Christiane R. Stempel
Jan Dettmers- Institut für Psychologie, FernUniversität Hagen, Hagen, Germany
Introduction: Hybrid work models have become increasingly common, changing supervisors’ own work characteristics and their leadership demands. Based on work design research, we aim to assess hybrid work characteristics of supervisors and the job demands associated with leadership in hybrid settings.
Methods: We conducted 33 expert interviews with direct supervisors who work in hybrid work models. We asked them about their work characteristics and leadership demands, using content analysis to identify key deductive and inductive themes.
Results: Regarding supervisors’ work characteristics, findings show that specific work characteristics like information management or extended availability are perceived as typical of hybrid work. Furthermore, organizational factors and technical prerequisites play a major role in the supervisors’ working conditions and their leadership. In terms of leadership demands, it became evident that work design is especially important in hybrid settings due to reduced possibilities for direct interactions. Beyond, the quality of direct leadership interactions in hybrid environments is perceived demanding when decoding communication or perceiving problems among employees. With respect to role modeling as a leadership demand, three topics emerged when supervisors reflected on their role in hybrid work: Issues of trust and control, establishing quality social relationships, and questions around self and staff care.
Discussion: Our study contributes to a comprehensive assessment of work characteristics and specific leadership demands in hybrid settings and provides new insights for the theoretical discussion on work design. In practice, the results highlight the need to analyze and adequately design hybrid work characteristics for supervisors to enable them to perform their leadership tasks.
1 Introduction
Since the coronavirus pandemic in the early 2020s, flexible working hours and remote work locations have become more common, contributing to the rise of hybrid work models (Flüter-Hoffmann and Stettes, 2022; Kniffin et al., 2021). Entgelmeier et al. (2023) characterize the alternation between onsite and remote work as hybrid work settings, regardless of their specific design features. This alteration can be viewed at an individual level or team level, with the flexibility of working hours often playing an additional role when several people are involved (Bellis et al., 2024). Variation in work locations and times is linked to sets of different work characteristics (e.g., autonomy, availability of information, social interactions and support), placing new demands on organizations and coordination (Fan and Moen, 2023; Rudolph et al., 2021; Rudolph et al., 2021; Xie et al., 2019). However, similar to the mythical creature Chimera, which is composed of different animal characteristics, hybrid collaboration emerges from a unique blend of working characteristics that are still not well understood. Supervisors are faced with the challenge of taming this workplace chimera to optimally organize hybrid work for themselves and their employees. To prevent overwhelming supervisors and to optimally support them in managing hybrid work, a closer examination of the work characteristics and leadership demands in this context is necessary.
In past research on work design, the significance, change, and impact of work characteristics have mostly been viewed through the lens of employees (Fan and Moen, 2023; Oldham and Hackman, 2010; Parker and Grote, 2022). The same applies to hybrid work characteristics (Xie et al., 2019). While supervisors are recognized as key agents in shaping, digital and hybrid work (Antoni and Syrek, 2017; Cortellazzo et al., 2019), the job demands and resources at their disposal have often been neglected. Most studies tend to focus on specific working characteristics linked to certain leadership behaviors (Stein et al., 2020; Stempel et al., 2023). However, precisely because hybrid work involves unique configurations of work characteristics that differ from or expand settings that are shaped by fixed working hours and locations (Fan and Moen, 2023; Parker and Grote, 2022; Xie et al., 2019), it is essential to draw a more comprehensive picture for supervisors. Furthermore, previous research indicates that supervisors may be exposed to different work characteristics than their employees (Zimber et al., 2015; Nielsen and Taris, 2019), but what this means for hybrid work settings remains unclear. Thus, the first aim of our study is to explore the job demands and resources of supervisors in hybrid settings.
A key job demand that distinguishes supervisors from their employees is the assumption of leadership responsibility (cf. Zimber et al., 2015). In research, leadership responsibility is often operationalized as a simple “yes” or “no,” without specifying the diverse demands placed on supervisors. Thus, a differentiated picture of the demands associated with the role of the leader is still lacking (cf. Arnold and Rigotti, 2023). This is not surprising, as previous research has focused primarily on the impact of leadership on employees, but neglected its role as a job demand for supervisors (Arnold, 2017; Bakker et al., 2023). In this respect, hybrid work presents a specific set of leadership demands, such as increased coordination and communication requirements (Krehl and Büttgen, 2022). Therefore, in the second research question, we aim to broaden the scope by assessing key leadership demands in the hybrid context, after focusing on the demands and resources of leaders themselves as a foundation in the first research question.
To explore these two foci—supervisors’ own work characteristics and leadership demands directed toward employees—in hybrid work situations, we use the framework of the job demands resources theory (JD-R, Bakker et al., 2023). Studying work characteristics of supervisors and leadership demands from a work design perspective is still a relatively new research interest with sparse empirical findings. Thus, we chose a qualitative research approach and conducted semi-structured interviews to obtain a comprehensive picture of supervisors’ work characteristics and their leadership demands in hybrid work environments.
We contribute to existing research by zooming in on the different job demands, and resources in hybrid settings, offering a more nuanced picture of the work characteristics the supervisors face. Here, the qualitative approach and the explicit focus on supervisors adds fresh insights into the theoretical discussion around job demands and resources (JD-R; Bakker et al., 2023). Moreover, we expand the understanding on the nature of job demands by including leadership as job demand, a perspective that has not been sufficiently considered in the model so far. In practice, our results provide clear references for approaching the design of hybrid work for supervisors and their respective teams. A discussion of the specific leadership demands might help organizations to reflect and refine their strategies for hybrid work practices to better support supervisors in these environments.
2 Theoretical background
2.1 Supervisors’ work characteristics in hybrid work
The uniqueness of hybrid work lies in the specific combination of onsite and remote settings (cf. Parker and Grote, 2022; Rigotti et al., 2024; Ong and Johnson, 2023). Xie et al. (2019) identified boundlessness, multitasking, demand for constant learning, and non-work-related interruptions as specific hybrid work characteristics but did not differentiate between supervisors and employees. However, research indicates that work characteristics of supervisors differ from those of employees, for instance in terms of access to resources, intensity or quantity of stressors (Herttalampi et al., 2022; Skakon et al., 2011; Zimber et al., 2015). However, while new constellations of different hybrid work characteristics are likely (Fan and Moen, 2023; Parker et al., 2017), a comprehensive assessment of supervisors’ work characteristics is still lacking.
To explore work characteristics of supervisors in hybrid work settings, we rely on the classification of job demands and resources as outlined by the JD-R model (Demerouti et al., 2001). Job demands are challenging and require continual effort, whereas the resources are empowering and motivating aspects of the work (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). The main propositions of the model include a motivational and a strain path. The first explains how job resources are related to motivation and, consequently, to favorable outcomes, whereas the second describes how job demands that persist over a time can lead to strain and unfavorable outcomes (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). In a comprehensive review, the authors of the JD-R discuss extensive empirical evidence and additions to the model (Bakker et al., 2023). As it provides a framework for a basic classification of work characteristics, the JD-R model seems suitable for exploring the job demands and resources in hybrid settings as a starting point for work design research in this context. In our study, we will therefore draw on JD-R to examine the following research question (RQ):
RQ1: What are the job demands and resources that characterize work for supervisors in hybrid work settings?
2.2 Leadership as job demand in hybrid work settings
Leadership demands are specific job demands that are associated with the responsibilities of the leader or supervisor role. Some are formalized in job descriptions, but others are more a set of varying expectations toward the supervisor that they are not always aware of (cf. Cloutier and Barling, 2023). The uniqueness of a leadership demand lies in its bidirectionality, as it is relevant both as a job demand for the supervisor and as an action directed toward the employees. Furthermore, as previous research has shown, performing leadership is not independent of the work characteristics of supervisors (Stempel et al., 2023). According to the conservation of resources theory (COR, Hobfoll et al., 2018), job resources can stimulate cycles of resource gain that provide supervisors with the necessary reserves to handle leadership responsibilities (cf. Stein et al., 2020; Stempel et al., 2023). For instance, a high degree of autonomy in hybrid settings might help a supervisor to engage in strategic planning for communication with her or his team. In contrast, a lack of resources or the threat of a resource loss can trigger resource loss cycles (Hobfoll et al., 2018). As Sherf et al. (2019) show, managers who were confronted with a high workload tended to treat their employees less fairly. The example by Sherf et al. (2019) indicates that the implementation of leadership demands requires an investment of resources or effort from the supervisor and can therefore be considered a demand in terms of the JD-R model (Dóci et al., 2020; Stempel et al., 2023).
Examining leadership demands from a work design perspective is a novel approach. It provides specific opportunities to shape leadership tasks in response to rapidly changing work characteristics (Herttalampi et al., 2022; Nayani et al., 2018). Hybrid work might evoke a demand for specific leadership. For example, increased flexibility is often linked to indirect forms of control that depend more heavily on management by objectives. These systems must be carefully designed to prevent negative consequences (Deci et al., 2016).
To comprehend and systematize the variety of leadership demands in a hybrid environment, it seems helpful to organize them along the three mechanisms through which supervisors exert influence. First, supervisors influence their employees by designing their work characteristics, such as offering autonomy, organizing work or distributing work tasks (Nielsen and Taris, 2019; Stempel et al., 2023; Vincent-Höper and Stein, 2019). Research indicates that the indirect influence via the design of work characteristics might have been underestimated in the past (Arnold, 2017; Schaufeli, 2015; Vincent-Höper and Stein, 2019; Yizhong et al., 2019). In comparison, there is extensive prior research on the second mechanism: the direct interactions between supervisors and their employees. This relational aspect predominately focuses on leadership behaviors like transformational or destructive leadership (e.g., Arnold, 2017; Mackey et al., 2021; Montano et al., 2023). And third, supervisors are role models for their employees, providing orientation and conveying the norms and expectations of an organization (Koch and Binnewies, 2015; Kranabetter and Niessen, 2017; Stempel and Siestrup, 2022). The latter presupposes that they reflect on their own leadership role, their expectations as well as the goals and norms of their team and organization (Haslam et al., 2011). While there is a wealth of research findings on all three mechanisms, the extent to which the specific leadership demands are shaped by a hybrid context remains largely unexplored. Given this gap, we structure our second research question along these mechanisms to explore whether specific leadership demands are linked to hybrid leadership:
RQ2: What leadership demands do supervisors associate with hybrid work?
3 Methods
3.1 Research design overview
We chose a qualitative approach and conducted semi-structured interviews to map the experiences of the supervisors in hybrid work settings, because comprehensive findings on work characteristics and leadership demands are still lacking. The interview guide contains general questions about hybrid work settings and the understanding of the own leadership role as well as a systematization of work characteristics based on the recommendations of the World Health Organization (2022). To analyze the data, we conducted a content analysis according to Kuckartz and Rädiker (2022).
3.2 Participant recruitment
Before the start of the project, we submitted our research project to the university’s ethics committee and received approval for the study. Participation was voluntary, and we informed the participants about the purpose of the study, the procedures, and the anonymization of the data obtained. Additionally, supervisors consented to the interviews being audio-recorded and received no incentives or compensation for their participation. Recognizing that flexible time and location models are not possible or common in every industry, we intentionally approached supervisors who lead hybrid teams. Nevertheless, the participants of our study stem from diverse industries. We aimed to acquire a comprehensive picture of work settings that allows a certain degree of generalization across industries. Additionally, we only included supervisors who had direct leadership responsibilities and, therefore, regularly interacted with their employees. We stopped the acquisition once we considered the variety of industries and positions sufficient (in terms of data saturation) to provide insights into diverse work characteristics of supervisors in hybrid work settings.
3.3 Sample
We conducted expert interviews with 17 female and 16 male supervisors in Germany resulting in an overall sample of 33 participants. The supervisors were between 24 and 63 years old with an average of 40.39 (SD = 8.84) years. They had various occupational backgrounds, such as engineering, health care, or environmental protection (see Appendix A for supplementary materials). On average, the supervisors reported an overall leadership experience of 8.15 (SD = 6.08) years, a tenure in their current position of 4.90 (SD = 4.68) years, and responsibility for on average 13 to 14 employees (M = 13.58, SD = 19.49).
3.4 Data collection
Our research team comprises the (first) author as a senior researcher in work and organizational psychology, three master’s students in psychology and one master’s student in sociology. Before beginning data collection, the research team familiarized themselves with the literature on hybrid work and the interview guidelines. The guidelines were tested in a trial interview and checked for comprehensibility and adequacy. The four master’s students collected data between May and August 2022 contacting supervisors for one-to-one meetings via private and university professional networks. The interviews were conducted either through video call or in-person, based on the interviewees’ preference. The average duration of the interviews was 43 min, and the video image was not captured. All interviews were audio recorded, anonymized, and content transcribed by the research team. The coding of the material was undertaken by all members of the research team and included the number of the interview transcript, the initials of the interviewer and the marked beginning of the sequence in the MAXQDA 2022 file (VERBI Software, 2021; e.g. A1_SK_5).
3.5 Interview guidelines
The structure of the interview guidelines (see Appendix B for supplementary materials) was based on general recommendations for work characteristics, including psychosocial risk assessment (Dettmers and Krause, 2020; World Health Organization, 2022). The first part of the guidelines ensured a standardized introduction of the topic, terminology, and the proceedings. Additionally, demographic (age, gender) and organizational background variables (industry, tenure of supervisor in current position, overall tenure leadership, number of employees supervised) were collected before the audio recording started. The following part addressed general questions about the perceptions of the hybrid work situation, which was often linked to the circumstances of the (post-)pandemic situation due to the timing of the interviews.
After exploring general views on the hybrid work situation, the supervisors were asked about their understanding of their own role and leadership demands as supervisors of hybrid working teams. The next section dealt with questions about conducive and hindering work characteristics for themselves and for their employees. We used established guidelines from the World Health Organization (2022) and Dettmers and Krause (2020) to structure the interview questions around work content, work organization, working hours, social relationships, and work environment.
Participants completed an interactive ranking task at the end of the questionnaire that was not relevant to this study. Finally, we asked the supervisors about open points, additions, and their current state of mind. We informed them about the further procedure of the research project and the overall length of the interview was noted.
3.6 Data – analytic strategies
The transcribed material was coded by the author and the research assistants (see Appendix C for the original quotations in German and their English translations). They coded the material based on sense sections (passages that form a self-contained meaning), whereby text passages could be assigned several codes. In the initial review of the study material, we coded work characteristics based on the deductive categories provided by Dettmers and Krause (2020) and Table 1 for conceptualization and anchor examples. Additionally, it was possible to derive and suggest initial inductive categories based on the material not covered by the classification of work characteristics by Dettmers and Krause (2020) and Figure 1.
Table 1. Codes of work characteristics based on Dettmers and Krause (2020) with anchor examples (references to hybrid work highlighted with*).
Figure 1. Process of coding procedure for research question 1 and 2 (RQ1, RO2).
3.6.1 Research question 1 (RQ1)
For this study, we followed an iterative coding process to address the two afore-mentioned research questions. Based on the JD-R framework (Demerouti et al., 2001), the work characteristics were abstracted to conducive (job resources) and challenging/hindering (job demands) characteristics. Following the JD-R model’s definition of job resources (Demerouti et al., 2001), we coded statements as “job resource” that described work characteristics as conducive or were neutral about work characteristics that are considered resources in the literature (e.g., variability; Dettmers and Krause, 2020). We coded statements as “job demands” when they were considered challenging or hindering as well as when they neutrally described work characteristics that are seen as stressors or demands in the literature (e.g., emotional dissonance).
It is important to note that the supervisors sometimes classify the lack of demands or stressors as a resource or vice versa. We incorporated this in our coding and highlight particularities in the discussion. Nevertheless, we reported the results according to the systematization of job resources and demands proposed by Dettmers and Krause (2020) and Table 1 for an overview of the concepts. The systematization is based on the overarching categories of work content, work organization, working time, social relationships, work equipment and work environment. Additionally, we built an inductive category to capture working conditions that relate to the organizational context (cf. World Health Organization, 2022). In an iterative coding procedure, job demands, and resources were discussed, summarized, and abstracted for a systematic analysis to identify particularities of hybrid work characteristics. The results of the content analysis are based on the frequency of codes across all interviewed supervisors.
3.6.2 Research question 2 (RQ2)
To analyze the leadership demands that supervisors report with respect to hybrid work, we categorized the statements along three mechanisms by which supervisors influence their followers: first, by designing the work of their employees (Nielsen et al., 2008; Vincent-Höper and Stein, 2019); second, by direct leadership interactions (e.g., Arnold, 2017) and third, by being a role model to their employees (Koch and Binnewies, 2015; Kranabetter and Niessen, 2017). For the first category of work design, we applied the same structure that we established for the work characteristics of the supervisors themselves. Under the second category, we categorized all statements that included a direct or immediate leadership interaction. The third category included statements in which supervisors reflect on their role model behavior. Again, we chose the same iterative approach discussing the codes within the research team until reaching agreement on the coded segments. The results reflect the most frequently mentioned codes in the interviews.
4 Findings/results
4.1 Research question 1: Leaders’ job demands and resources in hybrid work settings
In the following, results of leaders’ job demands and resources in hybrid settings are reported along the deductive categorization system and the inductive category with anchor examples listed in Table 1 highlighting work characteristics linked to hybrid work with *.
4.1.1 Work content
With respect to work content, participating supervisors reported autonomy as the most frequent resource and established a clear connection to the hybrid work setting. The supervisors appreciated the freedom to organize their work according to their own preferences (Table 1: C4_LG_43).
In terms of job demands, supervisors reported insufficient information management as common challenge in hybrid settings. Supervisors mentioned both, information overload (Table 1: D6_EA_179) but also a lack of information (Table 1: B2_SDG_55).
We also identified statements about work content that contradict the common conception as a job demand or resource. For instance, one supervisor states that hybrid work reduced emotional demands in online situations for him:
“Inappropriate behavior is a completely different matter in real life than virtually. If I now think about what inappropriate behavior could be, hypothetically speaking, someone is somehow making a fool of you, i.e., a candidate or customer is somehow making a fool of you, that’s not nearly as unpleasant in a virtual video call as it would be face-to-face. So, really face-to-face. Of course, that cushions it a bit.” [C6_LG_59]
4.1.2 Work organization
Supervisor statements on the job demands subsumed in work organization show a direct connection to hybrid working. For instance, supervisors described role clarity as a general resource but established a clear connection to the hybrid setting when talking about challenges due to role ambiguity (Table 1: B4_SDG_83).
Work intensity was the job demand that a large majority of the participating supervisors found challenging, and they often mentioned it in relation to either the hybrid work setting or perpetual change. For instance, one supervisor depicted an increase in meeting density causing time pressure (Table 1: C4_LG_75). In terms of work interruptions, supervisors described them as a major general job demand. On the one hand, supervisors made references to the hybrid setting, often describing interruptions due to attending multiple communication channels (Table 1: C8_LG_41). On the other hand, supervisors explained the possibility of working outside the workplace as a major advantage of hybrid work, because they are less interrupted and can use the time for focused work:
“In the office, more often now [referring to interruptions], when there are more people there, you are also interrupted more often. Working from home is actually less in comparison. If you take yourself out of the phone line and if you have thought everything through, you are not interrupted as often. It’s actually better, yes.” [B7_SDG_67]
Concerning communication and cooperation, supervisors, on the one hand, report less personal contact due to the reduced exchange opportunities in hybrid work settings (Table 1: A5_SK_64). On the other hand, some supervisors underline the better responsivity based on technologies applied in hybrid settings:
“And thanks to these new communication options, such as Teams, the connection is always perfect to the company. No matter who has something, you can always get in touch, you can always provide support. It works really well.” [A3_SK_5]
4.1.3 Working hours
With respect to working hours in hybrid settings, supervisors perceived generally more job resources than demands. Time gains due to, e.g., reduced commuting (B2_SDG_55: “So basically a time saving. The fact that you. that I save myself the drive.”) and increased flexibility with respect to working hours and locations, were among the most frequently mentioned resources (B7_SGD_13: “So, I’m totally flexible. I adapt to what’s going on at the time.”). In this context, participants reported a better life domain balance in hybrid work settings, were they have the chance to work from home at times:
“If you work remotely, I’d say you can make it a bit, yes, nicer so that you have a bit more time left for yourself. That’s definitely the biggest advantage for me.” [B2_SDG_55]
Additionally, some supervisors experienced a better structure and increased plannability of tasks (Table 1: C1_LG_27). Job demands related to working hours, as for example overtime, are often mentioned in relation to work intensification (Table 1: C7_LG_21). Moreover, participants reported extended availability and insufficient recovery as a job demand, which was more pronounced due to the hybrid work situation (Table 1: B5_SDG_50).
4.1.4 Social relationships
In terms of social relationships, participants did not establish a direct link to hybrid work but saw the points as general resources. Noticeable is that supervisors regarded lack of support (C2_LG_5: “[…] when you get so little guidance from your supervisor”), and appreciation (A6_SK_53: “I think there is a lack of appreciation. […] Why have you forgotten us?”) as hindering.
4.1.5 Work equipment and work environment
Insufficient work equipment and work environment are seen as risks for occupational safety and health. In our study, supervisors described their equipment and their environment frequently as a resource for their hybrid work situation. For instance, in terms of equipment, one supervisor praised the possibilities related to the usage of advanced technology:
“Sharepoint and OneDrive allow documents to be shared or screens to be shared more easily than was the case in the past. Instead, you used to send documents back and forth to each other and say, on page so and so section so and so, which was much more complicated.” [A5_SK_54]
Nevertheless, in other cases inadequate equipment (Table 1: B2_SDG_7) and work environment (Table 1: B3_SGD_25) was considered a hindering demand.
4.1.6 Organizational factors (inductive category)
Organizational context factors are not included in the systematization offered by Dettmers and Krause (2020). Supervisors named a range of organizational job resources in hybrid work settings. For instance, two supervisors mentioned a small team size as advantageous for working hybrid. Moreover, participants reported support structures ranging from the provision of helpful guidelines and consulting services to training and learning opportunities (Table 1: C8_LG_21). Participants considered the lack of support in the above areas, for instance in training, as a significant job demand (A5_SK_54: “No, it’s just that there was no training in advance on how to lead an employee at a distance.”).
Additionally, some supervisors reported that aspects of the organizational culture were hindering factors in their hybrid work setting (Table 1: A1_SK_99). Demands associated with organizational change were not exclusively associated with hybrid work. Participants described permanent change processes that sometimes overlapped and were seen as additional demands for themselves and their employees (Table 1: D7_EA_294).
In summary, not all work characteristics are equally relevant for hybrid work (see Table 1). In terms of work content, autonomy and information management are most often related to hybrid work as well as the concepts regarding work organization. With respect to working hours, all aspects have been associated with hybrid work, with the exception of working hours design, which appear to be more general in nature. Social work characteristics of supervisors seem less specific to hybrid work. In contrast, work environment and work equipment as well as organizational support and organizational culture show specific characteristics in the context of hybrid work.
4.2 Research question 2: Leadership as a job demand in hybrid work settings
Below, the results for research question 2 are reported along the three mechanisms of leadership: work design, direct interaction. and role modeling. Anchor examples are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Codes of leadership demands in hybrid work settings with anchor examples.
4.2.1 Designing work for the employees
4.2.1.1 Work content
Hybrid leadership demands regarding work content centered around the design of information. On the one hand, some supervisors highlighted that advanced technology makes it easier to structure information for their employees:
“We have learned a lot during this time, i.e., during the whole phase, to work with it and to do it digitally and to structure ourselves there and that always gives me as a leader…, I know, I can see how far something is, we have already become much more digital. That’s really. Yes, that’s a big advantage. It’s also much more useful in leadership if you know where things are and you do not have to call and ask and so on.” [B7_SDG_37]
On the other hand, new challenges in information management arise such as avoiding information overload within the team (Table 2: C2_LG_39). Some participants in our study emphasized the importance of providing autonomy to their employees in hybrid work environments (Table 2: C4_LG_41). Two supervisors found it difficult to address emotional burdens that are associated with their employees’ preference to work from home (Table 2: B1_SDG_23).
4.2.1.2 Work organization
With respect to work organization, all supervisors made statements that stressed coordination or communication tasks as essential in hybrid work settings. These two categories were the most frequently coded among leadership demands, including the following good practice example about improved coordination and communication:
“Yes, the way I deal with my employees is a bit more organized. So, there are simply very specific weekly planning meetings, there is a tool for this, a tool that makes it easier […] … simply communicate and collaborate with each other at a distance.” [C8_LG_27]
But even more often associated challenges such as the distribution of workload when not working onsite (Table 2: B2_SDG_93). Another example for designing communication was provided by a supervisor who explained how s/he re-structured communication in response to the hybrid setting (Table 2: B8_SDG_7). In addition, participants emphasized the clarification of roles as an important leadership task in general and particularly in hybrid work settings (Table 2: B5_SDG_5).
4.2.1.3 Working hours
Participants described the importance of designing working hours in hybrid settings to enable face-to face meetings (B7_SDG_25: “I make sure that when we are all in the jourfix… or have the jourfix, that we are all in the office.”) or to optimize flexibility (Table 2: B7_SDG_17). In their statements, the supervisors noted that hybrid work was associated with the danger of blurred boundaries between their employees’ private and work life. Therefore, the need to design availability and enable detachment from work was perceived as even more relevant in hybrid working. Being aware of this, some supervisors still seemed to struggle with addressing this issue (Table 2: C8_LG_17).
Reduced visibility due to hybrid work was relevant for monitoring excessive working hours and whether employees were taking breaks. One supervisor described how closely s/he tried to control working time, especially for trainees (Table 2: C4_LG_29).
4.2.1.4 Social relationships
The need to organize social relationships in hybrid work settings was often mentioned by the leaders. Reduced visibility and addressability of employees was considered challenging for exercising leadership aimed at fostering team spirit and social cooperation. For instance, one supervisor complained that he perceived less empathy among the team members in hybrid settings (B6_SDG_25: “But empathy, i.e., interpersonal things, are also very much lost in my view.”) and another stressed the importance of creating touchpoints to stay in contact (Table 2: C1_LG_29). Therefore, supervisors thought about how to design feedback and social support in hybrid work settings (Table 2: C6_LG_33). In this context, onboarding and establishing social relationships was mentioned as a specific leadership demand that had become more challenging (Table 2: D1_EA_25). Further, the leadership demand of problem solving was perceived as a new quality, and some supervisors pointed out that they explicitly address conflicts and other difficult topics in person (Table 2: B9_SDG_3). At the same time, the participants in our study perceived it as a hybrid leadership advantage to be able to address the individual needs of their employees more easily due to the increased flexibility. For instance, one supervisor referred to a case in which s/he was able to successfully respond to an employee’s care-giving need (Table 2: A1_SK_93).
4.2.1.5 Organizational context
With respect to organizing work equipment and the work environment for their employees, some supervisors mentioned their dependency on organizational policies or context factors. A positive example was given by one supervisor describing a general organizational arrangement regarding access to office furniture (Table 2: D3_EA_29), whereas another referred to problems with equipment provided for remote working (B4_SDG_83: “I could lead better from a distance, i.e., from a distance, if I, if the employees had better hardware. But that’s not possible because it’s not available.”).
4.2.2 Direct interactions
Concerning direct leadership interactions with employees, supervisors stressed difficulties arising from reduced face-to-face interactions. For instance, when interacting via intermediaries such as video or telephone calls, some supervisors described a loss of important information about the “soft factors” of communication (Table 2: A5_SK_9). Based on this reduced “quality” when communicating via an intermediary technical tool, participants described it more challenging to engage in staff care and provide support (Table 2: D6_EA_25). In terms of immediate feedback, some supervisors reported challenges (B2_SDG_61: “With digital communication, it’s a different story. An email is not written as quickly as you just stick your head in somewhere or you meet at the coffee machine to get coffee.”), while others believed that technical connectivity makes it easier (Table 2: B1_SDG_49). Additionally, some supervisors were particularly pleased with their increased responsiveness for the employees (Table 2: D3_EA_57).
4.2.3 Supervisor role (modeling)
The participating supervisors reflected on several topics regarding their role as a supervisor in a hybrid work setting. However, three areas of insecurity were noticeable among the leaders. The first topic dealt with the relationships at work illustrating the wish to establish social resonance with and among employees while avoiding estrangement. Participants expressed concerns about establishing quality social relationships when communication was partly mediated digitally, and people saw each other less in person. One example vividly illustrates the wish for social resonance, reflected by the sensory oriented description of the communication, while expressing the fear of estrangement at the same time:
“So, I perceive it as challenging because certain things cannot be replaced by technology. Let me take the example of emotions, sensing, feeling, the facial expressions and gestures of the other person, which are much more difficult to perceive via a screen. I also found it uncomfortable at first, because I have to say that my claim as a leader is precisely that I have these antennae. It was something we all had to learn to deal with. There was no other way. We could not leave people on their own.” [B6_SDG_5]
Related to sustainable social relationships, the second topic centers around trust versus control. Reduced visibility demanded more trust on the part of the leader, while at the same time results had to be tracked and fairness among employees ensured. One supervisor described her struggle to find a balance between the two poles when exercising leadership (Table 2: B1_SDG_15). The issue of trust versus control alone indicates insecurities about the responsibilities of the own role as a leader. However, while problems regarding trust versus control affect the task-related level, questions regarding care address the person level. On the one hand, participants acknowledged staff care as an essential part of the leadership role (Table 2: C2_LG_19). On the other hand, supervisors struggled with the extent of their responsibility with regard to drawing boundaries. For instance, one statement showed that the supervisor understood employees possibly neglected breaks or exhibited excessive work behaviors that could be described as deliberate self-endangerment yet was helpless meeting staff care responsibilities:
“Nobody is instructed to work outside normal working hours, not at all. I do not expect that here, and I do not expect that at home either. But if you want to do it because it’s beneficial for you, then you should do it. But of course, you then have less influence on whether the rest periods etc. are adhered to. You can of course point this out the next day if “You did not pay any attention to the rest periods” or “You worked more than 10 h in a row, that’s not possible!” but there’s not much more you can do.” [B1_SDG_51]
In addition to reflecting on their own leadership role and responsibilities, we asked explicitly about the participants’ role modeling behaviors. Some supervisors had not thought about it (B6_SDG_13: “In fact, I have not given much thought to how I feel in this situation.”) or considered it not important when not working on site (B2_SDG_31: “So, from my perspective, the health-oriented behavior in mobile working does not play or did not play a role for us.”). Other supervisors gave examples showing that they were aware of their role modeling function in hybrid settings usually connecting it to topics like availability requirements (A4_SK_50: “I do not send any emails at the weekend that I can still send out on Sunday evening at 9 p.m., because nobody reads them then anyway.”), overtime (Table 2: C1_LG_39), or health behaviors (B10_SDG_24: “I still make sure that I’m doing well and that I’m conserving my resources in this area. I’ve had problems with that in the past, so now I pay particular attention to making sure it fits.”). Interestingly, several supervisors reported differing behavioral standards for themselves versus their employees. For instance, a contradictory statement revealed that the supervisor deliberately endangered himself while attempting to assert care responsibilities for his employees:
“With the workload I have no limits for myself. I take a completely different approach with my colleagues. They finish at 18:00. It’s rare that I ask someone to help me or deliver something at 6 p.m. or after 6 p.m. Yes, I’m 100 % behind that. If people are ill, they should stay at home longer. So, I’m 100 % behind people recovering and having a good work-life balance. I could not care less about that. I’m a massive workaholic.” [D9_EA_33]
5 Discussion
The aim of our study was to explore leaders’ work characteristics and the leadership demands they face in hybrid work settings. If we first look at the supervisors’ own work characteristics, it can be said that most work characteristics used to describe the general workplace also play a role in hybrid settings. In this respect, the chimera of the hybrid work seems to be composed primarily of creatures familiar to us. Nevertheless, our results show that certain aspects might be more pronounced in hybrid settings, suggesting a different weighting of job resources and job demands (see also Xie et al., 2019). The flexibility associated with hybrid work (Entgelmeier et al., 2023; Rudolph et al., 2021) is reflected in our findings regarding the perception of increased autonomy and predictability, but also work time demands like lack of recovery or overtime.
This tension between autonomy as a job resource and as a potential (temporal) job demand, which also entails health risks, has been discussed in previous research (Mazmanian et al., 2013; Väänänen et al., 2020). However, studies indicate that the negative consequences of autonomy cannot be attributed to autonomy alone, but are primarily due to the simultaneous increase in other job demands and thus depend on additional contextual factors (Kubicek et al., 2017; Dettmers and Bredehöft, 2020). These findings underscore the necessity of closely examining the constellations of job demands and job resources and their effects in hybrid contexts.
It is noteworthy that supervisors emphasize conditions related to work organization (role ambiguity, work intensity, work interruptions, and lack of communication) in the context of hybrid work, understanding them not only as a demand but also as a resource. In particular, the option to work remotely with greater focus and fewer interruptions, as well as increased responsivity, are often considered positive features of hybrid work (cf. Bellis et al., 2024). Not surprisingly, the assessment of a range of hybrid work characteristics, such as interruptions, lack of communication, information management, and work equipment, is significantly shaped by the access to, and quality of information and communication technologies (ICTs; cf. Bellis et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2020). Moreover, since supervisors operate at the interface between the organization and the employees, organizational support as well as hindrances determined their possibilities to design hybrid work. For instance, the provision of good hybrid work equipment and an adequate working environment for supervisors depends strongly on organizational preconditions. Thus, hybrid settings are characterized by a specific pattern of job demands and resources whose interplay and impact calls for further investigation (Ong and Johnson, 2023; Parker and Grote, 2022).
Based on the exploration of the work characteristics of supervisors, our second research question was dedicated to leadership responsibilities as a specific job demand for supervisors in hybrid settings. Our findings show a very nuanced picture of leadership demands in hybrid settings organized by work design, direct leadership interactions and role modeling (see Table 2). In general, an increase in flexibility concerning working time and location and reduced opportunity for direct interaction seem to necessitate targeted work design leadership (cf. Bellis et al., 2024). Studies on the task and people-oriented remote leadership in crises show similar results, stressing the need for coordination, communication, and the facilitation of social interaction (Bellis et al., 2022; Krehl and Büttgen, 2022). Zooming in on the variety of leadership tasks associated with work design shows that it is characterized by the specifics of the hybrid work arrangement that Xie et al. (2019) describe as reflecting the “increasingly diffusive, polychronic, disruptive and evolving nature of work” (p. 502).
Besides the leadership demands associated with work design, supervisors also perceive a different quality of direct leadership interactions in hybrid work settings. Reduced direct contact and visibility changes the way supervisors communicate and establish relationships (Bellis et al., 2022, 2024; Nayani et al., 2018). Our findings show that supervisors in hybrid settings seemingly need to invest more energy in decoding communication and perceiving problems among their employees. However, the tasks of providing immediate feedback and being responsive were sometimes considered simpler and sometimes more difficult in hybrid settings. One explanation for this could be the underlying contextual factors or the aforementioned need to plan and design social interactions in such a way that they meet the requirements of hybrid work situations. Another explanation could be the individual preferences and appraisals of the leadership demands by supervisors (cf. Ma et al., 2021; Mitchell et al., 2019).
In terms of reflecting one’s own leadership role and role modeling behaviors, three topics related to hybrid work emerged. First, supervisors expressed insecurity about the dimension of trust versus control. On the one hand, supervisors acknowledged that more trust was needed in hybrid settings because micro-managing was neither always possible nor useful. Especially, because employees cherished the autonomy that came along with flexible work characteristics (Stempel and Siestrup, 2022). On the other hand, there was responsibility for outcomes and performance. Here, some supervisors struggled to position themselves adequately. A second topic that emerged was the challenge to establish social resonance in hybrid settings and avoid social estrangement (see Rosa, 2016). Less overlap of working hours and locations among the team members made it increasingly difficult to establish sustainable social relationships and a team spirit or avoid feelings of loneliness (Bellis et al., 2022, 2024; Parker and Grote, 2022). The third dimension, which was the subject of the hybrid role reflection, was care versus self-endangerment. Self-endangerment as a set of excessive work behaviors has been associated with flexible work characteristics and adverse health effects (Deci et al., 2016; Yokoyama et al., 2022). In our interviews, supervisors were concerned about staff- and self-care in increasingly boundaryless work environments (Bellis et al., 2022; Xie et al., 2019). Reduced visibility and information quality in hybrid settings as well as an increased need for indirect control demanded extra effort to execute staff care and to avoid self-endangerment. In this context, reflections regarding the self-care of the supervisor or own excessive work behaviors played a role. For organizations, these topics seem to be relevant to address to (re)-define leadership roles and reduce ambiguity related to leadership responsibilities.
5.1 Implications for theory
Our findings provide new impulses for the theoretical discussion on the work characteristics of supervisors. First, we notice difficulties taking a look at the clear classification of job resources and job demands as proposed by JD-R (Bakker et al., 2023), because the individual appraisal seems to be decisive (cf. Ma et al., 2021; Mitchell et al., 2019). In our interviews, supervisors appraise a lack of job demands sometimes as a job resource or vice versa. For instance, supervisors in our interviews appreciated a well-functioning information flow as a job resource, particularly for their work in hybrid settings, whereas others described a lack of information or information overload as a classical job demand. This contrasts with the statement by Bakker et al. (2023) that “a low score on a job demand is not a resource” (p. 42) even though the authors acknowledge that different occupations have different job demands and resources. The challenge-hindrance framework addresses this problem of classifying job demands by offering a differentiation based on the valence of the job demands (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Sonnentag et al., 2023). Nevertheless, in our study the appraisal not only concerns the nature of job demands but also job resources or a lack thereof. This finding aligns with a study on work characteristics and health, which demonstrated that low demands can reduce the health risk while low resources increase it (Dettmers and Stempel, 2021). Overall, we assume that not only occupations differ in their job demands and resources (Bakker et al., 2023), but also that work arrangements such as hybrid work or the supervisor position are composed of a specific pattern of high or low demands and resources (e.g., Parker and Grote, 2022; Rigotti et al., 2024; Xie et al., 2019). Thus, an analysis of working condition profiles in different work settings or roles might be a sensible approach to estimate consequences and initiate targeted work design (cf. Ong and Johnson, 2023). This is particularly relevant, because supervisors’ capacity to perform leadership is closely linked to their job demands and resources (Sherf et al., 2019; Stempel et al., 2023).
By investigating our second research question on leadership as a demand for supervisors in hybrid settings, we add another layer to the theoretical discussion on job demands and resources. Within the framework of the JD-R theory, leaders and leadership are primarily discussed as a potential resource or demand for employees (Bakker et al., 2023). Shifting the focus to leadership responsibilities as a job demand for supervisors reveals their bidirectional nature. Providing adequate leadership might be a resource for employees while constituting a demand for the supervisors because the associated tasks tie up their resources (Dóci et al., 2020; Stein et al., 2020; Zwingmann et al., 2016). However, in line with the proposed gain spirals in COR and JD-R theory (Bakker et al., 2023; Hobfoll et al., 2018), we assume that over time well-designed leadership tasks can also be a resource that feed back into the supervisors’ personal and conditional resources. In general, the work design perspective so far has been insufficiently considered in leadership research. However, as our results show, it is becoming increasingly important, especially in hybrid contexts. The development of an integrative leadership theory that encompasses the various mechanisms of leadership would enable a more holistic research approach.
5.2 Implications for future research and practice
Our study on leaders’ work characteristics in hybrid work settings highlights the importance of work design for leaders. Future research should investigate the interplay of (hybrid) work characteristics and leadership demands in relation to outcome variables like health, motivation or performance. For instance, our results suggest that hybrid work characteristics are likely to have a profile of job demands and resources that might differ from non-hybrid settings. We agree with Parker and Grote (2022) that testing the impact of a certain constellation of job demands and resources might deliver important insights regarding the optimal work design for different work arrangements. Here, it would be important to operationalize the precise arrangements of hybrid work accordingly (e.g., spatial/temporal distance, location; Hill et al., 2022). Additionally, time aspects could be considered by conducting longitudinal studies testing the gain or loss cycles that have been theoretically proposed (Bakker et al., 2023; Hobfoll et al., 2018; McClean et al., 2019).
Moreover, our research shifts the focus from leadership as a resource or demand for employees to its significance as a job demand for supervisors. This new perspective raises many questions, such as for instance how explicit leadership demands are spelled out, how conscious supervisors are about their tasks or what are the consequences for supervisors and employees when neglecting them.
Addressing these questions could help to identify specific tasks and competencies associated with hybrid leadership that could be incorporated in leadership development programs to provide supervisors with adequate development possibilities. To tame the chimera of hybrid work in practice, an in-depth analysis of the actual work characteristics of supervisors and employees—specifically, for the different locations and configurations that constitute hybrid work—might provide a good basis for adjusting job demands and resources accordingly. However, based on our results, we would recommend including organizational context factors like change processes and demands associated with leadership (e.g., on work design). Building on such an analysis, organizations could provide job resources that are tailored to the needs of their supervisors. Additionally, our findings indicate that organizations should offer a clear orientation on expectations and responsibilities regarding the role and tasks of supervisors in hybrid work settings to reduce ambiguity and insecurities.
5.3 Limitations
Our study is based on data obtained in expert interviews with 33 leaders. Even though the insights stem from a range of occupational backgrounds and demographics, future studies are needed to quantify and generalize the findings. In addition, the readiness to participate in a study on hybrid work might have led to a self-selection of supervisors that are, for example, particularly interested in the topic or have rather positive experiences. Furthermore, despite the semi-structured interview guidelines, the interviews were conducted by four different interviewers with personal differences in interview styles and focus that might have influenced answers of the participants.
For the deductive classification, we used the job demands and resources as categorized by the World Health Organization (2022) respectively by Dettmers and Krause (2020) to get a comprehensive overview of the hybrid work characteristics. Nevertheless, there are work characteristics based on other systematizations that are not covered in this classification. In addition to the theoretical problems, we discussed above regarding appraisal, the valence of the audio-recordings and the transcripts was not always clearly determinable. Multiple codes could be assigned to one text segment that additionally could be of differing length. For that reason, we decided not to report the number of codes for each category but still weighted the statements in terms of content based on their prominence across the interviews. That means, for instance, that some aspects were reported by almost all supervisors whereas others were only named by a few. Similarly, clearly assigning the leadership demands along the theoretical mechanisms of work design, direct interaction, and role modeling based on the statements was not always possible because they linguistically overlapped. Furthermore, the interview material is extensive, and we limited our scope to two research questions that we applied to the text. Thus, the focus is on work characteristics and leadership demands not taking personal variables on demographics or occupational background factors into account.
6 Conclusion
Our comprehensive analysis of supervisors’ work characteristics in hybrid work settings indicates a pattern of job demands and resources that might differ from exclusively onsite work. Moreover, hybrid work is associated with specific leadership demands that underline the importance of work design by supervisors. Thus, future research should investigate the special features of onsite versus off-site work and their interaction. For practice, we recommend an assessment of the work characteristics and leadership demands to enable adequate work design.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Ethikkommission FernUniversität Hagen. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.
Author contributions
CS: Supervision, Project administration, Validation, Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Software, Resources, Visualization. JD: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Generative AI statement
The authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1650717/full#supplementary-material
References
Antoni, C. H., and Syrek, C. (2017). Digitalisierung der Arbeit: Konsequenzen für Führung und Zusammenarbeit. [digitalization of work: consequences for leadership and cooperation]. Gruppe Interaktion Organ 48, 247–258. doi: 10.1007/s11612-017-0391-5
Arnold, K. A. (2017). Transformational leadership and employee psychological well-being: a review and directions for future research. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 22, 381–393. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000062
Arnold, M., and Rigotti, T. (2023). How's the boss? Integration of the health-oriented leadership concept into the job demands-resources theory. J. Manag. Psychol. 38, 419–433. doi: 10.1108/JMP-01-2023-0030/full/html
Bakker, A. B., and Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: state of the art. J. Manag. Psychol. 22, 309–328. doi: 10.1108/02683940710733115
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., and Sanz-Vergel, A. (2023). Job demands-resources theory:ten years later. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 10, 25–53. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-053933
Bellis, P., Cunial, M., and Trabucchi, D. (2024). Mastering hybrid worlds through digital leadership: the role of agility in fostering innovation. Bus. Horiz. 67, 369–380. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2024.04.002
Bellis, P., Trabucchi, D., Buganza, T., and Verganti, R. (2022). How do human relationships change in the digital environment after COVID-19 pandemic? The road towards agility. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 25, 821–849. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-02-2022-0093
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., and Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers. J. Appl. Psychol. 85, 65–74. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.65
Cloutier, A. E., and Barling, J. (2023). Expectations of leaders’ mental health. J. Leadershi. Organ. Stud. 30, 276–296. doi: 10.1177/15480518231178637
Cortellazzo, L., Bruni, E., and Zampieri, R. (2019). The role of leadership in a digitalized world: a review. Front. Psychol. 10, 1–21. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01938
Deci, N., Dettmers, J., Krause, A., and Berset, M. (2016). Coping in flexible working conditions – engagement, disengagement and self-endangering strategies. Health Work 9, 37–51. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-32331-2_4
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. J. Appl. Psychol. 86, 499–512. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
Dettmers, J., and Bredehöft, F. (2020). The ambivalence of job autonomy and the role of job design demands. Scand. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 5:8. doi: 10.16993/sjwop.81
Dettmers, J., and Krause, A. (2020). Der Fragebogen Zur Gefährdungsbeurteilung Psychischer Belastungen (FGBU) [The Questionnaire for Psychological Risk Assessment at Work]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie A&O 64, 99–119. doi: 10.1026/0932-4089/a000318
Dettmers, J., and Stempel, C. R. (2021). How to use questionnaire results in psychosocial risk assessment: calculating risks for health impairment in psychosocial work risk assessaent. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18:7107. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18137107
Dóci, E., Hofmans, J., Nijs, S., and Judge, T. A. (2020). Leaders under pressure: time pressure and state core self-evaluations as antecedents of transformational leadership behaviour. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 29, 515–524. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2020.1714717
Entgelmeier, I., Meyer, S., Tisch, A., and Backhaus, N. (2023). Das Büro als sozialer ort: Zusammenarbeit in hybriden Arbeitswelten (the office as a social place: collaboration in hybrid working environments). Arbeit 32, 111–132. doi: 10.1515/arbeit-2023-0008
Fan, W., and Moen, P. (2023). The future(s) of work? Disparities around changing job conditions when remote/hybrid or returning to working at work. Work. Occup. 52, 91–129. doi: 10.1177/07308884231203668
Flüter-Hoffmann, C., and Stettes, O. (2022). Homeoffice nach fast zwei Jahren Pandemie: Ein Rück-und Ausblick über die Verbreitung und Struktur der räumlichen und zeitlichen Flexibilisierung von Arbeit in Deutschland, Europa und den USA [working from home after almost two years of the pandemic: a review and outlook on the spread and structure of spatial and temporal flexibilisation of work in Germany, Europe and the USA] 2/2022 IW-report. Available online at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/249325 (Accessed January 17, 2024).
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., and Platow, M. J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power. New York, NY and Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Herttalampi, M., Wiese, B., and Feldt, T. (2022). Leaders’ intensified job demands: their multi-level associations with leader-follower relationships and follower well-being. Work Stress 37, 78–99. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2022.2080776
Hill, N. S., Axtell, C., Raghuram, S., and Nurmi, N. (2022). Unpacking virtual work’s dual effects on employee well-being: an integrative review and future research agenda. J. Manage. 50, 752–792. doi: 10.1177/01492063221131535
Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P., and Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: the reality of resources and their consequences. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 5, 103–128. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640
Kniffin, K. M., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., Antonakis, J., Ashford, S. P., Bakker, A. B., et al. (2021). COVID-19 and the workplace: implications, issues, and insights for future research and action. Am. Psychol. 76, 63–77. doi: 10.1037/amp0000716
Koch, A. R., and Binnewies, C. (2015). Setting a good example: supervisors as work-life friendly role models within the context of boundary management. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 20, 82–92. doi: 10.1037/a0037890
Kranabetter, C., and Niessen, C. (2017). Managers as role models for health: moderators of the relationship of transformational leadership with employee exhaustion and cynicism. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 22, 492–502. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000044
Krehl, E.-H., and Büttgen, M. (2022). Uncovering the complexities of remote leadership and the usage of digital tools during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative diary study. Ger. J. Hum. Resour. Manage. 36, 325–352. doi: 10.1177/23970022221083697
Kubicek, B., Paškvan, M., and Bunner, J. (2017). “The bright and dark sides of job autonomy” in Job demands in a changing world of work: impact on workers' health and performance and implications for research and practice. eds. C. Korunka and B. Kubicek (Springer International Publishing/Springer Nature), 45–63. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-54678-0_4
Kuckartz, U., and Rädiker, S. (2022). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, praxis, Computerunterstützung [qualitative content analysis: Methods, practice, computer support]. 5th Edn. Weinheim Basel: Beltz Juventa.
Ma, J., Liu, C., Peng, Y., and Xu, X. (2021). How do employees appraise challenge and hindrance stressors? Uncovering the double-edged effect of conscientiousness. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 26, 243–257. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000275
Mackey, J. D., Ellen, B. P. III, McAllister, C. P., and Alexander, K. C. (2021). The dark side of leadership: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of destructive leadership research. J. Bus. Res. 132, 705–718. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.037
Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., and Yates, J. (2013). The autonomy paradox: the implications of mobile e-mail devices for knowledge professionals. Organ. Sci. 24, 1337–1357. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1120.0806
McClean, S. T., Barnes, C. M., Courtright, S. H., and Johnson, R. E. (2019). Resetting the clock on dynamic leader behaviors: a conceptual integration and agenda for future research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 13, 479–508. doi: 10.5465/annals.2017.0081
Mitchell, M. S., Greenbaum, R. L., Vogel, R. M., Mawritz, M. B., and Keating, D. J. (2019). Can you handle the pressure? The effect of performance pressure on stress appraisals, self-regulation, and behavior. Acad. Manag. J. 62, 531–552. doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.0646
Montano, D., Schleu, J. E., and Hüffmeier, J. (2023). A meta-analysis of the relative contribution of leadership styles to followers’ mental health. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 30, 90–107. doi: 10.1177/15480518221114854
Nayani, R. J., Nielsen, K., Daniels, K., Donaldson-Feilder, E. J., and Lewis, R. C. (2018). Out of sight and out of mind? A literature review of occupational safety and health leadership and management of distributed workers. Work Stress. 32, 124–146. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2017.1390797
Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Yarker, J., and Brenner, S. O. (2008). The effects of transformational leadership on followers’ perceived work characteristics and psychological well-being: a longitudinal study. Work Stress. 22, 16–32. doi: 10.1080/02678370801979430
Nielsen, K., and Taris, T. W. (2019). Leading well: challenges to researching leadership in occupational health psychology – and some ways forward. Work Stress 33, 107–118. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2019.1592263
Oldham, G. R., and Hackman, J. R. (2010). Not what it was and not what it will be: the future of job design research. J. Organ. Behav. 31, 463–479. doi: 10.1002/job.678
Ong, W. J., and Johnson, M. D. (2023). Toward a configural theory of job demands and resources. Acad. Manag. J. 66, 195–221. doi: 10.5465/amj.2020.0493
Parker, S. K., and Grote, G. (2022). More than ‘more than ever’: revisiting a work design and sociotechnical perspective on digital technologies. Appl. Psychol. 71, 1215–1223. doi: 10.1111/apps.12425
Parker, S. K., Morgeson, F. P., and Johns, G. (2017). One hundred years of work design research: looking back and looking forward. J. Appl. Psychol. 102, 403–420. doi: 10.1037/apl0000106
Rigotti, T., Schilbach, M., and Kern, M. (2024). Sometimes here, sometimes there- differential effects of social challenge and hindrance stressors depending on the work location. Front Organ Psychol 2:7311. doi: 10.3389/forgp.2024.1307311
Rosa, H. (2016). Resonanz: Eine Soziologie der Weltbeziehung. [resonance: a sociology of world relations.]. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Rudolph, C., Allan, B., Clark, M., Hertel, G., Hirschi, A., Kunze, F., et al. (2021). Pandemics: implications for research and practice in industrial and organizational psychology. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 14, 1–35. doi: 10.1017/iop.2020.48
Schaufeli, W. B. (2015). Engaging leadership in the job demands-resources model. Career Dev. Int. 20, 446–463. doi: 10.1108/CDI-02-2015-0025
Sherf, E. N., Venkataramani, V., and Gajendran, R. S. (2019). Too busy to be fair? The effect of workload and rewards on managers’ justice rule adherence. Acad. Manag. J. 62, 469–502. doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.1061
Skakon, J., Kristensen, T. S., Christensen, K. B., Lund, T., and Labriola, M. (2011). Do managers experience more stress than employees? Results from the Intervention Project on Absence and Well-Being (IPAW) study among Danish managers and their employees. Work, 38, 103–109. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2011-1112
Sonnentag, S., Tay, L., and Shoshan, H. N. (2023). A review on health and well-being at work: more than stressors and strains. Pers. Psychol. 76, 473–510. doi: 10.1111/peps.12572
Stein, M., Vincent-Höper, S., and Gregersen, S. (2020). Why busy leaders may have exhausted followers: a multilevel perspective on supportive leadership. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 41, 829–845. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-11-2019-0477
Stempel, C. R., Dettmers, J., and Rigotti, T. (2023). The domino effect: how leaders job characteristics as antecedents of transformational leadership facilitate follower job characteristics. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 32, 678–687. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2023.2208354
Stempel, C. R., and Siestrup, K. (2022). Suddenly telework: job crafting as a way to promote employee well-being? Front. Psychol. 12:790862. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.790862
Väänänen, A., Toivanen, M., and Lallukka, T. (2020). Lost in autonomy–temporal structures and their implications for employees’ autonomy and well-being among knowledge workers. Occup. Health Sci. 4, 83–101. doi: 10.1007/s41542-020-00058-1
VERBI Software. (2021). MAXQDA 2022 [computer software]. VERBI Software. Available online at: https://maxqda.com
Vincent-Höper, S., and Stein, M. (2019). The role of leaders in designing employees’ work characteristics: validation of the health- and development-promoting leadership behavior questionnaire. Front. Psychol. 10:1049. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01049
Wang, B., Liu, Y., and Parker, S. K. (2020). How does the use of information communication technology affect individuals? A work design perspective. Acad. Manag. Ann. 14, 695–725. doi: 10.5465/annals.2018.0127
Xie, J. L., Elangovan, A. R., Hu, J., and Hrabluik, C. (2019). Charting new terrain in work design: a study of hybrid work characteristics. Appl. Psychol. 68, 479–512. doi: 10.1111/apps.12169
Yizhong, X., Baranchenko, Y., Lin, Z., Lau, C. K., and Ma, J. (2019). The influences of transformational leadership on employee employability: Evidence from China. Employ. Relat. 41, 101–118. doi: 10.1108/ER-02-2018-0052
Yokoyama, K., Nakata, A., Kannari, Y., Nickel, F., Deci, N., Krause, A., et al. (2022). Burnout and poor perceived health in flexible working time in Japanese employees: the role of self-endangering behavior in relation to workaholism, work engagement, and job stressors. Ind. Health 60, 295–306. doi: 10.2486/indhealth.2022-0063
Zimber, A., Hentrich, S., Bockhoff, K., Wissing, C., and Petermann, F. (2015). Wie stark sind Führungskräfte psychisch gefährdet? [To what extent are managers psychologically at risk?]. Z. Gesundheitspsychol. 23, 123–140. doi: 10.1026/0943-8149/a000143
Keywords: hybrid work, work characteristics, supervisors, leadership demands, qualitative research, work design, content analysis
Citation: Stempel CR and Dettmers J (2025) Taming the chimera of hybrid work: a work design perspective on supervisors’ working characteristics and leadership demands in hybrid work settings. Front. Psychol. 16:1650717. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1650717
Edited by:
Rizwan Raheem Ahmed, Indus University, PakistanReviewed by:
Laura Biggart, University of East Anglia, United KingdomKanchan Bagri, Maharshi Dayanand University, India
Karolina Oleksa-Marewska, Uczelnie WSB Merito, Poland
Copyright © 2025 Stempel and Dettmers. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Christiane R. Stempel, Y2hyaXN0aWFuZS5zdGVtcGVsQGZlcm51bmktaGFnZW4uZGU=