Content uploaded by Danijela Sokolic
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Danijela Sokolic on Mar 07, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
78th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development – Aveiro, 24-25 February, 2022
202
REMOTE WORK AND HYBRID WORK ORGANIZATIONS
Danijela Sokolic
University of Rijeka, Faculty of Economics and Business (EFRI)
Ivana Filipovica 4, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia
danijela.sokolic@efri.hr
ABSTRACT
Remote work, especially working from home, has become the most common form of work in the
third decade of the 21st century. What started at the beginning of the millennium as an
experimental practice in some companies (mainly in the IT industry) has become widespread
and unintentional in 2020 and 2021, due to Covid 19 pandemic. It changed some of the most
important features of the jobs, such as the communication patterns and the conception of the
workplace, leading not only to significant changes in the way work is done, but also to a
different psycho-emotional perception of work in the context of changing socialization patterns.
The need to transition to a virtual environment forced both companies and employees to try out
different ways of working (e.g., managing virtual teams, ensuring infrastructure and access to
work resources, managing teams, workspaces, etc.). The paper addresses some of the key
factors that influence work performance at the organizational and individual levels. It presents
how technological developments and growing awareness of alternative approaches to work
organization are changing companies' perceptions of managing their most valuable resource,
human potential, and discuss potential failures in telecommuting policies. The goal of this study
is to provide insight on the impact of workplace flexibility on work and the broader implications
for both companies and employees.
Keywords: Flexibility, Hybrid Organization, Remote Work, Technology, Work from Home
1. INTRODUCTION
The importance of work in its organizational and broader socioeconomic perspective is a focus
of many studies that address economic, political, environmental, and social challenges. Work
is primarily researched in the context of organizations (Kastelan and Sokolic, 2017). Delbridge
and Sallaz (2015) define organizations based on four dimensions. Organizations are
characterized and described by physical and material spaces that are constructed and
experienced through social processes (physical dimension). They are also defined as
hierarchical places of power and control (hierarchical dimension). They are seen as sources of
new ideas, innovation, and creativity (innovation dimension). Finally, organizations are often
defined as collections of actors working together to accomplish work and are therefore
embedded in a cultural, economic, social, and political context (human dimension).
Organizations are thus spaces and places of work (Delbridge and Sallaz, 2015). However,
technological development allows the introduction of new ways of working, which leads to the
need to rethink the meaning of certain dimensions and elements of the organization. In
particular, the development of information and communication technology (ICT), followed by
digitalization, enabled a practice of working at a physical distance from the employer's location,
often referred to as telecommuting. This phenomenon encompasses remote work and gradually
erases the importance of the physical dimension of the organization. Since all dimensions of
the organization are interrelated, changes in one dimension lead to changes in other dimensions
of the organization. Although telework has been practiced in some organizations since the
beginning of the 21st century, it was initially only an occasional, alternative form of work in
addition to the standard workplace and work patterns. With the development of information and
communication technology (ICT), it became more present in the organizational context, but
still in addition to working in the employer's premises (office, satellite office, etc.).
78th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development – Aveiro, 24-25 February, 2022
203
It was not until the Covid19 pandemic spread that companies began to consider eliminating
physical spaces to a greater or lesser extent (even leading to completely virtual organizations
without physical spaces for work or interaction). Instead of building traditional organizations,
decision makers began to consider and implement hybrid work organizations or even full
remote work models. However, the old notion of the importance of the material environment
in building and shaping power relations, meanings, and practices (Savage and Warde, 1993)
was set aside without analyzing the long-term consequences for human and organizational
capital. Because of technology, but also because of changes in the social and economic context,
spatial distance, and the at least partial elimination of the traditional workplace, the way work
is performed began to change, leading to a re-composition of organizations and the relationships
between and within their elements. This paper will discuss the extent to which remote work is
likely to become a standard expected by both employees and employers. It will also discuss
what factors related to remote work should be examined by companies when deciding which
model of remote work to adopt. The paper is intended to help business decision makers broaden
their perspective on the impact of remote work on businesses and consider the psychological
and relational aspects of work in addition to the economic and short-term outcome-related
factors. This article is about broadening the perspective on the future of work, focusing on the
effects of remote work on employees and organizations. In the first part, we define the terms
remote work, telecommuting, and work-from-home. In the following chapter, we focus on the
benefits and barriers of the work-from-home model, both for employees and businesses, and
offer a deeper insight that benefits both sides. We continue with a discussion of current trends
leading to different models of hybrid work organization. We conclude with an understanding
of how they affect the dimensions of organization and the employer-employee relationship in
the remote work environment.
2. TELEWORK, TELECOMMUTING, REMOTE WORK AND WORK FROM HOME
In 2019, 5.4% of workers in the EU usually worked from home, and 9% of workers worked
from home at least sometimes (EC, 2020). The pandemic turned a gradual trend into an
overnight phenomenon. According to the International Labor Organization (ILO, 2021), by the
second half of 2020, 17.4% of the global workforce was already working from home. However,
not every job/industry is suitable for working from home. It is estimated that only a minority of
jobs could be converted to telework (Dingel and Neiman, 2020; OECD, 2021). This finding is
consistent with ILO (2021) who estimates that nearly 18% of workers have occupations suitable
for home-based work and live in countries that have the infrastructure to enable home-based
work. Developing countries and economies with lower growth and with many jobs requiring
low-skilled workers have less access to remote work models. Nonetheless, the following facts
point to some interesting trends for the future: pandemic regulations are easing; remote work is
more common in high-skilled jobs; telework rates were higher during the pandemic among
workers in large firms than in small ones; even in Japan, which has not implemented a
nationwide lockdown, telework rates increased from 10% to 28% in the first 6 months of 2020
(OECD, 2021). If we extend this logic, it is not surprising that by the end of 2021, 16% of
companies worldwide were working 100% remotely (Steward, 2022). When the pandemic
began, telecommuting in the form of working from home became a quick alternative to the
standard workplace, an attempt to avoid major disruptions that led to the failure of organizations
(Choudhury et al., 2020) and consequently economies. This allowed operations to continue as
usual while remaining in a pandemic-proof environment and respecting the social distancing
instructions for social distancing, but also raised some questions about the impact of remote
work and telecommuting on further organizational development in economic, social, and
psychological contexts. Many definitions of telecommuting circulated over the past two or three
decades.
78th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development – Aveiro, 24-25 February, 2022
204
Allen et al. (2015) state that telecommuting is a work practice that allows individuals to
substitute some of their typical work time in the organization to work away from a central
workplace, using technology to interact with others as needed to complete work tasks. These
individuals are typically members of an organization, as opposed to self-employed/freelancers
and/or salaried employees who must work on-site at the customer's location. According to Allen
(2015), they are often employees in a larger organization and typically rely heavily on
technology to communicate and collaborate with internal and external stakeholders; they work
primarily from home/designated location for a period of time, from a few hours to nearly full-
time. Telecommuting is often used interchangeably with the terms telework, remote work,
distributed work, virtual work, flexible work, flexplace, ICT-mobile work, and distance work,
among other terms. While these different terms all represent an alternative to commuting to and
from work, they also contain some distinct elements, have different origins, and refer to
different situations. While they overlap in that they imply that all or part of the work is
performed away from the employer's premises, telework is used at a more subtle level to
describe a situation in which any form of ICT replaces travel to work, regardless of the worker's
employment status. In terms of employment status, it is more akin to the term remote work than
telecommute. The difference between “remote work” and “telecommute” is that that the term
remote work” is more general and includes any type of work - both standard and non-standard
employment or contract work (ILO, 2020), while “telecommute” is limited to employees and
thus excludes self-employed workers. Telework is also closely related to the use of information
technology and digital devices (Eurofound, 2020a), and remote work is any work done at a
distance. In summary, telecommute focuses on replacing the employer's premises with another
workplace for at least part of the working time, resulting in fewer or no trips to work. It also
includes ICT and is thus a subset of telework and remote work. A narrower form of remote
work is work from home as a form of work that takes place wholly or partly at a specific location
- the employee's home. More broadly, it can be performed by both dependent and independent
workers and may or may not require the use of digital technology. In this paper, however, we
refer to work from home in the narrow sense, as a subset of telecommuting.
3. EFFECTS OF WORK FROM HOME ON EMPLOYEES AND ORGANIZATIONS
Covid19 infection swept the globe in early 2020. Already, between January and March 2020,
many countries instructed employers to follow confinement measures and generally close their
workplaces and premises. To avoid destroying the entire economy, the viable path for
companies was to introduce mandatory full-time work-from-home programs for their
employees. Before the pandemic, the technology that allowed employees to work from home
already existed and was being implemented in some industries (IT, higher education, etc.). The
pandemic triggered a large-scale experiment in forcing workers around the world to work from
home, and many discovered the benefits, which typically included less time spent commuting,
cost savings, and greater flexibility. Flexibility seems to be a very important factor for both
employers and employees. For employees, flexibility means the ability to choose. In the most
recent global study on future work arrangement preferences, Reisinger and Fetterer (2021)
report that knowledge workers find flexibility more important to them than wage or other
benefits (59% of respondents) and would prefer to work for a company that gives them the
flexibility to work from anywhere rather than exclusively on the employer's premises (77%).
However, flexibility does not exclude occasional working from the office; for 61% of
respondents, flexibility meant the ability to work from the office and from home, depending on
task requirements. In addition, Reisinger and Fetterer (2021) emphasized that workers in the
study were motivated by autonomy, i.e., the ability to decide where, when, and how to do their
work as long as they met their goals.
78th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development – Aveiro, 24-25 February, 2022
205
The results of an Australian government survey (2020) also show that most workers prefer to
work from home for a period of time, but few of them would choose to work completely
remotely, and most also want to work from the office for a period of time. The preferred benefits
of working from home are: lower commuting costs, not wasting time in traffic, personal space,
and flexibility. From the employers' perspective, flexibility is related to lower fixed costs and
higher labor availability. The Eurofound (2020a) report points out that moving the office off
the employer's premises (in the case of ICT-enabled mobile work) transfers the cost of Internet
connectivity or electricity, and in some cases even technical equipment, from the employer to
the employee. Sometimes this extends to health and safety costs as well. Australian government
research (2020) is consistent with Eurofound's findings and shows that business preferences are
primarily related to the cost of working from home and the actual or perceived level of
productivity. While the demand to better align workers' work with business goals and needs has
led to the introduction of more flexible work arrangements, one of the biggest concerns of
employers is productivity (hours worked, technical and communication issues, etc.) and the
perceived inability to control if/when workers are not on-site. Research by the Australian
government (2020) indicates that working from home is likely to increase coordination costs,
reduce social interactions and knowledge sharing, and decrease collaboration. According to
Morikawa's (2020) study of Japanese workers during the Covid19 pandemic, productivity
levels when working from home averaged 60% to 70% of office productivity. It appears that
different demographic groups and industries have different percentages of productivity. Studies
show that employees with higher levels of education, well-paid employees, long-distance
commuters, and employees in industries such as IT or certain education sectors tend to keep
their productivity levels constant (Morikawa, 2021). This finding is consistent with studies that
emphasize that productivity declines more for workers who started to work from home during
pandemics (Morikawa, 2020). AbuJarour et al.'s (2021) findings on home-based productivity
in higher education relate productivity to work-family conflict and perceived usability of
technology (including Internet speed). While potential work-family conflict depends on
employees' organizational skills, technology implies access to the same resources that
employees use in the traditional workplace (hardware, storage, software, databases,
information, support, etc.). However, studies on the impact of home-based work on productivity
are inconclusive, as the difficulty of measuring the efficiency and productivity of cognitive,
intellectual, or highly skilled work has been one of the most researched topics in recent
decades.The physical workplace is an important work-related factor. Adjustments of a remote
workplace is related to productivity and effectiveness (Sridhar and Bhattacharya, 2021). Studies
report that workers are unable to convert their homes into home offices due to noise, clashes
with other people's needs, children, and office equipment (i.e., inadequate desk, internet
connection, etc.). As for the equipment of offices and other official workplaces, it is the
responsibility of companies to provide it. However, when employees work from home, the
obligations are less clear. Employees who choose to work from home, even though they are
provided with the necessary equipment in an office, bear a higher responsibility for providing
their own equipment. In this regard, a global study by Microsoft (2021) shows that even after a
year of working from home, 42% of employees report that they lack office supplies, and 10%
do not have a good enough internet connection to get their work done. Aside from not having
a work-friendly environment, there are other challenges to overcome, such as being available
24/7 (Eurofound, 2015) or the appropriateness of standard work methods/processes in an
online/virtual environment. In addition, it is more difficult to ensure health and safety standards
in a remote workplace where employers (and in many cases even labor inspectorates) have
limited, if any, ability to intervene (Eurofound, 2020a). Anticipated productivity gains may be
related to globalization, worker mobility, and the global availability of human resources.
78th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development – Aveiro, 24-25 February, 2022
206
However, this opportunity comes at a cost. Shaik et al. (2021), in their research on global virtual
teams, point to the challenge of employee engagement and other issues in the structure of
multicultural teams. They emphasize the critical role that the development of the cultural
intelligence plays in the performance of a virtual team, as it is positively related to employee
engagement (based on trust). Another factor to consider when discussing productivity is
procrastination. Procrastination, defined as the irrational postponement of behaviors (Steel,
2007), is one of the biggest barriers to productivity at work. Procrastination often occurs in the
traditional office workplace and can be exacerbated when working from home. Workers may
put off completing work-related tasks due to non-work activities such as social media and long
breaks (Wang et al., 2021). In addition, the OECD (2021) report shows that perceived
productivity at home is strongly correlated with the desire to work at home. In addition,
psychological distance and lack of social support are negatively correlated with productivity
(Tejero, 2021). In any case, working from home comes with a number of challenges to
overcome. A report by Eurofound and the International Labor Office (2017) shows that while
the productivity of workers who work from home appears to increase, they are also more
affected by overtime, high pressure, a more intense work schedule, lack of boundaries between
work and home, and overall higher stress levels. While the use of internet connectivity and
mobile devices favors working from home (Messenger and Gschwind, 2016), research points
to inefficiencies related to work communication, motivation, and leadership. Effective
communication is critical for all organizations. Auten et al. (2020) argued that appropriate
communication and efficient information channels in an organization significantly increase
feelings of involvement and connection with the organization that people are more inclined to
trust the organization and feel valued and appreciated. This, in turn, leads to a positive work
experience that results in higher levels of engagement, well-being and lower levels of fatigue.
Problems in communication occur in the form of less, lack of, or overloaded verbal and informal
communication. Remote workers rely on ICT to communicate with managers, colleagues, and
other stakeholders. The typical virtual meeting interferes with people's natural abilities and
requires more resources to be invested in attention to words instead. If a person is in the video
frame with only their shoulders, hand gestures or other body language cannot be observed.
When video quality is low, it is much more difficult to obtain information from a person's
nonverbal communication (i.e., facial expressions). In addition, extensive use of video
technology in meetings and group chats makes group collaboration less efficient and more
siloed (Skalar, 2020). Moreover, long hours spent online and in online meetings lead to the
phenomenon known as "zoom fatigue" (physical and emotional exhaustion resulting from
heavy screen exposure and limited communication), but also to an increase in passive listening
and continuous partial attention, which increases tiredness, headaches (Majumdar et al., 2020),
emotional exhaustion, and stress, and has a negative impact on productivity (Rose, 2010). Thus,
when online communication is the only way for employees to communicate with each other,
studies report lower productivity levels due to less efficient meetings and limited collaboration,
concluding that online communication has a time and efficiency cost. Working from home and
communicating via ICT limits the scope of interactions within work and results in missed
opportunities to build connections and social networks. Particularly in hybrid work
organizations, the lack of visibility can affect the formation of informal connections and the
reduced availability of information only to a specific group of employees, which in turn can
affect their opportunities for promotion and career development (McRae and Kropp, 2022). In
addition, working from home can lead to a loss of organizational culture, increase social
isolation (Marshal et al., 2007), perceive a lack of organizational support, especially from direct
management, and accelerate employee turnover due to weaker employee social and emotional
ties and lower identification with an organization (McRae and Kropp, 2022).
78th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development – Aveiro, 24-25 February, 2022
207
Physical and social interactions are related to basic psychological needs for belonging and
connectedness, which depend on face-to-face interactions to be met (Vilhelmson and Thulin,
2016; Rasmussen and Corbett, 2008). Higher intensity of home-based work and infrequent
physical contact, leading to weaker social ties, are likely to contribute to psychological
problems such as isolation and depression (Mann and Holdsworth, 2003), which are negatively
correlated with perceived productivity and job satisfaction (Golden, 2009; Virick, 2010;
Bentley et al. 2016). Research on remote work during pandemics emphasizes mental health
issues related to isolation and loneliness (Toscano and Zappala, 2020; Wang et al., 2021).
Researchers and policymakers are looking closely at the impact of remote work on labor factors
such as work hours, individual and organizational performance, work-life balance, and
occupational safety and health. Benefits to workers include greater control over their work,
which can have a positive impact on the quality and quantity of work performed; increased job
satisfaction, as it allows individual contributions to organizational performance and success to
be placed in the context of daily life (Bloom et al., 2015); and increased meaningfulness of
work, leading to positive feelings among workers about their work. In addition, working from
home could improve work-life balance through greater work flexibility and job plasticity, which
improves employees' ability to manage work-life interactions (Troup and Rose, 2012) and thus
increases personal well-being due to greater freedom and choice in managing work obligations.
The concept of work-life balance, introduced in the 1980s, refers to the balance between the
time workers spend at work and the time they spend at rest or/and with family responsibilities.
Reduction in time spent commuting and better time management are related to more time
available for family responsibilities. On the other hand, the impact of working from home on
workers is not decisive, as the overlap of work and family concerns and the softening of the
boundaries between work and personal life can lead to conflicts between work and life activities
(Bouziri et al., 2020, Dorenkamp and Suess, 2017). However, working from home can also lead
to work-family conflict. Studies by Eurofound (2015, 2020b) on ICT-mobile workers and
teleworkers indicate that workers work longer hours, which affects work-life balance because
the boundaries between work and personal life become blurred. At this point, some studies
showed that the long hours do not necessarily lead to higher productivity due to many factors,
such as poor communication and technology issues (The Economist, 2021). AbuJarour et al.
(2021) point out that the blurring of boundaries between work and family time can lead to a
disturbed work-life balance. In this context, especially when combined with high stress levels,
burnout symptoms, and digital exhaustion (i.e., "zoom fatigue"), increased hours can lead to
decreased efficiency. In addition, developing, modifying, and implementing alternative
methods of completing tasks and delivering the same work content requires time and effort on
the part of workers (e.g., managing virtual teams, coaching or teaching in an online
environment, etc.). When this is disregarded by employers, it can lead to work frustration, a
sense of organizational injustice, and consequently even burnout. Without the traditional on-
site workplace, employees may find it difficult to switch off from work. In addition, employers
may expect their employees to be more accessible. Working from home can impact stress levels
and relationships at home and lead to burnout if legal and reasonable limits on office hours are
not respected, including a "right to disconnect' (i.e., from emails, phone calls, and other forms
of contact outside of scheduled work hours) (Eurofound, 2020b). A common problem with
work-life boundaries is balancing work schedules with other family members. For some
parents, work hours become unclear because they need to take care of the household and run
errands between their work sessions. In some cases, parents choose to sacrifice their sleep hours
and work nights or early mornings, as these are the only quiet hours when they can focus on
work and avoid frequent interruptions (Thompson, 2020). Another challenge is data privacy
and cybersecurity (related to company data, customers, and employees).
78th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development – Aveiro, 24-25 February, 2022
208
Working from home often requires additional or enhanced data protection on the company side
(GDPR, data breaches, stolen information, etc.). Some companies have gone even further and
used the reach of new technologies to better control efficiency (e.g., through online hours),
which has sparked a debate about moral and ethical principles. The new technologies make it
possible to set up new systems to control employees, thus invading their privacy and private
lives (including IP protocols, activation of cameras, etc.).
4. TOWARDS A HYBRID WORK MODEL
This global experiment in work-from-home has resulted in significant learning, demonstrating
the feasibility and associated challenges for individuals, businesses, and even regulators. Both
employees and employers have gained valuable insights that they can incorporate into their
future decisions. Even before the pandemic, the IWG Global Workspace Survey (2019) showed
that employers were increasingly adopting flexible work solutions and that productivity in their
workplaces had increased due to greater flexibility. Although studies of productivity gains are
inconclusive, in part because there may be a difference between a well-prepared strategic
decision to move to remote work and the need to work from home overnight because of a
pandemic, studies show employers' willingness to continue with remote work practices even
after the Covid19 pandemic (Microsoft, 2021). While there are examples of companies working
entirely remotely, there is also a variety of remote work models, from using offices exclusively
for collaboration and community building, to a "remote-first" mentality, to working remotely a
few days per week/month. Surveys and studies also indicate that flexibility is one of the most
important factors in deciding whether to accept a job offer (IWG Global Workspace Survey,
2019; Microsoft, 2021). The results of the FlexJobs survey (2021) show that 58% of workers
would rather look for another job than work exclusively from the office, and 44% of them
confirmed that they know at least one person who has quit or plans to quit because their
employer requires them to work from the office. According to the same survey, most of them
(65%) plan to continue working full-time remotely after the pandemic. Other surveys show that
the attractiveness of full remote work is lower compared to the hybrid model (Eurofound,
2020b). In particular, OECD (2021) reports that while both employers and employees expect
greater use of telework after the pandemic, relatively few employees will work full-time
remotely in the future. These findings suggest that hybrid work models that existed before the
pandemic cannot simply be replaced by a full remote model, nor can we expect a grand return
of the traditional full on-site work model. The hybrid model may well be attractive, as it seems
to combine the benefits of working in the office - the ability to collaborate, innovate, and
interact with colleagues face-to-face - with the flexibility and elimination of commuting
associated with working from home. While beneficial to both employees and companies,
telecommuting also has some downsides. When implemented properly, it can prevent negative
aspects of working from home, such as difficult collaboration and networking, reduced face-to-
face interaction, and consequences for long-term career prospects, while providing a better
work-life balance for workers. In addition, evidence suggests that workers who work from
home take fewer sick days, are more motivated, stay at work longer, and prioritize their freedom
over salary increases (saving on travel and other expenses also helps in this regard). As the
global trend is related to quality of life, companies need to incorporate the concept of work-life
balance into their corporate policies in order to retain their employees. The turnover rate is
related to flexibility, work-related autonomy and stress. Therefore, companies need to ensure
that processes are well managed, resources needed for work are similar to those in the traditional
office, information flow is smooth and transparent, employer and employee values are aligned,
and there is a sense of organizational justice. The transition is smoother and productivity losses
are lower in the cases where the shift to work-from-home has begun before pandemics.
78th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development – Aveiro, 24-25 February, 2022
209
This speaks to the importance of preparing for the transition and ensuring that all the
requirements for working from home are met. The importance of direct supervisors increases
as they are the only link between the company and the employee. Their management approach
should include objectivity, measured by performance and results rather than hours worked or
physical presence. Anecdotal evidence shows that managers do not tend to work remotely
themselves and are therefore less sensitive to the situation of remote workers and subjective to
workers who spend more time in their offices and build social ties. While the literature on
leadership points to the importance of leading by example, the business world still seems to
neglect the value of these insights. Studies predict that the hybrid work model may become the
most prevalent model of work organization in companies in the future. At the same time, the
weaker relationship between employer and employee is expected to lead to higher turnover in
the workforce. According to a study by Microsoft (2021), 40% of employees working from
home were considering a job change. These trends affect all dimensions of organizations. The
physical dimension of the organization includes physical and material spaces used to support
technical processes and social interaction. ICT technology enables technical processes to take
place outside the traditional office space and the workplace to be relocated from the employer's
premises. This can impact productivity and efficiency and requires new mechanisms for
establishing authority and control (hierarchical dimension) as well as new work patterns related
to value creation (innovation dimension) and knowledge sharing (human dimension). The
spatial shift affects the human dimension of the organization. The lack of face-to-face
interactions intensifies the challenges of social, psychological, and emotional relationships.
Lack of social ties leads to weaker identification with the company, loyalty problems, high
turnover rates, motivation and productivity problems, and a loss of corporate culture,
necessitating an overhaul of human resources policies. A new approach to attracting and
retaining employees will promote changes in the hierarchical dimension of the organization.
Not only are employees physically displaced and the situation requires different control
mechanisms; they also demand more work-related autonomy and are less integrated into the
organization. This shifts the source of power from traditional position-based authority to a more
subtle psychological domain of trust, socio-emotional connection, and aligned values. This
requires a new generation of empowered managers and leaders who, in turn, are able to increase
employee motivation, engagement, and job satisfaction. Changes in the innovation dimension
build on changes in the physical and human dimensions of the organization. In situations where
employees are less physically and socially connected, there are concerns about the transfer of
knowledge and the sharing of ideas that lead to new value creation. This is also related to
sustainability. In a globalized world, markets are very dynamic and competitive pressure is
high. Innovations are a source of competitive advantage. They are also a source of productivity
gains, enabling more investment and leading to more innovation, knowledge capital and new
value creation. Remote work offers flexibility for both employees and employers. Employees
need more flexibility in organizing their work and personal lives and in achieving work-life
balance. Employers want more flexibility in how they use their (human) resources. Currently,
the predominant model of remote work is hybrid work organization. However, research on the
future of work consistently predicts that remote working, and especially working from home,
will become as widespread as the more traditional alternative of working on the employer's
premises.
5. CONCLUSION
The Covid19 pandemic has accelerated the already existing trend toward telecommuting.
Companies forced to adopt home working without being fully prepared for the transition have
intuitively made changes to the workplace, processes, resources (financial, equipment,
infrastructure), and people (skills, psychological resilience, social environment).
78th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development – Aveiro, 24-25 February, 2022
210
The current study shows that both employees and employers have found arguments to consider
remote work, and especially working from home, as a worthy competitor to traditional on-site
work. Although many see remote work as beneficial, especially because it offers more
flexibility to both sides, there are some visible and hidden drawbacks related to human, social
and organizational factors. However, lessons learned will help individuals and organizations
align their preferences and capabilities with the challenges of remote work, such as the need for
social contacts and the means to maintain them, with the benefits of more flexible arrangements
that allow for a better work-life balance. Research predicts that the trend toward working from
home will continue post-pandemic, and to a much greater extent than pre-pandemic, but rarely
in a fully remote mode. This draws attention to hybrid models, which offer workers more
flexibility while preserving a degree of control and stability for the employer. To maintain
stability, companies must rethink the traditional building blocks of four intertwined
organizational dimensions: human, hierarchical, physical innovation. The fully remote and
hybrid models introduced in the last two years are largely driven by exceptional circumstances
such as confinement, constraints, and fear. Nonetheless, hybrid thinking has sparked a new
wave of experimentation, with companies implementing different solutions and approaches to
find out what works best for both employees and the business. This will most likely become an
ongoing process of negotiation, trial and error, and adaptation with the goal of alignment
between employer and employee expectations. The research shows that if organizations
carefully plan for change and thoroughly implement it, there is the possibility of a positive
outcome for all parties involved. Further research could focus on the extent to which
organizations, as social entities, are constrained by physical space and materiality or by the way
they exercise power and control over their human resources. Another direction should focus on
a better understanding of information and communication processes as well as alternations in
leading and managing people in online environment.
LITERATURE:
1. AbuJarour, S., Ajjan, H., Fedorowicz, J., & Owens, D. (2021). How Working from Home
during COVID-19 Affects Academic Productivity. Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, Vol. 48, pp. 55-64. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.04808
2. Allen T.D.; Golden T. D. and Shockley, K. M. (2015). How Effective Is Telecommuting?
Assessing the Status of Our Scientific Findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,
Vol. 16(2) 40–68, DOI: 10.1177/1529100615593273
3. Australian Government (2020). Working from home Research paper. Productivity
Commission, Australia
4. Auten, D.; Sandhu, R. and Hamill, L. (2020). Organizational Communication POV.
Limeade Institute research, USA
5. Bentley, T.A.; Teo, S.T.T.; McLeod, L.; Tan, F.; Bosua, R. and Gloet M. (2016). The role
of organizational support in teleworker wellbeing: A socio-technical systems approach.
Applied Ergonomics, Volume 52, pp. 207-215
6. Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J., & Ying, Z. J. (2015). Does working from home work?
Evidence from a Chinese experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(1), 165–
218.
7. Bouziri H., Smith D.R.M., Descatha A., Dab W., Jean K. (2020). Working from home in the
time of COVID-19: how to best preserve occupational health? Occupational and
Environmental Medicine. 77:509–510.
8. Choudhury, P. R., Foroughi, C. and Larson, B. (2021). Work-from-anywhere: The
productivity effects of geographic flexibility, Strategic Management Journal, Volume4 2,
Issue 4, https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3251
78th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development – Aveiro, 24-25 February, 2022
211
9. Delbridge, R. & Sallaz, J. J. (2015). Work: Four Worlds and Ways of Seeing, Organization
Studies, Vol. 36, Issue 11, https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615612021
10. Dingel, J. I. and Neiman, B. (2020). How Many Jobs Can be Done at Home?. Becker
Friedman Institute for Economics at Chicago, Available at: https://github.com/
jdingel/DingelNeiman-workathome/blob/master/DingelNeiman-workathome.pdf
(accessed on January 07, 2022)
11. Dorenkamp, I. and Suess, S. (2017). Work-life conflict among young academics:
antecedents and gender effects European Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 7, Issue 4.
doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2017.1304824
12. EC (2020), Telework in the EU before and after the COVID-19: where we were, where we
head to, European Commission, European Union, 2020 – JRC120945, Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/jrc120945_policy_brief_-_covid_and_telework_
final.pdf (accessed on January 08, 2022)
13. Eurofound (2015). New forms of employment. Publications Office of the European Union,
Luxembourg.
14. Eurofound (2020a). New forms of employment: 2020 update. New forms of employment
series, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
15. Eurofound (2020b), Telework and ICT-based mobile work: Flexible working in the digital
age, New forms of employment series, Publications Office of the European Union,
Luxembourg.
16. Eurofound and the International Labour Office (2017), Working anytime, anywhere: The
effects on the world of work, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, and
the International Labour Office, Geneva.
17. Flexjobs Survey (2021), Available at: https://www.flexjobs.com/blog/post/flexjobs-survey-
finds-employees-want-remote-work-post-pandemic/ (accessed on February 05, 2022)
18. Golden, T.D. (2009). Applying technology to work: Toward a better understanding of
telework. Organization Management Journal, Vol. 6, 241–250.
19. ILO (2020), An employers' guide on working from home in response to the outbreak of
COVID-19, Geneva: International Labour Office
20. ILO (2021), From potential to practice: Preliminary findings on the numbers of workers
working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic, Geneva: International Labour Office
21. ILO Monitor 1st Edition (2020). COVID-19 and the world of work: Impact and policy
responses. International Labour Organization
22. IWG Global Workspace Survey (2019). Welcome to Generation Flex – the employee power
shift. Available at: https://assets.regus.com/pdfs/iwg-workplace-survey/iwg-workplace-
survey-2019.pdf (accessed on February 02, 2022)
23. Kastelan Mrak, M. & Sokolic, D. (2017). The Evolution of Work Organization and its
Implication for Educational Policies and Managerial Practices. Proceedings of the 6th
International Scientific Symposium Economy of Eastern Croatia - Vision and Growth
(Anka Masek Tonkovic, ed.), ISSN: 1848-9559, University J.J. Strossmayera Osijek,
Croatia, pp. 335-344.
24. Majumdar P, Biswas A, Sahu S. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown: cause of sleep
disruption, depression, somatic pain, and increased screen exposure of office workers and
students of India. Chronobiology International; 37:1–10.
25. Mann S, Holdsworth L. (2003). The psychological impact of teleworking: stress, emotions
and health. New Technology, Work and Employment; 18:196–211.
26. Marshall, G.W.; Michaels, C.E.; Mulki, J.P. (2007). Workplace isolation: Exploring the
construct and its measurement. Psychology and Marketing, 24, 195–223.
78th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development – Aveiro, 24-25 February, 2022
212
27. McRae, E. R. and Kropp, B. (2022), 11 Trends that Will Shape Work in 2022 and Beyond,
HBR. Available at: https://hbr.org/2022/01/11-trends-that-will-shape-work-in-2022-and-
beyond
28. Messenger, J. and Gschwind, L. (2016), Three generations of telework: New ICT and the
(r)evolution from home office to virtual office, New Technology, Work and Employment,
Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 195–208.
29. Microsoft (2021), The Next Great Disruption Is Hybrid Work—Are We Ready?, Microsoft’s
Work Trend Index, available at: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-
index/hybrid-work (accessed on January 10th, 2022)
30. Morikawa, M. (2020). Productivity of Working from Home during the COVID-19
Pandemic: Evidence from an Employee Survey. Research Institute of Economy, Trade and
Industry, Japan, RIETI Discussion Paper Series 20-E-073.
31. Morikawa, M. (2021). Work-from-home productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic:
Evidence from Japan. ECONOMIC INQUIRY, DOI 10.1111/ecin.13056
32. OECD (2021), Teleworking in the COVID-19 pandemic: Trends and prospects. OECD
Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), Available at: https://www.oecd.org/
coronavirus/policy-responses/teleworking-in-the-covid-19-pandemic-trends-and-prospects
-72a416b6/ (accessed on January 05, 2022)
33. Palumbo, R.; Manna, R. and Cavallone, M. (2021). Beware of side effects on quality!
Investigating the implications of home working on work-life balance in educational
services, TQM Journal, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 915-929. Doi. 10.1108/TQM-05-2020-0120
34. Rasmussen, E. and Corbett, G. (2008), Why isn’t teleworking working?, New Zealand
Journal of Employment Relations, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 20–32.
35. Reisinger, H. and Fetterer, D. (2021), Forget Flexibility. Your Employees Want Autonomy.
HBR. Available at: https://hbr.org/2021/10/forget-flexibility-your-employees-want-
autonomy (accessed on January 16, 2022)
36. The Economist (2021). Remote workers work longer, not more efficiently, A new study on
remote working. Available at: https://www.economist.com/business/2021/06/10/remote-
workers-work-longer-not-more-efficiently (accessed on December 12, 2021)
37. Rose, E. (2010). Continuous partial attention: Reconsidering the role of online learning in
the age of interruption, Educational Technology, Vol. 50, No. 4 , pp. 41-46
38. Savage, M. & Warde, A. (1993). Urban Sociology, Capitalism and Modernity. London:
Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
39. Shaik, F.F., Makhecha, U.P. and Gouda, S.K. (2021). Work and non-work identities in
global virtual teams: Role of cultural intelligence in employee engagement. International
Journal of Manpower, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 51-78. doi.org/10.1108/IJM-03-2019-0118
40. Skalar, J. (2020). ‘Zoom fatigue’ is taxing the brain. National Geographic. Available at:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/coronavirus-zoom-fatigue-is-taxing-
the-brain-here-is-why-that-happens (accessed on January 08, 2022)
41. Sridhar, V. and Bhattacharya, S. (2021), Significant household factors that influence an IT
employees’ job effectiveness while on work from home, International Journal of Innovation
Science, Vol. 13 (1) , pp.105-117, 10.1108/IJIS-09-2020-0171
42. Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta‐analytic and theoretical review of
quintessential self‐regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65–94.
43. Steward, J. (2022). The Ultimate List Of Remote Work Statistics for 2022, available at:
https://findstack.com/remote-work-statistics/ (accessed on January 17, 2022)
44. Tejero, L.M.S.; Seva, R.R. and Fadrilan-Camacho V. F. F. (2021). Factors Associated With
Work-Life Balance and Productivity Before and During Work From Home, Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine: Vol. 63, Issue 12, p. 1065-1072. doi:
10.1097/JOM.0000000000002377
78th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development – Aveiro, 24-25 February, 2022
213
45. Thompson C. (2020). What if working from home goes on … forever? The New York Times
Magazine. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/09/magazine/
remote-work-covid.html (accessed November 25, 2020)
46. Toscano, F. and Zappala, S. (2020). Social Isolation and Stress as Predictors of
Productivity Perception and Remote Work Satisfaction during the COVID-19 Pandemic:
The Role of Concern about the Virus in a Moderated Double Mediation. Sustainability, Vol.
12, no. 23, pp. 9804. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239804
47. Troup, C. and Rose, J. (2012). Working from home: do formal or informal telework
arrangements provide better work–family outcomes? Community, Work and Family, Vol.
15, pp. 471-486.
48. Vilhelmson B. and Thulin E. (2016). Who and where are the flexible workers? Exploring
the current diffusion of telework in Sweden, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol.
31, No. 1, pp. 77–96.
49. Virick, M.; DaSilva, N. and Arrington, K. (2010). Moderators of the curvilinear relation
between extent of telecommuting and job and life satisfaction: The role of performance
outcome orientation and worker type. Human Relations, Vol. 63, 137–154.
50. Wang, B.; Liu, Y.; Qian, J. and Parker, Sh. K. (2021). Achieving Effective Remote Working
During the COVID‐19 Pandemic: A Work Design Perspective. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, Vol. 70 (1), 16–59. doi: 10.1111/apps.12290
