Leaders’ Challenges in COVID-19 and Telework

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Ingi Edvardsson	--	2989	2023-12-07 12:01:00	\|
2	format correct	Mona Zou	Meta information modification	2989	2023-12-11 09:39:08	\|

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su152316471

The world was taken by surprise in early 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic emerged as a health crisis. The impact on companies was overwhelming and managers were faced with crisis management. To keep operations running, services and sales were shifted to online platforms. As a result, millions of employees worldwide had to adapt to working from home or teleworking. Due to the introduction of lockdown and social distancing, teleworkers had to swiftly and with little to no planning adapt to a new method of working, which was unprecedented. It is unlikely that firms will completely return to their pre-pandemic working norms, even though the long-term repercussions of this dramatic transition are still unknown. Many professionals anticipate that remote or hybrid work will be common in future workplaces.

telework remote work working from home leaders COVID-19 pandemic sustainability

1. Employees and Telework

Prior to the pandemic, studies showed that teleworking has both benefits and drawbacks. Flexible work schedules and perceived autonomy are benefits for the staff, which can boost job satisfaction ^[1] and reduce turnover ^[2]^[3]. Additionally, research on telework in non-pandemic settings has shown that businesses benefit from increased productivity and decreased absenteeism ^[4]^[5]. Flexibility is one of the most notable benefits of telecommuting, as it enables employees to use that time for leisure activities rather than commuting ^[6]^[7]. However, it can also make it harder for employees to discriminate between work and personal life ^[7]. Employees who have greater control over their work tend to put in longer hours, according to Peters et al. ^[8], which can have a detrimental impact on work-life balance. In addition, telework can increase social isolation ^[9]. The drawbacks of teleworking need to be considered in organizational policies.

The current study examines the association between leadership and employee well-being, with a specific focus on the impact of telework. Prior to the pandemic, research findings suggested that the degree of remote work could influence this relationship, suggesting that the extent of telework may affect the correlation between leadership and employee well-being ^[10]. Skakon et al. ^[11] and Weber et al. ^[12] argue that there is a need for a more comprehensive understanding of how telework leadership is related to employee well-being and the specific circumstances under which this relationship is relevant. Similarly, Tanpipat, Lim, and Deng ^[13] discovered that workers’ perceptions of organizational norms and support can enhance telework productivity and job satisfaction.

Employees’ well-being while working remotely can be impacted by their emotional stability. Particularly, the increased autonomy that comes with teleworking is likely to benefit individuals with higher levels of emotional stability, improving well-being. However, remote employment can exacerbate physical, social, and psychological stress for individuals with weaker levels of emotional stability ^[14]. Wang et al. ^[15] noted that working from home might lead to troubles at work spilling over into employees’ personal lives, leading to tiredness and stress. Teleworkers may also find it more challenging to comprehend the goals and values of the organizational units they are a part of ^[16].

One issue with teleworking is that there are fewer in-person interactions, which are crucial for building social bonds ^[1]^[8]. As a result of less employee visibility, managers’ support for them is viewed as being less ^[17]. While Nayani et al. ^[18] claimed that digital communication can have a similar impact to face-to-face communication, the amount of study on this topic is limited. Leadership theories are typically built on face-to-face interactions. On the other hand, Glikson & Erez ^[19] claimed that the absence of personal interaction is one of the major communication issues experienced by remote workers. Because of this, unpleasant feelings may be repressed rather than expressed, which could lead to dissatisfaction and tension. Remote professionals may also rely more on textual forms of communication, which can lead to misinterpretation of the intended message and the conveyed feelings ^[20]. In this situation, the question of what steps managers should take to increase the chance of a successful deployment of telework, particularly during times of crisis, arises.

2. Leaders and Telework

From the beginning, leadership research has examined either the characteristics or the behavior of leaders, either without or with their followers. In recent decades, leadership research has focused on leadership styles such as transformational leadership, servant leadership, etc., with culture and leadership also playing a role ^[21]. Northouse’s definition is as follows: Leadership is a “process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 43). It is therefore not surprising that the focus of leadership and telework is on leadership styles that support employees in telework.

The well-known management theorist Henry Mintzberg ^[22] has analyzed the different roles that managers take on in organizations. These roles are the interpersonal role (figurehead, leader, liaison), the informational role (monitor, spokesperson, disseminator), and the decision-making role (entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator, negotiator).

Telework has a significant impact on all these roles. Leaders must use digital platforms to strengthen teamwork, provide remote support, and preserve staff morale. Informational responsibilities are increasingly crucial in remote work environments. By monitoring remote team success using digital metrics and communication tools, managers serve as monitors ^[23]. As managers are required to enable open information exchange among geographically distributed teams, the role of disseminator becomes more important. Delfino and Kork ^[23] noticed that leaders tend to have more online meetings, while Kohont & Ignjatović ^[24] stress that online communication takes more time, and some information may be missing. When working remotely, decision-making positions become more complex. Kirchner et al. ^[25] conclude that remote working is a great challenge for managers in coordinating and collaborating with employees across distances. Managers who play the role of entrepreneurs must find digital tools and procedures that improve distance communication and innovation. Werder et al. ^[26] stress the importance of adaptability to the changing environment, especially in times of a pandemic, making strategic choices for telework vital. As disturbances can arise due to communication gaps, the role of a disturbance handler necessitates swift virtual conflict resolution. All these make the role of leaders more challenging, manifested in longer working hours and more stress ^[25]^[27].

The implementation of telework has revealed that leaders often exhibit hesitancy in adopting telework due to concerns about relinquishing control ^[28]. Wang ^[29] asserts that leaders prioritize outcome control as their primary concern, followed by behavioral control when considering their priorities in relation to telework. Similarly, a pre-pandemic study conducted on nearly 300 managers discovered widespread resistance towards allowing lower-level employees to engage in telework. Managers expressed apprehensions regarding trust, productivity, and potential underperformance ^[30]^[31]. However, it is important to note that not all leaders who previously utilized telework shared this emphasis on control. Carte et al. ^[32] recommended that leaders operating within a virtual environment should prioritize the cultivation of relationships among team members, facilitate easy access to information, support problem-solving endeavors, enhance the self-management capabilities of employees, and provide continuous motivation.

Numerous scholarly investigations have been conducted to examine the various obstacles and requisites for leadership during times of crisis in a broad context. However, the precise influence of telework on distinct leadership styles remains indeterminate. The advent of the COVID-19 pandemic has accentuated the importance of investigating effective leadership strategies that can adequately bolster the psychological well-being and productivity of teleworking individuals ^[33]. As leaders afford their employees greater flexibility and autonomy through telework arrangements, they must also be cognizant of the augmented responsibilities and workload that accompany this mode of work ^[34].

3. Leadership during COVID-19

Coun et al. ^[35] discovered that the leadership style selected had a significant impact on the workflow among innovative employees. Workflow benefited from empowering leadership, whereas direct leadership had the opposite effect. A related theory was tested by Garretsen et al. ^[36]. According to their research, telework caused a spike in directive leadership between March and June 2020. The results were different, though, during the COVID-19 crisis’s second phase, which lasted from March to December 2020. The researchers noticed an increase in participative leadership but no significant change in directive leadership. Caniëls ^[37] investigated the link between virtuous leadership practices, emotional vitality, and physical fortitude. According to the findings, those who have worked with their boss for a longer period experience the favorable effect even more strongly ^[37].

By implementing more effective management techniques, including authentic leadership, managers can meet or even surpass their goals and boost employee commitment to telework, as shown by Monzani et al. ^[38]. Chen & Sriphon ^[39]^[40] conducted two studies on the actions of leaders and the impact of authentic leadership on telework during the COVID-19 epidemic. The first study showed that authentic leadership has a positive impact on social interaction and trust. Subsequently, they showed that authentic leadership not only has a positive impact on social interaction and trust but also that social exchange relationships have a positive impact on trust, building on their earlier research and reinforcing the initial findings.

Organic leadership has a favorable effect on organizational behavior and trust in leaders, claim Liu et al. ^[41]. Liu et al. (p. 4) define organic leadership as “a natural, motivating, compelling, relaxed, inspiring model of hard work, creativity and innovation, and fun”. Additionally, when followers exhibited anti-prototypical characteristics, organic leadership had a higher impact on trust and organizational behavior. By examining follower behavior as well as leader conduct, the study offers a fresh viewpoint on employee behavior. According to the paper, companies should place more emphasis on effective followership than just leadership.

Herzog-Evans and Sturgeon ^[42] provided evidence based on leadership theories and self-determination theory that effective crisis managers are those who use a servant leadership approach by putting their employees’ basic needs first while also reducing their levels of uncertainty. In a similar manner, empathetic, transformational and inclusive leadership seem to have a favorable impact on job satisfaction, motivation, and job creativity, according to Muttaqin et al. and others ^[43]^[44]^[45]. Inclusive leadership and supportive motivation seem to improve attitudes towards working from home among employees ^[46]^[47].

In Sweden, supportive leadership during the COVID-19 epidemic was the subject of a comparative analysis that revealed its importance for employee well-being during that time. The findings also revealed that there were few differences between office-based workers and those who teleworked ^[48].

Telework appears to suffer under paternalistic, authoritarian, and destructive leadership styles. When using telework, managers in India usually adopt a paternalistic leadership style, which is less effective because they cannot personally supervise their staff ^[49]. Dolce et al. ^[50] found that despite leaders’ physical distance from their followers, destructive leaders can still be “too close” because of high cognitive demands and excessive technology use. This may decrease employee autonomy and lead to more weariness. Employees’ associations between workaholism and technostress were amplified by high authoritarian leadership styles, whereas this correlation was mitigated by low authoritarian leadership styles. These results lead the researchers to recommend that leaders should be trained to avoid authoritarian leadership and be aware of its potential drawbacks ^[51].

4. Organizational Support and Communication

According to Henke et al. ^[52], effective telework requires clear and constant communication. They noticed that, particularly in the short term, the transition to digital communication presented difficulties for both teams and leaders. Leaders put more effort into adopting virtual technologies for communication. Kohont & Ignjatović ^[24] highlighted that employees frequently received information from multiple communication channels at once, with leaders typically communicating via email and mobile phones.

The third finding was that collaboration became more difficult as new techniques were learned, communication required more time, and some information was missing. However, the circumstances forced teams to be more innovative in their communication tactics, coming up with fresh ideas for staying in touch that they had not previously considered ^[52]. Young workers have a great desire for memorable occasions, praise, and consistent leadership feedback. As a result, it was particularly difficult to address the communication and social contact needs of young teleworkers during the pandemic ^[53].

According to Günther et al. ^[54], keeping employees informed and ensuring efficient communication boosted their well-being and decreased stress. George et al. ^[55] claim that spending money on tools that enable teleworkers to stay in touch with the coworkers who support them can boost productivity and creativity at work, as well as raise life satisfaction and interest, lower stress levels, and improve general health. While Wut et al. ^[31] agreed that social connections and a feeling of community are vital to maintaining professional engagement in a virtual setting, it can be difficult to forge emotional relationships with coworkers through virtual methods alone. Additionally, getting support from managers and being able to work independently can boost engagement at work. On the other hand, excessive communication and supervisory oversight can lead to tension and overburden ^[56].

Agile working practices were the main topic of study for Heidt et al. ^[57]. According to their research, the key is to give support and enablement priority when introducing telework in firms that have adopted an agile working environment. According to their research, the most important aspect of the success of teleworking is assistance. However, not all teleworkers were receiving the same degree of support, according to Miglioretti et al. ^[58]. Their research suggested that high-quality teleworkers have higher levels of job resources than low-quality teleworkers, including task control, supervisor support, and coworker support. According to a different study, organizational support can be inferred from emotional resources. Particularly, how employees feel their business is supporting them affects their emotional responses, which in turn affects how safe they feel psychologically. The study also showed that employees’ levels of psychological safety were influenced by supervisors’ online communication practices ^[58]. The employee’s opinion of how supportive their home environment is toward their daily activities did not affect job satisfaction at the home office, in contrast to office work settings ^[59].

When their leaders communicated in a way that supported their families, those workers who prefer to keep work and personal life separate reported feeling more positive emotions and having a richer work-life balance. This suggests that managers should try to comprehend and consider the various family situations and needs of their staff through sincere conversations and interactions, using language that supports family-friendly policies, and demonstrating genuine interest and concern for family-related issues ^[60].

Unexpected results were found by Oakman et al. ^[61]. Their study showed that the abrupt switch to telework increased communication between various divisions and across the entire organization. They attributed this improvement to the quick adoption of online platforms that made it possible for workers from various areas to take part in meetings without having to travel. All employees were given the same chances to attend meetings, regardless of where they were physically located.

5. Telework and Productivity

Telework increased employment productivity during the COVID-19 epidemic, as shown by Baakeel ^[62]. This study also showed that telework does not interfere with communication. Additionally, Mukherjee et al. ^[63], who focused on social connections as a productivity hurdle, discovered evidence that participating in social interactions can significantly increase job productivity. According to Kowalski and Slebarska’s ^[64] research, lower-level managers have a significant association between telework’s advantages and effectiveness, indicating a connection between lower-level managers’ perceptions of the advantages of external cooperation and their efficiency.

Additionally, Choukir et al. ^[65] presented proof of a strong and positive relationship between telework and job performance. The study also found that having the appropriate tools or technologies at home boosted workers’ productivity. Suresh & Gopakumar ^[66] conducted research on how the IT sector transitioned to telework without sacrificing productivity or efficiency in support of that. They concluded that offering the right chances for training and development not only increased productivity but also fostered both personal and professional development. Tools to help staff transition to telework and organizational IT development received some attention. A document management system (DMS) and effective leadership may be crucial for preserving job performance during a pandemic, according to Eriksson et al. ^[67]. In the study, teleworkers’ perceptions of process quality and coherence were both influenced by a DMS’s functionality. Another study looked at how information technology might be used to help leaders perform better. Dos Santos et al. ^[68] proved that management controls boosted employees’ perceived productivity and how well employees’ aims correspond with the organization’s goals.

Management controls, however, were not perceived the same way by leaders as by employees. The relationship between employees and the company’s goals diminished with increasing management controls, showing that there were limits to how far management controls could be utilized to monitor personnel. One study, by Qu & Yan ^[69], indicated that telework decreased job performance but raised job quality, which was at odds with other findings.

6. Challenges Faced by Leaders in COVID-19

According to Rodrigues et al. ^[70], leaders who telework experience the same difficulties that employees do. They also have to continue to be productive and work as a cohesive team while working from a distance. Ipsen et al. ^[71] also discovered evidence that leaders who teleworked, regardless of their rank, had an increase in workload, which lends weight to their findings. The study suggested that managers found it difficult to serve as remote leaders. This was supported by research from Chafi et al. ^[72].

The increased burden brought on by remote work’s flexibility and the need for constant availability expected by digital tools were just two of the challenges faced by leaders. Additionally, there was an increase in screen time and nonstop online meetings, little interaction with coworkers outside of the immediate work group, and challenges managing the duties of the job while working remotely ^[72].

Mucharraz y Cano et al. ^[73] studied the gender aspect of working executives in Mexico and found that burnout was more common in female executives who are mothers than in male executives. A mixed work organization, i.e., working from home and office, reduced burnout tendencies.

7. Leaders’ Attitude towards Telework

One study contrasted leaders perceived self-efficacy with how their subordinates assessed their performance, while two publications focused on managers’ general attitudes toward telework. The results are intriguing, as they indicate that leaders tend to overrate their own performance compared to their subordinates’ opinions. Additionally, it suggests that more experienced leaders may be less concerned about not being able to meet their subordinates in person ^[74]. The general opinions of COVID-19 leaders about teleworking improved with more experience ^[75]. Leaders’ concerns about productivity began to fade as they recognized the potential benefits of working remotely ^[76].

References

Anderson, D.; Kelliher, C. Enforced remote working and the work-life interface during lockdown. Gend. Manag. Int. J. 2020, 35, 677–683.
Bloom, N.; Liang, J.; Roberts, J.; Ying, Z.J. Does Working from Home Work? Evidence from a Chinese Experiment. Q. J. Econ. 2015, 130, 165–218.
Harker Martin, B.; MacDonnell, R. Is telework effective for organizations? A meta-analysis of empirical research on perceptions of telework and organizational outcomes. Manag. Res. Rev. 2012, 35, 602–616.
Cornell, S.; Nickel, B.; Cvejic, E.; Bonner, C.; McCaffery, K.J.; Ayre, J.; Copp, T.; Batcup, C.; Isautier, J.; Dakin, T.; et al. Positive outcomes associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. Health Promot. J. Aust. 2021, 33, 311–319.
Gajendran, R.S.; Harrison, D.A.; Delaney-Klinger, K. Are Telecommuters Remotely Good Citizens? Unpacking Telecommuting’s Effects on Performance Via I-Deals and Job Resources. Pers. Psychol. 2015, 68, 353–393.
Gajendran, R.S.; Harrison, D.A. The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 1524–1541.
Ammons, S.K.; Markham, W.T. Working at Home: Experiences of Skilled White Collar Workers. Sociol. Spectr. 2004, 24, 191–238.
Peters, P.; den Dulk, L.; van der Lippe, T. The effects of time-spatial flexibility and new working conditions on employees’ work–life balance: The Dutch case. Community Work. Fam. 2009, 12, 279–297.
Mosquera, P.; Soares, M.E.; Alvadia, T. Is teleworking at odds with social sustainability and organizational learning? Learn. Organ. 2022, 29, 527–547.
Golden, T.D.; Veiga, J.F. The impact of superior–subordinate relationships on the commitment, job satisfaction, and performance of virtual workers. Leadersh. Q. 2008, 19, 77–88.
Skakon, J.; Nielsen, K.; Borg, V.; Guzman, J. Are leaders’ well-being, behaviours and style associated with the affective well-being of their employees? A systematic review of three decades of research. Work Stress 2010, 24, 107–139.
Weber, C.; Golding, S.E.; Yarker, J.; Lewis, R.; Ratcliffe, E.; Munir, F.; Wheele, T.P.; Häne, E.; Windlinger, L. Future Teleworking Inclinations Post-COVID-19: Examining the Role of Teleworking Conditions and Perceived Productivity. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 863197.
Tanpipat, W.; Lim, H.; Deng, X. Implementing Remote Working Policy in Corporate Offices in Thailand: Strategic Facility Management Perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1284.
Perry, S.J.; Rubino, C.; Hunter, E.M. Stress in remote work: Two studies testing the Demand-Control-Person model. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2018, 27, 577–593.
Wang, B.; Liu, Y.; Qian, J.; Parker, S.K. Achieving Effective Remote Working During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Work Design Perspective. Appl. Psychol. Psychol. Appl. 2021, 70, 16–59.
Madsen, S.R. The effects of home-based teleworking on work-family conflict. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2003, 14, 35–58.
Cooper, C.D.; Kurland, N.B. Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee development in public and private organizations. J. Organ. Behav. 2002, 23, 511–532.
Nayani, R.J.; Nielsen, K.; Daniels, K.; Donaldson-Feilder, E.J.; Lewis, R.C. Out of sight and out of mind? A literature review of occupational safety and health leadership and management of distributed workers. Work Stress 2018, 32, 124–146.
Glikson, E.; Erez, M. Emotion Display Norms in Virtual Teams. J. Pers. Psychol. 2013, 12, 22–32.
Cheshin, A.; Rafaeli, A.; Bos, N. Anger and happiness in virtual teams: Emotional influences of text and behavior on others’ affect in the absence of non-verbal cues. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2011, 116, 2–16.
Northouse, P.G. Leadership: Theory and Practice, 10th ed.; SAGE: Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK, 2021.
Mintzberg, H. Managing; Pearson: Harlow, UK, 2009.
Delfino, G.F.; van der Kolk, B. Remote working, management control changes and employee responses during the COVID-19 crisis. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2021, 34, 1376–1387.
Kohont, A.; Ignjatović, M. Organizational Support of Working from Home: Aftermath of COVID-19 from the Perspective of Workers and Leaders. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5107.
Kirchner, K.; Ipsen, C.; Hansen, J.P. COVID-19 leadership challenges in knowledge work. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 2021, 19, 493–500.
Werder, K.; Richter, J.; Hennel, P.; Dreesen, T.; Fischer, M.; Weingarth, J. A Three-Pronged View on Organizational Agility. IT Prof. 2021, 23, 89–95.
Jaiswal, A.; Sengupta, S.; Panda, M.; Hati, L.; Prikshat, V.; Patel, P.; Mohyuddin, S. Teleworking: Role of psychological well-being and technostress in the relationship between trust in management and employee performance. Int. J. Manpow. 2022; ahead of print.
Bailey, D.E.; Kurland, N.B. A review of telework research: Findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. J. Organ. Behav. 2002, 23, 383–400.
Wang, J. Controlling Telework: An Exploratory Investigation of Portfolios of Control Applied to Remote Knowledge Workers. Ph.D. Thesis, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA, 2009.
Williamson, S.; Colley, L.; Foley, M.; Cooper, R. The Role of Middle Managers in Progressing. 2018. Available online: https://www.psc.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-10/Middle%20Managers%20and%20Gender%20Equity.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2023).
Wut, T.M.; Lee, S.W.; Xu, J.B. Work from Home Challenges of the Pandemic Era in Hong Kong: A Stimulus-Organism-Response Perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3420.
Carte, T.A.; Chidambaram, L.; Becker, A. Emergent Leadership in Self-Managed Virtual Teams. Group Decis. Negot. 2006, 15, 323–343.
Giurge, L.M.; Bohns, V. 3 Tips to Avoid WFH Burnout. 2020. Available online: https://hbr.org/2020/04/3-tips-to-avoid-wfh-burnout (accessed on 3 April 2023).
Hassard, J.; Morris, J. The extensification of managerial work in the digital age: Middle managers, spatio-temporal boundaries and control. Hum. Relat. 2022, 75, 1647–1678.
Coun, M.J.H.; Edelbroek, R.; Peters, P.; Blomme, R.J. Leading Innovative Work-Behavior in Times of COVID-19. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2021, 12, 717345.
Garretsen, H.; Stoker, J.I.; Soudis, D.; Wendt, H. The pandemic that shocked managers across the world: The impact of the COVID-19 crisis on leadership behavior. Leadersh. Q. 2022, 2022, 101630.
Caniëls, M.C.J. How remote working increases the importance of positive leadership for employee vigor. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1089557.
Monzani, L.; Mateu, G.; Ripoll, P.; Lira, E.; Peiro, J.M. Managing in the new normal: Positive management practices elicit higher goal attainment, goal commitment, and perceived task efficacy than traditional management practices in remote work settings. An experimental study. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 914616.
Chen, J.K.C.; Sriphon, T. Authentic Leadership, Trust, and Social Exchange Relationships under the Influence of Leader Behavior. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5883.
Chen, J.K.C.; Sriphon, T. The Relationships among Authentic Leadership, Social Exchange Relationships, and Trust in Organizations during COVID-19 Pandemic. Adv. Decis. Sci. 2022, 26, 31–68.
Liu, S.-W.; Hsieh, M.-T.; Norcio, R.; Rao, H. Organic Leadership—Implicit Followership Interaction: Relations among Trust in Supervisor, Active Followership and OCB. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13810.
Herzog-Evans, M.; Sturgeon, J. “Lockdown probation leaders” and Fundamental Human Needs. Eur. J. Probat. 2022, 14, 148–168.
Liebermann, S.C.; Blenckner, K.; Diehl, J.-H.; Feilke, J.; Frei, C.; Grikscheit, S.; Hünsch, S.; Kohring, K.; Lay, J.; Lorenzen, G.; et al. Abrupt Implementation of Telework in the Public Sector during the COVID-19 Crisis: Challenges to Transformational Leadership. Z. Arb. Organ. 2021, 65, 258–266.
Tautz, D.C.; Schübbe, K.; Felfe, J. Working from home and its challenges for transformational and health-oriented leadership. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 1017316.
Muttaqin, G.F.; Taqi, M.; Arifin, B. Job Performance During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Study on Indonesian Startup Companies. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2020, 7, 1027–1033.
Nguyen, T.V.T.; Tsang, S.-S. Inclusive leadership and work-from-home engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic: A moderated mediation model. Int. J. Manpow. 2023; ahead of print.
Tsang, S.S.; Liu, Z.L.; Nguyen, T.V.T. Work-from-home intention during the COVID-19 pandemic: A perspective integrating inclusive leadership and protection motivation theory. Int. J. Manpow. 2023; ahead of print.
Lundqvist, D.; Reineholm, C.; Ståhl, C.; Wallo, A. The impact of leadership on employee well-being: On-site compared to working from home. BMC Public Health 2022, 22, 2154.
Ganguly, A.; Joseph, J.M.; Dutta, S.; Dey, K. Exploring the Employer–Employee Relationship: A Management Versus Employee Perspective of the Vicissitudes in the Virtual Workplace. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2022, 2022, 09721509221086353.
Dolce, V.; Vayre, E.; Molino, M.; Ghislieri, C. Far away, so close? The role of destructive leadership in the job demands–resources and recovery model in emergency telework. Soc. Sci. 2020, 9, 196.
Spagnoli, P.; Molino, M.; Molinaro, D.; Giancaspro, M.L.; Manuti, A.; Ghislieri, C. Workaholism and Technostress During the COVID-19 Emergency: The Crucial Role of the Leaders on Remote Working. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 620310.
Henke, J.B.; Jones, S.K.; O’Neill, T.A. Skills and abilities to thrive in remote work: What have we learned. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 893895.
Săvescu, R.; Kifor, Ș.; Dănuț, R.; Rusu, R. Transition from Office to Home Office: Lessons from Romania during COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5758.
Günther, N.; Hauff, S.; Gubernator, P. The joint role of HRM and leadership for teleworker well-being: An analysis during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ger. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2022, 36, 353–379.
George, T.J.; Atwater, L.E.; Maneethai, D.; Madera, J.M. Supporting the productivity and wellbeing of remote workers: Lessons from COVID-19. Organ. Dyn. 2022, 51, 100869.
Popaitoon, P. Integrative work design for telework practices: Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand. J. Asia Bus. Stud. 2022, 2022, 504–523.
Heidt, L.; Gauger, F.; Pfnür, A. Work from Home Success: Agile work characteristics and the Mediating Effect of supportive HRM. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2022, 17, 2139–2164.
Miglioretti, M.; Gragnano, A.; Margheritti, S.; Picco, E. Not all telework is valuable. Rev. Psicol. Trab. Organ. 2021, 37, 11–19.
Lee, H. Changes in workplace practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: The roles of emotion, psychological safety and organisation support. J. Organ. Eff. People Perform. 2021, 8, 97–128.
Bergefurt, L.; Weijs-Perrée, M.; Appel-Meulenbroek, R.; Arentze, T.; de Kort, Y. Satisfaction with activity-support and physical home-workspace characteristics in relation to mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 81, 101826.
Oakman, J.; Kinsman, N.; Graham, M.; Stuckey, R.; Weale, V. Strategies to manage working from home during the pandemic: The employee experience. Ind. Health 2022, 60, 319–333.
Baakeel, O.A. Impacts of Remote Working on Employees During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. Trans. J. Eng. Manag. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2021, 12, 12A10G.
Mukherjee, D.V.; Baber, H.; Shukla, B.; Sujatha, R.; Khan, D. Does lack of social interaction act as a barrier to effectiveness in work from home? COVID-19 and gender. J. Organ. Eff. People Perform. 2022, 10, 94–111.
Kowalski, G.; Ślebarska, K. Remote Working and Work Effectiveness: A Leader Perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 15326.
Choukir, J.; Alqahtani, M.S.; Khalil, E.; Mohamed, E. Effects of Working from Home on Job Performance: Empirical Evidence in the Saudi Context during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3216.
Suresh, M.; Gopakumar, K. Multi-grade fuzzy assessment framework for software professionals in work-from-home mode during and post-COVID-19 era. Future Bus. J. 2021, 7, 10.
Eriksson, A.; Dellve, L.; Williamsson, A.; Skagert, K. How Conditions and Resources Connected to Digital Management Systems and Remote Work Are Associated with Sustainable Work. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 15731.
Dos Santos, E.; Sallaberry, J.; Mendes, A. The influence of telework and management controls on the congruence of civil servant objectives. REGE Rev. Gest. 2022, 29, 287–299.
Qu, J.; Yan, J. Working from home vs. working from office in terms of job performance during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis: Evidence from China. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 2022, 61, 196–231.
Rodrigues, E.A.; Rampasso, I.S.; Pavan Serafim, M.; Filho, W.L.; Anholon, R. Difficulties experienced by managers in the coordination of teams working from home: An exploratory study considering the COVID-19 pandemic. Inf. Technol. People 2022, 36, 1870–1893.
Ipsen, C.; Kirchner, K.; Andersone, N.; Karanika-Murray, M. Becoming a Distance Manager: Managerial Experiences, Perceived Organizational Support, and Job Satisfaction During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 916234.
Chafi, M.B.; Hultberg, A.; Bozic Yams, N. Post-Pandemic Office Work: Perceived Challenges and Opportunities for a Sustainable Work Environment. Sustainability 2022, 14, 294.
Mucharraz y Cano, Y.; Davila Ruiz, D.; Cuilty Esquivel, K. Burnout effect on working mothers in leadership positions during the COVID-19 lockdown. Gend. Manag. 2023, 38, 962–977.
Bizilj, S.; Boštjančič, E.; Sočan, G. Perceived efficacy of virtual leadership in the crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic. Chang. Soc. Personal. 2021, 5, 389–404.
Rose, P.A.; Brown, S. Reconstructing Attitudes towards Work from Home during COVID-19: A Survey of South Korean Managers. Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 163.
Williamson, S.; Colley, L.; Foley, M. Public servants working from home: Exploring managers’ changing allowance decisions in a COVID-19 context. Econ. Labour Relat. Rev. 2022, 33, 37–55.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Upload a video for this entry

Information

Subjects: Management

Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Ingi Runar Edvardsson

Johanna Gardarsdottir

View Times: 199

Update Date: 11 Dec 2023

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm