University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Employee Engagement in a Post-COVID Era: The Mediating Role of Basic Psychological
Need Satisfaction in Remote and Hybrid Work Environments
By
Renata Porto

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

December 2023

© Copyright by Renata Porto 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Your Full Name certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Maria Ott
Marcus Pritchard
Monique Datta, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023
iv
Abstract
The persistently low rate of employee engagement in the United States has posed a significant
challenge for numerous organizations throughout the years. Despite the depth of scholarly work
available on the topic, translating theoretical concepts into successful strategies remains an
ongoing effort. The widespread implementation of remote and hybrid work arrangements
following the COVID-19 pandemic added a layer of complexity to this already intricate problem,
prompting the need for further targeted research. This qualitative field study examines employee
engagement in remote and hybrid work environments following the pandemic. Grounded in the
principles of self-determination theory, the study applies a qualitative phenomenological
methodology to explore the satisfaction of remote and hybrid employees’ basic psychological
needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness and its consequential influence on
engagement. The study’s findings support the centrality of basic psychological need satisfaction
for motivation and emphasize the importance of nurturing it as an organizational strategy to
enhance employee engagement in remote and hybrid work settings. The study presents five
recommendations for organizations to rectify deficiencies in meeting employees’ basic
psychological needs in these settings. Additionally, it considers potential areas for future
research, taking into account that a post-pandemic shift in employee mindset may signify the
obsolescence of the traditional five-day in-office work week across various sectors.

Keywords: employee engagement, motivation, COVID-19 pandemic, post-pandemic, basic
psychological needs, autonomy, competence, relatedness, work arrangements, remote, hybrid.

v
Dedication
To my grandmother, whose relentless embodiment of kindness and resilience inspired my
passion for making a difference in the lives of others.

vi
Acknowledgements
My heartfelt gratitude to those who supported my love for the academic environment
over the years and my dream of achieving this ultimate educational achievement.
To my wife, whose unwavering patience has been instrumental in navigating the
emotional challenges of my lifelong quest for knowledge.
To my dissertation chair, Dr. Monique Datta, for your enthusiasm, guidance, infectious
positivity, and constant reassurance, all of which played a pivotal role in fostering my confidence
and determination throughout this journey.
To my dissertation committee members, Dr. Maria Ott and Dr. Marcus Pritchard, for
their invaluable support and expertise throughout the research process.
To my cohort 20 colleagues, whose collective wisdom, encouragement, and unparalleled
sense of humor have enriched my academic journey beyond measure.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem .............................................................................................. 2
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................. 3
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 5
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 5
Definition of Terms .......................................................................................................... 7
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 8
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 9
Conceptual Framework .................................................................................................... 9
Overview of Employee Engagement .............................................................................. 12
Employee Engagement and Self-Determination Theory ................................................ 16
Employee Engagement in a Post-COVID Work Environment ...................................... 25
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 41
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 42
Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 42
The Researcher ............................................................................................................... 43
Sample and Population ................................................................................................... 44
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................... 46
viii
Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 47
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 48
Credibility and Trustworthiness ..................................................................................... 48
Ethics .............................................................................................................................. 49
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 50
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 51
Participants ..................................................................................................................... 51
Results for Question 1 .................................................................................................... 54
Discussion for Research Question 1 ............................................................................... 70
Results for Question 2 .................................................................................................... 71
Discussion for Research Question 2 ............................................................................... 82
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 83
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 84
Discussion of Findings ................................................................................................... 84
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 87
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................ 93
Future Research .............................................................................................................. 94
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 95
References ..................................................................................................................................... 97
Appendix A: Eligibility Survey .................................................................................................. 132
Appendix B: Recruitment Email ................................................................................................. 136
Appendix C: USC Information Sheet for Exempt Research ...................................................... 137
Appendix D: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 139

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Interview Participants’ Self-Identified Demographic Data ............................................. 53
Table 2: Participants’ Quotes: Choice and Flexibility .................................................................. 56
Table 3: Participants’ Quotes: Relatedness Experiences ............................................................... 65
Table A1: Eligibility Survey ....................................................................................................... 133
Table D1: Interview Protocol ...................................................................................................... 140

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 11
Figure 2: The Motivation Continuum ........................................................................................... 18

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Engaged employees have a deep sense of connection and identification with what they do
(Bakker et al., 2014) and are physically, cognitively, and emotionally invested in their roles
(Kahn, 1990). They appreciate learning, take initiative, make fewer mistakes, and are committed
to their work because they enjoy it (Schaufeli, 2021). The degree to which employees are
engaged in the workplace has a substantial impact on organizational outcomes (Bailey et al.,
2017; Gallup, 2021). Engagement is positively linked to employee performance (Kahn, 1990;
Kim, 2017; Rich et al., 2010), job satisfaction (Clark et al., 2022; Park & Johnson, 2019), lower
turnover intentions (Gallup, 2021; Kim, 2017; Sandhya & Sulphey, 2021), reduced actualized
turnover (Gallup, 2017), organizational competitive advantage, and profitability (Kumar &
Pansari, 2016; Schneider et al., 2018). In contrast, a lack of engagement is associated with a
diminished sense of well-being, loss of productivity, and significant turnover costs (Gallup,
2017; Moletsane et al., 2019). Research indicates that only about one-third of employees in the
United States report feeling engaged at work (Gallup, 2017; Harter, 2021). Furthermore, despite
years of consistent upward movement, engagement levels in the United States fell from 36% in
2020 to 34% in 2021 and 32% in 2022 (Harter, 2022a), likely due to work environment changes
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (Kumar, 2021; Pendell, 2022). One significant change to the
workplace landscape was the extensive implementation of remote and hybrid work
arrangements, which positively and negatively impacted employee engagement (Galanti et al.,
2021). Given that these arrangements are likely to dominate the workplace of the future (Hylton
et al., 2022), this field study in the information, professional, and business sectors explores the
satisfaction of employees’ basic psychological needs under these new working conditions and its
subsequent influence on employee engagement.
2

Background of the Problem
Given its impact on employee productivity, well-being, retention, and overall
organizational performance, the low rate of employee engagement is a key concern for most
organizations. Employee engagement is a state of contentment exemplified by vigor, dedication,
and absorption (Bakker et al., 2014; Schaufeli et al., 2006). Vigor refers to strong levels of
mental resilience and determination, dedication relates to a sense of involvement, meaning and
enthusiasm, and absorption refers to an experience of concentration and immersion in the work
(Schaufeli et al., 2002). Engagement rates in the United States have been consistently low for
over 2 decades, fluctuating between 26% and 32% from 2000 to 2022 (Harter, 2022a) and
resulting in significant financial implications. At an organization’s level, Gallup research
estimates the cost of employees who are not engaged to be 18% of their respective yearly wages
(Herway, 2020). At a macro level, the annual cost of lost productivity due to employee
disengagement amounts to $7.8 trillion globally (Pendell, 2022) and between $483 billion to
$605 billion in the United States (Gallup, 2017). In addition to being a costly problem, low
employee engagement may contribute to a diminished sense of well-being (Gallup, 2021; Knight
et al., 2017, Shuck & Reio, 2014).
Well-being in the workplace refers to a self-reported emotional state that reflects a level
of contentment with different aspects of one’s life (Bryson et al., 2017). A compromised sense of
well-being can result in low job satisfaction and higher turnover intentions (Begum et al., 2021).
Additional evidence confirms that low levels of employee engagement increase turnover
intentions (Cao & Chen, 2021), which positively affects actual turnover behavior (Oh &
Chhinzer, 2021; Sun & Wang, 2017; Willard-Grace et al., 2019). A Gallup study of 23,910
business units in 125 companies reported that organizations with engagement scores in the
3

bottom quartile experienced 31% to 51% more employee turnover compared to those in the top
quartile (Harter et al., 2006). Costs associated with employee turnover can reach millions of
dollars per year (Pleshette, 2020) and substantially impact an organization’s bottom line (Blatter
et al., 2016; Mamun & Hassan, 2017).
Statement of the Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a reexamination of the nature of work.
Predominantly, it led to a broad implementation of remote and hybrid workplace arrangements,
redefining the working circumstances and relationships of millions of employees (Kumar, 2021;
Kuzior et al., 2022; Princess et al., 2021). Remote work refers to work that is performed from
locations other than an office workplace environment (Erickson & Norlander, 2022), at times
referred to as working from home (Barrero et al., 2021; Palumbo, 2020), telecommuting
(Matsuda et al., 2017) or telework (Dalton & Groen, 2022). Hybrid work is a flexible working
model that allows employees to choose their work location, often involving both traditional
office and remote environments (Mantesi et al., 2022). Consequences of remote work such as
family-work conflict, social isolation, virtual relationships, and the increased use of technology
have added greater complexity to the work environment (Gagné et al., 2022; Galanti et al., 2021,
Yarberry & Sims, 2021). Surma et al. (2021) stressed that the prevalence of remote work and
virtual relationships could significantly challenge one’s understanding of employee engagement
and its metrics.
The pandemic also gave rise to a new employee mindset that prompted a reevaluation of
engagement practices across multiple industries. The 2022 Work Trend Index report by
Microsoft revealed that in a post-COVID-19 pandemic workplace, 53% of employees are more
inclined to prioritize well-being and health over work responsibilities (Microsoft, 2022).
4

Phenomena such as the great resignation and quiet quitting exemplify this new employee
attitude. The great resignation is a term created by a psychologist named Anthony Klotz to
reflect the record number of employees who left the workforce voluntarily due to psychological
and occupational reasons (Kuzior et al., 2022). Employees who expressed dissatisfaction with
their company’s response to the pandemic were more inclined to resign (Sull et al., 2022). Per
Gandhi and Robison (2021), the highest resignation rate occurred among employees who were
not engaged or actively disengaged. Following the great resignation, an additional shift in
employee behavior, termed quiet quitting, dominated multiple social media channels. Promoted
by the Millennial and Gen Z generations, quiet quitting encompasses reduced motivation, low
engagement, and a renunciation of performance expectations in an attempt to deconstruct
workplace rules (Ellis & Yang, 2022; Telford, 2022).
Extensive research rooted in self-determination theory suggests the satisfaction or
thwarting of employees’ basic psychological needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence is
a reliable predictor of motivation, psychological wellness, and engagement in the workplace
(Deci et al., 2017; Peters et al., 2018; Slemp et al., 2021). According to self-determination
theory, employees’ basic psychological needs perform a mediating role between the work
environment and motivation, which influences employee performance outcomes such as
engagement (Coxen et al., 2021; Deci et al., 2017). Prior to the pandemic, traditional workplace
research based on self-determination theory principles focused on how managerial and
leadership behaviors, work design, social support, and financial incentives, among other
organizational elements, supported or hindered the satisfaction of these needs (Gagné et al.,
2022). The presence of revised employee expectations and new workplace norms have reshaped
the essence of work and prompted the need for additional research on employee engagement.
5

Purpose of the Study
Through the lens of self-determination theory, this phenomenological qualitative field
study explores employees’ basic psychological need satisfaction in remote and hybrid work
environments following the COVID-19 pandemic and its subsequent influence on employee
engagement. The study intends to add contemporary qualitative data to the employee
engagement literature by examining how employees’ basic psychological needs are satisfied
within post-COVID-19 pandemic work contexts marked by remote and hybrid working
conditions, virtual relationships, and a new employee mindset.
The study addresses the following central questions:
1. How do employees describe their experiences of basic psychological need satisfaction
in a remote or hybrid work environment following the COVID-19 pandemic?
2. How does the satisfaction of employees' basic psychological needs influence
employee engagement in a remote or hybrid work environment following the
COVID-19 pandemic?
Significance of the Study
The impact of employee engagement on organizational outcomes has drawn the attention
of academic and organizational researchers for many years (Bakker et al., 2011). Multiple studies
demonstrated how engagement mediates the relationship between organizational practices and
financial outcomes (Mueller, 2019; Schneider et al., 2018), while others established a link
between employee engagement and other employees’ subjective experiences in the workplace
(Fulmore et al., 2022; Memon et al. 2021; Shuck & Reio, 2014). Despite the significant amount
of research conducted on the topic, business practices have failed to translate theoretical
fundamentals into effective engagement strategies (Knight et al., 2017; Mueller, 2019).
6

Research on the impact of COVID-19 pandemic-related influences on employee
engagement is in its early stages and has produced inconclusive results. Data analysis of 209
online questionnaires completed by employees working from home during the pandemic showed
that job demands associated with remote work settings, such as family life interferences and a
distracting work environment, negatively affected engagement levels (Galanti et al., 2021).
However, greater job autonomy provided by remote environments fostered engagement (Galanti
et al., 2021; Mehta, 2021). A survey of 25,000 American employees conducted in the spring of
2022 by McKinsey & Company revealed that 58% of employees in the United States continue to
have access to remote work options, and 87% of respondents expressed the desire to maintain
flexible work arrangements at some capacity (Dua et al., 2022). Given the likelihood that remote
and hybrid work arrangements will continue to be prevalent in the future, it has become crucial
to understand employee engagement under these conditions.
Lastly, changes in the workplace brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a
decline of already low employee engagement levels across all generations (Ellis & Yang, 2022).
Gallup research indicated millennials and Gen Z employees, in particular, reported the lowest
levels of engagement at 31% in the initial quarter of 2022 (Ellis & Yang, 2022). Since 2016,
millennials have emerged as the largest generation in the U.S. workforce (Fry, 2018). The
Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts they will outnumber all other age groups in the labor market
by 2029 (Torpey, 2020), further highlighting the need for contemporary research on the matter.
By advancing the understanding of how employees are experiencing basic psychological need
satisfaction within the current work context and its implications on engagement, this study hopes
to inspire novel solutions to the problem.
7

Definition of Terms
This study will explore concepts associated with employee engagement, motivation, basic
psychological needs, and a post-COVID-19 pandemic work environment. The following
operational definitions of key terms clarify their application throughout the study.
Basic psychological needs refer to the need for autonomy, relatedness, and competence.
These needs mediate the influence of environmental factors on motivation (Deci et al., 2017).
Autonomy indicates a sense of self-regulation and volition, competence refers to a sense of
effectiveness and mastery, and relatedness denotes a need for social connectedness and
belonging (Ryan & Deci, 2017).
Employee engagement describes a state of contentment exemplified by vigor, dedication,
and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2006; Bakker et al., 2014). Vigor speaks to strong levels of
mental resilience and determination, dedication relates to a sense of involvement, meaning and
enthusiasm, and absorption refers to an experience of concentration and immersion in the work
(Schaufeli et al., 2002).
Employee disengagement describes a lack of interest in productivity, problem-solving, or
aligning with the vision and values of an organization (Allam, 2017). Researchers have used
different terms to describe various levels of low engagement. Throughout the study, the terms
disengaged and not engaged denote variations of low employee engagement.
Flexible work arrangements are organizational practices that provide employees with
flexibility in how they perform their job responsibilities (Weideman & Hofmeyr, 2020).
Gen Z refers to individuals born between 1997 and 2013 (Schroth, 2019).
Hybrid work is a flexible working model that allows employees to choose their work
location, often involving both traditional office and remote environments (Mantesi et al., 2022).
8

Individual contributors are employees who do not have direct reports and, thus, do not
have people management responsibilities (Marenus et al., 2022).
Millennials represent the generation born between 1980 and 1996 (Kuzior et al., 2022).
Remote work indicates work that occurs from locations other than an office workplace
environment (Erickson & Norlander, 2022).
Telework is an alternative term to describe working from home or from a different
remote setting (Dalton & Groen, 2022).
Telecommuting is another term to describe working from home or from a remote
location (Masuda et al., 2017).
The great resignation refers to the sizeable number of employees who have voluntarily
resigned since March 2021 as the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions eased (Kuzior et al., 2022).
Quiet quitting refers to an employee attitude characterized by lower productivity,
diminished motivation, and low engagement (Telford, 2022).
Virtual relationships consist of relationships that rely on computer-mediated
communications (Lojeski & Reilly, 2020).
Organization of the Study
The dissertation follows a conventional five-chapter format. Chapter One introduces the
problem of practice, its context, and its significance. Chapter Two presents the existing literature
on employee engagement in a post-COVID-19 pandemic work environment through a self-
determination theory perspective. Chapter Three details the research methodology. Chapter Four
provides the findings concerning the research questions. Chapter Five offers recommendations
for future research on the application of basic psychological need satisfaction to the development
of new employee engagement strategies.
9

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter presents and synthesizes the literature on employee engagement and the
influence of work context on the satisfaction of employees’ basic psychological needs for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Given that the study’s research questions and much of
this literature review depict concepts unique to self-determination theory, the chapter starts with
an introduction to the study’s theoretical and conceptual frameworks. The subsequent section
provides an overview of employee engagement, its associated outcomes, and its significance as a
motivational construct. Next, a self-determination theory depiction of motivation offers the basis
for understanding the role of basic psychological need satisfaction in promoting engagement in
the workplace. The literature review then examines how the work environment may promote or
thwart basic psychological need satisfaction, motivation, and, thus, engagement. Key
characteristics associated with a post-COVID-19 pandemic work environment addressed in this
chapter include the prevalence and implications of remote and hybrid work conditions, virtual
relationships, and the presence of a new employee mindset. The review concludes with a
perspective on the future of work and how this study advances a collective understanding of
employee engagement.
Conceptual Framework
Informed by a theoretical framework, a study’s conceptual framework provides an
architecture of related core concepts that function as a research plan for studying a problem
(Grant & Osanloo, 2014). This study uses self-determination theory as a theoretical framework,
an empirical theory of motivation that examines how social and contextual conditions support or
thwart psychological development, engagement, and well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Self-
determination theory argues that the satisfaction of innate psychological needs for autonomy,
10

competence, and relatedness is essential for motivation in the workplace (Deci & Ryan, 2000;
Peters et al., 2018; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Autonomy indicates a sense of self-regulation and
volition, competence refers to a sense of effectiveness and mastery, and relatedness denotes a
need for social connectedness and belonging (Gagné et al., 2022; Ryan & Deci, 2017).
Within its framework, self-determination theory emphasizes the differences among
autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, and amotivation. Autonomous regulated actions
carry a sense of identification and choice, while controlled behaviors originate from a sense of
external or internal pressure to act (Deci et al., 2017; Meyer & Gagné, 2008). Amotivation
describes individuals who lack intention and self-determination (Gagné & Deci, 2005). The
satisfaction of basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness is a
precursor to employee autonomous motivation (Deci et al., 2017; Ryan & Deci, 2017). When
basic psychological needs are satisfied, employees operate from a place of volition and choice.
When these needs are thwarted, employees either behave out of duty and obligation or simply
withdraw from their responsibilities (Gagné, 2014). The quiet quitting phenomenon exemplifies
this withdrawal behavior. Notably, autonomous motivation is positively related to engagement
(Deci et al., 2017; Gagné, 2014). So, in essence, self-determination theory allows for an
exploration of motivational factors that influence employee engagement.
In the context of the workplace, the theory’s core frame of reference is the employee and
how managerial behaviors and work conditions promote or hinder motivation. Motivation, in
turn, predicts organizational outcomes such as well-being, productivity, and engagement (Deci et
al., 2017; Rigby & Ryan, 2018; Vansteenkiste et al., 2020). The conceptual framework guiding
this study centers on three existing domains within a post-COVID-19 pandemic work
environment: remote and hybrid work arrangements, virtual relationships, and the presence of a
11

new employee mindset. The following schema (Figure 1) depicts these three key themes, and the
mediating role basic psychological need satisfaction plays in work motivation, which facilitates
employee engagement.

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

12

Overview of Employee Engagement
Employee engagement has been a subject of great interest to academic scholars and
organizational practitioners for decades due to its significant implications on employee outcomes
and organizational performance. According to Gallup (2022), 50 years of research on the subject
have shown that regardless of company size, country, or economic conditions, the positive
impact of engagement on organizational performance is unambiguous. As expected, the amount
of evidence around engagement-related outcomes is extensive.
Employee Engagement Outcomes
Common outcomes associated with employee engagement such as improved job
performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, well-being, and lower turnover
intentions are closely connected. Because engaged employees are willing to dedicate physical,
cognitive, and emotional resources to their roles, they are more effective performers and more
predisposed to be proactive (Wang et al., 2019) and take on optional responsibilities (Bailey et
al., 2017), which results in greater productivity. A review of over 200 published and 30
unpublished articles on engagement confirmed a link between employee engagement and the
presence of dispositional traits such as proactivity, positive affect, and conscientiousness
(Christian et al., 2011). In addition to benefitting job performance, engaged employees are less
likely to depart from their organizations (Kim, 2017; Schaufeli et al., 2019) and are intrinsically
and extrinsically satisfied with their jobs (Park & Johnson, 2019).
In a qualitative study exploring how resilience, job satisfaction, and moral distress
impacted emergency department nurses’ engagement levels, Clark et al. (2022) reported that
nurses with higher engagement felt more connected to peers and were better able to cope with
work-related stress. Evidence further indicated that increased job satisfaction is linked to greater
13

well-being and personal commitment (Shuck & Reio, 2014), higher organizational productivity,
and financial performance (Bryson et al., 2017). More recently, 10 meta-analyses corroborated a
strong correlation between engagement and employee retention, productivity, safety, and
revenue growth (Gallup, 2021). Since it impacts financial performance and revenue growth,
engagement can provide or sustain an organization’s competitive advantage (Christian et al.,
2011; Schneider et al., 2018).
There are also adverse outcomes associated with engagement. For example, a field study
of 1,081 employees in Norway suggested that highly engaged employees may be more
susceptible to burnout (Nerstad et al., 2019). A meta-analysis of 130 studies on work
engagement revealed that work engagement in the public sector is also associated with
workaholism (Borst et al., 2020). Moreover, two studies in China, the first surveying sales
representatives and their supervisors in a large pharmaceutical company and the second
employees in a tech company, indicated that negative consequences of engagement include
territorial behavior, knowledge hiding, and pro-job unethical behavior (Wang et al., 2019).
Regardless of these findings, researchers stated that the negative outcomes of engagement may
not be fully understood (Purcell, 2014; Wang et al., 2019). Wang et al. (2019) argued that most
studies have either explored elements that foster engagement or focused on positive outcomes,
underlining the need for additional scholarly research on the detrimental consequences of
engagement. Similarly, Purcell suggested that positive psychology-inspired frameworks often
influence surveys that measure engagement, and as a result, these instruments reject negative
constructs and fail to account for negative outcomes (Purcell, 2014).
14

Defining Employee Engagement
Academics and practitioners have examined and measured engagement at work through
various theories, definitions, and constructs. Despite the large amount of existing research, a
universal definition has not emerged (Saks & Gruman, 2014), resulting in an inconsistent body
of literature with distinct conceptualizations (Bailey et al., 2017). Nonetheless, researchers have
agreed that Kahn (1990) pioneered the conceptualization of the term by describing it as a state of
personal engagement marked by different degrees of physical, cognitive, and emotional
commitment to work performance (Bakker et al., 2014; Christian et al., 2011; Rich et al., 2010).
Kahn brought forth a theoretical framework that illustrated how employees’ psychological
experiences of themselves, their work context, and their tasks influenced them to engage or
disengage. He presumed that when employees felt safe to express themselves, they find meaning
in their work, and have enough physical, emotional, and psychological resources to engage in
work tasks, they experienced engagement. The absence of these conditions influenced employees
to transition to a state of personal disengagement and withdrawal from their roles (Kahn, 1990).
Conversely, Schaufeli et al. (2002) argued that engagement at work was not a transitory
state focused on events, individuals, or behaviors but a persistent affective-cognitive state of
mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. That is, employees experienced
engagement when they possessed high levels of energy, resilience, willingness to invest effort, a
sense of meaning, and felt immersed in their work (Schaufeli et al., 2002). This definition has
dominated both research and practice that addresses work performance (Bipp et al., 2021).
In a following seminal work, Saks (2006) expanded Kahn’s (1990) ideas to further
advance the conceptualization of engagement by demonstrating that job and organizational
engagement were distinct concepts and that the psychological conditions that promoted them
15

differed. His findings posited that role attributes such as meaningful work, application of
different skill sets, and opportunities to contribute in a meaningful manner predicted job
engagement, whereas perceived organizational support predicted both job and organizational
engagement (Saks, 2006). Lastly, he established that job and organizational engagement
mediated the relationship between job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover
intentions, and organizational citizenship behavior (Saks, 2006).
For a period of time, the term engagement indistinctively conveyed role performance and
affective state (Macey & Schneider, 2008), generating a debate as to whether it was a transitory
state, an individual trait, or a behavior (Christian et al., 2011; Macey & Schneider, 2008).
Consistent with Kahn’s (1990) notion that engagement fluctuated depending on employees’
experiences of the self, task, and context, Macey and Schneider (2008) then argued that
engagement included all three components. It was an adaptive behavior designed to achieve an
organizational goal, a compilation of personality attributes that promoted a positive work
mindset, and a fluctuating psychological state associated with levels of involvement in the work
and the organization (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Furthermore, the researchers highlighted the
role work and organizational conditions played in promoting state or behavioral engagement
ultimately combining various concepts into one model (Gagné, 2014).
Additional definitions of engagement exist (Gallup, 2022; Harter et al., 2002; Meyer et
al., 2010; Rich et al., 2010; Saks & Gruman, 2014); however, Kahn’s (1990) and Schaufeli et
al.’s (2002) have been consistently present in the literature and served as the foundation for
multiple instruments designed to measure engagement (Rich et al., 2010; Schaufeli et al., 2006;
Soane et al., 2012). Although a standard paradigm does not exist, common elements across these
16

theoretical approaches point to engagement as a motivational construct (Christian et al., 2011;
Kahn, 1990; Meyer & Gagné, 2008).
Employee Engagement and Self-Determination Theory
Self-determination theory is a motivational construct primarily concerned with how
social conditions promote or undermine the human potential for psychological growth,
engagement, and wellness. Originating from research on intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Deci
et al., 2017), the theory has evolved into an actionable model for generating, improving, and
sustaining employee engagement (Deci et al., 2017; Rigby & Ryan, 2018). It presumes that
humans are innately social beings, and that the foundation of their development is proactive
engagement, information absorption, behavioral regulation, and social integration (Ryan & Deci,
2017). In contrast with other work motivation concepts that emphasize the amount of total
motivation driving a particular behavior, self-determination theory suggests that the type of
motivation in question matters (Deci et al., 2017; Gagné & Deci, 2005). Thus, it differentiates
itself from other theories through its conceptualization of autonomous and controlled motivation
(Gagné & Deci, 2005), with the former being fundamental to understanding employee
engagement.
The Motivation Continuum
The term motivation in self-determination theory speaks to the external and internal
influences that drive behaviors. According to the theory, an individual’s motivation to act derives
from autonomous or controlled regulations, that is, from a place of willingness or control (Ryan
& Deci, 2017). Autonomously driven actions are based on personal interests and goals, whereas
controlled-driven actions originate from internal or external pressures to act (Ryan & Deci,
2017). Opposite to both types of motivation is the concept of amotivation. Amotivated
17

employees experience feelings of resignation (Gagné, 2014) and lack a sense of efficacy, control,
or intentionality (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In the workplace, they are passive and withdrawn (Ryan
& Deci., 2017).
Research shows that controlled motivation is associated with unwanted work outcomes,
such as burnout (Trépanier et al., 2020) and turnover intentions (Gillet et al., 2013). Curiously,
there is also evidence that it may improve work performance (Ren et al., 2021). Meanwhile,
autonomous motivation drives various desirable work outcomes such as employee performance,
innovative behavior (Ren et al., 2021), job satisfaction (Gillet et al., 2013; Gillet et al., 2017b),
well-being, affective commitment, job effort (Gagné et al., 2015), and lower levels of burnout
and anxiety (Gillet et al., 2017b). Most important, autonomous motivation is associated with
higher employee engagement (Chua & Ayoko, 2019; Lopes & Chambel, 2017). Gillet et al.
(2017a) examined the motivational profiles of 1,406 French soldiers and found that those who
exhibited the highest levels of work engagement and positive affect had the highest autonomous
motivation scores. As shown in Figure 2, behaviors and their respective classification as
autonomous or controlled fall within a motivation continuum (Gagné & Deci, 2005). In the
center, the continuum shows the four regulatory processes that occur when individuals interact
with their environments (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Understanding the concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is imperative for a
thorough understanding of how autonomous motivation applies to employee engagement.
Autonomous motivation is composed of intrinsic motivation and internalized extrinsic
motivation (Gagné, 2014). Intrinsic motivation refers to engaging in activities due to interest or
pleasure (Gagné, 2014). Intrinsically motivated actions are autonomous in essence and
experienced as spontaneous, willful, and voluntary (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Employees exhibit
18

higher levels of engagement when intrinsically motivated (Deci et al., 2017). In other words,
employees who have control over their decisions and tasks experience greater fulfillment and
enjoyment at work and therefore become more engaged (Malinowska et al., 2019). Thus,
intrinsic motivation predicts organizational performance (Camilleri, 2021).

Figure 2
The Motivation Continuum

Note: The Motivation Continuum, by Center for Self-Determination Theory, 2017.
(https://twitter.com/centerforSDT/status/935914261746016256?s=20&t=4FsV3VV-
ruUsoNsGI0yYDg).

In a different position within the motivation continuum is extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic
motivation refers to actions that are either a product of external rewards or consequences and, as
19

such, are expressions of controlled motivation, or they can emerge from within the individual
and result in something that is personally valuable and meaningful, thus becoming
manifestations of autonomous behavior (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Sansone & Tang, 2021). The latter
is known as internalized extrinsic motivation (Gagné, 2014). The term internalized refers to a
natural process in which individuals assimilate and transform external elements into accepted
personal principles (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In the motivation continuum (see Figure 2),
internalized extrinsic motivation refers to the regulatory processes of identification and
integration. Identification occurs when an individual identifies with a behavior and embraces it
as personally meaningful and important (Deci et al., 1996). Integration happens once the
identified value is internalized as part of the individual’s sense of self (Deci et al., 1996). Thus,
identified and integrated regulation are autonomous forms of extrinsic motivation, sharing a self-
determined quality but rooted in a sense of value rather than enjoyment (Ryan & Deci, 2020).
When operating under autonomous extrinsic motivations, the individual’s experience becomes
one of volition, mirroring intrinsic motivation (Van den Broeck et al., 2021).
Deci and Ryan (2000) theorized that the internalization and integration of work values
improved engagement. Zhang et al. (2016) tested this hypothesis by investigating the influence
of employees’ motivational profiles on work performance. After surveying employees and their
managers from multiple companies in China in two separate studies, the authors discovered that
identified regulation (a form of partially internalized extrinsic motivation) predicted work
performance. They explained their results by arguing that the internalization of work values
encouraged persistence in tedious yet essential tasks, helped employees identify with their
organizations, and increased engagement (Zhang et al., 2016). Overall, while engagement is a
state of mind more closely linked to intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagné & Deci,
20

2005; Ryan & Deci, 2017), internalized extrinsic motivation allows employees to engage in
activities at work that may not be enjoyable to them (Gagné, 2014).
Self-determination theory research has consistently demonstrated that work settings that
support the satisfaction of employees’ basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and
relatedness promote both intrinsic and internalized extrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). By
doing so, these environments facilitate autonomous regulation (Deci et al., 2017; Meyer &
Gagné, 2008). Because autonomously motivated employees display engagement behavior, basic
psychological need satisfaction can play a crucial role in fostering engagement.
The Role of Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction
Basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are fundamental
for continuing psychological development and wellness. These needs fluctuate over time
according to the social environment and individuals’ perceptions of the environment (Elliot et
al., 2018; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Need-supportive environments promote autonomous regulation,
greater psychological well-being, and more fulfilling personal relationships, whereas need-
thwarting environments are associated with controlled regulation, amotivation, and interpersonal
defensive behaviors (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The perception of experiences as need-supportive or
need-thwarting varies across cultural contexts, and the mechanism by which psychological need
satisfaction predicts outcomes across cultures is unknown (Magson et al., 2022). Cultural
implications for need satisfaction have become a recent area of research (Ryan et al., 2021).
Nonetheless, basic psychological needs are innate and exist regardless of demographic and
cultural differences (Ryan & Deci, 2017). In fact, the universality of the need satisfaction for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness as a precursor to autonomous motivation, wellness, and
improved performance is a premise of self-determination theory (Deci et al., 2017; Ryan et al.,
21

2021). In a workplace context, these needs account for motivational drivers and their associated
outcomes (Olafsen et al., 2021).
Autonomy
Autonomy refers to having the freedom to choose how to act. Deci and Ryan (2000)
equated autonomy to volition and a natural desire to organize experiences into a cohesive sense
of self. In the workplace, the need for autonomy presents as a need for ownership over the work
(Rigby & Ryan, 2018). This need is supported when employees receive opportunities to provide
feedback, be proactive, take initiative, make decisions, and choose how they perform their duties
(Gagné et al., 2018; Slemp et al., 2021). A survey of 337 employees in two health care
organizations found that greater job autonomy, expressed as the extent to which employees had
autonomy in decision-making, scheduling, and method for task completion within their roles,
increased levels of engagement and overall health (van Dorssen-Boog et al., 2020).
Another study highlighting the impact of volition on employee engagement investigated
the relationships between trust in a leader, autonomy satisfaction, and engagement (Heyns &
Rothmann, 2018). The authors surveyed 252 employees from a South African agricultural
business to look into the influence of volitional trust toward a leader and autonomy satisfaction
as precursors to employee engagement (Heyns & Rothmann, 2018). Volitional trust meant either
relying on a leader for influence and competence factors or willingly disclosing personal
information to a leader. The authors found that reliance on a leader did not influence
engagement; however, the choice to disclose personal information enabled autonomy satisfaction
and positively impacted engagement. Heyns and Rothmann (2018) also reported that autonomy
satisfaction directly predicted engagement. Together, these findings corroborate the assumption
22

that meeting employees’ psychological need for autonomy is an effective organizational strategy
to sustain or promote engagement.
Competence
Competence encompasses having the knowledge, skills, and capacity to perform a task. It
denotes a sense of effectiveness and mastery (Deci & Ryan, 2000). At work, the need for
competence is a need to be successful and proficient (Rigby & Ryan, 2018). It is important to
differentiate the self-determination theory view of competence from the social-cognitive theory
concept of self-efficacy (Elliot et al., 2018). While self-efficacy under social-cognitive theory
denotes an individual’s belief regarding personal effectiveness, self-determination theory speaks
of an individual’s experience of intrinsic satisfaction when effective, particularly in the context
of completing challenging tasks (Elliot et al., 2018). This distinction suggests that undertaking
simple tasks may support an experience of self-efficacy but not fulfill the need for competence
(Elliot et al., 2018).
Workplace factors that support competence include providing employees with
opportunities to share knowledge, leverage or further develop their skills, and work toward
challenging but achievable goals (Ryan & Deci, 2017). For example, after studying how
organizational and individual resources impacted stress, engagement, and other job outcomes,
Karatepe et al. (2018) demonstrated that providing employees with concurrent training
opportunities, empowerment, and intangible rewards in the form of recognition increased
engagement. As anticipated, learning experiences and expressions of appreciation satisfied
employees’ need for competence (Karatepe et al., 2018). Research has also shown that enhanced
organizational efforts in the areas of career development increase employee engagement (Akter
et al., 2022).
23

Relatedness
Relatedness speaks of a need to feel connected to others. It also refers to how individuals
naturally seek others with similar traits and interests (Elliot et al., 2018). Within the workplace,
that means having a sense of belonging (Rigby & Ryan, 2018). A relatedness-supportive work
environment promotes collaboration, task interdependencies, and social connections (Elliot et al.,
2018). In such a setting, managers are empathetic, engaging, and supportive of employees’
concerns (Gagné et al., 2018). Employees whose need for relatedness is satisfied experience
relationships at work as meaningful (Gagné et al., 2018).
In assessing the well-being of physicians, Babenko (2018) conveyed that relatedness
satisfaction was uniquely relevant to improving job satisfaction and engagement and minimizing
job-related exhaustion. Additional research emphasized the role of relatedness satisfaction in
employee outcomes. In a study exploring basic need satisfaction, teachers’ emotions, and
teaching-related outcomes, Klassen et al. (2012) noticed improved engagement levels, more
positive emotions associated with teaching, and lower emotional exhaustion when teachers felt
more connected to their students.
Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Employee Outcomes
Due to its fostering of autonomous motivation, the satisfaction of basic psychological
needs is a predictor of several positive work-related outcomes. These needs often interact
synergistically (Elliot et al., 2018) and are investigated concurrently. A meta-analytic
examination of 99 studies with 119 samples investigating basic psychological needs at work
concluded that the satisfaction of each need predicted variances in intrinsic motivation, job
attitudes (job satisfaction, affective commitment, and turnover intentions), well-being (including
engagement), and behavioral outcomes (Van den Broeck et al., 2016). Organizations that support
24

basic psychological need satisfaction also decrease emotional stress, turnover intention, and even
somatic symptoms (Williams et al., 2014). When needs are not satisfied, employees may resort
to compensatory behaviors, such as wanting to exert control over their circumstances, striving
for others’ approval, and withdrawing from activities (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In particular,
environments that fail to satisfy the need for autonomy foster controlled motivation, and
environments that hinder the satisfaction of competence and relatedness foster amotivation (Deci
& Ryan, 2000). Employees who are motivated by controlled mechanisms, such as rewards or
external incentives for compliance, display lower quality engagement when compared to
employees who are autonomously driven (Gagné et al., 2018).
Among the environmental factors influencing employee motivation are the quality of
interpersonal relationships in the workplace and, particularly, managerial and leadership
behaviors. A study examining the influence of engaging leadership on engagement revealed that
by empowering and inspiring employees, leaders satisfied their basic psychological needs, which
in turn, promoted higher levels of work engagement (Rahmadani et al., 2019). An additional
study examined the relationship between psychological need satisfaction, perceived
organizational support, perceptions of supervisors’ managerial style, and well-being and found
that psychological basic need satisfaction generated greater levels of job satisfaction, happiness,
and self-realization (Gillet et al., 2012). Similarly, in a cross-sectional study of 368 student
employees from a Canadian university, Firzly et al. (2021) examined how mentor relationships
in the workplace influenced employee motivation and well-being, along with turnover intention
and work engagement. Results indicated that need-supportive interpersonal behaviors by mentors
resulted in increased employee autonomous motivation and, consequently, work engagement,
while mentors’ need-thwarting behaviors contributed to higher controlled motivation and lower
25

levels of engagement (Firzly et al., 2021). Taken together, these findings underscore how need-
supporting work environments can foster engagement through deliberate organizational
practices.
Employee Engagement in a Post-COVID Work Environment
The topic of employee engagement has become significantly more complex since the
onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Circumstances forced many organizations to implement
remote work arrangements, and although many employees have returned to a traditional office
setting, the number of employees who remained fully or partially remote is far higher than before
the pandemic (Hylton et al., 2022). A Gartner (2020) survey of 127 business leaders indicated
that 82% intended to maintain remote and hybrid work policies indefinitely. Consistent with
these findings, Hylton et al. (2022) stated that these arrangements are expected to become the
new normal over the next 2 decades.
Remote working conditions resulted in the widespread usage of virtual platforms, and a
set of implications associated with the increased use of technology and virtual interactions
followed (Shockley et al., 2021). Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic caused many employees to
undergo psychological distress and reassess the value and meaning of their professional lives
(Jiskrova, 2022). Human resource professionals have struggled to implement effective
engagement practices (Chanana & Sangeeta, 2021), and employee engagement levels in the
United States have fallen consistently since the pandemic started (Harter, 2022a). The shift to
remote and hybrid work arrangements has exposed the limitations of current employee
engagement strategies and metrics, which have been developed for traditional office
environments and have not accounted for a larger workplace ecosystem (Surma et al., 2021).
Thus, antecedents to engagement such as psychological states, job design, leadership styles,
26

organizational culture, and interventions (Bailey et al., 2017) must be reassessed under virtual
conditions (Surma et al., 2021). In an effort to better understand engagement under these
circumstances, researchers have investigated the impact of family-work conflict, social isolation,
job autonomy (Galanti et al., 2021), job satisfaction (Brunelle & Fortin, 2021), perceived
happiness (Mehta, 2021), and well-being (Mihalache & Mihalache, 2022), but much about this
new work landscape remains unknown.
Remote and Hybrid Work Arrangements
The concept of working from a location other than a traditional office space is not new.
However, the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the implementation of remote and hybrid work
settings and permanently changed how employees and organizations understood office life.
Organizations that were once skeptical of how productive remote employees could be have
changed their attitudes and are now open to offering remote work policies (Barrero et al., 2021).
In addition, many employees have reported higher productivity, positive experiences, and the
consequential desire to continue to work remotely in some capacity (Dua et al., 2022; Gibson et
al., 2023; Mark et al., 2022).
In a survey study inquiring about employees’ and organizations’ preferences and plans
post-pandemic, Barrero et al. (2021) recounted that most employees wanted the option to work
remotely 1 or more days every week, with some expressing the willingness to give up 7% of
their salaries to do so two or three times a week (Barrero et al., 2021). Business leaders
expressed concerns about organizational culture, motivation, and innovative behavior but
recognized the advantages of hybrid settings (Barrero et al., 2021). Remote and hybrid work
arrangements provide organizations and employees with a number of benefits. Organizations
enjoy reduced operational costs (Hylton et al., 2022, Willis et al., 2021), and remote employees
27

benefit from more autonomy over their work, reduced commuting costs (Dalton et al., 2022), and
often the flexibility to live in a preferred geographic area (Brueckner et al., 2021; Choudhury et
al., 2021). Nevertheless, studies examining remote employee outcomes have shown conflicting
results, as remote and hybrid work settings also carry negative ramifications.
Research indicated that remote work is associated with improved job satisfaction (Bai &
Kim, 2016; Brunelle & Fortin, 2021), greater employee productivity (George et al., 2022;
Hunter, 2019, Patanjali & Bhatta, 2022), reduced psychological and physical stress (Shimura et
al., 2021), and higher levels of engagement (Palumbo, 2020; Weideman & Hofmeyr, 2020). In
contrast, evidence has also shown that working from home prompts higher work-related fatigue
and work-family conflict, negatively impacting work-life balance (Palumbo, 2020). Shimura et
al. (2021) reported that full-time remote work may also result in greater presenteeism and lower
productivity. Presenteeism is when employees continue to work while experiencing physical or
mental health concerns (Halbesleben et al., 2014). In short, benefits from remote work may come
at the expense of employees’ inability to disconnect from their professional lives while working
at home (Felstead & Henseke, 2017).
After examining work design elements of remote work, Wang et al. (2021) showed that
job resources such as social support and job autonomy mitigated remote work challenges,
facilitating productivity and well-being, while managerial controlling behaviors and workload
increased job demands, resulting in antagonistic effects. Their research identified work-family
interferences, compromised communication, procrastination, and social isolation as the most
significant challenges to positive outcomes. Interestingly, Nakrosiene et al. (2019) noted that
decreased time for communication with peers increased employee productivity, countering the
28

argument that social isolation is detrimental to performance. Additionally, Mihalca et al. (2021)
did not find a significant relationship between work-family conflict and employee performance.
Organizational and Individual Factors
Remote employee outcomes vary according to organizational and individual factors.
Organizational elements supporting the productivity and well-being of remote employees include
the availability of an efficient technical infrastructure (Sahut & Lissillour, 2023), supportive
leadership behaviors (Sull et al., 2020), an organizational culture of trust and collaboration, the
availability of mental and physical health programs (De Vincenzi et al., 2022), and novel
approaches to learning and development efforts (Delany, 2022; De Vincenzi et al., 2022).
Organizational initiatives that foster career development are essential, as remote and hybrid
employees commonly perceive their limited visibility to others within the organization as an
obstacle to career progression (McDonald et al., 2022; Shirmohammadi et al., 2022). George et
al. (2022) reported that productivity and creativity also increase when organizations convey a
higher purpose that employees consider meaningful. Moreover, factors promoting employee job
satisfaction and performance include the appropriateness of working conditions at home
(Nakrosiene et al., 2019) and training on how to plan and prioritize time and tasks (Mihalca et
al., 2021).
The dispositional characteristics of each remote employee are equally relevant to positive
outcomes. For instance, productivity levels vary among individuals when it comes to remote
work (Smite et al., 2023). Employees who believe they have the necessary skills to execute their
responsibilities successfully and are able to manage role demands via job crafting experience
improved engagement (Mäkikangas et al., 2021), work-life balance, and performance (Biron et
al., 2023). Furthermore, Donati et al. (2021) found that remote employees who worked for larger
29

organizations, had previously worked from home, and accomplished tasks in teams described
having better self-regulatory coping strategies, greater acceptance of technology, and more
positive sentiments toward remote work. Remote employees’ beliefs and feelings about remote
work impact their productivity (Howe & Menges, 2022). Data from a series of weekly surveys
administered to 113 knowledge workers showed that those who believed one could learn how to
be effective while remote expressed greater perceived productivity. Conversely, those who
thought a personality trait determined one’s capacity to perform well remotely conveyed a
negative attitude about remote work and subsequently decreased productivity (Howe & Menges,
2022).
Michinov et al. (2022) examined the impact of remote employees’ psychological profiles
on outcomes and found that employees with low extraversion and agreeableness traits expressed
higher stress, poorer job satisfaction, and lower engagement than those who were naturally more
extroverted and agreeable. Adding nuance to these findings, Herbert et al. (2023) noted that
employees who resonate with the concept of introversion can benefit from engagement strategies
that encourage establishing boundaries to prevent constant accessibility to work. Moreover, after
studying 61 virtual teams utilizing text-based computer-mediated communication (CMC) for
decision-making, Dennis et al. (2022) concluded that high extraversion correlated negatively
with team performance. Thus, they recommended reducing the use of text-based CMC in teams
whose members exhibited high degrees of extraversion. In conjunction, these studies underlined
the need for organizations to promote employee engagement tactics that attend to different
employees’ psychological profiles.
Notably, results from a study of employees’ basic psychological need satisfaction in an
organization with a formal telework policy indicated that the fulfillment of autonomy,
30

competence, and relatedness needs was greater for teleworkers than for traditional office
employees (Brunelle & Fortin, 2021). Because basic need satisfaction promotes engagement
(Deci et al., 2017), these findings support the assumption that remote work may positively
influence engagement. Still, employee engagement efforts within remote and hybrid
environments face numerous challenges from the intricacies of concurrent professional and
personal demands and the increased use of technology.
Work Life at Home
Having a work life at home requires employees to navigate professional and personal
pressures simultaneously. Evidence shows remote employees have difficulty establishing
boundaries between these two sets of demands (Adisa et al., 2022; Allen et al., 2021; Kerman et
al., 2022; Sarbu, 2018). Consequently, they are less likely to attend to personal and family needs,
leading to increased work-family conflict (Sarbu, 2018). Greater work-family conflict occurs
when employees work remotely full-time due to a more significant integration of professional
demands into family life and a subsequent failure to disengage from job responsibilities
(Eddleston & Mulki, 2017).
The psychological toll of continuously negotiating between work and family
responsibilities can be significant. In fact, work-family conflict is detrimental to employees’
well-being, engagement (Darouei & Pluut, 2021; Galanti et al., 2021; Houlfort et al., 2022;
Kossek, 2016), communication, collaboration, and retention (Kossek, 2016). Houlfort et al.
(2022) found that remote employees compromised both professional and personal lives to meet
job responsibilities, and although basic psychological needs satisfaction suffered in both personal
and professional realms, the impact on employees’ personal lives better predicted negative
outcomes. The authors concluded that sacrifices of basic psychological needs in the personal
31

realm had an adverse impact on employees’ well-being due to work-family conflict, which
consequently led to diminished job and personal life satisfaction.
Nevertheless, spending more time at home may offer advantages. Although research on
the positive effects of remote work on family life is narrow, there is evidence that remote work
may decrease work-family conflict. Darouei and Pluut (2021) revealed that hybrid-setting
employees had less work-family conflict when working from home than when working in the
office. By focusing on time pressure as a work stressor, the researchers noted that when
employees worked from home, they had more time to participate in family activities, which
lessened work-family conflict. Consistent with Darouei and Pluut’s conclusions, Wu et al.’s
(2022) demonstrated that the quality of remote employees’ family relationships improved
because they spent additional time with their family members. Also, Graham et al. (2021)
documented that work-family conflict fluctuated according to parental responsibilities and
perceptions of gender roles in the home. The authors showed that work-family conflict decreased
due to a more equitable division of household responsibilities but increased if children were
present during business hours.
Another consequence of having a professional life outside of a traditional office
environment is social isolation. Developing and sustaining social bonds at work are essential for
employees’ well-being (Brown & Leite, 2022). The lack of face-to-face interactions with co-
workers can lead to feelings of invisibility (Sewell & Taskin, 2015), psychological distress, and
lack of belongingness (Van Zoonen & Sivunen, 2022). This lack of belongingness compromises
employees’ basic psychological need for relatedness. Predictably, social isolation negatively
impacts engagement, productivity, and job satisfaction (Galanti et al., 2021; Orhan et al., 2016;
Toscano & Zappalà, 2020). Moreover, the more employees work remotely, the greater their
32

experiences of social isolation (Orhan et al., 2016; Van Zoonen & Sivunen, 2022), emotional
exhaustion, and mental stress (Vander et al., 2020).
However, organizational policies might mitigate negative outcomes. A review of 23
papers exploring the implications of remote work on employees’ health stressed the role of
organizational support as a mediator (Oakman et al., 2020). The evidence suggested that
organizational policies to enable boundary management, clear performance expectations, peer
networking, managerial skills training, technical support, and equitable career opportunities
could alleviate a remote environment’s physical and psychological pressures (Oakman et al.,
2020).
Greater Use of Technology
Technological progress facilitated the transition to remote work by providing employees
with geographic and social mobility to accomplish their tasks. Nonetheless, the increased use of
technology has generated wellness concerns and feelings of uncertainty. Remote employees do
not have the opportunity to connect informally and spontaneously with others; therefore, social
and professional communications rely on virtual tools (Mark et al., 2022; Pianese et al., 2022;
Riedl, 2021; Taber et al., 2022). Organizations offering diverse work arrangements face an
additional complexity, as communications between office, hybrid, and remote employees may
demand the use of distinct tools (Hopkins & Bardoel, 2023).
One tool that has become highly prevalent is videoconferencing. The adoption of
videoconference platforms promoted remote collaboration in many work environments, but its
pervasive use exhausted employees’ physical and mental resources, resulting in
videoconferencing fatigue (Riedl, 2021). Videoconferencing fatigue, also termed Zoom fatigue,
refers to a persistent use of videoconferencing platforms that leads to worry, loneliness, anxiety,
33

stress, depression, and burnout (Elbogen et al., 2022; Riedl, 2021). Riedl (2021) argued that
virtual work environments may generate anxiety and stress, mainly because interpersonal and
non-verbal cues are less available in computer-mediated interactions. In the workplace,
videoconferencing fatigue may lead to decreased employee well-being and productivity (Elbogen
et al., 2022). Greater complexity and use of technology also result in increased work-family
conflict (Molino et al., 2020). Moreover, meetings’ duration and size cannot explain the
underlying cause of videoconferencing fatigue (Shockley et al., 2021; Shoshan & Wehrt, 2022),
but frequency appears to be relevant. In a national survey study of 902 employees, Elbogen et al.
(2022) reported higher levels of videoconferencing fatigue for those who attended seven or more
videoconference meetings each week. In addition to frequency, researchers have shown that
other aspects of virtual meetings contribute to videoconferencing fatigue, such as employees’
self-perceptions in video presentations (Taber et al., 2021), demographic characteristics, mental
health status (Elbogen et al., 2022), and camera use (Shockley et al., 2021).
As work environments rely more on evolving technology, the manner via which
employees interact carries additional elements of uncertainty and interdependence (Gagné et al.,
2022). Uncertainty in a work context underlines the need for adaptive, autonomous, and team-
oriented behaviors, along with more flexible work practices (Gagné et al., 2022).
Complementarily, the interdependence between employees and technology points to greater
complexity in how employees leverage their skills, complete tasks, feel connected, and establish
meaningful relationships (Gagné et al., 2022). Reliance on technology to facilitate these
activities highlights the importance of proper technology design. Peters et al. (2018) asserted that
to foster motivation in technology-driven environments, technology design must focus on basic
34

psychological need satisfaction and, as such, promote a user experience of autonomy,
competence, and relatedness.
Virtual Relationships
Virtualization has altered how employees establish and maintain relationships at work.
Traditional office face-to-face interactions allowed employees to gain an understanding of
others’ work styles, abilities, and personalities, creating greater confidence and familiarity within
relationships (Hinds & Cramton, 2014). These are essential elements for building meaningful
connections at work (Hinds & Cramton, 2014). In turn, strong relationships lead to a greater
willingness to collaborate, trust, and share knowledge (Yang et al., 2022), ultimately resulting in
improved organizational performance (Johnson, 2021). More precisely, feeling connected to
others at work (i.e., relatedness satisfaction) is positively related to improved daily performance
(Coxen et al., 2021), employee engagement, job satisfaction (Babenko, 2018), and well-being
(Christfort, 2021).
However, in remote and hybrid environments, employees depend extensively upon
technological infrastructures and computer-mediated communications not only for their
professional interactions but also for cultivating and sustaining social connections. Relationships
are more task-focused and less relational (Schinoff et al., 2020). Thus, the nature of remote and
hybrid settings is one of increased social isolation, less social support, and fewer meaningful
relationships, all of which may frustrate employees’ need for relatedness (Gagné et al., 2022). In
their research on virtual relationships, Schinoff et al. (2020) reported that remote employees
attributed their absence of meaningful connections to the distance technology imposed, the lack
of relational cadence in communications, and not knowing enough about others’ social contexts.
Hinds and Cramton (2014) added that the lack of familiarity with others’ personal characteristics
35

and cultural contexts impacted employees’ responsiveness, communication frequency, and
personal disclosure, resulting in suboptimal collaboration. Because most organizations require
employees to collaborate and work interdependently to accomplish organizational goals
(Grossman & Miller, 2021), this evidence underscores the need for remote and hybrid settings to
foster connection-enabling conditions. This need is further evident within the context of virtual
teamwork and managerial relationships.
Virtual Teamwork
In a virtual workplace, teamwork is contingent upon the quality of members’ connections
and the technology that supports their work. Research on virtual teamwork effectiveness divides
these areas into themes. These include the role of psychological safety, team cohesion,
connectedness, trust, how technology enables or hinders communication, and managerial styles
(Gilson et al., 2015; Gross, 2018; Grossman & Miller, 2021). In a meta-analytic review of
precursors and consequences of psychological safety in the workplace, Frazier et al. (2017)
demonstrated that feeling safe at work to take interpersonal risks positively impacted learning,
performance, information sharing, job satisfaction, commitment, and engagement. Garro-Abarca
et al. (2021) referred to a team’s ability to work well together, collaborate, and share information
as team cohesion. In their study of virtual team performance, the authors found that team
cohesion, particularly trust, was essential for team well-being and task performance. While
operational cohesion positively influences virtual team efficiency, trust improves team member
satisfaction (Sedrine et al., 2021). Trust also fosters information sharing (Zaharie, 2021) and
interpersonal reliance (Zhang et al., 2022) and allows virtual teams to create a shared
understanding that is necessary for optimal collaboration (Kniel & Comi, 2021). As such, it is an
indicator of team effectiveness (Johnson, 2021; Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020; Zaharie, 2021).
36

Another key element impacting virtual teamwork is the technology that facilitates
communication. Virtual teams rely extensively on technology for interpersonal exchanges and
collaboration. In technology-mediated interactions, both synchronous and asynchronous, the
limited availability of social cues hinders a team’s ability to build a shared identity (Gilson et al.,
2015). The use of asynchronous communications, in particular, thwarts a virtual team’s ability to
sustain optimal levels of information transfer and responsiveness (Panteli et al., 2019). Using
data from 61,182 U.S. employees from Microsoft, Yang et al. (2022) investigated the impact of
remote interactions on communication and collaboration. The authors uncovered a surge in
asynchronous communications and siloed collaborative efforts, both of which impacted
employees’ ability to gain and distribute information effectively.
To overcome these challenges, Schulze and Krumm (2017) argued that organizations
should use the most efficient technology for information sharing and communication and have
virtual teams skilled at managing conflict and creating trust. Similarly, Panteli et al. (2019)
showed that asynchronous technology that encourages continuous communication, information
exchange, and clarity of purpose may increase employee engagement. Furthermore, in their
efforts to understand engagement in global virtual teams, Shaik and Makhecha (2019) indicated
that technology must promote both collaboration and interpersonal interactions that enable
connectedness among team members. Other drivers of engagement listed by the authors included
clarity around goals, expectations, and interdependent responsibilities, acceptance of different
cultural contexts, conflict resolution skills, and, as expected, trust (Shaik & Makhecha, 2019).
Managers are responsible for enabling these drivers; hence, managerial practices are an essential
component of successful virtual teamwork (Turesky et al., 2020).
37

Managerial Practices
Managers of remote and hybrid employees must create a supportive work environment to
counteract the adverse consequences of asynchronous communication, fewer interpersonal
interactions, and reduced face-to-face contact. The concept of building trust is again pervasive
throughout the literature as a managerial practice that cultivates a supportive workplace, along
with effective communication and basic psychological need satisfaction. In traditional office
settings, face-to-face interactions facilitate the building of trust in the manager-employee
relationship (Sewell & Taskin, 2015). In remote and hybrid environments, physical distance and
the consequent lack of social cues restrict the strength of interpersonal connections, making
establishing trust much more challenging (Norman et al., 2020). Given that communication,
transparency, and honesty are antecedents of trust (Norman et al., 2020), the lack of in-person
contact requires managers to increase transparency efforts and the frequency and clarity of their
communications (Nyberg et al., 2021; Turesky et al., 2020). Grant et al. (2013) suggested the
implementation of structured communications to ensure the ongoing monitoring of employees’
workload, well-being, and performance. Nyberg et al. (2021) also underscored the power of
actively listening to employees as means to oversee employees’ physical and psychological
health. Nonetheless, Varma et al. (2022) speculated that managerial trust in remote environments
could take longer and perhaps never reach a traditional office setting level.
Managerial practices have a direct impact on employee outcomes. Employees display
higher performance when they trust their managers (Grant et al., 2013; Norman et al., 2020).
Positive managerial interactions also increase employee psychological safety (Frazier et al.,
2017) and predict both team performance and high-quality interpersonal relationships in virtual
environments (Zhang et al., 2021). In a survey study of 810 information technology employees
38

who were members of virtual teams, Chaudhary et al. (2022) showed that leaders and managers’
effective communication skills positively impacted employees’ well-being. Chambel et al.
(2022) indicated that remote employees who perceived their managers as supportive of their
efforts to reconcile professional and personal demands expressed a higher sense of well-being,
which translated into increased engagement. Other employee outcomes associated with
managerial practices speak to employees’ motivational factors.
Self-determination theory research has argued that the job of managers is not to control
employees’ behaviors but to foster motivation by meeting employees’ basic psychological needs.
Orsini and Rodrigues (2020) stated that managers could support autonomy by allowing
employees to choose how to accomplish their tasks, competence by managing employees’
workload and providing clear expectations and feedback, and relatedness by encouraging
meaningful and frequent interactions. Evidence from three separate studies on managers’
interpersonal styles demonstrated that basic psychological needs indifferent, supportive, and
thwarting behaviors influenced employees’ psychological functioning (Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et
al., 2022). That is, per Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al., managerial need-thwarting behaviors
anticipated lower need satisfaction, leading to greater emotional exhaustion and boredom and
decreased engagement, while need-supportive behaviors had the opposite effect on all three
outcomes. This study stressed how certain need-thwarting behaviors may lead to positive
outcomes (i.e., higher engagement) if employees seek social support from other sources as a
coping strategy (Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al., 2022). The authors also indicated managers’
indifference was the most detrimental to employees’ well-being since managerial neglect created
an atmosphere of ambiguity and uncertainty. Uncertainty in the workplace may compromise
39

employees’ level of organizational identification (Lian et al., 2022) and promote job insecurity
(Mehta, 2022), negatively impacting employees’ attitudes and performance.
A New Employee Mindset
Feelings of uncertainty have permeated the workplace since the start of the pandemic,
leading many employees to reassess their personal and professional priorities. Along with this
reassessment was the emergence of a new employee mindset, exemplified by phenomena such as
the great resignation and quiet quitting, both workplace engagement issues rooted in employee
discontent (Formica & Sfodera, 2022). The great resignation was a voluntary resignation
movement that labor market circumstances could not explain (Gittleman, 2022). In the United
States, it constituted a rise in job quit rates from 2.5% in March 2021 to a record 3% in
December 2021, resulting in considerable knowledge and productivity loss for many
organizations (Serenko, 2022). Since then, there has been no consensus over whether the great
resignation was temporary (Formica & Sfodera, 2022). By the third quarter of 2022, the quit rate
remained high at 2.7%, which translated into about 4.1 million employees resigning in
September 2022 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022c). The top motives driving employee
resignations include an unhealthy organizational culture, job insecurity, workload, and lack of
performance recognition, among others (Sull et al., 2022). In sum, employees report feeling
disrespected, unappreciated, and overworked (Sull et al., 2022). The drivers of quiet quitting are
similar to those of resignations (Klotz & Bolino, 2022).
Quiet quitting describes an employee attitude of disengagement displayed as restricting
daily activity to minimal and mandatory responsibilities (Formica & Sfodera, 2022) as a way to
set healthier boundaries at work (Telford, 2022). Younger generations, in particular, have
promoted this attitude as a renunciation of additional responsibilities to free physical and
40

psychological resources for the pursuit of personal interests (Ellis & Yang, 2022).
Approximately half of U.S. employees operate with a quiet quitting mentality (Harter, 2022b),
which is particularly problematic under work circumstances that require greater collaboration
and communication, such as remote and hybrid conditions. This phenomenon has significantly
impacted the U.S. economy, as nonfarm labor productivity decreased 7.3% in the first quarter of
2022, the worst decline in employee output since 1947 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022d).
The unwillingness to perform beyond minimal expectations has also impacted organizations’
ability to maintain a competitive advantage (Klotz & Bolino, 2022).
As stated in the 2022 Work Trend Index Annual Report by Microsoft (2022), 52% of Gen
Z and Millennials were likely to contemplate changing jobs in 2022. The report also revealed
that 47% of employees were likely to prioritize family and personal responsibilities over their
careers after the pandemic, and 53% were more prone to prioritize health and well-being
outcomes (Microsoft, 2022). Within this new mindset, professional life is no longer a significant
part of an employee’s overall sense of identity (Ellis & Yang, 2022). In addition to prioritizing
wellness, many employees now report valuing a positive organizational culture, flexibility, better
benefits, supportive managers that provide feedback and recognition, and having a sense of
purpose and meaning in their work (Microsoft, 2022).
As the nature of work has changed and employees’ expectations have shifted, scholars
have become more interested in the meaning of work (Pignault & Houssemand, 2021). The topic
of meaningful work has become even more relevant within the context of a future workforce as
Gen Z employees consider work-life balance and meaningful work key components of their
professional lives (Schroth, 2019). Since meaningful work positively correlates with employee
well-being (Gur et al., 2022), engagement, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and
41

lower turnover intentions (Allan et al., 2019), it can be an impactful element in novel retention
and engagement organizational practices. Self-determination theory-based research has shown
that basic psychological need satisfaction is a predictor of meaningful work, suggesting that
organizations can provide employees with an experience of meaningfulness by satisfying their
needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Martela & Riekki, 2018). In addition to
offering meaningful work, organizations committed to solving engagement issues must address
additional drivers of resignations and disengagement by promoting job crafting, psychological
safety (Klotz & Bolino, 2022), flexible work arrangements, connectedness (Sull et al., 2022), and
supportive managerial practices (Clifton, 2023; Harter, 2022b). As Clifton (2023) posited, the
workplace environment makes employees unhappy rather than the nature of the work itself.
Conclusion
The workplace landscape has changed significantly since the onset of the COVID-19
pandemic. A few changes have withstood the test of time and appear to be permanent, such as
the increased presence of remote and hybrid working conditions, virtual interactions, and new
employee expectations around job responsibilities, circumstances, purpose, and meaning. The
literature reveals how these changes have added complexity to existing low employee
engagement concerns and highlights the need for novel solutions that can attend to current
workplace demands. Notably, workplace research based on self-determination theory principles
demonstrates how the satisfaction of employees’ basic psychological needs for autonomy,
competence, and relatedness may be a universal approach to addressing engagement issues. The
following chapter details the research methodology applied to examine employees’ basic
psychological need satisfaction in a post-COVID-19 pandemic work context and its influence on
engagement.
42

Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter provides an overview of the research methodology of the study. This field
study uses a qualitative methodology grounded in a self-determination theory framework to
address its central questions. Creswell and Creswell (2018) define qualitative research as a
method for exploring and understanding the meaning people assign to a social or human issue.
Rooted in constructionism, symbolic interactionism, and phenomenology, qualitative inquiry is a
process in which data collection generates novel concepts, hypotheses, and theories (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The approach is appropriate when a need for new knowledge or insights about an
existing phenomenon exists (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In a qualitative methodology, the
researcher concentrates on understanding the phenomenon in question from the participants’
perspectives by studying and interpreting the meaning that participants attribute to it (Aspers &
Corte, 2019). By focusing on individual perspectives and seeking a new understanding of a
particular context, a qualitative methodology allows for the examination of how employees
perceive the satisfaction of their basic psychological needs within a post-pandemic work
environment and its influence on their levels of engagement. This chapter provides an overview
of the researcher, study sample and population, instrumentation, data collection methods and
procedures, and data analysis plan. It also outlines ethical considerations and strategies to ensure
the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings.
Research Questions
To examine how employees’ basic psychological needs are satisfied within post-COVID-
19 pandemic work contexts characterized by remote and hybrid working conditions, virtual
relationships, and a new employee mindset, the following research questions guide the study:
43

1. How do employees describe their experiences of basic psychological need satisfaction
in a remote or hybrid work environment following the COVID-19 pandemic?
2. How does the satisfaction of employees' basic psychological needs influence
employee engagement in a remote or hybrid work environment following the
COVID-19 pandemic?
The Researcher
In qualitative research, the interactions between researcher and participant are significant
due to the researcher's active role as a data collector. In addition, given that the researcher’s
identity informs the entire research process, it is essential to make explicit the researcher's
background, beliefs, and attitudes, as well as to employ measures to mitigate any biases and
assumptions (Bukamal, 2022). The term positionality refers to the researcher’s biographical
elements and their inevitable impact on the conceptualization and execution of a research study
(Bukamal, 2022). My positionality directly inspired me to study the psychological drivers of
employee engagement, particularly in sectors where the extensive implementation of remote and
hybrid work arrangements has reshaped workplace dynamics.
I am a clinical research professional with 2 decades of experience within the
biotechnology sector, a high-skilled industry redefined by the COVID-19 pandemic. The
COVID-19 pandemic transformed my work environment and relationships. At the onset of the
pandemic, I transitioned from a hybrid setting to working remotely and have since become a full-
time remote employee. Per Mercer (2021), 87% of life sciences companies that implemented
remote work during the pandemic plan to offer hybrid work arrangements indefinitely. Thus, the
matter addressed by this study will likely continue to impact my professional life. I am also a
volunteer licensed psychotherapist in California, and my knowledge of human behavior has
44

shaped how I perceive the workplace. As a psychotherapist, I am proficient in listening,
observing, and thinking critically about human experiences. I am also naturally inclined to care
about the physical and mental wellness of others. At work, I have witnessed and experienced the
importance of basic psychological need satisfaction for employee motivation and engagement,
and I believe I have a responsibility as a leader to build a work environment that prioritizes
employees’ well-being.
Furthermore, I am a member of a non-profit organization called The Center for Self-
Determination Theory; thus, I am a proponent of its concepts. Lastly, my intersectionality as a
female leader who is a Latina immigrant leads me to examine employee engagement through a
multi-faceted lens that accounts for the implications of holding multiple minority identities. To
counter possible biases and interpretations, the design of the interview protocol incorporated a
peer review of all interview questions. Peers also participated in pilot interviews that enabled the
refinement and optimization of the protocol. To further limit the influence of my positionality, I
practiced self and interpersonal reflection throughout the research process, and each participant
had the opportunity to review and verify the truthfulness of their transcribed data.
Sample and Population
Sample selection for this study was nonrandom and purposeful. Purposeful sampling in
qualitative research involves selecting participants that can best provide information relevant to
the research problem (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Consequently, study participants included
individual contributors of any age, race or ethnicity who transitioned to a remote or hybrid
setting since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic or whose flexible work arrangements
provided more opportunities to work remotely post-pandemic. Individual contributors are
employees who do not have any direct reports and, therefore, do not have people management
45

responsibilities (Marenus et al., 2022). The sample criteria for this field study also required
participants to work in the information or professional and business services sectors, as defined
by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The information sector includes organizations that
produce and disseminate information products, offer means to distribute data or communications,
and conduct information processing (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022a). The professional
and business services sector includes, among others, organizations involved in professional,
technical, and scientific activities for others, such as legal, accounting, consulting, engineering,
and scientific research and development activities (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022b).
About 68% of employees in the information sector and 46% in professional and business
services reported working remotely at some capacity due to the pandemic (Dalton & Groen,
2022), which made this population suitable for the study.
Participant recruitment methods included weekly advertisements on LinkedIn, a
professional networking website, and leveraging the researcher’s professional relationships for
direct participant referrals. Advertisements consisted of a flyer that contained a link to an
eligibility survey (Appendix A). The eligibility survey was administered via Qualtrics, an online
survey platform from January through February 2023. The survey was closed upon completion
of recruitment. Potential participants identified through direct referrals received the eligibility
survey link as part of a recruitment email (Appendix B). Data collected from potential
participants who did not meet the study’s eligibility criteria was deleted upon receipt. Once
selected, participants received an information sheet (Appendix C) outlining the study’s
parameters via email and replied to confirm their participation. At the conclusion of all
interviews, participants entered a drawing for a $250 Amazon electronic gift card. The raffle
46

drawing was conducted as planned, and the winner received a notification and the prize via
email.
Instrumentation
Qualitative research leverages the researcher as the main instrument of data collection
and analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) through observations, interviews, and analysis of
documents, audio, and visual materials (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The data collection process
for this study consisted of individual interviews. Per Patton (2002), qualitative interviewing
gathers information about what we cannot observe, such as purpose, feelings, and thoughts. As
such, it is the appropriate method to answer the study’s research questions. In alignment with a
conceptual framework based on self-determination theory, interviews inquired about employees’
current mindset regarding work, their experiences of autonomy, competence, and relatedness
within their work context, and how these experiences influenced their levels of engagement.
The interview protocol (Appendix D) guided all interviews by combining structured
questions with subsequent structured and unstructured probes. As Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
argued, the use of a semi-structured protocol and open-ended questions allowed participants to
express their beliefs and feelings freely and created opportunities for clarification of responses.
Each interview started with an introduction to the study and a review of the study’s information
sheet (Appendix C). The participants then answered 12 semi-structured questions and related
prompts intended to elicit their feelings, opinions, and perspectives. Interviews ended with an
expression of gratitude for participation, an opportunity for participants to ask questions, an offer
to review their respective interview transcripts, and a request for additional engagement in case
post-interview clarifications were necessary. Interview findings addressed the research questions
47

and advanced understanding of employee engagement within a post-COVID-19 pandemic work
context.
Data Collection
Interviews occurred via Zoom, a videoconference platform, from January through March
2023. This data collection period included 17 individual interviews. Each interview occurred in a
private setting to ensure confidentiality, started once participants consented to being video and
audio recorded, and lasted between 45-60 minutes. Data was video recorded using the recording
feature of Zoom. The videoconference tool also generated all interview transcripts. Moreover, an
audio recorder and field notes captured detailed records to mitigate internet connection issues. In
addition to documenting participants’ perspectives, the field notes included reflective thoughts
and observational data about each interview. Terminology underwent verification throughout all
interviews to ensure a common understanding of key concepts.
Transcripts were assessed for accuracy within 24 hours upon the conclusion of each
interview. In addition, participants had an opportunity to review their individual transcripts to
enable the credibility of the study’s findings. Three participants expressed interest in examining
their transcripts, which they received via email within 24 hours post their videoconference
meetings. None of the participants provided feedback or revisions. Additional interactions with
participants for clarifications or further inquiries were unwarranted. The data collected for this
study was stored in a password-protected computer and will be destroyed 3 years after the
completion of the study. A formal data analysis process commenced following the conclusion of
all interviews and transcript reviews.
48

Data Analysis
Qualitative data analysis is an inductive and comparative process that leads to identifying
themes and patterns in the data in an effort to answer the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). As part of this process, the organization, consolidation, and interpretation of transcribed
interviews generated understanding and insights that became the study's findings. NVivo, a
qualitative data analysis computer software aided the organization and coding of the data
according to emergent themes. Organizing the data consisted of reading all interview transcripts,
respective observational, and reflective notes to conduct a preliminary assessment of possible
themes. Next, coding took place in alignment with the study purpose, conceptual framework, and
literature review. Coding consists of labeling areas of meaning in the data to make it readily
accessible and retrievable during the analysis process (Linneberg & Korsgaard, 2019). A hybrid
approach comprised of a priori and posteriori coding ensured alignment with the study’s
theoretical framework and facilitated the emergence of themes derived from the examination of
the transcripts. Thus, coding was deductive, inductive, and iterative, allowing for flexibility in
meaning-making as the analysis proceeded. In accordance with recommendations made by
Linneberg and Korsgaard (2019), the coding process corroborated the coherence between the
study objectives and findings and functioned as a tool for a confirmatory bias assessment. After
completing the coding process, the subsequent step involved utilizing a word processor and a
spreadsheet software to conduct a thematic analysis and interpret the data, resulting in the study's
findings.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
To ensure high quality in the execution and reporting of qualitative research, strategies to
ensure credibility and trustworthiness must be in place. Credibility refers to how valid and
49

credible data and research findings are (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Trustworthiness conveys a
level of rigor in the research process that involves not only credibility but also the ability to show
that the data represents participants’ responses in an authentic manner and that findings may be
applicable to other contexts and replicated under similar circumstances (Cope, 2014).
Various strategies were part of the research process to safeguard credibility and
trustworthiness. The study intended to interview 12–15 participants; however, successful
recruitment efforts resulted in the participation of 17 individuals who willingly shared their
personal thoughts and experiences regarding work engagement. Pilot interviews with peers
mitigated the risk of leading questions and biased language in the interview protocol. In addition,
interviews allowed adequate time for building trust and rapport with participants before data
collection began, the researcher practiced positionality awareness throughout all interactions, and
paraphrased participants’ statement regularly to confirm understanding of responses. Participants
had the opportunity to review the accuracy of their transcripts and provide corrections when
applicable. At last, the use of detailed descriptions to convey the study’s findings mitigated
potential credibility and trustworthiness concerns.
Ethics
The conduct of this study was approved by the University of Southern California
institutional review board (IRB). Per the IRB, this study qualified as exempt research; thus, a
signed informed consent form was not a requirement. Instead, participants received an
information sheet (Appendix C) via email upon confirming their interest in partaking in the
study. This information sheet was also reviewed at the beginning of each interview before data
collection began. The information sheet described the study purpose, interview procedures,
confidentiality terms, compensation for participation, and informed participants that their
50

participation was voluntary, which included the option to withdraw at any time and refrain from
answering any questions. Participants also verbally consented to the recording and transcription
of interviews before the start of data collection and had an opportunity to ask questions
throughout the entire interview experience. To ensure participant anonymity, recordings and
transcripts were numerically categorized and stored on a password-protected server.
Summary
This chapter presented the study methodology, detailing the nature of the study
population, the data collection procedures, and the data analysis tactics used to address the
research questions. It examined the researcher’s background and positionality, highlighting the
potential influence these factors might exert on the course of the research, and presented
strategies to mitigate potential biases. Furthermore, the chapter underscored the credibility and
trustworthiness of the study through crafted measures, noting the approval granted by the
University of Southern California IRB and the study’s diligent adherence to ethical
considerations. The following chapter outlines the study’s findings.

51

Chapter Four: Findings
The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a substantial transformation in work dynamics by
leading to the extensive integration of remote and hybrid workplace configurations. These new
circumstances have persisted, challenging conventional notions of employee engagement and
prompting a further examination of the topic. In alignment with a self-determination theory
framework, which highlights how work conditions and managerial practices influence
employees’ experiences of motivation, this phenomenological qualitative study examined the
satisfaction of employees’ basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness
in remote and hybrid post-pandemic work environments and its ensuing influence on employee
engagement. The study addressed the following questions:
1. How do employees describe their experiences of basic psychological need satisfaction
in a remote or hybrid work environment following the COVID-19 pandemic?
2. How does the satisfaction of employees’ basic psychological needs influence
employee engagement in a remote or hybrid work environment following the
COVID-19 pandemic?
This chapter describes the study participants, reports the findings for research questions 1 and 2,
and concludes with a summary.
Participants
Study participants were employees of different ages, races, and ethnicities purposefully
sampled through referrals from the researcher’s professional network. All participants remained
fully attentive and involved throughout their interviews and demonstrated high responsiveness
toward the study’s inquiry framework. One participant provided additional reflective thoughts
and recommendations regarding the research questions via email following their interview. This
52

additional information was deemed valuable to the study’s findings and incorporated into the
data analysis. Participants’ identifiable information remained private through pseudonyms and
obscuring any other identifying information, thus ensuring their confidentiality. Certain portions
of the participants’ quotes underwent condensation or omission to achieve brevity and clarity.
Nonetheless, the study’s results preserved each remark’s original intent and meaning,
safeguarding the accurate representation of the participants’ voices and experiences.
Table 1 summarizes the interview participants’ self-identified demographic information
and current work arrangement status. Since millennial and Gen Z generation employees reported
the lowest levels of engagement in the first quarter of 2022 (Ellis & Yang, 2022), the study’s
categorization of age groups was based on generational cohorts. To maximize the gathering of
information relevant to the study’s research questions, all 17 participants either shifted to a
remote or hybrid work arrangement or had opportunities to expand their flexible work
agreements due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Table 1 describes their existing work arrangements.
Participants who stated they worked remotely but had the option of going into the office
when desired were classified as remote workers. Furthermore, in alignment with the U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics data (Dalton & Groen, 2022) regarding sectors that heavily implemented
remote and hybrid work during the pandemic, the eligibility criteria for the study required
employment in the information or professional and business services sectors. A significant
proportion of participants identified as female (71%), possessed either a master’s or doctorate
degree (71%), and reported an annual income of over $150,000 (94%). The majority also
identified as White (59%) and belonged to Generation X (76%). The sample used in the study
included three individuals (18%) from the millennial generation and did not include any Gen Z
participants.
53

Table 1
Interview Participants’ Self-Identified Demographic Data
Pseudonym Generation Gender Race/ethnicity Education Income
Work
arrangement
Maia X Female White Master’s
degree
>$200K Remote
Benjamin Millennial Male White Master’s
degree
>$200K Hybrid
Olivia X Female White Master’s
degree
>$200K Remote
Ava X Female White Master’s
degree
<$99k Hybrid
David Baby
Boomer
Male White Bachelor’s
degree
>$200K Remote
Liam X Male White Doctorate
degree
>$200K Remote
Sophia Millennial Female Asian, White,
Mixed race
Doctorate
degree
>$200K Hybrid
Jacob X Male White Master’s
degree
>$200K Remote
Chloe Millennial Female Asian, White,
Native American
Mixed race
Master’s
degree
$150k–
$200K
Hybrid
Isabel X Female Hispanic/Latinx Bachelor’s
degree
$150k–
$200K
Remote
Ruth X Female White Master’s
degree
>$200K Remote
Debra X Female Pacific Islander Doctorate
degree
>$200K Hybrid
Ethan X Male Prefer not to
answer
Bachelor’s
degree
>$200K Hybrid
Nora X Female White Doctorate
degree
$150k–
$200K
Hybrid
Harper X Female Other Bachelor’s
degree
$150k–
$200K
Remote
Raya X Female Other Bachelor’s
degree
>$200K Remote
Demi X Female White Doctorate
degree
$150k–
$200K
Hybrid

54

Results for Question 1
As organizations seek to understand the challenges associated with fostering employee
engagement in remote and hybrid environments, it is essential to understand the mechanisms
through which basic psychological needs are met in these settings. Through participants’
narratives, research question one sought to uncover how the satisfaction of their needs for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness manifested in the workplace. Participants consistently
alluded to professional and personal circumstances, individual traits, and preferences that
touched on the three basic psychological needs, thus generating three overarching themes:
autonomy, competence, and relatedness. In the course of the analysis, subthemes emerged from
each theme, resulting in a more comprehensive depiction of participants’ self-reported subjective
experiences.
Autonomy
To satisfy employees’ basic psychological need for autonomy, organizations must grant
employees ownership over their responsibilities, including the freedom to demonstrate initiative
and choose how they accomplish their tasks. Sixteen out of the 17 participants (94%) expressed
enjoying high levels of autonomy at work. Liam described how his company trusts him to
manage his role independently. In his words, “I have a lot of responsibility, but I have a lot of
autonomy. ... In the day-to-day of what I’m doing on the ground, [the company] expects me to
own it.” Similarly, Isabel stated, “When you talk to managers today, they’re like, I don’t care
what you do as long as you get your job done and meet your deadlines.” David conveyed a
similar sentiment, “I have significant freedom, and that’s how I work best.”
Eight of the 16 (50%) participants who reported having significant control over their
work processes attributed their autonomy to the nature of their work. When prompted to expand
55

on her initial statement of having “complete freedom” to do her job, Raya explained, “Because I
lead my own projects … I have complete freedom regarding when I work.” Echoing Raya’s
reflection regarding a sense of task ownership, Benjamin explained, “I’m in a position where I’m
allowed a lot of autonomy. ... Maybe if I [were] an engineer or something like that, it would be
different, but as a program manager, I am allowed to run my programs.” Debra presented a
similar perspective, “I think we do have more flexibility working from home, and I think the
nature of my work lends itself to that.” Sophia, the only participant who reported having limited
autonomy, supported her perception by also referencing her role, “I have pretty minimal freedom
on the scale, just because I see myself more as a worker bee right now.” When participants
elaborated further on their experiences of autonomy, three subthemes emerged: choice and
flexibility, work-life balance, and lack of boundaries. While there is an intersection between
these three subthemes, separating them permits a more precise examination of each area,
enabling a better understanding of how participants navigate their personal journeys in the face
of different situational demands.
Choice and Flexibility
For greater clarity and depth of data analysis, the study conceptualizes the theme of
choice and flexibility as solely concerned with participants’ ability to choose how to act from a
range of possibilities and adjust plans or behaviors in response to individual needs or shifting
conditions. Employees are more likely to feel autonomous when they have more choice and
flexibility to make decisions and act in alignment with their values and intrinsic motivations.
Eleven out of 17 (65%) participants conveyed appreciation for the freedom to shape their work
schedule and tasks when asked to elaborate on how they experienced autonomy satisfaction.
Table 2 presents quotes from nine of these participants.
56

Table 2
Participants’ Quotes: Choice and Flexibility
Participant Participant quote
Benjamin
I like going in, but I don’t think I want to go in every
day again, so I do like the flexibility of working from
home, and I feel more productive.
Ethan
The employer understands my work and family
obligations, and as it relates to freedom and
flexibility, there aren’t stringent times that are placed
on doing things.
Maia
Many times, when working with Europe, I can push
emails late at night, and they see them early in the
morning. This flexibility enables me to be more
productive.
Jacob
I have a lot of freedom in how I get my job done. …
when I need to [attend to a personal commitment], I
do it, and then I come back to work; without that
flexibility, I, 100%, could not be successful.
Chloe
My company does a thing where you can opt to do
onsite completely, or partial co-location, … problem-
solving meetings or introductions I like to have in
person, but then a lot of it, I can do virtually.
Ruth
You’re not committed to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., you know?
Just get your stuff done.
Harper
I’m totally empowered to choose how to do my
job…So, for the most part, I can block my time, and
as long as I’m aligning with [my boss] to help her
deliver, we’re good.
Demi
I actually feel like I have a pretty high degree of
autonomy…But that might be because what I choose
for myself aligns mostly with the expectations of the
office.
Ava
There are certain things I have to cover … I don’t have
freedom within those chunks of time, but I do have
freedom outside those chunks of time.

57

More than half of the interview participants (65%) also emphasized the intrinsic value of
choice and flexibility through narratives centered around a lack of wardrobe requirements or
commuting time, both of which enhanced their sense of control over the work environment,
resulting in greater productivity and job satisfaction. For instance, Ava emphatically noted, “Can
I just say, if I have to put on hard pants and leave the house, it’s gotta be for a good reason. …
And if you’re gonna make me dress up, seriously, I’m gonna resent it!” In response to an inquiry
regarding other examples of choice in the work environment, Olivia said, “I’m still in my pajama
bottoms. Nobody cares. … somebody researched how being in pajamas, you’re more likely to be
productive in some cases. So, all of us wear pajama bottoms now; it’s just a riot!”
For Sophia, the absence of a commute was one of the most significant advantages of
working from home. She noted, “I think for me the big benefit of work from home is, one:
efficiency, in a way that I don’t have to waste time commuting to places. I’m really big into
efficiency.” Also, reflecting on the impact of his work arrangement shift, David said:
By eliminating my commute, I was able to spend more time working but devote fewer
hours of the day to working. ... I can spend more hours per day actually producing for my
employer, but I have a home life again, Monday to Friday, and I just love it.
In alignment with previous remarks, Harper added, “It’s a big plus not having to
commute. I actually can do more things with my daughter and family … and I can usually cram
more of my deliverables in a shorter amount of time.” In addition to referencing productivity,
Harper’s statement brought to the forefront an additional facet associated with autonomy
satisfaction: the ability to balance different aspects of life with professional obligations.
58

Work-Life Balance
Work-life balance involves making choices and decisions pertaining to harmonizing work
and personal responsibilities. Organizations that promote work-life balance embrace policies that
empower employees to attend to needs distinct from work. Fifteen out of 17 participants (88%)
expressed appreciation for the opportunities to spend more time on personal tasks and with
family during work hours. They valued the ability to integrate work and personal life more
seamlessly. Participants who were parents were particularly passionate about the topic of work-
life balance. Harper highlighted how working from home provided the convenience of handling
personal obligations without sacrificing work efficiency, asserting, “I think it affords a better
work-life balance. … I can still meet all my deliverables and make time for things to do with my
daughter or family.” As a single parent of four children, Jacob reported that he had “to do the
parent stuff” during office hours, noting, “I gotta take the kids to school, pick the kids up. I gotta
make the kids meals, so I basically have to have flexibility in my day, or I cannot be a successful
employee.” For Olivia, the ability to prioritize her child’s well-being represented a positive
paradigm change in her professional outlook. She revealed, “Remote [work] has been amazing.
… I have a child with special needs. … Work-life balance, as he was getting older, was getting
more and more important for me.”
Participants who were not parents stressed the benefits of integrating other personal
commitments into the workday. For example, Raya commented, “I can go do a load of laundry; I
can go grocery shopping. … So that flexibility is nice.” Sophia mentioned, “At home, I feel free
to quickly do some personal stuff. … I get to sleep as much as I want, get to take care of my dog.
… So, yeah, I love it.” Consistent with Sophia’s message, Benjamin added, “I can steal away and
grab lunch or manage to find the time in the day to get an errand done.” Despite appreciating the
59

flexibility to manage household tasks throughout the day, Benjamin stressed that working from
home also resulted in undesirable consequences. He remarked, “It can get a little bit like cabin
fever sometimes. … My wife was literally frustratingly putting food in front of me and [telling
me] you need to leave your computer.” His account conveyed that while remote work can
enhance work-life balance, it can simultaneously introduce challenges in delineating professional
and personal life boundaries.
Lack of Boundaries
The erosion of boundaries between work and personal commitments in remote and
flexible work settings may result in continuous availability, extended hours, and feelings of
burnout. When prompted to discuss the drawbacks inherent in their work environment, most
participants (65%) voiced concerns regarding the blurred lines between their professional and
private worlds. They spoke of how being surrounded by work at home created the “pressure to
be ‘on’ all the time,” as Sophia explained. Nora recalled that due to the pandemic, “here was this
extraordinary hyper responsiveness where people [were] emailing at two o’clock in the morning
all the time.” Expressing frustration, Debra protested, “I can’t turn off work as easily because
everyone else keeps working past normal business hours.” As Ethan described, “You are remote,
and you’re away from the work, but you’re closer to the work just because messages are just so
much more accessible.”
Disconnecting from work has carried an emotional and physical toll on some participants.
As Raya articulated, “I’m attached to my chair. I actually have to go to massage twice a week
because I’m constantly working. … So, setting boundaries has been a learning experience.”
Similarly, Demi expressed, “At the office, I had separated myself from most of the requirements
of my personal life and was able to have a clear head and think like an employee. … At home, I
60

don’t have that same switch.” Isabel’s inability to disconnect from work resulted in exhaustion.
She described experiencing extended hours as a “really bad routine” that eventually led her to
quit a previous job. As she put it, “I had to stop working earlier to attend to [my son] … and then
I would go back to work late. It was a really bad habit. … I did that for 8 months, and I was
burned out.” The shared elements of these participants’ experiences underlined the complexities
of remote work, accentuating the demand for deliberate efforts at the individual and
organizational levels to establish and maintain work-life boundaries.
Competence
Competence satisfaction refers to an intrinsic fulfillment that comes from feeling
effective and proficient. Employees experience competence satisfaction when they believe they
possess the necessary skills to be successful at work. The participants’ perspectives collectively
unveiled a shared sense of confidence in their abilities. In addition, some participants expressed
an understanding of their strengths, weaknesses, and development areas. Thirteen participants
(76%) articulated a strong sense of self-perceived competence and proficiency in their work. As
Nora described it, “I am very proficient. I’m good at what I do. I don’t feel that I’m lacking any
particular skill set at all.” When asked to elaborate further on a similar portrayal of self-
assuredness, Liam reported, “My performance this year was pretty stellar. ... [My company] tries
to hire people who are already proficient in the job they’re hiring into.”
A few participants linked their positive competence self-appraisal to being seasoned
professionals. For example, Jacob reported having a strong sense of proficiency because, in his
words, “I happen to be in a role that I’m very comfortable doing.” Expressing a similar
perspective around familiarity with her work, Debra stated, “I’m pretty good at what I do. I’ve
been doing it a long time.” Ethan complemented, “My skill set is at a high level, and not to be
61

boastful about that, but it’s more from having worked in this industry since the 90s.” Irrespective
of reporting a feeling of mastery, Ethan added, “I have obviously always had plenty of
opportunities to learn more.” Likewise, Ava acknowledged that a strong sense of competence did
not imply the absence of capability gaps. She stated, “I feel very capable and proficient, but I’m
also at the point where I know enough to be aware of what I don’t know … I know where the
gaps are, and I know the kind of training I would need to get to that.” Ethan and Ava’s
statements underscored the importance of learning and development opportunities in fostering
competence. In fact, upon requesting participants to expand upon their experiences of
competence, an analysis of the data revealed the emergence of two distinct subthemes, the first
associated with opportunities for development, and the second, addressing the role of feedback
and recognition.
Opportunities for Growth
Organizations that provide continuous learning opportunities and empower employees to
embrace new responsibilities promote competence satisfaction. Every participant in the study
expressed high regard for these opportunities and the supportive work environments that offered
them, substantiating their perspectives with concrete examples. From David’s standpoint,
“Recently, my role in the company has changed, and I love to learn new things, so I find the
work that I do right now very satisfying.” Ava emphasized the role of institutional programs in
helping cultivate competence by sharing, “there [are] programs to help develop skill sets … and
the institution encourages people to do that.” Comparably, Sophia explained that her company
provides a structured career pathway that promotes upward mobility, which keeps her motivated
and engaged. She explained, “The second you feel comfortable with your role, they’ll promote
62

you, so that’s very fast progression.” Finally, Chloe noted, “I pick up new skills each project that
I work on.”
Furthermore, participants emphasized the importance of being proactive in pursuing
competence. Only one participant indicated a lack of interest in pursuing opportunities for
growth because she is approaching retirement. Others, like Benjamin, reported deliberately
seeking opportunities for growth. Per his account, he frequently signs up for challenging
assignments to push his limits and gain new experiences. He described, “I put myself in and
signed up for some really challenging assignments that pushed my limits in both my experience
and technical ability.” For Liam, navigating these opportunities and benefiting from them
requires personal initiative. “[My company] will enable me with the resources to allow [growth
opportunities] to happen. But I have to navigate it … I have to put all the parts together in order
to make that path successful,” he shared. Ethan, who also believes that there are abundant
opportunities for learning and growth in his current role, expressed, “Ultimately, it is a decision
of the individual whether you want to pursue those opportunities, and I feel within the space that
I have the full latitude to [do that].”
Regardless of acknowledging the presence of prospects for growth, almost half of the
participants (47%) commented on how being remote impacted their ability to take full advantage
of these opportunities. Jacob recounted the challenges related to finding remote mentors or
guidance. For him, “It’s difficult to have someone who can guide you remotely. You are on an
island, and to a certain extent, you have to learn to [find] that.” Nora believed that, as a remote
worker, she is less likely to consider growth opportunities compared to being in the office.
Through her lens, “If you’re in the office and you interact with more people who are doing
different things, you’re more apt to think, well, maybe I would go for that.” Also impacting
63

development opportunities for remote and hybrid employees is a lack of visibility. As Benjamin
argued, “I do wonder if there could be a bias to people who are in the office for advancement and
learning. … There is just so much more collaboration when you’re in the office.” Harper agreed,
“I’m not trying to get to the C-Suite, but I am aware that if you want to climb the ladder, it’s
better that you report into the physical office rather than be a virtual employee.”
Despite variations in perspectives and experiences, participants’ narratives highlighted
the proactive pursuit of professional growth to satisfy the need for competence and cautioned
against potential barriers to career development in a remote setting. Moreover, their accounts
introduced the crucial role of supportive environments in facilitating this pursuit. A vital
component of a supportive organizational environment is receiving performance-related
feedback and recognition.
Feedback and Recognition
Feedback promotes competence satisfaction by providing employees with the
information necessary to identify and address learning and development gaps. In a mutually
supportive way, recognition affirms employees’ sense of competence by validating their abilities
and accomplishments. Eleven participants (65%) mentioned feedback and recognition when
asked to elaborate on opportunities to leverage or build their skills. Two of these 11 participants
expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of recognition and meaningful feedback in their
organizations. According to Ava, “Part of why I delight in being able to mentor people formally
and informally now is because, except for that one person who had been my friend and
supervisor. … I got no formal mentoring of any kind.” While speaking of what his company
could do to improve employee engagement, David added, “Just acknowledge people. You know,
the value of people.”
64

In contrast, nine participants expressed gratitude for working within a supportive
organizational culture. They emphasized how receiving recognition, feedback, and support from
colleagues and superiors enhanced their sense of competence. For instance, Ruth voiced feeling
comfortable seeking help and guidance when needed. She recounted, “Sometimes, I’ll struggle
with something, but I can call my manager and say … I’m struggling with this, and that is the
time that person steps in and says, ‘well, let’s look at this together.’” Maia also valued the fact
that she can learn from her colleagues, noting, “I don’t have [a] development plan you’ll have in
Fortune 500 corporations, but still, I have the opportunity to learn and ask questions and track for
a variety of individuals who can provide feedback.” Isabel directly linked her self-perception of
competence to her desire to seek feedback proactively. She noted, “I am very proficient ... I’m
also someone who is always asking for more. … When my former supervisor was leaving, I
asked her for feedback, I asked her, how can I get more feedback from leadership?”
Speaking of the impact of recognition on her sense of competence, Harper joyfully
described feeling appreciated, declaring, “I’m loving it because I get the ‘excellence rewards’
and that makes me feel good when colleagues take the time to show appreciation. ... So, well,
hey … I’m doing something good.” Presenting a related but somber perspective, Demi shared
that, in her experience, a fully remote environment invariably lessened the opportunities to
receive feedback and acknowledgment. When discussing transitioning from a fully remote
setting during the pandemic to her current hybrid arrangement, she voiced, “Although we
communicate over email and chat ... I do think our emotional connections suffered a little bit
when we could not pop down the hall and ask a question or express frustration or seek help. I did
feel isolated.” Demi’s innate need for connection exposes this study’s third macro theme:
relatedness.
65

Relatedness
Relatedness satisfaction in the workplace transpires when employees have opportunities
to collaborate, build social connections, and nurture meaningful relationships, all of which
promote a sense of belonging. All participants reported varying degrees of relatedness
satisfaction in their current work environments. Several factors influenced participants’ level of
relatedness, including organizational culture, the nature of their work, the quality of their
relationships, and the absence of continual in-person contact. The majority (59%) voiced
experiences of relatedness frustration, stressing a limited ability to build or sustain meaningful
social connections. Moreover, they identified a decreased sense of spontaneity in interpersonal
experiences and an increased sense of isolation as key hindrances to relatedness satisfaction
(Table 3).

Table 3
Participants’ Quotes: Relatedness Experiences
Participant Participant quotes
David
I’m very much disconnected. We’re a company of
about 1,000 people inside a company of 40,000. My
community these days consists of 3 or 4 people;
when I was in the office…[it] was a couple of
hundred.
Jacob
You don’t really make friends at work, whereas when
you’re in the office, you do, you make relationships,
and you make bonds.
Debra
I feel probably less (connected) than when working
from the office. There’s no spontaneity. … During
Covid, there was an initial effort to create [virtual]
spaces for connection …, and it totally fell flat. …
So, it was pretty quickly abandoned.
66

Participant Participant quotes
Isabel
What happens with Zoom calls is that you don’t talk
about anything else but work … before, you would
go to the office, and you’d be able to … [know] ‘it’s
your birthday.’ You don’t even know people’s
birthdays anymore!
Chloe
I don’t see a bunch of the same people remotely. So, I
don’t feel that connected unless you go to events
and stuff. But that’s different. That’s in person.
Demi
I certainly miss my colleagues. … These are good
people I enjoy working with. Taking that proximity
away did have an impact on our connectedness.

Conversely, two participants communicated how remote work has allowed them to
connect with others more authentically. From Olivia’s perspective, “We all know each other so
much better now.” She elaborated, “you can see my dog. You can see out the window
sometimes. … I feel like they (colleagues) feel more personal to me because I get insights to
their life too, and they get insights to my life.” Chloe also reported enjoying the opportunity to
“see people’s home life.” While speaking of one meaningful relationship she built remotely, she
noted, “So she knows my dogs, and she knows my partner, who’s been walking back and forth,
which is something that you might not get in person.” Notwithstanding the various accounts, as
participants responded to questions regarding their work relationships, the desire for regular
face-to-face interactions to foster connection and collaboration emerged as a subtheme, along
with the impact of managerial behaviors.
67

The Value of Face-to-Face Interactions
Fifteen participants (88%) highlighted the value of face-to-face interactions to foster
social connectedness. As Maia explained, the difference between remote and face-to-face
exchanges is being able to experience “the small talk interactions and not necessarily work-
related things.” Drawing from the same line of reasoning, Sophia remarked, “In some sense, it’s
easier to make cold connections [virtually], but I feel it’s just easier to make friends when you’re
in person because it allows for more spontaneous things to be said.” Chloe agreed, “I definitely
would connect with [others] more if I was in person.”
Further underlining the implications of in-person contact, Ethan articulated, “bringing in
colleagues in an in-person setting and really talking about shared experiences in some respects
makes the bonds grow even closer.” Demi emphatically complemented, “Going into the office
one day a week helps a lot! ... At least one day a week for me does establish that connection, and
that reassurance, oh … we can lean on each other in our jobs.” Isabel’s account further
reinforced this perspective as she vividly described the significant impact of her participation in
an in-person work summit:
I think we finally established a meaningful relationship after the summit that we had in
September. … and then we were able to nurture that relationship because we spent time
together in person. We went out for drinks, went out in group activities. I don’t think we
would have had a connection if it wasn’t for the summit.
Building upon the previous participants’ insights, Benjamin shared his view on
collaborative efforts. He pointed out, “It is really engaging to see people face-to-face and
actually interact with them during meetings, instead of sort of being on a Zoom where
everybody’s multitasking.” Expressing a similar preference, Chloe commented, “So, things like
68

problem-solving meetings or introductions, I like to have in person.” Liam added, “I feel like, if I
can speak to you face-to-face or in a workshop environment, we’re getting much more
accomplished than we are in a virtual world.” Later, while sharing his desire to have an in-person
team meeting, he noted, “If I could see those people, I think it just builds even more trust and
credibility within the project team itself.” Jacob agreed, “It’s easy to collaborate with a person
one-on-one, but it’s very difficult to collaborate with a group of people.” He elaborated by
stressing that “decision-making is hard,” mentioning, “if it’s a decision that I need someone else
to make, one of the very difficult things is, I can’t walk down to the office and say, ‘hey, respond
to my email.’”
Moreover, participants advocated for organizational efforts that enabled in-person
interactions. Harper proposed incorporating in-person team-building activities “maybe once a
quarter or twice a year.” Debra suggested that “all team members commit to a particular day in
the office.” Raya recalled telling her boss she wanted opportunities to “go to headquarters” to
“meet the people face-to-face” and establish “a first connection.” She argued, “Give the rest of
the company the opportunity to meet everyone like a step one ... that’s so important to make that
personal connection ... and then it’s easier to work and be engaged later on.” Raya’s statement
brings into focus the influential role that managers have in facilitating employees’ sense of
relatedness.
Managerial Relationships
Managers who are inclusive, empathetic, and attentive to employees’ needs create a
relatedness-supportive environment. Out of the 17 participants in the study, 13 (76%) reported
having supportive managers and maintaining positive relationships with them, despite the
predominance of virtual interactions. Participants’ accounts accentuated, in particular, how their
69

managers’ competence in building trust, encouraging open communication, demonstrating
emotional investment, and nurturing autonomy led to a sentiment of being valued and respected.
When asked about his experience reporting to someone remotely, Benjamin described how his
manager’s behavior fostered trust in their relationship, noting, “She has a pretty good respect for
my own autonomy, and she gives feedback when it’s needed, and she has an open door.” Like
Benjamin, Ava appreciated the hands-off approach of her current manager, inferring a preference
for trust in her professional abilities. She commented, “I do think my direct supervisor is
awesome. I mean, she’s mostly she’s hands-off.”
Reinforcing the influence of supportive managerial practices on relatedness, Isabel
recalled the tone her current manager established in their first meeting:
The first thing he said was, ‘Just so you know how I manage, your personal life and your
family always come first. If you need ever need anything, please tell me so I can support
you, so you can focus on your work,’ and just to set that as a tone was amazing. … That
makes a great relationship. I love my boss.
Adding nuance to the topic, Sophia described what made her relationship with one manager
meaningful. She noted, “he was really invested in checking up on me every two hours and would
hop on a quick Zoom if I had questions pretty quickly, so that’s why it was pretty impactful.”
Also acknowledging the positive impact of his manager’s communicative nature, David
revealed, “he’s a great communicator; even if there’s nothing to say, he will just make sure that
we touch base, that we have that connection, that we’re checking in.”
It is worth noting that none of the participants reported any current challenges or
concerns associated with reporting to a manager remotely. Instead, most participants indicated
their virtual relationships with their managers carried a foundation of strong rapport, genuine
70

care, mutual respect, and effective communication. As Nora put it, “Really, truly, I’m very close
with my immediate supervisor.”
Discussion for Research Question 1
Participants provided a rich and intricate depiction of the satisfaction of their basic
psychological needs in remote and hybrid work contexts. Most reported experiencing and
appreciating a high degree of autonomy. Findings indicated that participants believed having
flexibility and control over their work enabled them to manage professional responsibilities and
balance family obligations more effectively, thus enhancing their work-life balance and
productivity. Nonetheless, they acknowledged that the blurring of boundaries between work and
personal commitments negatively impacted their sense of autonomy and, at times, their impacted
physical and emotional health. The majority of participants expressed a great level of self-
perceived competence, which some attributed to their extensive experience in their respective
professions. They highlighted the significance of growth opportunities in enhancing their
competence. However, despite acknowledging the presence of such opportunities, they observed
that the remote work environment hindered their ability to fully leverage them. Participants also
cited feedback, recognition, and support from coworkers and managers as crucial factors in
validating their sense of competence, indicating that these factors significantly impacted their
professional satisfaction and motivation.
Finally, participants described mixed experiences of relatedness. Although many spoke of
the difficulties associated with building or maintaining meaningful social connections while
remote, nearly all stated they have supportive managers with whom they have strong bonds or
share mutual trust and respect. A diminished sense of spontaneity in interpersonal encounters and
a heightened sense of isolation contributed to relatedness challenges, resulting in a case for more
71

frequent face-to-face interactions. Also contributing to the argument for an increased number of
face-to-face social and work-related meetings was the participants’ reported association between
in-person exchanges and more effective communication and collaboration.
Results for Question 2
The study’s second research question examined how participants’ perceptions of basic
psychological need satisfaction influenced their level of engagement. Participants first revealed
their self-assessed degree of engagement. Out of the 17 participants in the study, seven (41%)
described a sentiment of being engaged, and five (29%) expressed feeling “very engaged.” In
Benjamin’s words, “I’m probably more engaged than the average person you might talk to.”
Four participants (24%) conveyed mixed or fluctuating levels of engagement, such as Chloe,
who shared, “I would say like on some days a 100%, and on other days it’s more like 50%.”
Overall, participants attributed high levels of engagement to flexibility and autonomy and
fluctuating self-perceptions to the nature of their work and challenges associated with working
from home. One participant (6%) shared, “I would not define myself as an engaged employee,”
which he attributed to not having “that [emphasis added] emotional attachment to the company.”
In addition to yielding distinct results pertaining to the influence of autonomy,
competence, and relatedness satisfaction on engagement, the study data unveiled four themes
linked to work environment elements and conditions that illustrate an interdependence among the
different basic psychological needs. These themes are organizational factors, individual factors,
reassessment of priorities and values, and return to the office resistance.
Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Engagement
All participants addressed how the satisfaction of their needs for autonomy, competence,
and relatedness influenced their level of engagement. They associated autonomy with
72

empowerment and ownership over their work and personal lives. In response to an inquiry
regarding how her sense of autonomy influenced her degree of engagement, Ava said, “My
ability to feel connected to my work and feel like I want to do well in it is directly related to the
amount of freedom I am given to work, where and when I want to work.” Sophia reported being
more engaged when working from home because she can “more deeply concentrate on the
work.” For Olivia, it is the opportunity to balance family demands that makes her feel “more
invested, blessed, lucky.” From Ethan’s perspective:
I’m always committed to the work, but I feel even more committed to the work because I
feel that I’ve got that latitude to be able to dictate the structure of my day. Provided that I
am productive, I’m responsive to client needs, I feel immensely better about the work that
I do, and I feel a greater sense of accomplishment because of that.
Participants also highlighted how a lack of autonomy may contribute to burnout and
disengagement. As Raya described, “Autonomy is very important to me. I hate being micro-
managed. If someone was looking over my shoulder, I couldn’t function.” In alignment with this
viewpoint, Isabel pointed out, “having autonomy is amazing because you don’t have anyone
(breathing) on your neck. … And that way, you’re present, you are excited.” The participants’
narratives suggested the autonomy they have under remote and hybrid work conditions
contributed to greater commitment and emotional investment in what they do.
Furthermore, all participants identified confidence and proficiency as pivotal to their
level of engagement. Jacob highlighted, “Having a job that you’re capable of doing is very
important remotely.” For Ava, engagement was directly tied to her perceived competence. She
noted, “I’ve always wanted to be the ‘go-to’ person for some stuff, and I am. … So, when I feel
capable, that totally helps my level of engagement.” Additionally, approximately half of the
73

participants underscored how development opportunities further illustrated the interplay between
competence and engagement. Maia believed that being able to master new abilities was
important because it enabled her to “contribute more and do more” and “subsequently develop
others.” In her words, “We need to be continuous learners in order to succeed.” Similarly, Sophia
shared, “I know that I have to continually keep stepping up, and I think the more I step up, the
more engaged I feel.” Providing an additional insight into this point of view, David’s shared that
his propensity for boredom after mastering a given role resulted in disengagement. Thus, being
able to develop new skills was “critically important” for him, reinforcing the role of competence
satisfaction in sustaining engagement.
Lastly, all interviews revealed the centrality of interpersonal connections in driving
employee engagement. Only one participant indicated that she did not think feeling connected to
others had an effect on her level of engagement. However, she referenced a desire to see her
team in the office at least once a week for what she described as “fun days,” indicating a need for
social interaction. All other narratives substantiated the value of a sense of belonging and
community in the workplace. When queried about the influence her perceived sense of
connection to others at work exerted on her level of engagement, Ruth described, “Even though
you’re in a cogwheel, you don’t feel that you’re just that. There’s this bigger piece that we’re all
a part of, and [colleagues] make you feel good as a person; you are valued.” Raya explicitly
connected engagement to an interpersonally supportive environment, noting, “Engagement for
me is the quality of work that I’m doing because I love what I do. And then there is the team that
I work with and the boss. … So, that is what engages me, how I’m treated.”
74

Moreover, consistent with previous accounts regarding challenges in remote and hybrid
settings, the neglect of relatedness needs suggested a state of disengagement. For example, Ethan
stressed how reduced in-person interactions negatively influenced his level of engagement:
When I look at it from a meeting perspective, whether it’s with clients or with teammates,
sometimes over time, you saw a leveling off of engagement, and I can only speak for
myself, where sometimes maybe you’re half listening. You’re not as engaged as you
would be in an in-person environment.
Along similar lines, David stated, “I don’t have the opportunity to share challenges and
successes, and the typical sharing that takes place in the office doesn’t exist anymore. … that
constant interaction [is] gone, and there’s been nothing to fill that significant gap.” Chloe further
elaborated, “There are some managers and some work team styles that don’t really help me
engage when I’m in a remote setting.” She supported her statement by explaining that limited
opportunities for collaboration and spontaneous discussions were considerable barriers to
engagement. Jointly, the participants’ portrayals featured the complexities of satisfying
employees’ basic psychological needs in remote and hybrid work environments and their evident
influence on their levels of engagement.
Organizational Factors
Throughout the study, all participants referenced organizational factors that influenced
their engagement levels when discussing the satisfaction of their basic psychological needs. The
independent exploration of these references provides valuable insights into the specific
mechanisms that organizations can exploit to develop effective employee engagement practices
in remote and hybrid work environments. The factors identified included a supportive culture,
75

clear expectations regarding work norms, and strategies to cultivate connection, communication,
trust, collaboration, and talent integration and development.
Participants emphasized how a need-supportive organizational culture promotes
engagement. Drawing upon her organizational context, Ruth noted, “Life always comes first
with this company, and it’s just so genuine; that’s been life changing, I think, for me.” In her
words, “Work-life balance is encouraged and actually almost demanded. No one’s gonna get
burned out.” Despite facing challenges within her team, Raya remained engaged due to her
commitment to the company’s mission and the support of her manager, stating, “I wouldn’t leave
because I know the company’s goal is amazing, and I’m committed to that goal; and the fact that
I have a supportive manager pulls me in and engages me.”
Another relevant finding was a call for organizations to set clear expectations and
boundaries around work norms, particularly work hours. Per Sophia, the expectation that
employees needed to be “always ready to respond to an email or a message” caused her to
disengage. Demi provided further credibility to the significance of defined boundaries, as she
advocated for distinctly stated core business hours when speaking of what her organization could
do to make her feel more committed and emotionally connected to her role. She explained, “The
worst aspect of coming home to work was the visual reminder that work was always around.”
Other narratives associated with engagement levels underscored the significance of
effective communication. Liam shared that in his organization, he witnesses a “very good
structure and cadence for communications” comprised of “an internal employee communication
team” and a commitment to an open-door policy that encourages direct interaction with senior
leaders and managers irrespective of personal rapport. Relatedly, David argued that systematic
and purposeful communication efforts are essential for productive collaboration, particularly
76

because since “moving from in the office full-time to a 100% remote”, he sees communication as
a challenge. He articulated a need for an environment where employees can problem-solve
collaboratively and “communicate constantly, even when there’s nothing to say, even when
there’s no news to share.” To him, “a communication strategy” is needed to ensure employees
maintain “the sense of connection and community.”
Building upon the theme of connection, participants detailed the positive influence of
efforts to facilitate virtual and in-person interactions. Ruth mentioned that her company
organizes employee gatherings “on a regular basis,” stating, “They fly everyone down to
headquarters. … They keep you engaged with fun stuff, so when you get together, you don’t talk
about work.” Ethan commended his employer’s efforts to host virtual events. He emphatically
shared, “When we went 100% remote, my employer did a lot of amazing virtual events which
were not just for the employees but actually incorporated families of employees. … This is stuff
that they would do to keep people engaged.” Moreover, Jacob underscored the significance of
acknowledging and involving remote employees in office activities. As someone who is fully
remote, he argued, “You have to know that I’m not going into the office pizza party, and you
have to find a way to include me in it, even if it’s zooming me in or sending a coupon for a free
slice of pizza.”
Some participants also accentuated the role that organizations play in nurturing employee
engagement by creating an atmosphere of trust and collaboration. Benjamin, for instance,
attributed his level of engagement to the trust his company placed in him by assigning “really
cool, exciting, and visible projects,” while Olivia simply stated, “I feel they’ve given so much to
me, like trusting me at home.” Regarding virtual collaboration, Nora expressed, “I think it’s
harder. I think you have to be more intentional.” Supporting her account, Jacob argued for more
77

advanced collaboration tools in remote or hybrid environments to effectively communicate ideas
and encourage collaborative work. He described the challenges of project-specific
communication in a virtual meeting:
I’m trying to draw with a mouse, and they see it on a tiny little screen, so I’m not sure
how well my point came across. But if I had a better tool, a better mechanism to
collaborate, I think it would have been easier to get my point across.
Finally, several participants advocated for improved organizational practices around
training and onboarding. Sophia, a self-proclaimed “fan of work from home,” posited that certain
aspects, such as onboarding and important trainings, “shouldn’t just all be virtual.” In her
perspective, these should be in-person activities to facilitate connection and relationship
building. Olivia agreed that face-to-face interactions enhance “onboarding and learning”
experiences. Chloe also expressed concerns about the difficulties of navigating remote
onboarding processes. She recalled, “I remember the onboarding experience. It was like you get
sent your laptop, and then you wait for a week, and you’re like, ‘Am I still hired’?” Moreover,
she suggested organizations “fix the trainings, the development aspects” by creating groups that
functioned as a “consistent connection point.” Pertinently, Maia stressed that “sometimes you
need to onboard individuals [virtually].” She recounted her dissatisfaction with her two-day
remote onboarding experience, stating that it primarily revolved around “a presentation about the
company [and the] organizational structure,” indicating a need for more inclusive and engaging
virtual onboarding experiences.
Individual Factors
Each employee’s unique traits and characteristics are relevant to their engagement and
overall performance. As participants shared their perspectives and feelings about working from
78

home, a subtheme related to extraverted and introverted traits came to light, substantiating the
idea that personality traits play a role in employee engagement for remote and hybrid employees.
In explaining their attitudes about engagement and remote work, 10 of the 17 participants (59%)
characterized themselves using terms such as people person, social person, or extravert or called
themselves introverts. Extrovert-leaning participants emphasized the value of in-person
interactions and informal communication, suggesting that these aspects enhanced their
engagement. As Nora described, “I am a social person. I really like the opportunity to speak to
someone in person.” Liam expressed that he likes to have meetings “face-to-face, as it is really
about building relationships.” While discussing strategies to improve development opportunities
for remote employees, Chloe shared, “I think it would be better to have onsite learning, because,
at least for me, I’m super extraverted. I enjoy having the group around me. That helps me learn.”
In contrast, a few introverted participants valued their social distance. For example,
Sophia mentioned, “If I had to pick one way [of working] for the rest of my life, it’d be work
from home because I am an introvert.” Ava passionately expressed her thoughts on this topic,
noting, “I’m an introvert. … If people come to my door and just knock, knock, you know, pop
their head. … I hate that enormously. … I like being somewhat removed and having more of my
space, more of my freedom.” Olivia acknowledged that her social anxiety and introverted nature
kept her from wanting to interact with others in person. She commented, “I never really did
anyway [participate in face-to-face events]. And if I did, it was because I had to.” She further
contended that remote work enhanced her social engagement, commenting, “I spend more time
with my colleagues socially remotely than I did before I was remote.” To conclude, Jacob, who
values his remote work arrangement, summarized, “I do not think [remote work] is for everyone.
79

I think certain people need the social structure [and] the relationships; they need the guardrail. …
You are looking for a certain kind of employee to hire remote.”
Reassessment of Priorities and Values
Consistent with the study’s conceptual framework, which aimed to examine potential
shifts in employees’ mindset regarding work, 11 participants (65%) conveyed reassessing their
priorities and values pertaining to their professional lives, often placing less emphasis on career
achievement in favor of work-life balance and well-being. As Sophia articulated, “I feel like,
after the pandemic. I kinda [of] deemphasized work a little bit. … It helped [me] kind of know
that there are things more important [than] work.” Reinforcing this message, Ava stated, “I think
COVID just increased that urgency in me, and the feeling of life is short. … Have we learned
nothing from the last three years about what is actually important in life?” Benjamin reflected, “I
definitely feel like I should be focusing on some work-life balance.”
For some participants, the pandemic resulted in a reassessment of their professional
goals. Ruth contemplated a career shift to a job less taxing, reflecting, “I don’t want to do this
anymore.” Nora outlined how the pandemic curbed her drive for career advancement while
directing her focus toward family time, emphasizing, “You know, I have teenagers, and I just
don’t wanna throw in my hours into work.” Following a similar line of thought, Raya questioned
her professional future, expressing, “So when it comes to my professional life, I started
questioning, ‘is this what I wanna do, just work for years and years?’”
Among the study participants acknowledging a shift in their professional attitudes, some
shared how the pandemic experience transformed their lives. Liam described transitioning from a
demanding job to another company that offered a better work-life balance. While reflecting on
the reason for his job change, he shared, “As Covid was happening, I was just evaluating my life
80

at [work], working on three different engagements ... so a lot of those conditions just made me
think about ‘what am I missing out’?” The pandemic-induced shift to remote work also catalyzed
Olivia’s residential relocation. After spending “8 months in an RV traveling around,” she and her
husband decided to move to a different state, an environment she found more enriching. She
commented, “If the pandemic never happened, I don’t think [the move] would have ever
happened. So, it really did change the trajectory of our lives.” The pandemic triggered a
realization among these participants that they should not sacrifice their personal life and well-
being for professional obligations. Importantly, for some, the thought of potentially going back
to the office full-time was inconceivable.
Return to the Office Resistance
Upon evaluating their perceptions of work before and after the pandemic, approximately
half of the study’s participants articulated a deep appreciation for the transformative nature of the
pandemic. Notably, they valued the ending of reservations that once hindered the broad
acceptance of remote work and the realization that they could thrive working from home. As
Jacob mentioned, “a lot of the excuses that people would give about remote work sort of went by
the wayside,” or as Ava described, “COVID made people see [that] of course you can do your
job remotely; we don’t actually have to have you physically come in.” Expressing gratitude,
Harper noted, “I think it gave everybody a better understanding of a virtual employee.”
The realization that engagement and productivity did not depend on a physical presence
in a traditional office setting was evident. David stated, “What I learned immediately when that
pandemic started is I can [be] very effective working from home.” Maia not only revealed that
she “understood that it’s totally feasible to work remotely” but added, “I feel sometimes much
more productive when I’m working from my home office.” Ethan reiterated,
81

The low-hanging fruit here is that I came to the realization that [in] my day-to-day, even
without the live interactions with teammates, I found that I worked a whole lot more
efficiently. I felt in many respects that the pressure, if you will, of having to get ready for
work … that added pressure of having to be in the workplace at a specific time, [was] for,
honestly, no good reason.
For eight participants (47%), this newly found appreciation and understanding resulted in
the revelation that they no longer wanted to work within the confines of a physical office on a
full-time basis. “I can’t see myself ever going back to the office at this point,” said David. For
Ava, “No one wants to come back full-time. No one.” She expressed that she looks at work
differently now that she has benefited from the “greater sense of control” over her time. Demi
echoed this sentiment, as she emphasized how working from home “has purchased us other
benefits in sleep and lack of commuting, [and] personal comfort.” She reflected, “I like the one
day a week. I’d also be happy if it went up to two. But it’s very hard to imagine going back to
four because it is working so well.” Olivia went as far as to mention that she would prefer to
resign than give up the flexibility and mental health advantages remote work granted her, noting,
“Nothing’s more important than my mental health, being there for my kid, having the flexibility
that I have. I wouldn’t give this up now. I wouldn’t do it.” In fact, Raya, having transitioned to
full-time remote work, opted to resign from a previous position instead of complying with the
mandate to return to the office for three days each week. In her words, “I didn’t wanna go back,
so I gave my resignation.”
Jacob even considered nonsensical the reluctance of organizations to harness modern
technology and embrace remote work. He asserted, “With modern technology, the right role
[and] the right fit, you can reduce your operating cost, and you can get a better return out of an
82

employee; and to not do that is kind of silly, in my opinion.” In essence, participants conveyed
strong disapproval of attempts to mandate a return to a physical office.
Discussion for Research Question 2
Several factors emerged as key influences on employee engagement, encompassing both
domain-specific elements related to autonomy, competence, and relatedness satisfaction, as well
as broader elements that personify the intricate interplay among these fundamental psychological
needs. Findings imply that participants identify autonomy as closely related to empowerment and
work ownership, while competence is linked to confidence and proficiency, both of which foster
engagement. They acknowledged that interpersonal connections and organizational factors such
as a supportive culture, explicit work norms, and strategies for nurturing collaboration and trust
were essential to their engagement levels. They also indicated individual traits played a role in
engagement with extraverted participants valuing in-person interactions and introverted ones
welcoming a certain amount of social distance. Many participants reported a significant shift in
their mindset as they prioritized work-life balance over career achievement in the post-pandemic
era. A considerable number also expressed resistance to returning to full-time in-office work,
demonstrating the profound impact of the pandemic on employees’ current expectations
associated with their work life. Participants’ statements regarding the pandemic-induced
dissolution of previous barriers to remote arrangements suggested an appreciation for increased
autonomy over their work conditions. The gratitude associated with organizations’ better
understanding of a remote employee’s value indicated a perceived rise in relatedness satisfaction.
At last, statements relaying enhanced productivity revealed participants’ unwavering sense of
competence regardless of remote conditions.
83

Summary
This chapter presented the results obtained through an in-depth analysis of participants’
accounts concerning the satisfaction of their basic psychological needs for autonomy,
competence, and relatedness within remote and hybrid environments and its subsequent
influence on their levels of engagement. The inclusion of rich and detailed narratives from
participants enriched the understanding of their experiences and enhanced the credibility of the
study’s findings. Chapter Five discusses the key findings and presents recommendations for
future research on integrating basic psychological need satisfaction as a component in the
formulation of new employee engagement strategies.

84

Chapter Five: Discussion
This study aimed to explore the satisfaction of employees’ basic psychological needs for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness in remote and hybrid post-pandemic work settings and
its consequential influence on employee engagement. Following the conclusion of a
comprehensive thematic analysis of participants’ accounts, this chapter unveils and synthesizes
the significance of the study’s findings, bridging the gap between theoretical assumptions and
practical applications. It begins with a discussion of the study’s key findings. Subsequently, the
chapter outlines recommendations for practice. Furthermore, in recognition of the evolving
nature of the research’s community understanding of employee engagement in remote and hybrid
work environments, the chapter concludes by offering recommendations for future research.
Discussion of Findings
The study’s findings support the predominant principles of self-determination theory,
affirming its premise that fulfilling basic psychological needs is essential for motivation and,
consequently, employee engagement (Deci et al., 2017). The examination of patterns and
relationships within the data yielded four notable findings that offer an insightful understanding
of how participants perceive and experience autonomy, competence, and relatedness satisfaction
in remote and hybrid environments. By discussing these findings, this study further strengthens
the notion that fostering basic psychological need satisfaction is an effective organizational
strategy to enhance employee well-being, productivity, and engagement (Rigby & Ryan, 2018).
Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Fostered Engagement
Building upon previous research (van Dorssen-Boog et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021), this
study reveals a clear positive relationship between greater autonomy, higher intrinsic motivation,
productivity, and engagement. Moreover, the findings align with prior scholarly work (Karatepe
85

et al., 2018), corroborating that greater engagement may also arise from an enhanced sense of
competence when employees receive development opportunities and intangible rewards. Lastly,
the data support the idea that relationships in remote and hybrid settings are more task-oriented
and less personal (Schinoff et al., 2020), challenging relatedness satisfaction and stressing the
criticality of nurturing engagement through opportunities for social connection and collaboration.
While the primary inspiration for this study was the prevailing low levels of employee
engagement in the United States (Harter, 2022a), a large proportion of study participants (12 out
of 17, or 71%) indicated feeling either engaged or highly engaged. Importantly, most of these
participants concurrently reported a high level of autonomy and competence, substantiating a
potential connection between basic psychological need satisfaction and engagement. According
to the study’s data, relatedness emerged as the single need compromised, specifically by the
limited opportunities to establish or sustain meaningful relationships. Still, participants who
identified as engaged revealed they cultivated trusting and supportive relationships with their
managers, suggesting that despite the interpersonal challenges associated with remote work, they
could still achieve a degree of relatedness satisfaction. Within this context, in alignment with the
literature (Firzly et al., 2021; Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al., 2022), the presence of managers’
need-supportive behaviors emerged as a meaningful driver of engagement, along with the
existence of a supportive organizational culture (De Vincenzi et al., 2022).
The Case for Face-to-Face Interactions
An additional key finding highlights the challenges remote interactions pose to social
connections and effective collaboration and communication, indicating the need for deliberate
efforts to promote interpersonal interactions, and thus enable a sense of relatedness. The study
results not only support an existing body of literature on this topic (Gagné et al., 2022; Yang et
86

al., 2022) but emphasize the role of face-to-face interactions in promoting social connectedness
and a sense of belonging, both of which are catalysts for engagement. Participants stressed how
in-person interactions enabled informal, non-work-related, spontaneous exchanges that
facilitated stronger social bonds and a shared understanding. They also spoke of how in-person
communications were beneficial for building trust and improving collaborative efforts, thus
building a case for organizational efforts to foster face-to-face social and work-centric
encounters.
The Influence of Individual Traits on Engagement
The study results substantiate prior research (Herbert et al., 2023; Michinov et al., 2022),
underlining that personality traits, such as extraversion and introversion, play a pivotal role in
influencing engagement in remote and hybrid work environments. There was a clear distinction
between participants who reported having extraverted versus introverted preferences. While
extraverted participants revealed face-to-face interactions and informal communication
facilitated engagement, introverted participants expressed feeling more engaged while working
fully remotely due to greater autonomy and less social pressure, supporting the fact that remote
work elicits varying productivity levels among individuals (Smite et al., 2023). This finding
implies that in order to maximize engagement, organizations must be willing to cater to
individual differences, challenging any assumptions that a homogeneous work arrangement
exists for the purpose of generating a highly engaged workforce.
The End of the Traditional Five-Day-in-Office Work Week
The nature of work has changed considerably for many sectors after the pandemic and
continues to evolve. The majority of study participants conveyed a realignment of personal
values and professional goals, and a deep appreciation for the opportunity to work remotely. In
87

addition, nearly half of the participants voiced concerns regarding the potential loss of the
autonomy and work-life balance they had come to cherish. Thus, the data underscore a profound
shift in attitudes toward the essentiality of a traditional five-day in-office work week. In
validation of this finding, Barrero et al. (2021) noted that most employees expressed a desire to
retain some form of remote work arrangement post-pandemic. Moreover, Gibson et al. (2023)
indicated that numerous organizations that have embarked on initiatives aimed at reintegrating
employees into traditional office spaces have encountered significant resistance. It is worth
highlighting that while discussing what organizations can do to help them feel more engaged, not
a single participant indicated a desire to return to a physical office full-time or recommended it
as a strategy. Instead, they focused their narratives on how their current work environment could
meet their basic psychological needs more effectively. The resistance to revert to conventional
office hours, coupled with a strong preference to resign rather than forfeit the flexibility and
personal benefits of remote work may indicate the end of the traditional five-day in-office work
week for several industries.
Recommendations for Practice
As organizations grapple with the complexities of addressing low levels of employee
engagement and understanding its drivers within remote and hybrid work environments, the
limitations of conventional strategies are evident (Surma et al., 2021). Upon investigating this
problem through the lens of self-determination theory, this study unveiled five recommendations
to bridge the gaps in basic psychological need satisfaction revealed by its findings. The following
recommendations offer actionable guidance to optimize work conditions related to employee
engagement, addressing the evolving needs and expectations of employees navigating the remote
and hybrid landscape in a post-pandemic world.
88

Recommendation 1: Implement a Boundary Management Policy
According to the study’s findings, a strong sense of autonomy is a benefit of remote and
hybrid work arrangements directly associated with higher engagement levels. However, a lack of
proper boundary management undermines the advantages associated with working from home
(Adisa et al., 2022). Resonating with the findings of Houlfort et al. (2022), most participants
(65%) recognized the merging of work and personal obligations in their home environment had a
detrimental effect on their sense of autonomy and often impacted their physical and emotional
health, indicating a demand for a boundary management policy.
Boundary management can foster a greater balance between work and home life (Allen et
al., 2021) and promote fairness across the organization. Although employees’ preferences for
work-life boundaries vary (Biron et al., 2023), at its core, a boundary management policy must
establish clear expectations regarding business hours (Oakman et al., 2020) so that employees do
not have the experience of being “on” all the time, as one participant described. Therefore, an
effective approach should encourage adherence to designated business hours for all work-related
activities. Additionally, the policy should establish guidelines for work-related communications
outside approved hours, integrate mandatory breaks, and train managers and leaders on modeling
wanted behaviors. Lastly, policy, along with technology that fosters compliance, can establish
and sustain a shared organizational culture (Pianese et al., 2022) that prioritizes boundary setting.
So, organizations must configure communication tools to encourage employees to disconnect
from work at agreed-upon hours. Importantly, organizations can offer flexible options to
accommodate employees who prefer permeable boundaries with nonstandard hours (Kossek,
2016). However, they must proactively establish clear expectations regarding response times
from those employees who prefer a structured, segmented schedule.
89

Recommendation 2: Provide Equitable Access to Development Opportunities
Offering employees opportunities for learning and professional development promotes
competence satisfaction and, consequently, employee engagement (Akter et al., 2022; Karatepe
et al., 2018; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Throughout the study, participants expressed their appreciation
for the existence of a diverse range of prospects designed to develop their skill sets. Still, their
narratives revealed that approximately half of them believed they encountered challenges when
attempting to capitalize on these opportunities. Limited access to mentoring relationships,
internal networking, and spontaneous interactions with others in the organization are potential
disadvantages of remote work arrangements (Shirmohammadi et al., 2022). Furthermore,
participants acknowledged the existence of perceived biases and limited visibility associated
with remote and hybrid work as obstacles. These findings highlight the importance of
organizational efforts to promote equitable access to development pathways (McDonald et al.,
2022). The scope of such efforts must include providing standardized career development paths
and learning programs for all roles regardless of an employee’s location, establishing
communication channels that enhance visibility and collaboration, fostering a culture of
continuous learning, and safeguarding equal opportunities for selection in challenging projects
and promotions. Furthermore, organizations can introduce virtual mentorship programs to
support remote and hybrid employees. By fostering an increase in mentor relationships, these
programs would enhance visibility and generate higher levels of autonomous motivation and
engagement, provided that mentors demonstrate need-supportive behaviors (Firzly et al., 2021).
Recommendation 3: Enable Face-to-Face Social and Work-Centered Interactions
The physical distance and overreliance on virtual communication tools impair the
development of meaningful social connections, trust, and shared identity in remote and hybrid
90

settings (Gilson et al., 2015; Norman et al., 2020; Schinoff et al., 2020), negatively affecting
employees’ sense of relatedness. In addition, the use of asynchronous communication and siloed
team efforts compromise information transfer and collaboration (Panteli et al., 2019; Yang et al.,
2022). Study participants not only validated the findings derived from these preceding studies
but particularly underscored the role of in-person interactions in promoting social connectedness,
improving communication, and enhancing collaboration, all of which culminate in increased
engagement and productivity (Babenko, 2018; Johnson, 2021).
To facilitate such interactions, organizations should invest in policies and initiatives that
promote face-to-face socialization and collaboration. Knowing the presentation, thought
processes, and behavioral patterns of others fosters familiarity in interpersonal relationships and,
thereby, facilitates meaningful connections (Hinds & Cramton, 2014). This familiarity is
optimized when employees observe one another in a shared space (Hinds & Cramton, 2014).
Hence, enabling regular in-person meetings and team-building activities to nurture non-work-
related, spontaneous conversations can encourage social connections, trust, and foster a
collective experience. Furthermore, supporting in-person department or all-staff meetings on an
annual or semi-annual basis to convene a larger portion of the organization’s members may
further promote a sense of belonging. These encounters are especially important for employees
who work entirely remotely, given their susceptibility to experiencing greater social isolation
(Van Zoonen & Sivunen, 2022).
A complementary recommendation addresses participants’ concerns regarding
suboptimal collaboration while remote. Organizations can recommend specific days for remote
and hybrid employees to be in the office. Different work arrangements would imply different
commitments regarding the frequency of in-office attendance. Nevertheless, for this strategy to
91

be effective, it is imperative that such days be dedicated to executing tasks that benefit from in-
person interactions (Hopkins & Bardoel, 2023), such as attending key trainings, onboarding
activities, and collaboration-intensive meetings, notably those requiring decision-making or
brainstorming activities. Nonetheless, this recommendation should not override employees’
individual needs or be a blanket mandate, as doing so would imply a reliance on controlled
motivation, which has been associated with unfavorable work outcomes (Gillet et al., 2013;
Trépanier et al., 2020).
Recommendation 4: Cater to Individual Traits
Given that intrinsic motivation stems from an innate interest or enjoyment in an activity
(Ryan & Deci, 2017), it is highly unique to each employee. Organizations aiming to harness
intrinsic motivation as an engagement strategy must acknowledge and cater to the varied
preferences employees have toward different work arrangements. In validation of previous
studies (Herbert et al., 2023; Michinov et al., 2022), the study’s findings confirm the pivotal role
of personality traits such as extraversion and introversion in shaping employee productivity and
engagement in remote and hybrid settings, highlighting the need for organizations to adopt a
personalized approach. The participants’ implicit notion that remote work is not suited for
everyone and requires a certain kind of employee further invites organizations to challenge the
conventional one-size-fits-all approach and instead provide a range of adaptable work models.
Numerous organizations that offered such models initially provided guidelines
concerning the mandated frequency of employees’ presence in the office, however they have
already changed their policies to allow greater flexibility (Delany, 2022). They seem to have
recognized that controlled mechanisms elicit a lower quality of engagement compared to
strategies fostering autonomous motivation (Gagné et al., 2018). In sum, organizational policies
92

and practices targeting optimal performance outcomes must offer employees the critical
processes, systems, tools, and opportunities to be successful regardless of the employee’s
location. Most importantly, within the constraints of business requirements, they must empower
employees to select the work arrangement that best aligns with their unique productivity patterns
and preferences.
Recommendation 5: Promote Need-Supportive Managerial Behaviors
Extensive literature highlights the role of managerial behaviors in promoting the
satisfaction of basic psychological needs and, consequently, job satisfaction, self-realization, and
engagement (Gillet et al., 2012; Rahmadani et al., 2019). Research also points to how managerial
controlling behaviors can increase work-related demands and infringe upon employees’
autonomy, work-life balance, and well-being (Wang et al., 2021). Finally, it draws attention to
the harmful impact of managerial indifference on employees’ well-being due to the level of
uncertainty and ambiguity it engenders (Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al., 2022). The participants’
accounts substantiated the proposition that managerial behaviors supportive of basic
psychological needs resulted in a profound sense of appreciation and respect, while past
experiences of micromanagement negatively impacted their commitment to the work.
Consequently, organizations must provide opportunities for managers to acquire, develop, and
sustain the skills necessary to support remote and hybrid employees’ needs for autonomy,
competence, and relatedness. These opportunities may come in the form of training sessions,
people management tools, and ongoing managerial performance feedback.
Moreover, due to the physical distance and reliance on technology-mediated
communications, building trust is even more difficult in remote environments (Norman et al.,
2020). Additionally, the continuing evolution of technology makes uncertainty an element of
93

organizational life, requiring employees to constantly adapt to new circumstances (Gagné et al.,
2022). This reality amplifies the criticality of managers mastering active listening skills (Nyberg
et al., 2021), as well as excelling as communicators capable of providing clear and frequent
guidance and feedback (Turesky et al., 2020). Thus, it is incumbent upon organizations to be
strategic when hiring and promoting employees into managerial roles. Numerous employees do
not want supervisory responsibilities; nevertheless, they frequently find themselves inheriting
them due to the nature of their role. Building upon the premise that intrinsic motivation is a
reliable predictor of organizational outcomes (Camilleri, 2021), organizations seeking to
optimize managerial performance must ensure those entrusted with supervisory responsibilities
have a genuine interest in leadership roles and enjoy managing others.
Limitations and Delimitations
The constraints within the methodology of a study referred to as limitations, represent
potential factors that can affect the interpretations and findings of a scholarly inquiry (Ross &
Bibler, 2019). The study’s qualitative phenomenological methodology allows for extrapolations
but not generalizability. Extrapolations are speculative applications of results to settings with
comparable but not identical conditions (Patton, 2014). Thus, the study enables the identification
of themes that may advance the understanding of low employee engagement rates, but the
findings are not transferable to the general population. Limitations associated with the study’s
small sample size include the possibility that perceptions shared by participants may be too
narrow or alike to support a comprehensive examination of the problem. Additionally, the
participants’ perspectives and the integrity of the information they provided may impact the
accuracy of the data.
94

The study’s delimitations included choices related to the study population, scope, and
conceptual framework. The study population is comprised solely of individuals possessing high
levels of information technology access and proficiency. The study does not address digital
access challenges or often related diversity, equity, and inclusion issues. The study scope also
did not specifically address parental status and gender or generational factors that may account
for different perceptions of a remote or hybrid work environment. Finally, the study’s conceptual
framework restricts the examination of low employee engagement to the individual level in both
remote and hybrid work environments, so the study does not investigate organizational-level
factors, nor does it specifically examine the differences between full-time remote working
conditions and hybrid arrangements. It is also worth noting that studies examining basic
psychological need satisfaction have not adequately predicted negative work-related outcomes
(Van den Broeck et al., 2016), resulting in a newer body of research dedicated to the distinct
study and measurement of basic psychological need frustration (Olafsen et al., 2021). This study
does not address the concept of basic psychological need frustration, as it does not answer its
research questions.
Future Research
As variations of remote work have become part of the fabric of workforce management,
the presence of adaptable and sustainable work policies that account for employee engagement
drivers has become fundamental. This study adds to the body of literature examining the
influence of personality traits on remote and hybrid employees’ work experiences and
engagement levels. Despite existing insights, a substantial number of organizations have insisted
on non-personalized policies. Investigative research on the barriers to individual work
arrangement customization may yield practical recommendations that capitalize on intrinsic
95

motivation as a catalyst for engagement. Elaborating on the hypothesis that remote work and its
inherent use of technology for communication, collaboration, and connection have become a
permanent reality, an in-depth examination of how technological advancements and virtual tools
can foster autonomy, competence, and relatedness is also warranted. Furthermore, due to the
considerable influence of managerial behaviors on employee outcomes, future studies could
explore individual traits associated with the successful implementation of need-supportive
managerial behaviors. Findings from such studies could facilitate the strategic placement of
particular individuals in managerial roles. Lastly, this study showed a significant shift in
participants’ priorities and a discernible reluctance to revert to pre-existing work norms. Future
scholarly efforts could examine the trajectory of this shift, thereby equipping organizations with
insights to recalibrate their policies as the professional landscape continues to evolve.
Conclusion
This study contributes to the literature on employee engagement in remote and hybrid
work environments within the framework of self-determination theory. Findings suggest that
satisfying employees’ basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness
positively influences engagement, work-life balance, and productivity, despite potential
drawbacks, such as blurred boundaries between work and personal life, restricted development
opportunities, and diminished social interactions. Additionally, the findings shine a light on the
central role of organizational factors, managerial behaviors, individual personality traits, and a
post-pandemic employee mindset in shaping engagement in these settings. Collectively, these
concepts underscore the need for organizational policies and managerial practices that utilize
basic psychological need satisfaction as a strategy to enhance employee engagement and, most
importantly, for leaders to factor in employees’ subjectivities when designing and implementing
96

engagement-oriented interventions. When questioned about the potential changes organizations
could enact to foster increased engagement, participants expressed wanting to feel more
connected, valued, acknowledged, and heard. Paramount to their concerns was the opportunity to
maintain a high degree of autonomy. Broad mandates or uniform strategies that rely on
controlled motivation are bound to lead to resistance, adverse outcomes, and inevitably face
limitations in their effectiveness. Instead, need-supportive organizations can cultivate
engagement by placing employees, including leaders and managers, under circumstances that
elicit genuine interest, enjoyment, personal value, and a sense of meaning in their tasks (Deci et
al., 2017). The study’s findings encourage further exploration into crafting such person-centered
circumstances for an engaged remote and hybrid workforce.
97

References
Adisa, T. A., Antonacopoulou, E., Beauregard, T. A., Dickmann, M., & Adekoya, O. D. (2022).
Exploring the impact of COVID‐19 on employees’ boundary management and work-life
balance. British Journal of Management, 33(4), 1694–1709.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12643
Akter, H., Ahmed, W., Sentosa, I., & Hizam, S. M. (2022). Crafting employee engagement
through talent management practices in telecom sector. SA Journal of Human Resource
Management, 20(1), e1–e11. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v20i0.1775
Allan, B. A., Batz-Barbarich, C., Sterling, H. M., & Tay, L. (2019). Outcomes of meaningful
work: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 56(3), 500-528.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12406
Allam, Z. (2017). Employee disengagement: A fatal consequence to organization and its
ameliorative measures. International Review of Management and Marketing, 7(2), 49–52.
Allen, T. D., Merlo, K., Lawrence, R. C., Slutsky, J., & Gray, C. E. (2021). Boundary
management and Work‐Nonwork balance while working from home. Applied
Psychology, 70(1), 60–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12300
Alsharo, M., Gregg, D., Ramirez, R. (2017). Virtual team effectiveness: The role of knowledge
sharing and trust. North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.10.005
Aspers, P., & Corte, U. (2019). What is qualitative in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology,
42(2), 139–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-019-9413-7
Babenko, O. (2018). Professional well-being of practicing physicians: The roles of autonomy,
competence, and relatedness. Healthcare (Basel), 6(1), 12.
https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare6010012
98

Babenko, O., & Oswald, A. (2019). The roles of basic psychological needs, self-compassion, and
self-efficacy in the development of mastery goals among medical students. Medical
Teacher, 41(4), 478–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1442564
Bae, K. B., & Kim, D. (2016). The impact of decoupling of telework on job satisfaction in U.S.
federal agencies: Does gender matter? American Review of Public Administration, 46(3),
356–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016637183
Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., & Fletcher, L. (2017). The meaning, antecedents and
outcomes of employee engagement: A narrative synthesis. International Journal of
Management Reviews: IJMR, 19(1), 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12077
Bakker, A. B., & Albrecht, S. (2018). Work engagement: Current trends. Career Development
International, 23(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-11-2017-0207
Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work
engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 4–28.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2010.485352
Bakker, A., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout and work engagement: The JD-
R approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,
1(1), 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091235
Barrero, J. M., Bloom, N., & Davis, S. J. (2021). Why working from home will stick. National
Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w28731
Begum, F., Malik, H. U., & Nahar, N. (2021). Job satisfaction, mental well-being and turnover
intention among pharmaceutical employees in Bangladesh. Indian Journal of Health and
Wellbeing, 12(2), 150–153.
99

Bipp, T., Kleingeld, A., & Schelp, L. (2021). Achievement goals and goal progress as drivers of
work engagement. Psychological Reports, 124(5), 2180–2202.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294120959778
Biron, M., Casper, W. J., & Raghuram, S. (2023). Crafting telework: A process model of need
satisfaction to foster telework outcomes. Personnel Review, 52(3), 671-686.
https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2021-0259
Blatter, M., Muehlemann, S., Schenker, S., & Wolter, S. C. (2016). Hiring costs of skilled
workers and the supply of firm-provided training. Oxford Economic Papers, 68(1), 238–
257. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpv050
Boushey, H., & Glynn, S. J. (2012). There are significant business costs to replacing employees.
Center for American Progress, 16, 1–9. https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/11/CostofTurnover.pdf
Borst, R. T., Kruyen, P. M., Lako, C. J., & Vries, M. S. (2020). The attitudinal, behavioral, and
performance outcomes of work engagement: A comparative meta-analysis across the
public, semipublic, and private sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(4),
613–640. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19840399
Brown, A., & Leite, A. C. (2022). The effects of social and organizational connectedness on
employee well‐being and remote working experiences during the COVID‐19 pandemic.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12934
Bryson, A., Forth, J., & Stokes, L. (2017). Does employees’ subjective well-being affect
workplace performance? Human Relations (New York), 70(8), 1017–1037.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717693073
100

Brueckner, J., Kahn, M. E., & Lin, G. C. (2021). A new spatial hedonic equilibrium in the
emerging work-from-home economy? National Bureau of Economic Research.
https://doi.org/10.3386/w28526
Brunelle, E., & Fortin, J. (2021). Distance makes the heart grow fonder: An examination of
teleworkers’ and office workers’ job satisfaction through the lens of self-determination
theory. SAGE Open, 11(1), 215824402098551.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020985516
Bukamal, H. (2022). Deconstructing insider–outsider researcher positionality. British Journal of
Special Education, 49(3), 327–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12426
Byerly, B. (2012). Measuring the impact of employee loss. Performance Improvement
(International Society for Performance Improvement), 51(5), 40–47.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21268
Camilleri, M. A. (2021). The employees’ state of mind during COVID-19: A self-determination
theory perspective. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 13(7), 3634.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073634
Cao, X., & Chen, L. (2021). Relationships between resilience, empathy, compassion fatigue,
work engagement and turnover intention in haemodialysis nurses: A cross‐sectional
study. Journal of Nursing Management, 29(5), 1054–1063.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13243
Center for Self-Determination Theory (2017). Motivation continuum, 2017.
https://twitter.com/centerforSDT/status/935914261746016256?s=20&t=4FsV3VV-
ruUsoNsGI0yYDg
101

Chambel, M. J., Castanheira, F., & Santos, A. (2022). Teleworking in times of COVID-19: The
role of family-supportive supervisor behaviors in workers' work-family management,
exhaustion, and work engagement. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 1–36. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2022.2063064
Chanana, N., & Sangeeta. (2021). Employee engagement practices during COVID‐19 lockdown.
Journal of Public Affairs, 21(4), e2508-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2508
Chaudhary, P., Rohtagi, M., Singh, R. K., & Arora, S. (2022). Impact of leader's e-competencies
on employees' wellbeing in global virtual teams during COVID-19: The moderating role
of emotional intelligence. Employee Relations, 44(5), 1048–1063.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-06-2021-0236
Chua, J., & Ayoko, O. B. (2019). Employees' self-determined motivation, transformational
leadership and work engagement. Journal of Management & Organization, 27(3), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2018.74
Clark, P., Hulse, B., & Polivka, B. J. (2022). Resilience, moral distress, and job satisfaction
driving engagement in emergency department nurses: A qualitative analysis. The Journal
of Nursing Administration; 52(2), 112–117.
https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000001111
Clifton, J. (2023, June 21). Why the World Can’t Quit Quiet Quitting? Gallup.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/507650/why-world-quit-quiet-
quitting.aspx?utm_source=linkedin&utm_medium=o_social&utm_term=gallup&utm_ca
mpaign=w%E2%80%A6
102

Cope, D. G. (2014). Methods and meanings: Credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative
research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(1), 89–91. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.89-91
Coxen, L., van der Vaart, L., Van den Broeck, A., & Rothmann, S. (2021). Basic psychological
needs in the work context: A systematic literature review of diary studies. Frontiers in
Psychology, 12, 698526. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.698526
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications, Inc.
Christfort, K. (2021). Business chemistry: A formula for greater empathy and well-being.
American Journal of Health Promotion, 35(5), 737–739.
https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171211007955c
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative
review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel
psychology, 64(1), 89–136.
Dalton, M., & Groen, J. A. (2022, March). Telework during the COVID-19 pandemic: Estimates
Using the 2021 Business Response Survey. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2022/article/telework-during-the-covid-19-pandemic.htm
Dalton, M., & Dey, M., & Loewenstein, M. (2022, August). The impact of remote work on local
employment, business relocation, and local home costs. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://www.bls.gov/osmr/research-papers/2022/ec220080.htm
Darouei, M., & Pluut, H. (2021). Work from home today for a better tomorrow! How working
from home influences work‐family conflict and employees' start of the next workday.
Stress and Health, 37(5), 986–999. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3053
103

De Vincenzi, C., Pansini, M., Ferrara, B., Buonomo, I., & Benevene, P. (2022). Consequences of
COVID-19 on employees in remote working: Challenges, risks and opportunities an
evidence-based literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 19(18), 11672. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191811672
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work
organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-
032516-113108
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., & Williams, G. C. (1996). Need satisfaction and the self-regulation of
learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(3), 165–183.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1041-6080(96)90013-8
Delany, K. (2022). What challenges will organizations face transitioning for the first time to the
new normal of remote working? Human Resource Development International, 25(5),
642–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2021.2017391
Dennis, A. S., Barlow, J. B., & Dennis, A. R. (2022). The power of introverts: Personality and
intelligence in virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 39(1), 102–
129. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2021.2023408
Donati, S., Viola, G., Toscano, F., & Zappalà, S. (2021). Not all remote workers are similar:
Technology acceptance, remote work beliefs, and wellbeing of remote workers during the
104

second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 18(22), 12095. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212095
Dua, A; Ellingrud, K, Kirschner, P, Kwok, A, Luby, R., Palter, R., Pemberton, S. (2022, June
23). Americans are embracing flexible work - And they want more of it. McKinsey &
Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/real-estate/our-insights/americans-are-
embracing-flexible-work-and-they-want-more-of-it
Eddleston, K. A., & Mulki, J. (2017). Toward understanding remote workers’ management of
Work–Family boundaries: The complexity of workplace embeddedness. Group &
Organization Management, 42(3), 346–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115619548
Elbogen, E. B., Lanier, M., Griffin, S. C., Blakey, S. M., Gluff, J. A., Wagner, H. R., & Tsai, J.
(2022). A national study of zoom fatigue and mental health during the COVID-19
pandemic: Implications for future remote work. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social
Networking, 25(7), 49–415. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2021.0257
Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of competence and
motivation: Theory and application. Guilford Publications.
Ellis, L., & Yang, A. (2022, August 12,). If your co-workers are ‘quiet quitting,’ here’s what that
means. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-your-gen-z-co-workers-
are-quiet-quitting-heres-what-that-means-11660260608
Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2018). Handbook of competence and motivation.
The Guilford Press.
Erickson, C. L., & Norlander, P. (2022). How the past of outsourcing and offshoring is the future
of post‐pandemic remote work: A typology, a model and a review. Industrial Relations
Journal, 53(1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12355
105

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
Firzly, N., Chamandy, M., Pelletier, L., & Lagacé, M. (2021). An examination of mentors’
interpersonal behaviors and mentees’ motivation, turnover intentions, engagement, and
well-being. Journal of Career Development, 89484532110392.
https://doi.org/10.1177/08948453211039286
Formica, S., & Sfodera, F. (2022). The great resignation and quiet quitting paradigm shifts: An
overview of current situation and future research directions. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management, 31(8), 899–907.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2022.2136601
Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017).
Psychological safety: A Meta‐Analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology,
70(1), 113–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183
Fry, R. (2022, August 12,). Millennials are the largest generation in the U.S. labor force. Pew
Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/11/millennials-largest-
generation-us-labor-force
Fulmore, J. A., Fulmore, A. L., Mull, M., & Cooper, J. N. (2022). Reducing employee turnover
intentions in the service sector: The connection between human resource development
practices and employee engagement. Human Resource Development Quarterly.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21471
Gagné, M. (Ed.). (2014). The Oxford handbook of work engagement, motivation, and self-
determination theory. Oxford University.
106

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior; 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322
Gagné, M., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2018). Self-determination theory applied to work
motivation and organizational behavior. Sage.
Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., van den Broeck, A., Aspeli, A. K.,
Bellerose, J., Benabou, C., Chemolli, E., Güntert, S. T., Halvari, H., Indiyastuti, D. L.,
Johnson, P. A., Molstad, M. H., Naudin, M., Ndao, A., Olafsen, A. H., Roussel, P.,
Wang, Z., & Westbye, C. (2015). The multidimensional work motivation scale:
Validation evidence in seven languages and nine countries. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 24(2), 178–196.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2013.877892
Gagné, M., Parker, S. K., Griffin, M. A., Dunlop, P. D., Knight, C., Klonek, F. E., & Parent-
Rocheleau, X. (2022). Understanding and shaping the future of work with self-
determination theory. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1–15.
Galanti, T., Guidetti, G., Mazzei, E., Zappalà, 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
Gallup. (2017). State of the American workplace.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/238085/state-american-workplace-report-
2017.aspx?thank-you-report-form=1
107

Gallup. (2021). State of the Global workplace.
https://www.gallup.com/file/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace-2021-
download.pdf
Gallup. (2022). What is employee engagement and how do you improve it? Retrieved October
12, 2022, from https://www.gallup.com/workplace/285674/improve-employee-
engagement-workplace.aspx
Gandhi, V., & Robison, J. (2021, July 22). The 'great resignation' is really the 'great discontent'.
Gallup. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/351545/great-resignation-really-great-
discontent.aspx
Garro-Abarca, V., Palos-Sanchez, P., & Aguayo-Camacho, M. (2021). Virtual teams in times of
pandemic: Factors that influence performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 624637.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.624637
Gartner. (2020, July). Gartner survey reveals 82% of company leaders plan to allow employees
to work remotely some of the time. https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-
releases/2020-07-14-gartner-survey-reveals-82-percent-of-company-leaders-plan-to-
allow-employees-to-work-remotely-some-of-the-time
George, T. J., Atwater, L. E., Maneethai, D., & Madera, J. M. (2022). Supporting the
productivity and wellbeing of remote workers: Lessons from COVID-19. Organizational
Dynamics, 51(2), 100869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2021.100869
Gibson, C. B., Gilson, L. L., Griffith, T. L., & O’Neill, T. A. (2023). Should employees be
required to return to the office? Organizational Dynamics, 52(2), 100981.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2023.100981
108

Gillet, N., Becker, C., Lafrenière, M., Huart, I., & Fouquereau, E. (2017a). Organizational
support, job resources, soldiers' motivational profiles, work engagement, and affect.
Military Psychology, 29(5), 418–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/mil0000179
Gillet, N., Fouquereau, E., Forest, J., Brunault, P., & Colombat, P. (2012). The impact of
organizational factors on psychological needs and their relations with well-being. Journal
of Business and Psychology, 27(4), 437–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9253-2
Gillet, N., Fouquereau, E., Vallerand, R. J., Abraham, J., & Colombat, P. (2017b). The role of
workers’ motivational profiles in affective and organizational factors. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 19(4), 1151-1174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9867-9
Gillet, N., Gagné, M., Sauvagère, S., & Fouquereau, E. (2013). The role of supervisor autonomy
support, organizational support, and autonomous and controlled motivation in predicting
employees' satisfaction and turnover intentions. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 22(4), 450–460.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.665228
Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Jones Young, N. C., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015).
Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of
Management, 41(5), 1313–1337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314559946
Gittleman, M. (2022, July). The “great resignation” in perspective. U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2022/article/the-great-resignation-in-
perspective.htm
Gupta, N., & Sharma, V. (2016). Exploring Employee Engagement—A Way to Better Business
Performance. Global Business Review, 17(3, suppl), 45S–63S.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150916631082
109

Graham, M., Weale, V., Lambert, K. A., Kinsman, N., Stuckey, R., & Oakman, J. (2021).
Working at home: The impacts of COVID 19 on health, family-work-life conflict,
gender, and parental responsibilities. Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, 63(11), 938–943. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002337
Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.”
Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2).
https://doi.org/10.5929/2014.4.2.9
Grant, C. A., Wallace, L. M., & Spurgeon, P. C. (2013). An exploration of the psychological
factors affecting remote e-worker's job effectiveness, well-being and work-life balance.
Employee Relations, 35(5), 527–546. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-08-2012-0059
Gross, R. (2018). Connecting the links between leadership styles and virtual team effectiveness.
Journal of Enterprising Culture, 26(2), 185–205.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218495818500073
Grossman, R., & Miller, J. P. (2021). Optimizing team effectiveness: Key takeaways from the
science with a focus on the virtual context. American Journal of Health Promotion,
35(5), 732–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171211007955b
Gur, A., Shenaar-Golan, V., & Cohen, A. (2022). Stress, sense of meaningful work, and well-
being among social workers during COVID-19. European Journal of Social Work, 25(5),
840–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2022.2067136
Halbesleben, J. R. B., Whitman, M. V., & Crawford, W. S. (2014). A dialectical theory of the
decision to go to work: Bringing together absenteeism and presenteeism. Human
110

Resource Management Review, 24(2), 177–192.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.09.001
Harter, J. (2021, July 29). U.S. employee engagement holds steady in first half of 2021. Gallup.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/352949/employee-engagement-holds-steady-first-
half-2021.aspx
Harter, J. (2022a, April 25). U.S. employee engagement slump continues. Gallup.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/391922/employee-engagement-slump-continues.aspx
Harter, J. (2022b, September 6). Is Quiet Quitting Real? Gallup.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/398306/quiet-quitting-real.aspx
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis.
Journal of applied psychology, 87(2), 268.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Killham, E. A., & Asplund, J. W. (2006). Q12 Meta-Analysis.
Gallup. https://www.nova.edu/ie/ice/forms/q12_meta_analysis_2006.pdf
Herbert, J., Ferri, L., Hernandez, B., Zamarripa, I., Hofer, K., Fazeli, M. S., Shnitsar, I., &
Abdallah, K. (2023). Personality diversity in the workplace: A systematic literature
review on introversion. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 38(2), 165–187.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15555240.2023.2192504
Herway, J. (2020, October 15). Increase productivity at the lowest possible cost. Gallup.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/321743/increase-productivity-lowest-possible-
cost.aspx
111

Heyns, M., & Rothmann, S. (2018). Volitional trust, autonomy satisfaction, and engagement at
work. Psychological Reports, 121(1), 112–134.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294117718555
Hinds, P. J., & Cramton, C. D. (2014). Situated coworker familiarity: How site visits transform
relationships among distributed workers. Organization Science (Providence, R.I.), 25(3),
794–814. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0869
Hopkins, J., & Bardoel, A. (2023). The future is hybrid: How organizations are designing and
supporting sustainable hybrid work models in post-pandemic Australia. Sustainability
(Basel, Switzerland), 15(4), 3086. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043086
Houlfort, N., Cécire, P., Koestner, R., & Verner-Filion, J. (2022). Managing the work-home
interface by making sacrifices: Costs of sacrificing psychological needs. Motivation and
Emotion, 46(5), 658–671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-022-09971-0
Howe, L. C., & Menges, J. I. (2022). Remote work mindsets predict emotions and productivity
in home office: A longitudinal study of knowledge workers during the covid-19
pandemic. Human-Computer Interaction, 37(6), 481–507.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2021.1987238
Hunter, P. (2019). Remote working in research: An increasing usage of flexible work
arrangements can improve productivity and creativity. EMBO Reports, 20(1).
https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201847435
Huyghebaert-Zouaghi, T., Morin, A. J. S., Ntoumanis, N., Berjot, S., & Gillet, N. (2022).
Supervisors’ interpersonal styles: An integrative perspective and a measure based on self-
determination theory. Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12423
112

Hylton, S., Ice, L. & Krutsch, E. (2022, February). What the long-term impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic could mean for the future of IT jobs. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-11/what-the-long-term-impacts-of-the-covid-19-
pandemic-could-mean-for-the-future-of-it-jobs.htm
Jiskrova, G. K. (2022). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the workforce: From psychological
distress to the great resignation. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 76(6),
525–526. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2022-218826
Johnson, S. S. (2021). Knowing well, being well: Well-being born of understanding: The science
of teamwork. American Journal of Health Promotion, 35(5), 730–732.
https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171211007955
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287
Karatepe, O. M., Yavas, U., Babakus, E., & Deitz, G. D. (2018). The effects of organizational
and personal resources on stress, engagement, and job outcomes. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 74, 147–161. https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.04.005
Kerman, K., Korunka, C., & Tement, S. (2022). Work and home boundary violations during the
COVID‐19 pandemic: The role of segmentation preferences and unfinished tasks.
Applied Psychology, 71(3), 784–806. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12335
Kim, W. (2017). Examining mediation effects of work engagement among job resources, job
performance, and turnover intention. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 29(4), 407–
425. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21235
113

Kim, M., Kim, H. S., Simmond, A., & Warner, S. (2022). Strengthening referees' psychological
well-being through engagement and authenticity. Sport Management Review, 25(2), 254–
274. https://doi.org/10.1080/14413523.2021.1930952
Klassen, R. M., Perry, N. E., & Frenzel, A. C. (2012). Teachers' relatedness with students: An
underemphasized component of teachers’ basic psychological needs. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 104(1), 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026253
Klotz, A. C., & Bolino, M. C. (2022, September 15). When quiet quitting is worse than the real
thing. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2022/09/when-quiet-quitting-is-worse-
than-the-real-thing
Kniel, J., & Comi, A. (2021). Riding the same wavelength: Designers’ perceptions of shared
understanding in remote teams. Sage Open, 11(3), 215824402110401.
https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211040129
Knight, C., Patterson, M., & Dawson, J. (2017). Building work engagement: A systematic review
and meta‐analysis investigating the effectiveness of work engagement interventions.
Journal of Organizational Behavior; 38(6), 792–812. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2167
Kossek, E. E. (2016). Managing work-life boundaries in the digital age. Organizational
Dynamics, 45(3), 258–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2016.07.010
Kumar, V., & Pansari, A. (2016). Competitive advantage through engagement. Journal of
Marketing Research, 53(4), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.15.0044
Kumar, P. (2021). V-5 model of employee engagement during COVID-19 and post lockdown.
Vision (New Delhi, India), 25(3), 271-274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972262920980878
114

Kuzior, A., Kettler, K., & Rab, Ł. (2022). Great resignation–Ethical, cultural, relational, and
personal dimensions of generation Y and Z employees’ engagement. Sustainability
(Basel, Switzerland), 14(11), 6764. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116764
Lian, H., Li, J. K., Du, C., Wu, W., Xia, Y., & Lee, C. (2022). Disaster or opportunity? How
COVID-19-associated changes in environmental uncertainty and job insecurity relate to
organizational identification and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(5),
693–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001011
Linneberg, M. S., & Korsgaard, S. (2019). Coding qualitative data: A synthesis guiding the
novice. Qualitative Research Journal, 19(3), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-12-
2018-0012
Lojeski, K. S., & Reilly, R. R. (2020). The power of virtual distance: A guide to productivity and
happiness in the age of remote work. John Wiley & Sons.
Lopes, S., & Chambel, M. J. (2017). Temporary agency workers' motivations and well-being at
work: A two-wave study. International Journal of Stress Management, 24(4), 321–346.
https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000041
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and
organizational psychology, 1(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x
Magson, N. R., Craven, R. G., Ryan, R. M., Dillon, A., Mooney, J., Blacklock, F., Yeung, A. S.,
Kadir, M. S., & Franklin, A. (2022). A cross-cultural investigation of basic psychological
need satisfaction at work in an indigenous and non-indigenous Australian sample across
occupation types. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 53(2), 213–238.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221211060441
115

Mäkikangas, A., Juutinen, S., Mäkiniemi, J., Sjöblom, K., & Oksanen, A. (2022). Work
engagement and its antecedents in remote work: A person-centered view. Work and
Stress, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2022.2080777
Malinowska, D., Tokarz, A., & Staszczyk, S. (2019). How to enhance work engagement among
outsourcing sector employees: The role of job resources, intrinsic, and identified
motivation. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 61(9), e360–e366.
https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001649
Mantesi, E., Chmutina, K., & Goodier, C. (2022). The office of the future: Operational energy
consumption in the post-pandemic era. Energy Research & Social Science, 87, 102472.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102472
Mark, G., Kun, A. L., Rintel, S., & Sellen, A. (2022). Introduction to this special issue: The
future of remote work: Responses to the pandemic. Human-Computer Interaction, 37(5),
397–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2022.2038170
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
Mamun, C. A. A., & Hasan, M. N. (2017). Factors affecting employee turnover and sound
retention strategies in business organization: A conceptual view. Problems and
Perspectives in Management; Problems and Perspectives in Management, 15(1), 63–71.
https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.15(1).2017.06
Mani, S., & Mishra, M. (2021). Employee engagement constructs: “CARE” model of
engagement – Need to look beyond the obvious. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 42(3), 453–466. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-08-2020-0358
116

Marenus, M. W., Marzec, M., & Chen, W. (2022). Association of workplace culture of health
and employee emotional wellbeing. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, 19(19), 12318. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912318
Martela, F., & Riekki, T. J. J. (2018). Autonomy, competence, relatedness, and beneficence: A
multicultural comparison of the four pathways to meaningful work. Frontiers in
Psychology, 9, 1157. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01157
McDonald, K. S., Hite, L. M., & O'Connor, K. W. (2022). Developing sustainable careers for
remote workers. Human Resource Development International, 25(2), 182–198.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2022.2047148
Memon, M. A., Salleh, R., Mirza, M. Z., Cheah, J., Ting, H., Ahmad, M. S., & Tariq, A. (2021).
Satisfaction matters: The relationships between HRM practices, work engagement and
turnover intention. International Journal of Manpower, 42(1), 21–50.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-04-2018-0127
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Mehta, P. (2021). Work from home–Work engagement amid COVID‐19 lockdown and
employee happiness. Journal of Public Affairs, 21(4), e2709-n/a.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2709
Mehta, P. (2022). Work alienation as a mediator between work from home-related isolation, loss
of task identity and job insecurity amid the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal
of Workplace Health Management, 15(3), 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-03-
2021-0070
117

Mercer. (2021, December 15). How life science companies are adopting flex work.
https://www.imercer.com/articleinsights/how-life-science-companies-are-adopting-flex-
work
Meyer, J. P., & Gagné, M. (2008). Employee engagement from a self-determination theory
perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 60–62.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.00010.x
Meyer, J. P., Gagné, M., & Parfyonova, N. M. (2010). Toward an evidence-based model of
engagement: What we can learn from motivation and commitment research. Handbook of
employee engagement. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Michinov, E., Ruiller, C., Chedotel, F., Dodeler, V., & Michinov, N. (2022). Work-from-home
during COVID-19 lockdown: When employees’ well-being and creativity depend on
their psychological profiles. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 862987.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.862987
Microsoft. (2022). 2022 Work Trend Index: Annual Report. https://www.microsoft.com/en-
us/worklab/work-trend-index/great-expectations-making-hybrid-work-work
Mihalache, M., & Mihalache, O. R. (2022). How workplace support for the COVID‐19
pandemic and personality traits affect changes in employees’ affective commitment to the
organization and job‐related well‐being. Human Resource Management, 61(3), 295–314.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22082
Mihalca, L., Irimias, T., & Brendea, G. (2021). Teleworking during the COVID-19 pandemic:
Determining factors of perceived work productivity, job performance, and satisfaction.
Amfiteatru Economic, 23(58), 620–636. https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2021/58/620
118

Moletsane, M., Tefera, O., & Migiro, S. (2019). The relationship between employee engagement
and organisational productivity of sugar industry in South Africa: The employees’
perspective. African Journal of Business and Economic Research, 14(1), 113–134.
https://doi.org/10.31920/1750-4562/2019/v14n1a6
Molino, M., Ingusci, E., Signore, F., Manuti, A., Giancaspro, M. L., Russo, V., Zito, M., &
Cortese, C. G. (2020). Wellbeing costs of technology use during covid-19 remote
working: An investigation using the Italian translation of the technostress creators scale.
Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 12(15), 5911. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12155911
Morrison-Smith, S., & Ruiz, J. (2020). Challenges and barriers in virtual teams: A literature
review. SN Applied Sciences, 2(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2801-5
Mueller, M. (2019). Show me the money: Toward an economic model for a cost-benefit analysis
of employee engagement interventions. International Journal of Organization Theory
and Behavior, 22(1), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-05-2018-0056
Nakrosiene, A., Buciuniene, I., & Gostautaite, B. (2019). Working from home: Characteristics
and outcomes of telework. International Journal of Manpower, 40(1), 87–101.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-07-2017-0172
Nerstad, C. G. L., Wong, S. I., & Richardsen, A. M. (2019). Can engagement go awry and lead
to burnout? The moderating role of the perceived motivational climate. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health; Int J Environ Res Public Health,
16(11), 1979. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16111979
Norman, S. M., Avey, J., Larson, M., & Hughes, L. (2020). The development of trust in virtual
leader–follower relationships. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management,
15(3), 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-12-2018-1701
119

Nyberg, A. J., Shaw, J. D., & Zhu, J. (2021). The people still make the (remote work-) place:
Lessons from a pandemic. Journal of Management, 47(8), 1967–1976.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211023563
Oakman, J., Kinsman, N., Stuckey, R., Graham, M., & Weale, V. (2020). A rapid review of
mental and physical health effects of working at home: How do we optimise health?
BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1825. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09875-z
Oh, J., & Chhinzer, N. (2021). Is turnover contagious? The impact of transformational leadership
and collective turnover on employee turnover decisions. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 42(7), 1089–1103. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-12-2020-0548
Olafsen, A. H., Halvari, H., & Frølund, C. W. (2021). The basic psychological need satisfaction
and need frustration at work scale: A validation study. Frontiers in Psychology, 12,
697306. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.697306
Orhan, M. A., Rijsman, J. B., & van Dijk, G. M. (2016). Invisible, therefore isolated:
Comparative effects of team virtuality with task virtuality on workplace isolation and
work outcomes. Revista De Psicología Del Trabajo Y De Las Organizaciones, 32(2),
109–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpto.2016.02.002
Orsini, C., & Rodrigues, V. (2020). Supporting motivation in teams working remotely: The role
of basic psychological needs. Medical Teacher, 42(7), 828–829.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1758305
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), 771-790. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-06-2020-0150
120

Panteli, N., Yalabik, Z. Y., & Rapti, A. (2019). Fostering work engagement in geographically-
dispersed and asynchronous virtual teams. Information Technology & People (West Linn,
Or.), 32(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-04-2017-0133
Park, K. A., & Johnson, K. R. (2019). Job satisfaction, work engagement, and turnover intention
of CTE health science teachers. International Journal for Research in Vocational
Education and Training, 6(3), 224–242.
Pass, S., & Ridgway, M. (2022). An informed discussion on the impact of COVID-19 and
“enforced” remote working on employee engagement. Human Resource Development
International, 25(2), 254–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2022.2048605
Patanjali, S., & Bhatta, N. M. K. (2022). Work from home during the pandemic: The impact of
organizational factors on the productivity of employees in the IT industry. Vision (New
Delhi, India), 97226292210741. https://doi.org/10.1177/09722629221074137
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and
practice. Sage.
Pendell, R. (2022, June 14). The world’s $7.8 trillion workplace problem. Gallup.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/393497/world-trillion-workplace-problem.aspx
Peters, D., Calvo, R. A., & Ryan, R. M. (2018). Designing for motivation, engagement and well-
being in digital experience. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 797.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00797
Pianese, T., Errichiello, L., & Cunha, J. V. (2022). Organizational control in the context of
remote working: A synthesis of empirical findings and a research agenda. European
Management Review, 20(2), 327–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12515
121

Pignault, A., & Houssemand, C. (2021). What factors contribute to the meaning of work? A
validation of Morin’s meaning of work questionnaire. Psicologia, Reflexão e Crítica,
34(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-020-00167-4
Pleshette, M. (2020). Employee turnover: Determinants, consequences, trends in academia and
the implications on organizational effectiveness. I-Manager’s Journal on Management,
15(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.26634/jmgt.15.1.17258
Princess, J. A., Anthonia, A. A., Odunayo, P. S., Olaide, M. B., Samuel, O. A., & Judith, O. I.
(2021). Examining employee engagement within the context of flexible work
arrangement in Asian-owned company in Lagos state. Academy of Strategic Management
Journal, 20(6), 1–12.
Purcell, J. (2014). Disengaging from engagement. Human Resource Management Journal;
Human Resource Management Journal, 24(3), 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-
8583.12046
Rahmadani, V. G., Schaufeli, W. B., Ivanova, T. Y., & Osin, E. N. (2019). Basic psychological
need satisfaction mediates the relationship between engaging leadership and work
engagement: A cross‐national study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 30(4),
453–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21366
Ren, F., Zhang, Q., & Wei, X. (2021). Work autonomous and controlled motivation on Chinese
employees’ work performance and innovative work behaviour: The moderating role of
financial stress. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 676063.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.676063
122

Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects
on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988
Riedl, R. (2021). On the stress potential of videoconferencing: Definition and root causes of
Zoom fatigue. Electronic Markets, 32(1), 153–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-021-
00501-3
Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2018). Self-determination theory in human resource development:
New directions and practical considerations. Advances in Developing Human Resources,
20(2), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422318756954
Ross, P. T., & Bibler Zaidi, N. L. (2019). Limited by our limitations. Perspectives on Medical
Education, 8(4), 261–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-00530-x
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in
motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2019). Brick by brick: The origins, development, and future of self-
determination theory. Advances in Motivation Science, 6, 111–156.
https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2019.01.001
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination
theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2016). Autonomy and autonomy disturbances in
self-development and psychopathology: Research on motivation, attachment, and clinical
process. Developmental Psychopathology, 1, 385–438.
123

Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., Vansteenkiste, M., & Soenens, B. (2021). Building a science of
motivated persons: Self-determination theory’s empirical approach to human experience
and the regulation of behavior. Motivation Science, 7(2), 97–110.
https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000194
Sahut, J. M., & Lissillour, R. (2023). The adoption of remote work platforms after the covid-19
lockdown: New approach, new evidence. Journal of Business Research, 154, 113345.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113345
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169
Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What do we really know about employee engagement?
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 155–182.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21187
Sandhya, S., & Sulphey, M. M. (2021). Influence of empowerment, psychological contract and
employee engagement on voluntary turnover intentions. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, 70(2), 325–349.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-04-2019-0189
Sansone, C., & Tang, Y. (2021). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and self-determination theory.
Motivation Science, 7(2), 113–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000234
Sarbu, M. (2018). The role of telecommuting for work-family conflict among German
employees. Research in Transportation Economics, 70, 37–51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2018.07.009
Schaufeli, W. (2021). Engaging leadership: How to promote work engagement? Frontiers in
Psychology, 12, 1–754556. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.754556
124

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement
of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement
with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
Schaufeli, W. B., Shimazu, A., Hakanen, J., Salanova, M., & De Witte, H. (2019). An ultra-short
measure for work engagement: The UWES-3 validation across five countries. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment: Official Organ of the European Association of
Psychological Assessment, 35(4), 577–591. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000430
Schinoff, B. S., Ashforth, B. E., & Corley, K. G. (2020). Virtually (in)separable: The centrality
of relational cadence in the formation of virtual multiplex relationships. Academy of
Management Journal, 63(5), 1395–1424. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2018.0466
Schneider, B., Yost, A. B., Kropp, A., Kind, C., & Lam, H. (2018). Workforce engagement:
What it is, what drives it, and why it matters for organizational performance. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 39(4), 462–480. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2244
Schroth, H. (2019). Are you ready for gen Z in the workplace? California Management Review,
61(3), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125619841006
Schulze, J., & Krumm, S. (2017). The “virtual team player”: A review and initial model of
knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics for virtual collaboration.
Organizational Psychology Review, 7(1), 66–95.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386616675522
125

Sedrine, S. B., Bouderbala, A., & Nasraoui, H. (2021). Leadership style effect on virtual team
efficiency: Trust, operational cohesion and media richness roles. The Journal of
Management Development, 40(5), 365–388. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-10-2018-0289
Serenko, A. (2022). The great resignation: The great knowledge exodus or the onset of the great
knowledge revolution? Journal of Knowledge Management,
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-12-2021-0920
Sewell, G., & Taskin, L. (2015). Out of sight, out of mind in a new world of work? Autonomy,
control, and spatiotemporal scaling in telework. Organization Studies, 36(11), 1507–
1529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615593587
Shaik, F. F., & Makhecha, U. P. (2019). Drivers of employee engagement in global virtual
teams. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 23, 1–45.
https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v23i0.1770
Shirmohammadi, M., Au, W. C., & Beigi, M. (2022). Remote work and work-life balance:
Lessons learned from the covid-19 pandemic and suggestions for HRD practitioners.
Human Resource Development International, 25(2), 163–181.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2022.2047380
Shimura, A., Yokoi, K., Ishibashi, Y., Akatsuka, Y., & Inoue, T. (2021). Remote work decreases
psychological and physical stress responses, but full-remote work increases presenteeism.
Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 730969. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.730969
Shockley, K. M., Gabriel, A. S., Robertson, D., Rosen, C. C., Chawla, N., Ganster, M. L., &
Ezerins, M. E. (2021). The fatiguing effects of camera use in virtual meetings: A within-
person field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(8), 1137–1155.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000948
126

Shoshan, H. N., & Wehrt, W. (2022). Understanding "zoom fatigue": A mixed-method approach.
Applied Psychology, 71(3), 827–852. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12360
Shuck, B., & Reio, T. G. (2014). Employee engagement and well-being: A moderation model
and implications for practice. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(1),
43–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051813494240
Slemp, G. R., Lee, M. A., & Mossman, L. H. (2021). Interventions to support autonomy,
competence, and relatedness needs in organizations: A systematic review with
recommendations for research and practice. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 94(2), 427–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12338
Smite, D., Moe, N. B., Klotins, E., & Gonzalez-Huerta, J. (2023). From forced working-from-
home to voluntary working-from-anywhere: Two revolutions in telework. The Journal of
Systems and Software, 195, 111509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2022.111509
Soane, E., Truss, C., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2012). Development and
application of a new measure of employee engagement: The ISA engagement scale.
Human Resource Development International, 15(5), 529–547.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2012.726542
Sull, D., Sull, C., & Bersin, J. (2020). Five ways leaders can support remote work. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 61(4), 1–10.
Sull, D., Sull, C., & Zweig, B. (2022). Toxic culture is driving the great resignation. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 63(2), 1–9.
Sun, R., & Wang, W. (2017). Transformational leadership, employee turnover intention, and
actual voluntary turnover in public organizations. Public Management Review, 19(8),
1124–1141. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1257063
127

Surma, M. J., Nunes, R. J., Rook, C., & Loder, A. (2021). Assessing employee engagement in a
post-covid-19 workplace ecosystem. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 13(20), 11443.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011443
Taber, L., Dominguez, S., & Whittaker, S. (2022). Cats, kids, and video calls: How working
from home affects media self-presentation. Human-Computer Interaction, 37(5), 454–
479. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2021.1970557
Telford, T. (2022, August 21). “Quiet quitting” isn’t really about quitting. Here are the signs.
Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/08/21/quiet-quitting-
what-to-know/
Torpey, E. (2020). Millennials in the labor force, projected 2019‒29. Bls.gov.
https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2020/data-on-display/millennials-in-labor-force.htm
Toscano, F., & Zappalà, S. (2020). Social isolation and stress as predictors of productivity
perception and remote work satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of
concern about the virus in a moderated double mediation. Sustainability (Basel,
Switzerland), 12(23), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239804
Trépanier, S., Vallerand, R. J., Ménard, J., & Peterson, C. (2020). Job resources and burnout:
Work motivation as a moderator. Stress and Health; Stress Health, 36(4), 433–441.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2939
Turesky, E. F., Smith, C. D., & Turesky, T. K. (2020). A call to action for virtual team leaders:
Practitioner perspectives on trust, conflict and the need for organizational support.
Organization Management Journal, 17(4–5), 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1108/OMJ-09-
2019-0798
128

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022a). Information: NAICS 51.
https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag51.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022b). Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services:
NAICS 54. https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag54.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022c). Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022d). Nonfarm business sector labor productivity decreased
7.3 percent in the first quarter of 2022. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2022/nonfarm-
business-sector-labor-productivity-decreased-7-3-percent-in-the-first-quarter-of-
2022.htm
U.S. Census Bureau. (2021). Those who switched to telework have higher income, education and
better health. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/03/working-from-home-
during-the-pandemic.html
Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C., & Rosen, C. C. (2016). A review of self-
determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management,
42(5), 1195–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316632058
Van den Broeck, A., Howard, J. L., Van Vaerenbergh, Y., Leroy, H., & Gagné, M. (2021).
Beyond intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis on self-determination theory’s
multidimensional conceptualization of work motivation. Sage Journals, 11(3).
https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866211006173
van Dorssen-Boog, P., de Jong, J., Veld, M., & Van Vuuren, T. (2020). Self-leadership among
healthcare workers: A mediator for the effects of job autonomy on work engagement and
health. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. 1420. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01420
129

Van Zoonen, W., & Sivunen, A. E. (2022). The impact of remote work and mediated
communication frequency on isolation and psychological distress. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 31(4), 610–621.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2021.2002299
Vander Elst, T., Verhoogen, R., & Godderis, L. (2020). Teleworking and employee well-being in
Corona times: The importance of optimal psychosocial work conditions. Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 62(12), e776-e777.
https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002059
Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R. M., & Soenens, B. (2020). Basic psychological need theory:
Advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motivation and Emotion, 44(1), 1–
31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09818-1
Varma, A., Jaiswal, A., Pereira, V., & Kumar, Y. L. N. (2022). Leader-member exchange in the
age of remote work. Human Resource Development International, 25(2), 219–230.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2022.2047873
Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J., & Parker, S. K. (2021). Achieving effective remote working during
the COVID‐19 pandemic: A work design perspective. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 16–59.
https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12290
Wang, L., Law, K. S., Zhang, M. J., Li, Y. N., & Liang, Y. (2019). It’s mine! Psychological
ownership of one's job explains positive and negative workplace outcomes of job
engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(2), 229–246.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000337
130

Weideman, M., & Hofmeyr, K. B. (2020). The influence of flexible work arrangements on
employee engagement: An exploratory study. SA Journal of Human Resource
Management, 18(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v18i0.1209
Willard-Grace, R., Knox, M., M.P.H., Huang, B., B.A., Hammer, H., M.D., Kivlahan, Coleen,
M.D., M.S.P.H., & Grumbach, K., M.D. (2019). Burnout and health care workforce
turnover. Annals of Family Medicine, 17(1), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2338
Williams, G. C., Halvari, H., Niemiec, C. P., Sørebø, Ø, Olafsen, A. H., & Westbye, C. (2014).
Managerial support for basic psychological needs, somatic symptom burden and work-
related correlates: A self-determination theory perspective. Work and Stress, 28(4), 404–
419. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2014.971920
Willis, K., Emmett, D., & McInerney, M. (2021). Our workforce and COVID-19: How remote
working plays a role. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal (1984), 86(3), 9–19.
Wu, H., Song, Q. C., Proctor, R. W., & Chen, Y. (2022). Family relationships under work from
home: Exploring the role of adaptive processes. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 782217.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.782217
Yang, Holtz, D., Jaffe, S., Suri, S., Sinha, S., Weston, J., Joyce, C., Shah, N., Sherman, K.,
Hecht, B., & Teevan, J. (2022). The effects of remote work on collaboration among
information workers. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(1), 43–54.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01196-4
Yarberry, S., & Sims, C. (2021). The impact of COVID-19-prompted virtual/remote work
environments on employees’ career development: Social learning theory, belongingness,
and self-empowerment. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 23(3), 237-252.
https://doi.org/10.1177/15234223211017850
131

Zaharie, M. (2021). Challenges, trust and performance in virtual teams: Examining the role of
openness to experience and preference for virtual teams. Team Performance
Management, 27(3), 210–228. https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-07-2020-0066
Zhang, J., Zhang, Y., Song, Y., & Gong, Z. (2016). The different relations of extrinsic,
introjected, identified regulation and intrinsic motivation on employees’ performance:
Empirical studies following self-determination theory. Management Decision, 54(10),
2393–2412. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-01-2016-0007
Zhang, Y., Zhao, R., & Yu, X. (2022). Enhancing virtual team performance via high-quality
interpersonal relationships: Effects of authentic leadership. International Journal of
Manpower, 43(4), 982–1000. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-08-2020-0378
132

Appendix A: Eligibility Survey
The survey below will screen participants for the study and collect demographic
information from those who meet the study’s eligibility criteria. It will be administered via
Qualtrics, an online survey platform. If participants’ answers to any of the first three questions
indicate they are not eligible for the study, the survey ends, and they are thanked for their
willingness to participate. Data collected from potential participants who do not meet the study’s
eligibility criteria will be deleted upon receipt.
Introduction to the Survey:
Welcome to this research pre-screening survey! The broad implementation of remote and
hybrid work arrangements due to the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the workplace landscape
and many organizations are eager to understand how to keep employees engaged under these
new working conditions. As part of my doctoral dissertation, I will be interviewing remote and
hybrid employees to capture their perspectives on the topic. Participation in the study is
confidential, voluntary, and you may choose to withdraw at any time. If you indicate a
willingness to participate and meet the eligibility requirements, I will contact you within 30 days
with an invitation for a 45–60-minutes interview via Zoom. Participants will be entered into a
drawing to win a $250 Amazon electronic gift card upon the conclusion of all interviews. The
winner will receive a notification and the prize via email.
Please complete the pre-screening survey below to see if you meet the study’s eligibility
criteria. The survey should take approximately 5 minutes, and responses will remain completely
anonymous.

133

Table A1
Eligibility Survey
Questions Open or closed? Level of
measurement
Response options
Are you an individual contributor
who transitioned to a remote or
hybrid setting since the onset of
the COVID-19 pandemic or
whose flexible work
arrangements provide more
opportunities to work remotely
post-pandemic?

Remote setting indicates your work
is performed from locations other
than a traditional office
environment on a full-time basis
(e.g., working from home).
Hybrid work is a flexible working
model that allows employees to
choose their work location, often
involving both traditional office
and remote environments.
Closed Nominal Yes; No; Prefer not
to answer
Do you work in the information or
professional and business services
sector?

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
defines the information sector as
organizations that produce and
disseminate information products,
offer means to distribute data or
communications, and conduct
information processing. The
professional and business services
sector specializes in professional,
scientific, and technical activities
for others (e.g., IT, legal,
accounting, consulting,
engineering, scientific research
and development activities –
Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical,
among others).
Closed Nominal Yes; No; Prefer not
to answer
134

Questions Open or closed? Level of
measurement
Response options
Do you consent to be video, or
audio recorded?

The interview will be confidential,
and only the researcher will have
access to recordings. Recordings
will be stored in a password-
protected server, and no
identifying information will be
reported. Participants can choose
to be recorded via audio only.
Closed Nominal Yes; No; Prefer not
to answer
Which of the following best
describes your age? Select one.
Closed Interval 18-25; 26-41; 42-57;
58-67; 68-94; Prefer
not to answer
Which of the following genders do
you most identify with? Select
one.
Closed Nominal Female; Male,
Nonbinary; Prefer
not to answer
Which of the following best
describes you? Select all that
apply.
Closed Nominal Asian; Black; White;
Hispanic/Latinx;
Native American;
Pacific Islander;
Mixed race; Other;
Prefer not to answer
What is the highest level of
education you have completed?
Select one.
Closed Ordinal Some high school,
no diploma; High
school diploma or
GED; Some college,
no degree; Associate
(2 year) degree;
Bachelor’s (4 year)
degree; Master’s
degree; Doctorate
degree
Which of the following best
describes your total annual
household income?
Closed Ordinal Under $99,999;
$100,000 to
$149,999; $150,000
to $199,999;
$200,000 or more.

135

Questions Open or closed?
Level of
measurement
Response options
In which industry do you currently
work?
Closed Nominal
Information (IT);
Biotechnology/Phar
maceutical;
Accounting;
Engineering; Legal;
Management,
Scientific and
Technical
Consulting;
Advertising and
Related Services;
Other Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Please share any questions or
concerns you may have, if any.
Open Nominal

Please provide your contact
information if you wish to
participate.
Open Nominal
Name:
Email:
Phone number
(optional):

136

Appendix B: Recruitment Email
Dear prospective participant:
The broad implementation of remote and hybrid work arrangements due to the COVID-
19 pandemic has changed the workplace landscape, and many organizations are eager to
understand how to keep employees engaged under these new working conditions. As part of my
doctoral dissertation, I will be interviewing remote and hybrid employees to capture their
perspectives on the topic.
Participation in the study is confidential, voluntary, and you may choose to withdraw at
any time. If you indicate a willingness to participate and meet the eligibility requirements, I will
contact you within 30 days with an invitation for a 45–60-minutes interview via Zoom.
Participants will be entered into a drawing to win a $250 Amazon electronic gift card upon the
conclusion of all interviews. The winner will receive a notification and the prize via email.
Please complete the pre-screening survey at this link (INSERT LINK) to see if you meet
the study’s eligibility criteria. The survey should take approximately 5 minutes, and responses
will remain completely anonymous!
Thank you for your interest in the study.
Sincerely,
Renata Porto
rporto@usc.edu
137

Appendix C: USC Information Sheet for Exempt Research
STUDY TITLE: Employee Engagement in a Post-Covid Era: The Mediating Role of Basic
Psychological Need Satisfaction in Remote and Hybrid Work Environments

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Renata Porto

FACULTY ADVISOR: Dr. Monique Datta

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
contains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to examine the satisfaction of employees’ basic psychological needs
in remote and hybrid work environments following the COVID-19 pandemic and its subsequent
influence on employee engagement. The broad implementation of remote and hybrid work
arrangements has changed the workplace landscape, and organizations are eager to understand
how to keep employees engaged under these new working conditions. This study intends to
advance a collective understanding of employee engagement in these work environments.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT

You have been invited to participate in the study because you meet the study’s eligibility criteria.
As a study participant, you will partake in a 45–60 minutes interview via Zoom. With your
permission, the interview will be video and audio recorded, or audio recorded only. A qualitative
data analysis computer software will transcribe the recordings for data analysis. To participate in
the study, you must consent to the recording and data transcription before the interview starts.
You will have the opportunity to ask questions throughout the entire interview experience, and
you can stop at any time or refuse to answer any questions. As a participant, you will also have
an opportunity to verify the accuracy of your interview transcripts. Lastly, I may contact you
after your interview if clarifications or further inquiries are needed.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will be entered into a drawing to win a $250 Amazon electronic gift card upon the
conclusion of all interviews. The winner will receive a notification and the prize via email.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) may access the study
data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research
subjects. No identifying information will be on display when the research findings are published
or discussed. The data collected for this study will be anonymous, stored in a password-protected
computer, and destroyed after 3 years. Interviews will occur in a private setting to ensure
confidentiality. Your identity will remain confidential through the use of pseudonyms and
redactions in all study materials.
138

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Renata Porto at rporto@usc.edu or Dr.
Monique Datta at mdatta@usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
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
irb@usc.edu.

139

Appendix D: Interview Protocol
The following research questions guide this study:
1. How do employees describe their experiences of basic psychological need satisfaction
in a remote or hybrid work environment following the COVID-19 pandemic?
2. How does the satisfaction of employees' basic psychological needs influence
employee engagement in a remote or hybrid work environment following the
COVID-19 pandemic?
Study Participants: individual contributors of any age, race or ethnicity who permanently
transitioned to a remote or hybrid setting since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic or whose
flexible work arrangements provide more opportunities to work remotely post-pandemic.
Introduction to the Interview:
Thank you for meeting with me to discuss some of your experiences as a hybrid or
remote employee. I’m a doctoral student at the University of Southern California, and I am
interested in the topic of employee engagement in a post-pandemic environment where so many
employees are working from home, at least in some capacity. Before we start, I would like to go
over a few details. I will be asking you questions about your level of engagement at work and
your experience as a hybrid or remote employee. When you think of engagement during this
interview, please think about how invested, emotionally connected, and committed you feel to
your work. Let’s review the information sheet I provided to you via email prior to this meeting.
Do you have any questions before we start? Please know you have the option to skip a question
you do not want to answer or stop the interview at any time. As a reminder, I will video and
audio record this session, and the recordings will be used for transcription purposes. Can you
140

please confirm I have your permission to do that? Great, I’m starting to record it now. Let’s start.
The interview protocol is presented in Table D1.

Table D1
Interview Protocol
Interview questions Potential probes Key concept addressed
Some people have reported the
pandemic made them look at
work differently, prioritize
different aspects of their lives.
How would you describe how
you view work before versus
after the pandemic?
What has changed in terms of
what you expect from your
job, if anything?
How have changes in your
mindset impacted how
invested you feel in your
work?
New employee mindset
and engagement
How has work been for you
since you started working
from home or increased the
number of days you work
from home?
How would you describe your
home life on days you work
from home?
Workplace experience
How would you describe how
engaged you feel at work?
Have these feelings shifted in
any way since you started to
work from home? If so,
how?
Engagement
Can you tell me, in detail, what
elements of your current work
environment influence how
committed you feel to your
work?
Are there aspects of your
current work environment
that make you disengage or
feel disconnected?
Engagement
How much input do you have in
terms of deciding how you
get your job done?
How does that influence how
invested you are in the work
you do?
Autonomy and
engagement
Are there any other aspects of
your work that give you a
sense of choice or autonomy?
If so, what are they?
Can you think of any
opportunities you have had
to be proactive, make
decisions, or provide
feedback?
Autonomy and
engagement
What has your experience been
when it comes to working
with others virtually?
How do you feel about your
work relationships?
Relatedness, virtual
relationships, and
engagement
141

Interview questions Potential probes Key concept addressed
How about your relationship
with your boss?
What has your experience
been when it comes to
reporting to your boss
remotely?
How socially connected do you
feel to others at work since
you started working
remotely?
How are you connecting?
What aspects of your current
work environment make
you feel closer or more
connected to others at
work?
Who do you feel closer or
most connected to at work?
Do you have meaningful
relationships at work? If so,
can you describe what
makes these relationships
meaningful?
Relatedness and virtual
relationships
How capable or proficient do
you feel about the work you
do?
What specifically happens at
work that makes you feel
capable or proficient?
How do you go about
developing new skills at
work?
Competence
Since you started working from
home, can you describe any
opportunities you had to
leverage or build on your
existing skills and abilities?
Can you tell me more about
that?
How does that impact how
you feel about your
professional life?
Competence and
engagement
What changes would you like to
see at work that would make
you feel more connected and
committed to your work?
Engagement
Have I missed anything or is
there anything else you would
like to add when it comes to
how your current work
circumstances influence how
engaged you feel at work?
Engagement

142

Conclusion to the Interview:
Thank you so much for your time. I will be transcribing this interview, and with your
permission, I would like to contact you in case I have any additional questions or need any
clarification. Do I have your permission to do that? As a reminder and a thank you gesture, you
will be entered into a drawing to win a $250 Amazon electronic gift card upon the conclusion of
all interviews. The winner will receive a notification and the prize via email. Do you have any
questions for me? Thank you once again. It was very nice speaking with you today.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The persistently low rate of employee engagement in the United States has posed a significant challenge for numerous organizations throughout the years. Despite the depth of scholarly work available on the topic, translating theoretical concepts into successful strategies remains an ongoing effort. The widespread implementation of remote and hybrid work arrangements following the COVID-19 pandemic added a layer of complexity to this already intricate problem, prompting the need for further targeted research. This qualitative field study examines employee engagement in remote and hybrid work environments following the pandemic. Grounded in the principles of self-determination theory, the study applies a qualitative phenomenological methodology to explore the satisfaction of remote and hybrid employees’ basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness and its consequential influence on engagement. The study’s findings support the centrality of basic psychological need satisfaction for motivation and emphasize the importance of nurturing it as an organizational strategy to enhance employee engagement in remote and hybrid work settings. The study presents five recommendations for organizations to rectify deficiencies in meeting employees’ basic psychological needs in these settings. Additionally, it considers potential areas for future research, taking into account that a post-pandemic shift in employee mindset may signify the obsolescence of the traditional five-day in-office work week across various sectors.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Examining the pandemic’s impact on remote worker wellness in community colleges: organizational lessons and strategies

PDF

An analysis of online engagement of secondary teachers at high need schools during COVID-19 shutdowns

PDF

Impact of performance appraisals on double-hatting employees

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Remote learning and parent engagement during a crisis

PDF

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

PDF

Why are they still here: a look at employee retention amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Frontline workers serving students: a study on the well-being of student affairs professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Development of employee well-being initiatives to improve engagement and performance: an innovative study

PDF

Management preconditions to mitigate virtual employee burnout

PDF

Experience of belonging for full-time hybrid physical therapy faculty

PDF

Casualties of conflict: trauma and belonging in refugee and immigrant youth

PDF

From a privilege to an option: hybrid work schedule: a gap analysis

PDF

Understanding cross-cultural knowledge sharing in Ghana’s energy sector: an exploratory study

PDF

COVID-19 pandemic: the impact on the Napa Valley wine industry workers

PDF

The well-being and employee effectiveness of United States government contractors during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Organizational model of individuation and employee retention

PDF

Teaching in the time of COVID: secondary educators’ experiences during and after the COVID-19 pandemic

Asset Metadata

Creator Porto, Renata (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-12

Publication Date 08/30/2023

Defense Date 08/04/2023

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

Tag Autonomy,basic psychological needs,competence,COVID-19 pandemic,employee engagement,hybrid.,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,post-pandemic,relatedness,remote,work arrangements

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Datta, Monique (committee chair), Ott, Maria (committee member), Pritchard, Marcus (committee member)

Creator Email porto.rc@gmail.com,rporto@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113302428

Unique identifier UC113302428

Identifier etd-PortoRenat-12290.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-PortoRenat-12290

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Porto, Renata

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230830-usctheses-batch-1088 (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