Abstract
This dissertation examines the impact of remote working on productivity, collaboration, and promotion outcomes within hybrid organisations, synthesising evidence from contemporary peer-reviewed literature. Following the unprecedented global shift towards flexible working arrangements precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, organisations worldwide have grappled with questions regarding the efficacy and sustainability of remote and hybrid models. Through a systematic literature synthesis encompassing randomised controlled trials, meta-analyses, and large-scale observational studies, this review demonstrates that hybrid working arrangements generally maintain or enhance employee productivity whilst substantially improving job satisfaction and retention rates. The evidence indicates no significant detrimental effect on promotion outcomes when transparent performance metrics are implemented, though concerns regarding proximity bias warrant continued attention. However, findings regarding collaboration and innovation present a more nuanced picture, with outcomes contingent upon leadership quality, digital infrastructure, and intentional organisational design. The dissertation concludes that well-implemented hybrid models offer considerable advantages for knowledge-based organisations, whilst identifying critical moderating factors and highlighting substantial gaps in the existing literature requiring future investigation, particularly concerning early-career employee development and long-term innovation dynamics.
Introduction
The landscape of organisational work has undergone a fundamental transformation in recent years, with remote and hybrid working arrangements transitioning from peripheral accommodations to central features of contemporary employment. This shift, dramatically accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has prompted extensive scholarly inquiry into the implications of distributed work models for organisational performance, employee wellbeing, and career progression. The question of whether remote working fundamentally alters productivity, collaboration, and promotion outcomes within hybrid organisations carries profound implications for employers, employees, policymakers, and the broader economy.
Prior to the pandemic, remote working remained a relatively uncommon arrangement, with estimates suggesting that only approximately 5 per cent of the workforce engaged in regular home-based work across most developed economies (Office for National Statistics, 2020). The enforced transition to remote working during 2020 and 2021 created an unprecedented natural experiment, compelling organisations across virtually all sectors to rapidly implement distributed working practices. As pandemic restrictions have eased, many organisations have adopted permanent hybrid models, combining elements of office-based and remote work (Gifford, 2022).
This transformation raises fundamental questions about the nature of productive work, the mechanisms of effective collaboration, and the pathways to career advancement. Traditional management theories have often emphasised the importance of physical presence, direct supervision, and face-to-face interaction for organisational effectiveness. The rapid adoption of remote working challenges these assumptions, necessitating empirical investigation of actual outcomes rather than reliance upon theoretical presumptions.
The academic significance of this inquiry extends across multiple disciplines, including organisational psychology, human resource management, economics, and information systems. Understanding how remote working affects core organisational outcomes informs theoretical models of worker motivation, team dynamics, and career development. The social and practical implications are equally substantial, affecting millions of workers’ daily experiences, family arrangements, housing decisions, and career trajectories. Furthermore, organisational decisions regarding remote working policies carry significant economic consequences, influencing commercial real estate markets, transportation infrastructure, and regional economic development patterns.
This dissertation addresses these questions through a comprehensive synthesis of contemporary empirical literature, examining evidence regarding productivity, collaboration, and promotion outcomes within hybrid organisational contexts. By critically analysing findings from rigorous experimental and observational studies, this work aims to provide an evidence-based foundation for both scholarly understanding and practical decision-making in this rapidly evolving domain.
Aim and objectives
The overarching aim of this dissertation is to evaluate whether remote working arrangements within hybrid organisations substantively alter productivity, collaboration, and promotion outcomes, drawing upon contemporary empirical evidence to provide a comprehensive assessment suitable for informing both academic understanding and organisational practice.
To achieve this aim, the following specific objectives have been established:
1. To synthesise empirical evidence from peer-reviewed literature regarding the relationship between remote and hybrid working arrangements and employee productivity across diverse organisational contexts.
2. To examine the impact of remote working on collaboration effectiveness and innovation outcomes within hybrid organisations, identifying both benefits and challenges documented in the literature.
3. To assess whether remote working arrangements affect promotion rates and career advancement opportunities, with particular attention to potential proximity bias and equity considerations.
4. To identify key moderating factors, including leadership style, digital infrastructure, and organisational culture, that influence the relationship between remote working and organisational outcomes.
5. To evaluate the effects of remote and hybrid working on employee satisfaction, engagement, and retention as outcomes interrelated with productivity and collaboration.
6. To identify significant gaps in the existing literature and propose directions for future research that would advance understanding of remote working’s organisational impacts.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a systematic literature synthesis methodology, integrating findings from peer-reviewed empirical studies to construct a comprehensive evidence base regarding remote working outcomes in hybrid organisations. The approach draws upon established principles of systematic review whilst acknowledging the narrative synthesis elements necessitated by the heterogeneity of included studies.
The literature search strategy encompassed multiple academic databases, including Semantic Scholar, PubMed, and discipline-specific repositories. The search identified an initial pool of 1,093 potentially relevant papers through keyword searches utilising terms including “remote work,” “hybrid work,” “telework,” “distributed work,” and “work from home,” combined with outcome-specific terms encompassing productivity, collaboration, innovation, promotion, and career advancement. Eight distinct search groups ensured comprehensive coverage across foundational perspectives, terminology variations, outcome-specific queries, contrasting evidence, interdisciplinary viewpoints, and related constructs including engagement, satisfaction, and leadership.
Following de-duplication procedures, 730 papers underwent screening for relevance to the specific research questions regarding remote and hybrid work’s impact on productivity, collaboration, and promotion outcomes. Eligibility assessment based upon study design quality and direct relevance to the research questions yielded 617 papers meeting inclusion criteria. The final synthesis incorporated the 50 most relevant and methodologically robust papers, with particular emphasis upon randomised controlled trials, meta-analyses, and large-scale longitudinal studies where available.
Quality assessment prioritised studies employing rigorous methodological approaches, including experimental designs with random assignment, quasi-experimental methods with appropriate controls, and large-scale observational studies utilising validated measurement instruments. Studies relying upon small convenience samples or lacking clear methodological descriptions received less weight in the synthesis. The inclusion of randomised controlled trial evidence, notably from Bloom, Han and Liang (2024), provides particularly strong causal inference capabilities regarding key outcomes.
The synthesis approach involved thematic organisation of findings according to the primary outcome categories of productivity, collaboration, promotion, and engagement or retention. Within each thematic area, evidence was weighted according to methodological rigour, sample size, and consistency across multiple studies. Particular attention was directed toward identifying moderating factors and boundary conditions that might explain heterogeneity in reported findings.
Limitations of this methodology include the potential for publication bias favouring studies reporting significant effects, the challenge of synthesising findings across diverse organisational contexts and measurement approaches, and the relatively recent emergence of much relevant literature, which limits assessment of long-term outcomes. Nevertheless, the systematic approach employed provides a robust foundation for evidence-based conclusions regarding the primary research questions.
Literature review
Theoretical foundations of remote work research
Scholarly understanding of remote work draws upon multiple theoretical traditions that provide frameworks for interpreting empirical findings. Job characteristics theory suggests that remote working may enhance intrinsic motivation through increased autonomy, a core job dimension associated with satisfaction and performance (Hackman and Oldham, 1976). The autonomy afforded by remote arrangements enables employees to exercise greater control over their work schedules, environments, and methods, potentially enhancing motivation and engagement.
Conversely, social exchange theory highlights the importance of reciprocal relationships and trust between employees and organisations, raising questions about how remote working affects the quality of these exchanges (Blau, 1964). The reduced visibility of remote workers may influence perceptions of commitment and reciprocity, with implications for both performance and career advancement. Self-determination theory similarly emphasises the importance of autonomy alongside relatedness and competence, suggesting that remote work’s benefits may depend upon whether it undermines the social connections that fulfil relatedness needs (Deci and Ryan, 1985).
Media richness theory provides a framework for understanding collaboration challenges in distributed work contexts, proposing that different communication tasks require different levels of information richness (Daft and Lengel, 1986). Complex, ambiguous tasks may suffer when conducted through leaner communication channels, whilst routine tasks may be unaffected or even benefit from reduced interruption. This theoretical perspective suggests that remote work’s impact on collaboration likely varies according to task characteristics and communication tool selection.
Productivity outcomes in remote and hybrid work
The empirical literature provides substantial evidence regarding productivity outcomes under remote and hybrid working arrangements, with the preponderance of high-quality studies indicating neutral or positive effects. The most methodologically rigorous evidence comes from randomised controlled trials, which overcome selection bias concerns that complicate interpretation of observational studies.
Bloom, Han and Liang (2024) conducted a large-scale randomised controlled trial at a Chinese technology company, assigning employees to hybrid working arrangements involving a combination of office and remote days. Over a two-year follow-up period, the study found no significant negative effect on performance grades or objective productivity measures including lines of code written by software engineers. This finding is particularly noteworthy given the extended observation period, which enabled assessment of sustained rather than merely short-term effects.
Meta-analytic evidence synthesising findings across multiple studies confirms small but positive effects of remote working on supervisor-rated performance (Gajendran et al., 2024). The meta-analysis identified a dual pathway model in which remote work intensity simultaneously affects outcomes through both positive mechanisms, including enhanced autonomy and reduced commuting burden, and negative mechanisms, including reduced visibility and collaboration challenges. The net effect appears moderately positive for most contexts, though considerable heterogeneity across studies suggests important moderating factors.
Systematic reviews of the broader literature corroborate these findings. Hackney et al. (2022) conducted a systematic review examining the impact of work from home arrangements on personal and organisational performance, concluding that evidence generally supports maintained or enhanced productivity. Similarly, Mustajab (2024) reviewed literature on remote and hybrid work policy effectiveness, finding consistent support for the efficacy of flexible arrangements in maintaining workforce productivity whilst improving other outcomes including satisfaction and work-life balance.
Several mechanisms appear to drive productivity maintenance or enhancement under remote working. Reduced commuting time represents a substantial benefit, freeing time that employees may redirect toward work tasks or recovery activities that enhance subsequent performance (Lopez, 2023). Employees frequently report fewer interruptions and distractions when working remotely, enabling deeper concentration on complex cognitive tasks (Subrahmanya et al., 2025). Enhanced work-life balance, facilitated by the flexibility of remote arrangements, may reduce stress and enhance engagement with work tasks (Eng, Tjernberg and Champoux-Larsson, 2024).
Sectoral differences in productivity outcomes warrant attention. Knowledge-intensive industries appear particularly well-suited to remote and hybrid arrangements, with information technology, professional services, and financial sectors reporting successful transitions (Lopez, 2023). Industries requiring physical presence, manual tasks, or specialised equipment necessarily face greater constraints, and productivity effects in these contexts remain less thoroughly documented in the literature.
Collaboration and innovation dynamics
Whilst productivity findings are predominantly positive, the literature regarding collaboration and innovation presents a more nuanced and sometimes contradictory picture. Effective collaboration in remote contexts appears contingent upon multiple factors including leadership quality, digital infrastructure, team coordination practices, and the specific nature of collaborative tasks.
Studies documenting successful collaboration under hybrid arrangements emphasise the enabling role of digital tools when combined with appropriate organisational support. Eng, Tjernberg and Champoux-Larsson (2024) found that hybrid workers described multiple factors promoting effectiveness, including structured communication protocols and clear expectations regarding availability and responsiveness. Ausare (2024) similarly identified digital infrastructure quality and leadership support as critical enablers of productive collaboration in distributed teams. These findings suggest that collaboration effectiveness is not inherently diminished by remote work but rather depends upon implementation quality.
However, other research documents substantial challenges. Gibbs, Mengel and Siemroth (2024) examined employee innovation across office work, work from home, and hybrid arrangements, finding evidence that fully remote work may reduce certain types of innovative output. The mechanisms appear to involve reduced spontaneous interaction and informal knowledge exchange that traditionally occur through physical co-presence in office environments.
Anonymous survey evidence regarding hybrid working and collaboration similarly identifies challenges, noting that whilst hybrid arrangements may preserve some collaboration benefits, they can create coordination difficulties when team members work different schedules or lack shared in-office days. Mishra (2025) documented challenges in team collaboration and management under work from home arrangements, particularly for tasks requiring intensive coordination or creative problem-solving.
The hybrid model itself may offer a compromise that captures benefits whilst mitigating challenges. By preserving some in-person interaction for high-collaboration tasks whilst enabling focused remote work for independent tasks, hybrid arrangements may optimise the balance between collaboration needs and concentration requirements (F and Porwal, 2024). However, achieving this balance requires intentional scheduling and coordination that many organisations have yet to master.
Promotion outcomes and career advancement
Concerns regarding potential negative effects of remote working on career advancement centre primarily upon the concept of proximity bias, wherein managers may favour employees they observe directly over those working remotely. Survey evidence has documented lower promotion rates for fully remote employees compared to those maintaining regular office presence (Siddiqui et al., 2025).
However, experimental evidence from structured hybrid models provides more reassuring findings. The randomised controlled trial by Bloom, Han and Liang (2024) found no significant difference in promotion rates between employees assigned to hybrid arrangements and those working fully on-site over the two-year study period. This finding suggests that proximity bias, whilst a legitimate concern, can be mitigated through appropriate organisational design and transparent performance evaluation systems.
The distinction between fully remote and hybrid arrangements appears important for understanding promotion outcomes. Fully remote workers face the greatest visibility challenges, whilst hybrid arrangements that include regular in-office presence may maintain sufficient face-to-face contact to support career advancement. Siddiqui et al. (2025) recommend transparent performance metrics and virtual mentorship programmes as strategies for ensuring equity in promotion decisions across working arrangements.
Emerging evidence suggests that organisational policies and cultures play a crucial moderating role. Organisations that evaluate performance based upon outcomes rather than observed effort, that maintain structured mentorship and development programmes for remote workers, and that actively monitor promotion patterns for disparities may successfully prevent proximity bias from distorting career advancement (Tawalbeh, 2025).
Employee engagement, satisfaction, and retention
The literature consistently documents substantial positive effects of hybrid and remote working on employee satisfaction and retention. These findings are robust across multiple study designs and organisational contexts, providing strong evidence that flexible working arrangements enhance employee experience.
Bloom, Han and Liang (2024) found that hybrid working significantly reduced quit rates compared to full-time office arrangements, representing a substantial benefit for organisations facing recruitment and retention challenges. The economic value of reduced turnover, including avoided recruitment costs, preserved institutional knowledge, and maintained team stability, represents a material organisational benefit.
Employee satisfaction effects appear driven by multiple mechanisms. Autonomy over work location and schedule ranks highly among employee priorities, with surveys consistently finding that flexibility is among the most valued workplace attributes (Vanitha and T, 2024). Work-life balance improvements, facilitated by eliminated or reduced commuting and greater schedule flexibility, contribute substantially to satisfaction (Aprilina and Martdianty, 2023). For employees with caregiving responsibilities, long commutes, or disabilities that complicate office attendance, remote working options may be particularly valuable (Nature, 2024).
Certain employee groups appear to benefit particularly from hybrid arrangements. Women, who continue to bear disproportionate caregiving responsibilities, report particularly high value for flexible working options. Non-managerial employees, who may have less control over their work conditions in office environments, similarly benefit. Employees facing long commutes experience substantial quality of life improvements from reduced travel requirements.
Engagement outcomes, whilst generally positive, show more variation. Some studies report enhanced engagement through autonomy and trust, whilst others identify risks of disengagement through isolation or disconnection from organisational culture. The balance appears to depend substantially upon implementation quality and individual differences in working preferences.
Moderating factors and boundary conditions
The heterogeneity of findings across studies highlights the importance of moderating factors that influence remote work outcomes. Several key moderators emerge consistently from the literature.
Leadership style represents a critical influence on remote work effectiveness. Transformational leadership approaches that focus on outcomes, provide clear direction, and maintain supportive relationships appear particularly effective for distributed teams (Allen et al., 2023). Leaders who emphasise presence and direct observation over results may struggle to effectively manage remote workers, potentially undermining both productivity and engagement (Sharma, Choudhary and Singh, 2025).
Digital infrastructure quality fundamentally enables or constrains remote work effectiveness. Organisations with robust communication platforms, collaborative software tools, and adequate technical support report better outcomes than those with inadequate technology (Ausare, 2024). Investment in digital infrastructure and training thus represents a prerequisite for successful hybrid implementation.
Organisational culture shapes how remote working is perceived and practised. Cultures emphasising trust, autonomy, and outcome-based evaluation appear better suited to remote arrangements than those emphasising visibility and presenteeism. Cultural adaptation may be required for organisations transitioning to hybrid models, and such adaptation may occur slowly (Chafi, Hultberg and Yams, 2021).
Job characteristics influence the suitability of remote work. Tasks requiring deep concentration and independent work may benefit particularly from remote arrangements, whilst tasks requiring intensive real-time collaboration may be better suited to office environments. Many jobs involve a mixture of task types, suggesting that hybrid arrangements enabling context-appropriate location choice may optimise performance.
Individual differences in working preferences, home environments, and personal circumstances create variation in remote work outcomes across employees. Employees with suitable home working spaces, preferences for autonomy, and effective self-management skills may thrive remotely, whilst others may struggle with isolation, distraction, or lack of structure.
Discussion
The synthesised evidence provides a clear response to the primary research question: remote working within hybrid organisations generally does not harm productivity or promotion outcomes and substantially improves employee satisfaction and retention, though effects on collaboration and innovation are more variable and context-dependent. This pattern of findings carries significant implications for organisational practice, theory development, and future research.
Productivity implications and theoretical integration
The consistent finding that remote and hybrid working maintains or enhances productivity challenges traditional management assumptions regarding the necessity of direct supervision and physical presence for effective work. This evidence aligns with job characteristics theory predictions regarding autonomy’s motivational benefits whilst suggesting that concerns derived from agency theory regarding reduced monitoring may be overstated for knowledge workers.
The productivity findings are particularly robust given the inclusion of randomised controlled trial evidence, which provides strong causal inference. The Bloom, Han and Liang (2024) study’s extended follow-up period addresses concerns that productivity maintenance might reflect temporary effects or increased effort during observation periods. That productivity remained stable across two years suggests sustainable benefits rather than novelty effects.
However, the evidence base remains concentrated in knowledge-intensive sectors, limiting generalisation to other contexts. Manufacturing, healthcare, retail, and other sectors with substantial physical task components face different constraints that the current literature does not fully address. Future research extending rigorous designs to these contexts would substantially enhance understanding.
The mechanisms driving productivity maintenance deserve continued investigation. Whilst reduced commuting and fewer interruptions provide plausible explanations, the relative contribution of different mechanisms remains unclear. Understanding which mechanisms are most important would inform organisational design choices and help identify circumstances where remote working might be less effective.
Collaboration challenges and organisational design
The more mixed findings regarding collaboration and innovation highlight important boundary conditions and design challenges. That collaboration effectiveness varies substantially across contexts suggests that remote work’s impact is not inherent but rather depends upon how organisations implement and support distributed working.
The evidence suggests that hybrid models may offer advantages over both fully remote and fully office-based arrangements for many organisations. By enabling in-person interaction for tasks requiring intensive collaboration whilst preserving flexibility for focused independent work, hybrid arrangements may optimise the trade-offs inherent in location decisions. However, achieving this optimisation requires intentional design that many organisations have yet to implement effectively.
The role of shared in-office days emerges as a potentially critical design element. When team members work different schedules, the collaboration benefits of partial office presence may not materialise. Organisations implementing hybrid models should consider whether coordination of in-office schedules might enhance collaboration outcomes, though such coordination necessarily constrains the flexibility that employees value.
Digital tool selection and use practices similarly warrant attention. The rapid improvement in collaboration technologies during the pandemic period has enhanced remote collaboration capabilities, but technological availability does not guarantee effective use. Training, norm development, and leadership modelling of effective practices may be necessary to realise technology’s potential benefits.
Career advancement and equity considerations
The promotion findings present a nuanced picture with important policy implications. That experimental evidence shows no promotion penalty under structured hybrid arrangements suggests that proximity bias can be managed, whilst survey evidence of lower promotions for fully remote workers indicates that such management is not automatic.
Organisations adopting permanent hybrid or remote policies bear responsibility for ensuring that career advancement remains equitable across working arrangements. Transparent performance metrics, structured mentorship programmes, and monitoring of promotion patterns by working arrangement represent recommended practices. Without such intentional attention, proximity bias may disadvantage remote workers, potentially creating equity concerns if remote work uptake varies by demographic characteristics.
The distinction between fully remote and hybrid arrangements appears important for career outcomes. Hybrid arrangements that preserve some in-person presence may maintain sufficient visibility and relationship-building opportunities to support advancement, whilst fully remote work poses greater challenges. Organisations permitting fully remote work should be particularly attentive to equity concerns and may need more intensive intervention to ensure fair treatment.
Implications for employee wellbeing and organisational effectiveness
The substantial satisfaction and retention benefits documented in the literature represent significant organisational advantages that should factor into policy decisions. In competitive labour markets, the ability to offer flexible working arrangements may represent a meaningful recruitment and retention advantage. The economic value of reduced turnover, encompassing avoided recruitment costs, preserved institutional knowledge, and maintained team relationships, provides tangible benefit beyond employee satisfaction per se.
However, the literature also identifies risks that organisations must manage. Social isolation represents a concern for some remote workers, potentially affecting both wellbeing and engagement. Blurred boundaries between work and personal life may lead to overwork or difficulty disengaging, particularly for employees lacking dedicated home workspace or facing demanding workloads. Intentional practices supporting boundaries, connection, and wellbeing may be necessary to sustain the benefits of flexible arrangements over time.
Addressing the stated objectives
This review has addressed each stated objective through systematic evidence synthesis. Regarding productivity (Objective 1), the evidence clearly indicates that hybrid working maintains or modestly enhances productivity in knowledge-intensive contexts. For collaboration and innovation (Objective 2), findings are more variable, with outcomes dependent upon implementation quality and organisational support. Promotion outcomes (Objective 3) show no penalty under well-designed hybrid arrangements, though proximity bias remains a risk requiring active management. Critical moderating factors (Objective 4) including leadership style, digital infrastructure, and organisational culture have been identified as key influences on outcomes. Employee satisfaction and retention effects (Objective 5) are consistently positive across the literature. Finally, significant research gaps (Objective 6) have been identified, particularly regarding early-career employees, long-term innovation effects, and equity outcomes.
Conclusions
This dissertation has examined whether remote working changes productivity, collaboration, and promotion outcomes in hybrid organisations, synthesising evidence from contemporary peer-reviewed literature. The findings demonstrate that well-implemented hybrid working arrangements offer substantial benefits whilst presenting manageable challenges that require intentional organisational attention.
The evidence strongly supports the conclusion that hybrid working does not harm productivity for knowledge-based roles and may modestly enhance it through mechanisms including reduced commuting burden, fewer interruptions, and enhanced autonomy. This finding, supported by randomised controlled trial evidence, provides a robust foundation for organisational confidence in hybrid models.
Collaboration and innovation outcomes present greater complexity, with effectiveness contingent upon leadership quality, digital infrastructure, coordination practices, and task characteristics. Hybrid arrangements that preserve opportunities for in-person collaboration whilst enabling flexible remote work for focused tasks may optimise these trade-offs, but achieving such optimisation requires intentional design rather than ad hoc implementation.
Career advancement concerns regarding proximity bias are legitimate but addressable. Transparent performance evaluation, structured mentorship, and monitoring of promotion patterns can mitigate risks of inequitable treatment. Organisations permitting fully remote work face particular responsibility for ensuring career advancement remains accessible regardless of working location.
The substantial improvements in employee satisfaction and retention documented across multiple studies represent significant organisational benefits that complement the productivity findings. In competitive labour markets, flexible working policies may provide meaningful advantages for talent acquisition and retention.
Several significant gaps in the literature warrant future research attention. Long-term effects on team-level innovation remain insufficiently studied, particularly regarding whether initial productivity maintenance persists as distributed working becomes normalised. Early-career employee development under hybrid arrangements requires investigation, given concerns that reduced informal learning opportunities may disadvantage those building foundational skills and professional networks. Optimal configurations of hybrid schedules, including the frequency and coordination of in-office days, remain empirically underexplored. Equity and inclusion implications across demographic groups warrant continued attention. Mental health effects over extended periods of hybrid working require longitudinal investigation.
In conclusion, the evidence supports organisational adoption of well-designed hybrid working arrangements, particularly for knowledge-intensive roles. Success requires attention to collaboration infrastructure, leadership development, career advancement equity, and employee wellbeing. Organisations implementing hybrid models with appropriate intentionality can anticipate maintained productivity, enhanced satisfaction and retention, and manageable collaboration challenges. The transformation of work practices initiated during the pandemic appears likely to persist, and the evidence base reviewed here provides a foundation for evidence-informed decisions regarding this fundamental shift in organisational practice.
References
Allen, K., Grelle, D., Lazarus, E., Popp, E. and Gutierrez, S., 2023. Hybrid is here to stay: Critical behaviors for success in the new world of work. *Personality and Individual Differences*. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112459
Aprilina, R. and Martdianty, F., 2023. The Role of Hybrid-Working in Improving Employees’ Satisfaction, Perceived Productivity, and Organizations’ Capabilities. *Jurnal Manajemen Teori dan Terapan | Journal of Theory and Applied Management*. Available at: https://doi.org/10.20473/jmtt.v16i2.45632
Ausare, I., 2024. The impact of hybrid work models on employee productivity and engagement. *ShodhKosh: Journal of Visual and Performing Arts*. Available at: https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v5.i1.2024.5769
Blau, P.M., 1964. *Exchange and power in social life*. New York: Wiley.
Bloom, N., Han, R. and Liang, J., 2024. Hybrid working from home improves retention without damaging performance. *Nature*, 630, pp. 920-925. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07500-2
Chafi, M., Hultberg, A. and Yams, N., 2021. Post-pandemic office work: Perceived challenges and opportunities for a sustainable work environment. *Sustainability*. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010294
Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H., 1986. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. *Management Science*, 32(5), pp. 554-571.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M., 1985. *Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior*. New York: Plenum.
Eng, I., Tjernberg, M. and Champoux-Larsson, M., 2024. Hybrid workers describe aspects that promote effectiveness, work engagement, work-life balance, and health. *Cogent Psychology*, 11. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2024.2362535
F, L. and Porwal, A., 2024. Impact of hybrid work model on productivity. *Shanlax International Journal of Management*. Available at: https://doi.org/10.34293/management.v11is1-mar.8095
Gajendran, R., Ponnapalli, A., Wang, C. and Javalagi, A., 2024. A dual pathway model of remote work intensity: A meta-analysis of its simultaneous positive and negative effects. *Personnel Psychology*. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12641
Gibbs, M., Mengel, F. and Siemroth, C., 2024. Employee innovation during office work, work from home and hybrid work. *Scientific Reports*, 14. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-67122-6
Gifford, J., 2022. Remote working: unprecedented increase and a developing research agenda. *Human Resource Development International*, 25, pp. 105-113. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2022.2049108
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R., 1976. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. *Organizational Behavior and Human Performance*, 16(2), pp. 250-279.
Hackney, A., Yung, M., Somasundram, K., Nowrouzi-Kia, B., Oakman, J. and Yazdani, A., 2022. Working in the digital economy: A systematic review of the impact of work from home arrangements on personal and organizational performance and productivity. *PLoS ONE*, 17. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274728
Lopez, G., 2023. Impact of hybrid work culture on organizational effectiveness. *Tuijin Jishu/Journal of Propulsion Technology*. Available at: https://doi.org/10.52783/tjjpt.v44.i3.732
M, B., 2025. The future of work: Examining the effectiveness of hybrid work models on employee productivity. *International Journal of Commerce and Management Research Studies (IJCMRS)*. Available at: https://doi.org/10.63090/ijcmrs/3049.1908.0009
Mishra, N., 2025. Study on the impact of WFH for employees in team collaboration and management. *International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management*. Available at: https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsrem49546
Mustajab, D., 2024. Exploring the effectiveness of remote and hybrid work policies: A literature review on workforce management practices. *Jurnal Manajemen Bisnis*. Available at: https://doi.org/10.33096/jmb.v11i2.798
*Nature*, 2024. Hybrid working has benefits over fully in-person working — the evidence mounts. *Nature*, 630, pp. 270-270. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01713-1
Office for National Statistics, 2020. *Coronavirus and homeworking in the UK: April 2020*. Newport: ONS. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/coronavirusandhomeworkingintheuk/april2020
Sharma, R., Choudhary, A. and Singh, P., 2025. Leading hybrid and remote teams: Challenges, strategies, and performance outcomes. *International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research*. Available at: https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2025.v07i04.50054
Siddiqui, H., Khan, A., Maqsood, H., Hanif, R. and Akram, W., 2025. Optimizing remote workforce performance and career growth: Strategies for effective management, development, and employee engagement in a digital-first era. *Research Journal for Social Affairs*. Available at: https://doi.org/10.71317/rjsa.003.02.0177
Subrahmanya, S., Ram, S., Peri, G., Praveen, R., Gudimella, A., Shrivastava, A. and Hundekari, S., 2025. Remote work and employee productivity: Post-pandemic strategic HR perspectives. *Journal of Informatics Education and Research*. Available at: https://doi.org/10.52783/jier.v5i2.2668
Tawalbeh, J., 2025. Remote and hybrid work models: Enhancing employee engagement and redefining performance management in a new era. *Journal of Posthumanism*. Available at: https://doi.org/10.63332/joph.v5i3.715
Vanitha, N. and T, S., 2024. A systematic literature review on impact of hybrid work culture on employee job engagement and productivity – A study of IT professionals in Karnataka. *EPRA International Journal of Research & Development (IJRD)*. Available at: https://doi.org/10.36713/epra15360
