Hybrid work design profiles: Antecedents and well-being outcomes

Hybrid work is fast emerging as the future of work. Yet, it is not clear how key work design characteristics that are salient in hybrid work, namely scheduling autonomy, social support, workload, and close monitoring, are experienced in the home compared to the workplace for hybrid workers, and how these work characteristics combine holistically to influence well-being. We adopted a novel approach and measured work characteristics as experienced at home and, separately, as experienced at the workplace. For a sample of hybrid workers ( n = 386), latent profile analysis revealed four profiles of work design characteristics. Two profiles had similar work characteristics at home and the workplace. One of these profiles, labelled ‘active, low monitoring’, had very positive work characteristics across both locations, and was associated with the highest flourishing and mental health. The other profile, labelled ‘passive, high monitoring’, had very poor work design across both locations, and was associated with the lowest flourishing and mental health. The other two profiles diverged in work characteristic levels across locations. One profile, labelled ‘high strain, high monitoring’ had poor work design that was worse in the workplace, and one profile, labelled ‘low strain, low monitoring’, had better work design that was better at the workplace. Employees with more influence over their work location, and those with high organisational support, were likely to be in the most positive profile (active, low monitoring), suggesting these are important factors for creating positive work design irrespective of location. • In a study of hybrid workers, four hybrid work design profiles emerged. • For some people, work quality varies between home and workplace. • Those in a high strain, a high monitoring profile had better work quality at home. • Those in a low strain, a low monitoring profile had better work quality at the workplace. • Managers should consider monitoring as a job demand when managing remote workers.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Vocational Behavior
Published
2025-08-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2025.104174
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
8.29
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Hybrid work design profiles: Antecedents and well-being outcomes

Matthew J. W. McLarnon, Doina Olaru, Sharon K. Parker, Julie Lee et al.
3 citations
Journal of Vocational Behavior
Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
8.29
article

Hybrid work design profiles: Antecedents and well-being outcomes

Matthew J. W. McLarnon, Doina Olaru, Sharon K. Parker, Julie Lee, Caroline Knight
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Hybrid work is fast emerging as the future of work. Yet, it is not clear how key work design characteristics that are salient in hybrid work, namely scheduling autonomy, social support, workload, and close monitoring, are experienced in the home compared to the workplace for hybrid workers, and how these work characteristics combine holistically to influence well-being. We adopted a novel approach and measured work characteristics as experienced at home and, separately, as experienced at the workplace. For a sample of hybrid workers ( n = 386), latent profile analysis revealed four profiles of work design characteristics. Two profiles had similar work characteristics at home and the workplace. One of these profiles, labelled ‘active, low monitoring’, had very positive work characteristics across both locations, and was associated with the highest flourishing and mental health. The other profile, labelled ‘passive, high monitoring’, had very poor work design across both locations, and was associated with the lowest flourishing and mental health. The other two profiles diverged in work characteristic levels across locations. One profile, labelled ‘high strain, high monitoring’ had poor work design that was worse in the workplace, and one profile, labelled ‘low strain, low monitoring’, had better work design that was better at the workplace. Employees with more influence over their work location, and those with high organisational support, were likely to be in the most positive profile (active, low monitoring), suggesting these are important factors for creating positive work design irrespective of location. • In a study of hybrid workers, four hybrid work design profiles emerged. • For some people, work quality varies between home and workplace. • Those in a high strain, a high monitoring profile had better work quality at home. • Those in a low strain, a low monitoring profile had better work quality at the workplace. • Managers should consider monitoring as a job demand when managing remote workers.

Journal of Vocational BehaviorVol. 162
The University of Queensland (AU), The University of Western Australia (AU), Curtin University (AU), Mount Royal University (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
8.29
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.