Advantages and drawbacks of digital communication in remote and hybrid work settings. A sectoral case study in professional services

Abstract

Introduction:

Digital communication became a central element of organizational interaction during the COVID-19 pandemic and remains integral to remote and hybrid work. However, empirical evidence on the comparative effectiveness of digital and face-to-face communication in post-crisis hybrid settings remains fragmented and lacks comparative clarity. This study examines the advantages and drawbacks of digital communication in professional services and identifies which practices persist beyond crisis conditions.

Methods:

A sectoral qualitative case study was conducted in management consultancies in the DACH (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) region during the pandemic. Thirteen semi-structured interviews were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Follow-up interviews in 2024–2025 examined post-crisis developments and the durability of communication practices.

Results:

Four themes emerged: (1) preparedness and infrastructure enabling rapid adaptation; (2) cultural change shaping engagement and meeting norms; (3) iterative testing and refinement of digital alternatives, including tool combinations and documentation features; and (4) enduring shifts toward hybrid “new normal” arrangements. Digital communication supported task coordination and cognitive efficiency in routine and technical exchanges. This was particularly evident in technical collaboration, geographically dispersed teamwork, and established one-to-one relationships.. It was less effective in contexts requiring relational trust, emotional attunement, and nuanced social signaling, such as business development, emotionally charged issues, and politically sensitive discussions.

Conclusion:

The findings suggest a situational perspective on communication choice rather than universal medium superiority. Digital and face-to-face communication operate as complementary resources in hybrid work systems. The study contributes empirically by documenting the post-crisis persistence of communication practices and theoretically by challenging technologically deterministic accounts of media effectiveness. Instead, the findings emphasize contextual and relational contingencies. From a practical perspective, it offers guidance for selecting, supporting and continuously revising communication practices.

1 Introduction

When examining how consulting companies in the German speaking part of Europe increasingly used remote and teleworking solutions as immediate crisis management measures during the COVID-19 pandemic (Stürz et al., 2020), the research on this topic yielded ample information on the opportunities offered by digital communication. These opportunities could be achieved through tools such as MS Teams or Zoom. However, a number of risks and drawbacks were also discerned and will be discussed below.

Accordingly, this sectoral case study collected data mainly through qualitative interviews. The consulting industry was expected to use digital communication early into the pandemic, and to do so comprehensively. This was because consulting companies are normally technologically up-to-date, also because frequent and effective information exchange, hitherto conducted in person, is a crucial success factor for consulting projects (Piumelli, 2019).

Research on digitally mediated communication has long highlighted the importance of social cues and perceived presence for effective interaction (e.g., Social Presence Theory). Similarly, studies on technology adoption emphasize how familiarity with digital tools and organizational support shape communication practices in the workplace. While the present study does not aim to test these theoretical models directly but adopts an exploratory approach with an abductive research logic, the findings resonate with prior research highlighting both efficiency gains and relational challenges associated with digitally mediated interaction.

This study examines the advantages and drawbacks of digital communication in remote and hybrid work settings using a qualitative case study of consulting firms in the DACH region. Given the exploratory aim of the study and the limited prior research on digitally mediated communication during the pandemic, the analysis follows an abductive logic. Rather than testing a predefined theoretical model, the study seeks to identify patterns emerging from the interview material and subsequently relate these insights to existing literature. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with consultants and managers, the study explores how digital communication practices were experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic and how they evolved in the years following the crisis.

The research design incorporates interviews conducted during the pandemic as well as follow-up interviews conducted several years later, allowing the study to capture how communication practices developed from crisis-driven digital interaction to more stable hybrid arrangements. Data were categorized and analyzed using thematic analysis [following the approach of Braun and Clarke (2006)]. The findings highlight both the opportunities and limitations of digitally mediated communication and contribute to a deeper understanding of communication practices in distributed work environments, allowing a comparison of digital and face-to-face communication in workplace settings. This led to a set of recommendations on their respective choice.

2 The increase of digital communication in the workplace in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the situation thereafter

Businesses had to react quickly after governments introduced rules restricting personal contact, and an obvious immediate reaction was to have employees work from home wherever possible (Weichbrodt and Schulze, 2020). “Home office” or remote work was not new, and there are ample publications on advantages and disadvantages or on how best to implement it (Müller et al., 2020; Galanti et al., 2023). Having a substantial number of employees working from home seriously impedes communication, both internally and externally. Thus, when implementing new ways of working, the focus lay heavily on improving telecommunications (Tomprou et al., 2023; Caputo et al., 2024).

Most of the sources used for this article do not differentiate between telework and working from home (or if they do, it is blurred), but the two terms do not necessarily mean the same. While a combination is possible, this article, following Curzi et al. (2020), treats home or remote work as defined by location and telework as defined by means of communication. Workplace innovation through technology is not only about communication, but the further discussion focuses on this aspect. Early in the crisis, some consultancies simply recommended to stay in contact with clients and be patient (Bearden, 2020), but the COVID-19 crisis required more than riding out the storm. Embracing digitalization and remote forms of work, which had already been well established in consultancies (Nissen et al., 2019), was a logical consequence, particularly in light of consumers' growing acceptance of digital communication (Kraus et al., 2020; Dziubek et al., 2022).

2.1 Technology enhanced communication in remote and hybrid working arrangements

Working from home presents both employers and employees with several advantages around cost, time and motivation, but by definition it reduces personal contact which means risks around engagement and motivation (Hodzic et al., 2023). Further criticism concerns health aspects or the strain which working from home (WFH) puts on families (Keightley et al., 2023; Kortsch et al., 2022), the increased use of IT and electronic communication threatening to blur the borders between private and working life (Zappalà et al., 2022) and results on productivity changes are inconclusive (e.g., in Anakpo et al., 2023; Lucius and Damberg, 2024; Donati et al., 2021). This has much to do with IT and communication issues and related loss of information (Waizenegger et al., 2020), effects that also may have to do with different personalities and preferences among employees (Donati et al., 2021; Keightley et al., 2023). Obviously, the necessary infrastructure as well as support like training and hotlines need to be in place (Blair and Pagano, 2023; Kateb et al., 2022).

Experience with virtual teams and WFH solutions shows that levels of group cohesion or management control do not necessarily have to suffer in such a work environment. One of the main differences is the focus on tasks instead of interaction (Rysavy and Michalak, 2020; Deelmann, 2019). However, while remote work spread fast across the DACH-region, many companies were ill prepared with more than half lacking the necessary technical infrastructure (Błaszczyk et al., 2022) and different types of employees, e.g., younger ones, react differently to new ways of working (Andresen et al., 2020) or use digital means of communication differently (Cabell et al., 2022).

It was thus clear that in order to be successful with new technology driven means of communication, organizations need to be well prepared. The technology is available; and it is argued that the “Generation Z”, the newest in the workforce, will embrace any tool that might help to become more flexible (Cabell et al., 2022). The perception that constant availability without physical presence increases flexibility may appear counterintuitive; however, individuals belonging to the generation of so-called “digital natives” seem to experience it in this way (Bielefeld et al., 2025).

Technology that allows people to work from everywhere offers obvious advantages to employees, such as reduced commuting time (Sahal et al., 2024), but on the other hand, people also have very different access to the necessary technology. Thus, when introducing telework, the attention needs to be paid on these aspects, as well as the choice of supporting software. This can be complex: Rysavy and Michalak (2020) describe using a set of seven different applications in order to be able to continue working in their team. The choice of tools is ample, and different types of companies will have to choose different paths toward digitalization of communication – and prepare well (Kateb et al., 2022; Dimian et al., 2023).

It was widely expected that reactions to the current crisis and the introduction of new processes would lead to changes in the work environment (Engels, 2020), an aspect this study also looked into. Many companies have moved beyond simple WFH, and are now preparing subsequent steps by designing technology-supported hybrid (office/other) workplaces that allow flexibility in both time and location. This shift extends to recruiting and onboarding processes, which are also becoming more hybrid in nature (Weis, 2022). At the same time, managers have become more positive toward flexible working solutions (Anakpo et al., 2023).

2.2 The limitations of telework and the use of digital communication tools

Even prior to the pandemic, it became clear that the efficient and effective use of digital communication depends on how employees deal with it, and on what Nissen et al. (2019, p. 332) dub “digital maturity”. On top of that, many issues only arise or surface later into the process. Elements of communication are lost, and while some, like humor, might not immediately seem important from a business point of view, users miss them (Serttaş, 2021). With the onset of the pandemic, people who previously worked in an office-based setting were forced to change their ways. Even though they understood that it was a necessary element of crisis management, they reported feeling pressure and even anxiety (Waizenegger et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2023). Stress factors also depend on the private situation of people: for instance, WFH is especially difficult with children around (Müller et al., 2020). Employers need to take such factors and related health risks into account, and managers need to help their employees balance private life and IT supported work (Dziubek et al., 2022; Rohwer et al., 2024).

Indeed, introducing telework is a challenge for management. New forms of work might have the advantage of being mobile, flexible and distributed, but this is an issue when having to manage teams working remotely (Höddinghaus et al., 2023; Potthast et al., 2025). In addition, Vartiainen and Hyrkkänen (2010) postulate the need for “social” (interacting) space in the workplace. This increases management complexity, requiring more time than traditional ways (Greimel et al., 2023), and management's ability to control the working attitude of employees whom it cannot interact with in person is limited. Moreover, not all employees are equally suited for or satisfied with telework, and some people might even feign work, a common fear of management (Anakpo et al., 2023). The best results, from both a motivational and a productivity perspective, seem to be possible when telework complements office work (Caputo et al., 2024; Weis, 2022; Lawrence and Porwal, 2024), but to which extent remains unclear.

In contrast to the aforementioned issues, remote, digital communication may enhance managerial organization, however “virtual meetings fatigue” might set in (Waizenegger et al., 2020, p. 439). People find virtual communication overwhelming and intrusive and deplore that socializing and network management can only happen through virtual channels. Later research on so-called “Zoom fatigue” highlights four interrelated factors: sustained cognitive load caused by intensified self-monitoring and reduced non-verbal cues; increased emotional strain arising from continuous visibility and impression management; physiological fatigue linked to prolonged screen exposure and constrained physical movement; and contextual exhaustion resulting from the blurring of work–life boundaries in digitally mediated work settings (Bailenson, 2021; Queiroz et al., 2023). Thus, Zoom fatigue is not a purely technological issue, but a psychosocial one shaped by interaction and organizational conditions. Therefore, telework and virtual meeting software are useful tools and found a large number of new users during the crisis, but they need to be managed. Just because one can use such tools, one is not forced to always do, and it might help to occasionally use alternatives (Ramachandran, 2021).

Another stress generating aspect may be self-inflicted pressure by people who work remotely (Sandberg and Löwstedt, 2025), potentially leading to longer working hours. On the other hand, not all research confirms this “autonomy paradox”, stress in telework might rather stem from having to manage greater complexity and many stakeholders with insufficient means (Curzi et al., 2020). However, it is widely acknowledged that constant access to digital communication technologies and the resulting expectation of continuous availability (the “always-on” phenomenon) can lead to increased stress (Mdhluli, 2025).

Other factors include the possibility of emotional issues because of the lack of (personal) contact (Lengen et al., 2021), disadvantages for personal career management because of a lack of visibility when absent from the office (Richardson and Kelliher, 2015) and no ad-hoc conversations for team building and knowledge sharing (Waizenegger et al., 2020; Rohwer et al., 2024). This article addresses these communication issues by investigating how consultancies have responded to them.

2.3 Regulatory and data security issues

Introducing remote work and digital communication also faces regulatory limitations. The main topics concern data security, especially around mobile work, and labor legislation. The latter will not be discussed here, but moving toward new forms of work means treading on new ground. Even external stakeholders may influence this process: in Germany for instance, any landlord may veto WFH (Klein, 2020). Additionally, when agreeing to remote work, employers have to be aware of the fact that they can still be held responsible for work related health and security issues (Claesvorbeck, 2020).

Data security is another issue: while all companies need to implement clear rules for data security, employees also need to help protect data, for instance by not using allegedly suspicious information channels such as Amazon Alexa (Naucke and Schweska, 2020). With digital communication, cyber security risks have multiplied (Malecki, 2020). Ideally, employees should not be using private equipment, and employers need to make sure that data transmission and storage are secure (Engels, 2020). All these issues can be overcome, but rules and regulations might have limited the options which participants in this research had to introduce digital communication.

3 Research methodology

This study investigates how digital communication compares to face-to-face interaction in remote and hybrid work settings, and which practices persist once crisis conditions subside. To assess these developments, the present study focuses on workplace changes in consultancies as an illustrative case, examining how organizations responded to the COVID-19 crisis through experience accumulation, analysis, learning, and adaptation. Their experiences with digital communication were explored with the aim of producing practical management recommendations. While data have been collected in the consulting industry exclusively, these recommendations are expected to be valuable for the entire professional services industry, or even beyond.

Given the exploratory nature of the research question and the limited prior research on communication practices during periods of enforced remote interaction, a qualitative case study approach was adopted. This approach allows for an in-depth examination of organizational practices within their real-world context and is particularly suited to investigating emerging phenomena where theoretical understanding remains limited.

This research was designed as a sectoral case study, based on interviews with experts from the consulting industry in the relatively homogeneous DACH region as an example. Here, constant communication, both within the company and with clients and other stakeholders, is a key element of daily work. Data were collected through extensive, semi-structured interviews conducted with 13 consultants from different types and sizes of consultancies, different hierarchical levels and genders, initially conducted during the pandemic. After this, it was felt that thematic sufficiency had been achieved. This first set of interviews, which led to the definition of the themes discussed below, was conducted in different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic and the results of the study were corroborated with several interview partners toward the end of the crisis in 2022. A second set of interviews, conducted nearly 3 years later with six of the original participants, related to their experiences since all contact restrictions had been lifted and their observations regarding lasting changes in the workspace, especially around remote work and digital communication. Table 1 provides an overview of the interview participants, including gender, role, and age, as well as the timing of the data collection.

Interviews were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2022) and followed up in 2024–2025, with individual interviews typically lasting between 38 and 87 min. A semi-structured interview guide was used, focusing on how digital communication practices were implemented and experienced, and why certain practices were perceived as effective or limiting, thereby addressing processual (“how”) and interpretive (“why”) dimensions of workplace communication. The data used in this study have not been published elsewhere beyond their use in the underlying doctoral thesis.

This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of Heriot-Watt University. Ethical approval was obtained as part of the doctoral research process, including a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA), and the study was reviewed and approved by the relevant doctoral review committee. All participants provided informed consent to participate in the interviews and to the use of anonymised data for research purposes.

Interview questions in the first round were designed to elicit reflections on changes and all participants were encouraged to provide specific examples, comparing them to the time before the pandemic, which led to rich and varied insights. The interview transcripts were analyzed using an iterative thematic coding process (Fuchs, 2023). Initial codes were generated inductively from the interview material and subsequently grouped into broader thematic categories through repeated comparison across interviews. This process allowed the identification of recurring patterns regarding advantages and limitations of digital communication.

The data were first coded openly (following Saldaña, 2016). The codes were then grouped into “axes” and a second round of axial coding was carried out before the systematic examination following the principles of reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006, 2019, 2022; Braun et al., 2014). The results were triangulated with what scarce other material was available during the pandemic, mainly publications from consulting companies (e.g. Riemensperger et al., 2020).

The second set of interviews was directly coded axially, using the axes from the first set of interviews plus two more on developments after the pandemic and lasting changes. The analysis did not yield new themes, but a number of additional insights and experiences leading to best practices. These will be presented and discussed alongside the results of the earlier analysis.

4 Findings

The thematic coding process revealed several recurring patterns in how organizations experienced digital communication during the pandemic and in the subsequent transition to hybrid work arrangements. The following sections present these themes and illustrate them with selected interview excerpts.

Based on these axes, four themes were defined, bearing in mind that for a theme to be defined, the importance of an idea in relation to the topic under scrutiny is key, and not the number of occurrences (Braun et al., 2014). “Candidate themes” (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 91) were identified and confirmed the structure, using both overarching themes plus some sub-themes, supporting the overarching one. This led to the thematic map on the topic of digital communication shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1

4.1 Theme 1: preparedness is key for the success of immediate changes during the COVID-19 crisis

The relative ease with which consultancies seem to have been able to introduce digital alternatives to personal communication successfully was, according to the participants, not due to pre-existing crisis management plans. Rather, prior experience with the communication tools and the availability of these tools and related infrastructure such as cameras were key. The transition was thus easy for the consultancies as compared to their clients. However, while the attitude toward this form of communication is positive, there were concerns about effectiveness. There is often relevant information which is not formally communicated and therefore has to be picked up through informal channels, such as conversations in shared physical spaces like coffee corners, which were largely unavailable during the crisis. Participants also emphasize that being present makes sure the client keeps the project in mind, and personal presence can lend importance to a meeting. Personal contact also has a motivational aspect and serves for relationship building (Participant 2 called it “social glue”):

“…if there's something that you can never do too much of, it's really communication with your people… just to say ‘hi', and on a Friday just to thank them for the week and just to have this ‘Schulterklopfer' [an approving pat].” (Participant 3)

In addition, the success of digital communication also depends on the people on the other side: many clients were ill-prepared, dead set against remote work until the pandemic, inexperienced users etc. These companies required external support, which was provided by consultancies as part of their paid service offerings.

Another factor is the type of client contact, and although the crisis was not over when the first round of interviews were recorded, some clients wished to get back to the ways they were used to and, as the second set showed, many did. The people and personalities involved also played a role, as well as the relationship between them:

“…it's important to differentiate between people you have a relation with […] or new business, where you're trying to make new contacts. These are two very different communication challenges.” (Participant 13)

Thus, overall, the kind of crisis management measures a consultancy took depended on how work had been done before and was at least guided by client expectations, which, as data suggests, were only fully understood after the first lockdown measures. In general, participants were satisfied with the infrastructure available, as most consultancies were well equipped with technical infrastructure and modern conference or seminar rooms. This was seen as a prerequisite for quickly switching to alternative electronic forms of communication as needed in the crisis. Being able to react quickly to the disruptions caused by the crisis gave consultants a head start, as most clients' infrastructure lagged behind. Still, some participants indicated that further improvements were needed. However, most of these were only implemented after the pandemic.

Despite this head start, some challenges were quickly identified: on top of content-creation and planning-related issues, most participants emphasized the impact on social interaction, which is considered an essential part of any consulting project. They further reported negative effects on internal communication and the dynamics of consulting life in general:

“It's really like a fully different consulting life […] No team events, I mean like the Christmas party, you know, with a tuxedo in a fancy location, and the last one was cooking together with your partner via Teams.” (Participant 4)

Introducing electronic means of communication also presented new challenges. For instance, quickly discussing a topic with the client was easier before when one met in the office. Due to the crises, meetings had to be set up in advance, and because of the additional effort needed to adapt to these changes, the quality of results declined and work was perceived as less effective. The implementation of these changes proved difficult and the adaptation process was described as stressful, partly due to the increased workload that accompanied the transition. In addition, contact restrictions were not limited to the clients' site but also to the own office, which created additional problems. Data security issues limited the available options, including the selection of tools. The latest interviews suggest that new concerns were added to the ones relevant during the pandemic, for instance that an increasing amount of European organizations—especially the public service—became wary of solutions where data might leave the EU and be either stored or processed elsewhere, e.g. in the US.

In contrast, some of the changes introduced had positive effects, especially around innovation, and created new opportunities for testing and learning:

“And fortunately, because of COVID, there has been a wave of digitalisation and even a non-digital native … switches to video communication. And that […] made meetings especially across border much easier and much quicker.” (Participant 5)

In summary, preparedness functioned as a latent capability that facilitated rapid and effective adaptation and thereby, despite some challenges, contributed to successful digital communication.

4.2 Theme 2: company culture is important and underwent changes

Structure and culture exert a strong influence, and from most respondents' point of view, their employer's company culture meant openness to new ways of working even before the pandemic, also around communication practices:

“Even before COVID we had the demand for a more flexible working environment, more flexibility to also work from home, flexible work models, part-time, remote, and all this…” (Participant 3)

The general openness of consultancies to change is accompanied by a willingness to learn and develop, oneself as well as the organization, a prerequisite for technological change (Nissen et al., 2019). This flexibility, however, cannot be taken for granted: being able to implement changes demands empowerment. Apparently, these cultural aspects led to transitions that were experienced as smooth. Participant 12 for instance mentioned that “…when I discuss it with you, I realize how we all already are used to this situation.” This allowed consultancies to come up with creative and efficient solutions.

While all respondents adapted to the situation and used electronic communication throughout the pandemic, some did not like spontaneous video calls. Others describe themselves as open to anything and always looking for improvements. However, many respondents also reported clients and colleagues to increasingly resent the crisis-induced restrictions, up to a point where they tried to work around them. Consulting culture and self-perception was also affected, and cultural choices had to be made. Respondents also missed face-to-face meetings because of the motivational aspect of it. In addition, the initial novelty associated with digital forms of communication gradually diminished over time.

“…a client meeting on site also gives me a lot of energy because I'm very excited about visiting places, especially when it's a new company. […] It might be more stressful to get there, but it also just gives you more energy...” (Participant 8)

The situation was further complicated by the necessity to coordinate these measures with clients' respective practices, especially considering the diversity of their IT systems. Furthermore, it was necessary to bring all users up to date, using training off and on the job, a prerequisite to being able to work effectively with the new means of communication. With regard to project work, participants also emphasized that effective collaboration was a crucial condition for success, particularly at the group level rather than at the individual level. While information could easily be exchanged via electronic means, the creative side was more of a challenge, especially with necessary emotional aspects of co-creation missing:

“…co-creation which you do face-to-face … in very crucial points of a project … For example, right now I'm working with the client on their social media plan and strategy [and] we exchanged some ideas to get the vibe of the client.” (Participant 6)

Some respondents also considered personal meetings outside of the business environment as part of their work, and actively seeking such encounters as part of their company culture. However, there were not many opportunities to do so during the pandemic. Some electronic cooperation tools are thought to address some of these issues and enhance creativity, but respondents were at a loss when asked how personal contact could be replaced should the crisis continue indefinitely. All participants expressed the wish to come back to at least occasional face-to-face meetings. This aspect of choosing more consciously which type of communication is most effective for which type of topic was a crucial one for post-pandemic communication design.

Communication patterns also changed, and some project team members or client contacts communicated far less, interacted in different ways or were quieter than before when using tools such as MS Teams or Zoom. In larger meetings, participants often withdrew visually by turning off their cameras:

“It's really dangerous that you'll lose the people who are just dialing in and sitting there, and after two minutes everyone is shutting down his video, the exact moment you have lost the people”. (Participant 9)

This can partly be addressed by using interactive tools or allowing moments of quietness, but it requires a large amount and a different type of concentration on the part of the consultant. In addition, electronic meetings can be frustrating: While a person might be at home, it is still impossible to leave and do other things when the meeting is boring or ineffective. This would be impossible in the office anyway, and is therefore not missed, but at home it seems to give rise to frustration. Some respondents described this phenomenon as the emergence of a distinct “electronic personality”, difficult to distinguish from the normal one, and challenging to manage for the organizer of an electronic meeting.

When looking into the underlying reasons for this phenomenon, it can likely be explained by the personalities of the people involved, and the difference in nature of electronically executed and face-to-face managed processes. The former tend to be more task oriented and small talk or gossip would have to be made “an explicit agenda point” (Participant 2) if wanted. Rules like using the “raised hand” symbol in electronic meetings tend to be more specific and are generally enforced more vigorously than in personal gatherings. Unlike in personal meetings, electronic meetings lack the possibility to communicate by non-verbal means like scoffing, shaking heads or moving hands. Therefore, in electronic communication contexts, the inability to speak substantially constrains interaction, with communication largely limited to non-verbal cues such as facial expressions, provided cameras are activated. In addition, some ways of self-expression as well as spontaneity are lost and the absence of—also non-verbal—feedback, leads to insecurity. Changing communication tools and processes thus can affect behavior and possibly also attitudes.

4.3 Theme 3: alternative means of communication were tested and improved

While electronic means were widely used, there was consensus that once the crisis ended, face-to-face contact will have to resume, mainly because of its effectiveness:

“You can do a whole project from A-Z for one year in a virtual environment, it's possible. But it's easier if you have client interaction on a personal level.” (Participant 9)

This theme addresses the possibilities and limitations of electronic communication and identifies areas in which its relevance was expected to persist beyond the crisis. Contact had to be reduced, but there was a clear feeling of loss around it. Respondents felt that the workarounds were less effective, and inefficient as it was difficult to reach people. A number of issues arose around nonverbal communication or content lost in electronic meetings. This was due to several factors which were difficult to manage remotely:

“When you're sitting in a room with someone, you can kind of sense the vibes... Walking through the halls, standing in the coffee corner, having a quick chat – this kind of spontaneous interactions […] the majority of these important discussions happened between the sessions.” (Participant 3)

“I don't see who's sleeping.” (Participant 12)

Moreover, communication during the pandemic needed to respond to the requirements of new tools and processes; ideally one learns to interpret the signals and characteristics that people exhibit when communicating electronically—different from face-to-face communication. Much of what was considered to be missing had to do with individual perception, sometimes just because of personal preferences, sometimes because respondents felt something was missing, but could not identify what it actually was. By the third year of the pandemic, clear signs of fatigue emerged with respect to digital alternatives to face-to-face events:

“…we had virtual yoga sessions, we had virtual coffee breaks, we had gin tasting, we had … I think there was a big hype at the beginning, and then I think it kind of leveled off. So I would do less but more consistently, more focused in order to not overdo it.” (Participant 3)

The limitations of having to communicate digitally and what they mean for the work of a typical consultant is summarized in Table 2.

Processes kept being adapted and an increasing number of new applications addressing some of these issues were introduced (Kashyap, 2022). On the other hand, electronic communication also exhibits clear limitations, and face-to-face interaction appears preferable in certain contexts. A key question concerns the specific situations in which in-person meetings are perceived as important or even necessary. In some cases, these decisions are shaped by clients, who prefer not to address particular issues electronically or seek greater control over communication processes:

“When it is a difficult problem, when it's highly political, my experience is: it doesn't really work, and also for my direct client counterpart, it didn't work either…” (Participant 12)

In certain contexts, it is necessary to at least visit the clients' site, for instance when doing technical due diligences. Some of the domains where respondents argue that face-to-face meetings are necessary or at least vastly superior to electronic communication also pertain to processual or organizational reasons, such as complex or large meetings. Respondents reflected on the perceived importance of certain meetings, especially those connected to what Participant 10 described as the project's “metaplot”. Comparable significance was assigned to business development activities, team bonding, and initial client meetings.

“… a lot of the sales activity dropped off [and consultants were forced to] significantly increase the availability of everything enabling a person to be accessed remotely.” (Participant 13)

The need for trust building also links into the difficulties in managing emotional issues remotely. In summary, respondents identified several contexts in which personal contact was perceived as superior to electronic communication; these are shown in Table 3.

It was expected from the beginning that consultancies would not return to their former ways but rather profit from what they learned in the crisis (Fregnan et al., 2022; Ng et al., 2025). Some of this pertains to the potential of increasing the use of electronic means, especially as it was found that at least for some exchanges, personal meetings were not necessary. Certain tasks only require relatively infrequent exchanges, for example IT development, and effectiveness improved with experience, also on the clients' side. Some aspects even got simplified. Although large meetings posed certain challenges, such as limited visibility of all participants, respondents emphasized that they were still manageable, referring to cases involving up to 85 participants.

The second set of interviews also yielded information on how digital communication tools were increasingly used for purposes beyond communication itself. For instance, the transcribing functions were often used when communicating digitally despite all being present so that no human note-taking was needed anymore. The result was then fed into an AI tool which created an official meeting protocol on its basis. This required some “training” of the tool but after a few attempts, this implementation saved time and added to accuracy. One participant even reported using the tool independently by dictating notes into it in the absence of other participants in order to generate a digital record. While this can also be achieved using other tools, it shows that people keep testing and expanding the use of digital means of communication, in this case extending it from pure communication into knowledge management.

Lastly, most respondents reported that in a one-to-one electronic meeting, it was possible to communicate nearly as if the conversation partners were in the same room. Switching one-to-one communication to electronic is much less of an issue than one-to-many. The learning process during the crisis has thus yielded many insights and experiences on how to manage such crises, on crisis management in general, and on new ways of designing workplaces and communicating with stakeholders. One of the central questions concerns how crisis management measures have influenced workplace communication in the post-COVID-19 context.

4.4 Theme 4: the crisis changed the workplace environment for good

Consultancies, or all companies for that matter, had a chance to profit from the experiences made during the pandemic, and improve the workplace as much as the circumstances would permit, because, as participant 7 put it,

“I think … of these digital meetings, the practical bonuses are just too good to abandon, so a lot of meetings will still happen in a digital way and there will also be a lot more people working from home.”

Consequently, consultancies and clients both wished to actively shape the future workplace, looking at aspects of effectiveness, to some extent efficiency, and motivation. Many respondents, through measures introduced in response to the crisis, see positive effects for both their own and their colleagues' work-life balance. Some consultancies already started investigating the possibilities early into the crisis, and discovered new aspects of flexibility. In the second set of interviews in particular, participants reported that the workplace had increasingly developed into a hybrid model, combining shared spaces for collaboration with flexible private work environments. A shift from remote work back to office-based settings was also observable, partly driven by efforts to regain control (Gänger, 2023). This, however, mainly applied to clients and far less to consultancies, which became more accustomed to virtual team collaboration.

Regardless, consultants increasingly had to choose their means of communication and their form of meeting clients on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, going to the office became a matter of choice. While preferences for face-to-face and electronic communication, as described above, are now largely taken for granted, they may be driven more by habituation than by objective evaluation, as described in one interview:

“[There is] a general cultural shift, which is moving from the idea that one would just simply chat face-to-face […] So there's a habit bit, a social bit…” (Participant 1)

Accordingly, how people co-operate and communicate has changed, and one of the practical implications is that managers need to consider that changing tools and processes affect behavior and possibly also attitudes. Observing these differences consciously will allow managing the change toward increasingly digital communication.

5 Discussion

Ensuring business continuity was the main goal of early crisis management. Two-way, discussion-oriented communication, which is central to consulting projects, differs fundamentally from one-way, broadcast-type messaging such as press releases and therefore requires distinct communication management strategies. WFH and remote working solutions worked well for consultancies, partly because of valuable prior experience, and people quickly acknowledging the advantages of flexible workplace solutions (see also Rohwer et al., 2024).

The findings suggest that digital communication tools do not simply replace face-to-face interaction but reshape organizational communication practices. Rather than representing a binary shift from physical to digital interaction, organizations appear to develop hybrid communication repertoires in which different communication channels are selected depending on task complexity, relational sensitivity, and organizational routines.

Positive experience with and pre-crisis attitudes toward “new work” and electronic communication influenced decisions and paved the way to quick solution design. Opportunities to meet in person were exploited, but concentration lay on building project management and delivery structures independent of in-person contact. Social media, however, does not seem to have played a role in the way consultancies addressed crisis related communication problems. These findings suggest that communicative effectiveness is shaped by cognitive load, relational sensemaking, and perceived social presence rather than solely by technological characteristics.

The importance of training and support in the introduction of digital communication tools was confirmed, extending even to external stakeholders who required assistance (Naucke and Schweska, 2020). The general change in attitudes toward remote work and communication is clear, both from an employers' and an employees' point of view (Donati et al., 2021; Toscano and Zappalà, 2021), and its increased acceptance helped responding to the contact restrictions. From an organizational psychology perspective, this shows how employees' perceived capability and confidence in using digital tools shape their willingness to engage with digitally mediated communication. In this sense, acceptance is not merely a function of tool availability, but also of whether users feel able to handle these tools competently in their everyday work.

Nevertheless, it is also clear that managers need to take into account varying preferences, educational backgrounds, and personal situations, which lead to different attitudes toward electronic communication and remote work. The fact that personality makes a difference when telework is introduced (Smith et al., 2015) still holds true. These differences may reflect varying needs for autonomy, differing tolerance for ambiguity, and preferences for socio-emotional vs. task-focused interaction. A proactive approach to such differences in managing digital collaboration and remote or hybrid work environments may allow organizations to turn them into an advantage rather than a source of friction. The data also provide evidence of generational differences in the use of digital tools and attitudes toward flexibility (Cabell et al., 2022; Bielefeld et al., 2025).

The findings did not provide evidence regarding the importance of specific forms of internal communication or the differing effects of informational vs. relational communication, as described by Einwiller et al. (2021). This could be due to the relatively small size of the average consultancy or the fluidity of relationships in project organization. However, the choice of electronic solutions is important. Consultancies, and often their clients too, pragmatically used what was available, but practices have evolved over the course of the crisis: new standards for business communication quickly developed.

The application of all communication means needed to be managed, their use well prepared and they are not suited for use with any audience. For instance, while large groups of people can be easily included in an electronic meeting, there is a risk that people do not pay attention and ensuring participation becomes increasingly difficult with size. Participants can easily withdraw from the meeting, and managing an event when only seeing a grid of many small faces or just initials becomes challenging and tiring (Waizenegger et al., 2020; Bailenson, 2021). This tendency becomes even more pronounced when emotions are involved, as the findings indicate that emotionally sensitive issues are less suitable for discussion via electronic communication. Participants reported that addressing conflict, uncertainty, or delicate interpersonal matters remotely is more difficult, as important nuances are easily lost. This suggests that emotionally laden interactions rely more strongly on rich social cues, subtle non-verbal feedback, and a sense of co-presence, which are only partially available in digitally mediated settings. In contrast, the loss of creativity (Bailenson, 2021) expected from shifting to mainly electronic communication was not a major issue.

Consultancies apparently found ways to counter these effects, among other things by using other tools together with the communication platform itself. The data also failed to show where a “Zoom fatigue” measurement might find a useful practical application. People became more proficient in their use of electronic alternatives and managed to address ever more issues. Still, at least with the technology available today, some topics, especially when requiring two-way communication, are best addressed through personal meetings (see for instance Lucius and Damberg, 2024; Tomprou et al., 2023).

On the whole, participants indicated that key communicative elements required for establishing personal relationships and trust were lacking, consistent with the observations of Serttaş (2021), despite the continued development of electronic tools aimed at addressing these shortcomings. This includes virtual lounges where participants can have private exchanges in the setting of larger electronic events. A distinction emerged between one-to-one communication and interactions involving larger groups, with fewer communicative losses reported in the former. Nevertheless, both consultants and clients expressed missing aspects of personal contact, and consultants' preference for face-to-face interaction (Deelmann, 2019) remained unchanged.

The main alteration to common practice is that the choices for form and means of communication are made in a more conscious way than before. Many companies have learned, or at least actively reflected, what kind of alternative is best suited depending on the situation (Galanti et al., 2023; Caputo et al., 2024). Within the scope of what is feasible, decisions are guided by criteria such as time, cost, effectiveness, available infrastructure, and user proficiency. The findings further suggest that these shifts are accompanied by changes in habits and preferences, indicating cultural adaptation, with some of these changes proving to be lasting. Digital solutions assumed a more prominent role in the post-crisis period, and a return to pre-crisis practices did not occur (Dimian et al., 2023; Bielefeld et al., 2025). Training, for instance, can be delivered more easily through electronic formats and administered more efficiently, as participants do not need to travel; however, it may be less effective for certain types of content. Table 4 shows a comparative overview of the findings.

Accordingly, communication infrastructure has been substantially improved during the crisis. The experiences with new and refined practices inform the recommendations described below. This study contributes to organizational psychology in three ways. First, it conceptualizes communicative effectiveness in hybrid work as situational and relational rather than medium-determined. Second, it extends research on remote and hybrid work by showing how communication practices stabilize after crisis conditions. Third, it provides an empirically grounded framework for aligning communication media with task complexity and relational demands. The contribution to the growing literature on digitally mediated work communication also is threefold. First, it provides qualitative insights into how organizations experienced and evaluated the advantages and limitations of digital communication tools during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, by drawing on interviews conducted at two different points in time, the study offers a longitudinal perspective on how communication practices evolved from crisis-driven digital interaction to more stable hybrid arrangements. Third, the findings highlight how organizations develop hybrid communication repertoires in which digital and face-to-face interaction are combined depending on the nature of the task and the relational context.

6 Conclusion and recommendation

This study has examined how digital communication practices evolved during crisis conditions and which of these practices persisted in hybrid professional services work. The results of this study answer the research question by showing that digital communication performs well for certain tasks, but remains limited in trust-building and (trust-)sensitive interactions. Digital communication can be equally effective or even advantageous for tasks such as routine coordination or one-to-one exchanges. The crisis thus functioned as a large-scale learning environment leading to improved practices and lasting acceptance of digital tools.

Whether consultancies' project culture and flexible organizational structures enhanced resilience cannot be stated with certainty. However, this industry reacted quicker than most clients and was able to build on better communication infrastructure. A long-term retention of changes made during the crisis is therefore likely in flexible environments such as professional services (Crişan and Marincean, 2023). This enables more distributed, digitally supported and especially “hybrid” communication solutions. However, space for social interaction (Vartiainen and Hyrkkänen, 2010) remains essential.

In summary, digital communication is advantageous in crises as it enables business continuity; it is time- and cost-efficient, allows locational flexibility, enables geographically dispersed teams to work together, supports documentation, and is faster to coordinate. Additionally, through its scalability, it helps with tasks like communication to large groups, ensuring the availability of experts regardless of their location, supports training and onboarding and fosters accelerated digital skills and tool adoption. Rather than replacing personal interaction, digital communication complements it, shifting organizational attention from physical presence to results.

There are also contexts in which digital communication is at least as effective as face-to-face interaction or offers different advantages, for instance when strong relationships are already established, for routine coordination and updates, project monitoring and interaction with digitally mature partners. In hybrid settings, digital communication complements, rather than replaces, personal meetings and signals confidence in employees' self-management (Fuchs et al., 2022). Overall, communicating digitally shifts the focus from presence to results. Environmental benefits through reduced travel come as a bonus.

Despite widespread adoption of digital means, face-to-face communication remains widely preferred, particularly for relationship building. This is especially the case in situations where communicative nuance is critical and digital media prove less effective. As discussed, there are also concerns around employee well-being in remote work settings or when mostly using digital communication, and even more than 3 years after the pandemic, there still is a discernible movement back to the office (Lucius and Damberg, 2024). However, due to the strengths of digital solutions, hybrid arrangements seem to prevail, particularly in professional services (Lawrence and Porwal, 2024) despite some challenges (Caputo et al., 2024; Potthast et al., 2025).

The following managerial decision rules are therefore recommended on the basis of the results of this research:

• Use digital communication for routine, technical, or informational exchanges.

• Prefer face-to-face interaction for trust building, emotional issues, and business development.

• Rely on digital tools in crisis situations to ensure continuity and speed.

• Use one-to-one digital meetings confidently when relationships already exist.

• Adopt hybrid formats consciously, selecting the medium based on task complexity and emotional load.

• Exploit digital documentation features (recording, transcription) even in co-located settings.

• Continuously review and adapt communication practices as tools evolve.

7 Limitations and suggestions for further research

The recommendations in this article are based on experiences made during a pandemic, and despite the corroboration exercise and the second set of interviews 3 years after the end of the pandemic, much information is influenced by the crisis management aspects around the introduction of digital communication. On top of that, information on the potential role of artificial intelligence as discussed in John and Thakur (2021) could not be found in the data. The topic will therefore require further attention and the monitoring of future developments.

This article also exhibits the limitations associated with purposive sampling. Participant selection was based on a personal network which, although wide, is limited and within the boundaries of the, as discussed quite homogeneous, consulting industry in the DACH-region. This was addressed by sampling a group of people as diverse as possible within the given constraints but might give undue importance to the experiences of the actual participants.

As with all qualitative case studies, the findings are based on a limited number of interviews within a specific organizational and regional context. The participating organizations operate primarily within the consulting sector in the DACH region, which may limit the transferability of the results to other industries or cultural settings. Future research could extend this work by examining communication practices in different sectors or by combining qualitative insights with quantitative approaches to further explore how digital communication tools influence collaboration, trust-building and employee well-being in distributed work environments.

The data also did not yield much information on differences between companies regarding the crisis management approaches to communication. Reactions among consultancies look uniform, but as discussed, require access to infrastructure which might be easy to achieve in central Europe, but not necessarily everywhere. Thus, transferability will have to be verified not only for other industries but also regions.

References

• 1

  AnakpoG.NqwayibanaZ.MishiS. (2023). The impact of work-from-home on employee performance and productivity: a systematic review. Sustainability15, 1–18. doi: 10.3390/su15054529

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AndresenS.LipsA.MöllerR.RusackT.SchröerW.ThomasS.et al. (2020). Erfahrungen und Perspektiven von jungen Menschen während der Corona-Maßnahmen.Hildesheim: JuCo Surveys1, 4–17. German.

  • Google Scholar

• 3

  BailensonJ. N. (2021). Nonverbal overload: a theoretical argument for the causes of Zoom fatigue. APA OpTechnol. Mind Behav.2, 1–6. doi: 10.1037/tmb0000030

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  BeardenF. C. (2020). Simple Reminders in This Difficult Time: Maintain Regular Contact With Clients and Prospects, Continue to Charge Your Professional Batteries, and Stay Motivated. Arlington, VA: Advisor Today, 8–9.

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  BielefeldL.FuchsO. Lore E PfeifferH.PoslawskiK. (2025). The importance of flexibility at work for Generation Z in Germany. J. Econ. Manag. Trade31, 102–119. doi: 10.9734/jemt/2025/v31i91352

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  BlairG.PaganoR. (2023). Strategies for managing technologi change: insights from practitioners. J. Prod. Discourse1, 94–102. doi: 10.36349/tjllc.2023.v01i01.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  BłaszczykM.PopovićM.ZajdelK.ZajdelR. (2022). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the organisation of remote woin IT companies. Sustainability14, 1–14. doi: 10.3390/su142013373

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol.3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  BraunV.ClarkeV. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual. Res. Sport Exerc. Health11, 589–597. doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  BraunV.ClarkeV. (2022). Toward good practice in thematic analysis: avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing researcher. Int. J. Transgender Hth24, 1–6. doi: 10.1080/26895269.2022.2129597

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  BraunV.ClarkeV.RanceN. (2014). “How to use thematic analysis with interview data,” in The Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Handbook, eds. A. Vossler and N. Moller (London: SAGE), 183–197.

  • Google Scholar

• 12

  CabellJ.WoodK.HighC.CooperA.DoganI.GonM.et al. (2022). Staying in touch during COVID-19: how communication methods varied by age and COVID-related experiences. Qual. Res. Rep. Commun. 1–13. doi: 10.1080/17459435.2021.2016921

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  CaputoA.ToscanoF.DolceV.De AngelisM. (2024). Leadership in face-to-face and virtual teams: a systematic rature review on hybrid teams management. Informing Sci. Int. J. Emerg. Transdiscipline27, 1–25. doi: 10.28945/5342

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  ClaesvorbeckS. (2020). Home Office in Corona-Zeiten. DGB. Available online at: https://www.dgbrechtsschutz.de/fuer/arbeitnehmer/themen/beitrag/ansicht/arbeitnehmer/homeoffice-in-coronaten/details/anzeige (Accessed December 9, 2020). German.

  • Google Scholar

• 15

  CrişanE. L.MarinceanA. (2023). The digital transformation of management consulting companies: a review. Inf. Syst. e-Bus. Manage.21, 415–436. doi: 10.1007/s10257-023-00624-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  CurziY.FabbriT.PistoresiB. (2020). The stressful implications of remote e-working: evidence from Europe. Int. J. Biometrics15, 108–119. doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v15n7p108

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  DeelmannT. (2019). Consulting und Digitalisierung.Essentials. Wiesbaden: SpringerGa. German.

  • Google Scholar

• 18

  DimianG.MirelaG.BoldeanuD. Maftei, M. (2023). How digitalization, work-family balance, and work efficiency can influence employees preferences for telewng in the future. Eng. Econ.34, 139–157. doi: 10.5755/j01.ee.34.2.30090

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  DonatiS.ViolaG.ToscanoF.ZappalàS. (2021). Not all remote workers are similar: technology acceptance, remote work beliefs, and wellbeing of remote workers during the second wave of the COVID-19 pmic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health18:12095. doi: 10.3390/ijerph182212095

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  DziubekS.FuchsO.SchwarzS. (2022). Effects of workplace digitalisation on the motivation of German office employees. IJBM6, 39–48. doi: 10.26666/rmp.ijbm.2022.6.6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  EinwillerS.RuppelC.StranzlJ. (2021). Achieving employee support during the COVID-19 pandemic – the role of relational and informational crisis communication in Austrian organizations. J. Commun. Manag.25, 233–255. doi: 10.1108/JCOM-10-2020-0107

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  EngelsB. (2020). Corona: Stresstest für die Digitalisierung in Deutschland. Ecor IW-Kurzbericht 23/2020. Cologne: Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft. German.

  • Google Scholar

• 23

  FregnanE.ScarattiG.CioccaL.IvaldiS. (2022). New working capabilities for co with COVID time challenges. Front. Psychol.13:814348. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.814348

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  FuchsO. (2022). Improved Practices for Client Contact Management in a Crisis During Restrictions on Personal Contact as Caused by Covid-19 (dissertation). Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

  • Google Scholar

• 25

  FuchsO. (2023). Saving time without sacrificing rigour - maintaining data immersion in thematic analysis. Int. J. Sci. Acad. Res.4, 6330–6345.

  • Google Scholar

• 26

  FuchsO.WeisslederS.NajmaeiM. (2022). A probing German case study on trust building factors around onlinedership in virtual work environments. Int. J. Bus. Manag.6, 30–39. doi: 10.26666/rmp.ijbm.2022.4.3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  GalantiT.De VincenziC.BuonomoI.BeneveneP. (2023). Digital transformation: inevitable change or sizable opportunity? The strategic role of HR management in Industry 4.0. Adm. Sci.13:30. doi: 10.3390/admsci13020030

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  GängerJ. (2023). Besser zurück ins Büro - Das Home Office macht unproduktiver.Cologne: n-tv. Available online at: https://www.n-tv.de/wirtschaft/Das-Homeoffice-macht-unproduktiver-article24317527.html (Accessed August 11, 2025). German.

  • Google Scholar

• 29

  GreimelN.KanbachD.ChelaruM. (2023). Virtual teams and transformational leadership: an inteive literature review and avenues for further research. J. Innov. Knowl.8:100351. doi: 10.1016/j.jik.2023.100351

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  HegstromT. (2009). Message impact: what percentage is nonverbal?West. J. Speech Commun.43, 134–142. doi: 10.1080/10570317909373961

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  HöddinghausM.NoheC.HertelG. (2023). Leadership in virtual work settings: what we know, what we do know, and what we need to do. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol.33, 188–212. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2023.2250079

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  HodzicS.PremR.NielsonC.KubicekB. (2023). When telework is a burden rather than a perk: the roles of knowledge sharing and supervisor social support in mitigating adverse effects elework during the COVID-19 pandemic. Appl. Psychol.73, 599–621. doi: 10.1111/apps.12491

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  JohnJ. D.ThakurR. (2021). Long term effects of service adaptations made under pandemic conditions: the new post COVID-19 normal. Eur. J. Mark.56, 1679–1700. doi: 10.1108/EJM-08-2020-0607

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  KashyapV. (2022). 16 best team chat apps (to use in 2022): who's here to stay? ProofHub. Available online at: https://www.proofhub.com/articles/team-chat-apps (Accessed February 12, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 35

  KatebS.RuehleR. C.KroonD. P.van BurgE.HuberM. (2022). Innovating under pressure: adopting digital technologies in social care organizat during the COVID-19 crisis. Technovation115:102536. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102536

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  KeightleyS.DuncanM.GardnerB. (2023). Working from home: experiences of home-working, health behavior and well-being during the 2020 UK COVID-19 lockdown. J. Occup. Environ. Med.65, 330–336. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002757

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  KimPark, I.AnH.YunB.YoonJ.-H. (2023). Teleworking is significantly associated with anxiety symptoms and sleep disturbances among paid workers in the COVID-19 era. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health20:1488.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  KleinR. (2020). Homeoffice Voraussetzungen, Vorteile und Tipps. Passion4Business GmbH, FAZ Group. Available online at: https://www.fuer-gruender.de/wissen/unternehmen-fuehren/personal/personalwesen/homeoffice/ (Accessed July 1, 2020). German.

  • Google Scholar

• 39

  KortschT.RehwaldtR.SchwakeM. E.LicariC. (2022). Does remote work make people happy? Effects of flexibilion of work location and working hours on happiness at work and affective commitment in the German banking sector. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health19:9117. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19159117

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  KrausS.ClaussT.BreierM.GastJ.ZardiniA.TiberiusV. (2020). The economics of COVID-19: initial empirical evidence on how family firms in fivropean countries cope with the corona crisis. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res.26, 1067–1092. doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-04-2020-0214

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  LawrenceX. F.PorwalA. (2024). Impact of hybrid work model on productivity. Shanlax Int. J. Manag.11, 211–214. doi: 10.34293/management.v11iS1-Mar.8095

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  LengenJ.KorderA.-C.RohwerE.VolkerMache, S. (2021). Soziale Isolation im Homeoffice im Kontext der COVID-19- Pandemie - Hinweise für die Gestaltung von Homeoffice im Hinblauf soziale Bedürfnisse. Zentralbl. Arbeitsmed. Arbeitsschutz Ergon.71:63–68. German. doi: 10.1007/s40664-020-00410-w

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  LuciusZ.DambergS. (2024). Why we need employees back at the office: the effect orkplace design on creativity in organizations. Creat. Innov. Manag.33, 654–670. doi: 10.1111/caim.12611

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  MaleckiF. (2020). Overcoming the security risks of remote working. Comput. Fraud Secur.2020, 10–12. doi: 10.1016/S1361-3723(20)30074-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  MdhluliN. (2025). Perils of perpetual connectivity: navigating the ‘always-on' culture he modern workplace. SA J. Hum. Resour. Manag.23:a3019. doi: 10.4102/sajhrm.v23i0.3019

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  MüllerK.SamtlebenC.SchmiederJ.lichK. (2020). Corona-Krise erschwert Vereinbarkeit von Beruf und Familie vor allem für Mütter. Berlin: DIX Wochenbericht. German.

  • Google Scholar

• 47

  NauckeC.SchweskaJ. (2020). Homeoffice in Zeiten von Corona - Datenschutz. Roedl and Partner. Available online at: https://www.roedl.de/de-de/ddien/publikationen/newsletter/kompass-gesundheit-soziales/documents/datenschutz_home_office.pdf (page no longer available. The content can be made available by the author on request) (Accessed June 29, 2020).

  • Google Scholar

• 48

  NgE.StantonP.LukaszewskyK.AwS.LyonsS.SchweitzerL.et al. (2025). Megatrends cting the world of work: implications for human resources management. Pers. Rev.54, 1113–1149. doi: 10.1108/PR-02-2025-0100

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  NissenV.FüßlA.WerthD.GuglerK.NeuC. (2019). “On the current state of digital transformation in the German market for business consulting,” in Advances in Consulting Research: Recent Findings and Practical Cases, ed. V. Nissen (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 317–339.

  • Google Scholar

• 50

  PiumelliF. (2019). “Consulting in the age of digital transformation,” in Advances in Consulting Research, ed. V. Nissen (Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland), 359–370.

  • Google Scholar

• 51

  PotthastA.RojonC.FuchsO. (2025). Employee well-being in a hybrid working environment: the role of PERMA and leadership styles. J. Bus. IT Soc. Sci.4, 18–28. doi: 10.51470/BITS.2025.04.02.18

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  QueirozA. C. M.LeeA. Y.LuoM.FauvilleG.HancockJ. T.BailensonJ. N. (2023). Too tired to connect: understanding the associations between video-conferencing, social connection and well-being through the lens of zoom fatigue. Comput. Human Behav.149:107968. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107968

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  RamachandranV. (2021). Stanford Researchers Identify Four Causes for ‘Zoom fatigue' and Their Simple Fixes. Stanford News: Stanford University. Available online at: https://news.stanford.edu/2021/02/23/four-causes-zoom-fatigue-solutions/ (Accessed March 3, 2021).

  • Google Scholar

• 54

  RichardsonJ.KelliherC. (2015). “Managing visibility for career sustainability: a study of remote workers,” in Handbook of Research on Sustainable Careers (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing), 116–130.

  • Google Scholar

• 55

  RiemenspergerF.ShefferS.SolfC.BeckerS. (2020). Work-Lead-Space. Accenture. Available online at: https://www.accenture.com/de-de/insights/consulting/work-lead-space (Accessed September 20, 2020).

  • Google Scholar

• 56

  RohwerE.HarthV.MacheS. (2024). “The magic triangle between bed, office, couch”: a qualitative exploration of job demands, resources, coping, and the role of leadership in remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Public Health24:476. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-17995-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  RysavyM. D. T.MichalakR. (2020). Working from home: how we managed our team remotely with technology. J. Libr. Adm.60, 532–542. doi: 10.1080/01930826.2020.1760569

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  SahalA.AbdullahiM.MohamudI.ElmiA. (2024). Remote work and telecommuting: a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of HRM practices post-pandemic. Int. J. Electr. Electron. Eng.11, 312–325. doi: 10.14445/23488379/IJEEE-V11I11P130

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  SaldañaJ. (2016). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

  • Google Scholar

• 60

  SandbergR.LöwstedtM. (2025). ‘The happily overworked professional': unpacking the autonomy paradox in excessive work regimes amongst construction site managers. Saf. Sci.184:106760. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2024.106760

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  SerttaşA. (2021). Impact of Covid-19 on communication. J. Contemp. Res. Bus. Adm. Econ. Sci.1, 1–4. doi: 10.52856/jcr311280114

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  SinghV. (2018). Language and Body Language. Jalesar: Govt. P. G College.

  • Google Scholar

• 63

  SmithS. A.PatmosA.PittsM. J. (2015). Communication and teleworking: a study of communication channel satisfaction, personality, and job satisfaction for teleworking employees. Int. J. Bus. Commun.55, 44–68. doi: 10.1177/2329488415589101

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  StürzR.StumpfC.MendelU.HarhoffD. (2020). Digitalisierung durch Corona. Munich: bidt Institute, Bavarian Academy of Science. German.

  • Google Scholar

• 65

  TomprouM.KimY. J.ChikersalP.WoolleyA.DabbishL. (2023). Correction: speaking out of turn: how video conferencing reduces vocal synchrony and collective intelligence. PLoS ONE16:e0287800. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287800

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  ToscanoF.ZappalàS. (2021). Overall job performance, remote work engagement, living with children, and remote work productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mediated moderation model. Eur. J. Psychol. Open80, 133–142. doi: 10.1024/2673-8627/a000015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  VartiainenM.HyrkkänenU. (2010). Changing requirements and mental workload factors in mobile multi-locational work. New Technol. Work Employ.25, 117–135. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-005X.2010.00243.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  WaizeneggerL.McKennaB.CaiW.BendzT. (2020). An affordance perspective of team collaboration and enforced working from home during COVID-19. Eur. J. Inf. Syst.29, 429–442. doi: 10.1080/0960085X.2020.1800417

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  WeichbrodtJ.SchulzeH. (2020). “Homeoffice als Pandemie-Maßnahme - Herausforderungen und Chancen,” in COVID-19: Ein Virus nimmt Einfluss auf unsere Psyche, ed. C. Benoy (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer), 93–101. German.

  • Google Scholar

• 70

  WeisF. (2022). “Work-Life-Balance und hybride Arbeitsgestaltung – Empfehlungen für Führungskräfte bei hybrider Teamarbeit,” in Hybride Arbeitsgestaltung: Herausforderungen und Chancen, ed. A. Cloots (Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden), 103–111. German.

  • Google Scholar

• 71

  ZappalàS.SwanzyE. K.ToscanoF. (2022). Workload and mental well-being of homeworkers: the mediating effects of work-family conflict, sleeping problems, and work engagement. J. Occup. Environ. Med.64, e647–e655. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002659

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar