The Double-Edged Effects of Hybrid Work on Employee Well-Being A Systematic Bibliometric Review of Technostress, Work-Life Boundaries, and Occupational Health
Authors
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Purpose: This study maps and synthesizes research on hybrid work and employee well-being, explaining its simultaneous resource and demand effects.
Design/Methodology: Following PRISMA 2020 and SPAR-4-SLR, 250 Scopus records published from 2020 to 3 June 2026 were screened. After excluding 26 articles in press, 224 articles were bibliometrically mapped and 200 underwent structured title-abstract synthesis using VOSviewer and thematic coding.
Findings: Five clusters organize the field. Flexibility and autonomy appeared in 45.0% of core studies, while digital demands and technostress appeared in only 10.0%, despite burnout and stress appearing in 19.0%. Hybrid-work quality is more consequential than remote-work intensity.
Practical Implications: Organizations should design coordinated, choice-supportive hybrid systems and monitor resources and demands jointly.
Originality: The review integrates JD-R, boundary, technostress, and fit perspectives into a Hybrid Work Demands-Resources and Employee Well-Being Framework.
Article Details
Copyright (c) 2026 Ryan Basith Fasih Khan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The bibliographic dataset was retrieved from Scopus on 3 June 2026. The cleaned data, thesaurus file, coding framework, and analytical outputs are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request, subject to Scopus licensing restrictions.
Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(2), 40–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615593273 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Babapour Chafi, M., Hultberg, A., & Bozic Yams, N. (2021). Post-pandemic office work: Perceived challenges and opportunities for a sustainable work environment. Sustainability, 14(1), 294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010294 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. (2023). Job demands–resources theory: Ten years later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 25–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-053933 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, P., & Gupta, R. (2024). A mixed-method exploration of effects of technostress on remote/hybrid working professionals. Computers in Human Behavior, 150, 107974. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107974 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beck, M. J., & Hensher, D. A. (2022). Working from home in Australia in 2020: Positives, negatives and the potential for future benefits to transport and society. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 158, 271–284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2022.03.016 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, N., Han, R., & Liang, J. (2024). Hybrid working from home improves retention without damaging performance. Nature, 630(8018), 920–925. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07500-2 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Charalampous, M., Grant, C. A., Tramontano, C., & Michailidis, E. (2019). Systematically reviewing remote e-workers’ well-being at work: A multidimensional approach. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(1), 51–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1541886 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chu, C.-C., & Chou, C.-Y. (2024). Hybrid work stressors and psychological withdrawal behavior: A moderated mediation model of emotional exhaustion and proactive personality. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 155, 104053. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2024.104053 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53(6), 747–770. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700536001 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dale, G., Wilson, H., & Tucker, M. (2024). What is healthy hybrid work? Exploring employee perceptions on well-being and hybrid work arrangements. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 17(4), 335–352. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-03-2024-0041 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Datta, P., Balasundaram, S., Aranha, R. H., & Nair, S. (2025). The hybrid workplace: Contribution of autonomy in subjective well-being among employees in the banking, financial services and insurance sector. Организационная Психология, 15(1), 256–274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/2312-5942-2025-15-1-256-274 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Datta, P., Balasundaram, S., Nair, S., & Aranha, R. (2024). Moderating role of location autonomy on technostress and subjective wellbeing in information technology companies. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 22(2), 615. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(2).2024.48 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Domenech, T., & Danvila-del-Valle, I. (2026). The influence of Telework on job satisfaction through autonomy and purpose. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 22(2), 71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-026-01209-6 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eng, I., Tjernberg, M., & Champoux-Larsson, M.-F. (2024). Hybrid workers describe aspects that promote effectiveness, work engagement, work-life balance, and health. Cogent Psychology, 11(1), 2362535. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2024.2362535 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gifford, J. (2022). Remote working: Unprecedented increase and a developing research agenda. Human Resource Development International, 25(2), 105–113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2022.2049108 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harunavamwe, M., & Kanengoni, H. (2023). Hybrid and virtual work settings; the interaction between technostress, perceived organisational support, work-family conflict and the impact on work engagement. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, 14(2), 252–270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/AJEMS-07-2022-0306 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Höcker, M. C., Bachtal, Y., Voll, K., & Pfnür, A. (2024). Healthy, healthier, hybrid work: The burnout-reducing potential of remote work and the mediating effect of work autonomy. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 17(4), 319–334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-02-2024-0036 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, J., & Bardoel, A. (2023). The future is hybrid: How organisations are designing and supporting sustainable hybrid work models in post-pandemic Australia. Sustainability, 15(4), 3086. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043086 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Juchnowicz, M., & Kinowska, H. (2021). Employee well-being and digital work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Information, 12(8), 293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/info12080293 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kossek, E. E., & Kelliher, C. (2023). Making flexibility more i-deal: Advancing work-life equality collectively. Group & Organization Management, 48(1), 317–349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221098823 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oleksa-Marewska, K., & Tokar, J. (2022). Facing the post-pandemic challenges: The role of leadership effectiveness in shaping the affective well-being of healthcare providers working in a hybrid work mode. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(21), 14388. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114388 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., & Brennan, S. E. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Bmj, 372. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Parkin, A. K., Zadow, A. J., Potter, R. E., Afsharian, A., Dollard, M. F., Pignata, S., Bakker, A. B., & Lushington, K. (2023). The role of psychosocial safety climate on flexible work from home digital job demands and work-life conflict. Industrial Health, 61(5), 307–319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.2022-0078 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paul, J., Lim, W. M., O’Cass, A., Hao, A. W., & Bresciani, S. (2021). Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR‐4‐SLR). International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4), O1–O16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12695 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peijen, R., Niks, I. M., van Zwieten, M. H., Oude Hengel, K. M., & Wiezer, N. (2025). The role of work location in associations between need satisfaction and well-being at work: A daily diary design among Dutch office workers. BMC Public Health, 25(1), 2611. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-23794-x CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Piirsalu‐Kivihall, K., Paas, T., & Aidla, A. (2026). The role of ICT demands and resources and job autonomy in the work‐life balance of hybrid and high‐intensity teleworkers. New Technology, Work and Employment, 41(1), 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.70000 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rieder, K., Neumeier, C., Hofmann, V., Spaziani Testa, E., & Widmaier, S. (2025). Hybrid work: The role of privacy fit and cooperation fit for employees’ health. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift Für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO), 56(3), 431–439. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-025-00832-1 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schweitzer, L., Smith, C. J., Lyons, S., Henchey, A., & Kostuchuk, J. (2025). Working where we want: The role of work arrangement fit in work-related and personal wellbeing. Journal of Management & Organization, 1–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2025.10024 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smite, D., Christensen, E. L., Tell, P., & Russo, D. (2022). The future workplace: Characterizing the spectrum of hybrid work arrangements for software teams. IEEE Software, 40(2), 34–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2022.3230289 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suh, A., & Lee, J. (2017). Understanding teleworkers’ technostress and its influence on job satisfaction. Internet Research, 27(1), 140–159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-06-2015-0181 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trevino Garcia, L. E., & Christensen, J. O. (2025). Hybrid work and mental distress: A cross-sectional study of 24,763 office workers in the Norwegian public sector. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 98(4), 399–407. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-025-02136-9 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tulenheimo-Eklund, E., Haapakangas, A., Hirvonen, M., Ruohomäki, V., & Reijula, K. (2025). Perceptions of activity-based offices are associated with employee well-being and self-reported work ability in hybrid work: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Occupational Health, 67(1), uiaf027. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/joccuh/uiaf027 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wan, M. M., Carlson, D. S., Perry, S. J., Thompson, M. J., Zhang, Y. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2025). Adapting boundary preferences to match reality of hybrid work: A latent change score analysis☆. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 157, 104089. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2025.104089 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Whelan, E., O’Brien, A., & McCarthy, A. (2026). Burnout in hybrid work arrangements: Unpacking the role of technostress, psychological detachment, and organisational supports. Internet Research, 36(7), 63–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-01-2025-0041 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wijaya, D. A., Artamevia, A., Cahyadi, C. N., & Maharani, A. (2026). Enhancing Employee Creativity in the Public Sector: The Roles of Perceived Organizational Support, Servant Leadership, and Work Engagement. Journal of Economics & Management/University of Economics in Katowice, (48), 149–180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22367/jem.2026.48.06
Yang, E., Kim, Y., & Hong, S. (2023). 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(1), 50–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-04-2021-0015
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629 CrossrefGoogle Scholar