The Future of Work : Exploring the Impact of Remote and Hybrid Work Models on Employee Productivity and Well-Being
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55606/bijmt.v5i2.4724Kata Kunci:
Employee Well Being, Flexible Work Arrangements, Hybrid Work, Organizational Support, ProductivityAbstrak
This study investigates the impact of remote and hybrid work models on employee productivity and well being, two critical dimensions of performance in the evolving landscape of digital work. Despite the increasing adoption of flexible work arrangements, research remains fragmented regarding their holistic effects. This study addresses that gap by examining how work life balance mediates and organizational support moderates the relationship between work models and employee outcomes. Employing an exploratory qualitative approach, data were collected through semi structured interviews with 15 participants from the education, technology, and finance sectors. Thematic analysis revealed five core themes: work flexibility, work life balance, organizational support, mental well being, and motivation. Findings indicate that while flexibility enhances autonomy and efficiency, it can blur personal professional boundaries without adequate organizational support. Work life balance emerged as a critical mediator in sustaining productivity and psychological health, whereas organizational support moderated the effects of flexibility and stress. These results validate the theoretical framework based on the Job Demands Resources and Conservation of Resources models. The study concludes that remote and hybrid work models can improve performance and well being when supported by clear boundaries and inclusive organizational strategies. This research contributes a conceptual model for designing sustainable digital work environments and offers practical implications for human resource management in flexible settings.
Referensi
A. B. Bakker and E. Demerouti, “Job demands resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward,” J. Occup. Health Psychol., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 273–285, 2017, doi: 10.1037/ocp0000056.
A. E. Bentley, M. C. O’Hara, and N. Olakitan, “Telework, leadership, and employee performance,” Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 35–47, 2021, doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2020.1837953.
A. O. Wright, K. N. Aiken, and D. L. Prince, “Boundary management strategies in flexible work contexts,” J. Organ. Behav., vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 185–201, 2021, doi: 10.1002/job.2457.
C. G. Yeung and P. K. Wong, “Remote work self efficacy and career sustainability,” Career Dev. Int., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 240–261, 2021, doi: 10.1108/CDI-09-2020-0196.
D. Vaziri, S. Casper, J. Wayne, and B. Matthews, “Integrating work family conflict and enrichment with the demands resources model: A meta analysis,” J. Vocational Behav., vol. 117, p. 103334, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103334.
F. Wu, X. Zhu, and S. Lin, “Hybrid team dynamics: Coordination and performance outcomes,” Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud., vol. 152, p. 102657, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102657.
H. Zhang, Y. Chen, and L. Ma, “The impact of work life balance on mental health in remote work settings: A moderated mediation model,” Front. Psychol., vol. 13, art. 865211, 2022, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.865211.
J. B. Tremblay and L. Advocat, “Entrepreneurial orientation and telework intensity,” J. Small Bus. Manage., vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 675–700, 2022, doi: 10.1080/00472778.2021.1950191.
J. E. Lee and C. C. Wu, “Does organizational support matter? Work outcomes in hybrid teams,” J. Manage. Psychol., vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 487–501, 2021, doi: 10.1108/JMP-12-2020-0832.
L. Carillo, C. Pino, and M. Zappala, “Perceived organizational support and engagement,” Int. J. Manpow., vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1235–1254, 2022, doi: 10.1108/IJM-01-2021-0052.
L. M. Molino, F. Cortese, and I. Ghislieri, “The benefits of flexible work arrangements,” Curr. Opin. Psychol., vol. 41, pp. 40–44, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.02.006.
M. Charalampous, T. Grant, C. Tramontano, and K. Michailidis, “Review: Systematically review remote e workers’ well being,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 1093–1107, 2020, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2020.2986635.
N. Rahman, “Telecommuting infrastructure and productivity in developing countries,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Inf. Commun. Technol. Dev., 2023, pp. 45–54, doi: 10.1145/3578321.3578330.
O. T. Kaluza, F. Boer, and M. R. Simancas, “Digital support tools and telecommuting satisfaction,” in Proc. CHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst., 2022, pp. 1–15, doi: 10.1145/3491102.3502010.
P. B. Grant, L. N. Hofmann, and E. J. Horan, “Employee well being during pandemics,” Appl. Psychol. Health Well Being, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 407–424, 2022, doi: 10.1111/aphw.12260.
P. M. Augustine, J. Smallwood, and T. P. Powers, “Examining boundary control, work life enrichment, and well being in remote work,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 122, p. 106834, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106834.
R. S. Clarke, M. Truscott, and J. Roberts, “Emotional isolation and remote work: A phenomenological study,” Hum. Relat., vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 1023–1048, 2021, doi: 10.1177/00187267211000112.
S. A. Golden, “Remote work and psychological health: A review and closing research gaps,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 18, no. 3, p. 1099, 2021, doi: 10.3390/ijerph18031099.
S. Ip and M. P. Pao, “Conservation of resources theory: Application to remote work stress,” Work Stress, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 239–259, 2022, doi: 10.1080/02678373.2022.2074871.
T. D. Allen, L. T. Golden, and K. M. Shockley, “How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings,” Psychol. Sci. Public Interest, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 40–68, 2021, doi: 10.1177/1529100615593273.
Y. Ha, M. M. Park, and I. Jung, “Work life conflict in remote work: A meta analysis,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 4, p. 2165, 2022, doi: 10.3390/su14042165.
Unduhan
Diterbitkan
Cara Mengutip
Terbitan
Bagian
Lisensi
Hak Cipta (c) 2025 Brilliant International Journal Of Management And Tourism
Artikel ini berlisensiCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
