Hybrid work model: An approach to work-life flexibility in a changing environment

Krajčík, Martin; Schmidt, Dušana Alshatti; Baráth, Matúš Article Hybrid work model: An approach to work-life flexibility in a changing environment Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Krajčík, Martin; Schmidt, Dušana Alshatti; Baráth, Matúš (2023) : Hybrid work model: An approach to work-life flexibility in a changing environment, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 13, Iss. 6, pp. 1-16, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13060150 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/275615 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Krajˇcík, Martin, Dušana Alshatti Schmidt, and Matúš Baráth. 2023. Hybrid Work Model: An Approach to Work–Life Flexibility in a Changing Environment. Administrative Sciences 13: 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/ admsci13060150 Received: 17 April 2023 Revised: 28 May 2023 Accepted: 1 June 2023 Published: 6 June 2023 Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). administrative sciences Article Hybrid Work Model: An Approach to Work–Life Flexibility in a Changing Environment Martin Krajˇcík1,* , Dušana Alshatti Schmidt 2and Matúš Baráth 1,* 1Faculty of Management, Comenius University Bratislava, Odbojarov 10, 820 05 Bratislava, Slovakia 2Faculty of Business Management, Kuwait College of Science and Technology, Doha 91712, Kuwait; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected] (M.K.); [email protected] (M.B.) Abstract: Employees’ work environment has drastically shifted from offices to homes. Telework is often a desired employee benefit, but employers consider it a temporary setting. The lasting COVID-19 pandemic has changed the concept of telework. Home office has gained importance and will likely become an essential part of the working environment even after the pandemic. This paper aims to identify the preferences of employees from culturally diverse backgrounds in relation to the setting of their work location and time after the end of the pandemic. A web-based questionnaire survey as a quantitative research method was used. Data were collected from employees in Slovakia and Kuwait. The research findings indicate that employees value time flexibility, although localization flexibility is also growing in importance. The proposed hybrid work model seems to be the most suitable solution in line with the employees’ preferences. It is crucial to understand employees’ needs in terms of working time and place because only workplaces that are designed for employees and show organizational resiliency can survive and maintain competitiveness in the future. Keywords: flexibility; telework; work from home; hybrid work model; job satisfaction 1. Introduction As of April 2020, around 81% of employees worked in countries where business closure was required due to the COVID-19 outbreak (ILO 2020a). A rapid transition from office to home through localization flexibility proved to be a necessary solution. However, it appeared to be temporary. Telework in the form of a home office has been used, and we have become more flexible in terms of time and space. However, with telework, employees perform their work from home where they live with other family members and where their rights and welfare are difficult to guarantee effectively ( Wang et al. 2023 ). Working hours often intersect with household responsibilities and social activities in the family environment (Xue and McMunn 2021). With continuous lockdowns and movement restrictions, employees have had limited opportunities to spend their free time away from their home offices. As a result, many employees have worked more than the scheduled working hours agreed upon in their employment contracts, thus negatively impacting their well-being and productivity (Nem t , eanu and Dabija 2023). Such work setting has negatively affected employees’ stress and overall health (Como et al. 2021). Even though most employees are used to working eight hours a day and standard working hours are preferred by a large number of employers as well as employees, we can assume that nonstandard or alternative work schedules will have greater significance in the postpandemic era (Bolino et al. 2020). Working from home or out of the office will likely persist, and home office will become an essential part of the working environment. However, has anyone considered employees’ preferences? With an almost enforced shift to remote work, some employees may be realizing the benefits of remote working, thereby causing a shift in their mindset, while Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13060150 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 150 2 of 16 others may be eager to return to their traditional work settings (Vayre et al. 2022;Hajal 2022). It is crucial to understand employees’ needs regarding working time and place because only workplaces that are designed for employees and show organizational resiliency can survive and maintain competitiveness in the future and keep productivity, performance, and satisfaction at a high level (Asgari et al. 2022). Therefore, this research focuses on issues related to setting up the work environment in the post-pandemic era from the perspective of employees in two culturally diverse countries, Slovakia and Kuwait. For data collection, a questionnaire survey was used. The main objective was to analyze employees’ experience with the work-from-home practices during the pandemic and determine employees’ post-pandemic work setting preferences in Slovakia and Kuwait. This study fills the empirical gap and provides missing information on post-pandemic work setting preferences. It is likely that the work model we knew before the pandemic (work only from the office or only from home) is no longer desired. Hybrid work allows employees to work from the office some days a week and then work from home the other days and offers flexibility in the workplace area in terms of workspace and work time. The research questions are as follows: Which hybrid work model to set? How many days should employees work from home, and how many days from the office? The paper is divided into six sections with an introduction. The second section provides a theoretical background of the key terms used in the study. Additionally, the application of relevant concepts in Slovakia and Kuwait is reviewed. Thirdly, the research methods are described. In the fourth section, the results are presented and discussed. Finally, the research outcomes are concluded in the fifth and sixth sections. 2. Theoretical Background 2.1. Telework, Remote Work, Work from Home, and Home Office Defined The term telework defines work from home or outside the workplace and is a subcategory of the broader concept of remote work. While remote workers can work at an alternative worksite outside the default place of work, teleworkers can work from any alternative workplace (Nilles 1994), and the use of personal electronic devices is an essential part of carrying out the work (Olson and Primps 1984). With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and recommended business closures, the not-so-new models of working outside employers’ premises have grown in importance (Pulido-Martos et al. 2021;O’Rourke 2021). Many companies have implemented work from home as a short-term solution to this crisis. Work from home is known as home-based telework, which encompasses temporary and alternative working arrangement (ILO 2020b). The term also refers to working at a home office. It represents the form in which an employee works from home utilizing ICTs (information and communication technologies). Home office is a defined name for occasional work from home or as a flexible benefit. Since there is no international statistical definition for these terms, countries use slightly different and sometimes overlapping operational definitions (ILO 2020c). Therefore, for the purposes of this research, the terms remote work, telework, home office, and work from home (WFH) are being used interchangeably. 2.2. Hybrid Work Hybrid work arrangement blends traditional “in-office” work with “out-of-office” remote work (Cook et al. 2020) or telework. This blended strategy provides employees the flexibility to work from an office or any other remote location (home, coffee shop, coworking place, etc.) outside their employers’ premises with or without the use of ICTs. According to Halford (2005), hybrid work changes the nature of work, organization, and management across domestic space, organizational space, and cyberspace. This paper focuses on a hybrid work model in which employees split their work time between their office and home. The combination of working at the office and work from home can benefit both employees and employers but may also lead to various issues arising from both work environments. Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 150 3 of 16 Many authors have examined work from home, emphasizing its effects on employees, managers, organizations, or organizational culture. The traditional understanding of working from home has been seen as a benefit for employees who could irregularly perform their work outside the workplace. It provides opportunities to divide the workday based on the obligations of individuals and possibilities to meet work- and non-work-related duties. Furthermore, working from home benefits employees who need to travel to work and, thus, saves time and reduces transportation costs, as well as employers who save money by saving facility costs (Barath and Schmidt 2022a). Working from home offers greater time flexibility and can boost focus and productivity when certain indoor environmental conditions of a home office are met, such as visual privacy, overall noise level, and freedom from distraction (Yang et al. 2021;Gratton 2021). Moreover, technology and technical support are other factors to be considered (Haines et al. 2002). Overall, it can lead to increased positivity, satisfaction with one’s job, commitment to work, and reduced chances of burnout (Charalampous et al. 2019). On the contrary, employee unavailability when needed, failure to complete tasks on time, lower flexibility in solving problems, and more difficulty with controlling the availability and performance of employees are some of the drawbacks of this work arrangement. In the long run, the effects of minimized social interactions and excessive workload of employees are visible (Ellison 1999;Cooper and Kurland 2002;Gareis 2003;Haddon and Brynin 2005;Gajendran and Harrison 2007;Sewell and Taskin 2015;Messenger and Gschwind 2016;Davis et al. 2020;Babapour et al. 2022;Srebalová2022). Smoder (2021) claims that employees working from home tend to work longer hours, which may worsen the balance between work and life and kinship. Moreover, it leads to a decrease in recovery periods, which can have negative physical and mental health consequences, e.g., musculoskeletal problems, stress, feelings of isolation, or depression (Tavares 2017). A presence in the office enables employees to meet and work together. Social interaction and collaboration may positively correlate with employee creativity, performance, and productivity (Jyothi Sree and Jyothi 2012;Zwanka and Buff 2021;Iqbal et al. 2021; ˇ Cajkováet al. 2023 ). The factors mentioned above can be considered the most significant benefits of traditional office work or on-site work, which, in many cases, provide an argument for maintaining these work settings. Yet, the situation may depend on the type of office. Open-type offices provide a way for employers to control the performance of employees and make communication more effective, but in overcrowded spaces, noise can interfere with employees’ potential to focus on work (Barath and Schmidt 2022b). Moreover, an overcrowded office space may present a challenging environment for introspective employees, cause stress or anxiety, and result in lowered productivity or performance (Needle and Mallia 2021). Lack of privacy and close surveillance are among the other drawbacks associated with working from the office (Ding 2008). Notably, work settings change, and some duties are not necessarily performed in a physical workplace. Although hybrid work is relatively new in the workplace, and its benefits and drawbacks are still being discovered, it is evident that it leads to positive outcomes for both employees and employers. Zwanka and Buff (2021) argue that such reorganization of work, which is associated with increased freedom and autonomy to choose work time and space, can boost work–life balance, as it allows employees to balance multiple roles (family, personal, or career-related). Moreover, it improves efficiency, which can be considered the main benefit (Iqbal et al. 2021), as it allows employers to increase the quality and design of the workspace, minimize operating costs related to reduced office space, and improve employees’ safety. 2.3. Application of Concepts in Slovakia and Kuwait While the Slovak Labor Code (National Council of the Slovak Republic 2001) contains definitions that are often associated with international definitions, responses to the new situation have resulted in amendments. Two concepts have been clarified, including homework and telework, which shall be considered as work performed regularly from Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 150 4 of 16 employees’ household (residence) or any other agreed place (this means a location other than the employer’s workplace) using information technologies, in which electronic remote data transmission takes place regularly. In Slovakia, the concept of home office is not explicitly regulated in the Slovak Labor Code. However, it can still be implemented and governed by the principles of regularity, meaning that the arrangement can be either occasional or regular (Peráˇcek 2021). Home office is work performed occasionally or in exceptional circumstances from employees’ household or a different place than what is defined in the work agreement. When an employee works explicitly from home, we can talk about home office, and such work will be considered telework or permanent home office. Only in this case that the employer and the employee will be able to agree on competencies in scheduling working hours, which shall be included in the employment contract (Vyas 2022). Despite the gradual flexibility of the labor markets of the GCC countries (Young 2016), the Kuwaiti Labor Code does not legislatively define any of the flexible work arrangements; however, such work arrangements are available based on an informal employment contract—an agreement between an employer and an employee—or as a benefit. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Kuwait authorities have taken precautionary measures to mitigate the spread of the virus, which has accelerated the adoption of remote work practices. In March 2020, the government published a document: “Remote Work Guidelines for the Public Sector” (CITRA 2020). The guidelines applied to all government entities that could implement remote work based on predefined conditions, such as business needs, nature of the job, types of services provided, and health conditions of eligible groups. Government entities were required to provide all remote workers with the necessary technical tools and support. The transition to remote work has yet to be specifically applied to the private sector. During the pandemic, organizations in the private sector needed to determine whether they would require their employees to work during this period. As stated by Schmidt and Nutsubidze (2021), most of the organizations in Kuwait transitioned to remote working to some extent; however, some organizations introduced hybrid working—a combination of home and office work to decrease the number of employees in the workplace. Due to the absence of formal work-from-home practices before the pandemic in Kuwait, the following hypothesis was tested in this research paper: H0: Employees in Kuwait will be more likely to prefer working-from-home practices post-pandemic than employees in Slovakia. 3. Research Methodology This research aimed to investigate employees’ experiences with work-from-home practices during the pandemic and determine employees’ post-pandemic work setting preferences in Slovakia and Kuwait using a quantitative approach. Quantitative research involves collecting and analyzing numerical data to identify patterns, relationships, and trends (Queirós et al. 2017). 3.1. Data Collection and Sampling The data for this study were collected through a self-administered web-based questionnaire survey. To ensure comprehensibility and inclusivity, the questionnaire was designed in three languages: Slovak, English, and Arabic. This multilingual approach aimed to reach a broader audience and minimize bias. Offering the questionnaire in different languages accommodated participants who were more comfortable responding in their native language. The language used in questionnaires is crucial in shaping how respondents understand and interpret the questions. The choice of language can influence how participants form their responses (Peytcheva 2020). This implies that using multiple languages in a questionnaire might affect the data obtained. Furthermore, the participants were provided with clear instructions on how to complete the questionnaire. Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 150 5 of 16 The questionnaire survey was divided into three sections. The first section gathered demographic information from the participants, such as age, gender, and other relevant characteristics. The second section focused on the participants’ work settings during the pandemic, aiming to understand how their work arrangements were affected by the pandemic. Finally, the third section explored the participants’ preferences for work settings after the pandemic, investigating their desires for future work arrangements. The data collection period spanned the months of August and September 2021. A probability sampling technique, specifically simple random sampling, was employed to select the study participants. The target population consisted of employees working in Slovakia and Kuwait. The participants were recruited through company email lists and social media platforms. The intended sample size for this research was determined using a simple formula for an unknown population. Assuming a desired margin of error of ± 5%, and a z-value of 1.96 with a corresponding 95% confidence level, the target sample size was set at 385 participants from each country (Sapra 2022). However, the target sample size was not achieved due to the availability and willingness of individuals to participate (Romano 2006). 3.2. Descriptive Data Analysis After the data were collected, descriptive data analysis techniques were applied. The collected data were analyzed using the MS Office software, MS Excel. The descriptive statistics summarized and described the key variables, including the frequencies, percentages, and means of each scale. The analysis aimed to provide an overview of the responses and identify patterns or trends within the data. The questionnaire included 4-point Likert-scale questions. A Likert scale is a commonly used rating scale that allows participants to indicate their level of agreement, satisfaction, or preference. The Likert-scale responses were recorded and converted into numerical values in this case. This conversion involved assigning numerical values to each response option (e.g., − 2 for very dissatisfied, − 1 for dissatisfied, +1 for satisfied, and +2 for very satisfied, or 0 for least preferred, +1 for slightly preferred, +2 for preferred, and +3 for most preferred). 4. Results 4.1. Demographic Information Responses were received from 354 employees. Overall, 71% of the employees worked in Slovakia, and 29% worked in Kuwait. Most respondents in Slovakia were female, and those in Kuwait were mostly male. Most respondents were aged between 30 and 39 years old. The breakdowns of gender and age are shown in Figure 1. The sample sizes are too small, and the ratios are not equivalent, although this research can determine several important insights. In addition, the components in some tables may not sum up to the totals due to rounding. Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16 Figure 1. Breakdowns of gender and age (%). Source: the authors. 4.2. Work Settings during the Pandemic—Experience with WFH Practices Among the 251 employees in Slovakia, 90.4% of the employees worked from home during the pandemic in some form. About 49.4% followed a hybrid work model and worked from home one, two, three, or four days a week. About 36.7% worked from home regularly, and the other 4.4% of employees worked intermittently from home. The remaining 9.6% of employees worked from the office despite the pandemic. In Kuwait, only 30.1% of the employees reported working from home in some ways during the pandemic. This is a significantly lower proportion compared to Slovakia. The hybrid work model (one, two, three, or four days a week) was reported by only 19.4% of the employees. The other 8.7% of employees worked full time from home. Similar to Slovakia, another 1.9% of the employees worked from home biweekly or occasionally. Up to 70% of the employees continued working from their office or had no work-from-home experience (No WFH Ex) during the pandemic. More specifically, out of the 72 employees, 27 were assigned to work from home in some ways but reported that they did not work from home; therefore, they were considered to not have any workfrom-home experience during the pandemic (Figure 2). Figure 2. Pandemic work schedule (%). Source: the authors. This part of the questionnaire survey evaluated employees’ experiences with WFH practices during the pandemic. Therefore, only responses from employees with workfrom-home experiences during the pandemic were analyzed for this section. In the sample (Figure 3), a significant number of employees in Slovakia (83.3%) and Kuwait (80.6%) reported no financial support from their employers during the pandemic. 62.5 37.5 19.9 34.7 25.9 12.4 7.2 46.6 53.4 25.2 54.4 15.5 4.9 Female Male 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+ Gender Age Slovakia (N=251) Kuwait (N=103) 9.6 22.3 27.1 36.7 4.4 69.9 8.7 10.7 8.7 1.9 Full time in office & No WFH Ex Hybrid work model (1-2 days at home/3- 4 days in office) Hybrid work model (3-4 days at home/1- 2 days in office) Full time at home Other form of WFH Slovakia (N=251) Kuwait (N=103) Figure 1. Breakdowns of gender and age (%). Source: the authors. Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 150 6 of 16 4.2. Work Settings during the Pandemic—Experience with WFH Practices Among the 251 employees in Slovakia, 90.4% of the employees worked from home during the pandemic in some form. About 49.4% followed a hybrid work model and worked from home one, two, three, or four days a week. About 36.7% worked from home regularly, and the other 4.4% of employees worked intermittently from home. The remaining 9.6% of employees worked from the office despite the pandemic. In Kuwait, only 30.1% of the employees reported working from home in some ways during the pandemic. This is a significantly lower proportion compared to Slovakia. The hybrid work model (one, two, three, or four days a week) was reported by only 19.4% of the employees. The other 8.7% of employees worked full time from home. Similar to Slovakia, another 1.9% of the employees worked from home biweekly or occasionally. Up to 70% of the employees continued working from their office or had no work-from-home experience (No WFH Ex) during the pandemic. More specifically, out of the 72 employees, 27 were assigned to work from home in some ways but reported that they did not work from home; therefore, they were considered to not have any work-from-home experience during the pandemic (Figure 2). Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16 Figure 1. Breakdowns of gender and age (%). Source: the authors. 4.2. Work Settings during the Pandemic—Experience with WFH Practices Among the 251 employees in Slovakia, 90.4% of the employees worked from home during the pandemic in some form. About 49.4% followed a hybrid work model and worked from home one, two, three, or four days a week. About 36.7% worked from home regularly, and the other 4.4% of employees worked intermittently from home. The remaining 9.6% of employees worked from the office despite the pandemic. In Kuwait, only 30.1% of the employees reported working from home in some ways during the pandemic. This is a significantly lower proportion compared to Slovakia. The hybrid work model (one, two, three, or four days a week) was reported by only 19.4% of the employees. The other 8.7% of employees worked full time from home. Similar to Slovakia, another 1.9% of the employees worked from home biweekly or occasionally. Up to 70% of the employees continued working from their office or had no work-from-home experience (No WFH Ex) during the pandemic. More specifically, out of the 72 employees, 27 were assigned to work from home in some ways but reported that they did not work from home; therefore, they were considered to not have any workfrom-home experience during the pandemic (Figure 2). Figure 2. Pandemic work schedule (%). Source: the authors. This part of the questionnaire survey evaluated employees’ experiences with WFH practices during the pandemic. Therefore, only responses from employees with workfrom-home experiences during the pandemic were analyzed for this section. In the sample (Figure 3), a significant number of employees in Slovakia (83.3%) and Kuwait (80.6%) reported no financial support from their employers during the pandemic. 62.5 37.5 19.9 34.7 25.9 12.4 7.2 46.6 53.4 25.2 54.4 15.5 4.9 Female Male 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+ Gender Age Slovakia (N=251) Kuwait (N=103) 9.6 22.3 27.1 36.7 4.4 69.9 8.7 10.7 8.7 1.9 Full time in office & No WFH Ex Hybrid work model (1-2 days at home/3- 4 days in office) Hybrid work model (3-4 days at home/1- 2 days in office) Full time at home Other form of WFH Slovakia (N=251) Kuwait (N=103) Figure 2. Pandemic work schedule (%). Source: the authors. This part of the questionnaire survey evaluated employees’ experiences with WFH practices during the pandemic. Therefore, only responses from employees with work-from- home experiences during the pandemic were analyzed for this section. In the sample (Figure 3), a significant number of employees in Slovakia (83.3%) and Kuwait (80.6%) reported no financial support from their employers during the pandemic. Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16 Figure 3. Availability of “home office fee” (%). Source: the authors. There is a highly significant difference between the employees in Slovakia and Kuwait. In summary, the employees in Slovakia worked about the same number of hours as before the pandemic, whereas the employees in Kuwait reported a decrease in working hours while working from home during the pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic times (Figure 4). Figure 4. WFH Ex—working hours (%). Source: the authors. Over half of the Slovak employees (56.8%) worked flexibly and with breaks during the day. One-third of the employees worked as per the working hours defined in their contracts. Slightly over half of the employees (51.6%) in Kuwait worked as per the working hours specified in their contracts. Employees who worked flexibly and with breaks during the day accounted for up to 20% (Figure 5). Figure 5. WFH Ex—organization of work and time (%). Source: the authors. The employees in Slovakia and Kuwait gave a significantly different picture of their work-from-home experiences. The employees in Slovakia indicated that they better cooperated (65.2%), communicated (57.7%), and kept up with colleagues (56.8%) from their office rather than from home. On the other hand, about half of the employees felt more 16.7 19.4 83.3 80.6 Slovakia (N=227) Kuwait (N=31) Yes No 12.8 53.3 33.9 51.6 22.6 25.8 Less than before the pandemic Same as before the pandemic More than before the pandemic Slovakia (N=227) Kuwait (N=31) 30 6.6 56.8 2.2 4.4 51.6 12.9 19.4 6.5 9.7 I work as per the working hours defined in my contract (traditional “9 to 5 model”) I work in the morning and then in the evening due to home and family duties I work flexibly and with breaks during day (e.g. due to different occasions) I start work later than normally and end later in the evening I divide work into several blocks (e.g. 3 hours block with longer breaks in between) Slovakia (N=227) Kuwait (N=31) Figure 3. Availability of “home office fee” (%). Source: the authors. There is a highly significant difference between the employees in Slovakia and Kuwait. In summary, the employees in Slovakia worked about the same number of hours as before the pandemic, whereas the employees in Kuwait reported a decrease in working hours while working from home during the pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic times (Figure 4). Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 150 7 of 16 Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16 Figure 3. Availability of “home office fee” (%). Source: the authors. There is a highly significant difference between the employees in Slovakia and Kuwait. In summary, the employees in Slovakia worked about the same number of hours as before the pandemic, whereas the employees in Kuwait reported a decrease in working hours while working from home during the pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic times (Figure 4). Figure 4. WFH Ex—working hours (%). Source: the authors. Over half of the Slovak employees (56.8%) worked flexibly and with breaks during the day. One-third of the employees worked as per the working hours defined in their contracts. Slightly over half of the employees (51.6%) in Kuwait worked as per the working hours specified in their contracts. Employees who worked flexibly and with breaks during the day accounted for up to 20% (Figure 5). Figure 5. WFH Ex—organization of work and time (%). Source: the authors. The employees in Slovakia and Kuwait gave a significantly different picture of their work-from-home experiences. The employees in Slovakia indicated that they better cooperated (65.2%), communicated (57.7%), and kept up with colleagues (56.8%) from their office rather than from home. On the other hand, about half of the employees felt more 16.7 19.4 83.3 80.6 Slovakia (N=227) Kuwait (N=31) Yes No 12.8 53.3 33.9 51.6 22.6 25.8 Less than before the pandemic Same as before the pandemic More than before the pandemic Slovakia (N=227) Kuwait (N=31) 30 6.6 56.8 2.2 4.4 51.6 12.9 19.4 6.5 9.7 I work as per the working hours defined in my contract (traditional “9 to 5 model”) I work in the morning and then in the evening due to home and family duties I work flexibly and with breaks during day (e.g. due to different occasions) I start work later than normally and end later in the evening I divide work into several blocks (e.g. 3 hours block with longer breaks in between) Slovakia (N=227) Kuwait (N=31) Figure 4. WFH Ex—working hours (%). Source: the authors. Over half of the Slovak employees (56.8%) worked flexibly and with breaks during the day. One-third of the employees worked as per the working hours defined in their contracts. Slightly over half of the employees (51.6%) in Kuwait worked as per the working hours specified in their contracts. Employees who worked flexibly and with breaks during the day accounted for up to 20% (Figure 5). Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16 Figure 3. Availability of “home office fee” (%). Source: the authors. There is a highly significant difference between the employees in Slovakia and Kuwait. In summary, the employees in Slovakia worked about the same number of hours as before the pandemic, whereas the employees in Kuwait reported a decrease in working hours while working from home during the pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic times (Figure 4). Figure 4. WFH Ex—working hours (%). Source: the authors. Over half of the Slovak employees (56.8%) worked flexibly and with breaks during the day. One-third of the employees worked as per the working hours defined in their contracts. Slightly over half of the employees (51.6%) in Kuwait worked as per the working hours specified in their contracts. Employees who worked flexibly and with breaks during the day accounted for up to 20% (Figure 5). Figure 5. WFH Ex—organization of work and time (%). Source: the authors. The employees in Slovakia and Kuwait gave a significantly different picture of their work-from-home experiences. The employees in Slovakia indicated that they better cooperated (65.2%), communicated (57.7%), and kept up with colleagues (56.8%) from their office rather than from home. On the other hand, about half of the employees felt more 16.7 19.4 83.3 80.6 Slovakia (N=227) Kuwait (N=31) Yes No 12.8 53.3 33.9 51.6 22.6 25.8 Less than before the pandemic Same as before the pandemic More than before the pandemic Slovakia (N=227) Kuwait (N=31) 30 6.6 56.8 2.2 4.4 51.6 12.9 19.4 6.5 9.7 I work as per the working hours defined in my contract (traditional “9 to 5 model”) I work in the morning and then in the evening due to home and family duties I work flexibly and with breaks during day (e.g. due to different occasions) I start work later than normally and end later in the evening I divide work into several blocks (e.g. 3 hours block with longer breaks in between) Slovakia (N=227) Kuwait (N=31) Figure 5. WFH Ex—organization of work and time (%). Source: the authors. The employees in Slovakia and Kuwait gave a significantly different picture of their work-from-home experiences. The employees in Slovakia indicated that they better cooperated (65.2%), communicated (57.7%), and kept up with colleagues (56.8%) from their office rather than from home. On the other hand, about half of the employees felt more concentrated (50.7%) when working from home. They were able to better manage time (51.1%) and organize work (41.9%). Overall, the employees who worked from home reported being more effective and efficient (44.1%) under these conditions. More than half of the employees (52%) were more satisfied working from their home office than from a traditional workplace. These employees reported that working from home was as motivating (51.5%) as from the office, and their productivity (41.9%) did not change. In addition, the employees who worked from home during the pandemic did not notice any differences in terms of problem solving (44.1%), learning and career development opportunities (43.6%), self-efficacy (59.9%), and innovation (63.9%) (Table 1). As for the employees in Kuwait, most of those who worked from home during the pandemic reported that all job-related aspects listed above are better in the office than at home. However, it is noteworthy that about the same proportion of employees (41.9%) felt more confident working in the office than working from home. Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 150 8 of 16 Table 1. Job-related behaviors based on WFH experience (Slovakia). Better at the Office About the Same Better at Home Cooperation Communication and connection with fellow colleagues Motivation Productivity Problem solving Learning and career development opportunities Self-efficacy Innovation of products or services Effectiveness and efficiency Satisfaction Concentration Time management Work organization The employees in Slovakia expressed greater satisfaction (mean = 1.1) with the pandemic-induced WFH practices than the employees in Kuwait (mean = 0.3). Overall, 88.1% of the employees in Slovakia and 67.8% of the employees in Kuwait were satisfied or very satisfied with their WFH practices during the pandemic (Figure 6). Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16 concentrated (50.7%) when working from home. They were able to better manage time (51.1%) and organize work (41.9%). Overall, the employees who worked from home reported being more effective and efficient (44.1%) under these conditions. More than half of the employees (52%) were more satisfied working from their home office than from a traditional workplace. These employees reported that working from home was as motivating (51.5%) as from the office, and their productivity (41.9%) did not change. In addition, the employees who worked from home during the pandemic did not notice any differences in terms of problem solving (44.1%), learning and career development opportunities (43.6%), self-efficacy (59.9%), and innovation (63.9%) (Table 1). Table 1. Job-related behaviors based on WFH experience (Slovakia). Better at the Office About the Same Better at Home Cooperation Communication and connection with fellow colleagues Motivation Productivity Problem solving Learning and career development opportunities Self-efficacy Innovation of products or services Effectiveness and efficiency Satisfaction Concentration Time management Work organization As for the employees in Kuwait, most of those who worked from home during the pandemic reported that all job-related aspects listed above are better in the office than at home. However, it is noteworthy that about the same proportion of employees (41.9%) felt more confident working in the office than working from home. The employees in Slovakia expressed greater satisfaction (mean = 1.1) with the pandemic-induced WFH practices than the employees in Kuwait (mean = 0.3). Overall, 88.1% of the employees in Slovakia and 67.8% of the employees in Kuwait were satisfied or very satisfied with their WFH practices during the pandemic (Figure 6). Figure 6. WFH Ex—overall satisfaction (%). Source: the authors. The employees were asked to identify their (five) major concerns about returning to the office. Overall, the employees in Slovakia and Kuwait showed minor differences. The major five concerns are shown in Table 2. Most employees (74.9%) in Slovakia were concerned about transportation to work and commuting time. Fear of getting sick (50.7%) and maintenance of safety policies (50.7%) were other core concerns for the employees, followed by fear of maintaining productivity (48.9%) and moving to work from home due to other employee preferences (38.8%). Maintenance of social distance (33%) in the workplace was reported as the fifth concern. Other concerns were reported in the following order: effective collaboration (23.8%), caregiving for children and other dependents (22%), maintaining fairness and equitability (19.4%), and maintaining organizational culture (14.5%). It is noteworthy that 5% of the employees had no concerns at all. The major concern of the employees in Kuwait was fear of contracting the virus (61.3%). These employees were also concerned about maintaining safety (54.8%) and social distance (51.6%) in the workplace. About 35.5% reported fear of remaining productivity as the fourth concern, 0.9 11 57.3 30.8 12.9 19.4 61.3 6.5 Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Very satisfied Slovakia (N=227) Kuwait (N=31) Figure 6. WFH Ex—overall satisfaction (%). Source: the authors. The employees were asked to identify their (five) major concerns about returning to the office. Overall, the employees in Slovakia and Kuwait showed minor differences. The major five concerns are shown in Table 2. Most employees (74.9%) in Slovakia were concerned about transportation to work and commuting time. Fear of getting sick (50.7%) and maintenance of safety policies (50.7%) were other core concerns for the employees, followed by fear of maintaining productivity (48.9%) and moving to work from home due to other employee preferences (38.8%). Maintenance of social distance (33%) in the workplace was reported as the fifth concern. Other concerns were reported in the following order: effective collaboration (23.8%), caregiving for children and other dependents (22%), maintaining fairness and equitability (19.4%), and maintaining organizational culture (14.5%). It is noteworthy that 5% of the employees had no concerns at all. The major concern of the employees in Kuwait was fear of contracting the virus (61.3%). These employees were also concerned about maintaining safety (54.8%) and social distance (51.6%) in the workplace. About 35.5% reported fear of remaining productivity as the fourth concern, followed by the fifth concern of a shift to work from home due to other employee preferences, as reported by 32.3% of the employees. The order of the remaining concerns was as follows: effective collaboration (29%), maintaining fairness and equitability (25.8%), transportation and commuting time (22.6%), maintaining organizational culture (19.4%), and caregiving for children and other dependents (16.1%) (Table 2). Table 2. Five major concerns regarding returning to the office. Slovakia Kuwait Transportation and commuting time Fear of getting sick Fear of getting sick and maintaining safety policies Maintaining safety policies Employee preferences for work from home Maintaining social distance Maintaining social distance Maintaining employee performance Maintaining employee performance Employee preferences for work from home Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 150 15 of 16 ILO. 2020a. COVID-19 and the World of Work. Third Edition. Available online: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/{-}{-}- dgreports/{-}{-}-dcomm/documents/briefingnote/wcms_743146.pdf (accessed on 16 September 2021). ILO. 2020b. An Employers’ Guide on Working from Home in Response to the Outbreak of COVID-19. Available online: https://www. ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/{-}{-}-ed_dialogue/{-}{-}-act_emp/documents/publication/wcms_745024.pdf (accessed on 16 September 2021). ILO. 2020c. COVID-19: Guidance for Labour Statistics Data Collection. Available online: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/ public/{-}{-}-dgreports/{-}{-}-stat/documents/publication/wcms_747075.pdf (accessed on 17 September 2021). Iqbal, Kanwar Muhammad Javed, Farooq Khalid, and Sergey Yevgenievich Barykin. 2021. Hybrid Workplace: The Future of Work. In Handbook of Research on Future Opportunities for Technology Management Education. Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 28–48. [CrossRef] Karácsony, Peter. 2021. Impact of teleworking on job satisfaction among Slovakian employees in the era of COVID-19. Problems and Perspectives in Management 19: 1–9. [CrossRef] Messenger, Jon C., and Lutz Gschwind. 2016. Three generations of telework: New ICTs and the (R) evolution from home office to virtual office. New Technology, Work and Employment 31: 195–208. [CrossRef] National Council of the Slovak Republic. 2001. Act No. 311/2001 Coll. Labour Code. Available online: https://www.slov-lex.sk/ pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2001/311/20210301 (accessed on 8 May 2023). Needle, Rose, and Karen L. Mallia. 2021. Creatives in the Office: Personality and the Environmental Effects of Workspace. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 42: 277–93. [CrossRef] Nem t , eanu, Marcela-Sefora, and Dan-Cristian Dabija. 2023. Negative Impact of Telework, Job Insecurity, and Work–Life Conflict on Employee Behaviour. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20: 4182. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Nilles, Jack M. 1994. Making Telecommuting Happen: A Guide for Tele Managers and Telecommuters. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, p. 220. ISBN 0442018576. Olson, Margrethe H., and Sophia B. Primps. 1984. Working at home with computers: Work and nonwork Issues. Journal of Social Issues 40: 97–112. [CrossRef] O’Rourke, Glenn A. 2021. Workplace strategy: A new workplace model. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resource 59: 554–66. [CrossRef] Peráˇcek, Tomáš. 2021. Flexibility of creating and changing employment in the options of the Slovak Labor Code. Problems and Perspectives in Management 19: 373–82. [CrossRef] Peytcheva, Emilia. 2020. The effect of language of survey administration on the response formation process. In The Essential Role of Language in Survey Research. Edited by Mandy Sha and Tim J. Gabel. Research Triangle Park: RTI Press, pp. 3–22. [CrossRef] Pulido-Martos, Manuel, Daniel Cortés-Denia, and Esther Lopez-Zafra. 2021. Teleworking in times of COVID-19: Effects on the acquisition of personal resources. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 685275. [CrossRef] Queirós, André, Daniel Faria, and Fernando Almeida. 2017. Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research methods. European Journal of Education Studies 3: 369–87. [CrossRef] Romano, David. 2006. Conducting research in the Middle East’s conflict zones. PS: Political Science and Politics 39: 439–441. [CrossRef] Sabuhari, Rahmat, Achmad Sudiro, Dodi W. Irawanto, and Mintarti Rahayu. 2020. The effects of human resource flexibility, employee competency, organizational culture adaptation and job satisfaction on employee performance. Management Science Letters 10: 1775–86. [CrossRef] Sapra, R. L. 2022. How to Calculate an Adequate Sample Size? In How to Practice Academic Medicine and Publish from Developing Countries? Singapore: Springer, pp. 81–93. [CrossRef] Schmidt, Dusana A., and Nino Nutsubidze. 2021. Responses of Kuwait-based organizations to the pandemic. Paper presented at 35th Eurasia Business and Economics Society Conference (EBES), Rome, Italy, April 7–9. Available online: https://www.dropbox.com/ sh/d588rswrbm3605z/AABFv37tYy1WsN41qQcNVETya?dl=0&preview=35th+EBES+Conference+Proceedings+-+Vol+I.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2021). Sewell, Graham, and Laurent Taskin. 2015. Out of sight, out of mind in a new world of work? Autonomy, control, and spatiotemporal scaling in telework. Organization Studies 11: 1507–29. [CrossRef] Shanker, Anurag. 2023. Flexible work arrangements and its impact on Work-Life Balance. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Business Management 10: 3. Available online: https://jetbm.imtnagpur.ac.in/journal/vol10/iss2/3 (accessed on 16 September 2021). Smoder, Agnieszka. 2021. Remote work in pandemic conditions—Selected issues. Polityka Społeczna 48: 26–35. [CrossRef] Srebalová, Mária. 2022. Effective Public Administration as a Tool for Building Smart Cities: The Experience of the Slovak Republic. Laws 11: 67. [CrossRef] Sree, Jyothi, and Arshath Jyothi. 2012. Assessing work-life balance: From emotional intelligence and role efficacy of career women. Advances in Management 5. Tavares, Aida Isabel. 2017. Telework and health effects review. International Journal of Healthcare 3: 30. [CrossRef] Vayre, Émilie, Christine Morin-Messabel, Florence Cros, Anne-Sophie Maillot, and Nelly Odin. 2022. Benefits and Risks of Teleworking from Home: The Teleworkers’ Point of View. Information 13: 545. [CrossRef] Vyas, Lina. 2022. “New normal” at work in a post-COVID world: Work–life balance and labor markets. Policy and Society 41: 155–67. [CrossRef] Wang, Hui, Yuting Xiao, Hui Wang, Han Zhang, and Xueshuang Chen. 2023. “Who Knows Me Understands My Needs”: The Effect of Home-Based Telework on Work Engagement. Psychology Research and Behavior Management 16: 619–35. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 150 16 of 16 Xue, Baowen, and Anne McMunn. 2021. Gender differences in unpaid care work and psychological distress in the UK COVID-19 lock-down. PLoS ONE 16: 0247959. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Yang, Eunhwa, Yujin Kim, and Sungil Hong. 2021. Does working from home work? Experience of working from home and the value of hybrid workplace post-COVID-19. Journal of Corporate Real Estate 25: 50–76. Young, Karen E. 2016. Easing Labor Market Restrictions in the Gulf. Available online: https://agsiw.org/easing-labor-market- restrictions-gulf/ (accessed on 20 September 2021). Zwanka, Russell, and Cheryl L. Buff. 2021. COVID-19 generation: A conceptual framework of the consumer behavioral shifts to be caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 33: 58–67. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.