication processes and workload arrangements within organisational settings (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2019, 2021; Joyce et al., 2022).

Within HRM scholarship, employee well-being is increasingly conceptualised as an organisational outcome shaped by leadership practices, work design and institutional systems rather than solely by individual factors (Kinman & Johnson, 2019; Nielsen & Randall, 2013). Organisational frameworks such as POS and PSC provide useful lenses for examining how organisational priorities and everyday management practices shape staff well-being in digitally mediated work environments (Dollard & Bakker, 2010; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

The purpose of this study was to explore how academic and professional staff at a distance-learning university perceive and experience organisational support, and how these perceptions relate to employee well-being within a digitally mediated work environment. The study sought to examine how organisational support is understood and interpreted by staff, analyse how leadership practices, communication processes and recognition contribute to well-being, and explore how organisational climate and everyday work practices shape well-being in South African distance-learning higher education.

Within HRM scholarship, employee well-being is increasingly understood as an organisational outcome shaped by work design, leadership practices and institutional systems. Human resource management functions such as workload management, performance systems, communication structures and access to resources influence employees’ psychosocial demands and everyday work experiences (Kowalski, 2017; Savanevičienė et al., 2025). Research in higher education similarly demonstrates that supportive leadership, equitable workload allocation and effective communication are associated with more positive staff experiences, whereas fragmented leadership and weak support structures contribute to strain and burnout (Kleynhans et al., 2025; Naidoo-Chetty & Du Plessis, 2021). Contemporary research emphasises that well-being emerges through organisational systems, leadership practices and everyday work processes (Bhoir & Sinha, 2024). Core HRM functions, including workload management, performance systems, communication structures and access to support, play a central role in shaping employees’ psychosocial demands and work experiences (Savanevičienė et al., 2025).

This organisational framing is particularly salient in contexts characterised by sustained performance pressure and extensive digital mediation. As expectations of availability, responsiveness and flexibility become embedded within routine organisational practices, sources of strain are often normalised (Kelliher & Anderson, 2010; Mazmanian et al., 2013).

South African HRM research reflects increasing attention to these organisational influences (Kleynhans et al., 2025; Naidoo-Chetty & Du Plessis, 2021). Conversely, fragmented leadership, limited communication, and weak support structures are linked to poorer employee outcomes (Kleynhans et al., 2025; Van der Merwe & Olivier, 2024).

In higher education, organisational influences on well-being are particularly pronounced. Academic and professional staff operate within environments shaped by expanding enrolments, constrained resources and increasing administrative demands (Dlamini & Dlamini, 2024). Although universities increasingly acknowledge well-being as an institutional concern, responses have frequently prioritised individual level interventions such as counselling or resilience training, with less attention to organisational factors that shape daily work experiences (Mbabazi, 2024).

Distance-learning universities further intensify these organisational dynamics. Digitally mediated work arrangements, geographic dispersion and limited opportunities for informal interaction shape how organisational support is accessed and interpreted by employees within institutional environments (Douglas et al, 2025; Komljenovic, 2025). In such contexts, leadership behaviour, communication practices and locally enacted HR processes become critical indicators of organisational care, with variability in implementation contributing to uneven well-being experiences across organisational units (Dlamini & Dlamini, 2024; Mbabazi, 2024).

Perceived organisational support reflects employees’ interpretations of organisational actions as indications that their contributions are valued and their well-being is considered (Kurtessis et al., 2017; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). These perceptions develop through everyday interactions, leadership behaviour, fairness, access to resources, participation opportunities and recognition, rather than through formal policies alone (Kurtessis et al., 2017; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

Research consistently demonstrates positive associations between higher POS and outcomes such as job satisfaction, organisational commitment, engagement and psychological well-being, while lower POS is associated with emotional exhaustion and withdrawal (Kurtessis et al., 2017; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Importantly, perceptions of support are shaped by the enactment of HR practices in daily organisational life, positioning leadership responsiveness, communication quality and consistency as central to employees’ lived experiences of organisational care (Kurtessis et al., 2017; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

Psychosocial safety climate directs attention to organisational-level governance of psychological health. Psychosocial safety climate refers to shared employee perceptions regarding the extent to which psychological health is prioritised and supported through organisational leadership and governance structures (Dollard & Bakker, 2010; Idris et al., 2011).

Organisations characterised by strong PSC demonstrate visible leadership commitment, credible communication, opportunities for employee participation and clear accountability for managing psychosocial risks (Dollard & Bakker, 2010; Idris et al., 2011). Empirical research indicates that PSC functions as an upstream organisational condition shaping job demands, access to resources and exposure to harmful work practices. Where PSC is weak, high workloads and psychological strain may become normalised (Dollard & Bakker, 2010; Idris et al., 2011).

While POS and PSC function at different analytical levels, together they offer a useful lens for understanding how organisational intentions translate into employee experience (Dollard & Bakker, 2010; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Perceived organisational support captures how employees interpret routine organisational actions as signals of care and value, while PSC reflects the organisational infrastructure through which psychological health is prioritised and governed (Idris et al., 2011; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

Together, these frameworks enable an examination of how organisational intentions are translated into employees’ lived experiences of support or strain. This integrated perspective is particularly relevant within digitally mediated university environments, where institutional priorities and everyday work experiences may diverge (Komljenovic, 2025). Addressing gaps in the literature, this study explores how academic and professional staff at a South African distance-learning university experience organisational support and psychosocial safety, contributing contextually grounded insight into organisational approaches to employee well-being within higher education (Du Plessis, 2020; Kinman & Johnson, 2019; Moyo, 2021).

To strengthen theoretical integration, it is important to clarify how PSC influences employee experience. Psychosocial safety climate refers to an organisational-level governance condition reflecting the extent to which psychological health is prioritised through leadership expectations, resource allocation and accountability structures (Dollard & Bakker, 2010; Idris et al., 2011). When well established, these priorities are reflected in organisational practices such as clear communication, consistent leadership behaviour and structured workload management (Dollard & Bakker, 2010; Joyce et al., 2022). In contrast, weaker PSCs often produce inconsistent practices and uneven experiences across units (Idris et al., 2011; Nielsen & Randall, 2013). These conditions influence POS and consequently, employee well-being (Kowalski, 2017; Kurtessis et al., 2017; Naidoo-Chetty & Du Plessis, 2021; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

Figure 1 illustrates how PSC operates as an upstream organisational condition, shaping everyday organisational practices that are interpreted by staff as organisational support, with implications for well-being outcomes.

The study was undertaken at a large public distance-learning university in South Africa, where teaching, learning and administrative functions are primarily delivered through digitally enabled systems. Academic and professional staff conduct most of their work via learning management platforms, electronic communication tools and online service environments. These arrangements contribute to working conditions characterised by geographically dispersed teams, sustained digital interaction and fewer opportunities for informal engagement.

Within this setting, organisational practices including leadership communication, coordination of work activities and workload allocation play a central role in shaping employees’ perceptions of organisational support and well-being. The digitally mediated nature of work also requires continuous responsiveness to students, colleagues and institutional processes, influencing how staff interpret organisational expectations and available support in their daily work context. To ensure institutional confidentiality and protect participant anonymity, the university is not named and identifying contextual details have been omitted.

The study sample comprised 840 employees from a large South African open distance-learning university. A stratified random sampling approach was used, whereby staff were grouped into academic and professional categories and participants were randomly selected proportionally within each group. Academic staff represented 49% of the sample (n = 416), while professional and administrative staff accounted for 51% (n = 424). Most participants were aged 31–45 years (39%, n = 320), followed by those aged 46–56 years (36%, n = 296). Employees aged 57 years and older comprised 21% (n = 190) of the sample, while 4% (n = 34) were under 30 years of age. Regarding gender, 65% identified as female (n = 580) and 33% as male (n = 260). One participant identified as non-binary and four respondents chose not to disclose their gender. In terms of racial identification, 58% of participants identified as black African people (n = 515) and 31% as white people (n = 276). Smaller groups identified as mixed race people (5%, n = 21) and Indian people (4%, n = 17), while 11 respondents did not disclose their race.

Data were gathered through an anonymous online questionnaire distributed electronically to both academic and professional staff members. The instrument included structured Likert-scale items designed to measure various aspects of employee well-being, as well as three open-ended questions intended to obtain deeper insights into participants’ perceptions of organisational support and staff well-being. These qualitative items encouraged respondents to reflect on their experiences related to leadership practices, organisational communication and workplace conditions that influence their well-being. Participants were invited to respond to the following questions: (1) What strategies do you use to sustain your personal well-being in the workplace? (2) Which factors within your work environment affect your overall health and well-being? and (3) What recommendations would you propose to enhance staff well-being within the institution?

Responses were submitted electronically and securely stored on institutional systems. To ensure confidentiality, all data were anonymised before analysis, and no personally identifiable information was collected.

Qualitative responses were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis in accordance with the six-phase framework proposed by Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke (2006, 2019, 2021). Of the 840 survey participants, 820 provided written responses to at least one open-ended question, forming the qualitative dataset for this study. The analysis commenced with repeated reading of the responses to develop familiarity with the data and to identify preliminary patterns of meaning.

An inductive coding approach was applied, whereby responses were examined line by line to identify references to organisational practices, leadership behaviour, communication processes, workload experiences and perceptions of institutional support. Although the dataset included 820 responses, the objective of thematic analysis was not to quantify responses but to identify patterns of shared meaning across participants’ accounts. Several responses highlighted similar organisational issues, including workload governance, leadership support and communication practices. Through iterative coding and comparison across the dataset, approximately 90–100 initial codes were generated and subsequently grouped into broader interpretive categories. These categories were progressively refined into three overarching themes that captured the dominant patterns of meaning across the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2019, 2021).

Coding was conducted manually using a spreadsheet to organise responses and document code development. Analytical rigour was supported through the maintenance of an audit trail detailing coding decisions and theme development, while reflexive memos were used to record emerging interpretations and reflections on the researcher’s positionality. Analytical sufficiency was reached when further coding did not produce substantively new insights (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2019, 2021).

Reflexivity formed an important component of the analytical process. As the researcher holds an academic position within the institution, careful attention was given to managing potential insider bias. An audit trail documenting coding decisions and theme development was maintained throughout the analysis, and reflexive memo-writing was used to critically examine how prior organisational knowledge might influence interpretation. The researcher did not occupy a managerial or supervisory role in relation to participants, helping to minimise potential power dynamics and support analytical transparency.

Ethical approval for the study was obtained through the institution’s formal research ethics processes the Department of Organisation Psychology, and from the University Senate Committee, University of South Africa (Ref. No. ERC 2020_CEMS_IOP_024) and (Ref. No. 2024_RPC_019). Participation was voluntary, and informed written consent was obtained electronically. All responses were anonymised to protect participant confidentiality. Findings are presented using a thematic narrative format, supported by illustrative quotations that foreground staff perspectives while maintaining anonymity.

Participants from both academic and professional staff groups described increasing workload pressures as a persistent aspect of organisational life within the institution. Many respondents attributed these pressures to structural factors such as staffing levels, workload allocation systems and institutional performance expectations rather than to individual time-management capabilities (Kinman & Wray, 2013; Vostal, 2016). Academic staff frequently referred to the cumulative demands associated with teaching, administrative responsibilities and performance requirements. For example, participants described an ‘excessive, continuously increasing workload’ and ‘academic workload [and] unrealistic expectations’ (Academic staff, Participant 34, age 46 years, female). One academic participant further emphasised the intensity of these pressures, describing the situation simply as ‘workload, workload, workload’ (Academic staff, Participant 199, age 51 years, male). Professional staff reported comparable experiences but often associated workload pressures with resource constraints and staffing shortages. Statements such as ‘workload [and] lack of resources’ (Professional staff, Participant 47, age 33 years, male) illustrate these concerns, while another respondent referred to a combination of ‘work demand’ and ‘administration [and] micro-management’ (Professional staff, Participant 56, age 34 years, female). Some participants also linked these pressures to broader organisational capacity challenges. One academic participant referred to the ‘teaching workload [and] barriers to employing tutors’, which increased the burden on staff responsible for large student cohorts (Academic staff, Participant 600, age 32 year, female). Participants additionally highlighted blurred boundaries between work and personal time, including a ‘lack of boundaries in relation to work emails’ (Professional staff, Participant 720, age 42 years, female) and the ‘constant pressure to be available’ (Academic staff, Participant 650, age 30 years, female).

Participants from both academic and professional staff groups reported uneven experiences of communication, employee voice and managerial support across organisational units. Opportunities for participation and recognition appeared inconsistent and often depended on departmental leadership practices rather than institution wide norms (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Several respondents indicated limited involvement in organisational decision-making. For instance, one professional staff member remarked that ‘No one listens’, while an academic participant noted that ‘decisions are made without consulting staff’ (Academic staff, Participant 400, age 45 years, female). Similarly, the statement that ‘staff are not valued’ (Professional staff, Participant 212, age 40 years, female) suggests that consultation processes were sometimes perceived as symbolic rather than genuinely participatory.

Communication practices were also highlighted as problematic. Participants referred to unclear messaging, including ‘poor communication from management’ (Academic staff, Participant 239, age 35 years, male) and situations where ‘you raise concerns, but nothing changes’ (Professional staff, Participant 401, age 35 years, male). Another academic respondent emphasised the need to ‘close the communication gap between academics and top management’ (Academic staff, Participant 262, age 37 years, female).

Perceptions of organisational support were frequently linked to immediate supervisors, with supportive leadership experiences often described as department-specific rather than institutionally consistent.

Participants from both academic and professional staff groups frequently framed employee well-being as a shared organisational responsibility shaped by leadership practices, workforce planning and HRM systems. Rather than emphasising individual coping strategies, respondents highlighted the importance of institutional structures and governance processes in supporting staff well-being. These views align with organisational support and PSC theories, which emphasise how organisational systems influence employees’ psychological work environments (Dollard & Bakker, 2010; Eisenberger et al., 1986).

Staffing capacity and workload governance were repeatedly identified as key organisational determinants of well-being. Participants suggested that sustainable workloads depend on institutional planning and appropriate resource allocation. For example, one academic participant recommended that the institution should ‘appoint more permanent academics to carry the workload’ (Academic staff, Participant 291, age 40 years, female). Similarly, a professional staff member proposed that the organisation should ‘reduce workload and unrealistic KPIs’ (Professional staff, Participant 500, age 45 years, female), while another emphasised the need for ‘better staff planning and more support for existing staff’ (Professional staff, Participant 322, age 36 years, male).

Leadership capability and recognition practices were also viewed as critical organisational mechanisms. Participants emphasised that supportive supervisors play an important role in creating a positive work environment. For instance, one respondent highlighted the need for ‘recognising the work that staff do’ (Professional staff, Participant 300, age 38 years, male), while another suggested that managers should ‘support staff more and communicate openly’ (Academic staff, Participant 468, age 52 years, male). Together, these responses indicate that staff well-being is strongly influenced by organisational systems governing workload, leadership practices and recognition.

Across the three themes, staff well-being emerged as closely linked to organisational arrangements and leadership practices within the university. Workload governance, communication processes and managerial behaviour were consistently identified as key mechanisms shaping how organisational support was experienced. At the same time, variation in local leadership practices contributed to uneven experiences of support across organisational units. Together, these findings highlight how everyday organisational practices influence staff well-being within digitally mediated university environments.

The study utilised qualitative data from open-ended questions included in a large-scale online staff well-being survey at a South African distance-learning university. This approach allowed academic and professional staff to describe experiences of organisational support and well-being in their own words, providing insight into everyday work within a digitally mediated context. Data were analysed using thematic analysis, with attention to organisational arrangements, leadership practices, communication processes and workload management. Interpretation was guided by organisational support and psychosocial safety perspectives. Ethical principles, including informed consent, voluntary participation and confidentiality, were upheld throughout the research process.

From a conceptual standpoint, this study contributes to HRM scholarship by illustrating how PSC operates as an organisational governance mechanism that shapes the enactment of everyday organisational practices, which employees subsequently interpret as signals of organisational support (Dollard & Bakker, 2010; Idris et al., 2011; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). By demonstrating how leadership behaviour, communication practices and workload governance influence staff experiences, the findings extend existing theory by showing how organisational climate is translated into employee experience through the local implementation of HR practices (Joyce et al., 2022; Nielsen & Randall, 2013). In this regard, employee well-being emerges as an outcome of organisational systems and governance arrangements rather than individual coping capacity, contributing to HRM and organisational climate research in higher education contexts (Kowalski, 2017; Naidoo-Chetty & Du Plessis, 2021).

From a practical HRM perspective, the findings highlight several organisational levers through which staff well-being can be strengthened in digitally mediated university environments. These include HR governance mechanisms that regulate workload expectations and communication practices, workforce planning processes that influence staffing capacity and role design, and leadership capability frameworks that guide people management practices.

The study relied on written survey responses rather than interviews, limiting depth but enabling broad participation. Conducted at a single institution, findings are contextually rather than statistically generalisable. Future research could adopt mixed methods, longitudinal or comparative designs.