Editorial Board

A Refereed Monthly International Journal of Management

Development and Validation of a Hybrid Work Culture Scale for Sustainable Organisations

1. Sri Lakshmi Harshini

Research Scholar,

Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation,

Green Fields, Vaddeswaram, Guntur,

srilakshmiharshini35@gmail.com

 

Dr K. Hema Divya

Associate Professor,

Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation,

Green Fields, Vaddeswaram, Guntur,

 hema@kluniversity.in

Corresponding Author

 

Dr MD S Rahaman

PB Siddhartha College of

Arts and Science, Vijayawada,

Department of Business Administration,

mdsrahaman2008@gmail.com

 

 

 

Abstract:

Given the rise of the hybrid work culture in the post-pandemic world, various considerations must be made regarding the well-being and sustainability of the workforce. However, there is a lack of a comprehensive and standardised framework to measure hybrid work culture. This research aims to develop and validate a scale to measure the various aspects of the existing hybrid work culture.

A questionnaire was distributed to 300 employees who work in a hybrid work culture using a five-point Likert scale to assess their opinions. The reliability of the collected data was good across all scales used to assess aspects of work culture. An exploratory factor analysis of the data collected demonstrated that the data fit into four factors with a KMO value of 0.782 and a p-value that was less than 0.001 for Bartlett’s test for homogeneity of covariance matrices. Furthermore, the confirmatory factor analysis using the DWLS estimator also demonstrated excellent model fit with a chi-square value of 219.354 and a p-value of 0.612, a comparative fit index value of 1.000, and a Tucker-Lewis Index value of 1.005.

These findings indicate that the hybrid work culture can be represented as a multidimensional model encompassing various aspects of such a work culture. The work presented also adds to the existing literature on the topic and gives recommendations to the organisations that implement such work cultures to improve their sustainability goals.

Keywords: Hybrid Work Culture, Work Flexibility, Technology Integration, Work–Life Balance, Sustainability, Scale Development, Organisational Performance

 

Introduction:

Hybrid work, which involves employees working from both remote and on-site locations, has become prominent in recent years due to the COVID-19 pandemic(Thejls Ziegler & Lütge, 2025). Organisations have begun to implement hybrid work models to accommodate employees’ growing demand for flexibility. An increasing number of organisations have adopted hybrid work models to accommodate their employees’ demand for flexibility (Hopkins & Bardoel, 2023) (Sampat et al., 2022). The rise of digital technologies that allow for collaboration between team members regardless of where in the world they are located has allowed for these models to be implemented into organisational structures (Babapour Chafi et al., 2021a) (Thoemmes & Li, 2025a).

The shift to hybrid work has significant implications for employees’ well-being and for the sustainability of organisations. By offering employees greater autonomy and flexibility in how they perform their duties, organisations can enhance employees’ work-life balance, reduce stress, and increase their job satisfaction (Dara et al., n.d.) (Lindeberg et al., 2024a) . Additionally, another benefit of hybrid work is that it is inherently more sustainable for the environment due to the reduction of carbon emissions from commuting and the optimisation of resource consumption by the organisation (Tao et al., 2024a). These benefits of implementing a hybrid work model for teams indicate its importance as a component of sustainable business practices within the modern business environment.

Due to the growing importance of hybrid work, existing research on the topic is fragmented and lacks a comprehensive framework for measuring the concept altogether. Most existing research investigates only certain aspects of the nature of establishing a successful framework for measuring the success of organisations that adopt a hybrid work model (Escudero-Guirado et al., 2024) (Staniec et al., 2023). The fragmentation of knowledge regarding effective strategies for managing and sustaining hybrid work practices limits the ability of organisations to systematically assess and manage those practices in relation to long-term sustainability and performance outcomes (Coulston et al., 2025) (Lauring & Jonasson, 2025a).

Furthermore, while several scales have been developed to assess constructs related to concepts such as remote work characteristics, digital culture, and digital well-being, there is a lack of scales that aim to capture the holistic nature of the construct of hybrid culture from a sustainability perspective (Mariappanadar, 2022) (Paruzel et al., 2022a). This gap in the existing literature highlights the need for a standardised tool for measuring the various factors related to hybrid work arrangements.

Given this gap in the literature, this study aims to develop and validate a scale that can measure the four dimensions of a hybrid work culture: flexibility, technology integration, work-life balance, and sustainable work practices. These dimensions encompass the major aspects of a hybrid work culture. Following the development of the scale and its integration into the research study to determine validity and reliability, the scale can be used in future studies to gauge the degree of effectiveness of various aspects of a hybrid work culture.

The proposed scale contributes to the literature in that it helps to provide a framework for understanding the topic of hybrid work from both the perspective of the employees and the perspective of sustainability. Furthermore, the scale can help organisations to understand the effectiveness of their existing strategies for implementing a hybrid work model and to ensure that they are working towards their sustainability goals. Overall, then, this study contributes to the literature in that it helps to provide a thorough understanding of the topic of hybrid work and how it can impact an organisation overall.

 

Review of Literature:

 

1. Work Flexibility: Flexibility in working from home is one of the essential components of a successful hybrid work culture. Employees who have flexibility in their work schedules and locations can better balance their personal and professional lives. This leads to higher levels of job satisfaction and productivity from the employees of an organisation (Lauring & Jonasson, 2025b) (Thomas et al., 2023). Given the above, it is evident from existing literature that flexibility in the workplace has the potential to improve employee autonomy and lead to a variety of positive outcomes within the organisation (Paruzel et al., 2022b) (Steffens et al., 2023). Furthermore, flexibility in a hybrid workplace allows employees to adapt to various demands that may arise in their roles, which is another crucial factor in ensuring that the organisation is able to remain competitive and sustainable in the long term.
2. Technology Integration: Technology integration is essential for the effective functioning of a hybrid work environment. Digital technologies such as video conferencing platforms, cloud-based systems, and collaboration software allow employees to interact with one another, regardless of their location in the company (Babapour Chafi et al., 2021b) (Thoemmes & Li, 2025b). Studies have shown that the availability and effective use of technology have significantly influenced employee performance and efficiency in organisations that have adopted a hybrid work model (Jo, 2025) (Coello-Montecel & Ochoa Pacheco, 2025). Moreover, the technological infrastructure of an organization can aid in its digital sustainability by enabling employees to perform their tasks in a significantly more efficient manner (Wut et al., 2021).
3. Work – Life Balance: Work-life balance is another critical element of the hybrid work culture. Employers and employees can benefit from having a work culture that allows employees to better manage their time and to alleviate work-related stressors to improve the overall well-being of employees (Dara et al., 2025; Lindeberg et al., 2024b). However, the lack of a boundary between work and the home environment can also pose challenges for employees, such as increased levels of work pressure and reduced opportunities for psychological detachment from work (S. & S.N., 2023). Finding the optimal balance between the two environments is, therefore, essential to maintaining the well-being of the employees and avoiding burnout.
4. Sustainable Work Practices: Sustainable work practices relate to the environmental and organisational sustainability aspects of a work-from-home culture. As fewer people commute to work, there will be fewer carbon emissions and environmental impact from commuting to work (Tao et al., 2024b). Additionally, companies that utilise a hybrid model can utilise their resources more efficiently, which includes their energy and the amount of office space that they require for their employees (Vilnai-Yavetz & Rafaeli, 2021). Another of the sustainable practices that organisations can utilise includes initiatives that they undertake to promote ecological sustainability for themselves and their organisations as a whole (Shankar et al., 2021). Integrating sustainability into hybrid work models allows organisations to align operational efficiency with environmental and social responsibility.

 

Research Gap and Objective:

Despite the growing literature on the topic of hybrid work, most studies have focused on individual dimensions of the concept without providing a means of measuring the experience as a whole (Altuniji et al., 2024) (Gašić et al., 2024). Currently, the lack of scales to measure the experiences of employees within a hybrid team limits the understanding of the concept of hybrid work culture in its entirety.

Therefore, this study aims to develop and validate a multidimensional scale to measure hybrid work culture, specifically in relation to work flexibility, technology integration, work-life balance, and sustainable work practices. This research aims to fill a critical gap in the literature by providing a valid and reliable instrument with which to assess the concept of hybrid work culture from a sustainability perspective.

 

Research Methodology:

Research Design: The research methodology for this study adopts a quantitative design using a survey to develop the Hybrid Work Culture Scale. Employees who were surveyed were working in hybrid work environments across various sectors. A questionnaire will be used to collect the data from the employees to measure their perception of the various aspects of the hybrid work environment. The quantitative method will allow for the validation of the survey using statistical techniques.

Scale Development Process: The process of developing the scale followed procedures that are established in the literature regarding the development of measures.

1. Item Generation: The initial pool of items was developed through a thorough review of the existing literature regarding the topic of hybrid and flexible work. The dimensions that were reviewed included flexibility in the work environment, technology integration in the workplace, work-life balance, and the concept of sustainable work practices. Based on these different dimensions of the topic of hybrid and flexible work, the initial pool of items was developed.
2. Content Validation: The questions were reviewed to ensure that each question was appropriate and meaningful. Some questions were slightly modified to ensure that they were concise and reflected the concepts to be measured. As a result, the questionnaire contained 23 items that represented the four dimensions of the study.

 

Data Collection and Sample:

The questionnaire was distributed online via Google Forms. Employees who currently work from a hybrid arrangement were targeted for the survey. A convenience technique was utilised to obtain the responses from employees from different industries.

A total of 300 responses were obtained from the survey. All responses were retained as they met the inclusion criteria. This sample size is deemed adequate for conducting a factor analysis.

Measurement Scale:

All the items in the questionnaire were measured on a five-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 for strongly disagree to 5 for strongly agree. This type of scale was used to determine the perceptions of the employees regarding the four dimensions of hybrid work.

Data Analysis Techniques:

Data analysis was conducted using JASP statistical software. The data analysis process involved performing tests for reliability, performing exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and performing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

1. Reliability Analysis: The internal consistency of the scale was determined using Cronbach’s alpha. Because this scale is multidimensional, the alpha was calculated for each dimension separately. The resulting coefficients for each dimension of the scale were within the recommended ranges: work flexibility (α = .687), technology integration (α = .747), work-life balance (α = .773), and sustainable work practices (α = .730).
2. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA): An exploratory factor analysis was performed to determine the factor structure of the scale. The method of analysis was principal axis factoring with varimax rotation. The suitability of the data for factor analysis was determined using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity.

The KMO value was 0.782, indicating that the data were suitable for factor analysis. Additionally, Bartlett’s test was also significant (p < 0.001). The factor analysis resulted in four factors that represented the intended dimensions of the scale: work flexibility, technology integration, work-life balance, and sustainable work practices. The factors accounted for a large portion of the total variance of the scale. Additionally, all items loaded significantly on the factors with acceptable factor loadings.

3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA): Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to test whether the factor structure that emerged from the EFA was robust and reliable. This analysis was performed using the SEM module within JASP. Because the scale utilised ordinal data, the Diagonally Weighted Least Squares (DWLS) estimator was used.
4. The fit of the CFA model was tested using a variety of different fit indices. Results of the CFA indicated that the four-factor model exhibited an excellent fit to the data (chi square = 219.354, p = .612; CFI = 1.000; TLI = 1.005; IFI = 1.004). Thus, these results provide support for the validity of the structure of the scale.

 

Results and Analysis:

 

1. Reliability Analysis: The internal consistency of the Hybrid Work Culture Scale was determined using both Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega reliability coefficients. The results of the analysis indicated that the items within each dimension of the scale exhibited acceptable to good reliability.

The flexibility of work exhibited acceptable reliability (α = .687, ω = .691), while the integration of technology into the workplace exhibited good reliability (α = .747, ω = .743). Furthermore, perceptions of work-life balance (α = .773, ω = .772) and perceptions of the sustainability of work practices both exhibited good reliability coefficients (α = .730, ω = .734). Overall, the Hybrid Work Culture Scale exhibited satisfactory reliability coefficients (ω = .774)

Table 1: Reliability Analysis

Construct	No. of Items	Cronbach’s Alpha	McDonald’s Omega
Work Flexibility	5	0.687	0.691
Technology Integration	6	0.747	0.743
Work–Life Balance	6	0.773	0.772
Sustainable Work Practices	6	0.730	0.734
Overall Scale	23	0.680	0.774

 

2. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA): An exploratory factor analysis was conducted using the principal axis factoring method with varimax rotation. The value of the KMO measure was 0.782, indicating good sampling adequacy. The test of sphericity was also significant, χ²(253) = 1326.926, p < 0.001, indicating that the sampling adequacy assumption was met. The analysis of the component variables resulted in the extraction of four factors, which are reflective of the proposed structure. These factors explain 34% of the total variance in the data set.

 

Table 2: KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Measure	Value
KMO	0.782
Bartlett’s Chi-square	1326.926
df	253
p-value	<0.001

 

Table 3: Total Variance Explained

Factor	Eigenvalue	Variance Explained (%)	Cumulative (%)
Factor-1	2.384	10.4	10.4
Factor-2	2.012	8.7	19.1
Factor-3	1.922	8.4	27.5
Factor-4	1.501	6.5	34.0

 

Table 4: Rotated Factor Loadings

Factor	Items	Loadings Range
Work–Life Balance	Q12-Q17	0.556 – 0.660
Technology Integration	Q6-Q11	0.494 – 0.668
Sustainable Work Practices	Q18-Q23	0.515 – 0.637
Work Flexibility	Q1-Q5	0.543 – 0.563

All loadings > 0.50 (acceptable)

No major cross-loadings observed

 

3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA): Confirmatory Factor Analysis was conducted using the DWLS estimator. The findings indicate that the model had an excellent fit to the data. For instance, the chi-square test was non-significant (χ²(226) = 219.354, p = .612), indicating a good fit between the model and the data.

Moreover, the fit indices all indicated a good fit of the model: CFI = 1.000, TLI = 1.005, IFI = 1.004, and RMSEA = .000. Furthermore, the SRMR value of .056 indicates that the model is within acceptable limits.

Table 5: Model Fit Indices

Fit index	Value	Threshold	Interpretation
χ²	219.354	-	-
df	226	-	-
p-value	0.612	>0.05	Good Fit
CFI	1.000	>0.90	Excellent
TLI	1.005	>0.90	Excellent
IFI	1.004	>0.90	Excellent
RMSEA	0.000	<0.08	Excellent
SRMR	0.056	<0.08	Good
NFI	0.871	>0.90	Acceptable

 

4. Convergent Validity: Convergent validity was assessed using Average Variance Extracted (AVE). The values ranged from 0.382 to 0.442, indicating moderate convergent validity

Table 6: Convergent Validity (AVE)

Construct	AVE
Work Flexibility	0.388
Technology Integration	0.406
Work – Life Balance	0.442
Sustainable Work Practices	0.382

 

5. Discriminant Validity (HTMT): Discriminant validity was assessed using the HTMT ratio. All values were below the threshold of 0.90, indicating good discriminant validity

Table 7: HTMT Ratio

Construct	Flexibility	Technology Integration	Work-Life Balance	Sustainable Work Practices
Flexibility	1.000	0.129	0.103	0.109
Technology Integration	-	1.000	0.000	0.075
Work-Life Balance	-	-	1.000	0.000
Sustainable Work Practices	-	-	-	1.000

The findings obtained from the statistical analyses are further discussed in relation to existing literature and theoretical implications in the following section.

 

Discussion:

The aim of the present study was to develop and validate a multidimensional scale to assess aspects of hybrid work culture, such as flexibility, the integration of technology into workplaces, the balance between work and life for employees, and the sustainability of work practices in workplaces. The findings of the study support the four factors that were proposed to comprise a model of hybrid work culture. The reliability analysis indicates that all four dimensions of the scale exhibit acceptable to good levels of internal consistency. These findings are in line with previous studies that have highlighted the multidimensional nature of hybrid work and the importance of utilising reliable measurement scales to accurately assess the various dimensions of this work arrangement (Mariappanadar, 2022) (Paruzel et al., 2022a).

The results of the EFA showed that there were four factors that existed in the data set, which correlated with the conceptual framework established for this study. This indicates that the hybrid work culture concept includes several different factors altogether. These factors are in agreement with previous studies that indicate that flexibility, technology use, and employee well-being are some of the main components of the concept of a hybrid work culture (Lauring & Jonasson, 2025b) (Babapour Chafi et al., 2021b).  Further validation of the study through confirmatory factor analysis illustrated that the model had excellent model fit. The high values of the model fit indices indicated that the model adequately represented the data. These findings suggest the robustness of the scale and its applicability in research studies.

The inclusion of sustainable work practices as one of the study’s dimensions is of major importance. The results of the study show that sustainability is an integral part of the hybrid work culture. Beyond the flexibility and the use of technology that is made possible by the adoption of a hybrid work culture, there are additional aspects of sustainability relating to the nature of the work that is performed. As other scholars have noted in recent studies, the introduction of a hybrid work culture has the potential to drastically reduce the environmental impact of the organisation as a whole (Tao et al., 2024b)(Shankar et al., 2021).

Overall, the findings help to confirm that the concept of a hybrid work culture can include several different aspects of that work culture. Thus, the scale can help to provide a comprehensive understanding of the concept of a hybrid work culture altogether. These findings further reinforce the importance of adopting a multidimensional perspective in understanding hybrid work culture within sustainable organisational contexts.

 

Implications:

The study makes significant contributions to the existing literature on the topic of hybrid work and organisational sustainability. First, it helps to address the existing literature gap regarding the lack of a comprehensive measurement scale for assessing the aspects of a hybrid work culture by proposing and developing the Hybrid Work Culture Scale.

Second, by incorporating the idea of sustainability into the study of hybrid work cultures, this research makes a theoretical contribution to the literature that examines the relationship between work and environmental and social sustainability.

Third, the scale can form the foundation for future studies that seek to investigate the relationship between hybrid work culture and various organisational outcomes.

 

Practical Implications:

From a practical perspective, the findings of this study provide some valuable insights for the organisations that are introducing or implementing a form of hybrid working model into their businesses.

The scale can be used to determine in what aspects organisations can implement improvements to their current hybrid work environments, such as their technological infrastructure, work-life balance, and sustainability initiatives. By focusing on these areas, organisations can develop more effective and employee-friendly hybrid work environments.

Furthermore, finding a balance between the flexibility of a hybrid work environment with the support that organisations can offer their employees can increase productivity and employee satisfaction in those workplaces. Implementing these insights from the study into the management of teams can enhance the employee-organisation dynamic.

 

Sustainability Implications:

Given the fact that the study demonstrates that there is a significant role of a hybrid work culture in the promotion of environmentally responsible practices, the incorporation of sustainable work practices into the existing framework suggests the potential for the model to contribute to the achievement of sustainability goals. Such goals align with the global initiatives established by the United Nations on sustainability (SDGs). Thus, incorporating sustainability principles into a hybrid work model will contribute to both environmental and social responsibility.

 

Conclusion:

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a scale that can be used to measure the concept of hybrid work culture, based on the knowledge that existing literature on the topic is somewhat limited. Through surveying existing literature on the topic, four dimensions of the concept of “hybrid work culture” were identified: flexibility in the workplace, integration of technology into the workplace, the balance between work and life for employed individuals, and the concept of sustainable work practices in the organisation.

Through conducting both exploratory and confirmatory analyses on the items that were to be included in the scale, the study found that the four-dimensional scale was both reliable and valid for measuring the concept of work culture in a hybrid work environment.  The analyses indicate that each dimension of the scale had acceptable to good levels of internal consistency.  Furthermore, each item in each dimension of the scale correlated with each of the other items within that same dimension. One of the main contributions of this study was the integration of the concept of sustainability into the model of work culture in a hybrid work environment.  By incorporating a dimension related to sustainable work practices, this study helps to expand the implications of a hybrid work culture beyond its traditional outcomes for an organisation and into the concept of promoting sustainable practices within those organisations.

This scale has valuable uses for both researchers and those in the workforce.  Researchers can utilise this scale to measure the concept of work culture within hybrid work environments and determine the relationship of that concept to various outcomes from those organisations.  Practitioners can utilise this scale to determine how successful their current strategies for managing and enhancing the concept of a hybrid work culture are within their organisations.  In general, then, this study makes a contribution to the existing literature on the topic of hybrid work cultures.  Its framework for understanding and measuring that concept is comprehensive and provides insight into the importance of each of its components - flexibility, technology, life-work balance, and sustainable work practices in understanding that culture within the organisations of today.

 

Limitations and Future Research:

Despite the many contributions of this study, there are some limitations to the research that should be acknowledged.

The main limitation of the current study is that it employed a cross-sectional research design. A longitudinal research study design could be implemented in the future to observe the changes in work culture that emerge with different lengths of implementing a hybrid work culture. Another limitation of this study is the sampling technique that was employed when collecting the data. While the sample size was large enough for statistical analysis, a probability sampling technique with a more diverse sample could be employed in future studies. Another limitation of this research is the fact that the data were collected from the employees themselves. Future studies could collect data from other sources to validate the findings of the study.

Furthermore, while this study succeeded in validating the scale structure of the survey, future studies could implement the same survey to determine the relationship between hybrid work culture and various organisational outcomes of the companies that implement such a culture.

Finally, while sustainability was considered in this study, future studies could expand upon this aspect of the research to investigate the implications of hybrid work culture in relation to environmental, social, and governance factors and goals.

 

References:

Altuniji, A. S., Mohd-Shamsudin, F., Bani-Melhem, S., & Karrani, M. (2024). Employee social impact behavior scale: Conceptualization, measure development and validation. Social Responsibility Journal, 20(10), 1935–1952. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-03-2024-0144

Babapour Chafi, M., Hultberg, A., & Bozic Yams, N. (2021a). Post-Pandemic Office Work: Perceived Challenges and Opportunities for a Sustainable Work Environment. Sustainability, 14(1), 294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010294

Babapour Chafi, M., Hultberg, A., & Bozic Yams, N. (2021b). Post-Pandemic Office Work: Perceived Challenges and Opportunities for a Sustainable Work Environment. Sustainability, 14(1), 294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010294

Coello-Montecel, D., & Ochoa Pacheco, P. (2025). Digital Organizational Culture Scale: Psychometric Properties and Measurement Invariance of the Spanish Version. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2025(1), 7366964. https://doi.org/10.1155/hbe2/7366964

Coulston, C., Shergill, S., Twumasi, R., & Duncan, M. (2025). Advancing virtual and hybrid team well-being through a job demand-resources lens. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 20(1), 2472460. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2025.2472460

Dara, D., Zahraini, N. Y., & Rejalia, R. (n.d.). Hybrid work in the public sector: Practical insights on organizational support.

Dara, D., Zahraini, N. Y., & Rejalia, R. (2025). Hybrid work in the public sector: Practical insights on organizational support. Journal of Work-Applied Management, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-07-2025-0129

Escudero-Guirado, C., Fernández-Rodríguez, L., & Nájera-Sánchez, J.-J. (2024). Incorporating gendered analysis and flexibility in heavy work investment studies: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1401201. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1401201

Gašić, D., Berber, N., Slavić, A., Strugar Jelača, M., Marić, S., Bjekić, R., & Aleksić, M. (2024). The Key Role of Employee Commitment in the Relationship Between Flexible Work Arrangements and Employee Behavior. Sustainability, 16(22), 10067. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162210067

Hopkins, J., & Bardoel, A. (2023). The Future Is Hybrid: How Organisations Are Designing and Supporting Sustainable Hybrid Work Models in Post-Pandemic Australia. Sustainability, 15(4), 3086. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043086

Jo, H. (2025). Interplay among collaborative culture, empowerment leadership, and IT work environment in the public sector: A mixed methods study. International Journal of Information Management, 82, 102883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2025.102883

Lauring, J., & Jonasson, C. (2025a). What is hybrid work? Towards greater conceptual clarity of a common term and understanding its consequences. Human Resource Management Review, 35(1), 101044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2024.101044

Lauring, J., & Jonasson, C. (2025b). What is hybrid work? Towards greater conceptual clarity of a common term and understanding its consequences. Human Resource Management Review, 35(1), 101044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2024.101044

Lindeberg, P., Saunila, M., Lappalainen, P., Ukko, J., & Rantanen, H. (2024a). The relationship between various social work environment elements and hybrid worker well-being. Facilities, 42(15/16), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-03-2023-0019

Lindeberg, P., Saunila, M., Lappalainen, P., Ukko, J., & Rantanen, H. (2024b). The relationship between various social work environment elements and hybrid worker well-being. Facilities, 42(15/16), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-03-2023-0019

Mariappanadar, S. (2022). High Performance Sustainable Work Practices: Scale Development and Validation. Sustainability, 14(19), 12682. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912682

Paruzel, A., Abendroth, A., Mayer, A., Xie, J. L., & Maier, G. W. (2022a). The German Version of the Hybrid Work Characteristics Scale. Psychological Test Adaptation and Development, 3(1), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1027/2698-1866/a000025

Paruzel, A., Abendroth, A., Mayer, A., Xie, J. L., & Maier, G. W. (2022b). The German Version of the Hybrid Work Characteristics Scale. Psychological Test Adaptation and Development, 3(1), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1027/2698-1866/a000025

S., T., & S.N., G. (2023). Work-life balance -a systematic review. Vilakshan - XIMB Journal of Management, 20(2), 258–276. https://doi.org/10.1108/XJM-10-2020-0186

Sampat, B., Raj, S., Behl, A., & Schöbel, S. (2022). An empirical analysis of facilitators and barriers to the hybrid work model: A cross-cultural and multi-theoretical approach. Personnel Review, 51(8), 1990–2020. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2022-0176

Staniec, I., Kaczorowska-Spychalska, D., Kalinska-Kula, M., & Szczygiel, N. (2023). The need to work from home in higher education during the first phase of COVID-19: Employee productivity, autonomy, work relationships, job satisfaction and well-being. JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, 16(4), 257–280. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2023/16-4/17

Steffens, K., Sutter, C., & Sülzenbrück, S. (2023). The concept of “Work-Life-Blending”: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1150707. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1150707

Tao, Y., You, S., Zhu, J., & You, F. (2024a). Energy, climate, and environmental sustainability of trend toward occupational-dependent hybrid work: Overview, research challenges, and outlook. Journal of Cleaner Production, 442, 141083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141083

Tao, Y., You, S., Zhu, J., & You, F. (2024b). Energy, climate, and environmental sustainability of trend toward occupational-dependent hybrid work: Overview, research challenges, and outlook. Journal of Cleaner Production, 442, 141083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141083

Thejls Ziegler, M., & Lütge, C. (2025). Advantages and disadvantages of video conferencing and direct interaction: A conceptual framework for evaluating hybrid work models. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 41(1), 170–194. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-07-2023-0150

Thoemmes, J., & Li, L. (2025a). Navigating Hybrid Work in Malaysia: Cultural Adaptation, Workplace Transformation and Technological Mediation. The Malaysian Journal of Qualitative Research, Vol 11(1) May 2025, 96. https://doi.org/10.61211/mjqr110108

Thoemmes, J., & Li, L. (2025b). Navigating Hybrid Work in Malaysia: Cultural Adaptation, Workplace Transformation and Technological Mediation. The Malaysian Journal of Qualitative Research, Vol 11(1) May 2025, 96. https://doi.org/10.61211/mjqr110108

Thomas, M. A., Sandhu, R. K., Oliveira, A., & Oliveira, T. (2023). Investigating the effect of media synchronicity in professional use of video conferencing applications. Internet Research, 33(6), 2131–2171. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-12-2021-0887

Vilnai-Yavetz, I., & Rafaeli, A. (2021). Workspace Integration and Sustainability: Linking the Symbolic and Social Affordances of the Workspace to Employee Wellbeing. Sustainability, 13(21), 11985. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111985

Wut, T. M., Lee, D., Ip, W. M., & Lee, S. W. (2021). Digital Sustainability in the Organization: Scale Development and Validation. Sustainability, 13(6), 3530. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063530