The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0969-6474.htm

Hybrid
The future of work: work workplace
engagement and job performance
in the hybrid workplace
M. Muzamil Naqshbandi
School of Business and Economics, University of Brunei Darussalam,
Jalan Tungku Link, Brunei Darussalam Received 22 August 2022
Revised 14 December 2022
8 February 2023
Ibrahim Kabir Accepted 7 March 2023
School of Business and Economics, University of Brunei Darussalam,
Jalan Tungku Link, Brunei Darussalam and Department of Business
Administration, Northwest University Kano, Kano, Nigeria, and
Nurul Amirah Ishak and Md. Zahidul Islam
School of Business and Economics, University of Brunei Darussalam,
Jalan Tungku Link, Brunei Darussalam

Abstract
Purpose – Drawing on the job demands-resources (JD-R) model, the authors examine how working in the
hybrid workplace model (telework and flexible work) affects job performance via the intervening role of work
engagement.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors adopted a quantitative approach and collected data
from 277 employees working in universities in Nigeria. Partial least square structural equation modelling was
used to analyse the data and test the hypotheses.
Findings – The findings reveal that flexible work, not telework, has a significant and positive effect on job
performance. It also emerges that flexible work positively affects work engagement, and work engagement
significantly mediates the relationship between flexible work and job performance. However, the findings do
not support the effect of telework on work engagement and the mediating role of work engagement in the
proposed relation between telework and job performance.
Originality/value – The paper provides fresh insights by linking the components of the hybrid workplace
model with job performance and employee work engagement and extending the JD-R model to the hybrid
workplace setting. The practitioners can benefit from the findings of this study by factoring in the importance
of the hybrid workplace model in designing policies and procedures to promote job performance.
Keywords Hybrid workforce, Hybrid workplace model, Hybrid work environment,
Employee work engagement, Employee work performance, Performance appraisal
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Following the outbreak of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the ensuing social-
distancing restrictions, organizations worldwide adopted the hybrid working model as a
viable arrangement to ensure business continuity (McKinsey and Company, 2021).

The Learning Organization

The authors would like to thank the three reviewers and the editor for their valuable comments © Emerald Publishing Limited
0969-6474
during the review process. DOI 10.1108/TLO-08-2022-0097
TLO Although it is uncertain as to when the pandemic will end, many organizations have
planned on continuing to offer a hybrid working model – in which employees are allowed to
work anytime (i.e. flexible work) and anywhere (i.e. telework) (Tran, Carden, & Zhang, 2022).
COVID cases are declining, and vaccination rates are increasing, yet many employees are
reluctant to return to the office. According to a survey by McKinsey and Company (2021),
the hybrid working mode will become far more common in the foreseeable future. The shift
to the hybrid work model benefits employees and organizations considerably. From the
employee perspective, it promises greater flexibility and work-life balance (Biron, Casper, &
Raghuram, 2022), while for organizations, it enhances the organizational bottom line by
improving productivity and reducing fixed costs (Perez, Sanchez, & de Luis Carnicer, 2003;
Raghuram, Hill, Gibbs, & Maruping, 2019; Choudhury, Foroughi, & Larson, 2021).
As future work is likely to be more hybrid, understanding how such a workplace model
impacts employees’ work-related outcomes is more important than ever during this
transition to a new era of working. The research on alternative working arrangements has
invested considerable effort in exploring the effect on employees’ outcomes, especially job
performance (de Menezes & Kelliher, 2011). However, the reported impact of the hybrid
workplace model (telework and flexible work) on employee job performance has been
inconsistent, ranging from beneficial to detrimental to no effect at all.
For example, several studies have noted that the modality of telework and flexible work
could provide employees with more job control and freedom to work anywhere at any time,
which boosts their productivity (Casper & Harris, 2008; Gajendran et al., 2015; Sekhar &
Patwardhan, 2021). However, it has been highlighted that workplace arrangements like
flexible work might cause the lines between work and personal life to erode due to increased
job demands (Wöhrmann & Ebner, 2021). On the other hand, telework may make it more
difficult to access essential job resources like tasks and interpersonal relationships owing to
physical and mental isolation (Raghuram et al., 2019; Liu, Wan, & Fan, 2021). Other studies
(Kattenbach, Demerouti, & Nachreiner, 2010; Jackson & Fransman, 2018; Campo, Avolio, &
Carlier, 2021) have identified that such a working model does not necessarily improve
productivity due to family disruptions and social isolation, interference in communicating
and collaborating with other coworkers given that they are not working in parallel. Taken
together, these contradictory results point to examining the nuances of the question by
considering the intricate and indirect connections.
With this as the background and to gain a deeper understanding, our study builds on the
existing work by integrating employee work engagement as a mediator in the relationship
between the hybrid workplace model and job performance. Gerards, de Grip, and Baudewijns
(2018) reported that work engagement, described as a positive, affective-motivational work-related
state of high energy combined with high levels of dedication and a strong focus on work, can be
influenced by the working arrangement that offers employees with autonomy and personal
discretion including telework (i.e. location-autonomy) and flexible work (time-autonomy). On the
other hand, work engagement gives greater calibration for desired favourable work outcomes
(Koroglu & Ozmen, 2022), including performance. Most existing studies consistently agree that
work engagement could enhance job performance (Bakker, Tims, & Derks, 2012; Byrne, Albert,
Manning, & Desir, 2017; Saks, 2019). Despite this theoretical reasoning, the impact of the
components of the hybrid workplace model (i.e. telework, flexible work) on job performance and
the mediating effect of work engagement remain unexplored. We, therefore, draw on the job
demands-resources (JD-R) model and investigate the psychological mechanism of employee work
engagement to capture its indirect role in the relationships between the components of the hybrid
workplace model and job performance.
 The research setting of this study is Nigeria. Although job demands across Nigerian Hybrid
universities are not inherently bad, they are characterized by work pressure, emotional workplace
demands, role overload and inadequate packages. Equally, despite important job resources
across these universities, such as autonomy, participation in decision-making, skill variety
and time control, lack of material resources, laboratory equipment, infrastructural
facilities and other teaching-learning resources may be sub-optimal in Nigerian universities.
Although hybrid work arrangements positively influence work engagement and job
performance (Heiden, Widar, Wiitavaara, & Boman, 2021), these problems may limit its
application and positive influences. Nevertheless, empirical studies on the association
between these variables across these universities are still elusive. In Nigeria, like in other
parts of the world, technological advancement and globalization of the educational sector
has increased opportunities for students and academics to interact and work without
physical presence. Hybrid work arrangements may bridge the gap in physical distance,
giving many academic and non-academic staff opportunities to work at home at their
convenience. Drawing on the JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017), our study examines
whether a hybrid workplace (telework and flexible work) offsets job demands and relatively
meagre job resources of Nigerian universities and stimulates work engagement and job
performance. To test this model, we used a data set from 277 employees working as teaching
and non-teaching staff in several Nigerian universities.
Therefore, this study firstly contributes to the literature by empirically validating a
framework and extending the JD-R model to the context of the higher education sector in an
emerging economy. In addition, the JD-R model has traditionally not specifically addressed a
hybrid workplace scenario. Secondly, we draw and expand the JD-R model incorporating the
components of the hybrid workplace model and categorize working environments or job
characteristics into two types: demands and resources. The study also offers insights for
policymakers and practitioners to understand the hybrid workplace model and its impact on
employees’ work-related outcomes, such as work engagement and job performance.

2. Research context and background

2.1 Higher education institutions as learning organizations
Higher educational institutions (HEIs) such as universities are considered centres of advanced
learning designed to facilitate teaching-learning and professional development. These
institutions remain under the focus of governments because they serve as the backbone for
economic development and national progress (Trevitt, Steed, Du Moulin, & Foley, 2017). HEIs
are thus expected to establish themselves as active learning organizations to enhance their
performance and promote sustainable development (Tran & Pham, 2019). According to
Patterson (1999), HEIs can be considered learning organizations as they thrive to apply new
ideas and change to new ways of operating in response to changing environmental conditions.
As a result, HEIs face increasing pressure to improve competitiveness within and across
national borders (Bui & Baruch, 2010).
HEIs worldwide are facing significant challenges on multiple fronts, including digital
transformation, heterogeneous student population, satisfying the competitiveness of
graduates in the labour market and meeting employers’ demands and providing graduates
with a potential for life-long learning (Voolaid & Ehrlich, 2017). The recent outbreak of
COVID-19 and the ensuing policies (such as social distancing and lockdown) have added to
these challenges and disrupted the higher education sector, enforcing the adoption of hybrid
working and learning arrangements. Consequently, this massive shift towards hybrid
working and learning has accelerated digital transformation in higher education, and its
effects are expected to persist even after the pandemic ends. Thus, HEI employees (academic
TLO and non-academic staff) play an increasingly crucial role in the learning process to boost
performance and steer institutional development. These developments attract attention to
how the hybrid workplace model can affect employees’ work-related outcomes, such as job
performance in the context of HEIs.

2.2 Hybrid workplace model

Traditionally, the idea of “workplace” has been associated with a specific location. A hybrid
workplace refers to working arrangements combining traditional on-site office settings and
remote working (Iqbal, Khalid, & Barykin, 2021). While there are myriad ways to
conceptualize a hybrid workplace model, the current study follows Radonic, Vukmirovic,
and Milosavljevic (2021) approach by conceptualizing it as both the adoption and/or
availability of “telework” and “flexible work”.
Telework provides employees with the autonomy to decide where to perform their work
(Spivack & Milosevic, 2018). Driven by the advancement in technologies and Internet access,
telework enables employees to work and engage virtually from any geographical location
and minimizes the need for employees’ physical presence (Raghuram et al., 2019; Tran et al.,
2022). Meanwhile, flexible work provides employees with the autonomy to decide when to
perform the work independent of their typical working hours (Kattenbach et al., 2010;
Gerards et al., 2018). Amongst the common flexible working arrangement are compressed
workweek and flextime schedules. The compressed workweek enables employees to
work more hours per day but on fewer days per week, whereas flextime schedules
allow workers to choose their working hours subject to some organizational constraints
(McNall, Masuda, & Nicklin, 2009).

2.3 Job performance

Job performance is one of the most researched outcomes of work arrangements such as
telework and flexible work (c.f. de Menezes & Kelliher, 2011). Job performance is the degree
to which employees fulfil the tasks and roles imposed on them by task and organizational
contexts (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Generally, one’s job performance is evaluated in two
aspects:
(1) directly through task performance; and
(2) indirectly through contextual performance (Armstrong & Taylor, 2020).

Task performance relates to the employees’ proficiency in performing important technical

tasks pertaining to their job, which can be measured in terms of the attainment of
performance goals (Locke & Latham, 1990). Whereas contextual performance reflects the
positive behaviour that indirectly contributes to achieving organizational goals. This
contextual performance can be measured in terms of competence development that will aid
in improving employees’ job performance (Lejeune, Beausaert, & Raemdonck, 2021).

2.4 Work engagement

Work engagement is an employee’s positive, affective-motivational work-related mental
state characterized by three dimensions:
(1) vigour (capturing one’s high energy, mental resilience and persistence);
(2) dedication (representing one’s intense involvement and enthusiasm); and
(3) absorption (addressing one’s full concentration on work and positive immersion)
(Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002).
Research on work engagement in a hybrid workplace context is relatively underrepresented Hybrid
in the extant literature as most research has focused on the traditional workplace model workplace
(Mäkikangas, Juutinen, Mäkiniemi, Sjöblom, & Oksanen, 2022). This study conceptualises
work engagement as a mediator linking the components of the hybrid workplace model
(telework and flexible work) to job performance.

3. Theory and hypotheses

This study draws on the JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014, 2017) to explain the
interrelationship between the hybrid workplace model, work engagement and job
performance. The JD-R model has been frequently used to understand how work
environments affect employee well-being (e.g. work engagement, burnout, health and
motivation) and job performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). According to this model, all
working conditions or job characteristics can be classified into two broad categories: job
demands and job resources (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Both job demands and resources
may relate to the job’s physical, psychological, social or organizational features. Job
demands are not inherently bad, but they can be hurdles because they frequently call for
greater effort on the part of the employees to manage the stress brought on by the job.
Examples of job demands are high time and work pressure, emotional demands and role
overload. Whereas, job resources provide support through positive feedback and
organizational support (Schaufeli et al., 2006). Common examples of job resources include
autonomy, participation in decision-making, skill variety and time control.
Based on the above differentiation, the JD-R model postulates that job demands and
resources are the catalysts for two independent processes: motivational and health
impairment processes. The motivational process occurs when job resources foster employee
work engagement and increase employee effort, leading to enhanced job performance
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). In contrast, the health impairment process occurs when intense
and persistent job demands exhaust employees’ physical and mental resources, resulting in
disengagement and decreased performance (Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004).
Moreover, a cross-linkage exists between the two processes wherein job demands may
amplify the influence of job resources on engagement, and job resources may buffer the
impact of job demands on the strain, including burnout (Bakker et al., 2014).
Based on the JD-R model, this study presents a research framework that studies the effect
of the two components of the hybrid workplace model on job performance via the
intervening mechanism of employee work engagement. We propose seven hypotheses: the
first and the second conceptualize the effect of telework and flexible work on job
performance. The third and fourth hypotheses theorize the influence of telework and flexible
work on employee work engagement. The fifth hypothesis proposes the impact of employee
work engagement on job performance. The last two hypotheses theorize the mediating
role of employee work engagement in the relationships between the two components of the
hybrid work model and job performance. Figure 1 below presents these hypotheses as a
research framework developed in the following sub-sections.

3.1 Hybrid workplace model and job performance

From the lens of the JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014), the hybrid workplace model
(telework and flexible work) could alter the employees’ working conditions, triggering
processes that positively (i.e. enhanced job resources and reduced job demands) and
negatively (i.e. reduced job resources and enhanced job demands) affect job performance.
Regarding telework, previous studies have demonstrated an inconsistent association
between telework and job performance. On the one hand, empirical evidence shows that
TLO telework may negatively affect individual job performance (Golden, Veiga, & Dino, 2008;
Golden & Raghuram, 2010; Raghuram et al., 2019). This is owing to the lack of job resources
such as interpersonal and social relations (e.g. supervisor and coworker support and
interactions), leading to severe social isolation (Mosquera, Soares, & Alvadia, 2022). On the
other hand, several studies have acknowledged its positive association with an employee’s
job performance (Bloom, Liang, Roberts, & Ying, 2015; Gajendran et al., 2015). Liu et al.
(2021) contended that teleworkers can compensate for the unavoidable defects of telework
and ultimately enhance their job performance by proactively crafting their jobs to be in line
with their individual needs and work requirements (Liu et al., 2021).
In the context of Nigeria, lack of resources represents one of the common challenges
faced by most universities, especially public universities (Esechie et al., 2022), resulting in
frequent labour strikes. This shortage of resources, coupled with labour strikes, can trigger
stressful disturbances and interruptions at work, exacerbating job demands (Wöhrmann &
Ebner, 2021). Thus, in such working conditions, employees may see telework as a retreat to
concentrate on performing their tasks. Thus, we hypothesize that:

H1. Telework is positively related to job performance

Likewise, in the case of flexible work, the extant research shows contradicting findings on
its influence on employee job performance. Theoretically, work flexibility increases
employee autonomy as a key job resource (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). Thus, providing
employees with flexible work is expected to contribute favourably to their job performance.
Prior research reveals that employee productivity or performance either improves or stays
the same after implementing flexible working arrangements such as compressed workweek
and flexitime (Kattenbach et al., 2010). Using the circadian rhythm mechanism, Pierce et al.
(1989) argue that every individual has a specific time period during which they perform at
an optimal level or feel ready to perform. Thus, it is believed that flexible work schedules
allow individuals to adjust their working time to their rhythm and, in turn, enable greater
utilization of their peak time. Broadly, at the individual level, flexible work helps attain
greater job control and, thus, leads to enhanced productivity (Casper & Harris, 2008;
Sekhar & Patwardhan, 2021). In the case of Nigeria, Kabir, Gunu, and Gwadabe (2022)
reported that Nigerian employees enjoy job autonomy, making their jobs more flexible,
which may positively affect their job performance. Reinforcing this argument further,
Abioro, Oladejo, and Ashogbon (2018) revealed a positive and significant association
between flexitime and employee productivity in the Nigerian university system. Relatedly,

Figure 1.
Research framework
conceptualizing the
linkages between the
hybrid workplace
model, work
engagement and job
performance
Abba (2018) showed that flextime is an important predictor of academic staff’s work Hybrid
performance in North-West Nigerian polytechnics. Thus, we hypothesize that: workplace
H2. Flexible work is positively related to job performance.

3.2 Hybrid workplace model and work engagement

As explicated in the JD-R model, job demands and job resources have unique and independent
effects on employee outcomes. Bakker and Demerouti (2018) have contended that job demands
may result in chronic exhaustion and may eventually lead to physical health problems,
whereas job resources initiate a motivational process and contribute positively to work
engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2018). From the perspective of the JD-R model, the
components of the hybrid workplace model – telework and flexible work – modify employees’
working conditions, stimulating processes that positively and negatively impact employee
outcomes.
Given the paradoxical findings in telework research, it is still unclear whether telework is
ultimately beneficial or detrimental. Scholars such as Gerards et al. (2018) have asserted that
having access to teleworking may enhance employee work engagement. By working from
home or another preferred location, telework saves the stress and energy of long commuting
that otherwise contribute to exhaustion (Wilks & Billsberry, 2007). Conversely,
Sardeshmukh et al. (2012) revealed that telework negatively influences employee
engagement. Specifically, concerning resources, telework may give employees more
autonomy and less time pressure; however, it may also be linked to reduced support and
feedback from colleagues and supervisors, thereby lowering their work engagement. At the
same time, in terms of demands, telework elevates workload, interruptions,
misunderstandings and conflicts (Pulido-Martos, Cortes-Denia, & Lopez-Zafra, 2021). When
incomplete recovery occurs, high job demands accumulate gradually, leading to exhaustion
and disengagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Saks & Gruman 2014). Such a situation
may obtain as the boundaries that usually separate work and personal domains have
blurred (Wöhrmann & Ebner, 2021). Corroborating this line of thought, Gerards et al. (2018)
demonstrated that location-independent work is not significantly related to work
engagement. We hence hypothesize that:

H3. Telework is negatively related to work engagement.

Flexible work arrangements such as compressed workweeks and flexitime give employees
discretion over the timing and number of hours worked (Kelly et al., 2008; Henly & Lambert,
2010), helping them manage their work more effectively (Ab Wahab & Tatoglu, 2020).
Viewed from the lens of the JD-R model, the provision of time control or autonomy can be
considered an employee’s job resource, whilst time pressure can be seen as a job demand.
Job resources such as autonomy led to positive employee outcomes such as work
engagement because they facilitate work motivation and help to cope with high job
demands (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Kattenbach et al., 2010).
Specifically, the flexibility offered by work arrangements like compressed workweeks
and flextime allows employees to restructure their workloads to fit the available time better
and reallocate time for pursuing other tasks and leisure activities for rest and restoration
(Bakker et al., 2014). Arguably, flexible work can boost work engagement by increasing
employee process control (Gerards et al., 2018). Viewing from the lens of the JD-R model,
Bakker, Albrecht, and Leiter (2011) asserted that employees who manage their work
enhance their job challenges and resources and remain more engaged. Contrarily, viewing
TLO time bureaucracy as a job demand, Kattenbach et al. (2010) argue that such a time constraint
could induce exhaustion in employees, which can cause them to put less effort into their
work and eventually withdraw from it, leading to employee disengagement (Bakker et al.,
2014). This suggests that employee work engagement is more likely to increase with the
provision of flexible work arrangements. Therefore, it can be hypothesized that:

H4. Flexible work is positively related to work engagement.

3.3 Work engagement and job performance

One of the central propositions put forth by the JD-R model is that motivational-driven
processes such as work engagement positively impact job performance, whereas job strain
harms job performance (Bakker et al., 2017). The existing research has consistently shown
that work engagement could predict job performance (both task and contextual) (Bakker
et al., 2012; Byrne et al., 2017; Saks, 2019). Theoretically, engaged employees feel compelled
to pursue and achieve challenging goals and exert extra effort into their work (Leiter &
Bakker, 2010). Additionally, engaged employees enjoy access to resources, experience
positive emotions and have better health – all of which enhance their job performance
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). Kahn (1990) contends that highly engaged employees often
bring all aspects of themselves (i.e. cognitive, emotional and physical) to the performance of
their work role. As a result, highly engaged employees tend to perform to the best of their
abilities, contrary to disengaged workers, who are more inclined to disconnect from their
jobs (Kahn, 1990). Based on these arguments, we hypothesize that:

H5. Work engagement is positively related to job performance.

3.4 The mediating role of work engagement between hybrid workplace model and job
performance
The preceding sections have demonstrated a sequence of relationships between the hybrid
workplace model (telework and flexible work) to employee work engagement; and from
employee work engagement to job performance. Drawing on the JD-R model (Bakker &
Demerouti, 2014), we postulate that telework and flexible work are the components of a hybrid
workplace model that might subsequently lead to changes in work engagement, which could
have a causal effect on job performance. More specifically, it is argued that telework and
flexible work alter the employee working conditions, which may trigger processes that
positively (i.e. enhanced job resources, reduced job demands) and negatively (i.e. reduced job
resources and enhanced job demands) affect job performance via work engagement.
Theoretically, the JD-R model presents guidance about the mediating role of work engagement,
wherein job resources enhance employee work engagement as they foster growth, learning and
development (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). These highly engaged employees in turn exhibit
positive job outcomes, including improved job performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017).
Several empirical studies show evidence of work engagement acting as a mediator in this
process. For instance, Salanova and Schaufeli (2008) have demonstrated that work engagement
fully mediates the positive impact of job resources, including autonomy, on the proactive
behaviour of Spanish employees. Ng and Tay (2010) revealed that work engagement partially
mediates the job resources (e.g. job control and social support) and job performance (both in-
role and extra-role performance) of Malaysian employees. Based on the extant conceptual and
empirical literature, we thus hypothesize that:
 H6. Work engagement mediates the relationship between telework and job Hybrid
performance. workplace
H7. Work engagement mediates the relationship between flexible work and job
performance.

4. Methods and materials

4.1 Sample and procedures
The population of this study consists of teaching and non-teaching staff of universities in
Nigeria, and the unit of analysis is at the individual level. There are 100,000 teaching and
170,000 non-teaching staff across 201 universities in Nigeria. We selected 384 staff members
following the recommendation of Krejcie and Morgan (1970) at a confidence level of 95%
and a margin error of 5%. This study used a quantitative survey approach to collect data
using an online questionnaire from employees working in universities in Nigeria. This
method of online self-completion of questionnaires allows for faster distribution to large
populations, limited enumerator influence on the answers, reduced response bias and low
pressure on the respondents (Bryman & Bell, 2011). A reusable survey link was distributed
to potential respondents via WhatsApp and school email addresses. The respondents were
requested to complete the questionnaire within two weeks. After cleaning the data for
outliers, missing values and disengaged responses, we were left with 277 valid responses,
which were used for further analyses.
Of the 277 valid responses, most of the respondents were from the age group of 30–
39 years (48%), followed by the age group of 40–49 years (40.1%), above 50 years (7.6%) and
between the age of 20–29 (4.3%). The sample included more male respondents (88.1%). Most
of the respondents held a Master’s degree (49.8%), followed by degree holders (30.7%), PhD
holders (17.7%) and other qualifications such as national diploma and Nigeria certificate in
education (1.8%). As for organizational tenure, 37.9% of the respondents had been working
for 6–10 years, followed by 1–5 years (30.7%), 11–15 years (15.5%), 16–20 years (11.2%) and
above 20 years (4.7%). Most of the respondents came from public (76.5%) universities. Table
1 below provides details about the respondent demographics.
Given that socio-demographic and job-related variables may also impact employee
outcomes, we compared mean differences across variables for work engagement and job
performance. One-way ANOVA tests did not show any significant mean differences for both
work engagement and job performance across age (F = 0.288, p > 0.05; F = 1.739, p > 0.05),
qualification (F = 0.178, p > 0.05; F = 1.416, p > 0.05) and organizational tenure (F = 0.572,
p > 0.05; F = 1.195, p > 0.05). Likewise, independent samples t-tests revealed no significant
mean differences across gender (t = –0.356, p > 0.05; t = 0.567, p > 0.05) and university
ownership (t = 0.446, p > 0.05; t = 0.788, p > 0.05).

4.2 Measures
The study variables were measured using previously validated scales. We used a binary
item from Peters and Batenburg (2015) to measure telework: “Employees are allowed to
telework”. Flexible work was measured using a seven-item scale developed by Jackson and
Fransman (2018). Sample items include: “I currently make use of flexible work hours in my
organization.” and “I support participation in flexible work hours in my organization.”. We
examined work engagement using a nine-item scale (Schaufeli et al., 2006). It included items
like: “I am enthusiastic about my job” and “I get carried away when I am working.” We
adopted a three-item scale to measure job performance from Fu and Deshpande (2014).
Sample items include: “How would you describe your overall job performance in the last
TLO Categories N % Cumulative (%)

Age
20–29 years 12 4.3 4.3
30–39 years 133 48.0 52.3
40–49 years 111 40.1 92.4
>50 years old 21 7.6 100
Gender
Male 244 88.1 88.1
Female 33 11.9 100
Highest qualification
Doctorate 49 17.7 17.7
Master’s Degree 138 49.8 67.5
Bachelor’s Degree 85 30.7 98.2
Others 5 1.8 100
Organizational tenure
1–5 years 85 30.7 30.7
6–10 years 105 37.9 68.6
11–15 years 43 15.5 84.1
16–20 years 31 11.2 95.3
Above 20 years 13 4.7 100
Ownership
Private 65 23.5 23.5
Public 212 76.5 100
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics Note: N = 277
of the study samples Source: Authors

year?” and “How would you describe your last year’s overall job performance evaluated
by your colleagues?” All items were anchored on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from
1= strongly disagree and 5= strongly agree unless stated otherwise.

5. Data analysis and findings

The study used a partial least square structural equation model (PLS-SEM) to examine the
psychometric properties of the research instrument and test the hypotheses. We used PLS-
SEM over co-variance-based SEM as it is more suitable for exploring theoretical extensions
of established theories, such as the JD-R model, for understanding the hybrid workplace
model in the Nigerian context (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). Data analysis using
SmartPLS was done in two parts. The first part of the analysis involved measurement model
evaluation, while the second part entailed the assessment of the structural model and
hypotheses testing.

5.1 Measurement model

Figure 2 presents the measurement model of the hybrid workplace model (telework and
flexible work), work engagement and job performance. The model presents the items that
make up these constructs, their loadings and the coefficients of the constructs. The figure
highlights the coefficient of determination (R2), which shows that telework and flexible
work, as exogenous variables, explain a 10.5% variation in the mediator (work engagement).
On the other hand, these exogenous variables and a mediator cumulatively explain 36%
 Hybrid
workplace

Figure 2.
Measurement model

variation in the job performance. The result suggests that telework, flexible work and work
engagement moderately explain job performance (Hair et al., 2010).
Table 2 presents the factor loadings of the measurement items, Cronbach’s alpha (CA),
composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE). All the coefficients of CA
and CR are greater than 0.7, confirming the internal consistency of the measures (Hair et al.,
2010). Also, all the coefficients of AVE are greater than 0.5, confirming the convergent
validity of the measures (Hair et al., 2010). We also assessed the discriminant validity of the
measures using the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT). As shown in Table 3, all the
HTMT ratios are lower than 0.9, confirming the discriminant validity of all the measures
used in this study (Hair et al., 2010).

5.2 Structural model and hypothesis testing

We tested the structural model of the study using the bootstrap method with 5,000
resamples. Figure 3 presents the structural model delineating the relationship between the
components of the hybrid workplace model with work engagement and job performance.
We tested the direct and indirect relationship between the variables of interest using path
coefficients derived from SEM, as presented in Table 4.
Concerning the direct effect of hybrid work on job performance, the results show that
flexible work (b = 0.127**, SD = 0.051, t = 2.470, p < 0.05) has a significant and positive effect
on job performance, whereas the positive impact of telework on job performance is statistically
insignificant (b = 0.083*, SD = 0.046, t = 1.806, p > 0.05). As shown in Table 4, these results
support H2, while no support is found for H1. Furthermore, the results show that telework
negatively influences work engagement, though the path is statistically insignificant, as shown
in Table 4 (b = –0.060, SD = 0.057, t = 1.066, p > 0.0.5). Thus, H3 is not supported. The
results also show that flexible work positively affects work engagement (b = 0.321***,
TLO Construct Items Loadings CA CR AVE

Telework (TW) Yes_TW1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Job performance (JP) JP1 0.898 0.890 0.931 0.819
JP2 0.917
JP3 0.900
Flexible work (FW) FW1 0.639 0.939 0.952 0.740
FW2 0.864
FW3 0.929
FW4 0.930
FW5 0.900
FW6 0.895
FW7 0.828
Work engagement (WE) WE1 0.720 0.929 0.942 0.646
WE2 0.730
WE3 0.849
WE4 0.874
WE5 0.882
WE6 0.868
WE7 0.847
WE8 0.830
WE9 0.580
Table 2.
Construct reliability Notes: CA: Cronbach’s alpha; CR: composite reliability; AVE: average variance extracted
and validity Source: Authors

Variables TL FW WE JP

Telework (TL)
Flexible work (FW) 0.066
Work engagement (WE) 0.061 0.336
Table 3. Job performance (JP) 0.071 0.329 0.633
Heterotrait-Monotrait
ratio (HTMT) Source: Authors

SD = 0.062, t = 5.161, p < 0.001), supporting H4. Also, work engagement has a significant
positive effect on job performance (b = 0.544***, SD = 0.056, t = 9.730, p < 0.001); hence, H5 is
supported.
We also examined the mediating effect of work engagement in the relationship between
the components of the hybrid workplace model (i.e. telework and flexible work) and job
performance. The significant direct effect of telework on job performance (TW ! JP),
flexible work and job performance (FW ! JP), flexible work and work engagement
(FW ! WE) and work engagement on job performance (WE ! JP) satisfy the assumption
of the mediation relationship suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986) and Zhao, Lynch, and
Chen (2010). However, the insignificant relationship between telework and work
engagement (TW ! WE) contradicts this assumption. Baron and Kenny (1986)
recommended three conditions that must be satisfied before establishing mediating
relationships between the variables. These conditions include the need for the exogenous
variables to significantly affect the mediator and the endogenous variables, and the
 Hybrid
workplace

Figure 3.
Structural model

Hypotheses Path b STD t Sig. Decision

Direct effect
H1 TW ! JP 0.083 0.046 1.806 0.072 Not supported
H2 FW ! JP 0.127* 0.051 2.47 0.014 Supported
H3 TW ! WE 0.060 0.057 1.066 0.287 Not supported
H4 FW ! WE 0.321*** 0.062 5.161 0.000 Supported
H5 WE ! JP 0.544*** 0.056 9.73 0.000 Supported
Indirect effect Table 4.
H6 TW ! WE ! JP 0.033 0.030 1.099 0.272 Not supported Direct and indirect
H7 FW ! WE ! JP 0.175*** 0.041 4.280 0.000 Supported associations between
Notes: TW: telework; FW: flexible work; JP: job performance; WE: work engagement *p < 0.05; **p< 0.01; telework, flexiwork,
***p < 0.001 job performance and
Source: Authors work engagement

mediator to have a significant effect on the endogenous variables. Nevertheless, Zhao et al.
(2010) highlighted the need for significant indirect effects as the only requirement for
establishing a mediating relationship between the variables.
The parameters for testing the specific indirect relationship between the variables and
decision outcomes are presented in Table 4. The result shows that work engagement
positively mediates the effect of flexible work on job performance (b = 0.175***, SD = 0.039,
t = 4.524, p < 0.001), which supports H7. However, we found no statistical support for the
hypothesized mediating effect of work engagement in the relationship between telework and
job performance (b = –0.033, SD = 0.030, t = 1.099, p > 0.05). Hence, H6 is not supported.
TLO 5.3 Post-estimate test
We assessed the predictive relevance of the model using Geisser’s Q 2 value, examined
possible multicollinearity using inner variance inflation factors (VIF), and evaluated the
effect size using f 2, as exhibited in Table 5. The coefficients of Q 2 across all constructs are
above 0, showing that the model has significant predictive relevance (Hair et al., 2010).
Additionally, Table 5 shows that all VIF coefficients across all the constructs are less than 3,
ruling out any possible multicollinearity issues in the data set (Hair et al., 2010).
Furthermore, Table 5 shows a large effect size of work engagement on job performance (f 2 =
0.415), a smaller effect size of flexible work on job performance (f 2 = 0.023) and a small effect
size of flexible work on work engagement (Cohen, 1988).

6. Discussion
Drawing upon the JD-R model, this study developed and tested a research framework that
investigated the relationships between the two components of the hybrid workplace model
(telework and flexible work) and job performance via the mediating role of work
engagement. We found statistical support for four out of the seven hypothesized
relationships in this study.
Telework, flexible work and job performance: The study’s findings show that the two
components of the hybrid workplace model – telework and flexible work – have differential
impacts on the job performance of university staff members in Nigeria. Contrary to the
previous work that suggests telework as a significant predictor of job performance (Bloom
et al., 2015), the study findings reveal that the positive effect of telework on job performance
is not statistically supported. However, this finding agrees with prior literature (Jackson &
Fransman, 2018; Campo et al., 2021) that suggests that telework does not necessarily
improve employee productivity. In other words, the study findings indicate that having
greater location autonomy is not significant enough to contribute to the job performance of
the university staff members. A possible explanation for this could be related to
disturbances and distractions occurring at home, such as poor working materials and un-
ergonomics workplaces. As Onyeukwu et al. (2020) noted, poor electricity power distribution
and poor network service represent the main challenges hampering the efficiency and
effective use of remote work activities among Nigerian universities. The finding confirmed
the theoretical assumption of the JD-R model, which recognized the necessity of resources in
stimulating the positive effect of a hybrid workplace on job performance.
Conversely, our findings evidence the positive impact of flexible work on job performance,
which is consistent with past studies (Casper & Harris, 2008; Sekhar & Patwardhan, 2021).
This implies that employees enjoying the privilege of time autonomy can improve their work
output by maximizing their peak working time, leading to better job performance. This view

VIF F2
Variables Q2 (=1-SSE/SSO) WE JP WE JP

Telework (TL) 0.601

Flexible work (FW) 0.563 1.117 0.413
Work engagement (WE) 0.658 1.003 1.118 0.115 0.023
Job performance (JP) 1.000 1.003 1.007 0.004 0.011
Table 5. Notes: TW: telework; FW: flexible work; JP: job performance; WE: work engagement
Post-estimate test Source: Authors
concurs with Pierce et al.’s (1989) argument that individuals have a specific time period during Hybrid
which they perform at an optimal level or feel ready to perform. The workload of university workplace
staff members, particularly the academics in Nigerian universities, is rather complex and
multifaceted, as it includes teaching, research and community development (Ugwu,
Enwereuzor, & Mazei, 2022). Thus, it may be possible that the perks of having work-time
autonomy enable the university staff members to deal with both work and personal life
demands flexibly. Our finding is aligned with previous studies highlighting the importance of
flexible working arrangements in promoting work-life balance and employee performance in
developing countries like Nigeria (Abioro et al., 2018; Abba, 2018; Kabir et al., 2022). Other
studies have also emphasized the importance of flexible work schedules, work hours and job
autonomy in promoting work-life balance (Aziz-Ur-Rehman & Siddiqui, 2019; Haddock et al.,
2006). The finding confirmed the assertion of the JD-R model, which emphasizes the importance
of job demand, job autonomy and time control in providing flexible work and promoting job
performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017).
Telework, flexible work and work engagement: Contrary to our expectations, the
hypothesized negative influence of telework on work engagement could not be established
in this study. In other words, it implies that telework has no significant bearing on work
engagement. Theoretically, although telework could enhance employees’ job demands via
increased workload, interruptions, conflicts and blurring of boundaries (Pulido-Martos et al.,
2021); however, in this case, telework is not prevalent enough to negatively impact
university staff members’ work engagement. A plausible explanation for this could be that
working from home or other locations still enables employees to take a break from their
demands when their fatigue builds up. In developing countries such as Nigeria, university
staff members often face various on-the-job irregularities ranging from ill-equipped
infrastructural facilities and other resources to political instabilities, which may exacerbate
their engagement at the workplace. In light of such circumstances, teleworking from home or
another location may act as a getaway for the employees to unwind from work-related stress
experienced at the campus. Corroborating this argument, Bakker et al. (2014) contend that job
demands only result in a persistent state of activation that gradually wears down the employee
physically or mentally when recovery is inadequate.
Our study revealed that flexible work could contribute to increased work engagement of
university staff members in Nigeria. This finding suggests that allowing staff members a
degree of choice over when and how much to work enables them to exhibit high levels of
energy, feel enthusiastic about their job and be deeply immersed in their work (Schaufeli
et al., 2002). This can be attributed to the employees’ greater process control over managing
their work in terms of job demands and job resources (Bakker et al., 2011). In the context of
Nigeria, a positive relationship between flexible work and work engagement is expected, as
it has been highlighted that employees generally enjoy flexible jobs (Kabir et al., 2022).
Moreover, Nigerian university employees face difficulties balancing work and personal
affairs as they must complete various and complex tasks within a restricted time span
(Ogbuanya et al., 2017; Ugwu et al., 2022). Thus, it is plausible that a flexible work modality
enables the staff members to efficiently manage their time and allocate their full energy in
work-related activities. Such a finding is also congruent with other studies highlighting the
benefits of flexible work in promoting work engagement (Anderson & Kelliher, 2009;
Gerards et al., 2018).
Work engagement and job performance: Consistent with prior studies (Bakker et al.,
2012; Byrne et al., 2017; Saks, 2019), the findings of this study show that work engagement
is positively related to the job performance of university staff members in Nigeria. From a
theoretical standpoint, experiences of work engagement can affect how employees perceive
TLO and use different job resources to deal with their job demands (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
Thus, this finding of our study is not surprising as energized, motivated and engrossed
employees are more adept at using various job resources to perform their tasks and achieve
their objectives successfully. With specific reference to the research context, it has been
acknowledged that university staff members in Nigeria, particularly academics, tend to
work for extended periods to accomplish their tasks within the specified timeline (Ugwu
et al., 2022). Thus, when these employees become highly engaged in their work, they are
more likely to devote large amounts of resources to their tasks, leading to enhanced job
performance.
Telework/flexible work – job performance associations mediated by work engagement:
Another finding of this study pertains to the mediating role of work engagement in the
relationship between the components of the hybrid workplace model (telework and flexible
work) and job performance. The findings of this study do not lend support to the mediating
role of work engagement in the telework-job performance relationship.
The insignificant indirect effect of telework on job performance via work engagement
may be attributable to the fact that telework is not a significant predictor of both work
engagement and job performance in the context of universities in Nigeria. As discussed in
the earlier section, most universities in Nigeria recognize numerous challenges encountered
by university staff members concerning teleworking (Onyeukwu et al., 2020), including poor
network connectivity and a lack of infrastructural facilities. Given such constraints, the
employees’ workflow and productivity may be interrupted, leading to frustration. Hence,
there will be a low tendency for these employees to be engaged with their work and direct a
high amount of effort and resources required for work-related activities.
In contrast, the mediating effect of work engagement in flexible work-job performance
association is supported. Specifically, our study’s findings indicate that while flexible work
may directly affect job performance, the presence of work engagement as a mediator amplifies
the positive effect. Such a finding suggests that work engagement is a crucial contingent factor
that promotes the positive relationship between flexible work and job performance across
Nigerian universities. Therefore, our study confirms that work engagement is a mediator that
links flexible work to job performance. This finding is aligned with the JD-R model that
advocates that job resources such as time autonomy could foster employee work engagement
and increase employee effort, leading to enhanced job performance (Bakker & Demerouti,
2008). The study findings concur with existing studies that suggest the role of work
engagement in mediating job resources and employee performance (Salanova & Schaufeli,
2008).

6.1. Theoretical and practical implications

Our study has several implications for theory and practice. From a theoretical perspective, our
study extends the JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014) and applies it to the domain of the
hybrid workplace model. The study extends the hybrid workplace model to the context of the
job performance and work engagement of employees working in universities in an emerging
economy. The framework developed in this study improves our understanding of attaining job
performance in the hybrid workplace model (telework and flexible work) and how contingent
variables such as work engagement mediate the relationship between the hybrid workplace
model and job performance. Our findings add to the JD-R model, justifying the limited
application of telework across universities in Nigeria due to the lack of resources.
From a practitioner perspective, universities implementing the hybrid workplace model
allow the teaching and non-teaching staff to work in geographically dispersed countries,
promoting quality education, diversity and international experience. Our findings show when
and how the components of the hybrid workplace model can affect employee outcomes Hybrid
positively and negatively, thus providing rich insights for managers for policymaking and workplace
procedure-setting. Consequently, organizations should emphasize telework and flexible work
schedules to allow people to adjust their working time and place to promote employee job
performance and achieve organizational goals and objectives. At the same time, since this
study shows its vital role in predicting employee job performance, organizations need to pay
attention to employee work engagement and how it can be enhanced, particularly in the context
of adopting the hybrid workplace model.

7. Limitations and future work

Our study has some limitations. Firstly, it tests a causal model using cross-sectional data,
which may be considered inappropriate. However, recent studies have used cross-sectional
data to test causal relationships (Naqshbandi, Singh, & Ma, 2016). Future research may
consider using longitudinal data to test the causal relationships discussed in this study.
Secondly, our study only considers job performance as an outcome variable. While this may
not necessarily be a limitation, future research may consider other related outcomes of
working in the hybrid workplace model, such as employee job satisfaction, job happiness,
fatigue and turnover intention.

References
Ab Wahab, M., & Tatoglu, E. (2020). Chasing productivity demands, worker well-being, and firm
performance: The moderating effects of HR support and flexible work arrangements. Personnel
Review, 49(9), 1823–1843.
Abba, H. D. (2018). Flexitime and performance of academic staff in polytechnics in North West
geo-political zones of Nigeria. KIU Journal of Social Sciences, 4(2), 123–130.
Abioro, M. A., Oladejo, D. A., & Ashogbon, F. O. (2018). Work life balance practices and employees
productivity in the Nigerian university system. Crawford Journal of Business & Social Sciences,
13(2), 49–59.
Anderson, D. & Kelliher, C. (2009). Flexible working and engagement: The importance of choice.
Strategic HR Review, 8(2), 13-18.
Armstrong, M., & Taylor, S. (2020). Armstrong’s handbook of human resource management practice,
Kogan Page Publishers.
Aziz-Ur-Rehman, M. & Siddiqui, D. A. (2019). Relationship between flexible working arrangements and
job satisfaction mediated by work-life balance: Evidence from public sector universities
employees of Pakistan. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 10(1), 104–127.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development
International, 13(3), 209–223.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job Demands-Resources theory. In P. Y. Chen, C. L. Cooper,
(Eds.), Well-being: a complete reference guide, work and well-being, Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 37–64.
Bakker, A. B. & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking
forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2018). Multiple levels in job demands-resources theory: Implications for
employee well-being and performance. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, L. Tay (Eds), Handbook of well-
being, pp. 1–13.
Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 4–28.
TLO Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout and work engagement: The
JD–R approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1),
389-411.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands-resources model to predict
burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43(1), 83–104.
Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job
crafting and work engagement. Human Relations, 65(10), 1359–1378.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Biron, M., Casper, W. J., & Raghuram, S. (2022). Crafting telework: A process model of need satisfaction
to foster telework outcomes. Personnel Review, doi: 10.1108/PR-04-2021-0259.
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.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business research methods, 3rd ed., New York, NY:
Bui, H. & Baruch, Y. (2010). Creating learning organizations in higher education: Applying a systems
perspective. The Learning Organization, 17(3), 228–242.
Byrne, Z., Albert, L., Manning, S., & Desir, R. (2017). Relational models and engagement: An
attachment theory perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 32(1), 30–44.
Campo, A., Avolio, B., & Carlier, S. I. (2021). The relationship between telework, job performance,
work–life balance and family supportive supervisor behaviours in the context of COVID-19.
Global Business Review, 09721509211049918.
Casper, W. J., & Harris, C. M. (2008). Work-life benefits and organizational attachment: Self-interest
utility and signaling theory models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(1), 95–109.
Choudhury, P., Foroughi, C., & Larson, B. (2021). Work-from-anywhere: The productivity effects of
geographic flexibility. Strategic Management Journal, 42(4), 655–683.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Routledge Academic, New York, NY.
de Menezes, L. M., & Kelliher, C. (2011). Flexible working and performance: A systematic review of the
evidence for a business case. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(4), 452–474.
Esechie, G. E., Ohueri, C. C., Ishak, S. Z. A., & Nwanesi, P. K. (2022). Framework for enhancing students’
smartphone learning ability: A case study of Nigerian public universities. Journal of
Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 20(2), 213-228.
Fu, W. & Deshpande, S. P. (2014). The impact of caring climate, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment on job performance of employees in a china’s insurance company. Journal of
Business Ethics, 124, 339-349.
Gajendran, R. S., Harrison, D. A., & Delaney-Klinger, K. (2015). Are telecommuters remotely good
Citizens? Unpacking telecommuting’s effects on performance via i-deals and job resources.
Personnel Psychology, 68(2), 353-393.
Gerards, R., de Grip, A., & Baudewijns, C. (2018). Do new ways of working increase work engagement?
Personnel Review, 47(2), 517–534.
Golden, T. D., & Raghuram, S. (2010). Teleworker knowledge sharing and the role of altered relational
and technological interactions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 1061–1085.
Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Dino, R. N. (2008). The impact of professional isolation on teleworker job
performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent teleworking, interacting face-to-face, or
having access to communication-enhancing technology matter? Journal of Applied Psychology,
93(6), 1412.
Haddock, S. A., Zimmerman, T. S., Lyness, K. P., & Ziemba, S. J. (2006). Practices of dual earner couples
successfully balancing work and family. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 27, 207-234.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis, 7thed., PrenticeHall Inc. Hybrid
Heiden, M., Widar, L., Wiitavaara, B., & Boman, E. (2021). Telework in academia: Associations with workplace
health and well-being among staff. Higher Education, 81(4), 707–722.
Henly, J. R. & Lambert, S. J. (2010). Schedule flexibility and unpredictability in retail: Implications for
employee work-life outcomes. University of Chicago, available at: www.ssa.uchicago.edu/
faculty/Henly.Lambert.Unpredictability.and.work-life.outcomes.pdf (accessed 1January 2022).
Iqbal, K. M. J., Khalid, F., & Barykin, S. Y. (2021). Hybrid workplace: The future of work. Handbook of
research on future opportunities for technology management education, pp. 28–48. IGI Global.
Jackson, L. T., & Fransman, E. I. (2018). Flexi work, financial well-being, work–life balance and their
effects on subjective experiences of productivity and job satisfaction of females in an institution
of higher learning. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 21(1), 1–13.
Kabir, I., Gunu, U., & Gwadabe, Z. L. (2022). Decent work environment and Work-Life balance: Empirical
analysis of banking sector of hostile environments. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 1–16.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work.
Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
Kattenbach, R., Demerouti, E., & Nachreiner, F. (2010). Flexible working times: Effects on employees’
exhaustion, work-nonwork conflict and job performance. Career Development International,
15(3), 279–295.
Kelly, E. L., Kossek, E. E., Hammer, L. B., Durham, M., Bray, J., Chermack, K., … Kaskubar, D. (2008).
7 Getting there from here: Research on the effects of work–family initiatives on work–family
conflict and business outcomes. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 305-349.
Koroglu, S ., & Ozmen, O. (2022). The mediating effect of work engagement on innovative work
behavior and the role of psychological well-being in the job demands–resources (JD-R) model.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 14(1), 124–144.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610.
Lejeune, C., Beausaert, S., & Raemdonck, I. (2021). The impact on employees’ job performance of
exercising self-directed learning within personal development plan practice. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(5), 1086–1112.
Leiter, M. P., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Work engagement: introduction. in Bakker, A. B. & Leiter, M. P.
(Eds.), Work Engagement: a Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, pp. 1-9. New York, NY:
Psychology Press. (Eds).
Liu, L., Wan, W., & Fan, Q. (2021). How and when telework improves job performance during COVID-19?
Job crafting as mediator and performance goal orientation as moderator. Psychology Research and
Behavior Management, 14, 2181.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance, Englewood Cliffs:
McKinsey and Company (2021). What executives are saying about the future of hybrid work. avaliable
at: www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/what-
executives-are-saying-about-the-future-of-hybrid-work#/ (accessed 17 August 2021).
McNall, L. A., Masuda, A. D., & Nicklin, J. M. (2009). Flexible work arrangements, job satisfaction, and turnover
intentions: the mediating role of work-to-family enrichment. The Journal of Psychology, 144(1), 61–81.
Mäkikangas, A., Juutinen, S., Mäkiniemi, J. P., Sjöblom, K., & Oksanen, A. (2022). Work engagement
and its antecedents in remote work: a person-centered view. Work & Stress, 1–25.
Mosquera, P., Soares, M. E., & Alvadia, T. (2022). Is teleworking at odds with social sustainability and
organizational learning? The Learning Organization, 29(5), 527–547.
Naqshbandi, M. M., Singh, S. K. G., & Ma, P. (2016). The link between organizational citizenship
behaviours and open innovation: A case of Malaysian high-tech sector. IIMB Management
Review, 28(4), 200–211.
TLO Onyeukwu, P. E., Adeniyi, A., & Amin, H. J. (2020). Telecommuting: A panacea to COVID-19 spread in
Nigerian universities. International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development, 6(1), 47-60.
Patterson, G. (1999). The learning university. The Learning Organization, 6(1), 9–17.
Perez, M. P., Sanchez, A. M., & de Luis Carnicer, M. P. (2003). The organizational implications of human
resources managers’ perception of teleworking. Personnel Review, 32(6), 733–755.
Peters, P. & Batenburg, R. (2015). Telework adoption and formalisation in organisations from a
knowlegde transfer perspective. International Journal of Work Innovation, 1(3), 251-270.
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organization-based self-esteem:
Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 622-648.
Pulido-Martos, M., Cortes-Denia, D., & Lopez-Zafra, E. (2021). Teleworking in times of COVID-19:
Effects on the acquisition of personal resources. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 2485.
Radonic, M., Vukmirovic, V., & Milosavljevic, M. (2021). The impact of hybrid workplace models on
intangible assets: The case of an emerging country. Amfiteatru Economic, 23(58), 770–786.
Raghuram, S., Hill, N. S., Gibbs, J. L., & Maruping, L. M. (2019). Virtual work: Bridging research
clusters. Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 308–341.
Saks, A. M. & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What do we really know about employee engagement? Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 155-182.
Saks, A. M. (2019). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement revisited. Journal of
Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 6(1), 19–38.
Salanova, M. & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator
between job resources and proactive behaviour. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 19(1), 116-131.
Sardeshmukh, S. R., Sharma, D., & Golden, T. D. (2012). Impact of telework on exhaustion and job
engagement: A job demands and job resources model. New Technology, Work and Employment,
27(3), 193-207.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The
International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior,
25(3), 293–315.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of
engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short
questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701-716.
Sekhar, C., & Patwardhan, M. (2021). Flexible working arrangement and job performance: The
mediating role of supervisor support. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management.
Spivack, A. J., & Milosevic, I. (2018). Perceived location autonomy and work environment choice: The
mediating influence of intrinsic motivation. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(3),
325–348.
Tran, H. Q., & Pham, N. T. B. (2019). Organizational learning as a moderator of the effect of employee
participation on academic results: An empirical study in Vietnam. The Learning Organization,
26(2), 146–159, doi: 10.1108/TLO-03-2018-0040.
Tran, N. Q., Carden, L. L., & Zhang, J. Z. (2022). Work from anywhere: Remote stakeholder management
and engagement. Personnel Review.
Trevitt, C., Steed, A., Du Moulin, L., & Foley, T. (2017). Leading entrepreneurial e-learning development
in legal education: A longitudinal case study of “universities as learning organisations. The
Learning Organization, 24(5), 298–311.
Ugwu, F. O., Enwereuzor, I. K., & Mazei, J. (2022). Is working from home a blessing or a burden? Home Hybrid
demands as a mediator of the relationship between work engagement and Work-Life balance.
Applied Research in Quality of Life, 1–24.
workplace
Voolaid, K., & Ehrlich, Ü. (2017). Organizational learning of higher education institutions: the case of
Estonia. The Learning Organization, 24(5), 340–354.
Wilks, L., & Billsberry, J. (2007). Should we do away with teleworking? An examination of whether
teleworking can be defined in the new world of work. New Technology, Work and Employment,
22(2), 168–177.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors
of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617.
Wöhrmann, A. M., & Ebner, C. (2021). Understanding the bright side and the dark side of telework: An
empirical analysis of working conditions and psychosomatic health complaints. New
Technology, Work and Employment, 36(3), 348–370.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr,., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about
mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.

Further reading
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and
test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89–136.
Kelliher, C., & Anderson, D. (2010). Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and the
intensification of work. Human Relations, 63(1), 83–106.
Kirkman, B. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of
Management, 31(5), 700–718.
O’Leary, M. B. & Cummings, J. N. (2007). The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of
geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quarterly, 433–452.
Ogbuanya, T. C., & Chukwuedo, S. O. (2017). Job crafting-satisfaction relationship in electrical/
electronic technology education programme: Do work engagement and commitment matter?
Revista de Psicología Del Trabajo y de Las Organizaciones, 33(3), 165–173.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.

About the authors

M. Muzamil Naqshbandi is a faculty member at the School of Business and Economics, University of Brunei
Darussalam. Previously, he worked at the University of Dubai in the UAE and the University of Malaya in
Malaysia. Before joining academia, he worked in diverse sectors such as non-banking financial services and
media. Dr. Naqshbandi is the Associate Editor of Management Decision (Emerald Publishing), International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management (Emerald Publishing) and the Senior Associate Editor
of FIIB Business Review (Sage Publishing). He serves on the editorial boards of prestigious international
journals, such as Journal of Knowledge Management, European Journal of Innovation Management and
Leadership and Organization Development. His current research is focused on open innovation, leadership
and knowledge management. Dr. Naqshbandi has won several international research grants totaling more
than $150,000. He actively presents his work in international fora and contributes to the program
committees and advisory boards of several international conferences. His recent work has appeared in
leading journals such as R&D Management, International Business Review, Technological Forecasting &
Social Change, Production Planning and Control, Industrial Management and Data Systems, among others.
M. Muzamil Naqshbandi is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: virkul@gmail.com
Ibrahim Kabir is a PhD candidate at School of Business and Economics, University Brunei Darussalam,
and an academic staff at Northwest University Kano. His research interests include Human Resource
Management (HRM) entrepreneurship development, business environments, small scale business
management, business performance evaluation and growth potential of informal enterprises. He served in
TLO several university positions, including examination officer; level coordinator; coordinator, industrial learning
and tour. He also participated in several DFID research and won two different Institutional Based Research
(IBR) grants.
Nurul Amirah Ishak is currently pursuing her PhD in Management at Universiti Brunei
Darussalam (UBD). Her research interests primarily lie in Strategic Knowledge Management and
Organisational Behaviour. Amirah earned her Bachelor of Science Honours degree (Biological
Sciences) in 2016 and Master of Management degree in 2019, both from UBD. Prior to pursuing her
Master’s Degree, she worked as a volunteer at UBD Herbarium (2016) and as Research Assistant
(2016–2017) at the Institute for Biodiversity and Environmental Research (IBER). Her research work
has appeared in such journals as VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management
Systems and International Journal of Asian Business and Information Management (IJABIM).
Md. Zahidul Islam is an Associate Professor of Management in the School of Business and
Economics at the University Brunei Darussalam (UBD). Previously he worked with universities in
Bangladesh and Malaysia. Dr Zahid has years of active teaching, consultancy and research
experience in Strategic Management, Human Resource Management and Knowledge Management.
Dr Islam’s research interests include Strategic Knowledge Management, Strategic Management, New
Product Development, Corporate Social Responsibility and Enterprise Resources Planning. His
research work has appeared in such journals as International Journal of Information Management,
Management Decision, Journal of Database Management, Corporate Social Responsibility, and
Environmental Management, VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management
Systems.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com