George Saridakis et al., Guest editorial: Work from home (WFH), employee productivity and wellbeing: lessons from COVID-19 and future implications (2023)

Summary

George Saridakis et al., Guest editorial: Work from home (WFH), employee productivity and wellbeing: lessons from COVID-19 and future implications (2023). It is a 727,735-byte PDF whose original is on web.archive.org.

Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“George Saridakis et al., Guest editorial: Work from home (WFH), employee productivity and wellbeing: lessons from COVID-19 and future implications (2023).” Original at web.archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/george-saridakis-et-al-guest-editorial-work-from-home-wfh-employee-pro-fb26e575c8/, SHA-256 4b1453d6249154e0d44136eaa80b18d05963ed86279ea6a4bf776bf456b82353.

Full text

Work from home (WFH), employee productivity and wellbeing: lessons from COVID-19 and future implications

Editorial introduction

Work from Home (WFH), Employee Productivity and Wellbeing:
Lessons from COVID-19 and Future Implications

George Saridakis

University of Kent, UK

Yannis Georgellis

University of Kent, UK

Vladlena Benson

Aston University, UK

Stephen Garcia

University of California, USA

Stewart Johnstone

Strathclyde Business School, UK

Yanqing Lai

Manchester Metropolitan University, UK

The COVID-19 pandemic has tested the world’s resilience and the balance sheets of many governments
and organizations (PwC, 2020). As nations emerge from the public health crisis, few would find a silver
lining in the aftermath of the pandemic. Economic challenges, supply chain problems and labour
shortages continue to plague the global economy. Yet the COVID-19 outbreak forced businesses to
rethink their working practices and organizational design, and for many office workers this meant the
sudden implementation of remote working from home (WFH) or flexible working. Large enterprises
have reported significant benefits of mandated home working, with reports of up to 70% increase in
productivity for companies with above $1b revenues (CapGemini, 2020). Such gains are attributed to
less commuting time, flexible work schedules, and adoption of effective virtual collaboration tools. But
even for small businesses, research shows that effective remote work practices can improve
productivity, especially when managers trust remote workers and allow them more autonomy (Parker

This is a peer-reviewed, accepted author manuscript of the following article: Saridakis, G., Georgellis, Y., Benson, V., Garcia , S., Johnstone, S., & Lai, Y. (2023). Work
from home (WFH), employee productivity and wellbeing: lessons from COVID-19 and future implications. Information Technology & People.

1
Work from home (WFH), employee productivity and wellbeing: lessons from COVID-19 and future implications

et al., 2020). However, a continuing debate questions the effectiveness of the unexpected change in
working circumstances and enforced WFH, the challenges it can bring, as well as the potential missed
opportunities due to the lack of the “watercooler moment”. Working from home has challenged the very
definition of ‘productivity’ as the “hours spent on business applications” in the digital economy (Bond-
Smith & McCann, 2022).

Reviewing existing research, it emerges that optional or voluntary WFH can improve
employees’ well-being and performance. For example, it increases scheduling flexibility and autonomy
(Kurland & Bailey, 1999), thus promoting greater work-family integration (Raghuram & Weisenfeld,
2004), better work-life balance (Dockery & Bawa, 2018), and less work-family conflict (Gajendran &
Harrison, 2007; Kelly et al., 2014). It also improves job satisfaction (Castellacci & Viñas-Bardolet,
2019; Bloom et al., 2015) and employment opportunities (Mello, 2015). Further, it reduces work stress
(Gajendran & Harrison, 2007) and turnover intentions (Golden, 2006). Shorter commuting times also
add to productivity gains by partially reducing costs associated with the health risks of long commutes
(Rau & Hyland, 2002). Overall, WFH can lead to higher employee productivity, lower running costs,
and other positive work-related outcomes, all strengthening firm financial performance (Bailyn, 1998;
DuBrin, 1991; Council of Economic Advisors, 2010; Dutcher, 2012; Bloom et al., 2015). However,
WFH arrangements also expose organizations to cybercrime (Alsmadi & Prybutok, 2018), and using
social platforms for work-related communication can increase end user victimization (Saridakis et al.,
2015; Benson et al. 2015a; Hansen et al, 2018). Further, WFH can also increase work-family conflict
and is often associated with added work pressure, long hours (Craig & Powell, 2012; Noonan et al.,
2007; Golden et al., 2006), slow career progression (Bloom et al., 2015), and fewer opportunities for
organizational or co-worker engagement (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Felstead et al., 2002).

Nevertheless, it is important to distinguish between ‘standard’ or voluntary homeworking, and
homeworking experiences specific to the pandemic. In knowledge-based organizations, WFH is
commonly undertaken voluntarily after agreement between employers and employees (Platts et al.,
2022). However, during the pandemic, many workers were asked to make rapid changes to their
working patterns without consultation or training the essential skills for WFH, such as written
communication, collaboration, focus, adaptation, and time management (Pass & Ridgway, 2022;
Prossack, 2020). As Parry (2020) points out, the negative implications of involuntary WFH are even
more striking when employees are asked to adapt to new daily tasks and techniques during periods of
significant organizational change. Recent research suggests that employees working from home
experience a social deficit created by a lack of interpersonal contacts (Parry et al., 2021) and find it
difficult switching off from work due to uninterrupted virtual access to online offices (Parry, 2020).
They also struggle to juggle the competing demands of family roles and job tasks (Khalid et al., 2022).
WFH further increases workplace stress and the risk of cyber-attacks, which threaten individuals’

2
Work from home (WFH), employee productivity and wellbeing: lessons from COVID-19 and future implications

psychological well-being (IBMsecurity, 2019; Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Baruch, 2000) and firms’
reputation and financial stability (Benson et al, 2015b; NCA, 2020). Finally, besides training and
technological costs, organizations might incur added employee monitoring costs as WFH arrangements
challenge traditional supervision models (Mello, 2015; O’Neill et al., 2014).

Undoubtedly, digital infrastructure played an essential role in normal organizational
functioning when shifting to virtual work environments during COVID-19 (Kniffin et al., 2021). This
includes offering virtual interactions among employers, employees, and customers as well as online
services, sales, and support (Richter, 2020). Such a trend is likely to continue because digitalization
features more prominently in government stimulus packages and in post-pandemic business investment
plans. Scharf & Weerda (2022) note a large employee push towards working from home (WFH). With
appropriate technological support, remote working is expected to become a widely accepted
employment format (McKinsey, 2021). The potential benefits are clear: remote working can boost
firms’ technological innovation, ICT capacity, Research and Development (R&D), employees’
technical skills, the efficiency of public services, and job creation. However, the crucial question
whether work location matters for employee productivity and well-being remains largely unanswered.

WFH special issue: contributions to a growing research agenda

Since the pandemic, remote working has attracted a large volume of research from various disciplines,
alongside the expansion of WFH practices, academic and industry reports. Gifford (2022) notes that
newspaper articles on WFH in the UK have increased from 150 per month pre-pandemic to almost
6,000 a month. Providing a systematic analysis and theory-building of academic research to make these
discussions more informed and evidence-based needs to be a priority. Society and technology are now
at a crossroad where WFH is changing the workplace and must be better understood.

This special issue of Information Technology and People addresses new themes and offers an
emergent research agenda for the changing context of remote working due to the global pandemic. One
theme, which attracted great interest from the call is the implications of a changing work environment
for employees’ work-related experience, including psychological well-being (e.g., job satisfaction,
employee engagement), physical well-being (e.g., work intensification, job stress) and social well-being
(e.g., social support, isolation, and coordination).

Six articles deal with the impact of involuntary remote working on employee well-being. Based
on the conservation of resource theory, Standaert, Thunus and Schoenaers examine the effect of virtual
meetings on employee well-being in the enforced WFH context. Using 814 respondents from five
Belgian universities, the authors argue that the impact of virtual meeting participation on well-being is

3
Work from home (WFH), employee productivity and wellbeing: lessons from COVID-19 and future implications

paradoxical – producing both losses and gains. On one hand, too frequent and unnecessary meetings
are associated with increased workload, higher levels of work-related stress and fatigue. On the other
hand, virtual meetings give employees more influence at work. Singh and Verma explore COVID-19
awareness and the effects of involuntary telework on employee functioning. Consistent with job
demand-resource theory, their findings show that COVID-19 awareness (a job resource) correlates with
reduced technological anxiety (a job demand) and positive attitudes, which in turn increase job
satisfaction. Concerned with how compulsory remote work influences employees’ feelings of isolation
and alienation, Kakkar, Kuril, Singh, Saha and Dugar examine the effect of work communication on
employee job satisfaction in the remote working environment. The authors find that work
communication improves job satisfaction via reduced employee alienation. Work communication
provides subtle social cues that help individuals to make sense of implicit workplace norms (e.g., trust
and stability). Further, this mediated relationship is moderated by employees’ belonging to organization
with strong CSR associations.

Continuing with the main theme of employee wellbeing, Adisa, Ogbonnaya and Adekoya offer
new insights on how employees can optimize work- and non-work-related experience when working
remotely. Specifically, through the lens of conservation of resource theory, they explore how remote
working inhibits employee engagement by examining the most salient work- and non-work-related
challenges of COVID-19. Data from 32 semi-structured interviews show that the sudden transition from
in-person to virtual working results in work intensification, online presenteeism, employment
insecurity, and poor adaptation to the new form of working. These stress factors drain social and
personal resources to the detriment of employee engagement. Schifano, Clark, Greiff, Vögele and
D'Ambrosio also examine the association between working from home and subjective individual well-
being. The study uses a unique dataset - four waves of longitudinal data across five European countries
during the Covid-19 pandemic. The cross-sectional analysis shows that home-based teleworkers report
worse well-being, whereas those who were not employed have the lowest well-being. The panel
estimations, however, suggest relatively more promising results – a small drop in anxiety as individuals
switch to home-based working. The authors suspect this difference may reflect the adaptation or
selecting certain groups of employees into WFH. The well-being penalty associated with working from
home is greater for the older, the better-educated, those with young children, and those with more
crowded housing. Last, Rodrigues, Pavan Serafim, Filho and Anholon analyse the difficulties
experienced by Brazilian managers in coordinating home-based working teams during the pandemic.
They identify three main challenges faced by managers while working in a virtual environment. These
include a difficulty in reconciling personal with professional life tasks, motivating collaborators while
social isolation erodes employee mental health well-being, and keeping team members integrated. The
findings provide insights on gaining organizational productivity and employees’ quality of life in an
atypical working environment.

4
Work from home (WFH), employee productivity and wellbeing: lessons from COVID-19 and future implications

Four papers in the special issue focus on how WFH affects individuals’ job performance. Yu
and Liu examine the job performance of remote workers in the Chinese financial industry during the
lockdown. In particular, they explore how professional isolation and cynicism may influence
teleworker’s work performance. They conclude that professional isolation triggers employees’ cynicism
towards the meaningfulness of the job and the value of the organization. This in turn negatively affects
job performance. Psychological hardiness shapes the strengths of the relationship by helping employees
cope with isolation, and its damaging effect on task performance. The findings provide an important
insight into the complexities of employee work performance in remote working settings. Danilova,
Ulfsten, Eikebrokk, Iden, Johannessen and Johanson examine the drivers of individual job performance
among involuntary home-based teleworkers that rely on the ICT platforms. Based on a survey of 1,183
respondents who engaged in large-scale WFH managements in Norwegian higher education, the authors
find that home office setup and the reach and communication quality of ICT platforms impact positively
on job performance. In contrast, professional isolation negatively impacts job performance. Their
results also provide evidence on the role of digital technology in enabling WFH arrangements. Nayak,
Dubey and Pandey elucidate the implications of WFH for productivity in higher education institutes in
India. The findings highlight the issues faced by faculty members during enforced WFH, including
online teaching, a lack of technology acceptance, poor working environment, and work-life conflict.
These challenges pose a threat to faculty productivity. However, information technology training
mitigates these negative associations. Felstead and Reuschke consider a trend of growing homeworking
since the early 1980s in the UK and examine the connection between homeworking and self-reported
productivity during the pandemic. Using multi-sourced datasets, their findings reveal that home-based
working has been on the rise for the past four decades. This shift is more pronounced among the highest
paid, the better qualified, the skilled, and those living in economically prosperous areas. Surprisingly,
productivity is not adversely affected among most employees, though it does vary by home schooling
arrangements and nature of household duties.

Six papers consider ICT and its implication on work and non-work-related outcomes. Using
affordance theory as a theoretical lens in understanding the interaction between human actors and
technology, Mitchell explores the benefits and challenges resulting from virtual collaboration during
the time of COVID-19. Based on a qualitative study of 55 graduate students, she identifies four
collaboration technology affordances, including flexibility and productivity, social connectedness and
culture, technology support and management and leadership, to ease virtual collaboration and achieve
individual and organization success during and post-pandemic. Her study contributes to IS research on
the efficacy of adopting virtual collaboration technologies on successful IT-associated organizational
change. In a similar vein, Duan, Deng and Wibowo draw on technology affordance theory and boundary
theory. The authors examine the effects of digital work on job performance, capturing digital technology
affordance in the form of coordination, communication, knowledge sharing and decision-making. The

5
Work from home (WFH), employee productivity and wellbeing: lessons from COVID-19 and future implications

findings reveal that digital technologies, which improve coordination and knowledge sharing between
teleworkers, improve work-life balance and job performance. However, technology affordance for
knowledge sharing communication and decision-making is not associated with WLB and job
performance. Abhari, Pesavento and Williams inform our understanding of how ICT platforms promote
employee-driven innovation that supports ideation and remote collaboration. They find that
management support and innovation culture are important mediators in the process. Using IPT
platforms (i.e., enterprise social media) plays a more critical role in fostering the two key indirect drivers
of innovation rather than being an innovation platform or direct enabler itself. Abelsen, Vatne, Mikalef
and Choudrie examine the use of ICTs during the pandemic and their impact on job performance and
employee psychological well-being. The results suggest that high task-technology fit is associated with
lower levels of feelings of loneliness and better job performance. The findings underline the role of
well-designed ICTs in mitigating negative employee psychological states and improving work
performance among teleworkers.

Cocosila, Farrelly and Trabelsi consider the role of ICT in the non-work context. Specifically,
they assess whether mobile contact tracing applications curtailed COVID-19 transmission rates.
Drawing on the theory of consumption values, the authors develop a conceptual model that outlines the
drivers and challenges of using the mobile contract tracing app to prevent the spread of the diseases.
The model is tested using a comparative study of 309 recent users and 306 non-users of the
ABTraceTogether app offered by Government of the Province of Alberta, Canada. The findings show
that utilitarian and social values, health information seeking, and perceived critical mass all drive the
use of such application. Perceived privacy risk, in contrast, poses an obstacle to the usage. Chang and
Benson propose and empirically test an extended unified theory of acceptance and use technology
(UTAUT) model. The model integrates perceived costs and security to gain insights into user’s motives
for using mobile remittance services during the pandemic. Their research focuses on one user group -
Vietnamese migrant workers in Taiwan. The findings reveal four main drivers of users’ behavioral
intentions to adopt mobile applications: (i) performance expectancy; (ii) effort expectancy; (iii)
perceived costs; and (iv) perceived security influence. However, there is evidence that social influence
and facilitating conditions relate to behavioral intentions.

The remaining two papers explore the future of the new ‘normal’ work mode. Kim examines
the association between the experience of ‘smart-work support service’ and employees’ continuance
intention towards smart work. Drawing on the quality-value-loyalty chain and information system
continuance model, the study explains how the quality and value of smart-work support service interact
to influence one’s continued engagement in smart-work. The findings highlight the role of service
quality and user’s perceptions of smart work value, which later determines their decision to continue
smart work. Daneshfar, Asokan-Ajitha, Sharma and Malik provide an understanding of the dynamics
of WFH in the pandemic. The multi-purpose study explores public sentiment towards the compulsory,

6
Work from home (WFH), employee productivity and wellbeing: lessons from COVID-19 and future implications

quick, and communal transition from office-based working to home-based working. It further identifies
the macro-, meso-, micro-level, and intervening factors that affect the transition to WFH. Fetching data
from the Twitter posts related to WFH, the authors identify diverging opinions on enforced WFH
between personal accounts and business accounts. While personal users post either neutral or negative
thoughts (e.g., sharing stress and concerns on WFH), business account users mostly share positive
tweets. Their research contributes to the literature by developing a framework to account for the macro-
(e.g., government support), meso- (e.g., organizational support, ICT and cyber security) and micro-level
(e.g., social connectedness and WLB) enablers and barriers of the effective outcomes of WFH. It also
extends our understanding of the mediators (exhaustion and technostress) and moderators (e.g., health
concerns, future uncertainty, social distancing, gender inequality and racism) in the process.

Discussion and Implications

The articles in this special issue demonstrate the evolving nature of remote working and the variety of
aspects of employee’s work experience and outcomes that it impinges upon. They also make several
noteworthy contributions to research. First, remote working itself does not serve as a facilitator or a
barrier that directly affects work-related well-being and work performance. Instead, it is the various
opportunities and challenges associated with teleworking that have positive and negative implications
for employee functioning and job performance. The scholarly contributions in this special issue treat
these challenges and opportunities as work resources, work demands, mediators, or moderators that
shape the outcomes of remote working. For instance, Abhari, Pesavento and Williams suggest that while
the virtual meeting increases job influence it also harms employee health well-being. Kakkar, Kuril,
Singh, Saha and Dugar confirm the association between work communication and employee
satisfaction via reduced employee alienation while working remotely. The strength of this association
is further shaped by employees’ belonging to organizations with strong CSR association. Similarly, Yu
and Liu underscore the mediating role of employee’ cynicism and the moderating role of psychological
hardiness in the link between professional isolation and job performance. Second, we must also
recognize that ICT plays an essential role in the successful functioning of telecommuting, in
coordinating tasks, sharing information, and getting feedback. A common thread of some articles in this
special is that using technology and ICT platforms helps to achieve desirable employee and
organizational level outcomes. For example, Abhari, Pesavento and Williams confirm that ICT
platforms promote employee-driven innovation by supporting reflection and collaboration. Abelsen,
Vatne, Mikalef and Choudrie show that well-designed ICTs can lessen negative employee psychosocial
state and improve job performance among telecommuters. However, the efficacy of ICTs in
organizations depends on digital technology affordance (see Michell’s paper and the paper by Duan,
Deng & Wibowo). Third, the application of ICTs is not limited to work settings. It also includes

7
Work from home (WFH), employee productivity and wellbeing: lessons from COVID-19 and future implications

reducing COVID-19 transmission rates (see Cocosila, Farrelly & Trabelsi) and promoting remittance
services (see Chang & Benson). Fourth, the future of remote and hybrid working is promising, yet the
dynamics of WFH is complex. Organizations need to develop an understanding of macro-, meso- and
micro-level predictors, mediators, and moderators that drive, hinder and shape the process (see Kim’s
paper and the paper by Daneshfar, Asokan-Ajitha, Sharma & Malik).

Remote working looks set to become more embedded in contemporary organizational life;
within this there are opportunities and challenges to manage. So, what can be done to support employees
and effectively manage the shift from traditional working to new normal ‘work’ mode in the post-
pandemic era? For policy makers, there is an urgent need to address teleworking and its implication
more actively and concretely. Institutional reforms should be considered to prevent this working
arrangement from negatively affecting teleworker’s comfort, health, and security. Initiatives to
incentivize organizations to promote this new form of working are also needed (Popovici & Popovici,
2020). For organizations, they need to prepare for a return to the workplace as well as a longer term
move to teleworking and hybrid working. A pitfall of remote working are feelings of psychological
isolation and loneliness that cannot be ignored. Organizations need to introduce communication,
engagement, and collaboration initiatives that allow employees to share plans, experiences and
feedback. Regular social and human connection opportunities to support team building are
recommended forms of such initiatives (CIPD, 2022). Technology plays a crucial role in remote
working. Therefore, firms need to support and train employees in fully using available technology and
regularly reviewing and upgrading ICT systems. Importantly, training programs on digital well-being
should target both employees and line managers (CIPD, 2022). For workers, such interventions help
develop good health habits of using technology, such as mindfully disconnecting from work. Managers
can develop an awareness of potential signals and symptoms of poor health and mental well-being
among employees.

References

Alsmadi, D. & Prybutok, V. (2018), “Sharing and storage behavior via cloud computing:
security and privacy in research and practice”, Computers in Human Behavior, 85: 218-
226.
Bailey, D.E. & Kurland, N.B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new directions
and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23:
383-400.
Bailyn, L. 1988. Freeing work from the constraints of location and time. New Technology,
Work and Employment 3:143–152.
Baruch, Y. (2000). Teleworking: benefits and pitfalls as perceived by professionals and
managers. New Technology, Work and Employment, 15(1): 34–49.
Benson, V., Saridakis, G. & Tennakoon, H. (2015a) Purpose of social networking use and
victimisation. Computers in Human Behavior, 51(B): 867-872.

8
Work from home (WFH), employee productivity and wellbeing: lessons from COVID-19 and future implications

Benson, V., Saridakis, G. & Tennakoon, H. (2015b) Information disclosure of social media
users: Does control over personal information, user awareness and security notices
matter?, Information Technology and People, 28: 421-446.
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: 165-218.
Bond-Smith, S. & McCann, P. (2022). The Work-From-Home Revolution and the Performance
of Cities. Working Paper No. 026. Manchester: The Productivity Institute.
CapGemini (2020). Report: The Future of Work: From Remote to Hybrid. Available online:
https://www.capgemini.com/no-no/news/report-the-future-of-work-from-remote-to-
hybrid/ [Accessed 15 Nov 2022]
Castellacci, F. & Viñas-Bardolet, C. (2019). Internet use and job satisfaction, Computers in
Human Behavior, 90: 141-152
CIPD. (2022). Planning for Hybrid Working. London: CIPD.
Council of Economic Advisors. (2010). Work-life Balance and the Economics of Workplace
Flexibility. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/100331-cea-
economics-workplace-flexiblity.pdf [Retrieved on 16 Apr 2020].
Craig, L. & Powell, A. (2012). Dual-earner parents’ work-family time: The effects of atypical
work patterns and non-parental childcare. Journal of Population Research, 29(3): 229-
247.
Dockery, A.M. & Bawa, S. (2018). When two worlds collude: Working from home and family
functioning in Australia. International Labour Review, 157(4): 609-630.
DuBrin, A. J. (1991). Comparison of the job satisfaction and productivity of telecommuters
versus in-house employees: A research note on work in progress. Psychological
Reports, 68: 1223–1234.
Dutcher, E. & Glenn. (2012). The effects of telecommuting on productivity: an experimental
examination. The role of dull and creative tasks. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, 84(1): 355–363.
Felstead, A., Jewson, N., Phizacklea, A. & Walters, S. (2002). Opportunities to work at home
in the context of work-life balance. Human Resource Management Journal, 12(1): 54-
76.
Gajendran, R.S., & Harrison. D.A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about
telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual
consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology 92: 1524-1541.
Gifford, J. (2022). Remote working: unprecedented increase and a developing research agenda.
Human Resource Development International, 25(2), 105-113.
Golden, T.D., Viega, J.F. & Simsek, Z. (2006). Telecommuting’s differential impact on work-
family conflict: Is there no place like home? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6):
1340-1350.
Hansen, J.M., Saridakis, G. & Benson, V. (2018) Risk, trust, and the interaction of perceived
ease of use and behavioral control in predicting consumers’ use of social media for
transactions, Computers in Human Behavior, 80: 197-206,
IBMsecurity (2019) Cost of a Data Breach study. IBMSecurity 2019. Available
at:https://www.ibm.com/security/data-breach.
Kelly, E., Moen, P., Oakes, J.M., Fan, W., Okechukwu, C., Davis, K. D., Hammer, L. B.,
Kossek, E. E. & King, R. B. (2014). Changing work and work-family conflict: Evidence
from the work, family and health network. American Sociological Review, 79: 485-516.
Khalid, A., Raja, U., Malik, M. & Jahanzeb, S. (2022). COVID-19 Pandemic and work-life
balance, work-family conflict and employee burnout. Academy of Management
Proceedings, doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2022.10236abstract

9
Work from home (WFH), employee productivity and wellbeing: lessons from COVID-19 and future implications

Kniffin K.M., Narayanan J., Anseel F., Antonakis J., Ashford S., Bakker A.B., et al. COVID-
19 and the Workplace: Implications, Issues, and Insights for Future Research and
Action. American Psychologist. 2021,76(1):63–77
Kurland, N.B. & Bailey. D.E. (1999). The advantages and challenges of working here, there,
anywhere, and anytime. Organisational Dynamics 28:53-68.
Mello, J. A. (2015). Strategic Human Resource Management, CENGAGE Learning, USA.
McKinsey. (201). The future of work after COVID-19. Available online:
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/the-future-of-work-after-
covid-19 [accessed 19 Dec 2022].
NCA (2020) COVID-19 Suspicious Activity Reporting. National Crime Agency, April 2020.
Available at: https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/who-we-are/publications/444-
ukfiu-covid-19-communications-product-april-2020.
Noonan, M.C., Estes, S.B. & Glass, J.L. (2007). Do workplace flexibility policies influence
time spent in domestic labor? Journal of Family Issues, 28(2): 263-288.
O’ Neill, T. A., Hambley, L. A. & Bercovich, A. (2014). Prediction of cyberslacking when
employees are working away from the office, Computers in Human Behavior, 34: 291-
298.
Parker, S.K., Knight, C. & Keller, A. (2020). Remote managers are having trust issues. Harvard
Business Review blogs, available online: https://hbr.org/2020/07/remote-managers-
are-having-trust-issues [Accessed 15 Nov 2022]
Parry J, Young Z, Bevan S, Veliziotis M, Baruch Y, Beigi M, Bajorek Z, Salter E. & Tochia
C. (2020) Working from home under COVID-19 lockdown: transitions and tensions.
Available at:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f5654b537cea057c500f59e/t/60143f05a2117e3
eec3c3243/1611939604505/Wal+Bulletin+1.pdf [Accessed 19 Dec 2022]
Parry, E. (2020). What Does Enforced Home Working Mean for Employee Wellbeing.
Available online: https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/voices/comment/what-does-
enforced-home-working-mean-for-employee-wellbeing [Retrieved on 21 Apr 2020].
Pass, S. & Ridgway, M. (2022). An informed discussion on the impact of COVID-19 and
‘enforced’ remote working on employee engagement. Human Resource Development
International, 25(2): 254-270.
Platts, K., Breckon, J., & Marshall, E. (20220. Enforced home-working under lockdown and
its impact on employee wellbeing: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, doi:
10.1186/s12889-022-12630-1
Popovici, V., & Popovici, L. (2020). Remote work revolution: Current opportunities and
challenges for organizations. “Ovidius” University Annals, Economic Sciences Series,
468-472.
Prossack, A. (2020). 5 Must-Have Skills for Remote Work. Forbes. Access online:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashiraprossack1/2020/07/30/5-must-have-skills-for-
remote-work/?sh=736e0f0e33c4. [Accessed 19 Dec 2020]
PwC (2020) COVID-19: Impacts to business. PwC Global. May 2020. Available at:
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/crisis-solutions/covid-19.html
Raghuram, S., Wiesenfeld, B. & Garud, R. (2003). Technology enabled work: The role of self-
efficacy in determining telecommuter adjustment and structuring behavior. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 63: 180–189.
Rau, R. L., & Hyland, M. M. (2002). Role conflict and flexible work arrangements: The effects
on applicant attraction. Personnel Psychology, 55: 111–136.
Richter, A. (2020). Locked-down digital work. International Journal of Information
Management, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102157.

10
Work from home (WFH), employee productivity and wellbeing: lessons from COVID-19 and future implications

Saridakis, S., Benson, V., Ezingeard, JN & Tennakoon, H. (2015) Individual information
security, user behaviour and cyber victimisation: An empirical study of social
networking users, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 102: 320-330.
Scharf, S., & Weerda, K. (2022). How to Lead in a Hybrid Environment. McKinsey Blog.
Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-
performance/our-insights/the-organization-blog/how-to-lead-in-a-hybrid-environment
[Access 16 Dec 2022]

File and source

File: saridakis-2023-guest-editorial-work-from-home-wfh-employee-productivity-and-wellbeing-less.pdf
Size: 727,735 bytes
SHA-256: 4b1453d6249154e0d44136eaa80b18d05963ed86279ea6a4bf776bf456b82353
Our copy: saridakis-2023-guest-editorial-work-from-home-wfh-employee-productivity-and-wellbeing-less.pdf
Original: web.archive.org