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.
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.
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.
Banerjee, P., & Gupta, R. (2024). A mixed-method exploration of effects of technostress on remote/hybrid working professionals. Computers in Human Behavior, 150, 107974.
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.
Bloom, N., Han, R., & Liang, J. (2024). Hybrid working from home improves retention without damaging performance. Nature, 630(8018), 920–925.
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.
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.
Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53(6), 747–770.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gifford, J. (2022). Remote working: Unprecedented increase and a developing research agenda. Human Resource Development International, 25(2), 105–113.
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.
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.
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.
Juchnowicz, M., & Kinowska, H. (2021). Employee well-being and digital work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Information, 12(8), 293.
Kossek, E. E., & Kelliher, C. (2023). Making flexibility more i-deal: Advancing work-life equality collectively. Group & Organization Management, 48(1), 317–349.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Suh, A., & Lee, J. (2017). Understanding teleworkers’ technostress and its influence on job satisfaction. Internet Research, 27(1), 140–159.
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.
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.
Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472.