The influence of hybrid work on employee effectiveness, involvement, and welfare MBA703
- Subject Code :
MBA703
- University :
International University of Applied Sciences Exam Question Bank is not sponsored or endorsed by this college or university.
- Country :
Australia
The influence of hybrid work on employee effectiveness, involvement, and welfare
Ujjwal Soni (50408166)
MBA: University Of Europe for Applied Sciences
Prof. Dr. Stefan Lutz
Abstract
Post-COVID-19, we saw a new style of working that has gained considerable popularity and is emerging as a novel form of organising work globally: hybrid This research focuses on the impact of the work model in terms of efficiency and lifestyle. This study contributes knowledge regarding the relationship between hybrid work and productivity. A review of existing studies and a single case study were conducted in the form of a survey of the ASD teams. Moreover, three dimensions of space were selected: job satisfaction, performance, collaboration, and communication. The empirical findings indicate that hybrid work positively impacts job satisfaction, collaboration, and communication. While performance was high, hybrid work had a low impact. The empirical findings imply that investments in tools and resources are crucial for job satisfaction. Furthermore, meetings that involve high participation in collaboration and communication require physical presence. By allowing continuous meetings regarding the well-being of workers, a sustainable work-life balance can be achieved. Limitations Can be found in the study, where the findings are restricted to the context of a single case study. Thus, further research can be conducted to enrich the findings with other settings and strategies.
Keywords: Hybrid, Productivity, ASD
Acronyms
ASD Agile Software Development
PO Product Owner
RQ Research Question
SDG Sustainable Development Goals
WIP Work in Progress
Table of Contents
- Introduction.................................................................................................................. 4
- Purpose and Research Statement............................................................................. 6
- Results and Analysis of the Survey....................................................................... 27
7. References................................................................................................................. 40
8. Appendix................................................................................................................... 44
1. Introduction
In Introduction, the groundwork for the research subject is laid, encompassing an exposition of its historical context. It elucidates the issue at hand within the framework of preceding research endeavors, outlining the research's objective, formulating the central inquiry, and specifying the boundaries of the study. Ultimately, the chapter concludes with an outline of the overall arrangement of the study.
1.1 Background
The global economy has taken a big change since the emergence of COVID-19, and that changed the traditional work model, where in past physical presence was needed for an efficient day at work now we see a shift to a model where few days are spent at the office and more by Working from Home. There have been several restrictions that are faced by the workers including those of remote work.
However, influential voices continue to be sceptical of hybrid work. Goldman Sachs' CEO is sceptical of its efficacy in "innovative, collaborative" environments and wants employees back at the office for five days a week.
An article by Yang et al. (2021) talks about how the negative impact of the hybrid work on the production and efficiency of the creative minds if they communicate with lesser colleagues. And it raises a questions that the hybrid work would negatively affect productivity, efficiency and well-being.
Since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, there has been a shift in the global economy, resulting in a disruption of the conventional on-site work model (Jackson, Weiss, Schwarzenberg, & Nelson, 2020). Workplace restrictions compelled a significant number of workers, including those in the financial industry, to adopt remote work. Managers exhibited notable hesitation towards employees working remotely, expressing concerns about its potential impact on team productivity and performance
(Williamson, Colley, & Hanna-Osborne, 2020) . Given that the majority of decisions in the software development sector hinge on effective communication and collaboration, remote work posed a challenge for teams in this industry, affecting collaboration, communication, productivity (Butt, Misra, Anjum, & Hassan, 2021), (Ralph et al., 2020), (Schmidtner, Doering, & Timinger, 2021) and overall performance (Marek, Wi?ska, & D?browski, 2021, DOI), (Neumann, Bogdanov, Lier, & Baumann, 2021).
The easing of restrictions has enabled more teams to return to physical office spaces. However, rather than reverting entirely to the traditional model, workplaces have adopted a more hybrid approach, allowing teams to split their time between office and remote work [(Beno, 2021) (Lenka, 2021). This signals a future of work that emphasizes the importance of flexible workspaces.
A survey conducted by Gartner (Gartner Survey Reveals 82% of Company Leaders Plan to Allow Employees, 2020) unveiled that 82 percent of company leaders intend to "permit employees to work remotely on a part-time basis," while nearly 43 percent plan to implement "flexible work hours." Similar results were reflected in Google's findings (Setty, 2021) with 75 percent of respondents anticipating hybrid/flexible work becoming a standard practice within their organizations over the next three years. Consistent with these findings, several studies have indicated that partial remote work will persist beyond the pandemic era (Bao, Xia, Li, Zhu, & Yang, 2021).
Recent research has identified a shift in workforce attitudes, suggesting a reduction in the stigma associated with flexible work arrangements [(Birkett, Forbes, & Jackson, 2021).It was found, for instance, that most managers have generally been supportive of remote work, believing it enhances productivity and concentration. Additionally, managers displayed a heightened awareness of the importance of work-life balance (Birkett, Forbes, & Jackson, 2021). In contrast to prior studies that highlighted challenges posed by remote work for ASD teams [(Butt et al., 2021), (Marek et al., 2021) recent research found a positive impact on FI teams, with increased job satisfaction and productivity (Topp, Hille, Neumann, & Mtefindt, 2022). However, there remains an inconsistency in the literature regarding productivity among dispersed FI teams during the pandemic, as numerous studies have reported heightened productivity without providing a comprehensive explanation. This underscores the need for future research on hybrid work during "normal times," as there is an increased demand for guidance in understanding the hybrid work model in the post- pandemic era (Ozkan, Erdil, & Gk, 2022)
The growing interest in flexible workplaces (Lund et al., 2021) holds the potential to yield valuable insights into more sustainable work practices. The United Nations has established 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as part of the drive towards a sustainable future. A deeper understanding of the hybrid work model can contribute to enhancements in its development and help identify key concerns in the pursuit of a sustainable future for teams.
1.2 Problem Statement
Despite numerous studies exploring the effects of remote work on Financial (FI) and ASD teams, none have connected it to the hybrid work model, despite the evident increase in interest Baker, M. (2020, June). This highlights a gap in the literature concerning the influence of hybrid work on FI & BI teams in the contemporary post-pandemic landscape. Additionally, it remains unclear how hybrid work specifically affects productivity within these teams, as previous studies on productivity during remote work have yielded inconsistent results . The findings have indicated shifts in attitudes towards flexible work (Forbes et al., 2020) potentially influencing the correlation between hybrid work and productivity. Several studies suggesting that remote work enhances productivity have lacked comprehensive explanations. Furthermore, there is a need for further research on hybrid work in the post-pandemic era.
1.3 Purpose and Research Question
The aim of this study is to contribute knowledge on hybrid work and its impact on productivity within the ASD or Software Industry. Additionally, the study will scrutinize how hybrid work influences productivity and address its potential effects on teams. Thus, the primary focus is to comprehend the connection between hybrid work and productivity.
This study aspires to provide practical guidance for practitioners navigating hybrid work and productivity in the post-pandemic era. Moreover, it will incorporate sustainability considerations of hybrid work by aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) established by the United Nations (United Nations, n.d.), Consequently, the thesis will investigate the following Research Question (RQ):
- What is the influence of hybrid work on productivity in the software industry?
2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework
The following chapter reviews the literature by defining relevant terminologies and findings from prior research on Remote Work, Hybrid Work, and Productivity in ASD,
2.1 Remote Work
The following section will define the terminology of remote work used in the study. Moreover, presenting historical definitions of remote work in terms of understanding the origin of the coined terminology, as well as how it has been used in the context of prior literature.
Remote work goes by various names like telecommuting, telework, distributed work, virtual work, and distance work, among others (ONeill, Hambley, & Chatellier, 2014). Sometimes, differences in how these terms are defined can cause confusion in a study. To clear up any uncertainty, it's important to explain where these terms come from and how they might be distinct from the more commonly used synonyms.
As stated by Felstead, Henseke, and Jewson (2020), remote work allows employees to carry out their tasks and responsibilities from locations outside the traditional office environment. This is made possible through the use of technology and digital communication tools (p. 195) (Felstead, Henseke, & Jewson, 2020).
The terms remote work and distributed work are often used interchangeably (ONeill, Hambley, & Chatellier, 2014) which is explained since it is derived from the umbrella term distributed work.
This work arrangement has gained prominence, particularly with advancements in technology and the widespread availability of high-speed internet. It provides employees with greater flexibility in managing their work-life balance and allows organizations to tap into a broader talent pool, as geographical location becomes less restrictive (Golden, Veiga, & Dino, 2008; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007)
The most common form of distributed work is telecommuting (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007), also known as telework or remote work (Sandoval-Reyes, Idrovo-Carlier, & Duque-Oliva, 2021). Telecommuting is often used as a synonym for remote work .It means doing work from a location away from the usual office. Jack Nilles originally coined the term telecommuting with the aim of bringing work to the workers rather than requiring workers to commute to a central office, aiming to reduce traffic congestion and energy consumption .
While telecommuting and telework are often used interchangeably, there is some debate about their distinctions. Garett and Danziger argue that telework is a broader concept encompassing four aspects: work location, technology use, time management, and diversity of employment [Garrett & Danziger, 2007) Ellison, on the other hand, suggests that telecommuting is more specific and pertains to working remotely to save commuting time.
However, since there is potential differentiation among the terms telecommuting, telework, and remote work [Garrett & Danziger, 2007)this study will use remote work interchangeably with telecommuting and telework, based on the definitions proposed by Nilles and Fitzer (Fitzer, 1997). According to Nilles, telework is defined as "working outside the conventional workplace and communicating via telecommunications or computer-based technology" [A similar definition by Fitzer describes telework as "a work arrangement where employees perform their regular tasks at a location other than their usual workplace, facilitated by technological connections" The term remote work will exclude those employees who typically do not work from a central office.
2.1.1 The Impact and Effects of Remote Work
In accordance with hybrid work and the purpose of the study, understanding the effects and impact of remote work is crucial. Several studies are addressing the impact of remote work. The most highlighted are Job Satisfaction, Productivity, Job Performance, and Communication and Collaboration, which will be described in the following sections.
Remote work and Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is a widely explored area in organizational research (Fisher, 2000). When it comes to remote work, studies show that not all hours spent working remotely have the same impact on job satisfaction (Golden, 2006) At lower levels of remote work, there is a positive relationship with job satisfaction, but this levels off at higher amounts, estimated at around 15.1 hours per week. Gajendran and Harrison's study found a small positive association between remote work and job satisfaction. They also delved into the processes connecting remote work to job satisfaction, uncovering evidence of work-family conflict and the quality of co-worker relationships as partial mediators (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Research focused on the quality of relationships between supervisors and employees as mediators during remote work found that the effect on job satisfaction is heavily influenced by the quality of this relationship. Fonner and Roloff's study identified significant mediating effects, including reduced work-life conflict, increased information exchange, lower stress from interruptions, and reduced involvement in office politics, particularly among high-frequency remote workers (Fonner & Roloff, 2010).
Remote work comes with challenges related to work-life balance, where the demands of work and personal life can overlap. A study noted greater difficulties for remote workers in ending their workday compared to those working in the office. While remote work may have negative effects on work-life balance, it can also foster stronger attachment to the organization, enthusiasm for the job, and overall job satisfaction (Felstead & Henseke, 2017) Effective management of working hours was identified as crucial for achieving a positive work-life balance (Maruyama, Hopkinson, & James, 2009). Overworking during remote work can lead to burnout due to the challenge of fully disconnecting from work, and increased flexibility may also mean a higher workload.Support from the organization in terms of technology and human resources, along with trust from managers, adequate training for remote work, and minimal interruptions from family members during work hours, all positively impact job satisfaction for remote workers.Additionally, personality traits play a role, with individuals inclined towards order and autonomy reporting higher job satisfaction compared to those with lower needs in these areas.
Remote work and Productivity
The literature shows inconsistency regarding the impact of remote work on productivity, underscoring the need to understand and identify the factors that moderate this relationship
A study by (Fayzieva, Goyipnazarov, & Abdurakhmanova, 2020) demonstrated a positive link between remote work and employee productivity, influencing the overall effectiveness of the organization, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic. This research suggested that remote work could either enhance or hinder firm performance through direct and indirect channels. The direct channel affects efficiency, motivation, and knowledge creation, while the indirect channel involves cost reductions that can be redirected towards productivity-boosting initiatives and organizational reorganization .
Another study by Galanti et al. identified various factors impacting productivity. Work demands and conflicts between work and family responsibilities were found to have a negative effect on productivity.
Remote work and Job Performance
The connection between remote work and job performance has been a subject of prior investigation. Here are the findings:
Gajendran and Harrison proposed that remote work showed a positive correlation with job performance, as evaluated by supervisors or through objective measures [(Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Another study by Golden and Veiga suggested that employees working extensively in remote settings demonstrated high job performance, regardless of the quality of interaction with their supervisors (Golden & Veiga, 2008). This elevated job performance was attributed to the personal advantages of remote work, leading to increased effort and commitment to tasks, even in cases where the supervisory relationship might not be of the highest quality. Similar outcomes were observed in a study where tasks and contextual performance, as assessed by supervisors, were rated higher for remote workers compared to those working on-site.
Administrative tasks that involve repetitive work on a fixed schedule were found to be less suitable for remote work. In-person execution of administrative work was associated with higher performance compared to remote workers who relied on various communication tools to gather and coordinate task-related information from different sources. This additional layer of coordination and communication extended the time needed to complete tasks. However, it's important to note that overall job performance did not suffer in terms of efficiency, as workers still fulfilled their responsibilities. Nevertheless, this increased lead time came at a cost, affecting both quality of life and both physical and mental well-being (Rebolledo, Vega, & Belmar, 2021). The implementation of shared leadership within teams can promote effective coordination, knowledge sharing, and conflict resolution among team members. Additionally, shared leadership empowers each team member to address issues independently, reducing dependence on others for decision-making. This is particularly crucial in situations of high uncertainty, akin to the challenges posed by the pandemic, where rapid response is imperative.
Remote work and Collaboration and Communication
Collaboration and communication between workers are important parts of work to share information with one another. Physical separation may impede such collaboration and communication. As knowledge sharing depends on the level of trust between co-workers , trust is more likely to be developed via an interaction face-to-face than electronic communication.Hence, remote work may threaten knowledge sharing within the organization [(Taskin & Bridoux, 2010)
The technological support and frequency of face-to-face interactions were found to moderate the relationship between trust and knowledge sharing. The increasing age of the workers was associated with lower productivity, which was suggested to be explained by the difficulties that these employees may have with technological tools and their lower ability to adapt to changes. Digital technologies for communicating were found to partially mitigate the isolation experienced by workers in comparison to physical presence where the social interactions can naturally be encountered.
2.2. Hybrid Work
Hybrid work, where employees spend some of their work days in the physical office and the rest of their workdays working remotely, is emerging as a novel form of organizing knowledge work globally (Teevan, 2021; Cutter, 2021). While some organisations and employees are adopting more limited work-from-home (WFH) programmes that allow staff to work from home for one or two days per week, others have revealed plans for greater flexibility.
According to Lenka, there are three primary hybrid work models: the "remote first" model, the "office occasional" model, and the "office first - remote allowed" model.
In the "remote first" model, the majority of employees, along with the management team, typically work from remote locations. However, if there's an urgent need for physical presence, some employees have the option to work in the office for one or two days a month. While there is physical office space available for those who require it, it isn't used very frequently.
The "office occasional" model permits employees to be present in the office for two or three days a week. This model is suitable for organizations with predominantly local employees, as some staff members, including management and higher-level personnel, need to be in the office periodically. Those who can't make it to the office can work remotely. However, this model may have drawbacks, as remote workers might feel less secure or valued compared to their in-office counterparts. The division between those physically present in the office and those working remotely may lead to a sense of exclusion for remote employees.
The last model, the "office first - remote allowed" model, combines elements of both the remote first and office occasional models. In organizations following this model, most employees work remotely on occasion. While many employees, including members of the management team, regularly attend the office, those who choose remote work are kept informed and included in important discussions. However, there are potential downsides to this approach, including potential feelings of isolation for remote employees and reduced communication among team members. (Lenka, 2021)
Hybrid work models require clarity about job roles, since it is necessary to decide which tasks are best suited for remote work and office work (Konovalova, Petrenko, & Aghgashyan, 2022)
2.2.1 Opportunities and Challenges with Hybrid Work
The hybrid work model presents a combination of advantages and obstacles. One of the primary hurdles is maintaining effective teamwork, as it demands synchronized efforts and robust communication among team members, potentially impacting work efficiency and output. Additionally, the hybrid model may lead to diminished employee engagement due to limited face-to-face interaction. This can complicate problem-solving when issues arise. There's also the risk of remote workers experiencing periods of boredom, resulting in reduced communication and decreased engagement (Lenka, 2021). Furthermore, hybrid work arrangements may lead remote employees to feel secluded and lacking in social interaction opportunities (Konovalova, Petrenko, & Aghgashyan, 2022).
Utilizing a hybrid work setup demands that tools remain current. When tools are outdated or when connectivity and internet problems arise, it can lead to unfinished tasks, hindered communication, and ultimately impact performance and efficiency. Furthermore, the hybrid work model may result in decreased visibility of employee efforts, presenting a challenge in monitoring their progress. This lack of insight can pose issues for management, potentially influencing employee performance evaluations, career advancement, and promotional opportunities (Lenka, 2021).
Moreover, there is proof that adopting a hybrid work arrangement raises worries about feeling excluded from conversations and office interactions, especially when working in isolation. As a result, employers need to meticulously oversee the shift to hybrid work to extract the highest advantages and prevent the formation of a divided workforce. Effective communication will play a crucial role, as uncertainty about the future of work is a significant source of anxiety (Birkett, Forbes, & Jackson, 2021).
However, the hybrid work model also presents several advantages. It leads to financial benefits for both employers and employees (Lenka, 2021) Additionally, it offers companies the chance to reduce costly office upkeep expenses (Konovalova, Petrenko, & Aghgashyan, 2022). Employees gain the flexibility to work at their convenience, saving time on commutes and allowing them to work in a comfortable setting of their choosing. This can lead to increased contentment and concentration, ultimately enhancing performance and efficiency. Moreover, the hybrid work model opens the door for employers to attract a more geographically diverse pool of talent.
The hybrid work model is recommended for its potential to attract top talent globally, as it diminishes the limitations posed by physical location barriers. From an employer's standpoint, it enhances company performance and provides a competitive edge. Moreover, this model could enhance employee safety by allowing those with symptoms to work remotely, reducing the risk of spreading viruses. Additionally, the overall feedback on the experience of hybrid work has been favorable and deemed effective when compared to the traditional office setup.
2.3 Agile Software Development
Agile, in essence, means moving swiftly and effortlessly. This approach is employed in software development to facilitate rapid progress and adaptability to changes. Given the challenges faced by ASD teams in remote work settings, it's crucial to grasp the evolution of agile methodologies, from its inception to its most widely utilized forms.
The Agile Manifesto lays out the fundamental values and principles that define the agile approach in software development. While it provides a definition of ASD, it doesn't offer guidance on how managers should put these principles into practice. To address this, various agile frameworks have been created over time. Among the most popular ones in ASD are Scrum, Scrumban, and Kanban. These will be discussed in the following sections. However, before delving into these methods, it's important to first understand ASD itself.
2.3.1 Defining Agile in Software Development
The Agile Manifesto, formulated in 2001, serves as the bedrock for Agile methodologies in ASD. It aimed to establish a unified philosophy for Agile practices in software development (Beck et al., 2001). The manifesto outlines four fundamental values:
- Prioritizing individuals and interactions over processes and
- Preferring working software over extensive
- Emphasizing customer collaboration over contract
- Prioritizing adaptability to change over rigidly following a
ASD methodologies stand in contrast to traditional, plan-based approaches that advocate for a strictly engineered solution to every problem (Dyb, 2000). Unlike these traditional methods, ASD promotes efficiency and predictability through flexible planning, adaptable processes, and creative problem-solving.
In an uncertain environment, Agile processes rely on the ingenuity of people rather than rigid procedures . An optimal team size, according to Abrahamsson et al., ranges from 5 to a maximum of 10 individuals (Zia, Arshad, & Mahmood, 2018).
2.3.2 Defining Kanban in Software Development
The Kanban methodology emphasizes transparency and limiting work in progress (WIP). It achieves transparency through a visual Kanban board (Figure 4), organized with columns representing the state of work items. Workflow typically moves from left to right. The leftmost column holds pending work, while the rightmost column signifies items in production. This transparency persists as long as the board is visible to all stakeholders, providing real- time updates on item status, ownership, and progress.
Limiting WIP is also facilitated through the Kanban board. Each column has a cap on simultaneous work items. Additional items can only be added when there is available space in a column, preventing an overload of tasks. This practice safeguards teams from handling too much work at once .
2.3.3 Defining Scrumban in Software Development
Scrumban is a combination of the two methodologies Scrum and Kanban. The advantage with Scrumban is that it utilizes the planning on-demand technique in contrast to the sprint planning in Scrum. Instead, there is continuous work with
backlog items that can be pulled in at any time, while there is no need to wait for the next sprint.
2.4 Productivity in Software Development
2.4.1 SPACE
SPACE is a framework used to define, measure, and predict software development productivity. SPACE stands for Satisfaction, Performance, Activity, Communication, and Efficiency. According to the authors (Forsgren et al., 2021) each of these dimensions captures the key to understanding and measuring productivity. Additionally, for each of the dimensions, there are different levels that could be applied, including individual- team- or group- and system-level. However, it is not advocated to utilize all of the metrics at once, rather to carefully select a reduced set of metrics suggesting at least three different metrics.
2.4.2 Satisfaction and Well-being
In the SPACE framework, satisfaction refers to the level of contentment developers experience in their work environment, team dynamics, tools, and overall culture. On the other hand, well- being encompasses their physical and emotional health, as well as their overall happiness, and how their work influences these aspects. Assessing satisfaction and well-being can provide insights into productivity (Storey et al., 2021) and may even have predictive value (Maslach & Leiter, 2008). For example, there exists a connection between productivity and satisfaction, with satisfaction potentially serving as an early indicator of productivity levels.
A decline in satisfaction and engagement could signal future burnout and reduced productivity. For example, the shift from mandatory remote work during the pandemic resulted in many increases occurring in some measures of productivity, e.g., problem resolution and pull request yet it has been shown through qualitative data that some people were struggling with their well- being and work-life balanc.
- Satisfaction and well-being are best captured through surveys. To assess this dimension, the following assessments should be included (Forsgren et al., 2021):
Employee satisfaction: The degree of satisfaction among employees, and whether they would recommend their team to others.
Efficacy of the developer: Whether developers have the tools and resources they need to get their work done.
Burnout: Exhaustion caused by prolonged and excessive workplace stress.
2.4.3 Performance
Performance is described as the result of a system or process, which is difficult to quantify, as it can be difficult to identify a direct link between individual contributions to the results of the product. For example, it is not clear whether a ASD team member is able to multitask and provide the best service to customers
Furthermore, high quality may not deliver customer value as features may not always result in positive business outcomes. By considering these reasons, performance is arguably best evaluated as outcomes instead of output. Therefore, examples of metrics to capture performance dimensions could include Forsgren et al., 2021):
- Quality
- Impact
2.4.4 Communication and Collaboration
Communication and collaboration are dimensions that captures how people and team communicate together in context of software development which requires collaboration, extensive and effective communication, and coordination within and between teams [48], an effective team
is based on high transparency (Dabbish, Stuart, Tsay, & Herbsleb, 2012) and awareness (Dourish & Bellotti, 1992) of the activities of the team members and the priorities of the task. Additionally, an effective alignment and integration of work within the teams need available coordination of where to find
information and documentation.
A more diverse team performs better than a team with fewer diversity since these teams are more likely to successfully brainstorm new ideas and choose better solutions from all alternatives. On the contrary, work that contributes to a teams outcomes may come at the expense of an individuals productivity and state of flow. Therefore, to measure such invisible work and articulation work for coordination and planning, is hardly difficult and complicated.
3. Methodology
This chapter covers the approach taken in the study, including the chosen research setting, design, and methods for data collection and analysis. It also addresses aspects of research quality and ethical considerations.
The research employed a sequential mixed-method approach, centring on a single company, to investigate the correlation between hybrid work and productivity. This is a mix of a major secondary research and public research and survey has been re-analysed. Given the aim of the study, a case study was chosen to provide a practical, real-world context for the research (Schmidtner, Doering, & Timinger, 2021).
3.1 Research Setting and Case Description
The study's research environment was ASD teams operating in hybrid mode. A case study was conducted at Mentimeter's headquarters in Stockholm, Sweden. Mentimeter is a growing company with approximately 251 workers. The company offers interactive presentation software, which 14 million presenters utilise.
Mentimeter was picked as a good case firm for the study since their software development teams use agile methods and they have a well-established hybrid work model in place. As a result, the study can be set in a real-life environment. Because the study was limited to investigating software development teams and their related team managers, only the company's technology department was considered.
3.2 Research Design
This study conducted a sequential mixed method research design using a single case company with the focus of understanding the relationship between hybrid work and productivity. With regards to the purpose of the study, a case study was considered suitable to set the research context in a real-life setting [112]. A case study is considered to allow for a holistic view of the case and provides an understanding of the life cycles of the events that occur, providing the researcher with a wide range of evidence such as interviews and surveys [141].
Furthermore, Siggelkow [120] argues that the existence of a phenomenon can be well described by single case studies. Single case studies can provide a deeper understanding of the subject since more careful study can be made [36]. In regard to the benefits of a single case study, and the time constraints of the master thesis, a single case study was arguably the most suitable choice of methodology.
3.3 Literature Review
The initial step in data collection was conducting a comprehensive literature review. Since the study initially followed a deductive approach, this review played a crucial role in gathering a collective body of evidence. It served as the cornerstone for establishing a theoretical framework that encompassed diverse perspectives within the research domain. Moreover, the literature review was instrumental in aligning the study with prior research pertinent to its scope and in assessing the breadth of the field (Snyder, 2019) In addition to broadening perspectives and leveraging insights from previous studies, it enabled the research to pinpoint gaps in existing literature and position itself within the context of both current and past research endeavors (Collis & Hussey, 2013) . Therefore, the inclusion of a literature review was imperative, particularly in cases where there were conflicting viewpoints or a lack of consensus within the research area (Garousi, Felderer, & Mntyl, 2019) To ensure impartiality from publishers' biases, a search engine that canvassed a range of journals and sources was preferred (Wohlin, 2014). Examples of such search engines encompass Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar.
3.4 Data collection
Primary data refers to research information that is directly obtained from original sources like experiments, surveys, interviews, or focus groups (Collis & Hussey, 2013). In this study, primary data was gathered through surveys and a focus group interview. Surveys were administered once enough data had been obtained and the survey questions were developed.
3.4.1 Surveys
Quantitative data was retrieved through self-completed questionnaires, also referred to as surveys (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016). The survey was conducted in an approach of collecting numerical characteristics that could be used to understand the relationship between hybrid work and productivity by asking participants to answer close-ended questions on a Likert Scale (Salkind, 2012).
3.5 Data Analysis
This section focuses on the analysis of the survey data.
The quantitative portion of this study involved employing a straightforward and easily comprehensible method known as descriptive statistical analysis on the collected survey data (Salkind, 2012). This approach enabled the researcher to numerically describe and compare variables, potentially shedding light on the relationships between the variables under examination (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016). Additionally, the median, which represents the middle value, was utilized as a suitable measure of central tendency due to the observed skewness in the data (Qualtrics, n.d.).
Cross tabulation was also employed to explore the connections between the number of days spent working remotely and the impact of the SPACE dimensions, as well as the rated SPACE dimensions and their corresponding impact on hybrid work (United Nations, University of Southampton. n.d.). The study recognized that the hours spent on remote work influenced the relationship between job satisfaction and remote work. Therefore, the analysis aimed to assess how the number of days dedicated to remote work impacted the other dimensions of SPACE, utilizing cross tabulation. Furthermore, cross tabulation was used to visually represent the distribution of positive and negative impacts in the relationship between the SPACE dimensions and their corresponding ratings. Graphical representations were introduced to enhance the visualization of the findings, utilizing Microsoft Excel.
For a comprehensive overview, the finalized version of the survey, along with respondent data and corresponding medians, can be found in Appendix.
Stage of mapping and interpretation involved making sense of the findings and identifying the relationship between the highlighted transcripts and the links between the data as a whole.
4. Results, Findings and Analysis
This study aims to explore how hybrid work influences productivity in ASD teams. To achieve this, a survey was employed. The next section will provide an overview of the results obtained through thematic analysis, followed by a detailed presentation of the survey findings. This will include descriptive statistics, analytical insights, and visual representations through graphs.
4.1 Findings from the Focus Group Interview
The focus group interview involved four participants, who were selected from the pool. These participants will be identified as interviewees A, B, C, and D. The questions in the interview were semi-structured, incorporating insights gathered from the survey, along with supplementary questions introduced during the interview session. The responses provided by the interviewees offered perspectives from both the team managers and their respective teams.
4.1.1 Work-life Balance
All interviewees agree that hybrid work offers valuable flexibility, especially in day-to-day routines. It also allows employees from different countries to accommodate travel during holidays. Interviewee B emphasizes that this flexibility is particularly beneficial for those with family responsibilities.
Interviewee D echoes this sentiment and adds that work-life balance, personal space, and motivation significantly impact professional performance. The hybrid work model not only grants flexibility but also boosts motivation by eliminating the division between personal and professional life.
Interviewee A highlights that hybrid work, with its mix of remote and office work, can be beneficial for individuals dealing with mental health issues like social anxiety. It provides the option to work from a comfortable and familiar environment, offering relief from potential social stressors at the office.
However, it's noted that while remote work offers flexibility, it can blur the boundaries between professional and personal life. Interviewee B mentions the advantage of switching environments at the office, which can aid in productivity and provide a change of scenery. Being in the office can also facilitate focus shifts due to the dynamic environment, which can be more challenging for remote workers. Both interviewees express concerns about maintaining work-life balance during hybrid work, with a tendency to overwork while working remotely.
4.1.2 Disengagement
Communication challenges arise in hybrid work, as noted by Interviewees C, B, and D.
Interviewee C observes that alignment in communication was easier in fully remote work compared to hybrid. There's a concern about information loss and remote team members feeling out of the loop.
Interviewee B emphasizes the challenge of inclusivity and getting to know everyone in the team, especially for those mostly working remotely. They make efforts to ensure inclusion but acknowledge the potential for remote team members to feel excluded.
Group discussions become more difficult in hybrid work, according to Interviewee D. It's harder to gauge reactions and interruptions can hinder participation. There's an increased effort required for communication, particularly for developers seeking help.
Interviewee D also notes a preference for working at the office due to the higher energy levels compared to feeling less energized while working remotely. The lack of communication in hybrid work has led to frustration and disengagement in some teams. Internal discussions have addressed communication challenges, and team members have expressed feeling less inclined to speak up and frustration when communication breakdowns impede progress.
4.1.3 Team Coordination
Interviewee D notes that their team doesn't use performance estimations in agile methods, making it hard to assess the impact of hybrid work. Interviewee A, whose team uses a Kanban board, expresses difficulty in coordination due to insufficient documentation, a recurring issue caused by hybrid work. This leads to information loss and affects planning and coordination.
Interviewee B provides an example of frustration when communication breakdowns occur, potentially increasing lead time due to higher work in progress (WIP).
There's consensus on the importance of thorough documentation for effective communication and coordination, crucial for team performance and visibility of work in progress (WIP) in hybrid work. Interviewee B's team engages in general agile methods and finds meetings more efficient when everyone is physically present. Hybrid meetings can be less productive due to communication friction.
Interviewee C highlights the flexibility of hybrid work, allowing developers and team leads to work efficiently from home when needed.
4.1.4 Organizational Adaptation
Interviewee D attributes the initially low impact on planning and coordination in hybrid work, as indicated in the survey, to the gradual adaptation of teams over the past two years. As remote work became a norm in the company, employees grew accustomed to it, leading to a smoother transition into hybrid work.
Furthermore, Interviewee A notes that cross-team synchronization has been limited, especially in the context of hybrid work, which coincided with the teams' introduction to this mode of work.
Interviewee D acknowledges that changes in coordination are expected with evolving work dynamics, both in hybrid and in-person settings. They highlight the need to adapt to these shifts.
Interviewee A points out that their team is still in the process of mastering cross-functional collaborations, regardless of the work setting (remote, hybrid, or in-person).
Overall, it's evident that there hasn't been a significant shift in coordination recently, and teams are still in the learning phase of adapting to hybrid work. Interviewee B suggests that while there may be a decrease in spontaneous collaboration in hybrid work, it might not significantly impact performance at a certain point.
Results and Analysis of the Survey
The survey results and analysis served as the basis for the questions posed in the focus group interview. Consequently, the subsequent sections present a detailed overview of the survey findings, including Descriptive Statistics and Analysis.
4.2 Descriptive Statistics
The survey began by inquiring about team characteristics, followed by the core questions about hybrid work and productivity using the SPACE framework. Additionally, the question "What is your role in your team?" was employed as a control measure to specifically include respondents holding roles as developers and team managers.
Here's a concise summary:
Q7 (Workplace Impact): 40% respondents felt their home workplace was frequently impacted by hybrid work.
Q11 (Hybrid Work Duration): Most (66%) had experience with hybrid work for 6-12 months.
Q12 (Remote Work Frequency): 63% worked remotely 1-2 days per week.
Q13 (Job Satisfaction): Majority (77%) were satisfied with their job.
Q14 (Impact on Job Satisfaction): Responses varied, with "sometimes impacted" being the most common sentiment.
Q15 (Satisfaction with Tools): 56% were satisfied with their work tools and resources.
Q16 (Well-being): Most (64%) rated their well-being as good.
Q17 (Impact on Well-being): Well-being was sometimes impacted by hybrid work.
Q18 (Exhaustion due to Stress): 57% rarely felt exhausted due to workplace stress.
Q19 (Impact on Exhaustion): The impact on exhaustion was generally slight.
Q20 (Meeting Deadlines): 50% frequently met work-related deadlines.
Q21 (Impact on Deadlines): Most felt there was no impact on their performance.
Q22 (Meeting Collaboration):Communication during team meetings was generally rated reasonable to very good.
Q23 (Impact on Collaboration): Communication and collaboration were frequently impacted.
Q24 (Coordination and Planning): Coordination and planning were generally rated as good to very good.
Q25 (Impact on Coordination): Most felt there was no significant impact on coordination and planning.
4.2.1 Hybrid Work on Job Satisfaction
The findings revealed that 90% of the participants experienced some level of impact from hybrid work on job satisfaction (refer to Figure 6), indicating a significant and common influence. However, as depicted in the figure, opinions were divided between slight impact, occasional impact, and frequent impact, suggesting some uncertainty regarding the extent of influence. Nevertheless, the median response indicated a moderate level of impact.
The cross tabulation between Q12 and Q14 displays the relationship between the average number of days working remotely and the impact of hybrid work on job satisfaction (refer to Table. 7). Among respondents who worked remotely 0 days per week, 3% reported no impact on job satisfaction, while 3% stated a slight impact. For those working remotely 1-2 days per week, 3% reported no impact, 17% experienced a slight impact, 17?lt occasional impact, 23?cedfrequent impact, and 3% mentioned constant impact. Respondents working remotely 3-4 days per week had 7% reporting a slight impact, 10% occasional impact, and 10% constant impact. Additionally, one respondent (3%) working remotely 5 days per week or every day stated no impact. Notably, the majority of respondents, 23%, working remotely 1-2 days per week, reported frequent impact on job satisfaction.
What impact have hybrid work on your job satisfaction?
Days Worked Remotely No Impact at All Slightly Impacted Sometimes Impacted Frequently Impacted Impacted All the Time.
The cross tabulation of Q13 and Q14 reveals the relationship between job satisfaction levels and the impact of hybrid work (see Table.7) One respondent (3%) expressed dissatisfaction, noting a frequent impact on job satisfaction. Respondents with neutral job satisfaction had one (3%) reporting no impact, two (7%) stating a slight impact, and three (10%) noting occasional impact. Among those satisfied, five (17%) reported a slight impact, five (17%) mentioned occasional impact, and five (17%) noted frequent impact. Respondents strongly satisfied with their job had two (7%) reporting no impact, one (3%) mentioning a slight impact, one (3%) noting frequent impact, and four (13%) stating constant impact. Overall, the majority (50%) expressed satisfaction with their job. Within this group, 5 respondents (17%) mentioned a slight impact from hybrid work, 5 respondents (17%) experienced occasional impact, and 5 respondents (17%) reported frequent impact.
4.2.2 Hybrid Work on Performance
Around 60% of respondents mentioned that hybrid work had a slight or greater impact on their ability to meet work-related deadlines, as shown in Figure .9 This impact on performance was notably lower compared to its impact on job satisfaction. The comparison also revealed a higher consensus among respondents regarding performance impact. Additionally, the median indicated that for many respondents, hybrid work had no impact on performance.
In the cross-tabulation of Q12 and Q21, which analyzes the number of days worked remotely and its impact on meeting deadlines (see Table .10), respondents who worked remotely 0 days per week (7%) reported no impact on performance. Those working 1-2 days per week (17%) similarly mentioned no impact (20%), slight impact (20%), occasional impact (10%), frequent impact (13%), and constant impact (3%). Respondents working 3-4 days per week (13%) reported no impact (13%), slight impact (7%), and occasional impact (7%). One respondent (3%) working remotely 5 days per week reported no impact. Overall, the majority of the impact was observed in respondents working remotely 1-2 days per week, with 20% noting a slight impact on performance.
4.2.3 Hybrid Work on communication and collaboration
Approximately 67% of respondents noted that hybrid work had a slight or greater impact on communication and collaboration during team meetings, as shown in Figure .11. This impact is similar to that observed for performance. However, in contrast to performance, hybrid work had a higher impact on communication and collaboration, with the median indicating frequent impact.
In the cross-tabulation of Q12 and Q23, which examines the impact of hybrid work on communication and collaboration during team meetings (see Table .12), respondents working remotely 0 days per week (3%) reported no impact (3%) or frequent impact. Those working 1- 2 days per week had respondents reporting no impact (3%), slight impact (10%), occasional impact (23%), frequent impact (23%), and constant impact (3%). Respondents working 3-4 days per week had those reporting no impact (3%), slight impact (13%), occasional impact (3%), and frequent impact (7%). One respondent (3%) working remotely 5 days per week reported no impact at all. Overall, most responses came from those working remotely 1-2 days per week, with 23% noting that hybrid work sometimes impacts communication and collaboration, and another 23% indicating frequent impact.
In the cross-tabulation of Q22 and Q23, which evaluates communication and collaboration, as well as the impact of hybrid work on these aspects (see Table. 13), respondents who found communication and collaboration to be slightly good (13%) reported frequent impact. Those who rated it reasonably good (7%) stated no impact (2%), slight impact (7%), occasional impact (23%), and frequent impact (10%). Respondents with good communication and collaboration (10%) mentioned slight impact (10%) and frequent impact (7%). Those with very good communication and collaboration (7%) stated no impact (7%), slight impact (10%), occasional impact (3%), and frequent impact (3%). Overall, a majority of respondents considered communication and collaboration to be reasonably good, with 23% indicating that hybrid work sometimes impacts these aspects.
5. Discussion
The chapter discusses the empirical findings and analysis of the survey and focus group interviews in relation to the reviewed literature. It addresses the research question: How does hybrid work impact productivity in agile software development teams? The SPACE framework is applied to guide the discussion, focusing on areas such as Satisfaction, Performance, collaboration, communication, and sustainability.
5.1 SPACE: Job Satisfaction
The section explores the dimension of job satisfaction within the SPACE framework. It emphasizes the importance of understanding how satisfaction and well-being contribute to productivity. The study finds that hybrid work generally has a positive impact on job satisfaction. It also notes that job satisfaction exhibits a wider range of responses compared to other dimensions in the SPACE framework. The study further delves into the impact of different hybrid settings on job satisfaction.
5.1.1 Effects of the Workplace
This section examines how the workplace environment, including factors like work-family conflict and coworker relationships, can affect job satisfaction. It highlights that a majority of employees have access to a conducive work environment at home, but also identifies some challenges such as interruptions and connectivity issues. The positive effects of hybrid work, such as flexibility and improved focus, are seen to counterbalance these challenges.
5.1.2 Satisfaction with Tools, Resources, and Inclusion
This part discusses how the availability of technical and human resources impacts job satisfaction. It also touches on the importance of inclusion in teams, particularly geographically dispersed talents. The study finds that most employees are satisfied with their work tools, but identifies areas where inclusion efforts can be strengthened.
5.1.3 Well-being and Balancing Work and Professional Life
This section addresses the impact of hybrid work on employee well-being and work-life balance. It highlights that well-being is generally rated as good, but acknowledges ongoing challenges with work-life balance. The study emphasizes the need to manage working hours effectively and notes that some employees may face difficulties in achieving a positive work- life balance.
5.2 SPACE: Performance
This dimension focuses on performance and meeting work-related deadlines. The study finds that most employees report high performance levels during hybrid work, with only slight impacts. It suggests that the level of impact may be influenced by factors like organizational adaptation to hybrid work and the use of agile methodologies.
5.2.1 Coordinating Agile Work
This section discusses the coordination challenges faced by teams using agile methodologies in a hybrid work setting. It highlights the importance of effective documentation and tools to manage work in progress. The study also emphasizes the need for shared leadership to enhance coordination and knowledge sharing.
5.3 SPACE: Collaboration and Communication
This dimension explores the impact of hybrid work on collaboration and communication. It notes that physical separation can hinder these aspects, but most employees report a frequent impact. The study suggests that technological support, face-to-face interactions, and trust- building efforts play crucial roles in maintaining effective collaboration and communication.
5.3.1 Disengagement in Meetings
The section addresses challenges related to engagement and communication in meetings, particularly in a hybrid work environment. It highlights the preference for physical presence in certain meetings and notes that disengagement can impact problem-solving efforts. The study suggests that efforts should be made to foster effective communication and inclusivity in meetings.
Overall, the study provides valuable insights into how hybrid work impacts various dimensions of productivity in agile software development teams, shedding light on both positive effects and challenges that need to be addressed for sustainable work practices.
6. Conclusion
After the discussion, the upcoming chapter will outline derived conclusions to reinforce the study's objective. It will also delve into examining the correlation between hybrid work and productivity, ultimately addressing the research question. This chapter will encompass a summary of productivity in hybrid work, the study's theoretical contributions, managerial and sustainability implications, acknowledged limitations, and recommendations for future research.
6.1 Summarizing Productivity in Hybrid Work
The study's primary focus is on how hybrid work impacts productivity within agile software development teams. It delves into three key aspects of productivity: job satisfaction, performance, and communication and collaboration. The findings reveal a noteworthy positive influence of hybrid work on job satisfaction among ASD teams. Employees express contentment with their work environment, well-being, and tools. However, achieving a sustainable work-life balance remains a challenge.
Regarding performance, the impact of hybrid work was found to be somewhat limited due to the organization's adjustment of work practices. Challenges in documenting work processes were identified as affecting efficiency and coordination. While there was a slight positive impact on communication and collaboration, issues of trust and knowledge sharing may have influenced the results, especially among teams unfamiliar with this work model.
The positive outcomes of hybrid work across these dimensions strongly suggest its integral role in the future of work. However, further research is needed to better understand work coordination and establish a sustainable work-life balance.
6.2 Theoretical Contribution
The study's findings contribute significantly to the existing literature on hybrid work and productivity in ASD teams. It provides a thorough explanation of the relationship between hybrid work and productivity, offering valuable theoretical insights for adopting this work model.
The hybrid work model demonstrates a clear positive impact on job satisfaction, particularly with two days of remote work per week. It aligns with existing research on the benefits of flexibility, reduced anxiety, and enhanced focus. Job satisfaction is also influenced by contentment with tools and resources in the hybrid work setting. However, challenges related to work-life balance and disengagement persist in hybrid work.
Employees in the occasional office model exhibit high job performance. This suggests that organizational adaptation to the hybrid work model is a key factor in maintaining performance levels. The transition to hybrid work has mitigated its impact on coordination and planning, indicating growing maturity in its implementation. However, challenges in coordination and teamwork persist due to insufficient documentation, potentially leading to extended project timelines.
Collaboration and communication during hybrid work are generally effective. There's an observed increase in effort devoted to these aspects during hybrid work, corroborating existing literature. However, there are obstacles such as delayed responses, challenges in information comprehension, and a tendency for team members to remain silent. This underscores a preference for highly interactive in-person meetings, particularly for critical activities like sprint planning and backlog refinements. Reduced employee engagement is also noted, likely due to limited physical presence among team members in hybrid work setups.
6.3 Managerial Implications
The study's managerial implications aim to enhance worker productivity. It emphasizes the importance of providing high-quality work tools and resources to boost job satisfaction. Streamlining the use of these tools can lead to improved performance. Ensuring accessibility and ease of use for all employees is crucial. Additionally, introducing clear guidance on tool utilization during team onboarding can enhance understanding and reduce friction. This suggests investing in top-notch work tools and resources, along with effective onboarding processes.
The study advocates for in-person meetings that require high participation in collaboration and communication. Simultaneous discussions are deemed vital for efficiency and engagement, as hybrid meetings can face interruptions. Introducing occasional mandatory in-person meetings can strengthen team connections, fostering trust and knowledge sharing. Implementing more efficient work planning and providing job autonomy can lead to improved coordination and engagement, regardless of dispersed communication.
Furthermore, the study highlights the need to improve work-life balance for employees. Balancing work and personal life is crucial for job satisfaction and well-being. Implementing self-leadership practices and regular follow-up meetings focused on team well-being can contribute to sustainable hybrid work. This approach allows management to gain a better understanding of team well-being and prioritize the welfare of employees, ultimately promoting a healthier work-life balance.
6.4 Limitations and Future Research
The study's limitations stem from its choice of research methods and time constraints imposed by the master's thesis. Opting for a single case study restricted the number of participants and data available for analysis. Only 30 respondents were surveyed, with 4 representatives in the focus group interview due to constraints in the case company's personnel. To enhance the study's quality, increasing the number of respondents in the focus group interview would be beneficial. Additionally, focusing solely on the office occasional model in the single case study limits the perspective. Including multiple case companies with different hybrid work models would provide a more comprehensive understanding.
The findings emphasize a preference for office-based work. Future research could delve into the impact of work culture on productivity in ASD teams, shedding light on how different work environments affect performance. Moreover, exploring external factors that influence the adoption of hybrid work models, using holistic frameworks, could benefit organizations across various industries. Given the flexibility of hybrid work to meet diverse needs, future studies could consider factors such as gender, maternal health, and parental leave to further enhance our understanding of the future of work and its adaptability to a range of needs beyond work.
