Exploring the Role of Leadership Support in Moderating the Relationship of Remote Working and Job Satisfaction

Exploring the Role of Leadership Support in Moderating the Relationship of Remote Working and Job Satisfaction

Krisha Teresa B. Baliling

Xavier University – Ateneo de Cagayan, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90400063

Received: 21 March 2025; Accepted: 25 March 2025; Published: 28 April 2025

ABSTRACT

This study explores the impact of leadership support on the relationship of remote working and job satisfaction. As organizations worldwide have shifted towards remote or hybrid models, understanding the implications of this transition is crucial. The literature around remote working, and job satisfaction is growing faster given that more companies are adopting hybrid work arrangements. However, only a handful of these include the factor of leadership support. Leaders play a pivotal role in remote working set-up as they are the primary source for direction, support, and communication. In creating strategies and policies that will make remote working an adequate work environment, it is important to consider how supervisors contribute to the total work environment as they pose great influence on their subordinates. In this study, 200 Filipino millennials were gathered through purposive sampling. The participants must have at least one year experience of remote working and are capable of understanding English. Responses were gathered using online questionnaire and were analyzed using correlation and moderation analysis. Results of the analysis showed that remote working and leadership support are positively correlated with job satisfaction. However, leadership support was not found to be a significant moderating variable in the relationship of remote working and job satisfaction. This suggests that a remote worker’s satisfaction with working from home is mainly shaped by factors like job autonomy and self-management, rather than supervisor support. For companies who want to maintain employee retention in a remote working set-up, improving working conditions such as providing better tools and improving work culture will be more beneficial in maintaining employee satisfaction.

Keywords: Remote working, job satisfaction, work-life balance, leadership support, moderation

INTRODUCTION

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, more companies and institutions were forced to shift to remote working set-up in efforts to maintain business operations. The implementation of the “Stay at home” strategy has been promoted as a measure to manage the pandemic, aiming to lessen the strain on both national healthcare systems and entire economies [6]. Because of its urgent and strict compliance, the pandemic has overcome cultural and technological obstacles that previously hindered the implementation of remote work at a larger scale, expediting the growth of remote working relevance.

Presently, the COVID-19 cases have decreased, and government restrictions are reduced. Despite this, remote working set-up remains to be implemented and is seen to be potentially a permanent set-up in some organizations [102].  In the Philippines, large companies such as Nestle, Proctor & Gamble, and Unilever have adopted hybrid work-from-home arrangements as they recognize the benefits of offering flexible working both to the companies and employees. Different bodies and agencies of the Philippine government have shown adaptiveness to flexible working as Civil Service Commission released advisory on the adoption of flexible working arrangements in the government under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 06, s. 2022. Changes like this show how remote working has significantly impacted the business operations landscape of the Philippines thereby furthering the need to deep dive into the nuances of this work arrangement.

Remote working trends from KPMG [102] show that 55% of the companies surveyed retained remote working due to employee-related factors such as employee demands, talent attraction, and employee retention. Focusing on employee value proposition, companies need to recognize how remote working has become an attractive offer to stay competitive in talent markets [102].

Remote work has proven to be appealing to employees because it provides flexibility in managing their time, which is crucial for achieving a healthy work-life balance [160], and reducing work-family conflict [160], [57]. This work set-up has been shown to improve employee productivity [40], through better time utilization (ie. elimination of time commuting). Factors like this support the overarching conclusion that remote working improves general job satisfaction [160]. Job satisfaction is promoted by remote working by cultivating job autonomy [87], enabling work-life balance [160], [57] and increasing productivity [156].

The features provided by remote working are mainly enabled by the supervisor. Policies and procedures supporting remote working set-up are mainly enforced by the manager. For example, remote work, while offering flexibility, can also blur the boundaries between personal and professional life when supervisors expect their direct reports to work beyond working hours [160] Therefore, the role of supervisors should be considered as an integral part of evaluating the effects of remote working in job satisfaction.

The exploration of the impact of remote working to job satisfaction mainly rests on the congruence of the working environment to the employee. The person-environment framework provides a useful lens in exploring this congruence [21], [22], [24], [25], [50], [48], [74], [75]. The main argument of P-E fit is that stress results not from the individual or the environment on their own, but from how well they align or fit together [41]. Person-environment fit (P-E fit) refers to the extent to which an individual’s traits align with the characteristics of their environment [35], [86], [100], [125]. In the context of remote working, employees, whose needs for autonomy, flexibility, and efficiency are met by remote working set-up, tend to find job satisfaction. Contributing to how well an employee fit to the remote working environment is the supervisor that enables it. For example, a study concluded that in order to foster employee engagement in remote working, supervisors must develop digital communication skills to effectively provide support [16]. Across the different types of P-E fit, P remains to be consistent as it pertains to the individual, however, the unit of E often shifts to represent the different settings in which an individual may fit. Because of this, the P-E fit covers several subsets including person-supervisor fit [41]. Person-supervisor fit focuses on the compatibility between subordinates and supervisors when they have shared characteristics [170]. However, in the growing literature of remote working and job satisfaction, there is much to be uncovered in the variable of supervisor. Supervisor support is a key aspect of the work environment that can enhance the person-environment fit. In a remote work environment, where direct and frequent face-to-face interactions are limited, supervisor support becomes even more critical.

In the light of exploring the role of supervisor, subordinate job satisfaction is influenced by how they perceive their supervisors’ supportive behaviors, including respect, recognition for accomplishments, work coordination, assistance in completing tasks, and encouragement of their professional growth [56]. Relatedly, ineffective management, marked by unrealistic or inappropriate demands, excessive expectations, limited autonomy, and a lack of timely, transparent communication, led to a decline in employee job satisfaction. [128]. Drawing from these insights, there is a gap in the literature of remote working and job satisfaction including the variable of supervisor. More specifically, remote working has been positively linked to job satisfaction, but the factor of supervisor may weaken or strengthen this relationship. In a study among physicians, ineffective leadership was related to employee burnout and decrease in job satisfaction [164].

BACKGROUND

Remote Working and the industrial landscape

With the progression of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and the widespread availability of high-speed internet, remote work has emerged as a prominent mode of employment in recent decades [191]. Technological innovation has created more jobs, offsetting the labor-displacement effects it may have caused [83]. This shift to virtual working was expedited by the onset of COVID-19 Pandemic where formerly onsite working companies had no choice but to pivot their operations virtually to sustain business operations (KPMG, 2022).

Remote work is described as a flexible employment setup where employees operate from places separate from

their main offices or production sites. In this arrangement, the worker doesn’t have face-to-face interactions with colleagues on-site but can communicate with them through technology [37].  Other terms synonymous to remote work are teleworking, telecommuting, distributed work, or flexible work arrangements [4]. Recently, the term “agile working” has been introduced, referring to the dynamic set-up of remote working [60].

Before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, conversations surrounding remote working in the Philippines initially stemmed from the desire to ease congestion in one of the world’s most crowded cities and address transportation challenges [54]. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, an abrupt adaptation of the remote working set-up was employed in the Philippines primarily due to the need to prevent workplace transmission of the virus and the temporary shutdown of daily necessary industry to facilitate the logistics of daily face-to-face working set-up such as public transport and food services. Filipino remote workers during COVID 19 pandemic perceived that work-life balance played an essential role in achieving work satisfaction due to the time-saving benefit of not having to travel to the workplace [123]. However, they also pointed out that remote working could also have an adverse impact on work-life balance due to the potential overlapping personal and professional commitments which could lead to feelings of work dissatisfaction [123], [131].

As the number of COVID-19 cases have gone down, government restrictions have eased consequently which leaves companies, and organizations to decide whether to continue remote working or transition back to onsite-working. Several reasons run into the conversation as to why remote working has been adopted ranging from overhead costs saving for companies, higher employee retention, boosted employer attractiveness, higher employee participation, and lower absenteeism. Internationally prominent companies such as Twitter announced their permanent adoption of remote working [96]. Similarly, known and large companies in the Philippines such as Unilever, Microsoft, and Nestle have adopted hybrid working arrangements where employees have split work week onsite and offsite their offices [149].

With this, remote working has gradually changed the landscape of the country’s industrial landscape. This increases the need for exploration of different strategies, and system that will make remote working sustainable and effective.

Job Satisfaction drives remote working permanence

Remote working’s gradual movement towards permanence gravitate around the need to retain talent. Majority of the companies who have introduced variants of remote working set-up opted to retain this set-up due to employee-related factors rather than external or business-related [102]. Among these employee-related factors, interest/request from employees hold the heaviest weight [102]. Employees’ interest in continuing remote working set-up have been found to be driven by the flexibility of the set-up [59] which in turn increases job satisfaction [85].

Employees find satisfaction from their jobs in remote working set-up as it increases productivity [49], boosts work-life balance [49], [160] and increase life satisfaction [100].

Remote working has been shown to positively impact job satisfaction due to higher levels of work enjoyment, efficiency, and focus [110]. Both efficiency and focus are quintessential to completing tasks hence, remote working has been reported to increase employee productivity [49]. Moreover, productivity is boosted in terms of having higher self-efficacy when working in a familiar environment (eg. personal home office) and having greater sense of autonomy (eg. organizing your own schedule) [100]. On top of this, remote working affords employees to save time and allocate it towards increasing working hours. In a study across 27 countries, the average time saved by remote working is approximately 72 minutes by eradication of commute time [1]. Because of this, employee have been shown to take on more workload by increasing working hours, which drives productivity [106].

Aside from effects on productivity, remote working drives job satisfaction by promoting work-life balance. With a plethora of different definition, a simple and straight to the point definition of WLB was provided by Kalliath and Brough [93] which states that “Work–life balance is the individual perception that work and nonwork activities are compatible and promote growth in accordance with an individual’s current life priorities”. It was found that the adoption of remote work resulted in reduced work/family conflict, subsequently contributing to increased levels of job satisfaction [160]. Job satisfaction increases when there is minimal conflict between work and family responsibilities, as the work role poses no threat to the family domain [64]. Maintaining a healthy work-life balance also diminishes stress-related effects like psychological strain, emotional fatigue, anxiousness, and depressive feelings [166]. Promoting work-life balance is a strategic move for employers as it can lead to organizational productivity, reduce turnover, employee’s mental health improvement, and absenteeism [91].

Delving deeper into the intrinsic value of remote working through the lens of job satisfaction, several studies also posit the connection of remote working with higher life satisfaction. In the period of COVID-19, being able to work at the comfort of home reduced the employee’s stress levels by having something purposeful to do which protected them from the anxiety of persistently thinking about the pandemic [100]. Moreover, being able to perform professional duties even remotely strengthened sense of security during pandemic [100]. However, this might not be true for employees with jobs that are heavily dependent on social interaction (e.g sales) and they may find lesser satisfaction compared to employees in non-sales [145]. Employees in sales job see physical interaction as an important aspect in closing deals and building client relationship [145].

On the other hand, other studies have found that remote work does not really impact job satisfaction given its negative effects on the balance between professional and private life [57]. Working from home results in a growing overlap between work and personal life, with family status significantly influencing the challenges of maintaining boundaries and the need for support [95]. Relating to blurred boundaries, remote working was also found to be associated with worsening presenteeism which drives work stress [169]. Another negative impact of remote working includes feelings of social isolation due to the lack of face-to-face conversation [2]. In a study among IT-enabled industry employees, it has been found that remote working has been one of the major causes for stress and anxiety [142]. This is driven by the lack of peer interactions, onsite fun routine breaks, and work-family conflicts. In terms of working condition, employees may also feel dissatisfaction if they do not have ergonomic set-ups within their home [2].

With this, there is merit in furthering the literature around remote working and its effect on job satisfaction. As the stance on remote working shifts from being a requirement for safety to mitigate a global pandemic to being a permanent set-up, sentiments from employees to continue may change if they are now given a more liberated choice of working onsite or remotely.

Job Satisfaction and Leadership Support

Aside from working set-up, leadership support plays an important role in promoting employees’ well-being such as job satisfaction, stress level, and general well-being [115]. Synonymous with managerial support, leadership support is defined as the extent to which managers appreciate employees’ contributions, care about their subordinates’ well-being and are attentive to employee needs [150]. Supervisor support entails the workplace acknowledging and valuing its employees and seeking methods to streamline their work [101].

Few studies have shown linkages between perceived leadership support and job satisfaction. The basic notion for this connection is when employees feel supported, valued, and empowered, they are more likely to be satisfied with jobs and perform their best. Supportive behaviors such as providing respect to subordinates, recognition of a job well done, managing work, providing work assistance, and boosting motivation have been shown to improve job satisfaction [68]. Supervisors cultivate employee job satisfaction by giving attention to their subordinates and practicing open communication [163]. Furthermore, supervisors play a pivotal role in achieving work-life balance which in turn, promotes job satisfaction [177]. Support from supervisors strongly correlates with achieving a positive work-life balance (WLB) by harmonizing their work responsibilities with their other life roles [69]. Supervisors have the capability to promote healthy work-life balance by advocating for employee supportive policies that promote work-life balance. Family Supportive Supervisor Behaviors (FSSB) positively impacted Work-Life Balance (WLB) among 519 remote working employees in Colombia [20].  Strong FSSB contributes to an enhanced connection between work and family life, consequently leading to an improved Work-Life Balance (WLB) [20].

On the other hand, there are other studies that conclude insignificant effect of leadership support on job satisfaction. For example, employees high on job autonomy tend to source their satisfaction from the autonomy to create decisions on their job such as task prioritization and problem solving [205]. This autonomy will be hampered if supervisors are too rigid with instructions and too micromanaging. Relatedly, studies have also shown that there are only certain leadership styles that influences job satisfaction. Transformational leadership (lead through support and trust), Transactional leadership (task-oriented leadership), and Laissez-Faire leadership (passive style of leadership) are found to be influential on job satisfaction [63]. Supervisors who inhibit different leadership styles may not cultivate much of a subordinate’s job satisfaction.

Delving deeper into different leadership style with strong connection to job satisfaction, transformational leadership motivates employees to go above and beyond for the benefit of the organization, which, in turn, energizes and empowers them to adopt an inspiring and hopeful vision of the future, rather than focusing solely on personal financial rewards [63]. On the other hand, transactional leadership focuses on tasks and compensation for job well done which cultivates employees’ satisfaction from knowing that tasks are inspected which in turn promotes proactiveness [197]. Lastly, laissez-faire leadership style enables job autonomy by showing passive management which fits well for employees who are highly autonomous and finds satisfaction with being in control [63].

Drawing from these insights, there is merit in exploring the role of supervisor support in promoting job satisfaction. Anchoring to the notion of social exchange theory, organizations who foster balance between employees’ personal and professional lives, cultivate positive feelings of their employees, leading to increased job satisfaction [180]. Consequently, employees are more likely to reciprocate this consideration through elevated job performance [180].

Remote Working, Leadership Support and Job Satisfaction

In the context of remote working, supervisors remain to be vital in maintaining job satisfaction among remote working employees. By maintaining communication, trust, and social support, supervisors can help mitigate the challenges and barriers of working virtually [16],[9]. These factors are enablers in fostering job satisfaction among employees therefore, leaders may weaken or strengthen the relationship between remote working and job satisfaction. Unhealthy leadership style may negatively impact job satisfaction. For example, destructive leadership of supervisors is negatively related to employee’s well-being and job satisfaction in a remote working environment [39]. Supervisors with destructive leadership behaviors such as excessive monitoring and requesting employees to be online even after work hours related to lower work recovery and exhaustion. Relatedly, a study explored the effect of remote working on job satisfaction and productivity of 331 remote workers belonging to industrial companies [11]. Findings from this study showed that job satisfaction in a remote working set-up is positively linked to the trust that supervisors place in their employees. Hence, if organizations aim to enhance satisfaction through the adoption of remote working, managers should actively work towards improving the support to employees [9].

Based on these observations, gaining an understanding of the impact of remote work on employee job satisfaction through the lens of supervisors offers a comprehensive perspective. This is particularly significant as supervisors play a pivotal role in addressing work environment and relationship issues, which are crucial aspects in managing remote working set-up.

The Present Study

Focused on providing more depth on the aspects of remote working and its impact on job satisfaction, this study seeks to uncover the influence of perceived leadership supportive behaviors. Aligned to the theory of work adjustment, job satisfaction is gained when an employee’s values (i.e. what the employees want), are met by the reinforcers (rewards) which they get when requirements from their work environment is met [34]. In this study, remote working is seen to be an enabler for job satisfaction because the needs of the employee for autonomy, flexibility, and efficiency are met by the remote working set-up [49], [160],[100],[ 87]. However, this direct effect of remote working on job satisfaction can be disrupted or strengthened by the factor of a supervisor. Supervisors and managers who help in fostering their subordinates’ career development [128], provide proper workload assignment [118] and personal support [198] have been linked to increased employee job satisfaction.

On the flip side, the supervisor may not be beneficial to an employee’s job satisfaction.  For example, with the absence of face-to-face interaction in a remote working set-up, supervisors may tend micromanage [194]. Micromanagement leads to decreased productivity, lower morale, diminished trust, reduced teamwork, limited personal growth, and stifled innovation [94]. Adding to this, remote working has been found to blur the lines between personal and life matters which is manifested by longer work hours, intensive work, and lack of social support [135]. Often, this work-life spill over is influenced by the crossover of a supervisor’s workaholism [98]. In other words, working beyond hours is heavily influenced by the expectations or examples set by the supervisor.

Theoretically, Person-Supervisor is considered a subset of P-E fit [187] which means that a supervisor is an important aspect of work environment. Relating to the theory of work adjustment, a supportive supervisor can be a resource that aids an employee in meeting the demands of work environment. If the employee perceives its supervisor to be supportive, they are more capable of work adjustment to do a better job and satisfy the demands of the work environment [202], which in turn results in more congruence between the person and the work environment. More importantly, supervisors can also be a source of reinforcement for employees by providing support as it encourages work positive behaviors [20], [186].

Given the contextualization above, the present study seeks to provide more depth in the literature of remote working and job satisfaction by incorporating the impact of support from supervisors. This exploration adds more evidence on the impact of supervisors in the work adjustment of the employee using the lens of Person-Environment fit. Most specifically, there is minimal empirical evidence that explores this in a remote working set-up. Relatively, the literature around remote working, and job satisfaction is growing faster given that more companies are adopting hybrid work arrangements. However, only a handful of these include the factor of leadership support. In creating strategies and policies that will make remote working an adequate work environment, it is important to consider how supervisors contribute to the total work environment as they pose great influence on their subordinates.

This study aims to examine the moderating role of Leadership Support on the effect of Remote Working and Job Satisfaction. The researcher seeks to answer the following questions:

• Are there significant intercorrelations among remote working, job satisfaction, and leadership support?
• Is leadership support a significant moderator between remote working and job satisfaction?

METHODS

Research Design

The present study investigated the effect of remote working on job satisfaction moderated by leadership support. While there is existing literature that discusses the connection between remote work and job satisfaction, the impact of leadership support has not been thoroughly investigated. The research methodology involved a quantitative study to examine the strength of the relationship between remote work, and job satisfaction, while also exploring the moderating influence of leadership support.

The arrangement for remote work was not subjected to manipulation, which non-experimental research stands for. The study gathered data in a single collection phase, followed by analysis using moderation analysis techniques. It also focused more on the present perceptions of employee’s job satisfaction, and support from supervisor which can be based on their present circumstances (i.e. employee is currently working from home) or experience (ie. employee is not working from home but has experienced it). Hence, the study utilized cross sectional method of investigating over a longitudinal mode. Although a longitudinal mode of investigation would have provided a strong argument for a causal relationship between the variables, the focus of the study is the potentiality of leadership support to weaken or strengthen the relationship of remote working and job satisfaction rather than establish causal relationship among these variables.

Since the study focused on the interaction effect of a third variable on the relationship of a predictor variable to the outcome variables, moderation analysis was used to provide more context of the strength of the relationship [82]. In this study, the leadership support is considered as the third variable which is investigated to detect possible moderating effect on remote working and job satisfaction. Generally, the phenomenon was investigated quantitatively using non-experimental, explanatory, cross-sectional design [90].

Respondents and Sampling Procedure

The research participants were millennial Filipino remote workers who are currently residing in the Philippines. The study focused on millennial given that the highest proportion of employed individuals is around 25 to 34 age group, constituting 27.6% of the overall employed population [137]. In this group, 39% engage in full-time remote work, while 25% do so on a part-time basis [68].

Participants were sampled using Purposive Sampling method. Participants were a) millennial Filipino b) with at least one year experience of remote working c) belonging to the age range of 27-42. To ensure a representative data, the sampling procedure ensured samples from three main geographical areas from Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao using social media advertisement platforms in Facebook and Instagram – the leading social media platforms in the Philippines.

Exclusionary criteria include individuals who fall outside the age range relevant to the research and minors. Different generations may entail different perceptions of job satisfaction and work-life balance [199], [151]. Moreover, participants who are not adept in English language were excluded as the survey forms and questionnaires are in English language. This is to ensure that comprehension of the questionnaire is the same. Moreover, English comprehension of Filipinos may vary across different backgrounds [178], hence it’s important to ensure that only participants who understand English at a professional level are included.

Using targeted social media advertising, the study gathered 200 respondents. The determination of the sample size rests heavily on Roscoe’s guidelines for determining sample size [155]. Roscoe stated that a sample size greater than 30 and less than 500 is adequate for most behavioral investigations, but a sample size bigger than 500 may result in a Type II error [153]. Moreover, Roscoe discussed that the sample size should be 10 times greater than the number of variables for multivariate data analysis [155]. This approach was adopted given the lack of census of work from home employees in the Philippines from authorized agencies and institutions. Referencing from the similar studies, Zaki and Al-Hodiany used 277 respondents in investigating the moderating effect of working from home in the relationship of motivational factors (e.g job satisfaction) and project performance [201]. Their results yielded significant moderating effect of working from home to project performance. As a conclusion, the study settled for 200 as a sample size given the simplicity of model (one predictor and one moderator) and the limited time duration for sampling.

Research Instruments

1) e-Work Life Scale (EWL): To measure the remote working experience of the participants, the newer version of the e-Work Life Scale (Flexibility dimension) developed by Charalampous and Grant [29] was utilized. The e-Work Life Scale comprises 20 items and assesses various aspects remote work practices, such as organizational trust, flexibility, work-life interference, and productivity [29]. In this study, only the flexibility dimension was administered which are items 6-9. Given that the main feature of remote working is the flexibility in terms of time and work-arrangement [37] the study focused only on the flexibility aspect. The aspect of work flexibility is also strongly related to supervisors as they are the ones enforcing policies and guidelines that allow such flexibility (e.g leadership allows “offline” sessions from 12nn-1pm for lunch breaks) [17]. Moreover, the researcher conversed with one of the scale authors wherein they advised that the scale be interpreted per dimension and not as a whole. The flexibility aspect of the scale assesses the timing and methods of task completion, the option to take extended breaks, and the freedom to decide where to work [29].  In its recent version, respondents can express their agreement on the statements presented in the scale using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree. Scores obtained are summed with higher score on the scale indicates higher perception of work flexibility afforded by remote working set-up. Testing for internal consistency, the composite reliability of the flexibility dimension was α = .85 among 399 UK remote workers [29]. Moreover, convergent validity was established by calculating average variance extracted (AVE) with a score of 0.60 which is acceptable [295]. In this study, the EWL Flexibility dimension scale showed high internal consistency (α = .83).

2) Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS)): The Job Satisfaction Survey, JSS is a 36 item, nine facet scale to assess employee attitudes about the job and aspects of the job [172]. Each dimension is evaluated using four criteria, and an aggregate score is derived from all the criteria. A summated rating scale format is employed, featuring six choices for each item, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Since the JSS uses 6-point agree-disagree response choices, a mean item response of 4 or higher represents satisfaction while a mean item response of 3 or lower represents dissatisfaction. Reverse items are 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, 36. Elevated scores on the scale indicate job satisfaction, and therefore, scores on the negatively worded items need to be inverted before being combined with the positively worded items to calculate facet or total scores. Based on a sample of 2,870 the overall scale gained high internal consistency rating of α = .91 [172]. Moreover, the scale garnered high test-retest reliability after 18 months interval [172].  Evidence of validity was tested using discriminant and convergent validity test [172]. In the present study, JSS showed high internal consistency (α = .92).

3) Supervisory Support Scale (SSS): Leadership Support was measured using the Supervisory Support scale, created by Greenhaus, Parasuraman, and Wormley in 1990. This scale measures employees’ perceived level of support they receive from their immediate supervisors. The scale covers different facets of supervisory support such as career advice, performance evaluations, challenging tasks, and work opportunities that foster employee growth and visibility. These facets relate highly to cultivation of job satisfaction [163]. This tool obtains responses using 5-point Likert scale where 5=strongly disagree and 1=strongly agree. The total scale score is obtained by calculating the average of scores for all the items. Responses can be reverse coded so that high scores reflected extensive perceived career support [67]. The scale had high internal consistency reliability of the measure among 75 South African women at α = .97 [139] and α = .93 among 1,628 managers [67]. Checking for scale validity, the measure correlated positively with perceptions of acceptance, job discretion, job performance in terms of both tasks and relationships, employee promotability, and career satisfaction [67]. In this study, SSS showed high internal consistency (α = .95).

Data Analysis

Normality test was done using histogram, boxplots and the Shapiro-Wilk Test (Fig 1). Based on the Shapiro-Wilk test, only JS was shown to be normally distributed (p=.356). On the other hand, RW and SS did not pass the normality test (RW: p=<.001; SS: p=<.001) which means that there was a violation in the assumption of linearity or the residual homoscedasticity among levels of RW and SS among the participants. As reflected in the histrograms, RW and SS are negatively skewed. Attempts to mitigate the non-normality of RW and SS were done by reducing outliers but given that it was ineffective, these outliers were retained. Furthermore, data were resampled using bootstrapping by 10,000 resamples as additional effort to manage non-normality. Bootstrapping method can be a good alternative for skewed data undergoing parametric tests especially that only few parametric tests have non-parametric test counterparts [101]. Furthermore, they observed that analyses using the bootstrap method showed a tendency to increase p-values, suggesting that this approach may promote a more cautious stance when rejecting the null hypothesis [101]. However, they cautioned that while bootstrap analysis generally produces higher p-values, the differences are not large enough to mask true, meaningful deviations [101]. Lastly, the predictor variables RW and SS did not show any multicollinearity (VIF=1.00; Tolerance=1.00) (Fig 2 and Fig 3). A test of multicollinearity is used to assess whether there are high correlations between the independent variables (predictors) in a regression model. Multicollinearity occurs when two or more independent variables are highly correlated, which can cause problems in estimating the unique contribution of each predictor to the dependent variable. The VIF quantifies how much the variance of a regression coefficient is inflated due to multicollinearity with other predictors. Tolerance is the inverse of VIF (Tolerance = 1 / VIF). A low tolerance value (below 0.1) indicates multicollinearity

Figure 1. Descriptive statistics of remote working, job satisfaction, and leadership support

Note: EWLT= Remote Working; JS = Job Satisfaction; SSS= Leadership Support

Figure 2. Test of Multicollinearity between remote working, and job satisfaction

Figure 3. Test of Multicollinearity between leadership support, and job satisfaction

Inferential statistics was then employed after checking for assumptions to test the study’s hypotheses and form conclusions. To test for moderation, a simple moderation analysis using Jamovi was done to examine the if the relationship between Remote Working and Job Satisfaction will either decrease or increase by considering a third variable Supervisory Support. Jamovi utilizes regression analysis to carry out a moderation analysis

Presentation And Interpretation of Data

Descriptive statistics, and levels of remote working, job satisfaction, and leadership support  

This study gathered scores from 200 Filipino remote working millennials who have experienced or are currently remote working residing in the Philippines.

Majority of the respondents are Female belonging to the age range of 28-31 years old. Females are more accepting of remote working jobs given their interest in “avoiding face-to-face” interaction [196]. This is explained by their preference for a safe psychological environment, preference for smaller social circles, and risk aversion [52]. Furthermore, women are more accepting of remote working given that there’s more expectations for them at home vs men [27], which they can manage more when they work from home. They are predominantly in entry level and intermediate job levels. Given that the study focuses on millennials, this generation have higher tendencies of job hopping frequently [153], which can be a reason why majority of them are in entry level and intermediate level as they don’t grow their tenure that much.  Looking at the total number of working years and the number of working years done in remote working, an average of 69% of their total working years were spent working remotely. A heavy factor of this sudden shift was due to the pandemic where traditionally onsite working employees have been forced to continue working remotely to continue business operations [102]. In the theory of working adjustment, the person will do necessary work adjustment to fulfill the demands of the work environment to gain compensation [34]. Employees may prefer working remotely in the comfort of their home for mental security especially during pandemic [171]. Preference for a safe space such as remote working to work in enables work productivity [43] therefore it enables work environment fulfillment. Moreover, the ability to deliver output and complete has become a part of job requirement especially during the pandemic hence, employees adapted to working environments by working remotely.

One of the questions that this study wanted to answer is to examine the effect of remote working on job satisfaction as moderated by leadership support. For the remote working, the study focused only on the flexibility dimension of the e-Work Life Scale (EWL) which was covered by 4 items in the total scale. Across different terms describing the remote working set-up, its main component is the flexibility to perform work in different proximity with the use of technology [66].  Elevated scores indicate higher perception of work flexibility afforded by remote working set-up. In this study, the researcher assigned specific cut-off scores based on the responses of the participants to distinguish low (1-8), moderate (9-15), and high (16-20) scorers because the EWL is only interpreted with higher scores indicating higher levels of flexibility. From the data gathered, average score from the samples (M=14.1) indicates moderate level of work arrangement flexibility by working remotely. This result can be explained by the fact that the respondents (N=200) are only working remotely 57% of the week at an average. This implies that even though remote work affords the employees flexibility, it is not fully realized given that they are still expected to be onsite on some days of the week.

On the other hand, respondents expressed their level of satisfaction with regards to their job in several aspects using the Job Satisfaction Survey. A score ranging from 144 to 216 indicate overall job satisfaction. In this study, the respondents expressed overall satisfaction with their job based on their average score (M=150). Consistent with other studies, remote working has been found to affect job satisfaction [87]. Within the subscales of JSS, participants showed satisfaction on pay, coworkers, nature of work, and communication. Relating to the theory of work adjustment, satisfaction on pay is the outcome of the congruence between the person’s needs and the organization’s capability to provide it [34]. Moreover, the theory posits that people will seek reinforcement from their environment in the form of pay, recognition, and positive connections [34]. Relatedly, satisfaction on communication is the product of successful work adjustment. When employees meet the work requirements because they understand the job expectations and receive feedback through communication, they are compensated for their satisfactoriness. Coworkers can contribute to these by providing support, informal feedback, and cooperation. Because of these, coworkers positively reinforce a person’s behavior that may help meet the individual’s needs and contribute to the overall work adjustment. Lastly, satisfaction on nature of work is the product of an employee’s intrinsic needs (person) being provided by the nature of job itself (work environment) such as job tasks, independence, sense of achievement, personal growth, and responsibility [192].

Lastly, the study investigated the level of perceived leadership support using the Supervisory Support Scale. By averaging the total scores of all the items, a high average score indicates stronger perception of career support from one’s immediate supervisor. Respondents showed a moderate level of perceived leadership support based on their average (M=3.7). Factors inherent in remote working could be driving this moderate level of perceived leadership support. For example, remote working may imply differences in time zone with your direct manager which can hamper one-on-one alignment due to time differences. On the other hand, regular communication with a supervisor could be beneficial but virtual conversations have a way of dampening the impact of the conversation vs face-to-face conversations (e.g virtual calls are more prone to distractions such as email notifications popping).

Problem 1: Are there significant intercorrelations among remote working, job satisfaction, and leadership support?

Exploring the relationship among the variables, remote working is moderately (r=.318, p<.001) correlated to job satisfaction. This implies that employees who are given the opportunity to work remotely experience satisfaction with their job. This finding supports other studies which found that increasing remote working also increases employees’ levels of job satisfaction [160]. According to this study, remote working influences the employees’ job satisfaction level as they benefit from higher perception of work autonomy, and less work-family conflict. However, it can be noted that in this study, remote working is only moderately correlated with job satisfaction. This implies that while remote work can improve job satisfaction in some ways, it may not address all aspects of job satisfaction or may introduce new challenges that limit its overall effect. For example, employees may only feel the satisfaction from remote working if they are able to work autonomously [89].

Moreover, leadership support is strongly related (r=.705, p<.001) with job satisfaction. This implies that a subordinate’s perception of support from a supervisor enables feelings of job satisfaction. This finding reinforces the results of other studies [56] which reports that employees’ job satisfaction depends on their perception of their supervisor’s support in terms of workplace respect, job recognition, work coordination, task support, and career growth enablement. The findings generated from the analyses indicate the decision to reject the null hypothesis of H1 since there are significant intercorrelations among Remote Working, Job Satisfaction, and Leadership Support.

In the theory of work adjustment, an employee’s job satisfaction is the result of the congruence between the person’s needs, interest, and values and the capability of the work environment to provide appropriate rewards or reinforcement [34]. Reinforcers and rewards are only gained when the employee fulfills the demands of the work environment. Relating to the positive intercorrelations between the three variables, remote working is positively related to job satisfaction as it fulfills the needs for job autonomy [160], safe space [100], or flexibility [18],[30],[121]. In this study, the relationship is moderate given that these needs can also be affected by other factors. For example, the need for safe space can also be influenced by the type of co-workers an employee has [185]. On the other hand, leadership support strongly relates to job satisfaction as it becomes a reinforcer for the employee. Employees will heavily depend on the guidance and support from their supervisor in their work adjustment [144] to maintain correspondence. Supportive supervisors promote well-adjusted employees, and well-adjusted employees tend to be rewarded more which in turn, cultivates feelings of job satisfaction.

Problem 2: Is leadership supporting a significant moderator between remote working and job satisfaction?

Figure 4. Moderation analysis of remote working, job satisfaction, and leadership support

Figure 4 shows the results from the employed simple moderation analysis with remote working (RW) as the predictor, job satisfaction (JS) as the dependent variable, and leadership support (LS) as the moderator. It was hypothesized that LS will strengthen the relationship between RW and JS. The main effect between RW and JS was found to be significant (b=0.699, p=.018) while the main effect between LS and JS was also found to be significant (b=16.425, p<.001). Exploring the combined effect of RW and LS on JS, result showed that there is a non-significant effect on JS (b=0.042, p=0.874). Thus, this study fails to reject the null hypothesis that LS is not a significant moderator between RW and JS.

Exploring the moderating variable further, the simple slope analyses reveal low (b=0.657, SE=0.386, p=0.089) and high (b=0.743, SE=0.415, p=0.073) levels of leadership support did not impact the effect of remote working to job satisfaction. However, average level of leadership support (b=0.700, SE=0.296, p=0.018) significantly strengthen the effect of remote working on job satisfaction. Thus, it can be implied that both sides of the extreme levels of supervisory support show weak impact on the effect of remote working to job satisfaction.

The results of the moderation analysis provide a new angle of perspective with regards to exploring the relationship of remote working and job satisfaction moderated by leadership support. A lot of studies previously cited have shown positive and significant relationship between remote working to job satisfaction and leadership support to job satisfaction, it is surprising to note that the combined effect of remote working and leadership support does not significantly impact job satisfaction. Firstly, remote working heavily relies on technology for communication which includes communication between supervisors and remote workers. Technology-mediated communication often hampers the quality of leadership support or even the immediacy of support [191] thus resulting to less personal or impactful leadership support. For example, a comparison between conversations done virtually and onsite showed that participants who conversed face-to-face felt more emotional arousal vs those who conversed virtually [118]. Moreover, it was also found that confrontations done online were more prone to misinterpretation [118]. Thus, this minimizes the effect of leadership support in the relationship of remote working to job satisfaction.

On the other hand, remote working employees with high perceived autonomy over their job tend to be more satisfied and happier [88], thus employees who are highly autonomous may not really give higher value or rely heavily on supervisor support for job satisfaction.  Relatedly, high-performing employees adjust well to remote working and feel more satisfaction without relying so much on the support from a manager [188]. Relatedly, culture may also play a role in the dynamics between a supervisor and subordinate. Most of the remote workers are offshore employees reporting to supervisors from different ethnic group or geographical locations. Different cultural backgrounds affect managerial and leadership styles [73], [148] which may also not be congruent with what the employee seeks for. For example, Hogan assessments found that British managers are more open-minded compared to German managers [81]. In the Filipino culture, leadership style is relationship-oriented which is deeply rooted in relationship-building or “pakikipag-kapwa” [190]. Hence, relationship-building within limited communication medium may be hampered, which minimizes the effect of leadership support perceived by employees.

Moreover, remote working pushed organizations to implement structured methodologies for remote task accomplishment management which heavily supports an employee’s self-management and mutual coordination with peers and managers [45]. This structured methodology highlights more on the quantitative productivity metrics (e.g. sales, accomplished tickets, revenue) rather than managerial oversight (e.g. supervisor input, frequency of leadership alignment). Thus, remote workers would tend to find more satisfaction with their job based on its capability to hit targets and drive tangible results rather than put more weight on manager influence.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The present study was conducted to investigate the moderating effect of leadership support in the relationship between remote working and job satisfaction. This study was participated by a total of 200 participants who are working from home or have experienced working from home. The inclusion criteria used for the purposive sampling are a) millennial Filipino, b) with a minimum of one year of experience in remote work, and c) within the age range of 27-42.

The results showed a moderate positive correlation of remote working to job satisfaction. This implies that employees who work from home experience satisfaction specifically on pay, coworkers, nature of work, and communication. However, because majority of the respondents operate under hybrid working schedules, this affected the perception of job satisfaction from remote working as they are still expected to work onsite on some days. Furthermore, leadership support showed strong positive correlation to job satisfaction. This implies that employees with supportive supervisors find more satisfaction with their job. Supervisors may show support through championing employee-friendly policies or providing emotional and professional support which in turn enables feelings of job satisfaction. In the theory of work adjustment, support from leaders align well with the employee’s need for guidance and social support. This congruence results to feelings of job satisfaction.

A moderation analysis was done to check the moderating effect of leadership into the relationship between remote working and job satisfaction. The moderation analysis showed that leadership support did not significantly moderate the relationship between Remote Working and Job Satisfaction.  This suggests that the satisfaction that a remote worker experiences from a work from home arrangement is not significantly influenced by supportive behaviors from a supervisor driven by other factors such as job autonomy, self-management, limitations of technology-mediated communication, culture differences, and outcome-based productivity mindset. The theory of work adjustment underscores the importance of fit between an individual’s abilities and needs and the demands and rewards of the job. In this context,

Conclusion and Recommendations

The findings from the study contribute to the growing literature of remote working and its close ties with important HR policies. Remote working remains to be an attractive employee benefit offer with its associations to employee well-being indicators such as job satisfaction. In industries with higher demand for workforce, institutions may leverage on remote working set-up to improve employment proposition. Current remote working trends indicate that employees are more likely to accept job offer and stay within the organization if remote working is offered [102]. Companies will also benefit from increase employee productivity [116], and cost savings [92] if they offer remote working even partially.

It was found that leadership support is strongly related to employee’s job satisfaction. Supportive leaders promote well-adjusted employees [144] which, in turn, are more capable of fulfilling the requirements of work-environment [34].  Organizations and companies should invest in developing managers, and leaders who are also competent in people management to ensure employee’s job satisfaction. The current workforce landscape is slowly being taken over by the new generation of workers which are the Generation Z or Gen Z. Recently, it has been found that intrinsic motivators contribute more to Gen Z’s overall work motivation compared to Generation X and Y [117]. With this insight, if organizations want to retain employees, they need to be more careful in choosing and developing their leaders who are not just competent in their field of expertise but are also effective people managers. For HR practioners or policymakers, exposing managers to projects that will not only help them develop their work-related skills but more importantly will help them develop people management skills will be greatly beneficial. Examples of this could be collaborative projects with diverse team participants.

On the other hand, leadership support showed no significant moderating effect on remote working and job satisfaction, hence, the satisfaction that employees perceive from remote working is very self-centered. With this, employees should take intentional steps to get more benefit on the advantages of working from home. According to TWA, tenure and job satisfaction are the indicators of congruence between the person and work environment [34]. With this insight, employees need to purposefully structure their routine to meet work requirements while not compromising their personal commitments. They should also be proactive and assertive in communicating with their leaders about their needs as leaders play an important role in work adjustment.

Further improvements of the study can be implemented by increasing the number of respondents for a more robust insight. Data in this study was found to be skewed despite bootstrapping efforts. The most effective way to ensure normally distributed data is to have a bigger sample size. On the other hand, mediation analyses could also be done to explore other variables that link remote working and job satisfaction.

Moreover, different industries may entail different insights (e.g academic vs commerce) thus, there is merit to focus on one specific industry to check if the same findings can be gathered. Specification on the cultural diversification of the employee’s supervisor and co-workers may also generate different insights as job satisfaction from coworkers was found in this study.

Similarly, there is also merit in exploring other employee well-being indicators such as employee turnover, physical well-being, community well-being, and absenteeism among others for a more comprehensive insight.

REFERENCES

1. Aksoy, C. G., Barrero, J. M., Bloom, N., Davis, S. J., Dolls, M., & Zarate, P. (2023, May). Time savings when working from home. In AEA Papers and Proceedings (Vol. 113, pp. 597-603). 2014 Broadway, Suite 305, Nashville, TN 37203: American Economic Association.
2. Ali, A. A. A., Alzoraiki, M., & Al Aghbas, N. S. M. (2022). Working remotely, social isolation and access to support and communication during Covid-19 its influence on job performance. International Journal of Intellectual Human Resource Management (IJIHRM), 3(01), 23-33.
3. Allen, D. G., Renn, R. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The impact of telecommuting design on social systems, self-regulation, and role boundaries. In Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 125-163). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
4. Allen, T.D. , Golden, T.D. , & Shockley, K.M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(2), 40–68.
5. Anderson, A. J., Kaplan, S. A., & Vega, R. P. (2015). The impact of telework on emotional experience: When, and for whom, does telework improve daily affective well-being?. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 882-897.
6. Anderson, R. M., Heesterbeek, H., Klinkenberg, D., & Hollingsworth, T. D. (2020). How will country-based mitigation measures influence the course of the COVID-19 epidemic? The lancet, 395(10228), 931-934.
7. Andrade dos Santos, E., Dutra Sallaberry, J., Antonini Bortoluzzi, D., Flach, L., & Costa Maroni Saraiva, M. C. (2023). Person-Environment Fit and Turnover Intention: a Study with Civil Servants. Revista Contabilidade, Gestão e Governança, 26(2).
8. Badrinarayanan, V. (2024). Trust building strategies for virtual leaders in the post pandemic era. Project Leadership and Society, 5, 100126.
9. Bae, K. B., Lee, D., & Sohn, H. (2019). How to increase participation in telework programs in US federal agencies: Examining the effects of being a female supervisor, supportive leadership, and diversity management. Public Personnel Management, 48(4), 565-583.
10. Baert, S., Lippens, L., Moens, E., Sterkens, P., & Weytjens, J. (2020). The COVID-19 crisis and telework: A research survey on experiences, expectations and hopes (No. 13229). IZA Discussion Papers.
11. Becerra-Astudillo, L., Vargas-Díaz, B., Molina, C., Serrano-Malebrán, J., & Garzón-Lasso, F. (2022). Teleworking in times of a pandemic: an applied study of industrial companies. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1061529.
12. Bellmann, L., & Hübler, O. (2020). Job satisfaction and work-life balance: Differences between homework and work at the workplace of the company (No. 13504). IZA Discussion Papers.
13. Ben-Zur, H. (2019). Transactional Model of Stress and Coping. In: Zeigler-Hill, V., Shackelford, T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_2128-1
14. Berglund, E., Anderzén, I., Andersén, Å., & Lindberg, P. (2021). Work-life balance predicted work ability two years later: a cohort study of employees in the Swedish energy and water sector. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 1212.
15. Bizot, E. B., & Goldman, S. H. (1993). Prediction of satisfactoriness and satisfaction: An 8-year follow up. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43(1), 19-29.
16. Boccoli, G., Gastaldi, L., & Corso, M. (2024). Transformational leadership and work engagement in remote work settings: the moderating role of the supervisor’s digital communication skills. Leadership & organization development journal, 45(7), 1240-1257.
17. Buick, F., Blackman, D. A., Glennie, M., Weeratunga, V., & O’Donnell, M. E. (2024). Different approaches to managerial support for flexible working: Implications for public sector employee well-being. Public Personnel Management, 53(3), 377-405.
18. Caillier, J. G. (2012). The impact of teleworking on work motivation in a US federal government agency. The American Review of Public Administration, 42(4), 461-480.
19. Cambridge University Press. (n.d.). Supervisor. In Cambridge English dictionary. Retrieved November 11, 2024, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/supervisor
20. Campo, A. M. D. V., Avolio, B., & Carlier, S. I. (2021). The relationship between telework, job performance, work–life balance and family supportive supervisor behaviours in the context of COVID-19. Global Business Review, 09721509211049918.
21. Caplan, R. D., & Van Harrison, R. (1982). The mechanisms of job stress and strain. Wiley.
22. Caplan, R. D. (1983). Person-environment fit: Past, present and future. Stress research.
23. Caplan, R. D. (1987). Person-environment fit in organizations: Theories, facts, and values. Occupational stress and organizational effectiveness, 103-140.
24. Caplan, R. D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational behavior, 31(3), 248-267.
25. Caplan, R. D., & Van Harrison, R. (1993). Person‐environment fit theory: Some history, recent developments, and future directions. Journal of social issues, 49(4), 253-275.
26. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267
27. Cerrato, J., & Cifre, E. (2018). Gender inequality in household chores and work-family conflict. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 1330.
28. Charalampous, M., Grant, C. A., & Tramontano, C. (2022). “It needs to be the right blend”: a qualitative exploration of remote e-workers’ experience and well-being at work. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 44(2), 335-355.
29. Charalampous, M., Grant, C. A., & Tramontano, C. (2022). Getting the measure of remote e-working: a revision and further validation of the E-work life scale. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 45(1), 45-68.
30. Chesley, N. (2010). Technology use and employee assessments of work effectiveness, workload, and pace of life. Information, Communication & Society, 13(4), 485-514.

31. CNN Philippines. (2023). Ph ranks 7th fastest growing remote work hub in the world. Retrieved November 17, 2024 cnn. https://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2023/10/31/PH-ranks-7th-fastest-growing-remote-work-hub-in-the-world.html
32. Cortez, R. M., & Johnston, W. J. (2020). The Coronavirus crisis in B2B settings: Crisis uniqueness and managerial implications based on social exchange theory. Industrial Marketing Management, 88, 125-135.
33. Davies, A. (2021). COVID-19 and ICT-supported remote working: Opportunities for rural economies. World, 2(1), 139-152.
34. Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. A psychological theory of work Adjustment 1984. Minneapolis: University Minnesota.
35. Dawis, R. V. (1992). Person-environment fit and job satisfaction. Job satisfaction, 69-88.
36. Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. V. (1998). Person-environment fit theory: Conceptual foundations, empirical evidence, and directions for future research. Theories of organizational stress, 28, 28-67.
37. Di Martino, V., & Wirth, L. (1990). Telework: A new way of working and living. International Labour Review, 129(5), 529–554
38. Dinsdale, R. (2017). The Role of Leaders in Developing a Positive Culture. BU Journal of Graduate Studies in Education, 9(1), 42-45.
39. Dolce, V., Vayre, E., Molino, M., & Ghislieri, C. (2020). Far away, so close? The role of destructive leadership in the job demands–resources and recovery model in emergency telework. Social Sciences, 9(11), 196
40. Pontanoza, S. (2023). Working remotely and its impact on employee productivity: A post-pandemic analysis from a business process outsourcing company in Manila, Philippines. Journal Of Third World Economics, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.26480/jhcdc.01.2023.01.02
41. Edwards, J. R. (2007). The relationship between person-environment fit and outcomes: An integrative theoretical framework. Perspectives on organizational fit/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
42. Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. and Rhoades, L. (2002). “Perceived supervisor support: contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 565-573.
43. Elaho, O. B., & Odion, A. S. (2022). The impact of work environment on employee productivity: a case study of business centers in University of Benin complex. Amity Journal of Management Research, 5(1), 782-797.
44. Epetia, M. C. F., Ocbina, J. J. S., & Librero, K. R. (2023). Where Have the Workers Gone since the COVID-19 Pandemic? (No. 2023-22). PIDS Discussion Paper Series.
45. Errichiello, L., & Pianese, T. (2021). The role of organizational support in effective remote work implementation in the post-COVID era. In Handbook of research on remote work and worker well-being in the post-COVID-19 era (pp. 221-242). IGI Global.
46. Ertekin, A. B., & Avunduk, Y. (2021). The Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: A Study on Sports Industry. Journal of Educational Issues, 7(2), 133-145.
47. Estrellado, V. (2023). Surprising work-from-home statistics of 2024. Retrieved November 18, 2024 Outsource Accelerator. https://www.outsourceaccelerator.com/articles/work-from-home-statistics/
48. Fapohunda, T. M. (2014). An exploration of the effects of work life balance on productivity. Journal of Human Resources Management and Labor Studies, 2(2), 71-89.
49. Fein, E. C., Gilmour, J., Machin, T., & Hendry, L. (2022). Statistics for research students. Darling Heights, Australia: University of Southern Queensland.
50. Ferrara, B., Pansini, M., De Vincenzi, C., Buonomo, I., & Benevene, P. (2022). Investigating the role of remote working on employees’ performance and well-being: an evidence-based systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(19), 12373
51. French, J. R. P. (1974). Adjustment as a person-environment fit. Coping and Adaptation/Basic Book.
52. French, J. R. (1982). The mechanisms of job stress and strain. Management Hnadbook/John Wiley and Sons.
53. Friebel, G., Lalanne, M., Richter, B., Schwardmann, P., & Seabright, P. (2021). Gender differences in social interactions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 186, 33-45.
54. Gabaglio, E., Jacobs, G., Bonetti, A., & Plassmann, R. (2002). Framework agreement on telework. Trade union delegation, 2020-09.
55. Gaduena, A., Caboverde, C. E., & Flaminiano, J. P. (2022). Telework potential in the Philippines. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 33(2), 434-454.
56. Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of applied psychology, 92(6), 1524.
57. García-Cabrera, A. M., Suárez-Ortega, S. M., Gutiérrez-Pérez, F. J., & Miranda-Martel, M. J. (2023). The influence of supervisor supportive behaviors on subordinate job satisfaction: the moderating effect of gender similarity. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1233212.
58. García-Salirrosas, E. E., Rondon-Eusebio, R. F., Geraldo-Campos, L. A., & Acevedo-Duque, Á. (2023). Job Satisfaction in Remote Work: The Role of Positive Spillover from Work to Family and Work–Life Balance. Behavioral Sciences, 13(11), 916.
59. Ghasemy, M., Rosa-Díaz, I. M., & Gaskin, J. E. (2021). The roles of supervisory support and involvement in influencing scientists’ job satisfaction to ensure the achievement of SDGs in academic organizations. Sage Open, 11(3), 21582440211030611.
60. Gifford, J. (2022). Remote working: unprecedented increase and a developing research agenda. Human Resource Development International, 25(2), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2022.2049108
61. Gillies, D. (2011). Agile bodies: A new imperative in neoliberal governance. Journal of Education Policy, 26(2), 207-223.
62. Gita-Carlos, R. A. (2023, October 31). Ph ranks 7th in “fastest-growing” global remote work hubs. Philippine News Agency. Retrieved November 17, 2024. https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1212868
63. Golden, T. D., & Veiga, J. F. (2005). The impact of extent of telecommuting on job satisfaction: Resolving inconsistent findings. Journal of management, 31(2), 301-318.
64. Govender, J. P., Garbharran, H. L., & Loganathan, R. (2013). Leadership style and job satisfaction: A developing economy perspective. Corporate Ownership & Control, 10(4-4), 390-399.
65. Gragnano, A., Simbula, S., & Miglioretti, M. (2020). Work–life balance: weighing the importance of work–family and work–health balance. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(3), 907.
66. 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.
67. Grant, C. A., Wallace, L. M., Spurgeon, P. C., Tramontano, C., & Charalampous, M. (2019). Construction and initial validation of the e-work life scale to measure remote e-working. Employee Relations, 41(1), 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-09-2017-0229
68. Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, A., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 64-86. © 1990 by Academy of Management. Items were taken from the appendix, pp. 85-86. Reproduced with permission of Academy of Management in the format text­ book via Copyright Clearance Center.
69. Haan, K. (2023, June 12). Remote work statistics and trends in 2023. Forbes. Retrieved November 17, 2024. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/remote-work-statistics/#sources_section
70. Haar JM, Sune A, Russo M, Ollier-Malaterre A. A Cross-national Study on the Antecedents of Work-Life Balance from the Fit and Balance Perspective. Social Indicators Research. 2019; 142(1):261-82.
71. Hackney, A., Yung, M., Somasundram, K. G., Nowrouzi-Kia, B., Oakman, J., & Yazdani, A. (2022). Working in the digital economy: A systematic review of the impact of work from home arrangements on personal and organizational performance and productivity. Plos one, 17(10), e0274728
72. Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Yragui, N. L., Bodner, T. E., & Hanson, G. C. (2009). Development and validation of a multidimensional measure of family supportive supervisor behaviors (FSSB). Journal of management, 35(4), 837-856.
73. Hämmig, O. (2017). Health and well-being at work: The key role of supervisor support. SSM-population health, 3, 393-402.
74. Haney-Brown, K. R. (2017). The relationship between ethnic identity and leadership style. Walden University.
75. Harrison, R. V. (1985). The person-environment fit model and the study of job stress. Human stress and cognition in organization: An integrated perspective.
76. Harrison, R. V. (1978). Person-environment fit and job stress. Stress at work, 175-205.
77. Hauff, S., Richter, N. F., & Tressin, T. (2015). Situational job characteristics and job satisfaction: The moderating role of national culture. International business review, 24(4), 710-723..
78. Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.
79. Hayman, J. (2005). Psychometric assessment of an instrument designed to measure work life balance. Research and practice in human resource management, 13(1), 85-91.
80. Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Moderation analysis. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook, 155-172.
81. Hill, E. J., Hawkins, A. J., Ferris, M., & Weitzman, M. (2001). Finding an extra day a week: The positive influence of perceived job flexibility on work and family life balance. Family relations, 50(1), 49-58.
82. Holmes, R. (2017, December 14). Does nationality affect leadership style? Ruth Holmes: Relocate magazine. Ruth Holmes | Relocate magazine. https://www.relocatemagazine.com/culture-language-does-nationality-affect-leadership-style-rholmes
83. Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction.
84. Hötte, K., Somers, M., & Theodorakopoulos, A. (2023). Technology and jobs: A systematic literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 194, 122750.
85. Iftikhar, F., & Huma, Z. (2024). Effective Leadership in Managing Diversity: A Cross-Cultural Study between India and Sweden.
86. Indradewa, R., & Prasetio, A. A. (2023). The influence of flexible working arrangements and work-life balance on job satisfaction: A double-layered moderated mediation model. Journal Ekonomi Dan Bisnis, 26(2), 449-476.
87. Ingusci, E., Signore, F., Cortese, C. G., Molino, M., Pasca, P., & Ciavolino, E. (2023). Development and validation of the Remote Working Benefits & Disadvantages scale. Quality & Quantity, 57(2), 1159-1183.
88. Ivasciuc, I. S., Epuran, G., Vuță, D. R., & Tescașiu, B. (2022). Telework Implications on Work-Life Balance, Productivity, and Health of Different Generations of Romanian Employees. Sustainability, 14(23), 16108.
89. Jabra GN. (2022). Hybrid ways of working 2022 global report. Jabra. https://www.jabra.com/en-apac/thought-leadership/hybridwork-2022
90. Jamaludin, N. L., & Kamal, S. A. (2023). The relationship between remote work and job satisfaction: the mediating role of perceived autonomy. Information Management and Business Review, 15(3 (SI)), 10-22.
91. Johnson, B. (2001). Toward a new classification of nonexperimental quantitative research. Educational researcher, 30(2), 3-13.
92. Kalev, A., & Dobbin, F. (2022, August 16). The surprising benefits of work/life support. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved August 30, 2024 https://hbr.org/2022/09/the-surprising-benefits-of-work-life-support
93. Kajanová, J., & Barteková, N. (2022). Remote Work as a New Standard? Cost Saving and Productivity Increase with Remote Work in the Slovak Translations Services Sector. THE POPRAD ECONOMIC AND MANAGEMENT, 10, 318.
94. Kalliath, T., & Brough, P. (2008). Work–life balance: A review of the meaning of the balance construct. Journal of management & organization, 14(3), 323-327.
95. Kamarudin, N., Nizam, N. Z., Mat Sani, A., & Khodri Harahap, A. Z. M. (2023). The Impact of Micromanage Issue Among Manufacturing Industry: Employees Perception and Job Satisfaction. International Journal of Industrial Engineering & Production Research, 34(2), 1-14.
96. Kangas, H., Pensar, H., & Rousi, R. (2023). I wouldn’t be working this way if I had a family-Differences in remote workers’ needs for supervisor’s family-supportiveness depending on the parental status. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 147, 103939.
97. Kelly, H. (2020, May 12). Twitter employees don’t ever have to go back to the office (unless they want to). Retrieved August 30, 2024. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/12/twitter-work-home/
98. Keshwani, P., & Patel, S. (2023). The Impact of Technology on Work Life Balance. Iconic Research and Engineering Journals, 6(12 2023), 1142–1150.
99. Kim, N., Kang, Y. J., Choi, J., & Sohn, Y. W. (2020). The crossover effects of supervisors’ workaholism on subordinates’ turnover intention: The mediating role of two types of job demands and emotional exhaustion. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(21), 7742.
100. King-Dejardin, A. M. (2021). Homeworking in the Philippines: Bad job? Good job? (No. 25). ILO Working Paper.
101. Kondratowicz, B., Godlewska-Werner, D., Połomski, P., & Khosla, M. (2022). Satisfaction with job and life and remote work in the COVID-19 pandemic: the role of perceived stress, self-efficacy and self-esteem. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 9(1).
102. Kostanek, J., Karolczak, K., Kuliczkowski, W., & Watala, C. (2024). Bootstrap Method as a Tool for Analyzing Data with Atypical Distributions Deviating from Parametric Assumptions: Critique and Effectiveness Evaluation. Data, 9(8), 95.
103. (2022, April). Current trends in remote working. Retrieved August 30, 2024. https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2022/04/current-trends-in-remote-working-04-2022.pdf.
104. (2023, October 31). Current trends in remote working. Retrieved August 30, 2024 https://kpmg.com/ph/en/home/insights/2023/10/current-trends-in-remote-working.html
105. Kristof‐Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences OF INDIVIDUALS’FIT at work: A meta‐analysis OF person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel psychology, 58(2), 281-342.
106. Kumar, R., & Mokashi, U. M. (2020). COVID-19 and work-life balance: What about supervisor support and employee proactiveness?. Annals of Contemporary Developments in Management & HR (ACDMHR), 2(4), 1-9.
107. Kurdy, D. M., Al-Malkawi, H. A. N., & Rizwan, S. (2023). The impact of remote working on employee productivity during COVID-19 in the UAE: the moderating role of job level. Journal of Business and Socio-economic Development, 3(4), 339-352.
108. Lambert, S. J. (2000). Added benefits: The link between work-life benefits and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of management Journal, 43(5), 801-815.
109. Lautsch, B. A., Kossek, E. E., & Eaton, S. C. (2009). Supervisory approaches and paradoxes in managing telecommuting implementation. Human Relations, 62(6), 795-827.
110. Le Quy, H. M., & Zhu, Y. Q. (2024). Winners and losers of working-from home–The impact of perceived person-environment fit towards continuance intention. Computers in Human Behavior, 155, 108190.
111. Lu, Z., & Zhuang, W. (2023). Can Teleworking Improve Workers’ Job Satisfaction? Exploring the Roles of Gender and Emotional Well-Being. Applied research in quality of life, 1–19. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-023-10145-4.
112. Locke E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction, in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, ed Dunnette M. D. (Chicago, IL: Rand McNally;), 1297–1349.
113. Lord, R. G., & Kernan, M. C. (1989). Chapter 23 application of control theory to work
114. Lugto, R. (2024, October). Exploring the dynamics of hybrid work arrangements. Retrieved November 17, 2024. The Manila Times.
115. Lund, S., Madgavkar, A., Manyika, J., & Smit, S. (2020). What’s next for remote work: An analysis of 2,000 tasks, 800 jobs, and nine countries. McKinsey Global Institute, 1-13.
116. Lundqvist, D., Reineholm, C., Ståhl, C., & Wallo, A. (2022). The impact of leadership on employee well-being: on-site compared to working from home. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 2154.
117. Mamatha, K., & Thoti, K. K. (2023). The Effects of Working Remotely on Employee Productivity and Work-Life Balance. Journal of Advanced Zoology, 44.
118. Mahmoud, A. B., Fuxman, L., Mohr, I., Reisel, W. D., & Grigoriou, N. (2021). “We aren’t your reincarnation!” workplace motivation across X, Y and Z generations. International Journal of Manpower, 42(1), 193-209.
119. Mallen, M. J., Day, S. X., & Green, M. A. (2003). Online versus face-to-face conversation: An examination of relational and discourse variables. Psychotherapy: Theory, research, practice, training, 40(1-2), 155.
120. Mello, J. A. (2007). Managing telework programs effectively. Employee responsibilities and rights journal, 19, 247-261.
121. Merchant, J. E., & Merchant, S. (2004). Management Styles and Cultural Differences: Bridging the Productivity Gap in The Implementation of Information Technology. International Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER), 3(2).
122. Messenger, J. C., & Gschwind, L. (2016). Three generations of Telework: New ICT s and the (R) evolution from Home Office to Virtual Office. New Technology, Work and Employment, 31(3), 195-208.
123. Min, S. A., & Kim, B. Y. (2020). Platform leadership and strategy of small and medium enterprises on digital transformation. International Journal of Management (IJM), 11(12).
124. Mores, J. M. (2022). Work From Home Satisfaction: Filipino Remote Workers and the Covid-19 Pandemic. Sustainable Development, 10(2), 70-77.
125. Msuya, M. S., & Kumar, A. B. (2022). The role of supervisor work-life support on the correlation between work autonomy, workload and performance: perspective from Tanzania banking employees. Future Business Journal, 8(1), 26.
126. Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of vocational behavior, 31(3), 268-277.
127. Nabawanuka, H., & Ekmekcioglu, E. B. (2022). Millennials in the workplace: perceived supervisor support, work–life balance and employee well–being. Industrial and Commercial Training, 54(1), 123-144.
128. Neirotti, P., Paolucci, E., & Raguseo, E. (2012). Telework configurations and labour productivity: some stylized facts. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 4, 5.
129. Nespoli, G. (2017). Impact of supervisor support on employee job satisfaction among fundraising staff within higher education. Pepperdine University.
130. Padhi, M., & Pattnaik, S. (2014). The role of cognitive appraisal in work-family experiences of Indian IT employees. Vikalpa, 39(2), 21-30
131. Page, K. M., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2009). The ‘what’,‘why’and ‘how’of employee well-being: A new model. Social indicators research, 90, 441-458.
132. Palumbo, R. (2020). Let me go to the office! An investigation into the side effects of working from home on work-life balance. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 33(6/7), 771-790.
133. Parham, S., & Rauf, M. A. (2020). COVID-19 and obligatory remote working in HEIs: An exploratory study of faculties’ work-life balance, well-being and productivity during the pandemic. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, 8(12), 384-400.
134. Parker, K., Horowitz, J. M., & Minkin, R. (2022). COVID-19 pandemic continues to reshape work in America
135. Paškvan, M., Kubicek, B., Prem, R., & Korunka, C. (2016). Cognitive appraisal of work intensification. International Journal of Stress Management, 23(2), 124.
136. Pensar, H. (2023). Re-Thinking Work-Life Balance in the Context of Remote Work: The Importance of Personal Re-sources in Nurturing Individual Agency.
137. Philippine Institute for Developmental Studies. (2024, July 8). PIDS study: COVID-19 cut PH work hours, altering labor market. Philippine Institute for Developmental Studies. Retrieved November 17, 2024, from https://www.pids.gov.ph/details/news/press-releases/pids-study-covid-19-cut-ph-work-hours-altering-labor-market#:~:text=Discussant%20Dr.,working%20remotely%2C%E2%80%9D%20he%20stated.
138. Philippine Statistics Authority. (2020). (issue brief). Employment Situation in October 2020 Special Release (Ser. 2021-287).
139. Pitts, D., Marvel, J., & Fernandez, S. (2011). So hard to say goodbye? Turnover intention among US federal employees. Public administration review, 71(5), 751-760.
140. Poisat, P., Mey, M., & Theron, A. (2014). Supervisory support key to female career satisfaction. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(10), 11.
141. Pramudita, A., & Sukoco, B. M. (2018). The moderating roles of perceived supervisor support between psychological contract and job-related outcomes. KnE Social Sciences.
142. Prasad, K. D. V., & Satyaprasad, V. K. (2023). The Relationship between Remote Working and Work-life Balance with Mediating and Moderating Effects of Social Support: An Empirical Study of Information Technology Employees. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 12(3), 235-253
143. Prasad, K. D. V., Vaidya, R., & Rani, R. (2023). Remote working and occupational stress: Effects on IT-enabled industry employees in Hyderabad Metro, India. Frontiers in psychology, 14, 1069402.
144. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers, 36, 717-731.
145. Quratulain, S., & Al-Hawari, M. A. (2021). Interactive effects of supervisor support, diversity climate, and employee cynicism on work adjustment and performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 93, 102803.
146. Radu, C., Deaconu, A., Kis, I. A., Jansen, A., & Mișu, S. I. (2023). New Ways to Perform: Employees’ Perspective on Remote Work and Psychological Security in the Post-Pandemic Era. Sustainability, 15(7), 5952.
147. Raghuram, S., Hill, N. S., Gibbs, J. L., & Maruping, L. M. (2019). Virtual work: Bridging research clusters. Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 308-341.
148. Raišienė, A. G., Rapuano, V., Varkulevičiūtė, K., & Stachová, K. (2020). Working from home—Who is happy? A survey of Lithuania’s employees during the COVID-19 quarantine period. Sustainability, 12(13), 5332.
149. Reid, J. (2018). Cultural backgrounds and leadership styles in the virtual work environment.
150. Reyes, B. (2022, July 22). Microsoft on making “hybrid work” in the country. Manila Bulletin. Retrieved August 20, 2024 https://mb.com.ph/2022/07/22/microsoft-on-making-hybrid-work-in-the-country/
151. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. Journal of applied psychology, 87(4), 698.
152. Richert-Kaźmierska, A., & Stankiewicz, K. (2016). Work–life balance: Does age matter?. Work, 55(3), 679-688.
153. Richter, A. (2020). Locked-down digital work. International Journal of Information Management, 55, 102157.
154. Rivers, D. L. (2018). A grounded theory of millennials job-hopping (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).
155. Robertson, M. M., Maynard, W. S., & McDevitt, J. R. (2003). Telecommuting. Prof. Saf, 38, 30-36.
156. Roscoe, J. T. (1969). Fundamental research statistics for the behavioral sciences.
157. Ryan, S., & Cross, C. (2024). Micromanagement and its impact on millennial followership styles. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 45(1), 140–152. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2022-0329
158. Saragih, S. (2011). The effects of job autonomy on work outcomes: Self efficacy as an intervening variable. International Research Journal of Business Studies, 4(3), 203-215.
159. Sarah Mae Sincero (2012). Stress and Cognitive Appraisal. Retrieved Aug 28, 2023 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/stress-and-cognitive-appraisal
160. Saraswati, K. D., & Lie, D. (2020, December). Psychological well-being: the impact of work-life balance and work pressure. In The 2nd Tarumanagara International Conference on the Applications of Social Sciences and Humanities (TICASH 2020) (pp. 580-587). Atlantis Press.
161. Schall, M. A. (2019). The relationship between remote work and job satisfaction: The mediating roles of perceived autonomy, work-family conflict, and telecommuting intensity (Doctoral dissertation, San Jose State University).
162. Schneider B., Snyder R. A. (1975). Some relationships between job satisfaction and organization climate. J. Appl. Psychol. 60:318.
163. Sekaran, U. (2016). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. John Wiley & Sons.
164. Setiawan, F. A., & Sopiah, S. (2023). Supervisor Support and Job Satisfaction: Systematic Literature Review (SLR). Journal of Creative Student Research, 1(6), 160-177.
165. Shanafelt, T. D., Gorringe, G., Menaker, R., Storz, K. A., Reeves, D., Buskirk, S. J., … & Swensen, S. J. (2015, April). Impact of organizational leadership on physician burnout and satisfaction. In Mayo Clinic Proceedings (Vol. 90, No. 4, pp. 432-440). Elsevier.
166. Sharma, S. C., & Gupta, R. (2020). Job satisfaction: difference in levels among selected industries. Int J Rec Technol Eng (IJRTE), 8(6).
167. Sirgy, M. J., & Lee, D. J. (2018). Work-life balance: An integrative review. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 13, 229-254.
168. Sironi, E. (2019). Job satisfaction as a determinant of employees’ optimal well-being in an instrumental variable approach. Quality & Quantity, 53(4), 1721-1742.
169. Shagvaliyeva, S., & Yazdanifard, R. (2014). Impact of flexible working hours on work-life balance. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 2014.
170. 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.
171. 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, DOI: 10.1080/13678868.2022.2047380
172. Skalski, S., Uram, P., Dobrakowski, P., & Kwiatkowska, A. (2020). Thinking too much about the novel coronavirus. The link between persistent thinking about COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 anxiety and trauma effects. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 8(3), 169-174.
173. Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the Job Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 693-713.
174. Stankevičiūtė, Ž., & Kunskaja, S. (2022). Strengthening of work-life balance while working remotely in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. Human Systems Management, 41(2), 221-235.
175. Statista Research Department. (2022, April 29). Philippines: Work situation of full-time employed 2022. Retrieved August 17, 2024 Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1305430/philippines-work-situation-of-full-time-employed/
176. Sullivan, C. (2012). Remote working and work-life balance. In Work and quality of life: Ethical practices in organizations (pp. 275-290). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
177. Supardi, A. M., Salehah, M., & Komalasari, S. (2023, March). The Role of Workplace Well-Being on Employee Work Satisfaction. In Conference of Psychology and Flourishing Humanity (PFH 2022) (pp. 318-327). Atlantis Press.
178. Susanto, P., Hoque, M. E., Jannat, T., Emely, B., Zona, M. A., & Islam, M. A. (2022). Work-life balance, job satisfaction, and job performance of SMEs employees: The moderating role of family-supportive supervisor behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 906876.
179. Talandron-Felipe, M. M. P., Bonifacio, K. L. A., Ayunar, G. S., & Rodrigo, M. M. T. (2021). Comparison of English Comprehension among Students from Different Backgrounds using a Narrative-centered Digital Game.
180. Talmage-Rostron, M. (2023). Business process outsourcing (BPO) is the ultimate form of remote working, and its popularity is soaring in the Philippines. Nexford University. https://www.nexford.edu/insights/wfh-is-here-to-stay-the-future-of-remote-jobs-in-the-philippines
181. Talukder, A. K. M., Vickers, M., & Khan, A. (2018). Supervisor support and work-life balance: Impacts on job performance in the Australian financial sector. Personnel Review, 47(3), 727-744.
182. Tak, J. (2011). Relationships between various person–environment fit types and employee withdrawal behavior: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78(2), 315-320. l
183. Teevan, J., Hecht, B., & Jaffe, S. (2020). The new future of work. Microsoft Internal Rep.
184. Toniolo-Barrios, M., & Pitt, L. (2021). Mindfulness and the challenges of working from home in times of crisis. Business horizons, 64(2), 189-197.
185. Travaglione, A., Scott-Ladd, B., Hancock, J., & Chang, J. (2017). Managerial support: Renewing the role of managers amidst declining union support for employees. Journal of General Management, 43(1), 24-32.
186. Tucker, S., Chmiel, N., Turner, N., Hershcovis, M. S., & Stride, C. B. (2008). Perceived organizational support for safety and employee safety voice: the mediating role of coworker support for safety. Journal of occupational health psychology, 13(4), 319.
187. Ullah, M. S., Islam, M., & Ukil, M. I. (2022). Work from home during COVID-19: the role of perceived hope, intrinsic spirituality, and perceived supervisor support on job involvement. Management Matters, 19(1), 57-72.
188. Van Vianen, A. E. (2018). Person–environment fit: A review of its basic tenets. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 75-101.
189. van Zoonen, W., Sivunen, A., Blomqvist, K., Olsson, T., Ropponen, A., Henttonen, K., & Vartiainen, M. (2021). Factors influencing adjustment to remote work: Employees’ initial responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(13), 6966.
190. Velez, B. L., & Moradi, B. (2012). Workplace support, discrimination, and person–organization fit: Tests of the theory of work adjustment with LGB individuals. Journal of counseling psychology, 59(3), 399.
191. Villarin, S.., Kilag, O. K., Ceniza, T.., Albaño, V.., Lonzaga, A. M., & Rallos Jr., R.. (2024). Understanding the Interplay of History, Culture, and Policies in Philippine School Leadership. Excellencia: International Multi-Disciplinary Journal of Education (2994-9521), 2(1), 155-163. https://doi.org/10.5281/
192. 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 = Psychologie appliquee, 70(1), 16–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12290
193. Weiss, D. J. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis: Work Adjustment Project.
194. Weiss, D., Weiss, M., Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2022). Tough times at the top: Occupational status predicts changes in job satisfaction in times of crisis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 139, 103804.
195. Wilczyński, K. (2024). The relationship between remote work and job satisfaction: the mediating roles of perceived productivity, engagement, and personality type (Master’s thesis, University of Malta).
196. Winter, D. (2009). Theory of work adjustment. The Careers Group.
197. Xiong, A., Xia, S., He, Q., Ameen, N., Yan, J., & Jones, P. (2023). When will employees accept remote working? The impact of gender and internet skills. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8(3), 100402.
198. Xirasagar, S. (2008). Transformational, transactional and laissez‐faire leadership among physician executives. Journal of Health organization and management, 22(6), 599-613.
199. Yadav, V., & Sharma, H. (2023). Family-friendly policies, supervisor support and job satisfaction: mediating effect of work-family conflict. Vilakshan-XIMB Journal of Management, 20(1), 98-113.
200. Yeves, J., Bargsted, M., Cortes, L., Merino, C., & Cavada, G. (2019). Age and perceived employability as moderators of job insecurity and job satisfaction: A moderated moderation model. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 799.
201. Yusuf, S. (2018). A comparative study of work-life balance and job satisfaction of the employees working in business process outsourcing sector. Sciences, 10(2), 87-93.
202. Zaki, W. M. T. M., & Al-Hodiany, Z. M. (2021). The Moderating Effect of Working from Home in The Relationship Between Motivational Factors and Project Performance: A Case Study of Perusahaan Otomobil Kedua (Perodua) in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), 6(8), 394-405.
203. Zeb, A., Goh, G. G. G., Javaid, M., Khan, M. N., Khan, A. U., & Gul, S. (2023). The interplay between supervisor support and job performance: Implications of social exchange and social learning theories. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 15(2), 429-448.
204. Zou, C., Zhao, W., & Siau, K. (2020). COVID-19 calls for remote reskilling and retraining. Cutter business technology journal, 23(7), 21.
205. Zou, P., Huo, D., & Li, M. (2020). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on firms: a survey in Guangdong Province, China. Global health research and policy, 5, 1-10.
206. Zychová, K., Fejfarová, M., & Jindrová, A. (2024). Job Autonomy as a Driver of Job Satisfaction. Central European Business Review, 2024(2), 117-140.