University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Collaboration, capacity, and communication: Leaders’ perceptions of innovative work behavior across hybrid and remote work environments

(USC Thesis Other)

Collaboration, capacity, and communication: Leaders’ perceptions of innovative work behavior across hybrid and remote work environments

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Collaboration, Capacity, and Communication: Leaders’ Perceptions of Innovative Work
Behavior Across Hybrid and Remote Work Environments
Christopher J. Flynn
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2024

© Copyright by Christopher John Flynn 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Christopher J. Flynn certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Kimberly Hirabayashi
Michael Todd McGowan
Patricia Tobey, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
Hybrid and remote work environments may have an adverse impact to engaging and innovative
work behavior, creating challenges for new product development and business growth (Brucks &
Levav, 2022; Garlatti Costa et al., 2022). This study applies Albert Bandura’s (2000) social
cognitive theory in exploring leaders’ perceptions of employee innovative work behavior in
hybrid and remote work environments. The study also explores leaders’ confidence in fostering
innovative work behaviors in hybrid and remote work environments, and any changes to
leadership style driven by the move to these environments. Leveraging a qualitative research
methodology, the perspectives of 12 people leaders in technology, product management, or
strategic initiatives roles within the financial services industry were explored. The findings of the
study suggest leaders perceive impacts to collaboration, capacity, and communication affecting
employee engagement in innovative work behavior, leaders’ confidence in fostering innovative
work behavior, and changes driven by hybrid and remote work environments. The study outlines
recommendations to address the lack of leader self-efficacy and perceptions of work
environment impacts to innovative work behavior through investments in structured and
intentional collaborative activities and working sessions, investment in technology, and
investment in dedicated space for ad hoc engagement with innovative work behavior. The study
also recommends providing tools and training to improve manager confidence, as well as
embedding innovative work behavior into the company culture.
Keywords: collaboration, communication, hybrid work environment, innovation,
innovative work behavior, remote work environment, leadership, self-efficacy

v
Dedication
To my wife Diana and my daughter Emma, you have my sincerest appreciation for your
patience, flexibility, and accommodations made throughout this academic journey.
To my mom and dad, I appreciate your continued support and encouragement, as well as your
patience with my earlier academic endeavors. Thank you.

vi
Acknowledgements
The final dissertation product is the culmination of hours, days, months, and years of
work. Work that includes long days and nights spent thinking, researching, coding, reading,
writing, and editing. The process has the potential to be a lonely and isolated exercise, however
the backing, inspiration, and collaboration of valued network of key supporters made this a
rewarding process wherein I never felt alone.
I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Patricia Tobey, for her guidance,
patience, and motivation through this process. She always knew how to calm the anxious nerves
and help move the project forward. Thank you to Dr. Kimberly Hirabayashi for her early study
recommendations and adjustments, which helped focus the dissertation study and make it what it
is today. Thank you to Dr. Todd McGowan, without whom I would not have even considered
this venture. His continued engagement and feedback was integral to the start, middle, and finish
of the doctoral undertaking. I appreciate his mentorship and belief in my potential as a leader.
I owe my outstanding study group a significant debt of gratitude. Dayna Provitt, Henry
Garcia, Jamie Ceman, Michele Blake, and Waleed Bississo, I appreciate the opportunity to
cooperate and commiserate. Whether it was sharing the load reading or making sure we all knew
when an assignment was due, I do not think I could have gotten through this alone.
Thank you to my friend and colleague Joe Ross for being an outlet and sounding board
for the past 3 years.
A special note of appreciation to my family. Thank you to Diana for taking on additional
burden at home to give me the space to explore. Thank you to Emma, for understanding when I
had to stay in my office so often. Thank you for the cheerleading from my parents, brothers, and
extended family. To all I say, Fight On!

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study.............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 2
Theoretical Overview.......................................................................................................... 4
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 5
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 6
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 7
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 8
Remote and Hybrid Work Environments ........................................................................... 8
Innovation ......................................................................................................................... 22
Social Cognitive Theory ................................................................................................... 34
Summary........................................................................................................................... 42
Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 43
Research Questions........................................................................................................... 43
Overview of Methodology................................................................................................ 43
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 44
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 45
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 47
Ethics, Credibility, and Trustworthiness........................................................................... 47

viii
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................... 48
Chapter Four: Findings................................................................................................................. 50
Participants........................................................................................................................ 51
Findings............................................................................................................................. 53
RQ 1: What Are Managers’ Perceptions of How Hybrid and Remote Work
Environments Affect, if at All, Employee Engagement in Innovative Work
Behaviors?......................................................................................................................... 53
RQ 2: How Confident Are Managers in Their Ability to Foster Innovative Work
Behaviors in Hybrid and Remote Work Environments? .................................................. 68
RQ 3: How Have Managers Changed Their Leadership to Support Innovative
Work Behaviors in Hybrid and Remote Work Environments? ........................................ 78
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 86
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations......................................................................... 88
Discussion of Findings...................................................................................................... 90
Recommendations and Implementation for Practice ...................................................... 102
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 116
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 117
References................................................................................................................................... 120
Appendix A: Interview Protocol................................................................................................. 138
Appendix B: Information Guide ................................................................................................. 142

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: The Four Realms............................................................................................................. 11
Table 2: Three Conditions (and Tensions) for Technological Innovation.................................... 33
Table 3: Participant Roles, Tenure, and Organizational Size ....................................................... 52
Table 4: Research Findings........................................................................................................... 90
Table 5: Recommendations for Practice ..................................................................................... 104
Table 6: Elements of McKinsey 7S Framework......................................................................... 113
Table A1: Interview Protocol...................................................................................................... 113

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Diagrammatic Definition of Innovation ........................................................................ 29
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 37
Figure 3: McKinsey 7S Framework............................................................................................ 111

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Hybrid and remote work environments may have an adverse impact to engaging in
innovative work behavior, creating challenges for new product development and business growth
(Brucks & Levav, 2022; Garlatti Costa et al., 2022). While hybrid and remote work
environments had been a practice prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the mass shift to this
practice in March 2020 and continued adoption brought a combination of increased employee
flexibility, as well as significant challenges in employee engagement, interpersonal relationships,
collaboration, and innovation (Parker et al., 2002; Sroka, 2018). According to Parker et al.
(2022), 59% of workers in the United States who are able to work from home are doing so,
compared to only 23% who worked remotely prior to the pandemic.
Leadership style can provide both a direct and indirect impact to innovative work
behaviors, company culture, and the growth of employee equity and diversity in hybrid and
remote work environments (Coun et al., 2021; Russell & Frachtenberg, 2021). Facilitating an
engaged and dynamic culture can lead to increased innovation, profit growth, and partnership
expansion (Cai & Szeidle, 2018). The successful navigation of remote and hybrid work can not
only provide meaningful business value, but also contribute to positive employee morale,
broader employee contribution, and motivation (Machaczka & Stopa, 2022; Pathirange et al.,
2020). As such, identifying successful strategies to maximize innovative work behaviors in
hybrid and remote environments can provide firms with the information to develop strategies and
maintain innovation to grow competitive advantages.
The problem of practice addressed in this study is the perception challenges leaders have
with employee engagement in innovative work behavior across hybrid and remote work
environments, and challenges to leader confidence facilitating innovative behaviors. Each work

2
setting offers certain advantages to employees, leaders, and organizations, however without
adequately maintaining the engagement and efficacy of employees, innovation and effectiveness
suffers (Masuda et al., 2017; Pattnaik & Jena, 2021; Van Yperen & Wortler, 2017). Through
maintaining an engaging culture and maximizing employee connectedness across work
environments, firms can maintain innovative work behaviors and business success (Hirsch, 2021;
Karia & Asaari, 2016).
Background of the Problem
Research establishes that remote work has certain distinct advantages over an in-office
work environment, such as a reduced commute, a more flexible work schedule, and an increased
likelihood of continuous employment (Choi, 2020). With this flexibility, however, comes
negative impacts to teamwork, collaboration, a systematic administration of resources, and
inconsistent communication cadences (McLarnon et al., 2019; Pathirange et al., 2020). Research
has demonstrated that leveraging hybrid and remote work environments provide value to both
business and employees, however there can be impacts to creativity, ideation, and innovative
work behaviors tied to the negative components of the work environments (Coun et al., 2021;
Sroka, 2018). To develop tenable and sustainable practices to new product development and
business growth, leaders must understand how to adapt their leadership styles to promote
innovative work behaviors across all work environments and have the confidence to foster
employee behaviors to facilitate creativity and innovation.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore managers’ perceptions of the work environment
implications to employee innovative work behaviors in hybrid and remote work environments.
Further, the study examined whether these implications create adverse impacts to creativity and

3
innovative work behaviors within the technology, product management, and strategic initiatives
job roles. The research explored the role self-efficacy plays in leading creative and innovative
behaviors while operating in a hybrid or remote work environment.
The study addresses the following research questions:
1. What are managers’ perceptions of how hybrid and remote work environments affect,
if at all, employee engagement in innovative work behaviors?
2. How confident are managers in their ability to foster innovative behaviors in hybrid
and remote work environments?
3. How have managers changed their leadership to support innovative work behaviors in
hybrid and remote work environments?
The research for this study leveraged a qualitative design, as it was used to explore the
contextual impacts of work environments and develop theories tied to innovative work behavior
based on inductive logic through direct interaction with participants (Moore, 2022). To facilitate
research in a natural setting and identify emergent variables, the interview method was used, as it
provided an opportunity for research participants to provide open-ended firsthand feedback on
the research topic, as well as the ability to provide additional historical context that would be
more difficult to ascertain through a quantitative method (Cresswell & Cresswell, 2017). The
historical context and baseline information that can be acquired through an interview, as well as
the ability to gain additional contextual information through the use of probes, further supported
the use of interviews as a manner of data collection (Johnson & Christiansen, 2015). Video
communication technology, specifically Zoom, was leveraged to sufficiently interview research
participants across leadership levels, locations, and current work environments. The participants
to be included in the study were people leaders, with the role of at least manager, however

4
participants held job titles as high as senior vice president, in technology, product management,
or strategic initiative fields. Participants had at least two direct report employees and held at least
5 years of work experience. The participant population was selected as they had at least 2 years
of work experience in an office, prior to hybrid or remote leadership.
Theoretical Overview
Social cognitive theory was applied in the examination of managers’ perception of
impacts to innovative work behavior in hybrid and remote work environments and manager
confidence fostering innovative work behavior. Social cognitive theory suggests that human
behavior is driven by reciprocal interactions between environmental, behavioral, and personal
influences (Schunk & Usher, 2019). The personal factors within social cognitive theory are
managed through self-efficacy, effectively having an individual determine whether or not they
can execute a desired action, such as learning (Bandura, 2000). Bandura (2000) suggests that
self-efficacy is critical because it directly impacts behavior, influences subsequent decisions, and
guides motivation. Schunk and Usher (2019) outline the types of learning involved with social
cognitive theory, specifically enactive learning by doing and vicariously learning by watching
others. Vicarious learning, or learning through the behavior of others, is a critical component as
the modeled behavior demonstrates the triadic reciprocation and how behavior can influence the
person and environment (Schunk & Usher, 2019).
As it relates to innovation and business execution, self-efficacy is critical to motivation
and the capability to complete complex tasks and strategic planning (Schunk & Usher, 2019).
Themes found in current research are inconsistent as Liao et al. (2022) posit that “an appropriate
work environment effectively promotes self-efficacy and an organization members’ beliefs and
motivations to engage in creative behaviors” (p. 12) and Akbari et al. (2020) found strong

5
parallels between creative self-efficacy and innovative work behavior. Conversely, Lange and
Kayser (2022) determine that the stress of remote work can have an impact to employee selfefficacy due to potential work-related stress and the challenges of maintaining a separation
between home and work, hindering performance.
Given the relatively recent focus on hybrid and remote work environments since the
COVID-19 pandemic, the opportunity to expand the research associated to innovative work
behavior exists, particularly for manager’s perception and confidence. The conceptual
framework for this study leveraged the triadic nature of social cognitive theory, creating a lens
through which the investigation of environments (hybrid and remote work environments),
personal factors (leadership innovative self-efficacy), and behavioral influences (innovative work
behavior) supported an understanding of existing literature and informed the development
methods of the study described in Chapter Three.
Significance of the Study
Successfully researching employee impacts from hybrid and remote work environments
can benefit several stakeholders, including the employees, leaders, and shareholders who would
see financial benefit from improved company performance. A leader’s benefit would include a
better understanding of self-efficacy and managerial approach drivers, which would then
improve the employee engagement in innovative work behavior. Employees would then see
benefit, working with leadership that understands perceptions and confidence associated to
leading innovative work behavior, and addressing potential variances through managerial
approach and communication styles. Through improved collaboration between leadership,
employees, and broader teams, shareholders benefit through improved performance and financial
returns. Stakeholders understanding these drivers provide firms better tools to lead, which in turn

6
drives the financial gains. The study was designed by a researcher who is motivated to
understand perceptions and confidence associated to innovative work behavior, with outcomes to
improve company performance.
Definition of Terms
The following key terms are used throughout the study. For clarity and continuity, they
are defined as follows:
Hybrid refers to work being performed in a combination of on-site and in the office.
Hybrid has also been referred to as a blended work environment (Van Yperen et al., 2016).
Further, Van Yperen and Wortler (2017) define blended working as, “smooth and seamless timeindependent working (flexibility in when and how long workers engage in work-related tasks)
and location-independent working (flexibility in where work gets done)” (p. 157). For the
purposes of this study, hybrid work will include blended and co-located work.
Innovation refers to new product activity, such as when a firm introduces new products
and services to a market or employees leveraging new technologies or applying existing
technologies in new ways (Burleson et al., 2022; Dul & Ceylan, 2014).
Innovative work behavior (IWB) refers to an employee’s activity (within a work
environment) geared towards the creation, development, or application of processes or
techniques to produce new ideas, products, or processes (Farr & Ford, 1990).
Remote refers to an employee’s standard responsibilities being performed in an
environment outside of the ordinary office, leveraging technology and communication tools to
manage interaction with the broader organization (Allen et al., 2015). Allen et al. (2015) posits
that across various studies the terms have, “been referred to as telework, remote work, distributed
work, flexible work, flexplace, and distance work among other labels” (p. 42). As such, for the

7
purpose of this study, those terms will be included in the definition of remote, with the exception
of hybrid work environments.
Organization of the Study
This study consists of five chapters. Chapter One has included an initial overview of the
problem, including items such as the purpose of the study and the significance the problem and
study carry. Chapter Two will provide a literature review, providing detailed synthesis of
existing scholarly research on innovation, innovative work behavior, and remote and hybrid
work environments. Chapter Two will also include literature support for the conceptual
framework directing the study. Chapter Three will provide details on the methodology, such as
data collection and subsequent analysis of first-hand research goals. Chapter Four provides the
presentation and analysis of the original research collected through Chapter Three. Chapter Five
will leverage both the scholarly research provided in chapter two and original research described
in Chapter Four, to provide synthesized research findings, targeted recommendations to support
addressing the problem of practice, and implementation through the use of an organizational
change model.

8
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Chapter Two provides a review of relevant literature on innovation and innovative work
behavior in hybrid and remote work environments. The chapter is divided into three segments,
first providing a framework for remote and hybrid work environments. Next, the literature
review will provide background on innovation and innovative work behaviors. Lastly, the
chapter will review social cognitive theory, outlining the theoretical and contextual framework
leveraged for this study.
Remote and Hybrid Work Environments
Remote and hybrid work environments have existed in some capacity for over 40 years;
however, the quarantine provisions brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic drove several
employers (and employees) into these work environments with little to no preparation. This
section of Chapter Two will review a brief history of remote work and the different types of
remote work environments described and defined in the research, as well as the benefits and
challenges of the work environment. Upon completing this review of remote work, this section
will transition into hybrid work environments and the benefits and challenges of these work
environments identified in the literature. This section of Chapter Two will finish with a review of
recent drivers and impacts of the wave of remote and hybrid work environments.
Remote Work
Remote work, also known as telecommuting, working from home (WFH), or virtual
officing, has existed in some form or fashion dating back to the mid-1970s (Nilles, 1976). The
availability of remote work has significantly expanded since that time, providing employees an
opportunity for greater autonomy, an improved work–life balance, and increased work
engagement for some (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Gerards et al., 2018). Conversely, research

9
has also identified challenges with the remote work environment, such as impediments to
communication, feelings of isolation, increased work hours, and potential hindrances to career
growth (Galanti et al., 2021; Greer & Payne, 2014; Marshall et al., 2007; Zhang, 2016).
The impacts of remote work extend beyond the employee, also impacting organizations.
Research has demonstrated that providing remote work options has reduced voluntary turnover
rates, benefitted from increased employee productivity, and improved work quality (Choi, 2020;
Choudhury et al., 2021). Conversely, remote work may impact a firm’s ability to drive
innovative work behaviors and disparate impact on equity and employee diversity (Coun et al.,
2021; Russell & Frachtenberg, 2021). The following section presents research to understand the
history and evolution of the remote work environment, the different types and definitions, and
the benefits and challenges research has demonstrated regarding remote work.
History and Evolution of Remote Work
As with several innovative ideas, the remote work environment originated at a time of
need and scarcity of resources (Nilles, 1976). Authored at the height of the oil crisis of the 1970s,
during which gas prices and inflation were economic drivers and impediments to the office
commute, Nilles (1976) conducted experiments to determine whether employees needed to
commute to a central site or hub to effectively complete their work duties, determining whether
there was an opportunity to eliminate the need to work from an office. With this, remote work
describes the technologies and scenarios that would allow employees to work from locations
outside of the office.
By the 1990s, there was a concerted reaction to The Clean Air Act, which outlined
conditions at the state level to create requirements to manage air-quality levels, including those
produced by automobiles (Allen et al., 2015). Remote work became a key component and

10
variable as geographic areas were factoring in its impact on city planning, with communities
working to understand the remote work population, whether with a company or self-employed
(Handy & Mokhtarian, 1995). Davenport and Pearlson (1998) surveyed 100 companies within
the Fortune 500 in 1995, finding that 29% had a formal program for remote work, primarily
leveraged by sales and support functions.
Before the close of the 1990s, Baruch and Nicholson (1997) identified “the four realms of
homeworking” (p. 21), wherein they began to explore the benefits and downfalls of work taking
place outside of the traditional office. Adapted in Table 1, Baruch and Nicholson drew out and
examined the impacts of remote work’s growth and popularity and the components that influence
the employee and the firm. Grounded in the four realms, the researchers identified the qualities
an individual requires to successfully work remotely, such as self-motivation and an ability to
work alone, as well as the roles most suitable or unsuitable for telework at the time, such as
consulting and conversely roles exposed to hazardous chemicals (Baruch & Nicholson, 1997).

11
Table 1
The Four Realms
Realm Description
The home/work interface An overarching description of the quality of family interaction,
to the workspace available.
The job The type of work and availability of remote work support
technology.
The individual The alignment of personal traits to remote work requirements.
The organization The support and trust environment produced by the business
culture and organization.
Note. Adapted from “Home, Sweet Work: Requirements for Effective Home-Working,” by Y.
Baruch and N. Nicholson, 1997, Journal of General Management, 23(2), 15–30. Copyright 1997
by the Sage Publications.
As communication tools continued to improve through the 1990s and 2000s, the
prevalence of technology created a significant enabler of remote work, expanding its availability
and adoption (Baruch, 2001; Hill et al., 2003). While the increased availability of remote work
did lead to considerable growth in telecommuters, it also began creating challenges in the
perceived lines between the home and the office (Leung & Zhang, 2017). Research conducted by
Leung and Zhang (2017) demonstrated that the development in technology enablement also
created a conflicting role in that it offered remote workers greater flexibility; however, it also
created an incursion into home life. This paradox will be explored later in Chapter Two;
however, the onset of the global pandemic only exacerbated this penetration into the home.
The onset of COVID-19 in 2020 caused a mass proliferation of roles, individuals, and
companies that would typically find themselves working from an office and transitioning to
remote work at a rapid pace (Belzunegui-Eraso & Erro-Garces, 2020; Waizenegger et al., 2020).

12
The uncertainty brought on by the global pandemic led to stark differences in the type of remote
work that was taking place previously, including the choice to work remotely, the space in which
the remote work took place, and the responsibilities remote workers had within the organization
(Waizenegger et al., 2020). Throughout the transition to working remotely, employees grappled
with new challenges in differentiating between home and work while maintaining productivity
and mental and physical well-being (Galanti et al., 2021; Waizenegger et al., 2020). As firms and
employees both came to terms with a new way of working, the focus shifted to maximizing the
environmental shift (Burleson et al., 2022).
Afforded through technology investment and advancement and expedited through the
global pandemic, the scope of remote work has continued to grow since its original inception
more than 40 years ago. The scale wherein remote work can now be made available is
incomparable to what Nilles had available in 1975. As working remotely becomes a standard
way of working, understanding the approaches, benefits, and challenges is imperative to ensure a
confidence in leading innovative work behavior.
Types of Remote Work
With the advancement of technology and different approaches to work, a constant
challenge in remote work research has been the multitude of remote work approaches, producing
an inherent challenge to even defining the term (Allen et al., 2015; Cooper & Kurland, 2002;
Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). As Allen et al. (2015) noted, “the term telecommuting has been in
use for decades, researchers have used various terminologies and conceptualizations when
reporting results of telecommuting studies,” and “referred to as telework, remote work,
distributed work, virtual work, flexible work, flexspace, and distance work” (p. 42). To

13
effectively understand the benefits and challenges brought by remote work, various definitions
are used to establish a baseline of remote work.
Virtual Teams. Mak and Kozlowski (2019) examine the notion of virtuality, establishing
the critical components for virtual teams, including reliance on communication technologies and
some level of geographic distribution. Virtual teams, according to Maynard et al. (2017), are
most often not solely working in-person nor solely virtual; instead, virtual teams tend to exist on
a continuum, where leveraging the use of communication tools to address tasks and job functions
that would otherwise be made challenging due to team members being distance or capacity to
work together.
Virtual Offices. Separate from the virtual team, Davenport and Pearlson (1998) provide
a continuum of work environments that comprise virtual offices. This continuum includes
working remotely; however, it also expands to include scenarios such as hoteling, tethered to an
office, and fully mobile work environments (Davenport & Pearlson, 1998). In the case of
hoteling, employees are frequently working from the office; however, because it is not a
permanent location, they are not provided with a fixed office and leverage open areas as
available, like a hotel room (Davenport & Pearlson, 1998). A tethered employee will typically
have mobility for where and how they work, with the expectation that they are reporting to an
office regularly, whereas fully remote employees do not have a location in the office nor a home
office (Davenport & Pearlson, 1998).
Flexible Work Arrangements. Flexible work arrangement is another commonly used
term for remote work (Allen et al., 2015). Flexible work arrangements often refer to practices
that allow employees to work with amenable schedules to manage their daily responsibilities,
specifically related to the location and time of day they elect to perform their work tasks

14
(Masuda et al., 2012). A concern related to flexible work arrangements is that the amount of
flexibility provided may correlate to fewer working hours; however, researchers suggest this is
not necessarily the case (Conradie & de Klerk, 2019). As Allen et al. (2015) noted, flexible work
arrangements include several flexible categories, largely encompassing work done in a
compressed or elasticized timeframe.
For clarity and consistency, remote work within this dissertation framework refers to an
employee’s standard responsibilities being performed in an environment outside of the ordinary
office, leveraging technology and communication tools to manage interaction with the broader
organization (see Allen et al., 2015). The variety of remote work approaches creates challenges
in effectively measuring the success, or negative impacts, that the work environments can
provide. In understanding the similarities across the different approaches to remote work,
companies can successfully develop strategies and deployment plans associated with their goals
and deploy the remote work method that aligns appropriately.
Benefits and Challenges Identified in Remote Work Research
Research has demonstrated significant benefits to both employees and employers related
to remote work. However, research has also highlighted significant negative components of
working remotely that could severely impact employee well-being and productivity. This section
will review research demonstrating the benefits and challenges highlighted in the literature
related to remote work. Further, research will demonstrate the types of employees most likely to
see success working remotely and what employers can do to deploy a remote work strategy
successfully.
Benefits. Research demonstrates that remote work broadly provides more significant
benefits than risks for employees and employers (Allen et al., 2015; Bailey & Kurland, 2002).

15
Employees’ benefits range from psychological to financial (Choudhury et al., 2021). Employers
see value through employee benefits and gains, as well as greater employee commitment and
improved supervisor relationships (Barrero et al., 2021; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007).
Autonomy. Gajendran and Harrison (2007) conducted a meta-analysis of 46 studies,
which encompassed 12,883 employees resulting in four conceptual themes for the benefits (and
detractions) of remote work. The researcher’s analysis supported themes of employees’
psychological control of their work and the perceived autonomy resulting from working remotely
(Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). More recently and amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Galanti et al.
(2021) also observed positive correlations to job autonomy and further observed that this
perceived autonomy led to greater productivity and work engagement. Employees who do not
work remotely, but have the work environment as an option, have also demonstrated greater
perceived autonomy on the job (Choi, 2020).
Employee Productivity. One of the earliest observed benefits of remote work was
improved employee productivity and performance at both the individual and organizational
levels (Baruch, 2001). Bloom et al. (2015) studied a large publicly traded Chinese organization,
finding that employees who worked remotely demonstrated an increase in business performance,
driven by an increase in work time and an increase in productivity. Vega et al. (2015) observed
that employees reported higher levels of job performance and performed better on an objective
creative task. More recently, Choudhary et al. (2019) observed a 4.4% increase in output
productivity, with no decrease in quality, when the United States Patent and Trademark Office
transitioned to a work-from-anywhere environment. Barrero et al. (2021) suggested that as
remote work continues to grow and stabilize post-COVID-19, with an anticipated 5% overall
productivity boost from newly optimized working arrangements.

16
Lower Turnover Intention. Employees working in a remote work environment
demonstrate a lower likelihood of voluntary turnover (Bloom et al., 2015; Choi, 2020; Golden et
al., 2008). Choi (2020) conducted a longitudinal analysis, examining the impacts remote work
had on employee turnover through data acquired from the Office of Personnel Management’s
congressional reports. The analysis validated hypotheses suggesting that agencies with higher
remote work opportunities and participation would have a lower voluntary turnover of
employees (Choi, 2020). In the study conducted by Bloom et al. (2015), attrition rate was
reduced 50% for employees working remotely. Golden et al. (2008) posited that even employees
experiencing feelings of isolation while working remotely are less likely to resign voluntarily. In
a qualitative analysis of human resource management, Stavrou (2005) found lower turnover in a
remote work environment so long as employees and supervisors remained engaged. These
studies also align with observations made by Gajendran and Harrison (2007) in their metaanalysis previously.
Improved Work–Life Balance. When Baruch and Nicholson (1997) created The Four
Realms (see Table 1), the home/work interface was a key focus related to remote work.
Previously, the work environment was exclusively within the office setting, allowing employees
to have firm lines between the home and professional settings. Baruch and Nicholson (1997)
found through their interviews that remote work positively impacted family life. Hunter (2019)
found that a primary goal for Open University in the United Kingdom was to increase their
researcher’s work/life balance through remote work, anticipating additional benefits.
Reduced Work-Related Stress. Remote work provides a less stressful work environment,
allowing employees to invest better their time and energy (Choi, 2020). Through their metaanalysis, Gajendran and Harrison (2007) also identified a theme related to the remote work

17
benefits related to employee stress. Whether as straightforward as reducing the stress of
preparing or commuting to the office, or the performance stress related to the office environment,
remote work positively correlated to a reduced amount of role-related stress (Gajendran &
Harrison, 2007). Work-related stress is crucial for employee performance, so this benefit is
essential (Pradoto et al., 2022).
Challenges. Research has demonstrated considerable benefits through remote work;
however, there are documented challenges in the work environment. Challenges brought through
remote work include those counterpoints to the work/life balance, psychological challenges, and
those that impact equity, diversity, and career growth.
Isolation. Cooper and Kurland (2002) investigated remote work’s impact on professional
isolation, finding that isolation driven by the work environment impacted employee
development. Golden et al. (2008) examined professional isolation through a quantitative
analysis of 261 professional-level employees and managers working remotely. The research
found that employees who worked remotely and did not engage in face-to-face meetings or
leverage enhanced communication mechanisms (i.e., video calls) would take on feelings of
isolation and ultimately hinder employee performance. Wojcak et al. (2016) found that isolation
from remote work further hindered employee ambitions and growth desires. More recently, with
the onset of COVID-19, the deluge of newly remote work employees also increased isolation
(Galanti et al., 2021).
Work Intensification. In a quantitative analysis of remote workers, Palumbo (2020)
observed that working remotely had a negative impact on the work/life balance, resulting from
increased work-related conflicts in the home office. Identified as “work fatigue,” Palumbo
(2020) posited that remote workers increase their work intensity as remote work creates a more

18
complex scenario to differentiate between the home and the office. Palumbo asserted that “the
overlapping between work and life engenders an intensification and an extensification of work
and nonwork efforts, which spiral the perceived fatigue of remote employees” (p. 786). Felstead
and Henseke (2017) found that while working remotely offered benefits to the employee and the
firm, there were impacts on the employees’ work intensification and ability to disconnect.
Remote work increases job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and productivity,
benefiting employers and employees. However, remote work has also shown a propensity to
increase work intensification and isolation, creating risks of burnout and dissatisfaction.
Identifying the appropriate balance between the benefits and challenges of remote work is
critical to its success.
Hybrid Work Environments
A second primary work environment of focus for this study is known as hybrid working.
Like the remote work environment, hybrid work environments include the employee conducting
work responsibilities outside of the office, with the primary difference being that in addition to
work completed remotely, employees are also spending time in the physical office. According to
Van Yperen et al. (2014), hybrid working combines both in-office and remote work
environments in an ideal manner to improve both employee and firm performance outcomes,
such as production, collaboration, and employee satisfaction. Similar to remote work
environments, hybrid working is made possible through the use of information and
communication technologies (ICT), such as communication software (Microsoft et al.), hardware
(personal computers, handheld devices), and infrastructure (such as high-speed internet and
broadband availability; Van Yperen & Wortler, 2017).

19
Hybrid work environments have two defining features: time independence and location
independence (Van Yperen et al., 2014). In hybrid environments, employees may elect to
maintain a traditional work schedule; however, they also have greater autonomy to work a more
flexible schedule, such as nights or weekends. Employees in hybrid work environments tend to
have similar personality traits to those who succeed in remote work, specifically a desire for
autonomy, a demand for competence, and an ability to work effectively without needing to
remain connected to others (Van Yperen et al., 2014). Conversely, Van Yperen et al. (2014) posit
that workers who require a coordinated and predictable work environment are not well suited for
hybrid work.
Hybrid work environments provide employers with a middle ground related to remote
work; such, they can more proactively mitigate risks associated with working remotely through
the structure of an office included in the performance of work. Even so, distinct challenges and
benefits exist in this work environment.
Van Yperen et al. (2016) have demonstrated that perceived autonomy through hybrid
work environments provided employees with a viable source to manage increasing job demands,
so long as the employees were inclined to autonomy. Golden and Veiga (2005) found that a
balance of approximately 15 hours of work conducted outside the office positively impacted
employee job satisfaction. Further, Golden and Veiga (2005) found that workers with less
reliance on others and greater autonomy were additional moderators to hybrid working. Ter
Hoeven and Van Zoonen (2015) also demonstrated that hybrid work environments positively
impacted employee well-being through improved work–life balance, job autonomy, and effective
communication.

20
Also, similar to remote work environments, hybrid work environments challenge
employees and organizations. Work intensification remains a challenge for hybrid work
environments; with the ability to work at any time, any place, there is a propensity for the work
lines to become blurred (Kelliher & Anderson, 2010). Bartel et al. (2012) conducted two studies
that found negative impacts on perceived respect based on distance from the office for both
newer and longer-tenured employees. This ultimately had adverse career and growth impacts
(Bartel et al., 2012). Lastly, hybrid work environments may have challenges with cyberslacking
or counterproductive behaviors when away from the office, depending on an employee’s
likelihood to procrastinate or require additional supervision to complete work production
(O’Neill et al., 2014).
With the flexibility of remote work and the structure of an office environment, employees
still gain the perceived autonomy and independence of remote work and actively ensure that
work issues do not creep into home life (Ter Hoeven & Van Zoonen, 2015). Unfortunately, these
benefits include challenges, such as work intensification, distraction, and career stagnation
(Bartel et al., 2012; Kelliher & Anderson, 2010; O’Neill, 2014).
Recent Drivers and Impacts of Remote and Hybrid Environments
The COVID-19 pandemic and quarantine requirements drove remote work in the United
States from 23% of workers who frequently worked remotely to 71% of employed adults
spending all or most of their time working remotely in October 2020; now, years later, more than
six-in-ten employed adults remain working remotely, mainly by choice (Parker et al., 2022). The
initial driver for employers to initiate hybrid and remote work environments was the safety and
well-being of the employees, which was initially reactive and haphazard (Belzunegui-Eraso &
Erro-Garces, 2020). Belzunegui-Eraso and Erro-Garces (2020) looked to expand on the Baruch

21
and Nicholson (1997) teleworking framework by adding an environmental, safety, and legal
component to account for the health requirement that prompted quarantine and telework activity.
The researchers found that although several firms had remote work plans and strategies ahead of
the pandemic, they lacked the readiness to mobilize the approach to the degree COVID required,
thus the need to add an additional dimension to the four realms Baruch and Nicholson (1997)
initially proposed.
COVID-19 also significantly accelerated the long-term adoption of hybrid and remote
work environments (Delbosc et al., 2022). Through quantitative empirical research assessing 928
questionnaire responses to examine individual’s long-term intent to work from home once
COVID-19, Delbosc et al. (2022) found that even though only 12% of respondents had
considered remote work prior to COVID-19, most employees who had the opportunity to work
remotely would take advantage of the opportunity post-pandemic. Even those who had no desire
to work remotely before COVID-19 now preferred the work environment (Delbosc et al., 2022).
Through a review of research, Manko (2021) identified themes such as clear and consistent
communication, access to necessary support resources, and shorter meetings, which would
provide leaders and organizations alike greater success opportunities through hybrid and remote
environments.
Unfortunately, COVID-19 has also exaggerated some challenges and detractions
identified in hybrid and remote work environments. In a conversation with Faulds and Raju
(2021), Brian Kropp communicated that during the pandemic, the workday had grown
approximately 13%, or 48.5 minutes, due to increased meetings and work intensification
outcomes. Delfino and van der Kolk (2021) examined management control changes in remote
environments for COVID-19 protocols, finding that for professional services employees,

22
“supervisors and clients became more demanding, which in various cases led to tighter, more
constraining control over employees” (p. 1385).
In looking at the lifecycle of remote work, the work environment started as an innovative
approach to managing environmental factors (i.e., oil costs), it then evolved into largely a
function of employee responsibility. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, remote work
reverted to addressing environmental factors, this time the containment of an airborne virus, and
once again has evolved into something different, a lifestyle choice for several employees.
Innovation
Innovation is at the heart of growth and success in for-profit businesses. The continued
focus on new ideas and product development is essential for long-term business success, whether
the innovation is through leadership, employee behavior, or established research and design
processes. This section of Chapter Two will provide a limited review of existing research on
innovation, focusing first on innovative work behavior and the individual manager and
employees’ impact on innovation. The following section presents research on innovation as a
process within existing organizations. The final section reviews research on how remote and
hybrid work environments may impact organizational innovation.
Innovative Work Behavior
Developing an organizational dedication to innovation starts with how employees
behave; through innovative work behaviors, employees are consistently thinking about new ways
of meeting objectives and driving the growth of new ideas (Kanter, 1988). Innovative work
behavior refers to an employee’s activity (within a work environment) geared towards creating,
developing, or applying processes or techniques to produce new ideas, products, or processes
(Farr & Ford, 1990). Early research on innovative work behavior examined the tasks and

23
organizational requirements necessary for innovation while differentiating from prior research
focused more on creativity (Amabile et al., 1996; Kanter, 1988; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Van de
Ven, 1986).
Foundational Frameworks for Innovative Work Behavior
Andrew Van de Ven (1986) examined the primary organizational and management
challenges to innovation, identifying four factors necessary to exist in innovation: ideas, people,
transactions, and context over time. The four factors bring inherent challenges, including
developing new ideas sufficiently for support, maintaining focus, organizing labor and skillsets
appropriately, and overcoming institutional leadership (Van de Ven, 1986). According to Van de
Van (1986), a primary issue in preventing innovative work behavior is that the more stable and
comfortable an individual or company is with their job or environment, the less likely there will
be a recognition that change is needed or could benefit. Innovative behaviors can create a
repeatable pattern for new ideas and execution, which might only be available if individuals and
companies wait until times of crisis or dissatisfaction for new approaches (Van de Ven, 1986).
In examining the organizational conditions required for innovation, Kanter (1988) made a
similar observation to Van de Ven, suggesting, “the entrepreneurial process of innovation and
change is at odds with the administration process of ensuring repetitions of the past” (p. 94).
Recognizing that certain constraints and approaches to leadership would inherently stifle
innovative behavior, through her research, she established four primary innovation tasks that
align with successful innovative behaviors. These four tasks are (a) idea generation, (b) coalition
building, (c) idea realization, and (d) transfer or distribution of the information (Kanter, 1988).
Through idea generation, Kanter (1988) highlighted the activation of innovative work
behavior. The author highlighted necessary components for idea generation, including the

24
opportunity to engage with customers or stakeholders to sufficiently identify the needs
innovation may satisfy and owning the necessary organizational and market knowledge to
identify potential solutions. These components initiate a kaleidoscope creative process, looking
at different elements of the environment and shaping them into a new reality (Kanter, 1988).
Coalition building and idea realization include acquiring the necessary support or power to move
an idea forward, then developing a prototype or functional model that demonstrates the potential
value (Kanter, 1988). Finally, Kanter (1988) described the transfer task includes the actual
commercialization of the innovation, completing the cycle. The implementation of the idea is a
primary difference between innovative work behavior and creativity, as creativity can drive
ideation but stops short of the final step of commercialization (Amabile et al., 1996; Kanter,
1988; Van de Ven, 1986).
Innovative Work Behavior Frameworks Into Practice
Expanding on the work of Van de Ven (1986) and Kanter (1988), Scott and Bruce (1994)
developed a model of individual innovative behavior, serving as the outcome of the interactions
between an individual, leader, work group, and the climate for innovation. Each of the four
interactions carries varying levels of engagement and influence on an individual’s innovative
behavior, navigating the levels of interpersonal exchange, available resources, and individual
drivers available to drive innovative behavior. Putting the model into practice, Scott and Bruce
(1994) developed a Likert scale for a quantitative empirical survey study of 172 technical
employees and 26 managers in a centralized research and development center for a major U.S.
industrial corporation. Through the survey, the researchers found that leadership and support for
innovation were significant drivers for innovative work behavior. A leader’s role expectation, the

25
employee’s career stage, and systematic problem-solving capabilities correlate to an individual’s
innovative work behavior (Scott & Bruce, 1994).
Advancing their initial research, Scott and Bruce (1998) expanded on the relationship
between the supervisor and individual in innovative work behavior in formalizing the leadermember-exchange theory (LMX). LMX posited that a successful relationship between a leader
and their followers grows over time, beginning as a transactional relationship and ultimately
becoming a reciprocal relationship that includes psychological features, such as trust and
support, which encourages innovative work behavior (Scott & Bruce, 1998). The researchers
tested their LMX theory through a quantitative study of two sample populations, a first of 110
R&D professionals at a centralized facility for a major U.S. industrial corporation and a second
sample of 149 R&D professionals across four locations for a large electronics manufacturer,
respectively. Supporting the LMX theory, across both samples, the relationship between the
direct supervisor and employees positively correlated to innovative work behavior (Scott &
Bruce, 1998).
Jeroen de Jong and Deane den Hartog (2010) further increased the mechanisms available
to measure innovative work behavior, with the intention of creating a standard measurement
design leveraging tasks and phases similarly found in Van de Ven (1986), Kanter (1988) and
Scott and Bruce (1994), however attempting to expand them to dimensions of innovative work
behavior. Developing a multi-phase quantitative study aimed to improve the measurability of
innovative work behavior through the dimensions of idea exploration, generation, championing,
and implementation, the researchers began with a pilot survey of 81 research professionals and
their supervisors, ultimately expanding to 703 matched pairs of research professionals and their
supervisors across 94 firms. Unfortunately for the researchers, evidence of the distinctiveness of

26
multi-dimensional measurements was weak, suggesting that innovative work behavior may be a
one-dimensional measurement (de Jong & den Hartog, 2010). While this did not validate the
proposed model, the research further validated existing research (de Jong & den Hartog, 2010).
Where LMX viewed innovative work behavior through the leader-member-exchange and
transformational leadership lens, more recent research has also shown entrepreneurial leadership
driving innovative work behavior (Scott & Bruce, 1998; Bagheri, 2017). Through a quantitative
study, Bagheri (2017) conducted empirical research on the influence of entrepreneurial
leadership on a firm’s innovative work behavior. Across 39 firms, 310 employees answered
questionnaires used to evaluate the entrepreneurial practices of firm leadership and its impact on
their own innovative work behavior and opportunity recognition. Bagheri’s (2017) findings
suggest a significant impact on innovative work behavior through entrepreneurial leadership,
furthering the notion that the leadership/supervisory relationship is a significant driver for
innovative behavior. Adding to the field of study, Bagheri (2017) also found that an opportunity
for recognition was also a driver for technology employees to exert innovative behavior.
Critical components of innovative work behavior included establishing leadership and the
supervisory relationship (de Jong & den Hartog, 2010; Kanter, 1988; Scott & Bruce, 1998; Van
de Ven, 1986). Building on this position, Kor, Wakkee, and van der Sijde (2021) investigated the
impacts on individual innovative behavior by promoting perceived organizational innovativeness
through empirical research via a quantitative study of 340 banking managers. The researchers
establish that perceived organizational innovativeness and self-leadership are positively related
to the manager’s individual innovative behavior. Further, this type of intrapreneurship and
perceived organizational innovativeness may motivate individuals to engage more proactively in
innovative work behaviors (Kor et al., 2021).

27
The role of communication plays a critical role in determining and fostering innovative
work behavior (Kivimaki et al., 2000; Linke & Zerfass, 2011; Mayfield & Mayfield, 2004;
Ortega-Egea et al., 2013). Through a study of 249 employees from five different companies,
Ortega-Egea et al. (2013) determined that the more robust the communication and knowledge
sharing flows exist within a company, the more likely employees would be oriented to
innovation. Mayfield and Mayfield (2004) found a meaningful connection between leadership
communication and innovative work behavior. Through a quantitative analysis of 133 surveys,
the researchers observed a direct relationship between the use of motivating language from
leaders and employee innovative work behavior (Mayfield & Mayfield, 2004). Linke and Zerfass
(2011) completed a mixed methods case study, examining a pharmaceutical firm through both
interviews with human resource managers and an online survey of 1,000 employees with the
firm. The researchers found that the more a company communicates an innovation philosophy
and integrates this communication into the company culture, the greater employees adopt
innovative work behavior and culture (Linke & Zerfass, 2011).
Leadership has a critical role in establishing and maintaining an environment that
supports and celebrates innovative work behavior, as without it, employees are less likely to
identify or promote new ideas, and business performance will suffer. Research has demonstrated
the key components of an organizational climate and the role leadership and supervisory
relationships play in driving innovative work behavior.
Innovation as a Process
An environment that supports and develops innovative work behavior is a crucial
ingredient for innovation, and as discussed, a key difference between innovative work behavior
and creativity is the ability to implement ideas (Kanter, 1988; Van de Ven, 1986). The

28
implementation facets of innovative work behavior would include developing new products and
business channels of revenue, and establishing these processes is essential to all types of
organizations to ensure long-term survival (Costanza et al., 2015). In addition to being an
organizational behavioral attribute, innovation can be a discrete item and a process, playing an
imperative role in a company’s ability to adapt and remain relevant in their industries (Costanza
et al., 2015; Kimberly, 1981).
Differentiating between innovative work behavior and focusing on innovation as an
organizational process requires differentiating between the individual practices that drive
innovation and looking at the broader outcomes of the organizational attributes that execute the
innovation process (Baregheh et al., 2009; Dul & Ceylan, 2014). To tackle this differentiation,
Baregheh et al. (2009) conducted an extensive literature review and content analysis study to
create an integrative definition of organizational innovation. As detailed in Figure 1, the
researchers leveraged a multitude of previously identified definitions created, and through the
content analysis of multidisciplinary definitions, the authors identified vital attributes sufficient
to create a consolidated definition of innovation focused on the organizational level. The
outcome was a process-driven definition, which ultimately aligned in several ways to innovative
work behavior stages, with the process scenarios more focused on the execution of innovation
than the individual behaviors driving it (Baregheh et al., 2009; Kanter, 1988).

29
Figure 1
Diagrammatic Definition of Innovation
Note. From “Towards a Multidisciplinary Definition of Innovation,” by A. Baregheh, J. Rowley,
and S. Sambrook, 2009, Management Decision, 47(8), p. 1333. Copyright 2009 by Emerald
Group Publishing Limited.
Costanza et al. (2015) examined 95 organizations founded prior to 1940, assessing their
ability to adapt through innovation and change through regression analysis of rating nine
characteristics of an adaptive culture. The researchers maintain that organizations require
innovation and adaptive processes to remain relevant and profitable over time, with their analysis
identifying two consistent factors in companies’ ability to do so, valuing change and an ability to
act when necessary. The research demonstrated that organizations maintaining an external focus,
proactively working to identify problems and solutions, and ensuring an infrastructure that can
enact innovation are more likely to remain viable longer (Costanza et al., 2015). The histrionic

30
research by Costanza et al. (2015) complements the work presented by Baregheh et al. (2009) in
demonstrating the value of establishing innovative processes to complement innovative work
behaviors.
Dul and Ceylan (2014) also examined the relationship between innovative work behavior
and the relationship to innovation as a process. The researchers conducted an empirical analysis
of 103 companies, examining the relationship between a firm’s support of creativity and product
innovation, wherein they measured innovation through both new product development
productivity and the extent companies can introduce these new products successfully into the
company’s market. The research demonstrated that the support of a creative work environment
leads to both an increase in new product development in terms of productivity and greater sales
success in terms of market acceptance of the innovation (Dul & Ceylan, 2014).
Najafi-Tavani et al. (2018) examined the impacts collaborative innovation networks
could have on innovation through an empirical study of 258 survey respondents in the
technology manufacturing industry. The researchers investigated the influence networks, such as
suppliers, customers, competition, academic institutions, and the absorptive capacity to recognize
new ideas. While prior research demonstrated that collaboration with other parties drives
innovation, this research demonstrated that collaboration networks alone cannot guarantee
successful innovative practices (Najafi-Tavani et al., 2018; Scott & Bruce, 1994).
Innovative work behavior is a foundational component for the proliferation of new ideas
and establishing a culture of growth; however, organizations must also have processes to support
and harness these behaviors. The support of creativity and ideation through processes driving
repeatable innovation will have greater success through near-term product development and

31
revenue growth and enjoy longer-term performance gains. Whether the processes are elaborate
or simply attributes or components of innovation, their presence is critical.
Innovation Across Work Environments
Regardless of an organization’s work environment, innovation and creating new business
value will be imperative to ensure long-term success. With hybrid and remote work
environments in place for several decades and innovation required for companies to remain
viable, it is critical to review research delving into innovation across work environments (Allen
et al., 2015; Costanza et al., 2015). Hirsch (2021) suggested that in hybrid work environments,
making individuals accountable to be creative “often had a positive effect on the speed and
quality of innovation” (p. 360). Innovation can be successful in all work environments and, in
some scenarios, even increase in remote environments; however, several mediators play a part in
the success or failure (Burleson et al., 2022; Peláez et al., 2021; Sarbu, 2022).
Analyzing survey data collected in 2006 of 16,151 German employees across multiple
industries, Sarbu (2022) determined that remote work positively affects innovation. Examining
the probability that remote work increased innovation, Sarbu focused on the 25% of survey
participants who worked in a hybrid or remote work environment. Contrary to prior research, the
study found that the interaction between employee peers and supervisors did not significantly
impact innovation; rather, the work environment played a far more significant role in the
outcome (Scott & Bruce, 1994; Sarbu, 2022). The amount of remote work plays a key role in
innovation, as research demonstrates that hybrid work environments were nearly twice as likely
to produce innovation as compared to full-time remote or in-office environments (Sarbu, 2022).
Karia and Asaari (2016) examined innovation in remote work environments through
applied resource theory, researching how the work environment can lead to resource

32
development that compliments innovation and creates competitive advantages. The researchers
conducted a case study of teleworking adopters in Malaysia, with interviews in 2014 at a private
construction firm that had adopted remote work for employees and managers. In looking at the
value of remote work with a resource, or financial lens, the empirical analysis found that
working remotely is feasible with strong organizational leadership, and if the resources saved
through remote work are reinvested, can be deployed effectively, innovation and growth are very
feasible. Specifically, revealing that innovation capability is ascertained by tangible and
intangible resources, such as the reciprocal process of investing the financial savings gained
through remote work into the firm’s innovative practices and employee development (Karia &
Asaari, 2016).
The research from Sarbu (2022) and Karia and Asaari (2016) examined individual and
company data collected before the COVID-19 pandemic, creating a more recent focus on
innovation and different work environments. With the massive and expedited transition to hybrid
and remote work environments, the digitization of work has prompted a greater adoption of
innovative practices while also forcing companies to adapt to new ways of working (Burleson et
al., 2022; Peláez et al., 2021). Technology alone cannot facilitate innovation in hybrid and
remote work environments; focus on the employee and the company’s approach to engagement
also play a key role (Burleson et al., 2022; Sarkar & Kedas, 2023).
Through a review of research, Burleson et al. (2022) focused on the impacts of remote
work on innovation. The researchers ultimately identified three primary conditions to continue
fostering employee innovation regardless of work environment, which aligns with prior success
factors for both remote work and innovation, such as autonomy, engagement with colleagues and
supervisors, and ensuring an appropriate work/life balance (Baruch & Nicholson, 1997; Burleson

33
et al., 2022; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Scott & Bruce, 1994). As shown in Table 2, Burleson
et al. (2022) coined these three conditions as grace, place, and space, outlining the condition’s
relationship to innovation and how to overcome potential challenges found in remote work
environments.
Table 2
Three Conditions (and Tensions) for Technological Innovation
Condition Relationship to
innovation
Tension in telework Solution
Grace Autonomy provides the
freedom necessary to
innovate.
Physical distance tempts
managers to increase
control in order to
ensure employees are
behaving as desired.
Evaluate based on
outcomes, not
behavior, in order to
provide autonomy
and ensure alignment.
Place Individuals are more
likely to innovate
when they can
connect with peers.
Natural interactions are far
more difficult, if not
impossible. Therefore,
peer networking must
be artificially created.
Intentionally create
unagendized spaces
where employees can
interact with peers.
Space Overload hinders
innovation; therefore,
space provides the
cognitive resources
necessary to innovate.
Reducing tasks for
employees may not
actually decrease
overload and is difficult
to justify.
Provide mechanisms for
coping with stress in
order to reduce
employee feelings of
overload.
Note. From “Grace, Place and Space: Fostering Employee Technological Innovation in the New
Normal,” by J. Burleson, B.E. Greenbaum, and J. B. Thatcher, 2022, Internet Research, 33(1), p.
5. Copyright 2022 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

34
Research has demonstrated challenges in facilitating innovation and innovative work
behavior in hybrid and remote work environments (Brucks & Levav, 2022; Garlatti Costa et al.,
2022; Saad & Agogué, 2023). Through a laboratory and field experiment, Brucks and Levav
(2022) examined virtual communication impacts to creativity and components of innovative
work behavior, such as idea generation. Laboratory experimentation with 602 participants, the
researchers examined human behavior while participating in videoconferencing. The researchers
observed through the experiments, the communication method hindered idea generation. Further
validating these findings, Brucks and Levav (2022) also completed field experiments with 1,490
participants, separating participants into in-person or virtual communication pairs. In the field
experiments, participants worked to generate product ideas, and select an idea to champion
further. Compared to the in-office pairs, participants leveraging virtual communication generated
fewer ideas (Brucks & Levav, 2022).
Innovation is critical for sustained growth and relevance for successful companies
(Costanza et al., 2015). Innovation can be a foundational practice within a company through the
establishment of innovative work behaviors or through the formation of consistent and repeatable
processes. Ultimately, as companies shift and prioritize hybrid and remote work environments
post-pandemic, it is vital to understand the implications for successful innovation and the
mechanisms and work behaviors necessary for long-term success.
Social Cognitive Theory
The final section of the literature review will delve into the theoretical and conceptual
frameworks leveraged for the dissertation study. Social cognitive theory will provide the
theoretical framework from which the conceptual framework will be derived. This section will
give a brief history and overview of social cognitive theory, the conceptual framework applied to

35
the dissertation study, and a review of relevant literature examining social cognitive theories’
applications to hybrid and remote work environments and innovation.
Background of Social Cognitive Theory
Dr. Albert Bandura developed and published social cognitive theory in 1986, building on
his initial theoretical foundations of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977, 1986). Social cognitive theory
contends that a reciprocal triadic causal relationship exists between personal influences,
behavioral determinants, and environmental factors (Bandura, 1986). Bandura has applied social
cognitive theory as a framework to conceptual scenarios, including learning, human agency,
personality investigation, and organizational management (Bandura, 1999, 2001, 2006; Wood &
Bandura, 1989).
The foundation for social cognitive theory is rooted in Bandura’s earlier work centered
on self-efficacy, a model wherein personal efficacy is obtained through four primary sources of
information to inform an individual’s belief they can execute certain tasks: performance,
vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states (Bandura, 1977). Bandura
explores these sources of efficacy and examines how individuals obtain information to drive and
influence their learning behavior. For example, Bandura outlines that an individual may inform
their efficacy through verbal persuasion, which could be obtained through suggestion,
exhortation, self-instruction, and/or interpretive threats. Through a series of experiments, it was
found that the four sources of information provided predictive value in the likelihood that
individuals would have the confidence to complete specific tasks, with the more dependable the
sources, the greater the impact on an individual’s self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977).
Social cognitive theory suggests that individuals serve in the form of interactive agency,
wherein cognitive thoughts exercise self-influence and actions are performed with the

36
expectation that they will drive an outcome (Bandura, 2001). Bandura contends that this agentic
view of social cognitive theory suggests that individuals/agents have four primary elements of
human agency: intentionality, forethought, self-reactiveness, and self-reflectiveness.
Intentionality suggests that individuals perform acts for a purpose, and “outcomes are not the
characteristics of agentive acts; they are the consequences of them” (Bandura, 2001, p. 6).
Bandura’s view of forethought implies that an individual’s course of action, behavior, and
motivation is driven by anticipated outcomes that benefit a future state of being. Selfreactiveness indicates that an agent needs to monitor their environment, personal indicators, and
behavior, adjusting goals and standards to meet motivation and completion standards (Bandura,
2001). Finally, Bandura (2001) describes self-reflectiveness as the ability of individuals to
continually evaluate their motivation and verify their line of thought through a course of action.
In addition to human agency found in personal factors, learning and motivation play a
crucial role for individuals in social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1989; Schunk & Usher, 2019).
Bandura (1989) suggests that “the development of people’s cognitive, social, and behavioral
competencies through mastery modeling” (p. 362) is relevant to the study of organizations.
Bandura (1989) outlines four processes that govern the observational learning component of
modeled events: attentional, retention, production, and motivational. Attentional processes
suggest that even while observing modeled events, their attention dictates how much they recall
to steer behavior. As such, retention processing is the action of individual cognitive actions of
processing information and storing it to be recalled and used. Production processing is the
application of new learnings into active behavior, combining new skills with previously acquired
knowledge. Finally, as individuals are motivated by their success and the success of those they
believe to be like them, motivational processes are those that are influenced by direct, vicarious,

37
and self-produced models with observed rewards or punishments (Bandura, 1989; Schunk &
Usher, 2019).
Conceptual Framework
Leveraging the foundation provided by Bandura (1986, 1989), the dissertation research
and study leveraged the reciprocal triadic relationship found in social cognitive theory in
exploring manager’s perceptions of employee innovative work behaviors in hybrid and remote
work environments. The study included personal factors, such as leadership innovative selfefficacy, behavioral influences such as innovative work behavior, and the environmental
implications from hybrid and remote work environments. Figure 2 demonstrates the conceptual
framework for the personal indicators, behavioral influences, and environments being researched
in applying the social cognitive theory framework.
Figure 2
Application of Social Cognitive Theory

38
Social Cognitive Theory on Innovation
Innovation and innovative work behavior depend heavily on personal factors, behaviors,
and environments for success (Newman et al., 2018). Mechanisms of social cognitive theory
have been used to study innovation and innovative work behavior, given the close relationship
between these personal factors and behaviors to their environment (Liao et al., 2022). Themes
demonstrated in social cognitive theory and innovation include the impacts of self-efficacy on
innovative work behavior and trust elements that influence innovation (Fiernaningsih et al.,
2021; Ng & Lucianetti, 2016).
Social cognitive theory has been used to investigate the successful leadership traits that
support and drive innovation, finding that entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial leadership is more
likely to benefit innovative practices (Liao et al., 2022; Newman et al., 2018). Leveraging social
cognitive theory, Liao et al. (2022) examined the relationship between intrapreneurship,
opportunity recognition, and creative self-efficacy through a quantitative study of 206 college
students studying in Chinese universities. Through the triadic reciprocal relationship, the
researchers found that intrapreneurship had a positive effect on innovation, which was also
mediated by employees’ creative self-efficacy. The researchers also determined that the
cognitive process of opportunity recognition may be driven by supportive environments,
supporting the idea that creative self-efficacy and perceived support help innovation.
Newman et al. (2018) conducted empirical research through a multi-data/multi-source
quantitative study of 66 managers and 346 employees in a Chinese multinational organization,
analyzing creative self-efficacy’s effect on innovative workplace behaviors. Through the study,
the researchers found that creative self-efficacy was more likely to be influential when an
entrepreneurial leader was involved. Consistent with social cognitive theory, the environment

39
created by an entrepreneurial leader has an impact on employee work behavior and creative selfefficacy (Newman et al., 2018).
Social cognitive theory has also been used to examine the effects of relational and
organizational trust on self-efficacy and, further, on innovative work behavior (Fiernaningsih et
al., 2021; Ng & Lucianetti, 2016). Ng and Lucianetti (2016) conducted empirical research
through surveys of 267 employees in Italy, collected at three points in time over eight months,
investigating the impacts of organizational trust and perceived respect on self-efficacy. Further,
the researchers looked at these impacts on self-efficacy regarding employees’ ability to leverage
innovative work behavior, including creativity, and persuasion, to gather support and adapt to
changing environments. The research demonstrated that employees who could maintain or
increase their self-efficacy were likelier to demonstrate innovative work behavior (Ng &
Lucianetti, 2016). Social cognitive theory-based research on a sample of 221 individuals by
Fiernaningsih et al. (2021) demonstrated similar results to self-efficacy’s impact on innovative
work behavior, adding that autonomy also contributed to self-efficacy.
The creation of an environment that provides both trust as well as entrepreneurial and
intrapreneurial leadership will drive employee behavior toward innovation and encourages the
establishment of creative self-efficacy. Social cognitive theory as a framework in investigating
these components and identifying determinants of innovation and innovative work behavior
shows the theory’s utility as a foundational application for research on this topic of study. Social
cognitive theory has demonstrated its application to innovation, and the model has also been
used in examining different work environments.

40
Social Cognitive Theory on Remote and Hybrid Work Environments
This final section will review the theme identified through social cognitive theory
research on hybrid and remote work environments. The dynamic nature of remote and hybrid
work environments creates new scenarios where employee behavior and personal influences are
impacted. Social cognitive theory has been used to investigate and understand the triadic
relationship between these work environments and their impacts on behavior and personal
indicators, exploring facets such as employee self-efficacy, work intensification, work/life
balance, and leadership impacts on employee cognition and motivation (Lange & Kayser, 2022;
Liao, 2017; Raghuram et al., 2003; Taufiq-Hail & Hawaldar, 2021).
Employee self-efficacy is a critical component in any work environment; however, there
can be challenges in hybrid and remote work environments where the lines between work and
home can be blurred (Lange & Kayser, 2022; Kelliher & Anderson, 2010). Through a
quantitative empirical survey study of 5163 German employees, Lange and Kayser (2022)
examined the relationships between self-efficacy and remote work environment impacts on
work-related stress, job autonomy, and work-family conflict, as well as their impacts on
employee health. The researchers found that while employee self-efficacy does reduce workrelated stress and mediates health outcomes, the work environment does drive an increase in
work-family conflict and work intensification, which is consistent with broader research
(Felstead & Henseke, 2017; Lange & Kayser, 2022; Palumbo, 2020).
Raghuram et al. (2003) found similar self-efficacy impacts in their empirical study of 723
North American telecommunications firm employees, determining that employee self-efficacy
positively correlates to adjustment and behavior in remote work environments. The researcher’s
study examined the remote employee’s ability to adjust to different work environments with

41
differences compared to being in the office. These differences included the employee’s selfefficacy impact on managing a more fluid and less structured environment, compared to the
constructs of an office. Ultimately, it was found that employee self-efficacy positively correlates
to adjustment and behavior. The study further suggests that the correlation is stronger among
full-time remote employees versus hybrid employees (Raghuram et al., 2003).
Taufiq-Hail and Hawaldar (2021) discovered similar findings regarding self-efficacy’s
impact on behavior. Research conducted through 83 questionnaire responses from higher
education professionals examined self-efficacy impacts on task performance during the COVID19 quarantine period. The authors found that in scenarios where subjects demonstrated negative
feelings, their ability to complete tasks had a significant and negative impact. Conversely,
positive feelings also impacted the staff performance, ultimately demonstrating the value of selfefficacy in completing tasks in remote environments.
Finally, social cognitive theory has been leveraged to develop additional models and
theoretical frameworks to examine leadership and team effectiveness in hybrid and remote work
environments (Liao, 2017; Staples & Webster, 2007). Liao (2017) leveraged a review of research
to develop a multi-level framework for leadership qualities and requirements for successful
hybrid and remote teams. This framework included social cognitive theory to establish that
leadership influences employee cognition and motivation, and interpersonal relationships in
hybrid and remote environments (Liao, 2017). Further, Liao’s (2017) framework suggests that
these relationships ultimately impact leadership and employee work effectiveness. Staples and
Webster (2007) utilized social cognitive theory to develop a research model to study the
effectiveness of team members in traditional and virtual teams, determining that relationships

42
may be stronger in virtual settings, as employees have fewer mechanisms for task or job
feedback, and as such rely more on information technology and direct communication.
Summary
The purpose of Chapter Two was to provide a review of relevant literature associated
with the problem of practice, introducing, and supporting the conceptual framework for
dissertation research. The literature review was delivered through four sections, first examining
the hybrid and remote work environments, providing research outlining the historical context,
different types of environments, benefits, and challenges. Literature was then presented on
innovation, providing research on innovative work behavior, innovation as a process, and
innovation across work environments. Finally, the conceptual framework was presented,
leveraging social cognitive theory. The research provided support for social cognitive theory as a
framework, with literature on innovation, innovative work behavior, and hybrid and remote work
environments. Next, Chapter Three will review the research methodology.

43
Chapter Three: Methodology
Chapter Three provides an overview of the proposed methodology used for data
collection in the dissertation study. As this study explored managers’ perceptions of the impacts
work environments may have with innovative work behavior, the methodology centers around
the research subjects most fit to provide insight and how this information is gathered. The
chapter first revisits the research questions being used for the dissertation study, followed by an
overview of the methodology. Chapter Three then reviews the instrumentation and data
collection components. The chapter then provides input on the ethics and researcher, credibility,
and trustworthiness of the study, and finishes with a review of the limitations and delimitations.
Research Questions
To support the investigation and context of this dissertation, the following research
questions were used to guide the research:
1. What are managers’ perceptions of how hybrid and remote work environments affect,
if at all, employee engagement in innovative work behaviors?
2. How confident are managers in their ability to foster innovative behaviors in hybrid
and remote work environments?
3. How have managers changed their leadership to support innovative work behaviors in
hybrid and remote work environments?
Overview of Methodology
Leveraging social cognitive theory, the interview process explored managers’ perception
to the affects, if any, to employee innovative work behavior in hybrid and remote environments
through key concepts such as ideal work environments, communication strategies, managerial
approaches, and self-efficacy related to leadership responsibilities. Where social cognitive theory

44
suggests that human behavior is driven by reciprocal interactions between environmental,
behavioral, and personal influences (Schunk & Usher, 2019), this interview process provided a
lens to exploring the relationship between environments (hybrid and remote work environments),
personal beliefs and perceptions (leadership innovative self-efficacy), and behavior (innovative
work behavior).
Instrumentation
The target population for the interview project were people leaders in the product
management, technology, and strategic initiatives job categories, within the financial services
industry. The financial services industry has evolved from being primarily a predominantly inoffice industry to having a greater reliance on hybrid and remote environments since the
COVID-19 pandemic. While several firms still have a primary office location, more people
leaders have become hybrid and/or remote workers, as well as managing teams spread across
multiple geographies and work environments. People leaders were identified for this project,
given their likelihood to have hybrid, and remote work environment exposure, as well as the
likelihood they are leading and engaging with employees across multiple environments.
Researching people leaders provided an opportunity to explore the manager’s perception of
innovative work behavior across different environments, as well as their confidence in
facilitating these behaviors.
Since there is a specific field and target population, purposeful sampling was used to
identify the appropriate candidates. Purposeful sampling provides an opportunity to “discover,
understand, and gain insight … from which the most can be learned” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016,
p. 96). The specific form of purposeful sampling used in this study was network sampling,
leveraging the researcher’s professional network of contacts to identify appropriate interview

45
participants. Specifically for this project, a combination of text messages and email was used to
recruit participants. A total of 25 candidates were identified, with 12 total participants
interviewed. Candidates were required to have at least 5 years of leadership experience,
including experience leading in-office employees and current responsibilities to include hybrid
and/or remote employees. Candidates were also required to have at least two direct report
employees.
Data Collection
The interview protocol for this study used qualitative research methodology through
semi-structured interviews were used for data collection. The 12 interview sessions for research
participants leveraged the same interview protocol (Appendix A), however based on the
feedback from each participant, the 23 baseline questions had as many as 15 additional prompts
that could be asked for additional information. Each of the interview questions tie back to at least
one research question and at least one component of social cognitive theory (personal,
behavioral, and/or environmental influences).
The use of the interview protocol allowed the interviewer a data collection instrument
that provided a standard set of instructions and response categories, such there was the ability to
ensure a baseline of questions and prompts are provided for each interview (Johnson &
Christensen, 2015). However, leveraging a semi-structured interview gave the researcher
flexibility and the opportunity to ask questions in whatever order the specific scenario warranted,
as each respondent had a unique view on the set of questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
questions used in the interview protocol are largely derived from Patton’s six categories of
questions, specifically experiences and behaviors, opinions and values, knowledge, and feeling
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

46
Prior to the interview session, each participant received an information sheet (Appendix
B), outlining the problem of practice being researched, eligibility criteria, and commitment
expectations for the study. The semi-structured approach also allowed for the researcher to skip
certain questions based on prior answers provided by participants. Interview questions were built
on the social cognitive theory conceptual framework, as well as designed to gain information to
address the previously stated research questions. Each interview concluded with an open-ended
opportunity for research participants to provide additional context or information on previously
asked questions, or items that may not have been specifically addressed through the interview
protocol.
Once participants joined the Zoom video conference session, each interview session
included a consistent introduction provided by the researcher. The introduction restated the
problem of practice, affirmation that none of the questions were evaluative, the protections being
implemented by the researcher for confidentiality and data protection, as well as reiterating the
participants willingness to participate and record the session. Interview sessions averaged
approximately 52 minutes, with a range of 39 minutes to 63 minutes for all participants.
Upon completion of the interview session, all work products were stored in a password
protected file on the researcher’s computer, as well as a password protected Google Cloud drive
for backup. Retained work products included a transcript of the interview produced by Otter.ai,
consolidated notes on Microsoft Excel, and coding activity tracked in Atlas.ti. Upon completion
and delivery of the Otter.ai transcript and participant validation of the transcript, all recorded
interviews were permanently deleted. Within 7 days of each interview, the researcher provided
each research participant with a full copy of the transcript produced by Otter.ai. The transcript
included interview questions, responses, and scenarios where the researcher clarified or

47
generated assumptions based on the information. Participants were provided the opportunity to
confirm or correct the information prior to further work or coding taking place with the study.
The Researcher
As an executive charged with strategy and product development, I am interested in
obtaining a greater understanding leaders’ confidence in fostering innovative work behavior and
leaders’ perceptions of innovative work behavior in hybrid and remote work environments.
Leveraging the views of positionality provided by Villaverde (2008), there are additional lenses
that the researcher could view as critical components in what fosters views and opinions, such as
identifying as a cisgender upper-class White man. Extending Villaverde’s (2008) definition to
the workplace, I identify as an executive charged with finding new areas for innovation and
strategic business development, while maximizing the human resources and talent available in
the organization. This positionality provides some bias, as I am able to work in both an office
and remote environment because of company paid travel. This is not a common flexibility.
Ethics, Credibility, and Trustworthiness
Several strategies were leveraged to ensure the achievement of appropriate ethical
standards, as well as account for the creditability and trustworthiness of the study. Three
strategies were leveraged to ensure ethics, credibility, and trustworthiness for this study,
respondent validation, code reviews, and a critical reflection of the researcher’s position
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Respondent validation took place both during the interview process,
as well as once interviews were complete. Within the interview process, the researcher would
repeat key statements made by the participants, along with interpretation for clarity and
consistency. Further, upon completion of the interview, a full interview transcript was delivered

48
to interview participants for review and validation. Participants were provided an opportunity to
provide any additional clarification or correction of the transcript via email and/or phone call.
Coding reviews took place after respondent validation, reviewing the process of the
study, consistency of the findings identified through the interviews, and provisional analyses
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Coding reviews included examining both a priori codes, as well as
the thematic codes identified through the data analysis process. Each of these strategies ensures
that the source material is accurate and reliable, as well as the findings and interpretations are
valid.
Significant care was taken through the research process to ensure an ethical data
collection and analysis process was executed for the study. As detailed in the prior section, a
critical examination of the researcher’s position and potential bias was factored throughout the
process. Prior to the interview, participants were assured that none of the questions were
evaluative in nature, and the information being collected was to understand perceptions,
confidence, and changes in leadership. Participants were also provided detailed information for
the study prior to participating, as well as information for the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board, should there be questions or concerns (Appendix B). Finally, all
interview materials were anonymized and stored in password protected files.
Limitations and Delimitations
The most impactful potential limitations for this study will most likely be the time and
capacity available to collect data. Executing this study in a truncated timeframe will likely create
limitations on the availability of research candidates and number of variables to analyze and
investigate. In having a limited but targeted scope of research candidates, it will be vital to
identify the most effective yet efficient manner of qualitative sampling. Similarly, developing the

49
appropriate narrative and interpretation of the data will be critical to ensure the limited available
time for analysis still produces meaningful data.
Potential delimitations, or limitations imposed by the researcher, include the types of
research candidates and the specific scope of study. While research candidates will span multiple
work environments, they will be limited to a single industry, firm, and country. The scope of
study will also be a conscious delimitation, selecting three research questions to investigate,
when there is likely a broader opportunity for research available. In order to create necessary
focus for the problem of practice, the researcher plans to limit research participants to a single
firm. In analyzing a single firm and limiting the scope of the study, the generalizability of the
study may be impacted.

50
Chapter Four: Findings
This study intended to explore leaders’ perceptions of how hybrid and remote work
environments impact employee engagement in innovative work behavior, managers’ confidence
in fostering innovative work behavior, and changes to leadership styles to support innovative
work behavior in hybrid and remote work environments. Leveraging a conceptual framework
built on social cognitive theory, the qualitative data collection for this study utilized the
interview protocol previously described in Chapter Three and detailed in Appendix A. Interviews
with 12 people leaders, ranging from manager-level to senior vice president, took place via
Zoom video conference. Through convenience and snowball sampling, identified participants
would have at least 5 years of work experience, including 2 years of in-office experience prior to
leading remote and hybrid teams currently.
To guide the investigation and context of the study, the following research questions
drove the data collection strategies:
1. What are managers’ perceptions of how hybrid and remote work environments affect,
if at all, employee engagement in innovative work behaviors?
2. How confident are managers in their ability to foster innovative work behaviors in
hybrid and remote work environments?
3. How have managers changed their leadership to support innovative work behaviors in
hybrid and remote work environments?
The findings suggest that multiple work environments affect innovative work behavior
based on manager perception and impact managers’ confidence and leadership changes based on
remote and hybrid work environments. Impacts based on the manager’s perception include
changes to employee flexibilities, changes to collaboration strategies, and the employee’s overall

51
willingness to engage in innovative work behavior. The study identified multiple factors
impacting manager’s confidence in fostering innovative work behaviors, and how some
managerial approaches affect confidence. Finally, there were distinct changes that managers
have implemented since their teams have become predominantly hybrid and remote. The
remainder of Chapter Four will provide a detailed overview of the research participants and data
evidence collected through the interview process on themes associated with the interview
questions for the problem of practice.
Participants
Participants for the study worked across different divisions of Quantum Financial
Corporation (Quantum). The research focused on specific job categories where innovative work
behavior would have a higher likelihood of prevalence and a more significant impact on job
performance and outcome. The job categories the research focused on included leadership
positions in technology, product management, or strategic initiatives. Regarding job titles, the
eligible roles ranged from manager (or equivalent) to senior vice president. Each participant was
required to have at least two direct reports and a minimum of 5 years of management experience.
Lastly, participants were required to have management experience in leading in-office
employees, and current responsibilities for hybrid and/or remote employees. Summary
information for the participant is demonstrated in Table 3, outlining gender, role, organization
category, industry, and company tenure.

52
Table 3
Participant Roles, Tenure, and Organizational Size
Name Job Title Category Industry
tenure
(years)
Company
tenure
(years)
Direct
reports
(count)
Total
org.
(count)
Anthony Principal Technology 15–20 6–10 5–10 6–10
Ariel Sr. vice
president
Strategic
initiatives
30–35 6–10 6–10 35+
David Vice
president
Strategic
initiatives
30–35 1–5 1–5 6–10
Francis Sr. vice
president
Strategic
initiatives
30–35 6–10 6–10 35+
Harry Director Technology 26–30 20–25 1–5 35+
Jenny Sr. manager Technology 16–20 1–5 16–20 16–20
Matthew Director Product 20–25 6–10 1–5 16–20
Nadia Sr. vice
president
Technology 16–20 1–5 6–10 35+
Nathan Sr. director Technology 10–15 10–15 6–10 35+
Perry Vice
president
Technology 20–25 1–5 6–10 35+
Steven Vice
president
Technology 10–15 6–10 6–10 25–30
Tim Vice
president
Product 15–20 16–20 6–10 31–35
The study consisted of 12 participants from Quantum, each holding responsibility for
technology, product management, or strategic initiative-based organizations. Gender
representation for the participants was eight male and four female. 58% of the participants lead
technology organizations, 25% lead strategic initiative-based organizations, and 17% lead
product organizations. The participants’ average industry tenure was 21.9 years, with an average
company tenure of 8.9 years. The median tenures were 20 and 8 years, respectively. The
participants had an average of 8.3 direct reports and an average total organization size of 56.4

53
employees. The median number of direct reports was eight, and the median organization size was
35.
Findings
The study explored managers’ perceptions of how hybrid and remote work environments
affect employee engagement in innovative work behavior, manager’s confidence in their ability
to foster innovative behaviors in hybrid and remote work environments, and how managers have
changed their leadership to support innovative work behaviors in hybrid and remote work
environments. This section will explore the thematic results for each research topic, discussing
individual interview results supporting the theme. Several themes identified through the research
reflect and reiterate those found in literature and themes represented in a priori coding.
RQ 1: What Are Managers’ Perceptions of How Hybrid and Remote Work Environments
Affect, if at All, Employee Engagement in Innovative Work Behaviors?
Research Question 1 looks to explore manager’s perceptions of the effects of the work
environment on innovative work behavior, if any. Seven questions from the interview protocol,
as well as additional follow up questions, attempt to gain insight from the interviewee on these
perceptions. Through the interview process, three primary themes became apparent regarding
items managers perceive as affecting innovative work behaviors, both positively and negatively.
Themes include collaboration, flexibility, and engagement for innovative work behavior. These
topics, along with secondary themes, will be discussed below.
Managers Perceive Negative Impacts to Collaboration
Managers contend collaboration has been significantly impacted with greater reliance on
hybrid and remote work environments. With innovative work behavior framed as idea creation,
idea exploration, and idea execution, managers see collaboration as a critical component of

54
innovative work behavior. As Francis put it, “Innovative work doesn’t happen by one person in a
vacuum.” Some managers have recognized that the idea of collaboration has evolved in hybrid
and remote work environments, such as Nathan, whose team is now managed collaboratively
through office hours:
There’s a dynamic conversation about issues and more participation from the people …
leading up to the meeting, you have an idea, just put it in the chat … we’ll sort through
them in the order we want to talk about them and start engaging with the topics. That
model has really worked well for [the team].
Nadia has a similar strategy, a concept she calls “building bridges”:
We’re all connected, and, you know, don’t be afraid to throw up a question to a random
group of people to see who they might be able to connect you with or what other ideas
they may have. And so, we’ll do working sessions. We’ve got a number of meetings with
my team where we have different opportunities for them to engage. Every week.
David believes that in a more virtual environment, such as hybrid and remote, there is less
pressure compared to having everyone in the room, but this might not be a good thing:
I think that’s less pressure in some ways than being in a room and walking, you know,
going around the room and say, okay, everybody share your idea with me, right? If
you’re an introvert, that might be a little bit tough on, you know, on the computer, maybe
a little less.
Hybrid and remote work environments have impacted collaboration in several ways.
Communication cadences have become rigorous since moving to a predominantly hybrid and
remote work environment. The rigor of the communication cadences adds some value; however,
the sheer number of meetings is also becoming an issue. Employee willingness to take on

55
innovative work behavior in hybrid and remote work environments impacts collaboration.
Finally, a lack of trust and relationship building for employees who are predominantly out of an
office environment is causing challenges to collaboration.
Communicative Impacts to Collaboration
One of the material changes that has impacted manager’s perception of innovative work
behavior has been the seismic shift in the number of meetings that occur. Every manager
interviewed shared that they have one-on-one meetings with their teams, and several have oneon-one meetings with their broader organizations. While this notion is not new, it has grown
significantly in hybrid and remote environments. In addition to the direct meetings with
employees, the number of meetings teams require to accomplish innovative work behaviors has
swelled. These increased actions have put an onus on the leaders.
Managers must be more direct and methodical in communicating and engaging with
employees. These added steps have paid dividends; however, they have also increased the
number of meetings and removed some organic collaboration opportunities. Francis puts a
significant amount of thought into how she communicates, “I think you just have to have
intentional collaboration, which some people like and some people don’t. Right now we spend a
lot of time constantly revisiting our communication strategy. Are we communicating enough?”
Ariel shared a similar mentality for communicating with her team, “I have to be vigilant about
who’s really paying attention or not, is the content that I’m presenting engaging enough so that
they are actually looking at me and listening to what I’m saying?” Compared to previous
situations, “Whereas in the past, we’re in a room, you can do things a little more ad hoc and
dynamic than [online].”

56
Nathan referred to the tendency to rely on meetings as the “booked up problem,”
suggesting leaders are now more in demand and unable to dedicate time to innovative work
behaviors with employees. Perry took the number of meetings further, describing “the
inefficiency of it” and having “our lives divided up in 30-minute chunks.” Adding, “this has been
a theme of mine—I’ve got to break people away from their calendars. It seems like nothing can
really happen in less than 30 minutes because that’s what people will typically schedule for a
meeting.” Comparing this to when leading people in an office, which Perry described, “let me
wheel my chair over there and let’s huddle up at this white board. [Or,] let’s have a hallway
conversation and get these things solved.” But today, “we have to break everything into ‘let me
find a 30-minute block.’”
The availability of digital communication has also provided benefits and challenges.
Without a remote work environment, Jenny may not otherwise be able to work effectively with
her employees across the United States. “[Remote work] has been effective, as we’ve been able
to collaborate, that makes it easier because I can get [all of my employees] together.”
Conversely, however, digital technologies, such as Slack and Microsoft Teams, do not provide
the context of availability that would be available in an office setting. Adding to the “booked up
problem,” Nathan added, “You’re potentially interrupting something that is more important at
the time … it’s hard to really know someone’s availability … they could be red, yellow, green
[in Microsoft Teams], but you rarely know someone’s true [availability] status.”
Communication is critical to collaboration in any environment. The feedback from
participants in the study provides insight into the fact that even 4 years into a predominantly
hybrid and remote work environment, the ability to find an appropriate cadence, consistent level
of preparation, and the new normal of deference to meetings and calendar management. The

57
themes suggest that the manager perceives these new communication norms to impact innovative
work behaviors.
Lack of Organic Collaboration
When asked to describe innovative work behaviors, participants provided phrases that fit
within the construct found in literature, such as idea generation, idea exploration, creative
thinking, etc. Another theme from the participants’ descriptions was the ability to facilitate these
behaviors and collaborations naturally or organically. In reviewing the participating managers’
perceptions of organic collaboration and innovative work behavior, several highlighted the
challenges in accomplishing this activity in hybrid or remote environments.
Nathan described the challenges in hybrid and remote work as “assigning time” for
collaboration and problem-solving, saying, “We open the floor for any other issues, and we can
talk through ways to mitigate or avoid, and that’s kind of the fertile ground for innovation if done
right. But those are set for a reserved time, so they’re not as ad hoc as in the office environment.”
Matthew described the lack of organic collaboration as a lack of “accidental collaboration that
happens when you’re all in the same place. … I think a lot of people are out of sight and out of
mind.” When Matthew described the collaboration of remote/hybrid versus working with more
team members in the office, “you know what you need to do without the arduous scheduling of
never-ending meetings.”
As Francis pointed out when being in-person, “we would be solving things more quickly,
or less formal about how you go about it.” Further explaining, “You don’t use scheduled time to
do it. You might just start naturally spit balling things in a way that you don’t when you’re on the
phone.” Harry believes that for his group, the pandemic-driven shift to remote and hybrid versus
predominantly being in the office had an impact on both the employees’ psychological approach

58
to collaboration and the activity itself, “the pandemic, it made all of us, myself included, to be
more of an introverted. So psychologically, we all became OK being busy all the time.” The
impact this had on organic collaboration:
[It became an] ‘I don’t want to be bothered kind of thing.’ And then eventually it just
kind of creates [a sense] where we tend to be more of working as individual and not so
much of collaboration unless we have an environment that continuing pushing us.
David sees employees who want to participate in collaboration and innovative work
behaviors. However, repetition has an impact on organic collaboration, “in a lot of cases it is
doing some prompting…I think especially if you’re working with folks who do the process over
and over again, there’s a lot of times they just have a silo, like they have their blinders on.”
Steven points out the physical items missed in organic collaboration, “you know what? I miss is
the whiteboard.” Expanding:
OK, let’s be able to stand up and like see and touch a whiteboard…I know there’s all
kinds of online tools. That’s something I think we’ve lost a little bit with all being online.
It’s just harder to have those creative whiteboard conversations.
Anthony offered a dissenting view regarding collaboration, organic or otherwise, in the
office compared to remote environments. Anthony suggested:
Being in an office has the potential, and I’ve seen it firsthand, for certain people who
exhibit certain character traits to shut down or to not meet their best potential. I’ve seen a
lot of folks when they went remote, they’re more productive, they’re more innovative,
they are less likely to sit in a conference room, not saying anything having their hands
crossed. I think folks have more, I don’t want to say they have more confidence, but
they’re less intimidated [remote].

59
Whether the water cooler, whiteboard, or walking the halls, the manager’s perceptions
suggest that the ability to foster organic collaboration in the office has yet to transfer to the
hybrid and remote work environment. Like the communication components of collaboration, the
reliance on meetings and calendar invitations has also impacted the organic collaboration
capabilities. While some managers contend that working outside of the office provides greater
freedom to collaborate, most participants contend that missing the organic collaboration of the
office setting impacts their team’s innovative work behaviors.
Impacts of Relationships and Trust to Collaboration
A final theme identified by the participants was the impact of trust and relationships on
the ability to collaborate across work environments. Managers provided feedback suggesting that
to support an innovative work environment and provide meaningful collaboration, employees
needed to have a certain amount of trust between themselves and their leadership. These
relationships and trust provide comfort for employees and an opportunity to be vulnerable with
the understanding that their contributions would be appreciated.
For innovative work behavior and collaboration to be effective, Perry suggests that trust
is a cornerstone, “to me, that’s creativity because they’re thinking outside of their comfort zone
… there’s almost an emotional piece that to that aspect because you have to have a lot of trust
amongst your team.” Perry then adds:
And creativity by its nature has an emotional aspect to it … you have to take a little bit of
you, and you have to put it out there and you have to be a little bit you have to expose
some things you have to take some risk with it, which is not comfortable for people. And
then a remote workforce where it’s already so hard to not to lose certain nonverbal cues.

60
And it’s already so hard to develop those deeper relationships by getting to hang out with
people. I think that that hinders some of that.
This exchange led Perry to provide insight into why he values in-person team-building
activities, as even if a team is predominantly remote, he can foster some connectivity with his
team:
It’s a reason why a lot of the team building exercises are face to face … because those
things build that type of attachment, which allows for more of that security. A little bit
more of those emotional aspects a little more for the people open up, and it’d be
understanding and safer for them be vulnerable, be wrong. That lets them be creative or
expand into something that it’s not comfortable for them.
According to Nadia, innovative work behaviors and collaboration require trust, including
providing her team the permission and comfort to fail. For Nadia, this failure leads to broader
growth for the employee and an opportunity for them to take supported risks, especially in a
remote environment:
I think it’s important that we give them mechanisms to fail and that they know there’s a
safe place. That’s one thing that I think is critical in this remote nature to do anything
innovative. … And it’s not just tech that is innovation, people have to feel safe they have
to feel like they’re in a trusted environment. They have to see the leadership team being
willing to take a chance at something they haven’t done before and fail publicly, not just
through hearsay, but publicly talk about what you learned from that experience. I think
those sorts of things are critical to the team being willing to make recommendations and
think differently.

61
Much like Perry’s description of team building to build the necessary trust and
relationships, Anthony also talks about how he must be more methodical with his teams, using
1:1 meetings to foster trust, “I probably wouldn’t do one on one’s every week, I would have a
better pulse on what’s going on.” Nevertheless, “I have a half-hour one-on-one because I also
use it for the ‘touchy-feely’ portions.” This potential lack of team building is particularly
challenging for Nathan when fostering trust with new employees. “When you bring in new
engineers, and someone just disappears in the middle of the day, you’re like, ‘hey—what’s going
on? I just hired you, what are you doing?’” Nathan shared, “Fortunately [trust] is my default
behavior, but this can be really hard for people.”
Finally, Ariel suggested that the remote work environment has made employees less
present, impacting her trust in the team. Ariel used our conversation as an example of how she
sometimes questions employee attentiveness, “even as I’m talking to you right now, if you’re not
looking at me.” Expanding, “I’m probably going to feel like you’re not interested in what I’m
saying. I don’t get the benefit of the eye contact, the hand movements, all of that.”
Relationships and trust are necessary in any work environment. However, in a
predominantly hybrid or remote environment, managers perceive that a lack of trust can have a
negative impact on employee work behavior. As demonstrated by the research participants, there
are approaches to overcome a lack of relationships and build trust. However, it requires time and
dedication from the leadership. When this trust does not exist, the manager and employee can be
skeptical of one another’s intentions.
Communication, a lack of organic collaboration, and trust and relationships are all items
managers believe impact collaboration when considering how the work environment impacts
innovative work behavior. Within these themes, participants provided differing views on the

62
severity. However, all consistently identified them as impactful. Participating managers saw
collaboration impacts on employee engagement in innovative work behavior when considering
idea generation, idea exploration, and creative thinking.
Managers Perceive Work Environment Benefits for Employee Flexibility
Examining the challenges and benefits afforded by hybrid and remote work
environments, one overwhelmingly consistent theme was flexibility. Research participants
discussed the value flexibility provides to employees in work/life balance, the ability to manage
priorities effectively, and the ability to improve focus and energy in their work. The value of this
flexibility as it relates to innovative work behavior could have been more consistent. A more
significant impact on innovative work behavior was evident in the flexibility provided in a
broader talent pool, allowing managers a broader capability to recruit employees successfully.
Work Environment Benefits to Employee Flexibility
Nine of the twelve interview participants presented the notion of work flexibility in some
capacity. For the most part, this flexibility represented a positive component to managers’
perceptions of employees’ innovative work behavior, highlighting an ability to focus, be
productive, and work at a faster pace. There are, however, some consequences to this flexibility
as well.
Work flexibility has provided gains in productivity; as Harry described, remote
employees “can spread their work hours to a longer or wider span, and they can take a break,
come back, and they end up working long hours at a time.” Concerned with how this flexibility
could impact the employee negatively, Harry adds, “I’ve really tried to tell the team, when things
are not busy, use this to balance time between work and life.” In addition to the production and
burnout impacts of flexibility, however, Harry does highlight that there could be inadvertent

63
consequences to innovative work behavior engagement, “the downside is the distraction that
people can cause when working from home; family members, even though it’s not intentional,
could provide distraction.” Jenny also provides insight into how this flexibility helps provide
work coverage, which allows employees to manage their own schedules, “everything is so
flexible, having teams across time zones. I have coverage from East and West Coast, so I don’t
expect people to work everything within the business hours. We can be flexible and have a work
life balance.”
Francis contends that providing employees with a hybrid work environment gives
flexibility through additional time and pace of work, suggesting, “if I could just wave a wand, I
would do a hybrid for all.” Francis believes that providing a hybrid environment would “foster
more innovation and faster pace resolving issues, not wasting time with travel, among other
things would foster a better culture.” Harry would agree that the flexibility of only having
employees come to the office part-time is beneficial because “the commute does suck a lot of
energy from people.” They then “have to settle in, and it takes time for them to be productive.”
The flexibility to eliminate distractions and engage in innovative work behaviors was a
consistent theme with manager participants. Like his views on organic collaboration, Anthony
sees the flexibility in providing a focused environment as conducive to innovative work
behavior; in an office setting, he may “just pop into somebody’s cube and chat with them, then if
we needed to talk to somebody else, we would just pop in and grab that person and walk over to
someone else’s cube and chat with them.” For Anthony, “that’s in my mind, that’s not a good
thing. … The potential for interrupting people’s trains of thought, especially technical people
where they really at times need to dive into the zone, having everybody fully remote [can be
beneficial].” Tim believes that the flexibility to eliminate distractions also resides with the

64
employee, “I think for some people that are more self-disciplined, it probably eliminates
distractions they have from people sitting across the cubicle. That annoying person that talks too
much or the constant distractions of people walking by.”
Manager participants contend that flexibility in the workplace can provide employees
with more significant opportunities to engage in innovative work behavior. Flexibility can come
through reducing out-of-work requirements, offering additional time to be productive,
eliminating distractions, and providing focus. For the manager study participants, the flexibility
extends beyond the physical environments, giving managers more capacity to engage employees
and a superior ability to engage in innovative work behavior.
Work Environment Benefits to Talent Acquisition
A second theme around flexibility identified by study participants is the flexibility
provided by hybrid, and particularly remote, work environments to acquire superior talent
without the geographic limitations of an office. As Matthew suggested, engaging in innovative
work behavior can be “really dependent on the person,” with certain employees “eager and
willing to dive into research, engage, and throw ideas every day.” However, he contends that
other employees simply “want to come in and do their job.” As a result, the ability to expand the
talent pool and identify employees that managers contend can best engage in innovative work
behavior is critical.
For Matthew, this flexibility provides the opportunity to “get the cream of the crop in
terms of workforce.” Expanding, “when you don’t limit yourself regionally, you can really get
the best person.” Jenny provided similar feedback, suggesting:
From a hiring standpoint, it also this challenge that I’ve faced during building the team
out. When we were limiting initially to just say let’s hire everyone [in one specific area]

65
because most of us were [in that area], it limited the pool set of candidates with the skill
sets that we’re looking for.
Jenny added, “So then we recruit across the [United States], and that gave us a lot more
candidates, many of whom are really doing well on my team because we didn’t limit to engineers
local to [a specific geography].” Nathan provided a similar view, suggesting that the most
talented and innovative employees seek firms that provide this flexibility. Suggesting, “high
performing talent know they can get [the flexibility]. So, if you’re not going to give it to them,
someone else will, and they’ll go looking there.” Nathan adds, “It allows me to unlock talent
across the country as opposed to in [a local area, which] is not a tech hub.”
Managers believe that the right talent is critical to employees engaging in innovative
work behavior. Managers also contend that the flexibility provided by remote and hybrid work
environments allows them to expand the talent pool and target employees who may be in a
different geography than the firm typically targets. Ultimately, the study participants see the
flexibility provided by hybrid and remote work environments as advantageous to employee
engagement in innovative work behavior.
Work Environment Challenges to Engagement
A final theme consistently discussed throughout research participants related to the first
research question was engagement. The participants took the term engagement in multiple
directions, relating it to two primary sub-themes of engagement. First, conflicting views existed
between the capabilities and the challenges with employee engagement in innovative work
behaviors. Second, participants voiced the need for active leadership by managers to sustain
employee engagement in innovative work behaviors.

66
Exploring the engagement challenges with innovative work behaviors, feedback ranged
from items as straightforward as being present and available in meetings to scenarios impactful
beyond just the employee, impacting their team. Similar to her feedback on trust and
relationships, Ariel discussed the necessity of having remote employees present and on camera.
“There can’t be a resistance to being on camera,” Ariel shared. “because I’m going to be the first
person to tell you that being on camera makes a huge difference [to an employee’s
engagement].” Ariel says, “There is a perk for being remote, but at the same time, we need those
employees to know that they’re signing up to be on camera because otherwise they don’t feel
obligated to engage.”
Matthew shared similar challenges with engaging employees and innovative work
behavior, particularly tied to the difference between employees on camera versus off camera and
hybrid situations. “With voice only communications, it is not an innovative environment for the
team,” Matthew explained. Matthew shared that remote employees found it challenging to be
heard, which affected their ability to collaborate, “there was a huge advantage for the people
working in the office.” With encouraging employees to be engaged in chat dialogue, on camera,
and “utilizing the tools that have been made available to us,” employee engagement in
innovative work behaviors are achievable with Matthew’s team.
Since Jenny has a relatively new and expanding team, her challenge with engagement in
innovative work behaviors for employees is primarily challenges being able to mentor employees
remotely. Jenny shared, “It can be tough when it’s remote because when I want to be able to
mentor and help them engage.” Adding, “You lose that ability to be hands-on, do it side by side.”
Jenny said one benefit of remote mentorship is “we can record what we do remotely via Teams,
whereas if we were in the office, it’s just a one-time thing.”

67
However, some participants viewed remote employee engagement more positively in
innovative work behavior. Some saw the ability to be remote as liberating for the employee and
provided an excellent environment for engagement in innovative work behavior. Anthony
declared, “I think without question, the folks that are remote are more innovative, self-confident,
and communicative than when they worked on-site.” Anthony described a different lens of the
in-office opportunities for engagement in innovative work behavior, highlighting one employee’s
specific evolution, “[he] was very much an introvert, did what he was told, would sit in his
cubicle with his headphones on, didn’t interact with anybody. He was very defensive … always
felt attacked for his work product.” However, when moving into a remote position, the employee
would be “unrecognizable” to those who knew him previously. Anthony suggests the “toxic
environments” that can exist in the office and “when everybody’s there together because that
culture is kind of steeped in your location.”
Finally, participants consistently shared that ensuring employee engagement with
innovative work behavior comes back to the leader. Several participants shared that it is up to the
leader to ensure that the employee has the environment and is aware that they have permission to
engage in innovative work behavior. Dave highlighted this theme: “my experience is that team
members want to be engaged in [innovative work behaviors].” Expanding, “so finding unique
ways for them to be able to give their input and add value, especially [on topics] that end up
affecting their job and how they’ll do their job is critical.” Perry adds that this type of
engagement does not always need to start from the top, “where it’s most effective is when some
of the team leads, the leaders within the teams, are the ones helping drive the [innovative]
behavior.”

68
Finally, Nadia reflected on the need for a leader to be more vulnerable when engaging
employees in innovative work behavior. The transition from in-person to remote environment
can make a difference, “you have to take a little bit of you, and you have to put it out there, and
you have to be a little bit you have to expose some things.” She added, “you have to take some
risk with it, which is not comfortable for people.”
Research Question 1 aimed to understand managers’ perceptions of how hybrid and
remote work environments affect, if at all, employee engagement in innovative work behaviors.
Interview participants identified three primary themes around this question: collaboration,
employee flexibility, and engagement. Within these three primary themes, several sub-themes
had effects, including communication, accidental collaboration, and overall challenges, benefits,
and leadership impacts on engagement in innovative work behaviors. Ultimately, the leaders
interviewed in this study perceive that the work environment affects employee engagement in
innovative work behaviors.
RQ 2: How Confident Are Managers in Their Ability to Foster Innovative Work Behaviors
in Hybrid and Remote Work Environments?
Research Question 2 examines managers’ confidence in their ability to foster innovative
work behaviors in hybrid and remote work environments. Five questions from the interview
protocol, as well as additional follow up prompts, provided interview participants an opportunity
to share content and context related to their confidence in fostering innovative work behavior, or
lack thereof. The overall confidence of leaders was mixed. Of the 12 interview participants, only
four said they were confident in fostering innovative work behaviors in hybrid and remote
employees. The most consistent sentiment from leaders was that confidence was a perpetual
work in progress. Nathan said he is “looking for signs of success, and I’m having trouble finding

69
them. I’m looking for signals of success, but my internal narrative is that I’m doing OK, but
could be doing better.”
Changes in Leader Self-Efficacy
Confidence in fostering innovative work behavior in hybrid and remote environments has
changed over the past 4 years. While several leaders had led hybrid and remote teams before the
COVID-19 pandemic, several others needed more experience leading hybrid or remote teams
and working hybrid or remote themselves. As Perry described, “I’m getting better. I always
joked about management by wandering, and I knew every single person in the organization. So
[shifting to hybrid and remote] was a big adjustment.” The wholesale shift of business at large
moving to hybrid and remote work environments created a new level of pressure for leaders,
some of whom have adjusted, while others are still finding ways to adapt entering 2024. This
section will provide insight into the current state of confidence for managers fostering innovative
work behavior in hybrid and remote work environments, the communicative influences on selfefficacy, as well as the normalcy of the environments increasing confidence over the past few
years. Finally, the section concludes with the constraints identified by leaders impacting
confidence fostering innovative work behavior.
Current State of Manager Confidence
Four interview participants communicated confidence in fostering innovative work
behavior. At the same time, the remaining eight leaders in the study had varying responses, from
having room for improvement to simply saying they were not confident at all. Confidence
stemmed from communication skills, employee engagement, and conviction in the team leaders.
Jenny, for example, shared, “I’m pretty confident. I’m trying to keep the team motivated by

70
encouraging them to think beyond [their current problem].” Jenny expanded that communication
into confidence, “I’m always asking questions.”
Francis and Anthony were also very confident in their ability to foster innovative work
behavior across any environment. Francis’s confidence stemmed beyond her capabilities, “I
believe in the human spirit, I believe we adjust, and we’re resilient. You just figure it out; that’s
part of being human.” While Francis trusted in innate ability, she also attributed her confidence
to her team, “I think we hire people who are inherently creative, curious, and hardworking. We
don’t just hire for experience; we also are intentional because innovation is a challenging job.
I’m confident because I’ve sat down and laid it all out.” Anthony also attributed his confidence
to his people, “I have a bunch of smart guys and gals working for me, and we have really
interesting work to do. I see firsthand that they are innovating within their discipline.”
Unfortunately, two-thirds of the managers interviewed did not share the level of
confidence in fostering innovative work behavior. Some leaders had confidence, but fatigue was
setting in. Ariel shared, “As a leader, I feel like I have to work a lot harder to keep my team
engaged.” Expanding, “In the past, you could get together in a room and have a more ad hoc or
dynamic strategic session. Today, it involves extra work, so that leaves us not thinking about
innovation as much as we could have been.”
Matthew, Nathan, and Perry shared similar sentiments in that they have confidence but
find themselves looking for areas to continue improving. Nathan explained that he is “looking
for signs of success, and I’m having trouble finding them. I’m looking for signals of success, but
my internal narrative is that I’m doing OK but could be doing better.” Matthew stated plainly, “I
think I do an OK job. I’ve got room for improvement, but I’m leaps and bounds ahead of where I
was just 2 years ago.” Perry concluded, “I have a different set of tools that I have to build

71
around. Growing and evolving to become comfortable. I know I’ve got the skill set; I just have to
learn the tactical operation in this new environment.”
Finally, some leaders were not confident in their ability to foster innovative work
behavior in hybrid or remote work environments. Steven communicated a lack of confidence but
was also self-aware of that impact. “I wouldn’t say I’m confident, which, I would say is a
negative.” Steven said he does try to foster innovative environments, “I try to be open for the
team and not dictate what or how they execute,” however, he concluded that he finds himself
second-guessing decisions. David communicated his confidence numerically, “if I had to put it
on a percentage basis, I would say 20% confidence or less.” David attributes his confidence to a
belief that it takes too much time to reach people and properly investigate challenging problems:
Things are happening in the day-to-day where I’ll hear about a team member saying that
this has been a problem for a year, and I’ve looked at the problem, and it’s a serious
problem. They should have been raising their hand every single day they come into work,
they should be saying, ‘hey, I just want you to know the problem we talked about
yesterday. It’s still a problem today.’ Like it’s that type of serious thing. But because
they’re not thinking that they have the control to make that change [nothing happens].
Communicative Impacts to Managers’ Self-Efficacy
Leaders shared that communication with employees is essential to their confidence in
fostering innovative work behavior. Unlike the communication impacts reviewed for Research
Question 1, the communicative drivers for managers’ confidence come through the consistency
of communication and the style of communication the leaders have with their employees. With
leaders and employees not consistently in the same physical location, confidence is impacted by
the likelihood of misunderstandings and gaps in time between communication.

72
In comparing Perry’s communication habits while leading in an office, he considered
whether he was putting as much effort into his communication habits now in a remote and hybrid
environment. Now, working in a remote environment, Perry questioned, “Am I putting the same
care and feeding into the [communications] we have and how we organize the people the same
way that I would when we were physically located together?” He admitted, “Nope, the answer’s
no, I’m not because we’re remote.” This impacts confidence because Perry suggested, “I was
very conscious [of the communication when] we’re physically together. Am I that conscious of it
when we’re remote?” Perry suggested that intentional communication is the key to success and
confidence, “you bring the human interaction back… and you have to force the issue.”
Intentional communication is a theme echoed by other leaders as well, with Steven
elaborating, “I’m not a social guy…but one thing [my team has responded well to is] in group
meetings we’ll pick some random topic and have an open conversation.” Steven shared, “It could
be highlighting a recent book or something the team would appreciate. And the team loves
getting to know different angles about people they work with.” Leaders are more confident that
the team will collaborate and support innovative work behavior by intentionally communicating
and engaging the team.
David sees the consistency and clarity of communication as a driver for his confidence in
fostering innovative work behavior. David contends, “To think more creatively, you have to give
them that bandwidth to go into a room, figure it out, and come back to you.” Here is where the
communication aspect comes into play: “I think you’ve got to be careful when they come back.
If they went in a completely wrong direction, is that their problem? Or was that my problem
because I didn’t adjust the guide rails appropriately?” Because leaders cannot be in every
meeting, the key to confidence comes in being straightforward with communication. According

73
to David, “things take off when their day-to-day interactions start with [innovative behaviors],
especially when I’m not involved.”
Key influences of a manager’s confidence in fostering innovative work behaviors come
directly from factors impacting the work environments. In addition to the physical location of the
work environment, being hybrid, remote, or in the office, it is also the work environment created
by the leader. Leaders suggest that the work environment fosters competitive, collaborative, and
developmental opportunities for employees to demonstrate innovative work behaviors. In
addition, the communication cadence and content are crucial elements of a leader’s confidence in
fostering innovative work behaviors as it addressed the concerns leaders have regarding
miscommunication and the perceived differences to a closer contact available in the office. In
hybrid and remote environments, leaders believe that ensuring intentional, consistent, and
directional communication helps support the leaders’ own self-efficacy in fostering innovative
work behavior.
The Normalcy of Hybrid/Remote
The current state of manager confidence in fostering innovative work environments is
inconsistent, ranging from a significant lack of confidence to an abundance of confidence.
Several items impact these confidence levels, including several influences that have resulted in
changes in confidence over the past few years. Six of the 12 interview participants shared that
their confidence in fostering innovative work behavior in hybrid and remote environments has
increased in the last few years. A primary influence of this increase was the normalcy that hybrid
and remote work environments now have given that most employees are in these environments.
The normalcy also contributed to other leaders failing to reach confidence levels they deemed
appropriate to foster innovative work behavior.

74
For Nadia, normalcy has helped increase her confidence, “I actually think [confidence]
has gone up because we’re all getting more comfortable and [hybrid/remote] is more the norm.”
Further explaining, “We’re not expecting to be in the same room with somebody, and so we’re
getting more creative and trusting.” Now, “introverts are reaching out and engaging with folks
more than they would have been a couple years ago.” Anthony also points to the growing
capabilities of employees in the work environments and the ability to attract talent, which helps
drive his confidence: “My confidence has improved because the bench strength of my team has
improved.”
The normalcy of the work environments has also helped those working hybrid or in the
office better appreciate predominantly remote employees. Matthew shared, prior to working
hybrid and remotely, there was a tendency to forget about the employees not in the room. Calling
back to this, he points to this as a buoy for his confidence, “I think it’s taught us a lot; it’s
allowed us as managers to better foster innovation with those folks that maybe we didn’t prior to
[being hybrid/remote].”
Unfortunately, the normalcy of the hybrid and remote work environments created
challenges for some leaders, as specific nuances impacted confidence. Perry suggested that he
underestimated the insecurity of being in hybrid and remote work environments, “I found even
more senior managers feel like they’re out of the flow.” This insecurity makes employees and
managers question, “Am I doing enough? Am I missing something? Why was I not included?”
Perry believes that if a leader is not working to address this insecurity, their confidence, and the
employee’s capabilities are impeded, “We’re getting this two-dimensional view, with emails and
instant messaging, and that kind of insecurity creeping in that FOMO insecurity is something
that I think, has been a lot more prevalent.” Francis suggests, “What’s lost are those more casual

75
connections with the broader team. You just can’t be in as many places so that you just lose
context.”
In the long run, leaders believe that the normalcy of the environment will lead to greater
confidence. There is an understanding that the likelihood of returning to an office-only
environment is not likely, so leaders are leveraging the tools available to use the normalcy in
their favor. The confidence from leaning into the benefits of hybrid and remote work could
overcome the challenges and insecurities of the environments.
Constraint Impacts to Leaders’ Self-Efficacy
The normalcy of hybrid and remote work environments presented benefits and challenges
to leaders’ confidence in fostering innovative work behavior. The normalcy of the environments
was one of many challenges reflected by leaders to their self-efficacy; constraints could
categorize an additional theme represented in the interviews. Constraints represented by leaders
were both physical constraints, such as resources and financial investment, as well as
metaphysical constraints, such as time.
Examining managers’ perception of what could help foster innovative work behavior or
what tools may aid confidence, the most consistent answers related to monetary investment or
the availability of additional resources. The specific categories of resources had some variation;
however, the investment theme was consistent. For Ariel, “more support with the financial
aspects. We haven’t really looked at a lot of new tools, and because we’re a big organization
with a protected environment, new tools can be very slow to arrive.” Ariel points to the
availability of new tools to help excite employees to innovate, which would support her
confidence. Nevertheless, the reality of competing business initiatives:

76
If there were opportunities to bring in fresh and even better tool sets than we use, it just
might cause some excitement in [IWB]. I think that we talk a lot about innovation. But it
just, it needs to be more than talk, it needs to be where we actually are testing and really
investing in R&D. And that’s been hard for us as an organization, sometimes we lose
momentum. We get a lot of excitement. We get a plan. Then all of a sudden, the reality of
the business and the industry [sets in], and then you kind of go, well, we can’t do that
right now.
Nadia highlighted the need for a budget to give her teams time to innovate, referencing a
recent successful exercise brought on by carving out time blocks for innovative work behavior,
including reflection. “We recently did a hackathon, broken up over multiple days. Each day was
separated into 4-hour blocks, and about every 30–60 minutes, we would do a mini survey of
‘How did we accomplish the last thing? Are we on the right path?’” She said having this ability
to carve out time helped the employees maintain focus on innovating while also giving them an
avenue to clear their heads. “During breaks, we would do an exercise where employees would
have to find some animal on the internet or something that would naturally allow them to
meander before coming back to focus on the hard stuff.” For Nadia, having the ability to run
exercises like this routinely would support her confidence in leading innovative work behavior in
remote and hybrid environments.
The need for time was a consistent restraint represented by leaders. Matthew suggested
he would be more confident in leading innovative work behaviors; however, “we are all
strapped, and there’s only so many hours in the day. And there’s so much work that as an
organization that we’re doing, for me, it comes down to a time constraint.” Jenny shared a
similar sentiment that the pace of work creates time constraints, “everything is very fast paced;

77
we’re just really crunched for time to do more research and development on the tool sets.” Jenny
said she wants to support more IWB, “But right now, what is impacting our opportunities to
innovate more is just our deadlines.”
Beyond just time to manage innovative work behavior, leaders also suggested that time
and investment were necessary for employees to spend time together and establish trust and
relationships. Perry explained, “We’re going to need to force ourselves to budget and invest
more for more face time.” Perry also understood this could be a tall order, though he contends
the value outweighs the cost. “I know that you can’t [routinely] fly your entire team and be
together, but there has to be [in-person connection] for the longevity and is particularly for some
of our key resources that really need it.”
Harry provided a comprehensive summation of the constraints, sharing that “it starts from
the top. The top has to encourage people to create, like competition, challenge, and processes in
place to help nurture [IWB] environments.” Continuing, “Innovation doesn’t come easily. It
takes time. It takes investment. A lot of companies may have research and development groups
where you can manage innovation and implementation. But it comes back to the investment you
have to get established.”
Research Question 2 aimed to understand manager confidence in their ability to foster
innovative work behaviors in hybrid and remote work environments. Leaders demonstrated a
reduced level of self-efficacy in fostering employee innovative work behavior in hybrid and
remote work environments. Themes identified in the interview process highlighted
communication and resource constraints as drags on confidence, despite the ongoing normalcy of
the work environments. The final research question addresses change that leaders have made in

78
attempt to address self-efficacy challenges and foster innovative work behaviors in hybrid and
remote work environments.
RQ 3: How Have Managers Changed Their Leadership to Support Innovative Work
Behaviors in Hybrid and Remote Work Environments?
The final research question of the study looks to understand how managers have changed
their leadership to support innovative work behavior in hybrid and remote work environments.
At least three questions from the interview protocol attempted to gain interview insight into this
research question, however several answers to questions from the interview protocol presented
insights into the leaders’ adaptation in supporting innovative work behaviors in hybrid and
remote work environments. The primary themes addressing the research question center around
the changes made by leaders to address potential challenges in leader self-efficacy fostering
innovative work behavior in hybrid and remote work environments. The findings discuss
influences including the work constructs leaders create through their approach and how leaders
became more intentional with their employees in communication and preparation. A discussion
of these topics and interview data follows below.
Self-Efficacy Influences on Managerial Approach
For leaders, a significant component of their confidence in fostering innovative work
behavior in hybrid and remote work environments centers around their managerial approach. The
conversations with interview participants define the managerial approach as how leaders believe
they can support innovative work behaviors and, as such, have confidence in fostering the
behaviors across work environments. Managerial approaches range from how leaders work with
their employees, the environments or constructs they provide to foster innovative work behavior,

79
and strategies they deploy to overcome challenges represented by hybrid and remote work
environments.
Leadership Driven Work Constructs
Study participants saw the work environments or constructs they created as critical to
their confidence in fostering innovative work behavior. Leadership driven work constructs
include the situations leaders may put employees in to foster innovative work behavior.
Constructs also included the constructs leaders put in place to support employee learning and
development, which ultimately supports growth and innovative work behaviors.
A consistent managerial approach leaders leverage to facilitate innovative work behavior
is creating a competitive environment. Leaders suggested that creating competition within the
workforce supports innovative work behavior and creativity. Harry explained, “we encourage
people and create competition and challenges, which drives innovation. We put processes in
place to help nurture that environment [to support innovative behaviors].” Nadia’s explanation
was very straightforward, “I’m very competitive. I like my teams to be successful. [Competition]
is the only way you can solve these sometimes difficult problems in [innovative] ways.” Steven
added that even in competitive scenarios, leaders still have to insert themselves, “sometimes my
role is more of a catalyst, or instigator, to get [the team] moving.”
For leaders that communicated confidence, goal creation and delivery was a consistent
theme of the work construct, fostering confidence for driving innovative work behaviors.
Employee alignment on initiatives and defined outcomes gave leaders greater confidence in
leading innovative work behavior. For Francis, “step one is creating some sort of audacious goal,
something that [employees] could go after.” With the established, goal the employees are “really
committed to delivering and so they just they keep working on things in a way that they

80
challenge each other because they don’t want to disappoint themselves with the team.” David
also sees goals as fostering innovative work behavior, “part of it is throwing out the problem to
the team, saying: ‘Here’s the goal; come back and give me your answer,’ without prompting
them with a preconceived notion.” Francis does concede, however, that being remote could
impede progress if teams fall back into only collaborating with a smaller group, “being remote
makes it more challenging as you probably just want [to work with] your little team and [broader
collaboration] can be challenging.”
Despite the challenges to collaboration described in reviewing Research Question 1,
leaders also view creating avenues of collaboration as critical to their confidence and fostering
innovative work behavior. Anthony described creating an environment so that leaders below him
can drive innovative work behavior, “there are different ways of implementing an idea, and
having the senior tier of my group participate in that decision-making fosters a certain degree of
innovation, beyond [the guidelines] that I’ve put in place.” By providing this environment,
Anthony contends, “if one of your colleagues has a different way and you want to share with him
and vice versa, that’s our opportunity to innovate within the group.” Nathan made the point that
in order to drive innovative work behaviors, leaders must still make the environment, “a space
for people to feel safe to experiment. … It’s OK to waste a little bit of energy when you’re
pursuing a better a better solution to a problem.”
Expanding on the creation of a collaborative work environment for employees, Tim
shared an example of what providing employees an opportunity to demonstrate innovative work
behavior can look like, “we created an idea exchange a couple years ago, basically a way for
people to submit any idea they have and create a little bit of a crowdsourcing of voting and

81
commenting to get people more engaged.” For Tim, the creation of the idea exchange drove
innovative work behaviors:
It created a lot of cross-functional collaboration. This wasn’t just my team; this is our
entire division. We had [functional business groups] submitting ideas and having [other
business and technology groups] comment on the idea; it kind of created this ecosystem.
That was really neat to see.
Leaders also view employee growth as critical in fostering innovative work behavior;
learning and development are essential structures for a thriving work environment. For Ariel, it
starts with helping employees understand the construct of a problem, “what I try to do is bring
real-world problems into a conversation about our data or our products to help promote
connections that make people think broader.” Ariel shared a strategy that included leveraging
popular culture, weaving it into her team’s current challenge, which “sparked a conversation that
lasted for almost a half hour, just about what’s the impact of that activity … my primary strategy
is to get people to listen, and then ask questions to help them start to really see different
perspectives.”
Matthew’s organization leverages a book club for shared development and growth, “we
read [leadership] books, and then we get together and we talk about them, and it’s really great.”
While the book club does provide an environment for learning and growth, Matthew understands
that only some employees will ultimately grow into models for innovative work behavior, “when
you’re reading these books, not everybody is going to become a superstar employee. It’s just not
in the stars. But those employees that have that potential, you can build on that potential.”
Putting employees in a position to understand the context of a challenge, review and discuss

82
successful strategies, and work together in a collaborative and engaging environment provides
leaders the confidence to foster innovative work behavior in hybrid and remote environments.
Increased Intentionality From Leaders
All leaders interviewed for this study confirmed that it is necessary to evolve their
leadership style to account for the changes brought in by hybrid and remote work environments.
With the changes leaders have made, the theme of intentionality was a recurring component of
their feedback. Intentionality represents how leaders communicate with their teams, prepare for
their workday, and engage with teams, and, ultimately, the additional effort required to ensure
they foster innovative work behaviors across all work environments.
David viewed intentionality through a self-reflective lens, “I think the biggest thing is
being hyper-aware. If [I’m working with an employee] and I think something is off, or I hear a
tone change, I need to be aware and address it.” David sees the introduction of hybrid and remote
work environments as making this intentionality even more critical because face-to-face time
with employees can be so limited. “If I don’t pick up on those things and just assume they will be
OK, I can’t do that. I need to delve into these things, whereas before, I might just rush to my next
meeting on another floor.”
Tim saw the need for intentionality as hybrid and remote work environments have
brought a more heightened amount of stress and angst between employees, leading managers to
address conflict. “People are less likely to speak up on calls and meetings, where I think in some
cases in person, they were a little bit more apt to raise their hand.” Tim suggested that there was
still “bickering” in person; however, “conflict seems to spill over in meetings where, rather than
[saying] ‘hey, Chris, I have an issue with this,’ it turns into seven other meetings offline.” For

83
Tim, this requires the manager to involve themselves because “people aren’t as open and honest
they don’t think as maybe they used to be.”
Leaders Are Deliberate With Communication. The theme of communication was again
evident while exploring Research Question 1 and examining managers’ perceptions of the effects
of hybrid and remote work environments on employee engagement in innovative work behavior.
Leaders have become more intentional with their communication practices since leading
predominantly hybrid and remote teams.
A first area where communication has become more intentional for leaders is offsetting
the lack of impromptu communication leaders would have otherwise had in an office
environment. Nathan shared this change: “One of the biggest [changes] is the intentional one-onone. I need to make sure that I’m reaching out and paying attention [to employees]. I need to pay
attention to the whispers.” Expanding on the whispers, “something that’s a little thing through a
virtual call…the information is much more infrequent, so information needs to be looked at.” For
Nathan, this was less of an issue when his whole team was in the same office location.
Jenny shared similar challenges to Nathan. However, she also discussed the need for
intentional communication to ensure hybrid and remote teams remained engaged. Jenny
explained, “There’s a difference in how you can read a person remotely versus in person. It’s
also how much do I have to sync with them? Or do I give them autonomy and ask for updates?”
The intentionality of communication is critical to Jenny because “there are different personalities
to deal with, but remote, there are some personalities that are not as effective. I’ve had to change
how I approach people, which is different remotely versus in person. I can’t just take a walk with
them.”

84
Leaders shared that in hybrid and remote work environments, communication not only
needs to be intentional, but sometimes it needs to be explicit. Nadia said, “I don’t think you have
to be as overt when you’re working in an office; things can be more organic. If I had a new
employee in the office, I could walk by and say hello.” Compared to today, with much of her
team hybrid and remote, “it’s one of the things we do differently, less impromptu. We have to be
much more intentional about [communication].”
For leaders like Anthony and Steven, this intentional communication comes as a more
structured dialogue with their employees. Anthony explained, “I think there is more structured
communication and less ad hoc. Where before I could walk around and ping someone or just
bump into them.” Today, however, communications are “more structured one-on-one
discussions, or we’re putting meetings on the calendar to discuss a particular topic.” The
intentional communication extends beyond work talk for Anthony, “I have to be much more
proactive to remind myself to pierce the personal veil, to understand what makes my team tick.
That is easier in an office. Body language, soft skills, things you don’t appreciate until they’re
gone.”
Steven also pointed to the intentionality of communication as a leader for both work and
personal discussions with employees, “measuring tickets, velocity, performance…measuring
work is harder when you can’t engage directly. Understanding people may be having issues, but
you can’t see them. They’re not on the floor; it’s hard to know when something is going on.”
Steven understands that hybrid and remote provide the employees some benefit; however, “there
are trade-offs, right? Being in the office, you can have hallway conversations and check-in.”
Whereas “now those things just don’t happen, you have to be very intentional.” Leaders believe
that more structured, timely, and engaged communication reflects the changes to intentionality

85
and how they are now leading to support innovative work behaviors in hybrid and remote
environments.
Leaders Take Greater Time to Prepare. Intentional changes in how managers have changed
their leadership to support innovative work behaviors in hybrid and remote environments
represented themes in how leaders address preparation. Some leaders communicated that they
are spending more time preparing themselves for work, leading to achieving comparable results.
Other managers shared the changes in preparation by discussing changes in their leadership
styles leading teams today, compared to more in-office work environments. Finally, leaders are
also changing their expectations of employees’ level of preparation.
An observation that Perry shared was that he found his teams becoming increasingly
siloed and more removed from the customer. He shared that his product and engineering groups
could have been more cohesive, resulting from a lack of preparation. As a result, Perry “started
doing a rotation where every customer product demonstration, an engineer was required to be
involved.” The initial employee feedback was negative, “yeah, I know you’ve got meetings, I
know we’re close to finishing a sprint…but you need to listen to your customers talk about your
product.” For Perry, requiring the teams to be prepared to interface with a customer forced the
teams to ensure they were prepared and not working in a silo. Working directly with the
customer was more impactful than “working the backlog by watching a video or only talking
with a product owner. They were taking the market feedback from being in the flow for granted.”
Ariel shared that she now dedicates a significant amount of time to preparing for
meetings with employees, knowing that it is necessary to ensure they are actively engaged, “as a
leader, I feel like I have to work a lot harder to keep my team engaged, when it’s remote, I have
to plan well ahead of time for meetings. It takes work ahead of time to really have the best

86
experience.” This preparation creates some challenges, “I feel that that’s kind of burdened me as
a manager or leader.” For Ariel, this level of preparation has the potential to lead to its own set of
challenges, “I think engagement is connected to innovation, to have a passion to think about
what more can I do? And you have to develop passion. And that’s harder right now.”
Nadia believes that she has the necessary tools to foster innovative work behavior
successfully, but it is up to her to prepare to execute. Suggesting, “I think we have, for the most
part, the tools and capabilities we need, whether it’s an actual tool or a behavior in ourselves.”
She half-joked, however, “We just have to be willing to hone it and spend the energy to use it for
good as opposed to evil.”
Research Question 3 aimed to understand how managers have changed their leadership to
support innovative work behavior in hybrid and remote environments. The research found
leaders have made adjustments to their leadership style in an attempt to address self-efficacy
changes as well as changes brought on through the new work environments. The changes include
adjustments to the work constructs presented by hybrid and remote work environments and the
changes in intentionality leaders have incorporated into their practice. Two avenues,
communication and preparation, demonstrate the intentionality.
Conclusion
Chapter Four provided an overview of the qualitative data analysis and subsequent
findings. The chapter included a brief review of the research questions and a detailed recap of the
qualitative interview methodology. The chapter then provided a detailed overview of the
interview participants, including their backgrounds and current organizational roles. The chapter
then explored the interview findings associated with each research question. The findings
included themes such as flexibility, collaboration, confidence, and intention. Next, in Chapter

87
Five, recommendations will be provided to support improving upon the problem of practice,
addressing managers’ ability to foster innovative work behaviors in hybrid and remote work
environments.

88
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
This study explored managers’ perceptions of employee innovative work behavior in
hybrid and remote work environments. The study also researched self-efficacy’s role in leading
creative and innovative behaviors while operating in a hybrid or remote work environment.
Applying Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory, the study leveraged the reciprocal triadic
relationships of environments (hybrid and remote work environments), personal factors
(leadership innovative self-efficacy), and behavioral influences (innovative work behavior).
The study addressed the following research questions:
1. What are managers’ perceptions of how hybrid and remote work environments affect,
if at all, employee engagement in innovative work behaviors?
2. How confident are managers in their ability to foster innovative behaviors in hybrid
and remote work environments?
3. How have managers changed their leadership to support innovative work behaviors in
hybrid and remote work environments?
Through an extensive literature review and qualitative research in the form of interviews,
the study produced three primary finding categories that influenced managers’ perceptions of
innovative work behavior and managers’ confidence in fostering innovative work behavior in
hybrid and remote work environments. The categories are collaboration, capacity, and
communication. Leaders contend that collaboration and ideation have become more challenging
in a predominantly hybrid and remote work environment. Research completed by Burleson et al.
(2022) further demonstrates that employees display greater innovative work behavior when they
can interact with peers. Leaders also perceive that a lack of relationships and trust with and
between employees hurts engagement in innovative work behavior.

89
Managers also perceived that their capacity to foster innovative work behavior directly
impacted their preparation and confidence. Capacity included their time to lead, their need to
prepare, and their ability to acquire the necessary employee talent. The ability to recruit and
attract talent from any geography provides flexibility for the leader to identify employees they
perceive could contribute innovative work behaviors (Sarkar & Kedas, 2023). The leader’s level
of support for the employee can also impact the work outcomes in hybrid and remote
environments (Gan et al., 2023). Confidence in the leaders’ capacity to foster innovative work
behavior in hybrid and remote environments is still inconsistent, driven by perception, resource
constraints, and other factors.
Managers suggest that communication is critical to their perceptions of employee
engagement in innovative work behavior, their confidence to facilitate innovative work behavior,
and a mechanism that has changed to support innovative work behavior in hybrid and remote
work environments. Managers must be more intentional with their communication and adjust the
cadence and density of how they communicate with employees to support innovative work
behavior. Linke and Zerfass (2011) observed that the more a company integrates communication
into its innovation philosophy, the more the employees adopt innovative work behaviors.
The remainder of Chapter Five will summarize the study’s findings, discussing
observations from the interviews with leader research participants and additional evidence from
the literature review. The following section includes recommendations for practice, introducing
suggested practices to provide managers with a construct to confidently support innovative work
behavior. Next, recommendations for future research, offering suggested avenues to expand the
research associated with managers’ perceptions of employee engagement in innovative work

90
behavior in hybrid and remote work environments. Chapter Five will conclude with a final
summary of the research.
Discussion of Findings
This section will further discuss the findings identified through the qualitative research
performed through 12 interviews with leaders in the technology, product management, and
strategic initiatives field and discuss them in relation to themes and consistencies found in
existing published research. Chapter Four provided several findings for each research question.
From these findings there are six aggregate findings across three categories: collaboration,
capacity, and communication. The aggregate findings align with the research questions in
understanding the remote and hybrid impacts, if any, on managers’ perceptions of employee
engagement to innovative work behavior, manager confidence in fostering innovative work
behavior, and leadership changes managers have made to adapt to these environments. The
findings also align with the conceptual framework and components of the triadic relationships in
Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory. Table 4 demonstrates these findings in accordance
with the research questions and conceptual framework of the study.

91
Table 4
Research Findings
Finding Research question Conceptual framework
Collaboration
Managers perceive a lack of collaboration
impacting innovative work behavior.
RQ1 Behavior
Managers perceive that a lack of relationships
and trust challenges innovative work
behavior.
RQ1 Behavior
Capacity
Managers perceive that flexibility promotes
innovative work behavior.
RQ1 Environment
Managers lack confidence in fostering
innovative work behavior.
RQ2 Personal
Comparisons to past performances and
resource constraints are hindering leaders’
self-efficacy.
RQ2 Personal
Communication
Managers have become more intentional to
foster innovative work behavior.
RQ3 Personal
Collaboration
Leaders assert that collaboration and ideation have become more challenging in hybrid
and remote work environments. Collaboration between employees, peers, and leaders represents
a significant driver for innovation and innovative work behavior (Burleson et al., 2022; Scott &
Bruce, 1998). Leaders also perceive the lack of development and trust in hybrid and remote work
environments as impacting the ability to collaborate effectively and employees’ innovative work
behavior. Trust considerably affects self-efficacy and innovative work behavior in remote and
hybrid environments (Fiernaningsih et al., 2021; Ng & Lucianetti, 2016). Below are findings
associated with leaders’ perceptions of collaboration impacts on employee engagement in hybrid
and remote work environments.

92
Finding 1: Managers Perceive a Lack of Collaboration Impacting Innovative Work Behavior
Managers perceive collaboration as affecting employee engagement in innovative work
behavior in hybrid and remote work environments. Managers suggest collaboration is necessary
for idea creation, exploration, and execution. One interview participant, Francis, suggested,
“Innovative work doesn’t happen by one person in a vacuum.” Unfortunately, managers perceive
that this collaboration is not occurring; instead, there is greater reliance on meetings and
scheduled communication cadences. Nathan had described this as “assigning time” for
collaboration and ideation, taking away from the “ad hoc problem solving” he could manage
when his team was in an office. Francis compared this to being in-person and “solving things
more quickly.”
Collaboration is critical for innovation and innovative work behavior (Burleson et al.,
2022; Scott & Bruce, 1998). This finding aligns with the seminal innovative work behavior
research completed by Scott and Bruce (1994, 1998), which demonstrated innovative work
behavior’s collaborative and relationship impacts. The finding also aligns with more recent
research by Burleson et al. (2022), which demonstrated that in hybrid and remote work
environments, individuals have a higher propensity to innovate when collaborating with peers.
The study also conceded that these organic interactions are more difficult to initiate due to the
nature of hybrid and remote work environments. Leaders need to recognize, however, that
collaboration alone cannot be the driver of innovative work behavior. In research presented by
Najafi-Tavani et al. (2018), collaboration networks cannot guarantee successful innovation; it
also depends on the individual’s ability to obtain and absorb information to support innovation.

93
Finding 2: Managers Perceive That a Lack of Trust and Relationships Challenges Innovative
Work Behavior
A consistent theme communicated by leader research participants was the perception that
remote and hybrid work environments presented challenges to developing trust and relationships
between employees, which impacted employee engagement in innovative work behavior. Perry
discussed the criticality of trust in innovative work behavior, suggesting, “There’s an emotional
piece … you have to have a lot of trust amongst your team.” He added, “You have to expose
some things; you have to take some risk with it, which is not comfortable for people.” Nadia
communicated that “people have to feel safe, they have to feel like they’re in a trusted
environment.” Ariel culminated these sentiments with the challenge of virtual trust, “even as I’m
talking to you right now, if you’re not looking at me.” Concluding, “I’m probably going to feel
like you’re not interested in what I’m saying. I don’t get the benefit of the eye contact, the hand
movements, all of that.” Ultimately, managers perceive that the lack of established trust and
relationships can challenge employee engagement in innovative work behavior in hybrid and
remote work environments.
Baruch and Nicholson (1997) examined trust as a component of the relationship between
the organization and the employee when they published The Four Realms and identified
requirements for successful remote work. The fourth realm was known as the organization,
which emphasized an environment of support and trust produced by the culture and work
organization. More recent research reported the influence of trust on innovative work behavior,
as Ng and Lucianetti (2016) investigated the impacts of organizational trust and perceived
respect on self-efficacy, as well as the impacts of self-efficacy on employee engagement in
innovative work behavior. The study showed that employees who could maintain or increase

94
self-efficacy were likelier to engage in innovative work behavior (Ng & Lucianetti, 2016).
Research completed by Fiernaningsih et al. (2021) further demonstrated that relational trust has a
noteworthy effect on self-efficacy and innovative work behavior. The researchers exhibited
similar results to self-efficacy’s impact on innovative work behavior in a study that demonstrated
challenges in a shift to online learning driven by COVID-19 (Fiernaningsih et al., 2021).
Research completed by Parker et al. (2021) also demonstrates manager mistrust of employees
and employee competence in remote work environments. The mistrust reported by Parker et al.
(2021) suggested that the mistrust of leaders with employees could be attributed to factors such
as demographic data and job autonomy. The research also provided data suggesting the workers
have impressions of mistrust from managers, which lowers employee perception of job
performance (Parker et al., 2021).
Capacity
Leaders communicated multiple findings that spoke to their capacity to foster innovative
work behaviors or capacities impacting their confidence to foster innovative work behavior. The
capacity communicated by leaders included their abilities and requirements, such as preparation
activities and self-efficacy. Capacity also included the benefits of operating in hybrid and remote
work environments, such as work/life balance and the ability to recruit new employees broadly.
Flexibility in talent acquisition, work/life balance, and the manager’s ability to demonstrate
employee support speak to the capacity communicated by leaders (Choi, 2020; Gan et al., 2023;
Sarkar & Kedas, 2023).
Finding 3: Managers Perceive That Flexibility Promotes Innovative Work Behavior
A positive perception communicated by managers through the research process was the
benefit of flexibility in hybrid and remote work environments. Managers communicated

95
flexibility in two ways: work flexibility and talent flexibility. 75% of interview participants
communicated the benefit of flexibility. Harry shared this flexibility regarding productivity
gains, allowing for longer work hours spread over a more significant period. Francis attributed
the lack of time wasted with travel as an avenue to expedited innovation, “more innovation and
faster pace resolving issues.”
Managers also communicated talent acquisition flexibility as a benefit to innovative work
behavior in hybrid and remote work environments. Matthew communicated that innovative work
behavior can “depend on the person.” As such, the flexibility to recruit and acquire talent
independent of an office location allows the ability to “get the cream of the crop in terms of
workforce.” Nathan concurred, “It allows me to unlock talent across the country.”
The literature consistently highlights the benefits of flexibility and the promotion of
innovative work behavior in hybrid and remote work environments (Conradie & de Klerk, 2019;
Sarkar & Kedas, 2023; Summerfield, 2022). The flexibility presented by hybrid and remote work
environments was examined in research by Conradie and de Klerk (2019), finding that the work
arrangements correlate to greater employee engagement and performance. Flexibility in
attracting and recruiting external talent, independent of location, has also demonstrated an ability
to address innovation (Sarkar & Kedas, 2023). Summerfield (2022) found that combining hybrid
working and employee engagement strategies can contribute to superior talent acquisition
capabilities and learning and development for existing employees. Expanding the talent pool for
a company creates flexibility for the leader to foster innovative work behaviors and create a more
productive and innovative team literature (Conradie & de Klerk, 2019; Sarkar & Kedas, 2023).

96
Finding 4: Managers Lack Confidence in Fostering Innovative Work Behavior
Only 25% of research participants communicated confidence in fostering innovative
work behavior in hybrid and remote work environments. The remaining 75% communicated
varying degrees of confidence, from room for improvement to zero confidence. Those leaders
who did not have confidence in fostering innovative behaviors found themselves “looking for
signs of success [but] having trouble finding them,” as Nathan shared. Steven and David also
communicated a significant lack of confidence. Steven suggested, “I wouldn’t say I’m confident,
which, I would say is a negative.” While David assigned his confidence a number, “I would say
20% confidence or less.” Managers communicated this lack of confidence even though they have
been leading in hybrid and remote work environments for multiple years. Perry communicated
this lack of confidence with insecurity, “We’re getting this two-dimensional view, with emails
and instant messaging, and that kind of insecurity creeping in that FOMO insecurity.”
Self-efficacy can be obtained through four primary sources of information: past
performance, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological response (Bandura,
1977). Leaders communicated challenges with communication, collaboration, and capacity
related to confidence in fostering innovative work behavior in remote and hybrid work. Several
leaders compared their current experience in leading innovative work behavior to prior
experience, communicating a greater success in office environments and a reliance on those past
performances.
Self-efficacy is critical to innovative work behaviors, and without them, those behaviors
suffer. Research completed by Parker et al. (2021) demonstrated that managers’ self-confidence
in leading remote workers is a challenge. The research included survey data from 215 leaders,
and nearly 40% communicated low self-confidence in managing remote workers. This metric

97
included 23% of the managers disagreeing with a statement suggesting confidence in managing a
remote team (Parker et al., 2021). A study by Newman et al. (2018) demonstrated that creative
self-efficacy was more significant in employees when an entrepreneurial leader was engaged.
The researchers found that leaders were more likely to provide encouragement and role model
behaviors and were more likely to support the generation and implementation of creative ideas.
Further, the confidence demonstrated by leaders would have a more pronounced ability to
engage innovative work behaviors (Newman et al., 2018).
Finding 5: Comparisons to Past Experiences and Resource Constraints Are Hindering
Leaders’ Self-Efficacy
The final finding related to capacity is that past experiences and resource constraints are
hindering leaders’ self-efficacy. Managers perceive they are working harder in the current hybrid
and remote work environments to achieve results comparable to what could have been
accomplished in office work environments. This finding demonstrates leaders’ self-efficacy is
again driven by past performances, with comparisons to results and achievements obtained
previously, specifically in the office. The effort requirements managers communicate include the
level of employee support required, the resources available to foster innovative work
environments confidently, and changing their managerial approach to better advocate for
employee engagement in innovative work behavior. Ariel emphasized this sentiment, “As a
leader, I feel like I have to work a lot harder to keep my team engaged.” The additional effort
creates stress, “I feel that that’s kind of burdened me as a manager or leader.”
Leaders also pointed to the capacity to meet the demands necessary to achieve
comparable results in hybrid and remote work environments. Nathan described the “booked up
problem,” Perry shared that leaders and employees are now having “our lives divided up in 30-

98
minute chunks.” Perry elaborated that these new capacity requirements adversely impact
productivity and innovation: “It seems like nothing can really happen in less than 30 minutes
because that’s what people will typically schedule for a meeting.” As Matthew stated, “It comes
down to a time constraint.”
Time demands were not the only constraint conveyed by research participants; leaders
also communicated a lack of financial and resource constraints impacting their perception and
confidence with innovative work behavior. Ariel shared a need for “more support with the
financial aspects.” Ariel expounded that if she had the resources to “bring in fresh and even
better tool sets than we use, it just might cause some excitement in [IWB]. I think that we talk a
lot about innovation. But it just, it needs to be more than talk.” Harry explained, “Innovation
doesn’t come easily. It takes time. It takes investment.” To achieve comparable results, Perry
stated, “We’re going to need to force ourselves to budget and invest more for more face time.”
The resource constraints communicated by leaders also act as an impediment to selfefficacy, which may be tied to the physiological response associated to burnout and stress. The
jobs demands-resources model emphasizes resource demands to effectively accomplish tasks
(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Built initially to examine employee engagement and burnout, the
job-demands resources (JD-R) model posits that job resources should either reduce the demands
of a job, are purposeful in accomplishing work objectives, and drive employee development
(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Applied to the research finding that managers perceive working
harder in the current hybrid and remote work environments to achieve comparable results, the
model highlights the need for leaders to have the necessary resources to foster innovative work
behavior confidently. The resource constraints and self-efficacy challenges communicated by

99
leaders demonstrate impediments to fostering innovative work behavior, however, also
demonstrate a likelihood that there are self-efficacy challenges with employee engagement.
JD-R has been used extensively to assess employee engagement, goal attainment, and
innovative work behavior (Gan et al., 2023; Masuda et al., 2017; Messmann et al., 2017).
Leveraging quantitative data and examining the impacts on work goals and engagement from
telecommuting, Masuda et al. (2017) tested hypotheses centered on telecommuting availability
impacts on supervisor relationships, goal support, goal progress, and engagement. The
researchers found that employees who had the opportunity to telecommute were more engaged at
the end of the work year, and employees who have goals more aligned with their supervisors and
find their work insightful are also more engaged (Masuda et al., 2017).
Studies on the effects of resource availability on job demands and innovative work
behavior have also highlighted the importance of resources that facilitate engagement in
innovative work practices (Gan et al., 2023; Messmann et al., 2017). In a study of 239 vocational
teachers, Messman et al. (2017) investigated the relationship between the job demands and
resources available as a predictor of innovative work behavior. The researchers examined the
empowerment and participant safety of the research participants, observing high empowerment
as a strong predictor of innovative work behavior (Messmann et al., 2017).
Research from Gan et al. (2023) demonstrated the importance of managerial involvement
with employees, which examined the effects of manager behavior in remote work environments
and the impacts on employee self-regulation and work outcomes. The researchers studied
questionnaire results from 303 remote workers, gauging the impacts of manager support and
control behavior on remote employees’ job performance. The level of supervisor involvement
has a meaningful impact on the remote employee’s job performance, as observed through JD-R

100
(Gan et al., 2023). Studies such as Gan et al. (2023), Masuda et al. (2017), and Messmann et al.
(2017) demonstrate why leaders may perceive pressure to remain actively involved with their
employees and the impacts an added barrier, such as work environment, can play.
Communication
The final findings category identified within the study is communication. Managers have
shared that the shift to hybrid and remote work environments has prompted the need to
communicate more intentionally. Intentionality includes ensuring the frequency and amount of
information shared is sufficient to overcome gaps presented by the different work environments,
as well as using communication to build confidence in fostering an environment that supports
innovative work behavior. Communication is critical to employee engagement and positive work
outcomes (Andrew & Sofian, 2012; Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014). The more integration a company
has with its communication and innovative philosophy, the more employees adopt innovative
work behaviors (Linke & Zerfass, 2011).
Finding 6: Managers Have Become More Intentional to Foster Innovative Work Behavior.
A theme represented in all research participants was that leaders needed to advance their
leadership style to address communication challenges presented through hybrid and remote work
environments. The most prevalent advancement leaders shared was increasing their selfawareness and intentionality with employees. Intentionality includes being more deliberate in
engaging with their employees and how leaders communicate. David shared, “I think the biggest
thing is being hyper-aware. If [I’m working with an employee] and I think something is off, or I
hear a tone change, I need to be aware and address it.” Nathan suggested, “One of the biggest
[changes] is the intentional one-on-one. I need to make sure that I’m reaching out and paying
attention [to employees]. I need to pay attention to the whispers.”

101
Leaders shared that communication needs to be intentional and precise in hybrid and
remote work environments. According to Nadia, “I don’t think you have to be as overt when
you’re working in an office; things can be more organic. If I had a new employee in the office, I
could walk by and say hello.” This scenario has changed with hybrid and remote work
environments, “it’s one of the things we do differently, less impromptu. We have to be much
more intentional about [communication].” Jenny communicated her intentionality in how she has
changed her approach to engaging employees, “there are different personalities to deal with, but
remote, there are some personalities that are not as effective. I’ve had to change how I approach
people, which is different remotely versus in person. I can’t just take a walk with them.”
Communication is critical for effectively engaging employees and fostering innovative
work behavior (Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014; Linke & Zerfass, 2011). Developing a researchdriven employee engagement model, Bedarkar and Pandita (2014) highlighted many scenarios
where communication plays a critical role in engagement. Relevant to the intentionality of
leaders, the scenarios included consistent communication from senior leadership, communication
promoting the organization’s competitive environment, and organizational goals (Bedarkar &
Pandita, 2014).
Communication is also vital for innovative work behavior (Mayfield & Mayfield, 2004;
Linke & Zerfass, 2011; Ortega-Egea et al., 2013). Research has demonstrated a significant
relationship between leadership communication and innovative work behavior (Mayfield &
Mayfield, 2004). Research has also shown that when a company communicates an innovative
philosophy, employees are more likely to adopt innovative work behavior (Linke & Zerfass,
2011). Robust and intentional communication, such as knowledge sharing, would increase the
likelihood that employees would be oriented toward innovation (Ortega-Egea et al., 2013).

102
Galanti et al. (2021) posit that consistent and rich communication in hybrid and remote work
environments is critical to employee engagement. The researchers assert that communication can
reduce the social isolation components of remote work environments and keep the employees
engaged. Unfortunately, quick, and easy communication, such as email, cannot replace rich
communication, such as face-to-face interaction (Galanti et al., 2021).
Recommendations and Implementation for Practice
This section will propose recommendations for practice based on the key findings
identified through the study. This study explored managers’ perceptions of employee innovative
work behavior in hybrid and remote work environments, managers’ confidence in fostering
innovative work behaviors within these environments, and changes to leadership style based on
the environments. The six key findings fall into collaboration, capacity, and communications.
Table 5 lists the recommendations for practice and their alignment with the three finding
categories.
An overarching theme in the majority of recommendations is the need for monetary
investment. Most research participants communicated resource constraints impeding selfefficacy in leading innovative work behaviors in hybrid and remote work environments. These
resource constraints are likely impacting employee innovative work behavior, however also
likely impeding employee engagement as well. Leaders communicated efficacy challenged in
leading innovative work behaviors tied to collaboration, capacity, and communication. While
much of the efficacy challenge stems from the work environment, it is also a byproduct of stress
and burnout tied to an imbalance between the job demands and available resources. In order to
improve leaders’ self-efficacy in fostering innovative behavior, the company must also recognize

103
that there are self-efficacy challenges in employee engagement that must be addressed prior to an
ability to impact innovative work behavior.
To that end, recommendations outlined in this section require investment and support.
The investment includes monetary investment in budget, creating specific funding to address the
perceptions leaders have for collaboration and support improved self-efficacy in leading in
hybrid and remote work environments. Investment in time from employees, managers, and
senior leadership is also required for success. Time to allow for collaboration and improved selfefficacy through vicarious experiences amongst leaders. Time for leaders and employees to
dedicate mindshare to innovative work behavior and the reduction of administrative
requirements. Senior leadership involvement is also critical to the support of these
recommendations. Recommendations made without executive sponsorship for space and
execution will suffer from adoption and lack of implementation. This section will conclude with
implementation recommendations grounded in the McKinsey 7S framework (Waterman et al.,
1980).

104
Table 5
Recommendations for Practice
Recommendation Finding category
Invest in structured collaborative activities in hybrid and
remote work environments.
Collaboration
Invest in intentional practices for bringing employees to a
physical campus for collaborative working sessions.
Collaboration
Incorporate elements of virtual reality for greater employee
engagement with innovative work behavior.
Collaboration
Invest in dedicated space for ad hoc employee innovative
work behavior.
Capacity
Invest in training and tools to improve leader self-efficacy in
fostering innovative work behavior.
Capacity
Establish a mission and vision statement specifically for
innovative work behavior.
Communication
Invest in Structured Collaborative Activities in Hybrid and Remote Work Environments
Managers perceive a lack of collaboration impacting innovative work behavior in hybrid
and remote work environments. Leaders also communicated silos, communication gaps, and
perceive a lack of relationships and trust as impediments to self-efficacy leading innovative work
behavior. An investment in consistent and structured collaborative activities is required to
address these perceptions. Collaborative activities such as think tank events, idea pitch sessions,
and case study analyses will allow employees to establish trust and relationships while more
comfortable managing innovative work behaviors in hybrid and remote work environments.
Collaboration events would also support the increase in leader self-efficacy, providing an
environment for verbal persuasion, discussions on vicarious experience, and physiological
feedback.

105
Offering employees a mechanism to exhibit idea generation, exploration, and
development while allowing managers to increase collaboration within their team may also
increase manager confidence. Virtual think tanks have demonstrated the ability to enable idea
generation, idea development, idea implementation, and ongoing collaborative activities
(Maxwell et al., 2024). Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, The American Association of
Colleges of Pharmacy facilitated a virtual think tank for pharmacy educators, with participants
communicating the successful implementation of ideas generated through the activity and
ongoing communication with collaborators (Maxwell et al., 2024).
Invest in Intentional Practices for Bringing Employees to a Physical Campus for
Collaborative Working Sessions
Managers perceive that a lack of trust and relationships challenges innovative work
behavior. Managers also perceive a lack of collaboration impacting innovative work behavior.
Finally, leaders lack self-efficacy in fostering innovative work behavior. The research identified
essential components of innovative work behavior, including establishing leadership and the
supervisory relationship (de Jong & den Hartog, 2010; Kanter, 1988; Scott & Bruce, 1998; Van
de Ven, 1986).
Facilitating a limited time in the office for employees to spend time with their manager
and colleagues would support the relationship development between these parties and provide
greater strength and collaboration opportunities once transitioned back into hybrid and remote
work environments. Leaders would have an opportunity to improve self-efficacy through
vicarious experience, driven by collaboration and discussing shared knowledge. As Brucks and
Levav (2022) observed, research participants in the same location outperformed those who relied
exclusively on virtual communication when facilitating innovation and innovative work

106
behavior. Trust also significantly affects confidence and innovative work behavior in remote and
hybrid environments (Fiernaningsih et al., 2021; Ng & Lucianetti, 2016). In person activities
would also provide employees and managers an avenue to aid in developing trust and
relationship development, managers have a runway to support innovative work behavior in
hybrid and remote work environments through a catalyst event in person and execution in hybrid
and remote work environments (Lin et al., 2023).
This type of activity may be economically feasible for smaller companies. However,
larger companies may not be able to support the number of employees traveling to an office
location for collaboration events. If larger companies focused their investment on job roles with
a primary responsibility associated with innovative work behavior, this recommendation would
be more feasible. Focused engagement when onsite and limiting the number of administrative
meetings will create collaboration and trust for innovative work behavior (Moghe, 2023).
Incorporate Elements of Virtual Reality for Greater Employee Engagement With
Innovative Work Behavior
Managers lack confidence in fostering innovative work behavior in hybrid and remote
work environments. Managers also perceive they must work harder to achieve comparable
results based on hybrid and remote work environments. Specific examples of these findings
communicated by managers include employee distraction and lack of engagement. Managers can
incorporate employee engagement in innovative work behavior through sustained attention and
an added layer of engagement through additional dimensions delivered through multiverse
technologies. Managers communicated challenges in perceiving employee engagement for
innovative work behavior due to communication and visibility; virtual reality would address
these items.

107
Some firms have begun exploring extended or virtual reality within some aspects of their
business (Warnke et al., 2022). Accenture, for example, has applied extended reality to learning
and development, onboarding, and employee events. Through the AVENUES program
(Accenture, n.d.), Accenture has deployed a virtual reality program to improve training
outcomes. For companies that may not have the ability to deploy hardware to immerse
employees, the availability of improved videoconferencing should be a targeted investment.
Technology companies, such as Google, have invested in technologies such as computer vision,
3D imaging, and spatial audio to increase the performance and reality of video communication
(Bavor, 2021). Ongoing improvements and refinement make this technology more obtainable at
large scale (Nartker, 2023).
This strategy could also apply to collaboration and innovative work behavior. By
developing an innovative work behavior strategy that immerses employees as though they are in
the same location, beyond just video, the challenges managers communicate would overcome. It
would be essential to track the results of this recommendation against control groups of
employees in-office and hybrid/remote with no virtual reality components. This recommendation
would ideally overcome the challenges observed by Brucks and Levav (2022) in using virtual
communication, as the recommendation would create a virtual office.
Invest in Dedicated Space for Ad Hoc Employee Innovative Work Behavior
Managers perceive they are working harder to achieve comparable results based on
hybrid and remote work environments. One of the challenges managers communicate is that the
number of meetings and impediments to calendars adversely impact employees’ innovative work
behavior. Creating space for ad hoc employee innovative work behavior would include three
actions. First, employees should be required to avoid scheduling meetings on Friday. This action

108
would eliminate potential distractions and increase employee capability to demonstrate
innovative work behaviors by 20% each week, dedicating time, attention, and energy to ideation,
compared to additional administrative meetings. The second action would be to provide
employees a subset of that time to focus on new ideas outside their day-to-day work.
The third and final action, the time should be used by leaders and employees to
collaborate with others to review active projects and initiatives. Through the collaboration of
active initiatives, supervisors could increase self-efficacy through vicarious experiences.
Through offloading administrative burden and creating space for collaboration, employee selfefficacy in innovative work behavior could be benefitted as well. Ultimately providing space for
collaboration and outside perspectives, projects that otherwise may have been completed in a
silo, are now benefiting through innovative work behavior.
Providing employees with the capacity to support innovative work behavior is not novel
(Alphabet, 2004; Goetz, 2011). However, work environments and requirements can prevent
employees from maximizing capacity. Felstead and Henseke (2017) observed that hybrid and
remote work environments provide value to the employee and company and increase work
intensification. Palumbo (2020) also observed that “work fatigue” led hybrid and remote
employees to increase their work intensity. Time and resource availability can hinder innovative
work behavior and engagement in innovative work practices (Gan et al., 2023; Messmann et al.,
2017). Dedicating time for employees to have space meetings and the freedom to apply
innovative work behaviors to problems they are passionate about will benefit the company.
Invest in Training and Tools to Improve Leader Self-Efficacy in Fostering Innovative
Work Behavior

109
Leaders lack self-efficacy in fostering innovative work behavior in hybrid and remote
work environments. Three out of four research participants communicated that they still saw
significant room for improvement in fostering innovative work behaviors in hybrid and remote
work environments. Parker et al. (2021) observed a lack of self-efficacy in managers leading in
remote work environments, with almost 40% of participants acknowledging low confidence in
managing the work environment. Providing managers with training and tools to address their
confidence and comfort would provide greater capacity for fostering innovative behaviors in
hybrid and remote work environments.
To address manager confidence in leading remote employees, Parker et al. (2021)
suggests training managers to promote job autonomy and training managers to manage by
results. The researchers contend that this approach allows managers to improve their skills in
delegation and empowerment, which would positively impact employee motivation and
performance. The researchers also state that this training would improve accountability and focus
the managers’ attention on the work outcomes. Comparable training could be applied to
innovative work behaviors, providing leaders with approaches and tools to support idea
generation, idea exploration, and idea development. Training would include brainstorming
approaches, ideas prioritization, and road mapping activities to advance successful idea
development. Training should include technological tools to track and monitor innovative work
behaviors.
Establish a Mission and Vision Statement Specifically for Innovative Work Behavior
Managers have become more intentional in fostering innovative work behavior. This
intentionality has resulted in enhanced communication practices and increased preparation before
engaging with employees. Despite this, managers still communicate a lack of confidence in

110
fostering innovative work behavior in hybrid and remote work environments. A recommendation
rooted in the need for modeling and an organizational alignment to raise self-efficacy would be
to create mission and vision statements specifically for innovative work behavior. Embedding
the value of innovative work behavior in the fabric of a company can provide a model behavior
that leaders can reference and a behavior that employees can strive for.
The communication of these statements would support the engagement of employees and
the fostering of innovative work behaviors (Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014; Linke & Zerfass, 2011).
Establishing mission and vision statements would serve the company in communicating an
innovative philosophy, which leads to more likely employee adoption of innovative work
behavior (Linke & Zerfass, 2011). Leveraging the managers’ existing intentional communication
practices and sharing these company-level views on innovative work behavior would better
direct employees toward innovation (Ortega-Egea et al., 2013).
Recommendation Implementation Through the McKinsey 7S Framework
The recommendations for practice require changes in how the company manages
collaboration, capacity, and communication between managers and employees across hybrid and
remote work environments. Recommendations include changes in employee management,
technologies, skill sets, and strategies related to innovative work behavior. The McKinsey 7S
framework, as shown in Figure 3, can assist with these recommendations as the model
approaches change and organization through seven different but equally weighted variables:
strategy, structure, systems, skills, staff, style, and shared values (Waterman et al., 1980).

111
Figure 3
McKinsey 7S Framework
March (1981) referred to organizational change as “an ecology of concurrent responses in
various parts of an organization to various interconnected parts of the environment” (p. 564).
Organizational change models provide organizations with a framework to facilitate
transformation through different strategies and approaches. Change models include examples
such as Lewin’s three-stage model of change, the Kűbler-Ross change curve, Kotter’s 8-step
change model, and the McKinsey 7S framework (Kotter, 1995; Kűbler-Ross, 1969; Lewin, 1947;
Strategy
Structure
Systems
Skills
Shared
Values
Style
Staff

112
Waterman et al., 1980). Each change model provides a unique strategy to facilitate
organizational change.
Researchers have leveraged the McKinsey framework to study implementation strategies
across enterprise resource planning, business intelligence systems, and organizational
effectiveness among professional basketball teams (Hanafizadeh & Ravasan, 2011; Mitchell &
Frendall, 2015; Sharqrah, 2018). For a company to be effective over time, the variables should
work in an interconnected manner, corresponding to one another, with levers maintaining
balance and fit amongst one another (Hanafizadeh & Ravasan, 2011). The model is a practical
framework for strategic planning, implementation, and organizational change while aligning
internal elements (Subiyanto & Hatammimi, 2023). The framework provides visibility and
calibration for levers attuned and influenced by the human resource components of an
organization, considered the soft-s attributes (Subiyanto & Hatammimi, 2023). The model also
factors attributes aligned with management and leadership decisions, considered the hard-s
attributes (Subiyanto & Hatammimi, 2023). Table 6 presents the seven elements of the model
that we will use to implement the recommendations of this study.

113
Table 6
Elements of McKinsey 7S Framework
Element Description
Hard S
Structure Organizational formation for accountability and management.
Strategy Actions an organization plans in response to changes in its external
environment, i.e., its customers and competitors.
System All formal and informal procedures that help an organization operate.
Soft S
Skills The skills and practices of what an organization does best.
Style Organizational culture (i.e., values and beliefs), and management style
(i.e., how leadership communicates and dedicates mindshare).
Staff Employees within an organization and the development practices to
optimize and maximize talent.
Shared values The core values and fundamental ideas around how an organization is
constructed.
Note. Adapted from “Structure Is Not Organization,” by R.H. Waterman, T. J. Peters, and J. R.
Phillips, 1980, Business Horizons, 23(3), 14–26. Copyright by Elsevier.
Implementation Strategy
The six recommendations identified in the study align with organizational attributes
found within the McKinsey 7S framework. Recommendations represent collaboration, capacity,
and communication changes across all organization components. While changes are required to
maintain organizational effectiveness, the McKinsey 7S attributes must remain balanced
(Hanafizadeh & Ravasan, 2011; Waterman et al., 1980). Implementation applies the
recommendations to potential gaps in the organization’s structure, strategy, system, skills, style,
staff, and shared values.

114
The first recommendation calls for investment in structured collaboration activities in
hybrid and remote work environments, such as virtual think tanks. This recommendation impacts
the strategy, skills, and staff elements of the McKinsey 7S model. The recommendation
advocates for the company to change its preparation for responding to changes in its external
environments. This change centers the collaboration activities on innovative thinking, which
shapes the organization’s approach to its customers and competitors. The recommendation also
addresses managers’ perception that collaboration has suffered due to hybrid and remote work
environments. In providing employees with a structured and regular rhythm of focused
collaboration, the staff will improve their collaboration capabilities in hybrid and remote work
environments while supporting the increased skill of the organization.
The second recommendation is to invest in intentional practices for bringing employees
to a physical campus for collaborative working sessions. This recommendation aligns with the
structure and style components of the McKinsey 7S framework. Aligning to the structure, this
recommendation puts the financial burden on leadership to support employee travel and time
away from work to invest in their onsite collaboration. The outcome of this recommendation
would impact the organization’s leadership style and how it supports the facilitation of
relationships and organizational trust.
The study recommends incorporating virtual reality elements for greater employee
engagement with innovative work behavior. This recommendation impacts the system, style, and
staff of the organization. Transitioning to a virtual reality-driven collaboration format, the
company introduces formal and informal elements to improve the operation. Introducing new
technology will impact the style and staff, improving managers’ confidence in fostering
innovative work behavior and creating a perception that employees are collaborating organically.

115
The fourth recommendation is to invest in dedicated space for ad hoc employees’
innovative work behavior. This recommendation called for additional time and increased
capacity, permitting the employee to afford innovative work behavior rather than administrative
duties. This recommendation calls for changes to the structure, as affording this free time will
require a shift in how the organization approaches accountability. The recommendation would
also represent a change in shared values, as providing an employee with time to focus on
innovative work behavior and innovation would represent a new fundamental idea for the
organization.
Recommendation five called for investing in training and tools to improve leader selfefficacy in fostering innovative work behavior. This recommendation speaks to two soft
attributes in the McKinsey 7S model: staff and skills. This recommendation calls for improving
how the organization develops and optimizes employee talent, which is the staff lever. The
recommendation also addresses skills gaps, which would foster innovative work behavior for
leaders in the product management, technology, and strategic initiatives groups.
The final recommendation addressed creating a mission and vision statement for
innovative work behavior. This recommendation addresses the style and shared values attributes
of the McKinsey 7S model. Calling leadership and employees’ attention to innovative work
behaviors through an established and published message signals the values and beliefs of the
organization’s style. Follow through on this recommendation also represents the communication
of a central idea in how the organization is composed, demonstrating the shared values of
leadership and employees.

116
Recommendations for Future Research
The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent exodus to hybrid and remote work
environments put many leaders in positions they had not previously managed, scenarios where
they interact virtually with their employees. This study aimed to understand managers’
perceptions of the effect, if any, on employee engagement in innovative work behavior and
managers’ confidence in fostering innovative work behavior in hybrid and remote work
environments. There have been several studies examining different leadership impacts from
hybrid and remote work environments, including the work environment and leadership impact on
employee engagement, innovative work behaviors, and trust (Burleson et al., 2022; Parker et al.,
2021; Pattnaik & Jena, 2021).
Based on the research conducted through the literature review and qualitative research
conducted for this study, there are three recommendations for future research. First, additional
research centered on the managers’ perceptions of their impacts on their teams, whether
innovative work behavior or otherwise. Much of the research identified focused on the
organization, where additional focus on the managers and their perceptions may provide valuable
feedback for development and employee relations. Specifically for innovative work behavior,
additional research on how managers perceive their involvement in the employee process would
be beneficial. This additional research could be applied based on work environments or as a
mechanism to improve innovative work behaviors.
The second recommendation for future research is additional investigation into the
impacts of job demands and resources on innovative work behavior in hybrid and remote work
environments. Managers in this study communicated the value of resources to the capability and
confidence in fostering innovative work behavior. Researchers have investigated job demands,

117
the implications of resources on manager and employee performance, and the ability of managers
to lead in hybrid and remote work environments (Gan et al., 2023; Messmann et al., 2017).
Adding innovative work behavior to this research would be valuable for technology, product
management, and strategic initiatives organizations to navigate the balance of resources, work
environment, and innovative work behavior.
The third and final recommendation for future research is an additional focus on
managers’ confidence and self-efficacy in fostering innovative work behavior in hybrid and
remote work environments. Parker et al. (2021) investigated manager trust and confidence;
however, this study did not include research on confidence in fostering innovative work
behavior. Burleson et al. (2022) researched the relationship between work conditions and
innovation and how to overcome potential challenges in remote work environments, creating the
framework of grace, place, and space. The intersection of these studies is missing in available
research, creating a better understanding of the managers’ confidence in fostering innovative
work behavior in hybrid and remote work environments. This research would be valuable for
future leadership development at the manager and executive level as remote and hybrid work
becomes the norm for product management, technology, and strategic initiatives.
Conclusion
The proliferation of hybrid and remote work environments have grown tremendously
since the COVID-19 pandemic and the likelihood of the in-office environment regaining the
majority has a low probability (Parker et al., 2022). There are challenges with hybrid and remote
work environments, as they may have an adverse impact to innovative work behavior, creating
challenges to business growth opportunities (Brucks & Levav, 2022; Garlatti Costa et al., 2022).
Compounding these challenges is the lack of confidence leaders have in fostering innovative

118
work behaviors in hybrid and remote work environments (Fiernaningsih et al., 2021; Parker et
al., 2021).
This study aimed to explore managers’ perceptions of employee engagement with
innovative work behavior in hybrid and remote work environments. The study also examined the
role of leader self-efficacy in leading creative and innovative behaviors while operating in a
hybrid or remote work environment and the leadership changes managers have made since
leading in these work environments. Leaders contend that collaboration and ideation have
become more challenging in a predominantly hybrid and remote work environment. Leaders’
self-efficacy is low, hindered by monetary and time resource constraints, which has negatively
impacted their perceived capacity to foster innovative work behavior and directly impacted their
preparation and confidence. Leaders suggest that communication is critical to their perceptions
of employee engagement in innovative work behavior and their confidence to facilitate
innovative work behavior.
Through the voices of research participants and supported through literature,
recommendations have been provided to address leader perceptions and self-efficacy challenges.
The recommendations require meaningful investment and engagement from executive
leadership. Findings require organizations to recognize that a different level of involvement is
required from leaders and employees to increase engagement, which will then provide an
environment supporting innovative work behavior. Through investment in structured
collaborative activities, investment in dedicated space and investment in training to foster
innovative work behaviors more confidently in hybrid and remote work environments firms can
improve relationships and trust with the organization, as well as create an environment which
supports leader self-efficacy. Further supporting the self-efficacy model, organizations can focus

119
on enterprise messaging specifically tied to innovative work behaviors to accentuate the
intentional communication managers have moved to since leading in hybrid and remote work
environments.
Organizations that implement these recommendations will give their leaders a greater
understanding of the drivers of their perceptions of innovative work behavior and improve their
confidence in fostering innovative work behavior in hybrid and remote work environments. In
doing so, employees and leaders in product management, technology, and strategic initiatives
will find greater success in idea generation, idea exploration, and idea development, resulting in
innovation and opportunities for commercial success regardless of the work environment.

120
References
Accenture. (n.d.). AVENUES VR solution: What it is. Retrieved March 3, 2024, from
https://www.accenture.com/us-en/services/public-service/caseworker-virtual-reality
Akbari, M., Bagheri, A., Imani, S., & Asadnezhad, M. (2020). Does entrepreneurial leadership
encourage innovation work behavior? The mediating role of creative self-efficacy and
support for innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(1), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-10-2019-0283
Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting?
Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 16(2), 40–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615593273
Alphabet. (2004, August 18). Founders’ IPO letter. Alphabet Investor Relations. Retrieved
March 3, 2024, from https://abc.xyz/investor/founders-letters/ipo-letter/
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.
https://doi.org/10.5465/256995
Andrew, O. C., & Sofian, S. (2012). Individual factors and work outcomes of employee
engagement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 40, 498–508.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.222
Bagheri, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurial leadership on innovation work behavior and
opportunity recognition in high-technology SMEs. Journal of High Technology
Management Research, 28(2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2017.10.003
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191

121
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John (Eds.),
Handbook of personality (2nd ed., pp. 154–196). Guilford Publications.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 1(2), 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x
Bandura, A. (2023). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective of human nature (D.
Cervone, Ed.). Wiley.
Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary definition of
innovation. Management Decision, 47(8), 1323–1339.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740910984578
Barrero, J. M., Bloom, N., & Davis, S. J. (2021). Why working from home will stick [Working
Paper 28731]. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w28731
Bartel, C. A., Wrzesniewski, A., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (2012). Knowing where you stand:
Physical isolation, perceived respect, and organizational identification among virtual
employees. Organization Science, 23(3), 743–757.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0661

122
Baruch, Y. (2001). The status of research on teleworking and an agenda for future research.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(2), 113–129.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00058
Baruch, Y., & Nicholson, N. (1997). Home, sweet work: Requirements for effective homeworking. Journal of General Management, 23(2), 15–30.
https://doi.org/10.1177/030630709702300202
Bavor, C. (2021, May 18). Project Starline: Feel like you're there, together. Google.
https://blog.google/technology/research/project-starline/
Bedarkar, M., & Pandita, D. (2014). A study on the drivers of employee engagement impacting
employee performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 133, 106–115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.174
Belzunegui-Eraso, A., & Erro-Garces, A. (2020). Teleworking in the context of the Covid-19
crisis. Sustainability, 12(9), 3662. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093662
Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J., & Ying, Z. (2015). Does working from home work? evidence
from a Chinese experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(1), 165–218.
https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju032
Brucks, M. S., & Levav, J. (2022). Virtual communication curbs creative idea generation.
Nature, 605(7908), 108–112. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04643-y
Burleson, J., Greenbaum, B. E., & Thatcher, J. B. (2022). Grace, place and space: Fostering
employee technological innovation in the new normal. Internet Research, 33(1), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-12-2021-0940
Cai, J., & Szeidle, A. (2018). Interfirm relationships and business performance. The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 133(3), 1229–1282. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx049

123
Choi, S. (2020). Flexible work arrangements and employee retention: A longitudinal analysis of
the federal workforces. Public Personnel Management, 49(3), 470–495.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026019886340
Choudhury, P., Foroughi, C., & Larson, B. (2021). Work‐from‐anywhere: The productivity
effects of geographic flexibility. Strategic Management Journal, 42(4), 655–683.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3251
Conradie, W. J., & de Klerk, J. J. (2019). To flex or not to flex? Flexible work arrangements
amongst software developers in an emerging economy. SA Journal of Human Resource
Management, 17(1), e1–e12. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v17i0.1175
Cooper, C. D., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee
development in public and private organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
23(4), 511–532. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.145
Costanza, D. P., Blacksmith, N., Coats, M. R., Severt, J. B., & DeCostanza, A. H. (2015). The
effect of adaptive organizational culture on long-term survival. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 31(3), 361–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9420-y
Coun, M. J., Edelbroek, R., Peters, P., & Blomme, R. J. (2021). Leading innovative workbehavior in times of COVID-19: Relationship between leadership style, innovative workbehavior, work-related flow, and IT-enabled presence awareness during the first and
second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 7173435.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.717345
Cresswell, J. W., & Cresswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.

124
Davenport, T. H. & Pearlson, K. (1998). Two cheers for the virtual office. Sloan Management
Review, 39(4), 51–65. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/two-cheers-for-the-virtualoffice/
De Jong. J., & Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 19(1), 23–36.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00547.x
Delbosc, A., Currie, G., Jain, T., & Aston, L. (2022). The ‘re-norming’ of working from home
during COVID-19: A transtheoretical behaviour change model of a major unplanned
disruption. Transport Policy, 127, 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.08.007
Delfino, G. F., & van der Kolk, B. (2021). Remote working, management control changes and
employee responses during the COVID-19 crisis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, 34(6), 1376–1387. https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-06-2020-4657
Dul, J., & Ceylan, C. (2014). The impact of a creativity-supporting work environment on a
firm’s product innovation performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
31(6), 1254–1267. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12149
Farr, J., & Ford, C. (1990). Individual innovation. In M. West and J. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and
creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 63-80). Sage
Publications.
Faulds, D. J., & Raju, P. S. (2021). The work-from-home trend: An interview with Brian Kropp.
Business Horizons, 64(1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.10.005
Felstead, A., & Henseke, G. (2017). Assessing the growth of remote working and its
consequences for effort, well‐being and work‐life balance. New Technology, Work, and
Employment, 32(3), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12097

125
Fiernaningsih, N., Herijanto, P., & Maskur, M. (2021). Effect of relational trust and job
autonomy on self efficacy and innovative behavior. Academy of Strategic Management
Journal, 20(5), 1–12. https://www.proquest.com/openview/86356991dcc45ce0acf713dd
de710f2e/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=38745
Gajendran, R., & Harrison, D. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about
telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524–1541.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524
Galanti, T., Guidetti, G., Mazzei, E., Zappala, S., & Toscano, F. (2021). Work from home during
the COVID-19 outbreak: The impact on employees’ remote work productivity,
engagement, and stress. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63(7),
e426–e432. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002236
Gan, J., Zhou, Z. E., Tang, H., Ma, H., & Gan, Z. (2023). What it takes to be an effective
“remote leader” during COVID-19 crisis: The combined effects of supervisor control and
support behaviors. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(15),
2901–2923. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2022.2079953
Garlatti Costa, G., Bortoluzzi, G., & Černe, M. (2022). Can innovative work behaviour spur
creativity while working remotely? The role of work–home conflict and social isolation.
Management Research Review, 46(8), 1132–1148. https://doi.org/10.1108/mrr-03-2022-
0204
Gerards, R., de Grip, A., & Baudewijns, C. (2018). Do new ways of working increase work
engagement? Personnel Review, 47(2), 517–534.
https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-02-2017-0050

126
Goetz, K. (2011, February 1). How 3M gave everyone days off and created an innovation
dynamo. Fast Company. https://www.fastcompany.com/1663137/how-3m-gaveeveryone-days-off-and-created-an-innovation-dynamo
Golden, T. D., & Veiga, J. F. (2005). The impact of extent of telecommuting on job satisfaction:
Resolving inconsistent findings. Journal of Management, 31(2), 301–318.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304271768
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), 1412–1421.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012722
Greer, T., & Payne, S. (2014). Overcoming telework challenges: Outcomes of successful
telework strategies. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 17(2), 87–111.
https://doi.org/10.1037/mgr0000014
Hanafizadeh, P., & Ravasan, A. Z. (2011). A McKinsey 7S model-based framework for ERP
readiness assessment. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, 7(4), 23–
63. https://doi.org/10.4018/jeis.2011100103
Handy, & Mokhtarian, P. L. (1995). Planning for telecommuting: Measurement and policy
issues. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61(1), 99–111.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369508975623
Hill, E. J., Ferris, M., & Martinson, V. (2003). Does it matter where you work? A comparison of
how three work venues (traditional office, virtual office, and home office) influence

127
aspects of work and personal/family life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 220–241.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00042-3
Hirsch, P. B. (2021). Sustaining corporate culture in a world of hybrid work. Journal of Business
Strategy, 42(5), 358–361. https://doi.org/10.1108/jbs-06-2021-0100
Hunter, P. (2019). Remote working in research: An increasing usage of flexible work
arrangements can improve productivity and creativity. EMBO Reports, 20(1), e47435.
https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201847435
Johnson, R. & Christensen, L. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social
conditions for innovation in organizations. In P. S. Mayers (Ed.), Knowledge
management and organizational design (169–211). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080509839
Karia, N., & Asaari, M. H. (2016). Innovation capability: The impact of teleworking on
sustainable competitive advantage. International Journal of Technology, Policy and
Management, 16(2), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtpm.2016.076318
Kelliher, C., & Anderson, D. (2010). Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and the
intensification of work. Human Relations, 63(1), 83–106.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709349199
Kimberly, J. R. (1981). Managerial innovation. In P. C. Nystrom and W. H. Starbuck (Eds.),
Handbook of organization design (pp. 77–87). Oxford University Press.
Kivimaki, M., Lansisalmi, H., Elovainio, M., Heikkila, A., Lindstrom, K., Harisalo, R., Sipila,

128
K., & Puolimatka, L. (2000). Communication as a determinant of organizational
innovation. R&D Management, 30(1), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00155
Kor, B., Wakkee, I., & van der Sijde, P. (2021). How to promote managers’ innovative behavior
at work: Individual factors and perceptions. Technovation, 99, 102127.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102127
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review
(59–67). https://hbr.org/1995/05/leading-change-why-transformation-efforts-fail-2
Kűbler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. Macmillan.
Lange, M., & Kayser, I. (2022). The role of self-efficacy, work-related autonomy, and workfamily conflict on employee’s stress level during home-based remote work in Germany.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(9), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19094955
Leung, L., & Zhang, R. (2017). Mapping ICT use at home and telecommuting practices: A
perspective from work/family border theory. Telematics and Informatics, 34(1), 385–396.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.06.001
Lewin, K. (1947). Field theory in social science. Harper & Row.
Liao, C. (2017). Leadership in virtual teams: A multilevel perspective. Human Resource
Management Review, 27(4), 648–659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.010
Liao, F., Li, A., Zhang, Q., & Yang, J. (2022). Recognizing opportunities when individual
engaged in intrapreneurship: The role of creative self-efficacy and support for innovation.
Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.937971
Lin, Y., Frey, C., & Wu, L. (2023). Remote collaboration fuses fewer breakthrough ideas.
Nature, 623(7989), 987–991. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06767-1

129
Linke, A., & Zerfass, A. (2011). Internal communication and innovation culture: Developing a
change framework. Journal of Communication Management, 15(4), 332–348.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13632541111183361
Machaczka, K., & Stopa, M. (2022). The influence of remote work in particular during the
Covid-19 pandemic on changes in human behaviour patterns within organisations.
International Entrepreneurship Review, 8(2), 67–78.
https://doi.org/10.15678/IER.2022.0802.05
Mak, S., & Kozlowski, S. (2019). Virtual teams: Conceptualization, integrative review, and
research recommendations. In R. Landers (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of technology
and employee behavior (pp. 441–479). Cambridge University Press.
http://doi.org/10.1017/9781108649636.018
Manko, B. A. (2021). Considerations in the use of work-from-home (WFH) for post-pandemic
planning and management. Management, 25(1), 118–140.
https://doi.org/10.2478/manment-2019-0062
March, J. G. (1981). Footnotes to organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly,
26(4), 563–577. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392340
Marshall, G.W., Michaels, C.E., & Mulki, J.P. (2007). Workplace isolation: Exploring the
construct and its measurement. Psychology & Marketing, 24(3), 195–223.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20158
Masuda, A. D., Holtschlag, C., & Nicklin, J. M. (2017). Why the availability of telecommuting
matters: The effects of telecommuting on engagement via goal pursuit. Career
Development International, 22(2), 200–219. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-05-2016-0064

130
Masuda, A. D., Poelmans, S. A., Allen, T. D., Spector, P. E., Lapierre, L. M., Cooper, C. L.,
Abarca, N., Brough, P., Ferreiro, P., Fraile, G., Lu, L., Lu, C.-Q., Siu, O., O’Driscoll, M.
P., Simoni, A., Shima, S., & Moreno-Velazquez, I. (2012). Flexible work arrangements
availability and their relationship with work-to-family conflict, job satisfaction, and
turnover intentions: A comparison of three country clusters. Applied Psychology, 61(1),
1–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00453.x
Maxwell, W. D., Fierke, K. K., & Zumach, G. M. (2024). Outcomes of a “virtual think tank” to
establish collaborative leadership initiative plans (“CLIPs”). Exploratory Research in
Clinical and Social Pharmacy, 13, 100409–100409.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcsop.2024.100409
Mayfield, M., & Mayfield, J. (2004). The effects of leader communication on worker innovation.
American Business Review, 22(2), 46–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959280701332018
Maynard, M. T., Gilson, L. L., Jones-Young, N. C., & Vartiainen, M. (2017). Virtual teams. In
G. Hertel, D. L. Stone, R. D. Johnson, & J. Passmore (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell
handbook of the psychology of the internet at work (1st ed., pp. 315–345). Wiley.
Merriam, S.B., & Tisdell, E.J. (2016) Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Josey-Bass
Messmann, G., Stoffers, J., Van der Heijden, B., & Mulder, R. H. (2017). Joint effects of job
demands and job resources on vocational teachers’ innovative work behavior. Personnel
Review, 46(8), 1948–1961. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-03-2016-0053
McLarnon, M. J., O’Neill, T. A., Taras, V., Law, D., Donia, M. B., & Steel, P. (2019). Global
virtual team communication, coordination, and performance across three peer feedback

131
strategies. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 51(4), 207–218.
https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000135
Mitchell, B. C., & Frendall, L. D. (2015). Using McKinsey’s 7S model to empirically examine
organizational effectiveness among the NBA teams. International Journal of
Management and Human Resources, 3(1), 69–85. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=
aone&u=googlescholar&id=gale|a487927968&v=2.1&it=r&asid=aac6d0fb
Moghe, S. G. (2023). The async-first playbook: Remote collaboration techniques for agile
software teams. Addison-Wesley Professional.
Moore, E. (2022, October 26). Inquiry methods: Unit eight [Lecture]. University of Southern
California.
Najafi-Tavani, S., Najafi-Tavani, Z., Naudé, P., Oghazi, P., & Zeynaloo, E. (2018). How
collaborative innovation networks affect new product performance: Product innovation
capability, process innovation capability, and absorptive capacity. Industrial Marketing
Management, 73, 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.02.009
Nartker, A. (2023, May 10). A first look at Project Starline's new, simpler prototype. Google.
https://blog.google/technology/research/project-starline-prototype/
Newman, A., Tse, H. H., Schwarz, G., & Nielsen, I. (2018). The effects of employees’ creative
self-efficacy on innovative behavior: The role of entrepreneurial leadership. Journal of
Business Research, 89, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.04.001
Ng, T. W., & Lucianetti, L. (2016). Within-individual increases in innovative behavior and
creative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy over time: A social-cognitive theory
perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 14–34.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000029

132
Nilles, J. M. (1976). The telecommunications-transportation tradeoff: Options for tomorrow.
Wiley.
Ortega-Egea, M. T., Moreno, A. R., & Dominguez, M. H. (2014). Determinants of innovative
behavior or employees: Evidence from Spanish firms. Employee Relations, 36(6), 606–
621. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-07-2013-0081
Palumbo, R. (2020). Let me go to the office! An investigation into the side effects of working
from home on work-life balance. The International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 33(6/7), 771–790. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-06-2020-0150
Parker, K., Horowitz, J. M., & Minkin, R. (2022). COVID-19 pandemic continues to reshape
work in America. Pew Research Center.
Parker, S. K., Knight, C., & Keller, A. (2021). Remote managers are having trust issues. Harvard
Business Review, HBR Special Issue, 30, 154–158. https://netfamilybusiness.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/08/remote-managers-are-having-trust-issues.pdf
Pathirange, Y. L., Jayatilake, L. V., & Abeysekera, R. (2020). Case study research design for
exploration of organizational culture towards corporate performance. Review of
International Comparative Management, 21(3), 361–373.
https://doi.org/10.24818/RMCI.2020.3.373
Pattnaik, L., & Jena, L. K. (2021). Mindfulness, remote engagement and employee morale:
Conceptual analysis to address the “new normal”. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 29(4), 873–890. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-06-2020-2267
Peláez, A.L., Erro-Garcés, A., García, F. J. P., & Kiriakou, D. (2021). Working in the 21st
century. The coronavirus crisis: A driver of digitalisation, teleworking, and innovation,

133
with unintended social consequences. Information, 12(9), 377.
https://doi.org/10.3390/info12090377
Pradoto, H., Haryono, S., & Wahyuningsih, S. (2022). The role of work stress, organizational
climate, and improving employee performance in the implementation of work from
home. Work, 71(2), 345–355. https://doi.org/10.3233/wor-210678
Raghuram, S., Wiesenfeld, B., & Garud, R. (2003). Technology enabled work: The role of selfefficacy in determining telecommuter adjustment and structuring behavior. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 63(2), 180–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00040-X
Russell, A., & Frachtenberg, E. (2021). Worlds apart: Technology, remote work, and equity.
Computer, 54(7), 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1109/mc.2021.3074121
Saad, E. A., & Agogué, M. (2023). Creativity in virtual teams: Systematic review, synthesis and
research agenda. Creativity and Innovation Management, 32(1), 117–140.
https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12540
Sarbu, M. (2022). Does telecommuting kill service innovation? Research in Transportation
Economics, 95, 101206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2022.101206
Sarkar, S., & Kedas, S. (2023). Globally distributed talent communities: A typology of
innovation problems and talent characteristics. Thunderbird International Business
Review, 65(1), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.22272
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,
25(3), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248

134
Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2019). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In R. M. Ryan
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (2nd ed. pp. 11–26). Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190666453.013.2
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of
individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–
607. https://doi.org/10.5465/256701
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1998). Following the leader in r&d: The joint effect of subordinate
problem-solving style and leader-member relations on innovative behavior. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 45(1), 3–10.
https://doi.org/10.1109/17.658656
Sharqrah, A. (2018). Analyzing business intelligence systems based on 7S model of McKinsey.
International Journal of Business Intelligence Research, 9(1), 53–63.
https://doi.org/10.4018/ijbir.2018010104
Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the
foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89–110.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309353560
Sroka, A. (2018, January 12). Is telecommuting the future of business? (pp. 147-153). In 9th
International Scientific Conference Analysis of International Relations 2018, Katowice,
Poland. https://air.ue.katowice.pl/pdf/2018a/19_Sroka.pdf
Staples, D.S., & Webster, J. (2007). Exploring traditional and virtual team members’ “best
practices”: A social cognitive theory perspective. Small Group Research, 38(1), 60–97.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496406296961

135
Stavrou, E. (2005). Flexible work bundles and organizational competitiveness: A cross-national
study of the European work context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(8), 923–
947. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.356
Subiyanto, R., & Hatammimi, J. (2023). Implementing integrated marketing solutions in
business transformation using the McKinsey 7S framework: A case study at Bisnis
Indonesia Group. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science,
12(3), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v12i3.2425
Summerfield, R. (2022). Hybrid working can help recruit and retain talent, upskill leaders and
boost team working, suggests a case study from an international professional services
firm. Strategic HR Review, 21(1), 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/shr-11-2021-0060
Taufiq-Hail, Sarea, A., & Hawaldar, I. T. (2021). The impact of self-efficacy on feelings and
task performance of academic and teaching staff in Bahrain during COVID-19: Analysis
by sem and ann. Journal of Open Innovation, 7(4), 224–224.
https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7040224
Ter Hoeven, C.L., & Van Zoonen, W. (2015) Flexible work designs and employee well-being:
Examining the effects of resources and demands. New Technology, Work and
Employment, 30, 237–255. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/ntwe.12052
Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management
Science, 32(5), 590–607. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590
Van Yperen, N. W., Rietzschel, E. F., & De Jonge, K. M. M. (2014). Blended working: For
whom it may (not) work. PLoS One, 9, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102921

136
Van Yperen, N. W., Wortler, B., & De Jonge, K. M. M. (2016) Workers’ intrinsic work
motivation when job demands are high: The role of need for autonomy and perceived
opportunity for blended working. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 179–184.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.068
Van Yperen, N.W., & Wortler, B. (2017). Blended working. In G. Hertel, D. Stone, R. Johnson,
& J. Passmore (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of the psychology of the internet at
work (pp. 157–174). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119256151.ch8
Vega, R. P., Anderson, A. J., & Kaplan, S. A. (2015). A within-person examination of the effects
of telework. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(2), 313–323.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9359-4
Villaverde, L. E. (2008). Feminist theories and education: Primer. Peter Lang.
Waizenegger, McKenna, B., Cai, W., & Bendz, T. (2020). An affordance perspective of team
collaboration and enforced working from home during COVID-19. European Journal of
Information Systems, 29(4), 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1800417
Warnke, J., Horn, A., D’Silva, A., & Clevey-Brown, A. (2022, March 16). Going beyond with
extended reality. Accenture. https://www.accenture.com/us-en/about/going-beyondextended-reality
Waterman, R. H., Peters, T. J., & Phillips, J. R. (1980). Structure is not organization. Business
Horizons, 23(3), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(80)90027-0
Wojcak, E., Bajzikova, L., Sajgalikova, H., & Polakova, M. (2016). How to achieve sustainable
efficiency with teleworkers: Leadership model in telework. Procedia- Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 229, 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.111

137
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. The
Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361–384. https://doi.org/10.2307/258173
Zhang, J. (2016). The dark side of virtual office and job satisfaction. International Journal of
Business and Management, 11(2), 40–46. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v11n2p40

138
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Introduction to the interview:
Thank you very much for your willingness to contribute to my dissertation research and
participating in this interview. Before we get started, I would like to provide a brief overview of
my study and address any questions you might have about our conversation. I am a doctoral
student at the University of Southern California, and I am exploring manager’s perceptions of the
affects (if any) between the different work environments, such as in-office, hybrid, and remote,
and employee innovative work behaviors. My goal is to understand manager’s perceptions of
how these environments impact employee engagement in innovative work behavior, manager
confidence in fostering these behaviors, and how leadership styles have changed to support these
behaviors in hybrid and remote work environments. None of the questions are evaluative, they
are solely for me to gather your perspectives. Our interview will help me add to this study
through your perspectives and experiences. I will be the only person with access to your answers
and all of your information will be stored in a password protected file on my password protected
computer. Our conversation should last about 45 minutes, as I’ll be asking about some of your
preferences and work experiences. Does this still work for you? So that I can actively participate
in our conversation and not miss, or later misinterpret, your answers, I would like your
permission to record our discussion. The recording is solely for my use and will not be shared
with anyone else, may I have your permission to record our conversation?

139
Table A1
Interview Protocol
Interview questions Potential probes RQ addressed Key concept
Let’s start with a little bit about
yourself, how long have you
been in this industry?
Baseline/
demographics
How long have you been with the
company?
Baseline/
demographics
How many positions have you
held with the firm?
Baseline/
demographics
What brought you to this
company?
Baseline/
demographics
Have you worked within different
divisions of the company?
If yes, what led to your
moving?
Talk to me about the
exposure you might
have with other
divisions.
Baseline/
demographics
Tell me about the make-up of
your team.
Baseline/
demographics
What is your preferred work
environment?
Why? Baseline/
demographics
Let’s talk a little bit about work
environments, what do you see
as some benefits of hybrid and
remote work environments?
What do you see as
challenges?
1 Environment,
personal
How often are you interacting
with your team?
Talk to me about those
interactions. How are
they taking place?
How often are they
impromptu vs.
scheduled?
1 Behavior
How is this different than when
you would have working in an
office?
3 Environment
Now let’s talk a little bit about
creativity and innovative work
behaviors. What do you
consider innovative work
behaviors?
Please provide a couple
of examples of this
type of behavior on
your team.
1 Personal

140
Interview questions Potential probes RQ addressed Key concept
Tell me about the things you see
as a manager about your
employee’s willingness in
engaging in innovative work
behaviors, such as creative
thinking, idea generation,
exploration, and so on.
How do you see
employee’s taking
this initiative on their
own?
1 Behavior
And what are your observations
about innovative thinking in
hybrid and remote work
environments, versus in-office?
Are there a couple of
examples that come
to mind?
1 Behavior
What do employees tell you about
innovative work behaviors,
such as those mentioned, in
hybrid or remote work
environments?
1 Behavior
What kind of things do employees
share with you when it comes
to creativity and innovation in
hybrid or remote
environments?
See or hear about
employee
engagement with
innovative work
behavior
1 Behavior
I’m wondering, how has this
changed since moving to
hybrid and remote
environments?
Where do those
thoughts come from
and how do you
know? Are there
examples that come
to mind
3 Environment,
personal
Talk to me a little bit about how
you as a manager support this
type of behavior.
Can you give me a
couple examples of
what impacts your
ability to foster
creative thinking?
2 Behavior
What could help you as a
manager foster this type of
behavior better?
2 Personal
How confident are you in
fostering an innovative
environment for your team?
What do you suppose
influences this?
2 Personal
How has this confidence changed
over the last few years?
Can you give me a
couple examples?
3 Environment,
personal
More broadly, how have you had
to change the way you manage
your team in hybrid and remote
environments?
3 Environment,
behavior

141
Interview questions Potential probes RQ addressed Key concept
What tools could the company
provide to help you feel
confident that you’re
facilitating innovative
behavior?
2 Personal
Conclusion to the interview:
Before we wrap up our conversation, are there any components of your work
environment that impacts your relationships or work behaviors that we haven’t touched on yet?
Thank you again for your time and contribution, I enjoyed our conversation and your willingness
to play a part in my research.

142
Appendix B: Information Guide
My name is Chris Flynn, and I am a student at the University of Southern California. I
also hold a role as XXX for XXX.
I am conducting a research study to explore manager’s perception and confidence in
managing innovative behaviors in hybrid and/or remote work environments. The name of this
research study is “Impacts to Innovative Work Behavior Across Hybrid and Remote Work
Environments.” I am seeking your participation in this study.
Your participation is completely voluntary, and I will address your questions or concerns
at any point before or during the study.
You may be eligible to participate in this study if you meet the following criteria:
• manager/Sr. manager, director/Sr. director, or vice president/Sr. vice president level
leaders of technology, product management, or strategic initiatives groups
• at least two direct report employees
• a minimum of 5 years’ management experience
• leadership experience of in-office employees, as well as current responsibilities for
hybrid and/or remote employees
• You are over 18 years old.
If you decide to participate in this study, you will be asked to do the following activities:
1. Discuss your tenure, both in the industry as well as your time with your current firm.
2. Discuss your current role as a people leader, as well as prior experiences.
3. Discuss your perceptions of hybrid and remote work environments, and their impacts
to employee creativity and innovation.

143
4. Discuss your confidence in leading creative and innovative work behaviors in hybrid
and remote work environments.
5. Participate in a 1:1 online interview via Zoom for 45–60 minutes.
6. Review your interview transcript via email for 10–15 minutes.
I will publish the results in my completed dissertation. Participants will not be identified
in the results. I will take reasonable measures to protect the security of all your personal
information. All data will be de-identified prior to any publication or presentations. I may share
your data, de-identified with other researchers in the future.
If you have any questions about this study, please contact me: cjflynn@usc.edu and/or
xxx.xxx.xxx. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact
the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
hrpp@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Employee engagement in a post-COVID era: the mediating role of basic psychological need satisfaction in remote and hybrid work environments

PDF

Perception of Work Intensification and Well-Being Among Hybrid University Staff in the Post-COVID-19 Context

PDF

Corporate innovation labs: exploring the role of university research park innovation lab leaders

PDF

Examining the challenges faced by parents of children with autism in their advocacy efforts: a field study

PDF

Information technology architects’ shift to remote work: an exploration of collaboration challenges

PDF

Leadership of ports and terminals in the global south and Oceania and the use of technological innovation during the crisis

PDF

The role of self-efficacy in Armenian American women leaders in higher educational institutions in Southern California

PDF

Exploring inequitable experiences of remote employees of color in biotechnology organizations in the United States who face less favorable remote work conditions…

PDF

Trust in the 100% remote workplace in high growth technology consulting firms

PDF

Negotiation strategies for women impacting the expanding gender earnings gap at midlife

PDF

Remote learning and parent engagement during a crisis

PDF

Identifying and defining environmental stressors influencing law student wellness and well-being: an exploratory study

PDF

Game changers: developing high-technology industry innovative cultures during times of disruptive change

PDF

Understanding barriers and resiliency: experiences from Latina leaders in local government

PDF

Understanding burnout in non-denominational clergy: a social cognitive approach

PDF

Addressing underreporting of sexual assault in U.S. Army units: perspectives of retired senior leaders

PDF

You can’t have inclusion without music: utilizing music performance to inform caregiver-selected service outcomes for youth and adults on the Autism spectrum from communities of color

PDF

High school single-gender science classrooms, minority females, and perceptions of self-efficacy

PDF

Innovative collaborative systems of care for at risk youth

PDF

Experience of belonging for full-time hybrid physical therapy faculty

Asset Metadata

Creator Flynn, Christopher John (author)

Core Title Collaboration, capacity, and communication: Leaders’ perceptions of innovative work behavior across hybrid and remote work environments

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 06/13/2024

Defense Date 03/29/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag collaboration,Communication,hybrid work environment,innovation,innovative work behavior,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,remote work environment,self-efficacy

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee member), McGowan, Michael Todd (committee member)

Creator Email cjflynn@usc.edu,thecflynn@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC1139963QV

Unique identifier UC1139963QV

Identifier etd-FlynnChris-13099.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-FlynnChris-13099

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Flynn, Christopher John

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240614-usctheses-batch-1169 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu