Coping strategies of skilled
seasonal workers during COVID-19 - case ski instructors
Tiia Nordström
Tourism Marketing and Management University of Eastern Finland
Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies Business School 25.6.2020
University of Eastern Finland, Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies Business School
Tourism Marketing and Management
Nordström, Tiia E. : Coping strategies of skilled seasonal workers during COVID-19 - case ski instructors
Thesis 72 pages, references 15 pages, appendices 1 page Thesis instructors: Nelli Heiskanen, Raija Komppula June 2020
Keywords: coping strategy, coping, COVID19, skilled seasonal worker, ski instructor, resilience
Abstract
COVID19 has changed tourism industry radically, and it has taken its toll on tourism workforce.
One group of individuals especially affected by the pandemic are skilled seasonal workers, who are highly invested in their career yet are unable to work. Little is known about how tourism workforce copes with the challenges of a global pandemic, and even lesser studied area are the coping strategies skilled seasonal workers apply.
This study was conducted to increase the understanding of how skilled seasonal workers have been coping during the COVID19 pandemic. The study was carried out as a qualitative case study focusing on ski instructors. Data was collected through 11 semi-structured interviews with
experienced ski instructors during April and May 2021.
The findings suggested the ski instructors seemed to have coped reasonably well with the overall situation. The coping strategies the ski instructors applied changed, mostly contrary to previous findings, from emotion-oriented strategies to more problem-focused strategies as the pandemic continued. Resilience was also found rather high in this group, which in turn led to more efficient coping and less intentions of occupational change.
Contents
1 Introduction ... 1
1.1 Background of the study ... 1
1.2 Gaps and previous research ... 3
1.3 Objectives and research questions ... 5
1.4 Key concepts ... 6
2 Theoretical background ... 8
2.1 Skilled seasonal workers ... 8
2.2 Coping ... 10
2.2.1 Coping strategies ... 12
2.2.2 Coping with unemployment during a global pandemic ... 14
2.2.3 Coping with job insecurity ... 18
2.2.4 Long-term coping ... 19
2.2.5 Occupational change ... 20
2.2.6 Stressors ... 21
2.2.7 Factors affecting stress and coping ... 22
2.3 Summary of the theoretical framework ... 31
3 Methodology ... 34
3.1 Research approach ... 34
3.2 Data collection ... 35
3.3 Data analysis ... 39
4 Findings ... 41
4.1 Background and experiences as a ski instructor ... 41
4.2 Ski instructors coping during COVID19 ... 43
4.2.1 The emerge of the pandemic ... 43
4.2.2 The coping strategies applied ... 45
4.2.3 Perceptions of future ... 53
4.3 Stressors ... 55
4.4 Resilience ... 59
4.5 Overall perceptions about coping during the pandemic ... 61
5 Discussion and conclusions ... 62
5.1 The main findings ... 62
5.2 Theoretical conclusions ... 67
5.3 Managerial implications ... 68
5.4 Evaluation of the research ... 69
5.5 Suggestions for future research ... 71
References ... 73
List of tables
Table 1. Coping strategy dimensions and indicators developed in previous research Table 2. Different categorization of unemployment coping strategies
Table 3. Stressors identified in previous research
Table 4. Scales for measuring resilience adapted from Campbell-Sills and Stein (2007), Connor and Davidson (2003) and Smith et al. (2008)
Table 5. Coping strategies of previous research divided into problem-focused and emotion- focused strategies
Table 6. Dates and durations of the interviews
Table 7. Background information about the interviewees
Table 8. The situations the interviewees in the beginning of the pandemic Table 9. Coping at the early stages of the pandemic
Table 10. Coping at later stages of the pandemic
Table 11. How the interviewees see their future as a ski instructor Table 12. Stressor experienced by the interviewees
List of figures
Figure 1. Summary of the identified research gap
Figure 2. The Cognitive-Relational Model of Stress adopted from Lazarus & Folkman (1984) Figure 3. Cognitive-Relational Model of Stress by Lazarus & Folkman compared to resilience models by Richardson (2002) and Fletcher and Sarkar (2013)
Figure 4. Summary of the theoretical framework
Appendices
Appendix 1. The interview questions
1 Introduction
1.1 Background of the study
Since early 2020, the world has been shaken by a force called COVID-19. The declaration of a global pandemic in March 2020 (WHO, 2020) shook the tourism industry by bringing
international travel to a standstill (Gössling et al., 2020). World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) has estimated a possible loss of 100 to 120 million tourism jobs (UNWTO, 2021a), and as experts estimate the tourism demand to reach or exceed the pre-pandemic levels in 2023-2024 at the earliest (UNWTO, 2021a), the situation is not necessarily going to change any time soon. The tourism workforce is forced to turn to other industries for work opportunities, some are lost temporarily and some for good. The difficulty of finding workers has been an issue in the tourism industry for a long time (Baum et al., 1997; Chan & Kuok, 2011; Riley et al., 2002), and the challenge of finding motivated seasonal workers and retaining them for season after season is even more substantial (Amelung et al., 2007; Jolliffe & Farnsworth, 2003; Lundberg et al., 2009;
Rantala et al., 2019). Furthermore, as mobility is a fundamental part of work in tourism, and many destinations are highly dependent on migrant workforce during the peak seasons (Ericsson et al., 2020; Hudson & Cross, 2007) the travel restrictions are extremely challenging.
One of the occupations that are greatly affected by the decline in visitor numbers through loss of customers and therefore income are highly skilled seasonal workers, especially those who have invested in their careers by educating and training themselves to work in special conditions. A group of such are ski instructors working in ski resorts worldwide. Ski instructors are a highly skilled group of professionals (Thorpe, 2017), whose occupation demands physical presence and direct contact with the customer (Nozawa et al., 2019). Ski instructors are not only responsible for providing quality services and experiences to their customers, but also for doing so in a safe, professional and educative manner. As studies suggest, skilled and experienced employees are a crucial factor in creating and enhancing e.g. business performance and competitive advantage (Grønholdt & Martensen, 2019; Kusluvan et al., 2010), and given the seasonality-related
challenges of tourism industry in employee recruitment (Butler, 2001; Chen & Wang, 2015), retaining loyal and motivated employees is extremely important (Alverén et al., 2012; Araslı &
Arıcı, 2019; Lee & Moreo, 2007).
The work of ski instructors is seasonal by nature due to the environmental limitations, mainly the need for snow and winter conditions (Pegg et al. 2012). While the winter season 2018/19 was the best of the millennium and the growth in ski resort visitor numbers had been steady for several years (Vanat, 2020), the pandemic has taken its toll even on outdoor activity destinations.
For example, the National Ski Areas Association (NSAA) reported a 14% decline in visitor
numbers in ski resorts in the U.S. in season 2019/20, mainly due to premature closure of the ski resorts in mid-March 2020 (NSAA, 2020). In Europe, especially the Alpine region, the challenges have continued due to loss of customers in winter 2020/2021 as well (Hancock, 2020). Some ski- resorts, such as Ischgl in Austria, have even been claimed as COVID-19 hotspots (Felbermayr et al., 2020), which no doubt affects the image and attractiveness of ski destinations.
In this study, the actions of ski instructors during the COVID-19 pandemic are investigated through the coping strategies they apply. It has been learned from previous pandemics, virus outbreaks and major crises that individuals undertake different types of coping strategies and behaviours when experiencing external stressors (Karsavuran, 2020; Puterman, et al. 2009; Taha et al., 2014;). Furthermore, some previous research has suggested that job insecurity combined with the challenges of a pandemic could increase the intensions of occupational change (Spurk &
Straub, 2020). Understanding the coping strategies migrant skilled seasonal workers apply in this time of uncertainty may help employers to take informed actions in order to avoid excess
employee turnover and workforce loss in the industry.
In addition, research on the effects of the pandemic on tourism workforce is needed to be more prepared for the future. Understanding the perceptions and actions the workforce decides to take are critical in assessing and understanding the scope of impacts of the current pandemic and minimise the impacts of the future ones. As the world is more global than ever, there is a
strong possibility that similar pandemics and outbreaks will happen again in the future (Gössling et al., 2020; Rivera, 2020; Roche et al., 2020)
1.2 Gaps and previous research
Although the tourism industry is labelled as labour-intensive (Baum et. al., 2016) and employees are often considered to be the core of the success of tourism businesses (Baum, 2007; Kusluvan et al., 2010), the lack of research on tourism workforce is still evident (Ladkin, 2011; Rantala et al., 2019). At the time of writing this thesis, no research papers on the coping strategies of tourism workforce during the COVID-19 crisis have been published. Moreover, no research papers on the coping strategies of high-skill seasonal workers, such as ski-instructors, in any kinds of crisis situations have been published.
The general problem of the existent tourism workforce research being overly focused on the hospitality sector has been addressed by several researchers (Baum, 2007; Baum et al. 2016;
Ladkin, 2005). Previous research also underlines that coping is highly contextual (Elshaer &
Saad, 2017; Karsavuran, 2020) and that the nature of work in different sub-sectors of tourism industry is too diverse to make generalizations based on studies in a specific sub-sector (Robinson et al., 2019). Likewise, Ladkin (2005) underpins this by considering the difficulty of defining tourism employment due to the complexity of the industry. Karsavuran (2020) identifies the lack of research on coping strategies of tourism workforce specifically in crisis situations and point out the need for an exploratory approach. In addition, Wen et al. (2020) address the need for COVID-19 related studies in social sciences in order to understand the phenomenon and societal consequences comprehensively.
Majority of the currently published research related to employee coping strategies, stressors and well-being during and caused by the COVID-19 crisis is focused on healthcare professionals (Balasubramanian et al., 2020; Cai et al., 2020; Halayem et al., 2020; Haneen et al., 2020;
Labrague & de los Santos, 2020; Lorente et al., 2020; Noreen et al., 2020; Rigotti et al., 2021) or
mental health of the general public and workforce (e.g. Hennekam & Shymko, 2020; Park et al., 2020; Sameer et al., 2020). Also the coping strategies of destinations and businesses in COVID-19 context have been studied (Duarte Alonso et al., 2020; Pisano, 2020), as well as motivation, fear and anxiety related to the pandemic from traveler perspective (Magano et al., 2021; Rachmawati
& Shishido, 2020; Zheng et al., 2021).
When considering tourism workforce and coping strategy research, there are two main issues with the applicability of the results in the context of this study. Firstly, majority of the previous research on tourism employee coping strategies focuses on high-stress hospitality positions such as hotel frontline and service employees (Choi et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2018; Kim &
Agrusa, 2011; Law et al., 1995; Teoh et al., 2019; Tsaur & Tang, 2012; Wireko-Gyebi et al., 2017).
Hospitality occupations are often considered low skill jobs with low levels of relevant education and high rates of e.g. turnover (Hjalager & Andersen, 2001). Skilled and educated seasonal workers, such as ski instructors, on the other hand, tend to be more career motivated (Thorpe, 2017) and show lower rates of turnover (Hjalager & Andersen, 2001). Thus, the general
hospitality employee profile can be considered different from the skilled seasonal employees.
Secondly, the stressors considered in those previous studies are mainly internal (controllable), meaning they are caused by the strain of the job itself and the inner reactions and feelings of the individuals, whereas in this study the stressor, the possible loss of work and lifestyle, is external (uncontrollable). Research suggests different trends in the effectiveness of the applied coping strategies between internal and external stressors (Carver et al. 1989), and thus the results of the previous studies are not as such comparable or expandable to consider the possibly applied coping strategies in COVID-19 context.
Figure 1. Summary of the identified research gap
To conclude, as summarised in figure 1., there is an identified need for research on tourism workforce, especially on seasonal employees and even more specifically on skilled seasonal workers. In addition, there is a need for COVID-19 related research on employee behaviour, the results of which can then be compared and utilized in future research.
1.3 Objectives and research questions
The aim of this study is to increase the understanding of the behavioural patterns of skilled seasonal workers in the times of increased uncertainty and challenge due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The study is conducted from the perspective of a specific group of skilled seasonal workers: ski-instructors. Due to the lack of research, the effects that the pandemic has on ski instructors are unknown, and thus the main objective is to explore the phenomenon from the workforce perspective and possibly identify ideas for further research. The following research
questions have been reviewed and refined throughout the process, as the key to success in research are well-designed research questions (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008).
The main research question is:
- How have ski instructors been coping during the COVID-19 pandemic?
In addition to the main research question, the underlying topics and questions this study aims to find answers to are:
- How has the coping changed during the course of the pandemic?
- What are the actual stressors ski instructors have experienced during the pandemic?
- How is resilience demonstrated in this group?
- What are the outcomes of the coping processes and how they might affect the tourism industry?
1.4 Key concepts
Skilled seasonal worker
Skilled seasonal worker refers to an individual who has extensive experience or education in their profession, which they practice in a seasonal manner.
Ski instructor
In this study ski instructor refers to a skilled seasonal worker, who has several years of
experience of working as a qualified teacher at one or several ski schools, teaching any form of skiing or snowboarding.
Coping strategy
Coping strategies, sometimes referred to as coping skills or coping styles, are the psychological or behavioural efforts or actions that an individual takes to reduce stress caused by a specific stressor (Smith et al., 2016).
Stressor
A stressor can be defined as “anything that challenges an individual’s adaptability or stimulates an individual’s body or mentality” (Bhargava & Trivedi, 2018, p. 109). In this study the focus is on external, uncontrollable stressors, namely the insecure situation caused by the pandemic.
COVID-19 pandemic
COVID-19 refers to the general phenomenon that the outbreak of the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus has created globally. The virus was first detected in Wuhan, China on December 31st 2020, and has since spread across the world and led to a global health and economic crisis (Gössling et al., 2020, UNWTO, 2021b). Tourism as an industry has suffered severely from the effects of the pandemic. This study focuses on the effects the pandemic has had on tourism workforce.
2 Theoretical background
In the following chapter the previous literature on seasonal work and coping is reviewed.
2.1 Skilled seasonal workers
Tourism is a highly seasonal industry (Baum & Lundtorp, 2001; Hudson & Cross, 2007; Lundberg et al., 2009), and especially ski resorts are often dependent on temporary workforce during the peak season (Ericsson et al., 2020; Hudson & Cross, 2007). However, seasonality poses a
challenge when aiming to recruit motivated and skilled workers and retaining them season after season (Amelung et al., 2007; Hudson & Cross, 2007; Jolliffe & Farnsworth, 2003; Lundberg et al., 2009; Rantala et al., 2019). Outside the peak season the employees often face either off-season unemployment (Baum & Lundtorp, 2001; Lundtorp et al., 1999) or they may need to turn to other work opportunities in other industries or locations.
Migration is seen as a fundamental part of tourism workforce (Duncan et al., 2013; Janta et al., 2011). Migration, defined as the movement of individuals to countries they are not nationals of for work or any other reason (IOM, 2019), is a globally growing phenomenon, with the number of international migrants reaching over 280 million in 2020 (IOM’s Global Migration Data Portal, 2021). Although constantly changing location may pose challenges for career development (Baum, 2007), seasonal workers do not see migration as a burden but rather as an integral part of the career and one of the key aspects of the desired lifestyle (Benson & O’Reilly, 2009).
The ability to deal with constant instability and discontinuity of work contacts demands certain kinds of individual characteristics. Seasonal workers are considered a special group in tourism workforce research, as the motivations of seasonal workers tend to differ from other workers in tourism and hospitality (Ericsson et al., 2020). Although the economic side is naturally seen as a contributor to the motivation to work also amongst seasonal workers (Lee & Moreo, 2007), the main motivations are found to be maintaining a certain lifestyle, including the ability to combine work and leisure activities (Adler & Adler, 1999; Boon, 2006; Möller et al., 2014; Pegg et al., 2012),
gaining novel experiences (Adler & Adler, 1999), and the social aspects, such as meeting new people and forming friendships with colleagues (Adler & Adler, 1999; Lee & Moreo, 2007;
Lundberg et al., 2009).
Tourism is generally seen as a low skill industry (Baum, 2015; Riley et al., 2002), yet it is noted that seasonal workers do bring their own valuable experience and knowledge to the mix (Ericsson, et al., 2020). While it has been argued that work in tourism is shifting to even lesser skill jobs with increased routines and automation (Baum, 2007), some professions within the industry still demand high levels of skills and knowledge.
Although there is a very limited amount of research on ski instructors as a group of skilled seasonal workers, some things are known. In addition to the characteristics discussed in relation to seasonal workers in general, ski instructors are career-motivated, hard-working (Thorpe, 2017), achievement-oriented and independent (Bridgwater, 1982). They are committed and have invested in their careers in the snow sport industry (Thorpe, 2017). It is to be noted, however, that while for some working as a ski instructor is considered as the primary occupation and main source of income (Bridgwater, 1982), for others it may be an additional job to support other occupations (Stotten, 2020).
At the emerge of the pandemic in spring 2020, many ski resorts faced abrupt premature closures (Cove, 2020; Vanat, 2020). The ski instructors were left with no jobs and a significant decrease in estimated income. Furthermore, some ski resorts have since been deemed as COVID-19 superspreaders (Felbermayr et al., 2020; Hodcroft, 2020; Kreidl et al., 2020;
McLaughlin et al., 2020), which no doubt has affected the image of all ski resorts and might even have long term effects on the popularity of such destinations. For the winter season 2020/2021, news channels have reported that many ski resorts have remained closed (Fulton, 2021;
McKenzie, 2021; Rizzo, 2020), with no working opportunities for any of the seasonal workers in the various operations that the resorts include.
COVID-19 is not the first time that travel restrictions impact the careers and practices of skilled snow sport professionals, as during the economic crisis several individuals did have difficulties in attaining a visa to migrate to the United States (Thorpe, 2017). Yet, the current pandemic does bring forth excessive amount of long-term insecurity in a much larger scale. Whereas previous documented challenges regarded only some countries, the current situation is concerning the whole world.
2.2 Coping
Literature presents different approaches to coping. The main line of research seems to consider coping as a stable result of individual personal traits, whereas others follow more of a state- based approach and see coping as a process (Julkunen, 2001; Ridder, 1997; Waters, 2003). These are also discussed as situational and dispositional approaches (Carver et al., 1989). Some of the issues of the dispositional, trait-based approach are that it does not consider the changing environment, it sees coping as a linear flow and arguably mixes the process of coping with the outcome of coping (Waters, 2003). If we were to assume that coping is more trait-based than state-based, we would consider an individual to apply the same type of coping strategy
throughout the stressful event. However, several authors have addressed the idea of coping as a dynamic process, rather than an outcome (e.g. Aldwin, 2007; Julkunen, 2001; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Waters, 2003). Some of the most cited authors in coping research, Lazarus and Folkman (1984), define coping as “constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person” (p. 141). This emphasizes coping as a circular process, where the coping efforts may affect the environment and the cognitive appraisal of what is perceived a stressful.
To continue, the Cognitive-Relational model of Stress (presented in Figure 2) developed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984) argues that individual’s reactions to a stressful situation can be divided into three processes: primary appraisal, secondary appraisal, and coping. In primary appraisal something is perceived as a threat, and in secondary appraisal the individual
formulates a potential response to the threat. The execution of that response is called coping.
The ways of coping of an individual may change as the situation unfolds, meaning that the perceived threat is constantly challenged by reappraisals. (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984)
Figure 2. The Cognitive-Relational Model of Stress adopted from Lazarus & Folkman (1984)
Waters (2003) builds on this definition and emphasizes the need to consider the possibilities of coping changing not only from person to person, but also within a situation, especially in a prolonged stressful event such as unemployment or a global pandemic. Consistent with the previous, Aldwin (2007) divides coping into three models, reductionist approach, interactionist approach and transactionist approach, where the latter regards coping as a bi-directional
process where not only the environmental stressor and personal traits affect coping, but coping can respectively affect the environment and personal traits.
2.2.1 Coping strategies
Coping strategies are the systems of psychological or behavioral efforts or actions that
individuals take to reduce stress caused by an intolerable situation (Smith et al. 2016; Huang et al., 2018). In other words, coping strategies are the ways in which individuals try to reduce the negative outcomes of a stressful situation. These can be physical actions and behaviors or psychological attitudes and thoughts. According to Lazarus & Folkman (1984) coping strategies are used to either change or eliminate the stressor, or to manage the emotional response caused by the stressor.
A great number of studies discuss different coping strategies and suggests that the strategies an individual applies when perceiving a stressor can be classified into different dimensions. In Figure X. some of the most used coping strategy dimension divisions are presented. Folkman &
Lazarus (1980) initially identified only two categories, problem-focused and emotion-focused, but have in later studies (1985, 1988) acknowledged also other dimensions such as wishful thinking, seeking social support, distancing and positive reappraisal (as cited in Parker & Endler, 1992).
Carver et al. (1989) considered several strategies, which can be summarized in five dimensions:
problem-focused, emotion-focused, venting of emotions, behavioral disengagement and mental disengagement. Amirkhan (1990) classified coping strategies in his study into problem-solving, seeking social support and avoidance, and finally, Endler & Parker (1990) used the dimensions of task-oriented, emotion-oriented and avoidance-oriented coping. Each of these authors have developed, based on their research, their own coping strategy indicators which include different scales to measure the determined coping dimensions. These are also presented in table 1. These indicators have in later research been reviewed (e.g. Monzani et al., 2015; Ridder, 1997) and refined (e.g. Carver, 1997).
Table 1. Coping strategy dimensions and indicators developed in previous research.
Author(s) Coping strategy dimensions Indicator
Folkman & Lazarus (1980) Problem-focused Emotion-focused
Ways of Coping Checklist (WCC)
Carver, Schreier & Weintraub (1989)
Problem-focused
Emotion-focused Venting of emotions Behavioral disengagement Mental disengagement
COPE inventory
Amirkhan (1990)
Problem-solving
Seeking social support Avoidance
Coping Strategy Indicator (CSI)
Endler & Parker (1990) Task-oriented coping Emotion-oriented coping Avoidance-oriented coping
Multidimensional Coping Inventory (MCI)
Endler & Parker (1994) Task coping Emotion coping Avoidance coping
Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS)
What most researchers seem to agree on is the fundamental idea of dividing the strategies into two major categories: the strategies that focus on doing something about the stressful situation (task-oriented, problem-focused, problem-solving) and the strategies that focus on addressing and reducing the negative emotions caused by the stressful situation (emotion-focused, emotion-oriented).
Interestingly, although in majority of the research it is found that problem-focused or task- oriented coping styles would be most efficient in reducing stress (Huang et al., 2018), based on their reviews, several researchers (Carver et al., 2003; Langens & Mose, 2006; Smith et al., 2016) suggest that in case of an uncontrollable stressor, emotion-oriented and avoidance-oriented coping strategies might prove more efficient. Yet, as Lazarus and Folkman (1984) note, in
addition to the applied coping strategy itself, the outcomes and perceived effectiveness are also dependent on several other factors, such as personality and type of threat, and thus none of the strategies can be considered as universally the most effective.
2.2.2 Coping with unemployment during a global pandemic
The conceptualization of coping as a state-based, constantly changing process is especially fitting when investigating events that are prolonged, insecure and changing, such as unemployment (Waters, 2003) or the situation with the ongoing pandemic (Kuntz, 2021). Leana et al. (1998) elaborate on Lazarus and Folkman’s thoughts on coping strategies and add that in the case of unemployment, the efforts to eliminate stress are directed at either gaining re-employment or regaining psychological well-being after losing a job.
Unemployment has serious and proven effects on psychological, social and economic wellbeing (Blustein et al., 2020; Kuisma, 1994; McKee-Ryan et al., 2005; Moorhouse & Caltabiano, 2007;
Nordenmark & Strandh, 1999), and the effects may vary between individuals (Artazcoz et al., 2004; Backhans & Hemmingsson, 2012; Patton & Donohue, 1998; Reine et al., 2004).
Furthermore, a global pandemic is associated with high level of uncertainty, stress and intensified levels of grief and loss, and thus the effects of unemployment during the time of pandemic may cause even stronger strain on wellbeing (Blustein et al., 2020; Kuntz, 2021; Wang et al., 2020). In addition to the decrease in mental wellbeing, some of the key effects of
unemployment include financial difficulties and challenges in maintaining a social life (Blustein et al., 2020; Lin & Leung, 2010; Patton & Donohue, 1998), loss of confidence and fading motivation (Patton & Donohue, 1998) and challenges in handling even small disturbances in daily and routine events (Lin & Leung, 2010)
When comparing coping with unemployment with the general coping theories and literature discussed earlier, it can be seen, that the coping strategies individuals use, and the identification of those strategies, vary significantly between studies. The unemployment research often does not seem to follow the strict, predetermined scales of the different coping indicators, but establishes own ways of classifying the strategies. Supportive of this notion, also Karsavuran (2020) and Julkunen (2001) address the challenges in identifying a specific set of strategies from the unemployment literature.
Different categorizations of the strategies in some of the unemployment literature are presented in table 2. Leana et al. (1998) divided the strategies into problem-focused and symptom-focused, which was followed by Karsavuran (2020). Lin and Leung (2010) considered active job search and denial. Julkunen (2001) made a division into direct, indirect, alternative, problem-focused and emotion focused coping. Langens and Mose (2006) called the categories productive and nonproductive, whereas Patton and Donohue (1998) considered the strategies from the perspective of their effects on positive well-being and negative well-being. Although varying greatly between studies, there is still a somewhat visible pattern of a broad division into two, problem-oriented and emotion-oriented strategies, which does follow the division in the coping strategy research in general.
Table 2. Different categorization of unemployment coping strategies
Author(s) Coping strategy categorization
Leana, Feldman & Tan (1998) Problem-focused strategies
- Searching for re-employment - Seeking retraining
- Seeking to relocate Symptom-focused strategies
- Seeking social support - Seeking financial assistance
- Becoming active in community programs to help others Patton & Donohue (1998)
Positive effects on well-being
- Keeping busy
- Having a positive outlook - Religious faith
- Re-evaluating expectations Negative effects on well-being
- Keeping busy - Emotional release - Withdrawal
Julkunen (2001) Direct strategies
- Job seeking - Activation Indirect strategies - Housework - Sports - Culture
Socializing
Alternative strategies - Voluntary work - Taking care of children Problem-focused strategies
- Having more time for family - Having more time for hobbies - Freedom to use time as pleased Emotion-focused strategies
- Lack of accomplishments
- Problems in planning for the future - Losing confidence
- Being financially dependent on others - Feeling isolated
Langens & Mose (2006) Productive strategies - Active coping - Planning
- Positive reframing
- Seeking instrumental and emotional support Nonproductive strategies
- Denial
- Behavioral disengagement - Substance abuse
- Self-blame - Venting emotions Lin & Leung (2010) Active job search
- Focusing all time and energy on the job search - Talking to people who can help in job search) Denial
- Trying not to think about the unemployment - Thinking that time will sort things out
- Thinking that others have survived similar events too - Thinking that it is not the end of the world
Karsavuran (2020) Problem-focused strategies - Job search
- Moving into another sector - Retraining
- Plans for geographical relocation Symptom-focused strategies
- Economic measures - Casual work - Social support - Leisure activities
An issue with some of these studies is, however, that they focus solely on the goal of being re- employed and evaluate the applied strategies based on that. Although studies have proven that
gaining re-employment increases the mental well-being of individuals (see McKee-Ryan et al.
2005), it has also been argued that gaining re-employment is not always up to the individual, as for example labor market forces and demand play a great role in employment possibilities (Fryer
& Fagan, 1993). Furthermore, being overly committed and engaged in job search and
nonetheless being unsuccessful in gaining re-employment might be even more damaging for the individual’s mental well-being (Fryer & Fagan, 1993; Ribton-Turner & De Bruin, 2006). In the current study and situation, where re-employment for ski instructors is extremely hard especially if wanted to stay on the career, re-employment might thus not be the best indicator of
successful coping.
Although earlier it was stated that due to the complex nature of the coping process, no strategy can be proven to be most effective with all individuals in all situations, previous research does indicate some strategies to be more efficient in coping with unemployment than others. Based on their review, Langens and Mose (2006) suggest that productive strategies in dealing with unemployment include active coping, planning, positive reframing and seeking both
instrumental and emotional support, and nonproductive strategies denial, substance abuse, venting of negative emotions, self-blame and behavioral disengagement. The study by Kinicki and Latack (as cited in Waters, 2003) investigated the coping strategies of unemployed
individuals during a period of time and found that the ones that blamed themselves for the unemployment were more likely to use active strategies, whereas the ones that felt being unemployed was not their fault were more likely to turn to emotion-oriented strategies.
Furthermore, in contrast to the overall findings of coping strategy research, in context of unemployment, previous studies have indicated that emotion-focused strategies, such as distancing, would have more positive effects on mental health (Lai & Chan, 2002; Lin & Leung, 2001), whereas problem-focused strategies, such as actively searching for a new job would negatively affect mental health (Julkunen, 2001; McKee-Ryan et al. 2005). These support the previous mentions of uncontrollable stressor resulting more often in effectiveness of emotion- oriented coping strategies. Although there is also critique towards the assumption that searching for a job would cause negative effects on mental health (Lin & Leung, 2010), based on all of the
above it can be proposed that coping with unemployment due to the current pandemic could be expected to result in more emotion-oriented strategies, meaning attempting to alleviate the stress caused by the insecure situation rather than focusing all energy on trying to find a new job.
2.2.3 Coping with job insecurity
In addition to facing unemployment, another concept related to the current situation for ski instructors may be the overall insecurity of the employment situation. It is even argued that job insecurity might sometimes be more stressful than actual job loss (Sverke et al., 2002). Whereas when dealing with job loss the applicable coping strategies may be clear for the individual, in an uncertain situation it might be difficult to know what to do (Sverke et al., 2002). In COVID-19 context, job insecurity is found to be one of the main stressors (Aguiar-Quintana et al., 2021), as no-one knows how the situation will unfold.
Research on job insecurity often deals with its relation to employee’s work performance and mental health (e.g. Aguiar-Quintana et al. 2020; Shin & Hur, 2019; Shoss et al., 2018) and increased turnover intentions caused by job insecurity (Sverke et al. 2002). This study is
concerned with the latter as an outcome of coping: does the insecure situation increase turnover intentions as a coping strategy amongst skilled seasonal workers. Because of the fundamental seasonal fluctuation and instability in workforce demand, turnover rates tend to be generally high in tourism industry (Baum, 2007). However, while long-term job insecurity does generally result in even higher turnover intentions (Sverke et al. 2002), it is also argued that amongst educated tourism professionals, turnover intentions tend to be significantly lower (Hjalager and Andersen, 2001). Job insecurity might also cause dissatisfaction with the employer (Shoss et al., 2018), which in turn could lead to increased turnover intentions.
One of the key aspects in determining employee wellbeing is the voluntary choice of seasonal career (Bernhard-Oettel et al., 2013). As becoming a ski instructor, where a certain level of insecurity is evident due to the seasonal nature of the profession, is a conscious and voluntary
decision, the individual is most likely prepared for some fluctuation and discontinuity in the work contracts. In addition, practicing the profession demands extensive training and often certain qualifications (Thorpe, 2017), and thus ski instructors could be assumed to be highly motivated and willing to stay on the career.
2.2.4 Long-term coping
The findings of unemployment research support the assumption that, as an individual does not generally habituate to being unemployed (Langens & Mose, 2006), the coping strategies applied may change during the course of unemployment (Leana et al., 1998; Patton & Donohue, 1998;
Raito & Lahelma, 2015). Correspondingly Waters (2003) criticizes the view of linear and stable disposition and argues that coping should be considered as a more complicated process, where the coping styles may differ especially in a long-term stressful situation such as prolonged unemployment and insecurity. It has also been found that, in addition to changing strategies, an individual may apply several coping strategies simultaneously (Leana et al. 1998; Lin & Leung, 2010, Waters, 2003).
The length of unemployment is positively related to financial and experiential deprivation (Brief et al., 1995), decline in individual’s self-esteem and confidence (Ribton-Turner & De Bruin, 2006) and even guilt about the prolonged unemployment (Patton & Donohue, 1998). Langens and Mose (2006) studied long term unemployment and its effects and found that the longer the duration of employment, the more likely an individual will turn to nonproductive coping
strategies. Likewise, it is found that longer period of unemployment has a negative association with the activeness in job search (Raito & Lahelma, 2015; Sojo & Guarino, 2011). Leana et al.
(1998) propose that individual’s initial reaction to losing a job can have significant influence on how they further cope with the unemployment. This is supported by the findings by Leana and Feldman in 1992 (as cited in Leana et al. 1998), where It was found that individuals who initially react to job loss pessimistically are in the long run more likely to turn to symptom-focused strategies to relieve stress, as they do not seem to have the energy to pursue problem-focused
strategies. On the other hand, when job loss is greeted with optimism, an individual is more likely to keep actively engaging in finding a new job.
Langens & More (2006) also pose the dilemma of short-term benefits and long-term
consequences, where an unemployed individual might be tempted to use less productive coping strategies to alleviate the immediate stress, since the productive long-term oriented strategies, such as looking for a new job, might not be as effective in terms of immediate relief. Patton and Donohue (1998) found similar behaviors by identifying a group of unemployed individuals who, although aware of the existence of constructive coping strategies, were overly affected by negative emotions and thus unable to engage in these constructive strategies. In contrast, the results by Grossi (1999) indicate that the distress would decrease in case the unemployment lasted over three years.
2.2.5 Occupational change
Bethmann (2013) argues that longer unemployment period is more likely to result in
occupational change, and that this change will more likely negatively affect the socioeconomic status of the individual. Economic crises enhance occupational mobility, and the specific restrictions connected to a pandemic may have even long-term effects on the demand and status of certain occupations (Kramer & Kramer, 2020). There are two types of occupational change: voluntary change is often motivated by factors such as job satisfaction and increased income, whereas involuntary change happens when an individual loses their job due to a variety of factors, such as decreased demand in the industry, not necessarily related to the individual themselves (Markey & Parks, 1989). This would suggest that the longer the unemployment continues, the likelier the individual is to turn to extreme coping strategies, such as changing their career, to gain re-employment.
Although in high-skill professions occupational change is rarely considered even when faced long-term unemployment (Raito & Lahelma, 2015), the ongoing pandemic has changed the demand for tourism workforce radically. As most of the ski resorts have remained closed for the
winter season 2020/2021 due to the global travel restrictions (Fulton, 2021; McKenzie, 2021;
Rizzo, 2020), changing occupation might, at the moment, be the only possibility for ski instructors to gain re-employment.
2.2.6 Stressors
To fully understand the coping process, it is essential to understand the stressors that
individuals experience during the stressful event (Huang et al., 2018; Waters, 2003). However, there is still a limited amount of research that attempts to identify the actual stressors that individuals perceive in an unemployment situation. Some authors consider job insecurity, job loss and unemployment as stressors themselves (e.g. Klehe et al., 2012), while others underline the need to consider the specific stressors more in depth (Waters, 2003).
A stressor is defined as “anything that challenges an individual’s adaptability or stimulates an individual’s body or mentality” (Bhargava & Trivedi, 2018, p. 109). Stressors are determined by individual’s appraisals and thus might differ both between individuals and between situations (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Related to coping strategies, stressors are often divided into internal and external (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), or controllable and uncontrollable (Carver et al., 1989), and different types of stressors lead to different types of coping strategies (Waters, 2003).
Furthermore, while coping changes throughout the process, the stressors may change too (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Waters, 2003). This was demonstrated in figure 2. As the environment is constantly reappraised, after a certain period of time, some stressor might become less
stressful, and some might emerge anew.
Saxena and Gautam (2020) studied employee wellbeing and the stressor affecting mental health during COVID-19 and concluded the main stressors to be isolation, work pressure, job insecurity, financial insecurity, risk of infection, worry for family and general uncertainty. Tambling et al.
(2021) studied the stressors related to COVID-19 and developed their own 23-item stressor scale with three categories: infection-related, daily routine-related and resource-related stressors.
Ribton-Turner and De Bruin (2021) identified the main categories of stressors in long-term unemployment context: declining financial resources, psychological, mental and physiological
distress, change, futility of life, frustration, social perceptions and the impact on family. These findings are presented in table 3.
Table 3. Stressors identified in previous research
Author(s) Stressors
Saxena & Gautam (2020) Isolation, job insecurity, risk of infection, financial insecurity, worry for family and friends, uncertainty and work pressure
Ribton-Turner & De Bruin (2006)
Declining financial resources, psychological stressors (depression, anxiety, panic attacks), physiological (sleeping issues, increased blood pressure), change (globalization, technology, aging), futility of life, frustration from lack of use of skills, mental (declining self-worth and self- efficacy), social (stigma of being unemployed, isolation), family impact (inability to fulfill responsibilities)
Tambling, Russell, Park, Fendrich, Hutchinson, Horton & Tomkunas (2021)
Infection related stressors (risk of becoming infected self or loved ones, stigma and shame related to infection, uncertainty of quarantine requirements), daily-routine related stressors (change in daily routines, cancellation of planned events, inability to travel, pressure of finding a “silver lining”) and resource related stressors (loss of job security or income, potential changes in global economy, difficulties in accessing resources such as health care and food, inability to access reliable information about COVID-19).
The stressors related to the current study are assumed to be a combination of COVID-19 related, unemployment and possibly insecurity related stressors. Based on the abovementioned studies, financial difficulties are awaited to be a critical stressor, together with stressors related to
psychological wellbeing and uncertainty in general.
2.2.7 Factors affecting stress and coping
The coping process is influenced by many individual differences and characteristics (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1985; Leana et al. 1998; McKee-Ryan et al. 2005). What often is related to coping
strategy research is the concept of individual resilience (e.g. Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013; Smith et al.,
2016; Sojo & Guarino, 2011). Thus, this study will focus, in addition to coping strategies and stressors, on how resilience is demonstrated in the case of migrant ski instructors. Later in this chapter also other factors that may affect the coping process are discussed.
Resilience
Resilience is often considered as a moderating and protecting factor when individuals encounter stressful situations (e.g. Aguiar-Quintana et al., 2021; Lorente et al., 2020; 2021; Shoss et al., 2018; Sojo & Guarino, 2011). Some consider resilience as a psychological coping resource (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013; Hu et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2016), others as a sort of a coping mechanism itself (Havnen et al. 2020; Richardson, 2002).
Psychological resilience is defined as individual’s ability to respond (Rutter, 1987), recover and adapt (Smith et al., 2008) to environmental stressors and turn even the negative events into positive outcomes (Connor & Davidson, 2003; Masten, 2001; Shoss et al., 2018).
Based on his reviews on previous research, Richardson (2002) developed a theory of resilience as a process. The Metatheory of Resilience includes different stages that individual goes through when encountering different events or disruptions in life. Richardson (2002) notes, that in order to grow as a person, to develop resilience, regular disruptions are necessary: without
disruptions followed by resilient reintegration, the cycle where even the same stressors bombard and disrupt the individual continues.
Although the earlier discussed Lazarus & Folkman (1984) talk about coping and Richardson (2002) about resilience, there is a significant similarity in the processes. This suggests that resilience and coping may be somehow intertwined.However, these theories have been also criticized and the overlap of those two concepts, coping and resilience, questioned.
Although Fletcher and Sarkar (2013) highlight Richardson’s Metatheory of Resilience in their
review, they also strongly criticize its perceived close relation to coping. Whereas Richardson (2002) considers resilience as a process similar to Lazarus & Folkman’s (1984) Cognitive-relational model of stress, Fletcher & Sarkar (2013) view resilience as an alternative to applying coping strategies, meaning that resilience comes to play already at the appraisal stage of a potentially stressful event. Although considering resilience mainly from a psychological, trait-based point of view, Fletcher and Sarkar (2013) do acknowledge its changing and evolving nature. According to Fletcher and Sarkar (2013), a difference between coping and resilience is that resilience
contributes only to the positive responses to a potentially stressful situation, whereas coping can result in either positive or negative outcomes.The comparison of the three concepts is
demonstrated in figure 3.
Figure 3. Cognitive-Relational Model of Stress by Lazarus & Folkman compared to resilience models by Richardson (2002) and Fletcher and Sarkar (2013)
For the sake of clarity and reasonability in terms of theories, concepts and scope, in this current study resilience is considered more as a personality trait and a supporter for coping, rather than a comparable process.
Measurements for resilience
Researchers have developed different scales to measure trait-based resilience. The 25-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale was created to answer the need for a simple and generalizable measure of resilience (Connor & Davidson, 2003) and was later refined into an even shorter and simpler, 10-item version (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007). Smith et al. (2008) summarized the previously found factors that affect resilience to a 6-item Brief Resiliency Scale. The factors of these three scales are presented in table 4. In these quantitative oriented studies resilience is measured with self-evaluated qualities, where ability to adapt to change, quick recovering from stress, consideration of stressful events as opportunity, high self-esteem and believing in own abilities (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007; Connor & Davidson, 2003; Smith et al., 2008), seem to be the key attributes.
Table 4. Scales for measuring resilienceadapted from Campbell-Sills and Stein (2007), Connor and Davidson (2003) and Smith et al. (2008)
Connor-Davidson Resilience scale (CD-RISC)
10 item version of CD-RISC
The Brief Resiliency Scale (BRS)
Connor and Davidson (2003) Campbell-Sills and Stein (2007) Smith, Dalen, Wiggins, Tooley, Christopher and Bernard (2008)
1. Able to adapt to change 2. Close and secure relationships 3. Sometimes fate or God can help 4. Can deal with whatever comes 5. Past success gives confidence for
new challenge
1. Able to adapt to change 2. Can deal with whatever comes 3. Tries to see humorous side of
problems
4. Coping with stress can strengthen me
1. I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times 2. I have a hard time
making it through stressful events (reverse)
6. See the humorous side of things 7. Coping with stress strengthens 8. Tend to bounce back after illness or
hardship
9. Things happen for a reason 10. Best effort no matter what 11. You can achieve your goals 12. When things look hopeless, I don’t
give up
13. Know where to turn for help 14. Under pressure, focus and think
clearly
15. Prefer to take the lead in problem solving
16. Not easily discouraged by failure 17. Think of self as strong person 18. Make unpopular or difficult
decisions
19. Can handle unpleasant feelings 20. Have to act on a hunch 21. Strong sense of purpose 22. In control of your life 23. I like challenges
24. You work to attain your goals 25. Pride in your achievements
5. Tend to bounce back after illness or hardship 6. Can achieve goals despite
obstacles
7. Can stay focused under pressure
8. Not easily discouraged by failure 9. Thinks of self as a strong person 10. Can handle unpleasant feelings
3. It does not take me long to recover from a stressful event
4. It is hard for me to snap back when something bad happens (reverse) 5. I usually come through
difficult times with little trouble
6. I tend to take a long time to get over setbacks in my life (reverse)
As stated by Ungar (2003), however, approaching resilience from a quantitative perspective has its issues and limitations. Often, it is challenging to predetermine which are the relevant risk factors and protective factors regarding a specific research question. Thus, the factors presented above in table 4 may be used as a guideline when analyzing the resilience identified in the
current study, simultaneously keeping an open mind to factors outside of these scales that might demonstrate resilience in the studied individuals.
Effects of resilience
Smith et al. (2016) and Hu et al. (2015) found that resilience was strongly associated with higher levels of positivism and life satisfaction, and lower levels with anxiety and stress. Furthermore, in Smith et al.’s (2016) study, high personal resilience indicated the use of productive task-oriented strategies. Chen and Lim (2012) considered resilience as an important factor of psychological capital, which was in turn positively related to both problem-focused and symptom-focused strategies. Also Sojo and Quarino (2011) had similar results: in their sample of unemployed individuals, lower rates of resilience led to higher percentage of emotion oriented coping strategies with negative outcomes, and higher rate of resilience led to more positive outcomes, even with the use of emotion oriented strategies. In another study related to unemployment and resilience, Moorhouse and Caltabiano (2007) found that while resilience overall did work as a protective factor for negative outcomes of unemployment, in long term unemployment and active job search the effect of resilience diminished significantly. The studies by Shoss et al.
(2018) and Aguiar-Quintana et al. (2021) showed that resilience as a psychological trait
moderated the negative effects of job insecurity. In context of a global pandemic, psychological resilience has been found to moderate the effects of stress both after SARS epidemic (Bonanno et al. 2008) and COVID-19 (Havnen et al. 2020).
Rutter (1987) underlines that resilience should not be considered as a fixed attribute of an
individual, as it is highly circumstantial. In addition, Shoss et al. (2018) propose that resilience can be trained and Havnen et al. (2020) suggest that in order to survive future pandemics or other similar highly stressful events, it would be important to improve the resilience skills of
individuals.
Other factors affecting stress and coping
Based on a review on the literature, some of the other factors that affect the coping process are discussed below. These factors are the ones that have most frequently come up in the literature, however, as coping is identified as a complex process varying between individuals, they are by no means the only possible factors affecting the coping process.
Demographic factors
Some studies have identified linkages between the demographic factors of the respondents and the level of stress or used coping strategies. Unemployment tends to have a stronger effect on males (Artazcoz et al., 2004; Raito & Lahelma, 2015), and that whereas being married increased the stress of the situation for men, for women marriage acted as a buffer (Artazcoz et al., 2004).
Related to COVID-19, studies have found that females tend to experience more stress and anxiety towards the globally insecure situation in general (Park et al., 2020; Sameer et al., 2020;
Wang et al., 2020). In their study on hospitality workers and work-related stressors, Kim & Agrusa (2011) found that women, as compared to men, were more likely to engage in avoidance-
oriented coping strategies, and that older age and experience increased the tendency to use task-oriented strategies.
However, in some other studies the demographic factors were found non-influential (Lin &
Leung, 2010) or only slightly influential (Grossi, 1999; Leana et al. 1998) in relation to the applied coping strategies. These finding indicate that there is something else that is affecting the coping of individuals, and that demographic factors are not expected to play a major role in the current study.
Perceived financial strain
McKee-Ryan et al. (2005) discuss perceived financial strain and conclude it to be one of the key factors affecting the appraisal of unemployment as a stressful situation. McKee-Ryan et al. (2005) also notes that financial strain as a subjective factor has a higher correlation with mental well- being than financial strain as an objective factor. This means that individuals with the same objective amount of savings and expenses might perceive the situation very differently. Similarly Julkunen (2001), as well as Borgen et al. (2002), found that financial difficulties had a strong relation to negative experiences of unemployment.
Coping resources
According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), coping resources are the perceived abilities and conditions that an individual has to handle a stressful situation. These abilities are considered as factors that precede and influence the coping process and can be either internal or external.
Several studies have identified categories for classification of the resources an individual might have, although Lazarus and Folkman (1984) do underline that due to the abundance of different situations and individuals, and the combinations of those, it would be impossible to address all of the possibly existent resources.
The coping resources identified by Lazarus and Folkman (1984) are health and energy, positive beliefs, problem-solving skills, social skills, social support and material resources. Based on their meta-analytic review McKee-Ryan et al. (2005) established four broader categories of coping resources, which were considered relevant in an unemployment situation. Personal resources refer to internal resources, such as self-perceptions, perceived control of situations and a variety of personal characteristics. Social resources consist of the external support and social interaction that buffer the perceived stressfulness. Financial resources are the monetary assets, such as overall household income, savings or liquid assets, that an individual possesses. The fourth category, time structure refers to individual’s ability to organize their time and keep up with routines. Borgen et al. (2002) identified categories that affected the unemployment experience positively, and these could be considered as coping resources as well. The identified factors were educational benefits such as offered courses to upgrade skills, possibilities of continued
employment within the industry (e.g. through relocation), increased contact with friends and family, financial assistance such as government aids and other types of governmental support.
Social support is emphasized as one of the most important resources when coping with unemployment (Borgen et al., 2002; Kuntz, 2021; McKee-Ryan et al., 2005; Patton & Donohue, 1998;). According to Edler and Parker (1992), social support may work in different ways and in relation to several strategies: using social interaction as a source for information could indicate attempts to solve a problem (problem-focused strategy), whereas seeking comfort through
social interaction would suggest emotion-oriented strategies. Apart from social support from friends and family, in her study of employee resilience during a global pandemic, Kuntz (2021) identified several sources of support (managerial support, peer support, availability of personal protective equipment and flexibility and autonomy), which highlighted the managerial role in employee wellbeing during insecure times. Regular check-ups, adequate crisis communication, open discussion and generally promoting employee resilience were found as important actions from the management.
According to Smith et al. (2016), in general, confidence in ones coping resources would lead to greater use of task-oriented strategies and if the resources were perceived low, an individual would be more likely to turn to emotion-oriented strategies.
Personality traits
Although in general more related to the trait-based conceptualization of coping, it is suggested that personality affects both the appraisal of stressors and the coping process. It was already noted earlier that in an unemployment context, pessimistic people are more likely to engage in symptom-focused strategies, whereas optimistic individuals utilize more often problem-focused strategies (Leana et al. 1998).
The study by Roskies et al. (1993) identified positive personality has a positive effect on mental well-being in a job insecurity situation, as positive individuals tend to have higher self-esteem and belief in their resources. An vice versa, negative personality has a negative effect on mental well-being, as individuals with negative attitudes are prone to consider that they have fewer resources available. In hospitality context, Kim and Agrusa (2011) found a significant correlation between neuroticism and emotion-oriented coping, as well as the positive relation of
neuroticism and avoidance-oriented coping.
2.3 Summary of the theoretical framework
Figure 4. presents a summary of the different aspects and outcomes of coping as a process. This study is particularly interested in the stressors, coping strategies, outcomes and resilience.
Figure 4. Summary of the theoretical framework
As this study is interested in the reactions, actions and outcomes of the situation that the pandemic has had on skilled seasonal workers (studied through the case of migrant ski
instructors) and coping strategies by definition address the actual efforts and actions taken to reduce stress, it is reasonable to approach the phenomenon from the perspective of coping.
Furthermore, as we do not yet know what the ski instructors have actually decided to do in this challenging situation, it would not be wise to focus solely on e.g. unemployment or job
insecurity, and thus a wider perspective through overall coping is utilized.
Most of the research agrees that resilience is seen as a very important factor affecting the coping process, and thus also in this study resilience is investigated alongside coping strategies. The
other factors are acknowledged as contributors and while they might come up in the data, they are not of main interest in this particular study.
As the coping strategies identified in previous unemployment research were differing between studies, for the sake of clarity the strategies were regrouped further into problem-focused and emotion-focused strategies. This grouping was based on the original divisions and partly on the researchers own interpretation of the strategies. The regrouping is presented in table 5. This grouping does not consider whether the strategy was originally considered as effective or not.
Table 5. Coping strategies of previous research divided into problem-focused and emotion- focused strategies
New category Coping Strategy Identified in research by
Problem-focused strategies
Searching for re-employment Leana et al., 1998; Julkunen, 2001; Lin & Leung, 2010;
Karsavuran, 2020
Seeking retraining Leana et al., 1998; Karsavuran, 2020 Seeking to relocate Leana et al., 1998; Karsavuran, 2020 Moving to another sector Karsavuran, 2020
Planning Langens & Mose, 2006
Active coping Langens & Mose, 2006 Talking to people who can help
with job search Lin & Leung, 2010
Emotion-focused strategies
Keeping busy (e.g. housework, culture, hobbies)
Patton & Donohue, 1998; Julkunen, 2001; Karsavuran, 2020
Seeking social support Leana et al., 1998; Langens & Mose, 2006; Karsavuran, 2020
Seeking financial assistance Leana et al., 1998; Langens & Mose, 2006; Karsavuran, 2020
Having a positive outlook Patton & Donohue, 1998; Langens & Mose, 2006; Lin &
Leung, 2010
Emotional release Patton & Donohue, 1998; Langens & Mose, 2006 Becoming active in community
programs to help others Leana et al., 1998;
Re-evaluating expectations Patton & Donohue, 1998
