IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i24p16828-d1004130.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Moderating Roles of Remote, Hybrid, and Onsite Working on the Relationship between Work Engagement and Organizational Identification during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Author

Listed:
  • Fahriye Oben Uru

    (Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Business Administration (English) Department, Istanbul Arel University, 34537 Istanbul, Turkey)

  • Ebru Gozukara

    (Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Business Administration (English) Department, Istanbul Arel University, 34537 Istanbul, Turkey)

  • Lale Tezcan

    (Graduate School of Business Administration, Istanbul Arel University, 34295 Istanbul, Turkey)

Abstract

Flexible working practices have become commonplace due to the emergence of the turbulent environment that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced organizations to change their business models, structures, processes, and policies. In this context, organizations have started to reconfigure work in terms of flexible working practices that enable them to use the full potential of their employees and to provide the conditions for well-being at work and, as a result, competitive sustainability. This study aimed to explore the relationship between dimensions of work engagement, namely, vigor at work, dedication to work, and absorption in work, and organizational identification under the moderating roles of different working practices, namely, remote, hybrid, and onsite working, during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this cross-sectional study, 200 randomly chosen employees from the public insurance industry in Turkey formed the research sample. The results indicate that each dimension of work engagement, namely, vigor at work, dedication to work, and absorption in work, is positively associated with organizational identification. In addition, when the moderation effects of different working practices on this relationship were analyzed, it was apparent that the relationship between an employee’s absorption in their work and organizational identification was weaker in those working onsite, stronger in those working in a hybrid context, and strongest in those working remotely. Therefore, we suggest that work redesign towards remote working practices enhanced positive psychological and behavioral changes in employees, i.e., well-being at work, resulting in a strengthened relationship between absorption in work and organizational identification during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Suggested Citation

  • Fahriye Oben Uru & Ebru Gozukara & Lale Tezcan, 2022. "The Moderating Roles of Remote, Hybrid, and Onsite Working on the Relationship between Work Engagement and Organizational Identification during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-27, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:24:p:16828-:d:1004130
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/24/16828/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/24/16828/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Qing Miao & Nathan Eva & Alexander Newman & Gary Schwarz, 2019. "Public service motivation and performance: The role of organizational identification," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(2), pages 77-85, February.
    2. Dingel, Jonathan I. & Neiman, Brent, 2020. "How many jobs can be done at home?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    3. Wilmar Schaufeli & Marisa Salanova & Vicente González-romá & Arnold Bakker, 2002. "The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 71-92, March.
    4. Lili Song & Yong Wang & ZhengLin Li & Ying Yang & Hao Li, 2020. "Mental Health and Work Attitudes among People Resuming Work during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-15, July.
    5. Deepak Subba, 2019. "Antecedent and consequences of organizational identification: a study in the tourism sector of Sikkim," Future Business Journal, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-9, December.
    6. Mor Barak, Michalle E. & Levin, Amy & Nissly, Jan A. & Lane, Christianne J., 2006. "Why do they leave? Modeling child welfare workers' turnover intentions," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 548-577, May.
    7. Erik Brynjolfsson & John J. Horton & Adam Ozimek & Daniel Rock & Garima Sharma & Hong-Yi TuYe, 2020. "COVID-19 and Remote Work: An Early Look at US Data," NBER Working Papers 27344, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Shmueli, Galit & Ray, Soumya & Velasquez Estrada, Juan Manuel & Chatla, Suneel Babu, 2016. "The elephant in the room: Predictive performance of PLS models," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4552-4564.
    9. Streukens, Sandra & Leroi-Werelds, Sara, 2016. "Bootstrapping and PLS-SEM: A step-by-step guide to get more out of your bootstrap results," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 618-632.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Duanyi Yang & Erin L. Kelly & Laura D. Kubzansky & Lisa Berkman, 2023. "Working from Home and Worker Well-being: New Evidence from Germany," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 76(3), pages 504-531, May.
    2. Martyna Joanna Surma & Richard Joseph Nunes & Caroline Rook & Angela Loder, 2021. "Assessing Employee Engagement in a Post-COVID-19 Workplace Ecosystem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-20, October.
    3. Kautish, Pradeep & Paço, Arminda & Thaichon, Park, 2022. "Sustainable consumption and plastic packaging: Relationships among product involvement, perceived marketplace influence and choice behavior," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    4. Carlos Díaz & Sebastian Fossati & Nicolás Trajtenberg, 2022. "Stay at home if you can: COVID‐19 stay‐at‐home guidelines and local crime," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 1067-1113, December.
    5. Louis-Philippe Beland & Abel Brodeur & Taylor Wright, 2020. "COVID-19, Stay-at-Home Orders and Employment: Evidence from CPS Data," Carleton Economic Papers 20-04, Carleton University, Department of Economics, revised 19 May 2020.
    6. Sangeeta Gupta & Poonam Devdutt & Urmila Jagadeeswari Itam, 2022. "Centrality of psychological well-being of IT employees during COVID-19 and beyond," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 49(4), pages 365-380, December.
    7. Filippos Petroulakis, 2023. "Task Content and Job Losses in the Great Lockdown," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 76(3), pages 586-613, May.
    8. Bergeaud, Antonin & Eyméoud, Jean-Benoît & Garcia, Thomas & Henricot, Dorian, 2023. "Working from home and corporate real estate," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    9. Hamish Low & Michaela Benzeval & Jon Burton & Thomas F. Crossley & Paul Fisher & Annette Jäckle & Brendan Read, 2020. "The Idiosyncratic Impact of an Aggregate Shock The Distributional Consequences of COVID-19," Economics Series Working Papers 911, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    10. Ana León-Gómez & José Manuel Santos-Jaén & Daniel Ruiz-Palomo & Mercedes Palacios-Manzano, 2022. "Disentangling the impact of ICT adoption on SMEs performance: the mediating roles of corporate social responsibility and innovation," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 13(3), pages 831-866, September.
    11. Nicholas Bloom & Philip Bunn & Paul Mizen & Pawel Smietanka & Gregory Thwaites, 2020. "The Impact of Covid-19 on Productivity," NBER Working Papers 28233, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Marz, Waldemar & Şen, Suphi, 2022. "Does telecommuting reduce commuting emissions?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    13. Holgersen, Henning & Jia, Zhiyang & Svenkerud, Simen, 2021. "Who and how many can work from home? Evidence from task descriptions," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 55, pages 1-4.
    14. Christian Kagerl & Julia Starzetz, 2023. "Working from home for good? Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and what this means for the future of work," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(1), pages 229-265, January.
    15. Jose Maria Barrero & Nicholas Bloom & Steven J. Davis & Brent H. Meyer, 2021. "COVID-19 Is a Persistent Reallocation Shock," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 111, pages 287-291, May.
    16. Alina Simona Tecau & Cristinel Petrisor Constantin & Radu Constantin Lixandroiu & Ioana Bianca Chitu & Gabriel Bratucu, 2020. "Impact of the COVID-19 Crisis on Heavy Work Investment in Romania," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 22(Special 1), pages 1049-1049, November.
    17. Hansen, Stephen & Lambert, Peter John & Bloom, Nicholas & Davis, Steven J. & Sadun, Raffaella & Taska, Bledi, 2023. "Remote Work across Jobs, Companies, and Space," IZA Discussion Papers 15980, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Leukhina Oksana & Yu Zhixiu, 2022. "Home Production and Leisure during the COVID-19 Recession," The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, De Gruyter, vol. 22(1), pages 269-306, January.
    19. Barry, John W. & Campello, Murillo & Graham, John R. & Ma, Yueran, 2022. "Corporate flexibility in a time of crisis," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(3), pages 780-806.
    20. Leslie, Emily & Wilson, Riley, 2020. "Sheltering in place and domestic violence: Evidence from calls for service during COVID-19," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:24:p:16828-:d:1004130. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.