Hybrid work design profiles: Antecedents and well-being outcomes
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Hybrid work is fast emerging as the future of work. Yet, it is not clear how key work design characteristics that are salient in hybrid work, namely scheduling autonomy, social support, workload, and close monitoring, are experienced in the home compared to the workplace for hybrid workers, and how these work characteristics combine holistically to influence well-being. We adopted a novel approach and measured work characteristics as experienced at home and, separately, as experienced at the workplace. For a sample of hybrid workers ( n = 386), latent profile analysis revealed four profiles of work design characteristics. Two profiles had similar work characteristics at home and the workplace. One of these profiles, labelled ‘active, low monitoring’, had very positive work characteristics across both locations, and was associated with the highest flourishing and mental health. The other profile, labelled ‘passive, high monitoring’, had very poor work design across both locations, and was associated with the lowest flourishing and mental health. The other two profiles diverged in work characteristic levels across locations. One profile, labelled ‘high strain, high monitoring’ had poor work design that was worse in the workplace, and one profile, labelled ‘low strain, low monitoring’, had better work design that was better at the workplace. Employees with more influence over their work location, and those with high organisational support, were likely to be in the most positive profile (active, low monitoring), suggesting these are important factors for creating positive work design irrespective of location. • In a study of hybrid workers, four hybrid work design profiles emerged. • For some people, work quality varies between home and workplace. • Those in a high strain, a high monitoring profile had better work quality at home. • Those in a low strain, a low monitoring profile had better work quality at the workplace. • Managers should consider monitoring as a job demand when managing remote workers.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle