Hybrid and Traditional Work Arrangements: Implications for Productivity and Work–Life Balance in a Higher Education Institution
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background and Aim: The expanding use of flexible work arrangements in higher education has increased interest in their effects on employee performance and well-being. This study examined perceived productivity and work–life balance among faculty and staff under hybrid and traditional work arrangements in a local higher education institution in Tubod, Lanao del Norte, Philippines. It also assessed differences between work arrangements and determined the relationship between work–life balance and perceived productivity.
Materials and Methods: A quantitative descriptive-comparative and correlational design was employed. Fifty faculty and staff members were selected through total enumeration sampling. Data were gathered using adapted versions of the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire and the Work–Life Balance Scale. Means and standard deviations were calculated to describe the levels of perceived productivity and work–life balance. The Mann–Whitney U test was used to examine differences in perceived productivity, while an independent-samples t-test assessed differences in work–life balance. Spearman’s rho was applied to determine the association between the two variables.
Results: Respondents reported high perceived productivity (M = 4.10, SD = 0.59) and work–life balance (M = 3.49, SD = 0.56). No statistically significant differences were found between hybrid and traditional employees in perceived productivity (p = .674) or work–life balance (p = .115). However, work–life balance was positively and significantly associated with perceived productivity (rₛ = .332, p = .018), indicating that employees with better work–life balance tended to report higher productivity.
Conclusion: Hybrid and traditional work arrangements may both support favorable employee outcomes when appropriate institutional support is available. Although work arrangement was not a significant determinant of productivity or work–life balance, employee well-being was positively associated with productivity. Higher education institutions should therefore strengthen workload management, organizational support, and employee-centered policies to promote sustainable performance.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright and License
Copyright of all articles published in the Journal of Education and Learning Reviews (JELR) is retained by the author(s).
All articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial–NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Users may read, download, copy, distribute, and share the content for non-commercial purposes with proper attribution.
Modification, adaptation, or commercial use of the content is not permitted.
License details: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
References
Allen, T. D., Johnson, R. C., Kiburz, K. M., & Shockley, K. M. (2013). Work–family conflict and flexible work arrangements: Deconstructing flexibility. Personnel Psychology, 66(2), 345–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12012
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
Brough, P., Timms, C., O’Driscoll, M. P., Kalliath, T., Siu, O. L., Sit, C., & Lo, D. (2014). Work–life balance: A longitudinal evaluation of a new measure across Australian and New Zealand workers. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(19), 2724–2744. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.899262
Chung, H. (2022). A social policy case for a four-day week. Journal of Social Policy, 51(3), 551–566. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279421000364
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.565
Eshun, E. N. K. (2024). Modelling the mediating role of work-life balance on the relationship between work arrangement and employee performance in higher education. SAGE Open, 14(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241234567
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524–1541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work–family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.19379625
Haar, J. M., Russo, M., Suñe, A., & Ollier-Malaterre, A. (2014). Outcomes of work–life balance on job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and mental health: A study across seven cultures. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(3), 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.08.010
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Hill, E. J., Ferris, M., & Märtinson, V. (2003). Does it matter where you work? A comparison of how three work venues influence aspects of work and personal/family life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(2), 220–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00042-3
Ipsen, C., Kirchner, K., & Hansen, J. P. (2021). Experiences of working from home in times of COVID-19. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), Article 1826. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041826
Kim, H. K. (2014). Work-life balance and employees’ performance: The mediating role of affective commitment. *Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 6*(1), 37–51. https://www.gbmrjournal.com/pdf/vol.%206%20no.%201/Kim.pdf
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., de Vet, H. C. W., & van der Beek, A. J. (2014). Construct validity of the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 56(3), 331–337. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000113
Kossek, E. E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., & Hammer, L. B. (2011). Workplace social support and work–family conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work–family-specific supervisor and organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 289–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01211.x
Lewis, K., Stronge, W., Kellam, J., & Kikuchi, L. (2023). The results are in: The UK’s four-day week pilot. Autonomy Research Ltd. https://autonomy.work
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20–52. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842
Republic Act No. 10173. (2012). Data Privacy Act of 2012. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/08/15/republic-act-no-10173/
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7), 893–917. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.595
Vyas, L. (2022). “New normal” at work in a post-COVID world: Work–life balance and labor markets. Policy and Society, 41(1), 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puab011
Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J., & Parker, S. K. (2021). Achieving effective remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic: A work design perspective. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 16–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12290
