Workplace Contexts and Stress: A Comparative Review of Social and Psychological Mechanisms in Remote, Hybrid, and In-Person Work

This systematic review examines differences across remote, hybrid, and in-person working environments that shape the social and psychological dimensions of employee stress and well-being. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) standard, we systematically searched PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar, and supplemented this with a targeted search of grey literature and peer-reviewed conference proceedings (e.g., the European Conference on Knowledge Management, ResearchGate, and SSRN) to reduce publication bias, identifying peer-reviewed investigations published from 2015 through 2025. Eligible studies examined the interpersonal and cognitive aspects of stress—social identity, autonomy, trust, and social support—rather than physiological end points alone.
Following an expanded search strategy incorporating broader monitoring- and control-related terms (e.g., “algorithmic control,” “workplace digital tracking,” “electronic performance monitoring”) alongside the original keyword set, the final synthesis includes fourteen studies, an increase from the twelve identified in the original search, allowing a more robust evidentiary base while retaining PRISMA-guided rigour.
Thematic synthesis identified five primary mechanisms: (1) diminished social connection and weakened identity in remote work; (2) increased belonging but reduced autonomy in in-person arrangements; (3) equilibrium between flexibility and accountability in hybrid approaches; (4) trust and psychological safety—including reactions to digital monitoring and algorithmic control—as stress moderators; and (5) social support as a protective process across modalities. Taken together, these results indicate that workplace stress is a socially embedded phenomenon driven by social identity, perceived control, and relational trust.
Through synthesis of the Job Demands–Resources (JD–R) model as an integrative anchor, complemented by Social Identity Theory, Self-Determination Theory, and Conservation of Resources theory, the review develops a context-specific framework for understanding post-pandemic workplace stress. Methodological quality was appraised using CASP and AMSTAR 2 checklists, and appraisal scores were compared across study designs rather than treated only as an inclusion threshold. Practical implications highlight the need for trust, autonomy, and belonging and for transparent, non-punitive approaches to performance monitoring to promote well-being across different modes of working.

Workplace Stress, Social Psychology, Remote Work, Hybrid Work, Identity, Autonomy, Workplace Monitoring, Trust

1. American Psychological Association. (2022). Work and well-being survey: 2022 results. 1–25. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social Identity Theory and the Organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4278999 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands-resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. CASP. (2018). Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklists. Oxford: CASP UK. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Choudhury, P., Foroughi, C., & Larson, B. (2021). Work-from-anywhere: The productivity effects of geographic flexibility. Strategic Management Journal, 42(4), 655–683. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3251 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Dale, G., Wilson, H. K., & Tucker, M. (2024). What is healthy hybrid work? Exploring employee perceptions on wellbeing and hybrid work arrangements. IJWHM. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Elisabetta, C., Paola, R., Acquadro Maran, D., Filippetti, S., Marco, P., Pellegrino, E., Ferrante, M., La Torre, G., & Fiore, M. (2025). Remote workers’ life quality and stress during COVID-19: a systematic review. European Journal of Public Health, 35(1), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckae167 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Eng, E., Sharp, J., & Islam, F. M. A. (2025). The Impact of Remote Work on Psychological Distress: Implications for Australian Workers. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-025-09552-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Eng, I., Tjernberg, M., & Champoux-Larsson, M. F. (2024). Hybrid workers describe aspects that promote effectiveness, work engagement, work-life balance, and health. Cogent Psychology, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2024.2362535 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The Bases of Social Power. In Studies in Social Power. University of Michigan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. 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), 1524–1541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Glavin, P., Bierman, A., & Schieman, S. (2024). Private Eyes, They See Your Every Move: Workplace Surveillance and Worker Well-Being. Social Currents, 11(4), 327–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294965241228874 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Grenier, S., Gagné, M., & O’Neill, T. (2024). Self-determination theory and its implications for team motivation. Applied Psychology, 73(4), 1833–1865. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12526 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Haslam, C., Jetten, J., Cruwys, T., Dingle, G. A., & Haslam, S. A. (2018). The New Psychology of Health. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315648569 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & Haslam, C. (2009). Social identity, health, and well-being: An emerging agenda for applied psychology. Applied Psychology, 58(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00379.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of Resources: A New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Medicine, 7(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. International Labour Organization. (2014). Working anytime, anywhere: The effects on the world of work. Organizational Dynamics, 43(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. International Labour Organization (ILO). (2021). Working from home: from invisibility to decent work. https://www.ilo.org/publications/major-publications/working-home-invisibility-decent-work [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Jaß, L., Klußmann, A., Harth, V., & Mache, S. (2024). Job demands and resources perceived by hybrid working employees in German public administration: a qualitative study. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, 19(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12995-024-00426-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Jetten, J., Haslam, C., Haslam, S. A., Dingle, G., & Jones, J. M. (2017). How Groups Affect Our Health and Well-Being: The Path from Theory to Policy. Social Issues and Policy Review, 11(1), 1–32. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Karthikeyan, A., & Kavitha. (2024). A Comparative Study of Remote, Hybrid, and In-Office Working Modes in the IT Sector. 4(3), 586–591. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Kesenheimer, J. S., Fidan, B., Kastenmüller, A., & Greitemeyer, T. (2025). Out of office: A diary study on remote work’s impact on well-being through psychological basic needs. Acta Psychologica, 257, 105085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105085 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Kniffin, K. M., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., Antonakis, J., Ashford, S. P., Bakker, A. B., et al. (2021). COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action. American Psychologist, 76(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000716 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Martela, F., Gómez, M., Unanue, W., Araya, S., Bravo, D., & Espejo, A. (2021). What makes work meaningful? Longitudinal evidence for the importance of autonomy and beneficence for meaningful work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103631 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., et al. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Ms. Sumedha Dev, D. R. P. (2024). Collaboration and Team Dynamics in A Hybrid Work Environment: A Case Study Analysis. 11(7), 1787–1792. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Oakman, J., Kinsman, N., Lambert, K., Stuckey, R., Graham, M., & Weale, V. (2022). Working from home in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic: cross-sectional results from the Employees Working From Home (EWFH) study. BMJ Open, 12(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052733 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. OECD — Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2017). Teleworking in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Trends and Prospects. Tackling Coronavirus (COVID-19): Contributing to a Global Effort, September, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Petitta, L., & Ghezzi, V. (2025). Remote Work and Psychological Distance: Organizational Belongingness as a Resource Against Work Stressors and Employee Performance Impairment and Distress. Sustainability (Switzerland), 17(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/su17041342 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. 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. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0020 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Sbalzer, V., Shetty, G. S., & Kirchner, K. (2024). Balancing Trust and Surveillance in Hybrid Work: Insights from a Pilot Study on Workplace Monitoring. Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on Knowledge Management (ECKM 2024). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., et al. (2017). AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, 358. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2019). The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. In Political Psychology (pp. 276–293). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203505984-16 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Toscano, F., & Zappalà, S. (2020). Social isolation and stress as predictors of productivity perception and remote work satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(23), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239804 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Urrila, L., Siiriäinen, A., Mäkelä, L., & Kangas, H. (2025). Sense of belonging in hybrid work settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2025.104096 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J., & Parker, S. K. (2021). Achieving Effective Remote Working During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Work Design Perspective. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 16–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12290 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Wells, J., Scheibein, F., Pais, L., Rebelo dos Santos, N., Dalluege, C. A., Czakert, J. P., & Berger, R. (2023). A Systematic Review of the Impact of Remote Working Referenced to the Concept of Work–Life Flow on Physical and Psychological Health. Workplace Health and Safety, 71(11), 507–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/21650799231176397 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. World Health Organization. (2022). Mental health and COVID-19: Early evidence of the pandemic’s impact. WHO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study