Healthy, healthier, hybrid work: the burnout-reducing potential of remote work and the mediating effect of work autonomy

• Date: 30 July 2024
• Pages: 319-334
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-02-2024-0036
• Published date: 30 July 2024
• Subject Matter: Health & social care,Healthcare management,HR & organizational behaviour,Human resource policy,Employee welfare
• Author: Martin Christian Höcker,Yassien Bachtal,Kyra Voll,Andreas Pfnür

Healthy, healthier, hybrid work:

the burnout-reducing potential of

remote work and the mediating

effect of work autonomy

Martin Christian H€

ocker, Yassien Bachtal, Kyra Voll and

Andreas Pfn€

ur

Department of Law and Economics, Technical University of Darmstadt,

Darmstadt, Germany

Abstract

Purpose –With the continuing transition to hybrid working models, companies are confronted with new

challenges. Location- and time-flexible working offers employees considerable advantages regarding

work success and, in particular, personal well-being and health. The separate effects of remote work and

work autonomy on the degree of perceived burnout have already been sufficiently investigated. The influence

of hybrid work, the combination of remote and in-office work together with work autonomy, on perceived

burnout has yet to be investigated. Against this background, the present study examines the impact of

hybrid work on perceived burnout.

Design/methodology/approach –The empirical study uses data from N5779 German office employees.

Drawing on the conservation of resources theory, the data is evaluated using regression and mediation

analysis.

Findings –The results indicate a negative impact of remote work and work autonomy on perceived burnout.

In addition, the effect of remote work on perceived burnout is partially mediated by work autonomy. This

shows that hybrid work overall has a burnout-reducing effect.

Practical implications –Considering the workforce’s health, the results suggest that organisations should

focus on hybrid working. Thus, employees should continuously be allowed to work remotely. In addition,

workflows and processes should be designed to provide employees work autonomy. If organisational

constraints require office presence, then the resultsunderline the need for stress-reducing adaptation of offices.

Originality/value –The study offers first empirical resultson the combined impact of remote work and work

autonomy on perceived burnout. Furthermore, it provides implications for designing hybrid working

environments and orientation in the ongoing return to office debate.

Keywords Hybrid work, Conservation of resources theory, Work autonomy

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction

Remote work has become increasingly important for office employees since the late 1990s due

to the growing introduction of digital technologies (Offstein et al., 2010;Golden, 2012). Despite

further innovations that promoted the flexibilisation of work, the office remained the primary

place of work for many employees (Eurofound, 2020). During the COVID-19 pandemic, many

office employees developed an awareness of the advantages and disadvantages of hybrid

work (Yang et al., 2023). Since then, an increasing number of companies are offering hybrid

working models (Karanika-Murray and Ipsen, 2022;Bamieh and Ziegler, 2022). One of the

first definitions of hybrid work came from Halford (2005), referring to employees who work

both at home and at organisational spaces. Bouncken and Gantert (2021) expand the

definition by including so-called third spaces (e.g. coworking spaces). According to Gauger

et al. (2022), hybrid work goes beyond the spatial component and employees are free to decide

which workplace to choose. Based on these explanations, hybrid work is considered to consist

of two components in this study. First, work can be performed remotely, i.e. working from

International

Journal of

Workplace Health

Management

319

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1753-8351.htm

Received 26 February 2024

Revised 21 June 2024

9 July 2024

Accepted 10 July 2024

InternationalJournal of Workplace

Health Management

Vol. 17 No. 4, 2024

pp. 319-334

© Emerald Publishing Limited

1753-8351

DOI 10.1108/IJWHM-02-2024-0036

home and working at third places, and in the office. Second, in addition to the spatial

component, employees decide autonomously for themselves which workplace to choose.

While many studies emphasise the benefits of hybrid work, recently, some employers have

required their employees back to work entirely in the office again, taking the risk that this

might potentially cause higher levels of stress for the employees (Fan and Moen, 2023).

Employers’intention to bring the workforce back to the office is ostensibly caused by the

aim to enhance employee productivity, team collaboration and innovation, employer

branding and corporate culture (Ding and Ma, 2024;Pfnuer et al., 2021). Nonetheless, Ding

and Ma (2024) analyse that the associated return to office debate is less about increasing

company success through an increased presence in offices. Instead, the presence of

employees in the office should enable easier control. This overlooks the benefits of hybrid

work perceived by office employees in terms of productivity, satisfaction, work-life balance

and well-being (Bloom et al., 2015;Fonner and Roloff, 2010;Yang et al., 2023). In particular, the

ability to work flexibly in terms of location and time, as well as the self-determined

performance of work, are perceived as stress-reducing (Hartig et al., 2007;Maslach and Leiter,

2008;Choi, 2020;Pensar and Rousi, 2023). Companies forcing employees back to the office

increases their perception of stress (Fan and Moen, 2023). Continuous stress can lead to

burnout as a long-term consequence (Bakker et al., 2014). A forced return to the office

therefore not only increases employees’perceived stress, but in the long term, it could also

increase the degree of perceived burnout (further referred to as “burnout”). In Germany,

Europe’s largest economy, an increase in absences from work due to the diagnosis of burnout

is observed since 2013 (Meyer et al., 2023). Rising sick days and absences inevitably threaten

company success (Loeppke, 2008;Loeppke et al., 2009). The lost gross output in Germany due

to the inability to work is estimated to be 207 billion euros in 2022 (Federal Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health, 2023). It is estimated that burnout alone causes an annual

productivity loss of 9 billion euro in Germany (Nink, 2016). This means that the compulsion to

work in the office could become a boomerang for companies.

Due to the great importance of employee health for companies, there has been extensive

research into the health effects of office work. In particular, the effect of various office work

characteristics on stress has already been investigated. Initial studies have, for example,

already researched the relationship between remote work and stress (e.g. Hartig et al., 2007;

Choi, 2020;Majumdar et al., 2020;Madero G

omez et al., 2020). The interplay between work

scheduling and decision-making autonomy (further referred to as “work autonomy”), the

degree of freedom to make work-related decisions independently (Sherehiy and Karwowski,

2014) and stress has also been analysed (Cordes and Dougherty, 1993;Maslach and Leiter,

2008). Hybrid work is also examined from an occupational health and safety (OSH)

perspective. Stress and burnout associated with remote work are discussed, and a lack of

work autonomy is identified as a potential psychosocial risk factor in remote work

(Ekpanyaskul and Padungtod, 2021;Antunes et al., 2023;EU-OSHA, 2023). At the same time,

it is recognised that the appropriate design of hybrid work in companies offers considerable

potential for the mental health, e.g. stress and burnout, of office employees (Chen et al., 2022;

Antunes et al., 2023;EU-OSHA, 2023). Hybrid work patterns represent a significant challenge

for OSH management (Felknor et al., 2023;EU-OSHA, 2023), and further research is needed

on the influence of work organisation, the impact of hybrid work on health and the

decoding of psychosocial risk factors such as lack of work autonomy (Antunes et al., 2023;

EU-OSHA, 2023).

Nevertheless, these studies analyse the effects of remote work or work autonomy on

stress separately. Studies on the simultaneous impact of remote work and work autonomy,

i.e. hybrid work, on stress are rare. Neidlinger et al. (2023) investigate the combined effect of

remote work and work autonomy on the general health of leaders but find no significant

effects to confirm their hypothesis. In their Meta-study, Gajendran and Harrison (2007) find

IJWHM

17,4

320