Data in Brief 32 (2020) 106174 ELSEVIER Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Data in Brief journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dib Data Article (A Check for updates Data on work-related consequences of COVID-19 pandemic for employees across Europe Jakub Procházka3*, Tabea Scheelb, Petr Pirožek3, Tomas Kratochvil3, Cristina Civilottic, Martina Bolloc, Daniela Acquadro Maran ^Masaryk University, Department of Corporate Economy, Lipová 41a, Brno 60200, Czech Republic bEuropa-Universitaet Flensburg, Germany c Universita degli Studi di Torino, Italy ARTICLE INFO Article history: Received 24 July 2020 Accepted 12 August 2020 Available online 18 August 2020 Keywords: COVID-19 Lockdown Job attitudes Work performance Coping Resilience ABSTRACT The COVID-19 pandemic influenced the work of employees across all continents. This article presents raw data that may be used to describe how the pandemic affected the work of employees in four European countries and how it influenced their job attitudes, feelings and work performance. In total, 726 respondents from Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Italy filled out an extensive online survey and provided information about changes in their workload, work difficulty, income, social contact, work from home, task performance and organizational commitment during the pandemic, and about the risk of being infected by COVID-19 during their workday. The employees also reported their actual work performance, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, intention to leave and irritation in the time of the pandemic. To reveal factors that might help employees cope with pandemic, the respondents filled out established questionnaires measuring servant leadership of their supervisor, perceived organizational support, social support provided by colleagues, their own occupational self-efficacy, resilience, job crafting and readiness for change. The data is unique as it was collected in a specific situation during the pandemic, when the work of employees was affected by security mea- * Corresponding author. E-mail address: jak.prochazka@mail.muni.cz (J. Prochazka). https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.106174 2352-3409/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license. (http://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by/4.0/) 2 J. Procházka, T. Scheel and P. Pirožek et al./Data in Brief 32 (2020) 106174 sures and lockdown introduced by governments in countries where they worked. © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license. (http://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by/4.0/) Specifications Table Subject Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management Specific subject area Job attitudes, work performance, coping, well-being Type of data Raw data (.sav, .csv, .xls), tables with descriptive statistics How data were acquired Data were gathered through an online survey in 4 countries. Data format Raw, descriptive statistics Parameters for data collection Respondents were adults who were employed in Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic and worked in their organization for at least 5 months. Description of data collection The data were collected in May 2020 in Germany, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and in May 2020 and June 2020 (until 4th of June) in Italy. The respondents participated in an online survey. Data source location Country: Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Italy Data accessibility Repository name: Mendeley Data Data identification number: 10.17632/77dcsp2vcw.2 Direct URL to data: http://dx.doi.Org/10.17632/77dcsp2vcw.2 Value of the Data • Dataset enables analysing the work-related impact of COVID-19 pandemic on employees in 4 European countries. • Researchers can use the dataset to analyze how employees perceived their work and their organization during the pandemic and which personal, organizational and socio-demographic factors helped employees cope with the pandemic. • Researchers can use the dataset to test models of coping with extraordinary situations. • The data is unique as it was collected in a specific situation during a pandemic, when the work of employees was affected by security measures and lockdown. • The data is unique as it provides information about 15 important constructs from the area of human resource management and work psychology that were measured by established questionnaires in 4 different countries. 1. Data Description The COVID-19 pandemic plunged Europe into a crisis in the first half of 2020. To reduce the spread of the virus, governments have introduced lockdown and security measures. In the Czech Republic, the government declared a state of emergency on March 12th and introduced a number of new restrictions between March 14th and 30th (Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic, https://koronavirus.mzcr.cz/vyvoj-udalosti-v-case/). From April 14th, a plan for the gradual release of security measures was announced. The state of emergency was lifted on May 17th, but a number of measures lasted until the end of June or even longer (Government of the Czech Republic, https://www.vlada.cz/cz/epidemie-koronaviru/dulezite-informace/ mimoradna-opatreni-_-co-aktualne-plati-180234/). In Slovakia, the government declared a state of emergency on March 11th and lifted it on June 14th. During the first weeks of the state of emergency, the government introduced several restrictions. Starting on April 22nd, the first phase of the gradual release of security measures has begun. The eighth phase of release started on July 1st and even after this date some restrictions still applied (Government office of the Slovak Republic, https://korona.gov.sk). J. Procházka, T. Scheel and P. Pirožek et al./Data in Brief 32 (2020) 106174 3 Table 1 Characteristics of the sample (interval variables). Age Number of children Number of employers during career Years in current organization Workload (hours per week) Germany Valid N 135 136 137 137 137 Missing 12 11 10 10 10 M 40.47 1.01 4.19 8.33 33.04 SD 12.11 1.36 2.48 8.85 10.63 Med 41.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 38.00 Min 19 0 1.00 0.50 3 Max 63 7 16 37 60 Czech Valid N 232 230 231 229 229 Republic Missing 21 23 22 24 24 M 32.69 .63 3.35 7.28 37.03 SD 9.20 .99 2.10 31.66 11.03 Med 29.00 .00 3.00 3.00 40.00 Min 20 0 1.00 .50 0 Max 65 4 16 475 80 Slovakia Valid N 164 164 164 163 161 Missing 3 3 3 4 6 M 41.62 1.17 3.59 10.06 39.57 SD 11.22 1.85 2.04 9.28 10.37 Med 41.00 1.00 3.00 7.00 40.00 Min 23 0 1.00 .50 8 Max 71 20 10 47 96 Italy Valid N 151 151 150 150 149 Missing 8 8 9 9 10 M 48.76 1.21 3.93 16.91 34.68 SD 11.19 0.91 2.33 12.91 7.39 Med 52.00 1.00 3.00 15.00 36.00 Min 21 0 1.00 .60 7 Max 65 3 14 41 55 In Germany, some federal states and their cities started to declare the state of disaster on March 16th. On March 22nd, the government and the federal states introduced restriction of contact and activities. On April 20th, the government presented a 10-point-plan for the national health system and a week later, on April 27th, the obligations to wear a mask or other safety devices begun. Between April 30th and May 6th, the gradual easing of the restriction for public activities had begun. Due to new infections in some areas between the end of May and the beginning of June, the responsible federal states decided to reinstate restrictions on public activities (German Federal Ministry of Health, https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium. de/coronavirus/chronik-coronavirus.html). In Italy, the government declared the state of emergency on January 31st. The first public-activity restrictions (phase 1) were instated on February 23rd and since February 25th the government had been introducing new restrictions. On May 16th, the government launched the so-called phase 2 (May 18th - June 14th), restoring some commercial and public activities with the obligation of the use of safety devices. On June 11th, the government announced phase 3 (June 15th - July 14th) which still loosens - but does not remove - containment measures (Government office of the Italy, http://www.salute.gov.it/). The lockdown and various security measures may have had serious consequences for employees. Some could not work or had to work from home and lose social (work) contact. Some employees lost part of their income due to the employer's problems or because their employer had no work for them. For other employees, the work has become more demanding and difficult due to the need to comply with safety measures or due to an increase in the workload (e.g. paramedics). Some employees took a risk of being infected with COVID-19 during their workday (e.g. cashiers, bus drivers). However, the means to counter the worst effects differed considerably 4 J. Procházka, T. Scheel and P. Pirožek et al./Data in Brief 32 (2020) 106174 Table 2 Characteristics of the sample (nominal variables). Germany Czech Rep. Slovakia Italy Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Total 147 20.2 253 34.8 167 23.0 159 21.9 Country of Germany 133 90.5 0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 origin Czech Republic 0 .0 203 80.2 7 4.2 0 .0 Slovakia 4 2.7 43 17.0 158 94.6 0 .0 Italy 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 157 98.7 Others 10 6.8 7 2.8 2 1.2 2 1.3 Gender Woman 101 68.7 150 59.3 88 52.7 113 71.1 Man 35 23.8 82 32.4 76 45.5 38 23.9 Others 1 .7 1 .4 0 .0 0 .0 Missing 10 6.8 20 7.9 3 1.8 8 5.0 Elementary 0 0.0 2 .8 0 .0 11 6.9 Education High school 45 30.6 50 19.8 30 18.0 57 35.8 University 76 51.7 181 71.5 132 79.0 76 47.8 Others 16 10.9 0 .0 2 1.2 8 5.0 Missing 10 6.8 20 7.9 3 1.8 7 4.4 Sector Extraction of raw materials 3 2.0 1 .4 3 1.8 0 .0 Manufacturing 9 6.1 18 7.1 15 9.0 4 2.5 Service to customers 37 25.2 92 36.4 68 40.7 15 9.4 Public sector 35 23.8 27 10.7 11 6.6 91 57.2 Non-government non-profit 3 2.0 7 2.8 6 3.6 1 .6 Healthcare 5 3.4 9 3.6 8 4.8 7 4.4 Education 34 23.1 36 14.2 30 18.0 19 11.9 Others 11 7.5 41 16.2 22 13.2 12 7.5 Missing 10 6.8 22 8.7 4 2.4 10 6.3 Leadership No leadership responsibility 106 72.1 170 67.2 102 61.1 97 61.0 responsibility Leadership responsibility 22 15.0 55 21.7 45 26.9 30 18.9 Owner 0 .0 2 .8 7 4.2 4 2.5 Others 8 5.4 4 1.6 9 5.4 19 11.9 Missing 11 7.5 22 8.7 4 2.4 9 5.7 Full-time Full-time 75 51.0 180 71.1 133 79.6 127 79.9 contract Part-time 58 39.5 44 17.4 27 16.2 23 14.5 Others 4 2.7 7 2.8 1 .6 150 94.3 Missing 10 6.8 22 8.7 6 3.6 159 100.0 Pernament Permanent 95 64.6 161 63.6 148 88.6 133 83.6 contract Non-permanent 41 27.9 69 27.3 12 7.2 15 9.4 Others 1 .7 1 .4 3 1.8 2 1.3 Missing 10 6.8 22 8.7 4 2.4 9 5.7 White/blue Blue-collar 3 2.0 5 2.0 5 3.0 8 5.0 collar White-collar 111 75.5 203 80.2 133 79.6 94 59.1 Balanced 23 15.6 23 9.1 25 15.0 45 28.3 Missing 10 6.8 22 8.7 4 2.4 12 7.5 across nations (e.g. short-time work, financial support). Our data describe the consequences of the pandemic and the security measures on the work conditions of employees in different European countries and the attitudes, perceived performance and resources of employees in the time of a pandemic. We also examined personal and organizational factors that could mitigate the potential negative impact of a pandemic situation. The data were obtained in Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Italy during May 2020 and at the beginning of June 2020, when most security measures were still in place and employees had at least one month of experience with working under security measures. In total, 1.372 respondents started our survey. We excluded some of them from the sample according to the pre-set conditions. 552 respondents did not answer 30% or more questions related to the research variables. Another 22 respondents were employed in their organization for less than 5 months and therefore could not assess the changes associated with the pandemic. 72 respondents did not work in Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Italy. There- Table 3 Work-related impact of pandemic. Social contact Social contact Home-office Home-office AWork Income Risk of before during before during AWorkload difficulty decrease COVID-19 pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic Germany Valid 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 ~~t o o Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D N M 5.71 4.63 .22 2.78 5.57 1.86 1.36 7.41 p SD 2.39 3.17 .68 3.05 3.77 2.71 2.12 3.80 Med 5 5 0 1 5 1 0 10 LO n Skew. -0.05 -0.07 3.92 .85 -0.15 1.86 2.17 -1.15 oi 2. Kurt. -0.38 -1.25 19.00 -0.52 -1.52 2.62 5.29 -0.38 D Min 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a. Max 10 10 5 10 10 10 10 10 P. Piro. Czech Republic Valid 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N ni M 5.49 4.45 1.08 2.74 7.57 2.90 1.55 6.85 oi SD 2.31 3.00 2.04 2.82 3.27 3.26 2.17 3.87 D_ Med 5 5 0 2 10 2 1 9 Ö Skew. .10 .05 2.35 .98 -1.09 1.02 1.81 -0.85 D Q Kurt. -0.56 -1.01 5.33 .01 -0.24 -0.27 2.90 -0.91 3' Min 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fca Max 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Slovakia Valid 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No M 5.75 4.84 1.38 2.74 6.96 2.81 1.66 6.81 S SD 2.43 3.01 2.09 3.06 3.53 3.53 2.28 4.08 Med 5 6 0 2 8 1 1 9 3 Skew. -0.08 -0.30 2.06 .96 -0.79 1.08 2.03 -0.81 Kurt. -0.46 -1.14 4.74 -0.21 -0.81 -0.29 4.42 -1.11 Min 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 (continued on next page) Table 3 (continued) Italy Full sample AWorkload AWork Income Risk of Social contact Social contact Home-office Home-office difficulty decrease COVID-19 before during before during pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic Valid 159 159 159 159 159 159 159 159 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 6.28 6.99 1.35 3.61 8.15 2.04 .95 7.46 SD 2.34 2.94 2.49 3.28 2.61 2.82 2.24 3.58 Med 6 8 0 3 10 1 0 10 Skew. -0.11 -1.14 2.38 .47 -1.34 1.56 2.79 -1.23 Kurt. -0.71 .44 5.18 -0.90 .86 1.46 7.37 .01 Min 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Valid 726 726 726 726 726 726 726 726 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 5.77 5.13 1.03 2.94 7.15 2.48 1.40 7.09 SD 2.38 3.18 2.02 3.04 3.42 3.16 2.21 3.85 Med 5 6 0 2 9 1 0 9 Skew. -0.02 -0.24 2.62 .82 -0.86 1.28 2.10 -0.97 Kurt. -0.56 -1.13 7.16 -0.44 -0.69 .38 4.36 -0.72 Min 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Table 4 Attitudes, feelings and performance of employees. Job satistfaction Intention to leave Work intensification Actual task performance ATask performance Actual org. commitment AOrg. commitment Irritation -cognitive Irritation -affective Germany Valid 137 137 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 Missing 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 7.16 3.81 2.55 3.58 3.04 3.78 3.04 2.73 2.43 SD 1.93 3.64 1.08 .93 .86 .88 .61 1.09 1.07 Med 7 2 2.50 3.60 3.00 4.00 3.00 2.67 2.33 Skew. -0.96 .54 .48 -0.43 .03 -1.02 .03 .42 .48 Kurt. .99 -1.22 -0.42 -0.57 1.06 1.06 3.42 -0.83 -0.57 Min 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 Max 10 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Czech Valid 231 230 253 253 253 252 252 253 253 Republic Missing 22 23 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 M 7.19 4.95 2.41 3.80 3.10 3.57 3.11 2.74 2.44 SD 2.08 3.56 1.07 .88 .77 .83 .70 1.03 1.00 Med 8 5 2.25 4.00 3.00 3.75 3.00 2.67 2.33 Skew. -1.13 .11 .28 -0.68 .51 -0.81 .29 .21 .37 Kurt. 1.05 -1.40 -0.96 .06 .78 1.02 1.99 -0.85 -0.65 Min 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Max 10 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Slovakia Valid 163 163 167 167 166 167 166 167 167 Missing 4 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 M 7.20 4.01 2.53 4.04 3.24 3.65 3.12 2.78 2.53 SD 2.33 3.38 1.21 .80 .77 .87 .92 1.05 1.07 Med 8 3 2.50 4.20 3.00 4.00 3.00 2.67 2.33 Skew. -1.19 .46 .35 -0.80 .36 -0.86 -0.14 .09 .34 Kurt. 1.44 -1.15 -0.90 -0.01 .49 .76 .70 -0.95 -0.92 Min 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 Max 10 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 (continued on next page) Table 4 (continued) Job Intention to Work inten- Actual task ATask Actual org. AOrg. Irritation - Irritation - satistfaction leave sification performance performance commitment commitment cognitive affective Italy Valid 150 148 159 159 159 158 158 159 158 Missing 9 11 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 M 7.60 2.73 2.62 3.67 3.20 4.32 3.46 2.90 2.32 SD 1.68 3.46 1.00 .93 .91 .66 .78 1.00 1.06 Med 8 1 2.50 3.80 3.00 4.25 3.00 3.00 2.00 Skew. -1.06 .97 .32 -0.41 .14 -1.57 .25 -0.37 .42 Kurt. 1.98 -0.54 -0.67 -0.40 -0.02 4.53 .80 -0.58 -0.82 Min 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Max 10 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Full sample Valid 681 678 726 726 725 724 723 726 725 Missing 45 48 0 0 1 2 3 0 1 M 7.28 4.01 2.51 3.78 3.14 3.79 3.17 2.79 2.43 SD 2.04 3.60 1.09 .90 .82 .86 .77 1.04 1.04 Med 8 3 2.50 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 2.67 2.33 Skew. -1.16 .43 .34 -0.60 .26 -0.92 .13 .11 .39 Kurt. 1.49 -1.27 -0.75 -0.24 .57 .98 1.49 -0.88 -0.74 Min 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 Max 10 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 J. Procházka, T. Scheel and P. Pirožek et al./Data in Brief 32 (2020) 106174 9 Table 5 Organizational and personal factors. Perceived Servant organiza- Job Job Readiness leader- tional Social Occupational crafting - crafting - for ship support Resilience support self-efficacy resources demands change Germany Valid 146 146 141 146 141 139 139 139 Missing 1 1 6 1 6 8 8 8 M 4.04 3.06 3.81 4.14 3.87 2.62 2.57 3.64 SD 1.35 1.02 .56 .86 .75 1.05 .72 .77 Med 4.36 3.17 3.80 4.33 4.00 2.67 2.50 3.67 Skew. -0.76 -0.17 -0.25 -1.36 -0.54 .06 .28 -0.28 Kurt. .42 -0.66 .05 2.23 .68 -0.45 -0.24 .16 Min 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 Max 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Czech Valid 247 253 233 253 233 231 233 232 Republic Missing 6 0 20 0 20 22 20 21 M 4.25 3.21 3.55 4.18 3.77 2.75 2.96 3.61 SD 1.11 .96 .66 .76 .71 1.03 .77 .85 Med 4.43 3.33 3.60 4.33 4.00 2.67 3.00 4.00 Skew. -0.37 -0.37 -0.56 -1.04 -0.73 .05 -0.21 -0.76 Kurt. -0.31 -0.18 .81 1.17 .99 -0.78 -0.11 .68 Min 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 Max 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Slovakia Valid 161 165 164 166 164 162 163 164 Missing 6 2 3 1 3 5 4 3 M 4.07 3.12 3.61 4.02 3.81 2.44 3.08 3.50 SD 1.17 1.08 .62 .90 .80 .97 .77 .85 Med 4.00 3.00 3.60 4.00 4.00 2.33 3.17 3.67 Skew. -0.09 -0.26 -0.27 -0.79 -0.78 .47 -0.25 -0.46 Kurt. -0.55 -0.65 .58 .18 .80 -0.21 .47 .40 Min 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Max 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Italy Valid 152 156 156 156 156 154 156 155 Missing 7 3 3 3 3 5 3 4 M 4.31 3.27 3.57 3.97 3.74 2.89 2.65 3.55 SD 1.16 .94 .74 .94 .57 .93 .74 .79 Med 4.43 3.33 3.55 4.00 3.67 3.00 2.67 3.67 Skew. -0.42 -0.26 -0.37 -0.78 -0.27 -0.25 .26 -0.04 Kurt. -0.28 -0.36 -0.01 -0.17 .52 -0.39 -0.08 -0.07 Min 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 Max 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Full Valid 706 720 694 721 694 686 691 690 sample Missing 20 6 32 5 32 40 35 36 M 4.18 3.17 3.62 4.09 3.79 2.68 2.84 3.58 SD 1.19 1.00 .66 .86 .71 1.01 .78 .82 Med 4.29 3.33 3.60 4.33 4.00 2.67 2.83 3.67 Skew. -0.46 -0.29 -0.45 -1.00 -0.62 .07 .00 -0.46 Kurt. -0.01 -0.44 .53 .76 .89 -0.62 -0.23 .36 Min 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 Max 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 fore, the presented dataset consists of responses of 726 people who were employed in Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia or Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic. The socio-demographic and job-related characteristics of the sample are described in Table 1 and Table 2. Table 3 describes how the pandemic and lockdown affected the work of employees in each of the 4 countries. Table 4 describes the attitudes, feelings and perceived performance of employees in the time of the pandemic and also the perceived change in their performance and organizational commitment in comparison to the time before pandemic. Table 5 describes organization-related (servant leadership of the supervisor, perceived organizational support, social support from colleagues) and personal (resilience, occupational self-efficacy, job crafting, readiness for 10 J. Prochazka, T. Scheel and P. Pirozek et al./Data in Brief 32 (2020) 106174 Table 6 Items used to describe work-related consequences of COVID-19, job satisfaction and intention to leave. Variable label Variable Item Response scale CWorkl Change in How has actual pandemic situation 0 (I have much less work workload changed your workload? to do) - 10 (I have much more work to do) WDiffic Increased work How much has the pandemic situation 0 (not at all) - 10 (very difficulty increased the difficulty of your work much) (eg because of the need to wear protective equipment, because of increased hygiene, because of the need to communicate online)? Income Decreased How much has your monthly income 0 (it is the same or income decreased as a result of the pandemic higher) situation and lockdown? - 10 (I completely lost my income) COVrisk Risk of How big is the risk being infected with 0 (no risk) - 10 (very high COVID-19 COVID-19 during your work? risk) SocPast Social contact How often have you personally met 0 (not at all) - 10 (all the before other people (colleagues, customers, time) pandemic suppliers) during the workday before the pandemic and lockdown? SocNow Social contact How often do you personally meet 0 (not at all) - 10 (all the during other people (colleagues, customers, time) pandemic suppliers) during the pandemic and lockdown? HOpast Home-office How often did you work from home 0 (not at all) - 10 (all the before before the pandemic and lockdown? time) pandemic HOnow Home-office How often do you work from home 0 (not at all) - 10 (all the during now in the time of the pandemic and time) pandemic lockdown? Satisf Job satisfaction Are you generally satisfied with your 0 (not at all) - 10 (very current job? much) IntLeave Intention to Do you want to leave your job and 0 (certainly not) - 10 leave your organization in following 3 years? (certainly yes) change) characteristics that might help employees cope with the pandemic situation and lock-down. The variables that were measured by scales with several items (see Table 7) were computed as a mean of all valid answers provided by each respondent. The McDonald's omegas which indicate the internal consistency of the scales are presented in Table 7. Code book and all variables are available in the associated dataset (http://dx.doi.Org/10.17632/77dcsp2vcw.2) in raw form. The dataset enables describing and analysing the work-relates consequences of COVID-19 pandemic in various countries and examining the moderation effect of organizational and personal factors. 2. Design, Materials and Methods We obtained the data via an online survey. The survey was promoted at social networks, in articles in online newspapers, by direct emails and in a university newsletter. We formulated new items to measure the impact of pandemic and lockdown on the work of employees and to measure job satisfaction and intention to leave (see Table 6). To measure organizational commitment, work performance, irritation, work intensification and various organizational and personal factors, we used established questionnaires (see Table 7). We modified the instructions and response scale (see Appendix) of Individual Work Performance Questionnaire and Klein's unidimensional scale of commitment to be able to measure the change in task performance and J. Procházka, T. Scheel and P. Pirožek et al./Data in Brief 32 (2020) 106174 11 Table 7 List of questionnaires and internal consistency of each scale. Number Response McDonald's co Label Variable Source of items scale GE CZ IT Wintens Work intensification Intensified Job Demands Scale [10], modified instructions 4 1-5 .842 .822 .728 APerf Actual task performance Individual Work Performance Questionnaire, Task performance subscale [11] 5 1-5 .892 .869 .872 CPerf Change in task performance Individual Work Performance Questionnaire, Task performance subscale, [11], modified instructions 5 1-5 .914 .894 .912 ACommit Actual organizational commitment Klein et al.'s Unidimensional Target-free Scale of Commitment (target = organization) [12] 4 1-5 .895 .883 .835 CCommit Change in organizational commitment Klein et al.'s Unidimensional Target-free Scale of Commitment (target = organization) [12], modified instructions 4 1-5 .881 .920 .893 IritC Irritation -cognitive Irritation Scale, Cognitive subscale [7] 3 1-5 .870 .786 .852 IritA Irritation -affective Irritation Scale, Affective subscale [7] 3 1-5 .921 .849 .912 Servant Servant leadership Servant Leadership Questionnaire, SL-7 [13] 7 1-7 .876 .811 .872 POS Perceived organizational support Survey of Perceived Organizational Support - short 3 item version [14] 3 1-5 .830 .860 .880 Resil Resilience Short version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale CD-RISC-10 [15] 10 1-5 .840 .867 .896 SocSup Social support Social Support Scale [16] 3 1-5 .878 .874 .876 OcSEff Occupational self-efficacy Occupational Self-efficacy Scale -short [17] 3 1-5 .809 .805 .704 JCraftR Job crafting -resources Job Crafting Scale, Increasing job resources subscale [18] 3 1-5 .805 .775 .768 JCraftD Job crafting -demands Job crafting scale, Hindering job demands subscale [18] 6 1-5 .744 .739 .813 ReadCh Readiness for change Organizational Change Questionnaire [19] 3 1-5 .874 .896 .880 Note. McDonald's omegas are provided for three language versions of questionnaires; German (GE): N=141, Czech (CZ): N = 366; Italian (IT): N=158; Slovak respondents filled out mostly the Czech version; 61 respondents filled out the English questionnaire. 12 J. Procházka, T. Scheel and P. Pirožek et al./Data in Brief 32 (2020) 106174 organizational commitment during the pandemic. We also modified the instructions of Irritation scale and Work intensification scale to measure irritation and work intensification in time of the pandemic and lockdown (see Appendix). The survey was available in English, German, Czech (for Czech and Slovak respondents) and Italian. We used official and published translations of each questionnaire if it was available. If there was no official translation, we did two to three independent translations from English and then a backtranslation to English to ensure the quality of the new language adaptation. In the German survey, we used the original German scales (see Table 7) for measuring irritation, occupational self-efficacy, social support and work intensification. We also used official translations of Job Crafting Scale [1], Klein's Unidimensional Scale of Commitment (translated by Vitera, https://u.osu.edu/commitmentmeasure/k-u-t-commitment-measure/german/), Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (translated by Siebenaler & Fischer, https://doi.org/10.6102/ zis277), Readiness for Change Scale (presented by Scheel at the 33rd Annual SI0P Conference, 2018) and Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (translated by Krähenmann & Krausenick, www.connordavidson-resiliencescale.com). Scales for measuring work performance and servant leadership were newly translated by an author of this article and a class of Master students. In the Czech survey (for Czech and Slovak respondents), we used published translation of Klein's Unidimensional Scale of Commitment [2] and Servant Leadership Questionnaire [3], official unpublished translation of Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (translated by Dostálova et al., www.connordavidson-resiliencescale.com) and existing unpublished translations of Individual Work Performance Questionnaire (psychometric characteristics available in [4]) and Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (translated by Stejdirova et al., https://is.muni.cz/th/gkk6r/ Stejdirova_bakalarska_prace.pdf). Irritation Scale, Occupational Self-efficacy Scale, Social Support Scale, Intensified Job Demands Scale, Job Crafting Scale and Organizational Change Questionnaire were newly translated by authors of this article. In the Italian survey, we used published translation of Work Performance Questionnaire [5], Klein's Unidimensional Scale of Commitment [6], Irritation Scale [7], Survey of Perceived Organizational Support [8], subscale "Increasing job resources" from Job Crafting Scale [9] and the official translation of Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (translated by Comoretto, www. connordavidson-resiliencescale.com). The Occupational Self-efficacy Scale, Servant Leadership Questionnaire, Social Support Scale, Intensified Job Demands Scale, Organizational Change Questionnaire and subscale "Hindering job demands" from Job Crafting Scale were newly translated by authors of this article. Ethics Statement Informed consent was obtained from all respondents before they started the survey. They were informed that the survey was anonymous and that they could stop at any time. Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships which have, or could be perceived to have, influenced the work reported in this article. Acknowledgments There are two pre-registered studies that are connected to the dataset (osf.io/9q6vt, osf.io/9r6fw). We want to thank the students from a Master course at the Europa-Universität Flensburg (Vivian Kra, Yulia Kuroedova, Amelie Meiners, Micha Remer, Annabel Richter, René Steffes, Idris Yousofi, Chen Zhiyang) for their help in translating several questionnaires to German and the German data collection. The research was supported by Masaryk University and the Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. J. Procházka, T. Scheel and P. Pirožek et al./Data in Brief 32 (2020) 106174 13 Supplementary materials Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.dib.2020.106174. Appendix - modified instructions and response scales Modified instructions for Individual Work Performance Questionnaire for measuring change in task performance and for Klein's unidimensional scale of commitment for measuring change in organizational commitment Now use the same items to compare your performance and attitudes in the past month during the pandemic and lockdown to your performance and attitudes in 3 months before the pandemic situation and lockdown occurred. The answer "significantly less often" / "much less" means that your performance/attitude is lower/weaker now than it was before the pandemic. Now, in the time of pandemic and lockdown (in comparison to the situation before the pandemic and lockdown)... Modified response scale for Individual Work Performance Questionnaire for measuring change in task performance 1 = significantly less often, 2 = slightly less often, 3 = similarly often, 4 = slightly more often, 5 = significantly more often Modified response scale for Klein's unidimensional scale of commitment for measuring change in organizational commitment 1 = much less, 2 = slightly less, 3 = similarly, 4 = slightly more, 5 = much more Modified instructions for Irritation questionnaire Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements. In the past month, during the pandemic situation: Modified instructions for Work intensification questionnaire In the past month, during the pandemic and lockdown... References [1] P.W. Lichtenthaler, A. Fischbach, The conceptualization and measurement of job crafting: validation of a German version of the job crafting scale, Z. Arbeits Organ. Psychol. 60 (2016) 173-186 https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089/ a000219. [2] J. Prochazka, A. Zidlicka, H. Cigler, M. Vaculik, H. Klein, The Czech adaptation of Klein et al's. Unidimensional target-neutral scale of commitment, E a M: Ekon. Manag. 22 (2019) 52-67 https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2019-4-004. [3] J. Kolárova, P. Honsova, M. Konvalinka, Translation and adaptation of servant leadership questionnaire into Czech language, in: Proceedings from the 10th International Days of Statistics and Economics, University of Economics, Prague, 2016, pp. 882-892. 14 J. Procházka, T. Scheel and P. Pirožek et al./Data in Brief 32 (2020) 106174 [4] J. Procházka, K. Bilovska, A. Tápal, M. Fejfarova, M. Vaculík, Dotazník designu pracovní pozice (WDQ): validační studie českého překladu [Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): validation study of the Czech version], Cesk Psychol 64 (2) (2020) 168-183. [5] E. Ingusci, P. Spagnoli, M. Zito, L. Colombo, CG. Cortese, Seeking challenges, individual adaptability and career growth in the relationship between workload and contextual performance: a two-wave study, Sustainability 11 (2) (2019) 422 https://doi.org/10.3390/sull020422. [6] D. Colledani, D. Capozza, R. Falvo, G.A. Di Bernardo, The work-related basic need satisfaction scale: an Italian validation, Front. Psychol. 9 (2018) 1859 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01859. [7] G. Mohr, A. Müller, T. Rigotti, Z. Aycan, F. Tschan, The assessment of psychological strain in work contexts. Concerning the structural equivalency of nine language adaptations of the Irritation Scale, Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 22 (2006) 198-206 https://doi.Org/10.1027/1015-5759.22.3.198. [8] A. Battisteiii, M.G. Mariáni, Supporto organizzativo: validazione della versione italiana della survey of perceived organizational support (versione a 8 item) [Organizational support: validation of the Italian version of the survey of perceived organizational support (8-item version)], G. Italiano Psicol. 38 (1) (2011) 189-214 https://doi.org/10.1421/ 34845. [9] R. Cenciotti, L. Borgogni, A. Callea, L. Colombo, CG. Cortese, E. Inglusci, M. Zito, The Italian version of the job crafting scale (JCS), BPA Appl. Psychol. Bull. 64 (277) (2016) 28-36 https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484318788269. [10] B. Kubicek, M. Paskvan, C. Korunka, Development and validation of an instrument for assessing job demands arising from accelerated change: the Intensification of Job Demands Scale (IDS), Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 24 (2015) 898-913 https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.979160. [11] L. Koopmans, CM. Bernaards, V.H. Hildebrandt, H.C De Vet, A.J. Van der Beek, Construct validity of the individual work performance questionnaire, J. Occup. Environ. Med. 56 (3) (2014) 331-337 https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM. 0000000000000113. [12] H.J. Klein, J.T. Cooper, J.C Molloy, J.A. Swanson, The assessment of commitment: advantages of a unidimensional, target-free approach, J. Appl. Psychol. 99 (2) (2014) 222 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034751. [13] R. Liden, S. Wayne, J. Meuser, J. Hu, J. Wu, C. Liao, Servant leadership: validation of a short form of the SL-28, Leadersh. Q. 26 (2015) 254-269 https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.12.002. [14] R. Eisenberger, F. Stinglhamber, C. Vandenberghe, I.L Sucharski, L. Rhoades, Perceived supervisor support: contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention, J. Appl. Psychol. 87 (3) (2002) 565 https: //doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.565. [15] K.M. Connor, J.R.T. Davidson, Development of a new resilience scale: the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), Depress Anxiety 18 (2003) 71-82 https://doi.org/10.1002/da.10113. [16] D. Herrmann, J. Felfe, J. Hardt, Transformationale Führung und Veränderungsbereitschaft. Stressoren und Ressourcen als relevante Kontextbedingungen [Transformational leadership and willingness to change. Stressors and resources as relevant contextual conditions], Z. Arbeits Organ. Psychol. 56 (2012) 70-86 https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089/ a000076. [17] T. Rigotti, B. Schyns, G. Möhr, A short version of the occupational self-efficacy scale: structural and construct validity across five countries, J. Career Assess. 16 (2008) 238-255 https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072707305763. [18] M. Tims, A.B. Bakker, D. Derks, The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources, and well-being, J. Occup. Health Psychol. 18 (2013) 230-240 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032141. [19] D. Bouckenooghe, G. Devos, H. van den Broeck, Organizational change questionnaire - climate of change, processes, and readiness: development of a new instrument, J. Psychol. 143 (2009) 559-599 https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00223980903218216.