ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCHES AND STUDIES
No: 15

REMOTE, HYBRID AND ON-SITE WORK IN ORGANIZATIONS IN BULGARIA: INTERACTIONS AND INFLUENCE ON WELL-BEING, WORK ENGAGEMENT AND WORK-LIFE BALANCE

Vihra Naydenova (1), Viktoriya Nedeva-Atanasova (2)
Keywords: well-being, engagement, work-life balance, remote, hybrid.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26758/15.1.20

(1) Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, Department of Social, Organizational, Educational and Clinical Psychology, Bulgaria; e-mail: vihra@phls.uni-sofia.bg or vihranaydenova@yahoo.com

(2) Institute for Population and Human Studies – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Department of Psychology, Bulgaria; E-mail: vnedevabas@gmail.com

Address correspondence to: Vihra NAYDENOVA, Department of Social, Organizational, Pedagogical and Clinical Psychology, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, Bulgaria, Sofia 1504, bul. Tsar Osvoboditel 15, Bulgaria. Ph: 00359889365885; E-mail: vihranaydenova@yahoo.com and  vihra@phls.uni-sofia.bg

Abstract

Objectives. This article focuses on a relatively under-researched topic – different forms of work (on-site, hybrid and remote) in Bulgarian organizations. The aim of present study is to explore the influence of form of work on well-being, work engagement and work-life balance as well as the interactions between these phenomena.

Material and methods. An online survey was conducted with 432 managers and employees from private and public organizations in Bulgaria, using three scales (UWES-9, WHO-5, WLBS) for measuring the main constructs and a questionnaire on the individual-demographic data. The Work-life Balance Scale is applied for the first time among Bulgarian sample. One-Way ANOVA, correlation and regression analyses were performed.

Results. The results indicate that respondents who use hybrid and on-site form of work are more engaged (three elements Vigor, Dedication and Absorption) (p<.001), but the participants who work in a hybrid form and remotely have significantly better work-life balance (p<.001). The Bulgarian sample showed good levels of engagement compared to other cultures. No statistically significant differences were found in the well-being scores based on respondents’ form of work (p>.05). A strong positive correlation was found between the work engagement and the well-being, and a weak one was noticed between the work engagement and the work-life’s balance. The work-life’s balance positively influences the well-being (R=.465).

Conclusions. The present study confirms that the hybrid work combines many beneficial elements for Bulgarian managers and employees, such as good levels of work engagement and work-life balance, opportunities for social interactions with colleagues at the office but also a flexibility to work from home a part of the week.

Keywords: well-being, engagement, work-life balance, remote, hybrid.

Suggested citation (APA)

Naydenova, V., & Nedeva-Atanasova, V. (2025). Remote, hybrid and on-site work in organizations in Bulgaria: Interactions and influence on well-being, work engagement and work-life balance. Anthropological Researches and Studies, 15, 297-321. https://doi.org/10.26758/15.1.20

Introduction

Several years have passed since the pandemic and the changes it brought to the business world and beyond. Scientists and practitioners are questioning the extent to which the shift to remote and hybrid working models in certain business sectors may continue to offer advantages, and how optimal a return to the office might be.

Theoretical background

Remote, Hybrid and On-site Work specifics and challenges (psychological and social aspects)

The advantages and disadvantages of different working models have been very little researched in Bulgaria and within the Bulgarian organizations, including their psychological and social aspects. The focus of the article is on how the different forms of work (office, remote, hybrid) influence the well-being, the engagement and the work-life balance (WLB) of employees in organizations in Bulgaria, both in the business and in public sectors.

Some advantages of the remote work could be applied not only to employees but also to employers. The ability to save time and money on transportation during the day and to offer increased flexibility to employees allows for savings on office and other business expenses. Given the established digital communication channels, it is also becoming possible in Bulgaria for managers and employees in many business sectors to communicate digitally without this hindering the completion of tasks for a large part of the activities.

Nevertheless, the international research shows contradictory results regarding whether remote work leads to better outcomes and productivity compared to the hybrid and office work. Findings from researchers like Choudhury and colleagues in 2021 indicate that the possibility of remote work contributes to a good work-life balance, especially for people with families (Choudhury, Foroughi & Larson, 2021).

If work activities are supported by good internet, high technology and video conferencing, remote work may lead to good productivity in certain sectors (Schlegel, Tate, Pickler, & Smith, 2021).

Here arises the question of employees’ personal responsibility to perform their tasks well from home without face-to-face contact with managers and colleagues. It also concerns how well they may independently allocate their tasks both throughout the day and how effectively they may work without intense personal social contact. One aspect of entirely remote work is the lack of opportunity to create more intensive social connections, which often develop into friendships in an office environment. However, if employees desire, these connections and getting to know colleagues may be organized in person outside the work context, albeit with more effort.

The advantage of office work lies in the social contacts, the opportunity for more face-to-face communication with managers and colleagues, reduced risk of isolation and closer mentoring. However, this can also lead to stress from these relationships, the risk of conflicts and less opportunity and time for balance.

On the other hand, more recent researches show (Wang, Liu, & Parker, 2020) that the remote work leads to fewer in-person social contacts, which may provoke isolation and negatively affect well-being.

The hybrid work allows a combination of remote and office work. Some hybrid forms offer more days of remote work, while others offer less, as how organizations seek the best option according to their type of activities and business specifics.

According to the qualitative research from 2024 by Santos and colleagues, the hybrid work model for software professionals leads to positive effects in four areas of workplace and overall well-being—engagement, positive emotions, accomplishment and relationships (PERMA model). They also emphasize the need for good technical infrastructure and effective communication tools when working in a hybrid model (Santos, Magalhaes, & Franca, 2024). It is highlighted that organizations should carefully consider the individual needs of employees, those of the team and the company, as well as the nature of the work tasks to create conditions for both results and also for well-being and engagement.

Employees’ creativity can be stimulated through the face-to-face contact, as well as discussions in the office initiated in person. On the other hand, frequent trips to the office may reduce flexibility and opportunities for a greater independence, which are the key for some employees and some activities.

According to the research by Santos and colleagues in the IT industry, the hybrid work leads to reduced stress, higher levels of privacy and comfort, as well as the ability to maintain the healthy routines in the daily lives of these professionals (Santos et al., 2024).

The research made by Johnson and colleagues from 2020 indicates that the hybrid work combines the opportunities for in-person interaction with the ability to maintain a clearer separation between the work and the home environments, as well as overcoming the challenges posed by either entirely remote or entirely office-based work (Johnson et al., 2020).

From other perspectives, for making all of this to be possible, the productivity and engagement of employees working remotely greatly depend on the nature of the tasks, their intensity, and also on their home environments (Bick, Blandin, & Mertens, 2023). A key factor is how well employees may focus at home, how many family and other distractions there are and whether they have conditions to work in the best possible way from home.

If there are no options for online communication, poor internet, or inadequate working conditions from at home, and considering the nature of the work, organizations and employees should shift towards office work and some of the advantages it provides. Psychologists like Kossek and colleagues argue that leaders should ensure all necessary conditions and the technologies so that employees can work effectively remotely or in a hybrid manner, as this would lead to better results and higher engagement (Kossek, Lautsch, Perrigino, Greenhaus, & Merriweather, 2023).

In Bulgaria, during and after the pandemic, fully remote or hybrid work has mainly been offered in the IT and BPO sectors. In 2023 and 2024, more IT companies are transitioning from remote to hybrid work models, as it is important for them that employees come to the office occasionally for face-to-face contact, participation in in-office training, and more live communication between managers and employees. This is likely one of the ways to strengthen control over task execution, provide more social support and foster relationships among colleagues.

Additionally, professions like translation may traditionally be performed remotely in Bulgaria, as well as many other creative professions.

Well-being

The well-being is an important focus of series of psychological, but also medical and economic studies. The concept is related to the optimal experience and functioning. Current research on the topic could be summarised as: the hedonic approach (focused on happiness) and the eudaimonic approach – related to the degree of personal self-realization (Ryan & Deci, 2001).

The importance of well-being is underlined by its application as an alternative measure to the Gross Domestic Product, assessing the progress of the society (Coscieme et al., 2020; Hoekstra, 2019; Huppert et al., 2009, as cited in Arata, Sugiuchi, Yazawa, Funatsu, & Kawakubo, 2025).

Subjective well-being could be defined as the evaluation of the quality of an individual’s life. The concept is not a measure of physical health, but it is related to the health, the personal characteristics and also it predicts the future behaviour (Kahneman & Krueger, 2006, as cited in Sutton, 2020). Subjective well-being is frequently used as a synonym of the psychological well-being, the mental well-being, or about the health, and even of the happiness. There are three main components of the subjective well-being: the life’s evaluation (a reflective assessment), the affect (feelings at a particular moment) and the eudaimonia (a sense of meaning in life) (Diener, 2006). These components are the framework of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines for the subjective well-being (Arata et al., 2025).

A meta-analysis indicates personality as related to the subjective well-being, but the situational factors could explain the momentary experience of this state (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998).

In case of the work environment, the mental well-being is a very significant issue, as it influences on employees’ performance, creativity and productivity.

Work Engagement                                                 

The work engagement is a construct that has recently been in focus for both researchers and has become significant to the business leaders, human resources professionals, and organizations.

According to the results of many studies, the engagement is associated with a higher employees’ performance, a greater loyalty, the talent retention, a lower turnover and absenteeism rates, and to have increased the efficiency and the customer’s satisfaction (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006; Sun & Bunchapattanasakda, 2019).

In many studies, the work engagement (e.g. the UWES–9 scale) has been found to be associated with work performance, job satisfaction, efficiency, and mental health. In other studies the work engagement predicts the frequency of sickness absence and general job satisfaction (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011; Bakker & Bal, 2010; Leijten et al., 2015).

The term of “work engagement”, first used by Kahn (1990), reflects the inclusion of the self in the work role or the investment of personal physical, cognitive, emotional, and mental energy in performing that role. It is widely understood that the engagement has positive effects at both the individual level (personal growth and development) and of the organizational level (the quality of work’s performance).

There are various concepts which provide definitions of the work engagement. In addition to the consulting models, one of the most popular is the psychological model of engagement developed by researcher Schaufeli and his colleagues. In the psychological literature, one of the best and empirically validated definitions of work engagement comes from the Dutch psychologist Schaufeli and his colleagues, who define engagement as “a positive state of mind” characterized by “Vigor”, “Dedication”, and “Absorption” (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004a; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004b).

The component “Vigor” is characterized by high levels of mental resilience and energy while the employee is working. “Dedication” is associated with employees being highly interested in their work and experiencing a sense of significance, meaning, enthusiasm, and challenge. “Absorption” relates to the employee’s absolute concentration and joyful immersion in their work, such that time passes quickly and detachment from the work they are absorbed in becomes more difficult. There have not been many scientific studies on work engagement in Bulgaria in the last five years, but there is scope for more research focused on the factors which influence this phenomenon (Naydenova, 2022).

The employees’ engagement is influenced by the “Job Demands-Resources” model (Salanova, Agut, & Peiro, 2005; Bakker, Demerouti, & Euwema, 2005; Schaufeli, Leiter, & Maslach, 2009). ”The job demands” refer to those physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the work that require a prolonged physical and/or psychological (cognitive and emotional) effort and are therefore associated with the certain physiological and psychological costs. The examples include a high work pressure, overload, multiple tasks in a position, poor conditions, issues related to the reorganization, and more.

”The job resources”  may refer to some of the following physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the work: 1) they must be functional in achieving the job’s  goals; 2) reduce the job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs; 3) stimulating the personal growth and development (Bakker, Demerouti, Boer, & Schaufeli, 2003).

Thus, the “Job Demands-Resources” model can may explain the assumption that employees are more likely to engage with their work when they receive job-related resources from the organization they work for, provided that the demands are not excessively high or that the resources are sufficient to meet those demands.

For example, in Bulgaria there are not so many researches on these topics and there is a need to survey them more deeply, including the influence of the social and organizational factors (Angelova-Igova, 2019; Haralampiev, Ilieva-Trichkova, & Boyadjieva, 2023; Boyadjieva, Haralampiev, & Ilieva-Trichkova, 2024; Naydenova, 2022)

So, the engagement is associated with the feeling of a deep connection to the company, resulting in a desire to contribute more to the organization for its success and outcomes (Mone, Eisinger, Guggenheim, Price, & Stine, 2011).

Work-life Balance

The work-life balance is an important and challenging problem for the contemporary science and the organizational practice. The level of the achieved work-life’s balance is determined by the way that the employees manage conflicts between their obligations related to the professional and personal life (Carlson, Grzywacz, & Zivnuska, 2009, as cited in Yang & Jo, 2022). The concept is valid for all the people engaged in a working activity, regardless their personal life situation (Kossek, Valcour, & Lirio, 2014).

Trying to refine the definition of the work-life balance, Brough and colleagues argued that the concept is “an individual’s subjective appraisal of the accord between his/her work and the non-work activities and life more generally” (Brough, Timms, O’Driscoll, Kalliath, Siu, & Lo, 2014, p. 2728). Based on their theoretical approach, the authors have created a new research methodology founded on the work-life balance. The scale is used in the present study.

Nowadays, it is crucial for the organizations to develop the work-family protective policies and an emotionally oriented culture, in order to attract and retain talented employees (Landolfi, Brondino, Molino, & Presti, 2022).

The Bulgarian researchers have studied some aspects of the work-life balance (Batalova & Naydenova, 2022; Nedeva-Atanasova & Andreev, 2013, etc.), but there is a lack of more complex interaction models, including other variables related to the organizational behaviour.

Theoretical background of interactions between main concepts

Form of Work – relation to Well-being and Work Engagement

This interconnection has not been widely researched, and not at all in Bulgaria. The results of a study conducted in 2024 by Kokt and Seqhobane were interesting, as they explored the impact of the remote and the hybrid work on the psychological well-being and the organisational citizenship behaviour: the moderating effect of the psychological capital. The results from over 400 respondents show that the benefits of remote and hybrid work and the psychological capital have a strong predictive power regarding the psychological well-being (Kokt & Seqhobane, 2024).

Some studies have found that the flexible work’s arrangements reduce stress and may improve employees’ well-being and even increase the work engagement (Hill, Erickson, Holmes, & Ferris, 2010; Grzywacz, Casey, & Jones, 2007; Ugargol & Patrick, 2018).

Interesting results also come from Wontorczyk and Roznowski’s 2022 study on the remote, hybrid, and on-site work during the pandemic and the consequences for stress and work engagement among 544 workers. The results indicate that there were no significant differences between groups in terms of work engagement’s intensity (measured by the UWES scale), but the work engagement was explained by other variables that differed in each of the studied groups. Notably, the use of social channels and the maintenance of the relationships were the most important factors for the remote workers. For on-site workers, the most important factors were the control and the role definition.

The conducted study showed no differences in terms of any type of work engagement, regardless of the form in which it is performed (Wontorczyk & Roznowski, 2022).

Form of Work and Work-life Balance

The COVID-19 pandemic by means of remote work practices, created a flexibility that enhanced the work-life balance, but which also reduced the barriers between the work and the private life (Del Boca, Oggero, Profeta, Rossi, 2020). It became difficult to separate clearly the work time and the free time (Kniffin et al., 2021).

Some studies indicated that the remote working could be very frustrating and lead to burnout or work-family conflict, due to the technical problems or when the form of work has not be chosen voluntarily (Illegems & Verbeke, 2004; Sahut & Lissillour, 2023, as cited in Orlandi, Pocek, Kraus, Zardini, & Rossignoli, 2024)

However, with the remote work being accepted as the “new normal”, the effective time management could lead to better results (Prodanova & Kocarev, 2021).

In fact, the remote work appears to have some far more positive associations with the work-life balance than negative ones–mobility, flexibility, cost-reduction, etc. (Ferreira, Pereira, Bianchi, & da Silva, 2021). The research shows that the Generation Z (people born between 1996 and 2012), a large share of today’s young employees, prioritize the work-life balance and value the positive aspects of the remote work (Osorio & Madero, 2024).

Well-being and Work Engagement

There is a connection between the various aspects of well-being and work engagement. In a recent study, authors Gomez and Chavez investigated the factors that predicted the work engagement. The study’s findings revealed that employees exhibited high levels of well-being and work engagement. Notably, the physical, mental, and emotional dimensions of well-being were the most significant predictors of work engagement (Gomez & Chavez, 2023). The level of employee engagement is influenced by the perception of well-being.

In another study from 2020, researchers Garg and Singh found that the subjective well-being has a significant positive association with work engagement, which in turn significantly improves the employees’ work performance and reduces the withdrawal behaviour from work. It also contributes to the reduction of the psychological and the physical complaints. Furthermore, the work engagement fully mediates the association of the subjective well-being with the work performance, while it partially mediates the association of the subjective well-being with the withdrawal behaviours from work (Garg & Singh, 2020).

Work Engagement and Work-life Balance

There are many articles that discuss the research on the relationship between the work engagement and the work-life balance. Since both personal life and work require time and effort, it is believed that the personal life and its aspects significantly influence work engagement, and vice versa (Halbesleben, 2010; Timms et al., 2014). Various factors of the work-life balance — such as the work–family conflict, the work–family enrichment, and the others — and the work engagement have reciprocal relationships, influencing each other (Ilies et al., 2017; Karatepe & Demir, 2014; Naydenova, Nedeva-Atanasova, Haralampiev, & Getova, 2024).

Well-being and Work-life Balance

The work-life balance is a substantial requirement for the well-being of employees (Cain, Busser, & Kang, 2018, as cited in Yang & Jo, 2022). The positive relation between the work-life balance and the well-being was empirically verified among a sample of hotel employees (Yang & Jo, 2022). The impact was also on productivity and performance in organizations (Wolor, Kurnianti, Zahra, & Martono, 2020, as cited in Medina-Garrido, Bidema-Ferrer, & Bogren, 2023). A research among the software professionals confirmed that the work-life balance had a positive impact on the mental well-being (Tokdemir, 2022).

It could be summarized that there is a consensus amongst the scholars about the high importance of the work-life balance for people’s well-being – the balance between work and life which leads to life satisfaction and a better physical and mental health (Haar, Russo, Suñe, & Ollier-Malaterre, 2014).

Research Model and Hypotheses

On the base of the presented theoretical analysis a research model of interactions between the form of work, the well-being, the work engagement and the work-life a balance was developed and presented at Figure 1.

Figure 1

Research Model “Interactions between form of work, well-being, work engagement and work-life balance” (to see Figure 1, please click here)

The aim of the present study is to explore the influence of the form of work (on-site, hybrid, remote) on well-being, the work engagement and the work-life balance as well as the interactions between these phenomena.

Based on the research model, three main hypotheses were formulated:

H1: The form of work is expected to influence on well-being, the work engagement and the work-life balance. People with a remote form of work will have the highest level of the well-being and of the work-life balance. No significant differences in work engagement are expected.

H2: A positive correlation is expected between the work engagement and the well-being and also between the work engagement and the work-life balance.

H3: Work-life balance is expected to influence on well-being – the higher levels of the work-life balance will lead to the higher levels of the well-being.

Material and methods

Participants and Procedure

By means of the LimeSurvey platform, an online survey was conducted from April to May 2024. The study was anonymous and carried out among participants in the private and public sector, employed in the present moment or within the past 6 months. The sample of 432 respondents is distributed by subgroups based on some socio-demographic and work-related characteristics. Results are presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Subgroups, based on respondents’ characteristics – frequencies and percentages (to see Table 1, please click here)

It results, that the majority of the participants are women (69%) in a crucial age for career development (31 – 40 years old – 30% and 41 – 50 years old – 39 %). The largest share are university graduates (78%), most are currently employees (56%) and have a substantial work experience (11 – 20 years – 38% and 21 – 30 years – 30%). Most of respondents work in private organizations (86%).

Measures

The present study includes series of psychological scales measuring constructs which are important for organizational psychology and practice – well-being, work engagement, work-life balance, social support, proactive behaviour, form of work, etc. The conducted analysis puts a powerful accent on the results related to the main constructs of the research model.

World Health Organization Well-being Index (WHO-5) version 1999

The World Health Organization Well-being Index measures the level of well-being, taking into account the past two weeks. It contains five items (example item: “I have felt calm and relaxed”). Respondents report the way they have felt on a 6-point scale – from 0 (at no time) to 5 (all the time). The raw scores have to be transformed (multiplied by 4) to a percentage scale from 0 to 100. (Topp, Østergaard, Søndergaard & Bech, 2015; WHO, 1998). A percentage score ≤50 is related to poor well-being and levels ≤28 indicate depression (Omani-Samani, Maroufizadeh, Almasi-Hashiani, Sepidarkish, & Amini, 2019). The unidimensional scale has good construct validity for measuring well-being among respondents aged 9 years and older (Topp et al., 2015). The scale is translated into more than thirty languages, including Bulgarian (WHO-5, Bulgarian version, 2024). In the present research, we apply this translation, modifying the scale direction (starting from “at no time”), to ensure consistency with the scale directions of the measures in the study. The scale is applied in other Bulgarian studies, too (Ilieva & Naydenova, 2009, etc.)

The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9)

The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-9 which measures the work engagement, has been defined as a positive work-related state of fulfilment being characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2006).  It is a self-administered scale composed of nine items which evaluate the work engagement. Items are answered with a Likert scale from 0 (never) to 6 (always/every day). The instrument provides three partial scores and a total score. The partial scores are obtained by adding the items corresponding to each subscale (vigor: items 1, 2, 5; dedication: items 3, 4, 7; absorption: items 6, 8, 9) and dividing the result by the number of items in each subscale. The total score ranges from 0 (never) to 6 (always) points. A higher score indicates a greater work engagement.  An empirical study among 14,521 respondents showed that the original 17-item UWES could have been shortened to nine items (UWES-9).  The items are in the form of statements (e.g., “At my work, I feel bursting with energy” (Vigor); “I find the work that I do is full of meaning and purpose” (Dedication); “When I am working, I forget everything else around me” (Absorption). The UWES-17 scale is available in Bulgarian and applied in Bulgarian studies (Naydenova, 2022, etc.). The shortened UWES-9 version is not yet widely used by researchers in the country.

The Work-life Balance Scale (WLBS)

Based on the qualitative research, Brough et al. developed a new methodology in order to explore work-life balance (Brough et al., 2014). The scale consists of four clearly formulated items (example item: “I feel that the balance between my work demands and non-work activities is currently about right.”). Respondents expressed their opinion by means of a 5-point scale – from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A higher perceived level of a balance is related to higher scores on the scale. The methodology has good psychometric characteristics, with the authors’ study confirming the unidimensional factor structure of the instrument and its criterion validity. No relevant data were found in the relation to the application of the WLBS in the previous empirical studies in Bulgaria. The scale was translated from English into Bulgarian and subsequently back-translated into English, in order to obtain a precise methodology, applicable to the Bulgarian sample.

Form of Work

In the present study three questions related to the form of work were included. Respondents were asked if they have ever worked remotely (options: “Yes” and “No”) and what form of work they prefer (options: “Entirely on-site”, “Mostly on-site”, “A balanced form of work – on-site and remotely”, “Mostly remotely” and “Entirely remotely”). Participants had also to answer how often they work remotely (options: “I work only on-site”, “I work remotely in exceptional cases /no more than 3 days per month”/, “I work remotely from 1 to 2 days per week”, “I work remotely from 3 to 4 days per week” and “I work mostly remotely”.

Data analysis

In order to test the raised hypotheses, Reliability analysis, Mean Differences with Eta Coefficient, One-Way ANOVA analysis with Games-Howell Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons, Pearson Correlation analysis and Linear Regression analysis were applied.

Results

In the present study, the World Health Organization Well-being Index (WHO-5) version 1999 shows very good internal consistency (α=.904). The most respondents (69,7%) indicated “normal well-being” (percentage score > 50), 20,1% show “poor well-being” (percentage score > 28 and ≤50) and 10,2% indicate – “depression” (percentage score ≤28).

Figure 2

Levels of well-being (N=432) (to see Figure 2, please click here)

According to the Reliability analysis, the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9) also has a very good internal consistency (α=.940). At the subscale level, the results are similar: Vigor (α=.876), Dedication (α=.889) and Absorption (=.832). The mean value for the entire scale is 4,46, indicating that the sample of Bulgarian respondents as a whole report experiencing feelings related to work engagement often (once per week) or very often (a few times per week).

The internal consistency of the Work-life Balance Scale (WLBS) is also very good (α=.887). Similarly, the mean value of the sample (M=3.50) shows a relatively good level of perceived work-life balance for the past three months. Their answers mostly vary between neutral opinions and agreement on having achieved work-life balance.

In relation to the form of work, the distribution of respondents’ results is presented in Table 2.

Table 2

Distribution of respondents, according to their answers, related to form of work – frequencies and percentages (to see Table 2, please click here)

It can be summarized that the most respondents (48%) preferred “a balanced form of work – on-site and remotely”. Currently, this is the form of work of 32% of the sample, who work remotely from 1 to 4 days per week. A significant share of participants work only on-site (30%). In the present analysis, the five options of the item “What form of work do you prefer?” are transformed into the following three options: “on-site” (merging “I work only on-site” and “I work remotely in exceptional cases /no more than 3 days per month”), “hybrid” (merging “I work remotely from 1 to 2 days per week” and “I work remotely from 3 to 4 days per week”), and “remote” (“I work mostly remotely”).

To test the 1st Hypothesis, Mean Differences with Eta Coefficient and One-Way ANOVA analysis with Games-Howell Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons were applied. Results indicate that there are statistically significant differences in participants’ scores on work engagement (for the scale as a whole, as well as for the subscales) and work-life balance based on the form of work (on-site, hybrid and remote) they perform in their current workplace. Results were presented in Table 3. There are no statistically significant differences in well-being scores among participants with different forms of work (p>.05).

Table 3

Statistical significance of differences in scores on work engagement and work-life balance between respondents with different form of work (to see Table 3, please click here)

The Eta Coefficient for all constructs indicates a small effect size (<.24). The Games-Howell Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons show some statistically significant differences between the following subgroups: On-site and Remote (Absorption subscale, Work engagement scale and Work-life balance scale); On-site and Hybrid/Remote (Work-life balance scale).

The differences in scores on the Vigor subscale, as indicated in Table 3, are presented graphically in Figure 3.

Figure 3

Differences in mean scores on Vigor subscale between respondents with different form of work (N=390) (to see Figure 3, please click here)

Analysis of results from the Bulgarian organizations shows that the highest levels of energy and endurance are noticed among employees who work in the office and in a hybrid model, with lower energy levels noted among those who work entirely remotely. The differences are statistically significant (p<.001).

The component “Energy” (Vigor) is characterized by high levels of mental endurance and energy while the employee is working. This aspect is measured through items such as: “I can continue working for very long periods at a time”; “At my job, I am very resilient, mentally”; and “At my work I always persevere, even when things do not go welll.”

It is assumed that employees working in the office and in a hybrid model have more face-to-face interactions and stimuli that further motivate them to be energetic and persistent in their work. In the workplace, there is more frequent live contact with managers and colleagues, as well as social interactions that may enhance levels of energy and endurance, and persistence in working longer hours. The visualization of differences in scores on Dedication subscale is presented in Figure 4.

Figure 4

Differences in mean scores on Dedication subscale between respondents with different form of work (N=390) (to see Figure 4, please click here)

Dedication is associated with employees being strongly interested in their work, experiencing a sense of the significance, meaning, enthusiasm, and challenge. It is measured with items such as: “I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose”; “My job inspires me”; “I am proud of the work I do.”

Analysis of results of the Bulgarian organizations shows that the highest levels of dedication are noticed among employees who work in a hybrid model or in the office, while lower levels of dedication are seen in those who work entirely remotely (Figure 4). The differences in this aspect of work engagement are also statistically significant (p<.001).

Aspects such as pride in work and inspiration may be greatly stimulated through in-person interactions in the workplace, as well as during training and seminars held in the office involving interactions with colleagues and managers. When working entirely remotely, a team member may feel more isolated and disconnected from the organizational culture, the environment, and the reasons for pride and dedication. In remote settings, the strongest motivation may come from the nature of the work itself. Therefore, it is crucial to maintain communication through digital channels and ensure regular online meetings.

Employees with high levels of dedication are also significantly more committed—they take pride in their work and find it meaningful and challenging.

Differences in scores on the Absorption subscale, according to form of work, are presented in Figure 5.

Figure 5

Differences in mean scores on Absorption subscale between respondents with different form of work (N=390) (to see Figure 5, please click here)

Team members are more likely to be absorbed in their work, fully committed to it, enthusiastic, and happy when they work hard. Absorption as a component of engagement is reflected in items such as: “Time flies when I’m working”; “When I work, I forget everything around me”; and “I am immersed in my work.”

Analysis of results from Bulgarian organizations shows that the highest levels of absorption are noticed among employees who work in a hybrid model or in the office, with lower levels of absorption among those who work entirely remotely (Figure 5). These differences in work engagement are also statistically significant (p<.001).

The aspect of the engagement “Absorption” is associated with an absolute concentration and a happy immersion of the employee in his/hers work, causing time to pass quickly and detachment from work to become more challenging. Employees experiencing high absorption may also feel fatigue, but during the work, they often lose track of time, creating a deep sense of immersion in their tasks and forgetting their surroundings.

The visualization of differences in scores on work engagement as a whole is represented in Figure 6.

Figure 6

Differences in mean scores on work engagement between respondents with different form of work (N=390) (to see Figure 6, please click here)

As expected, the overall work engagement among employees from the Bulgarian private and the public organizations was highest among those working in a hybrid model and in the office, with the results being significant. Engagement levels were lower for the individuals working entirely remotely.

Analysis of the individual components – energy, absorption, and dedication – showed that the hybrid and office work environments provide more stimuli for these three elements, such as feelings of pride and belonging, a sense of absorption, and inspiration, among others.

Nevertheless, even though statistically significant, all three aspects of engagement, as well as overall engagement in all three work forms in Bulgaria, have relatively high values compared to the samples from other countries.

The values of 4.56, 4.53, and 4.14 indicate good levels of the work engagement (UWES scale). This means that in all the three forms of work—remote, hybrid, and on-site—the Bulgarian employees often experience high levels of the work engagement in all its aspects. They are energetic at work, have enthusiasm and inspiration, and often they feel absorbed in the work process.

Differences in scores on work-life balance, according to form of work are represented in Figure 7.

Figure 7

Differences in mean scores on work-life balance between respondents with different form of work (N=390) (to see Figure 7, please click here)

Bulgarian respondents’ results correspond to data of studies conducted in the other countries and cited in the theoretical review. People who work remotely have evidently found effective ways to manage both important spheres – the work and life domains. Today, remote (also hybrid) form of work is considered the “new normal”. It is no longer а source of stress and uncertainty, as it was during the pandemic when anxiety was provoked by the pandemic itself, technical equipment failures, lack of experience with remote work for a great share of employees, and inadequate working conditions at home, etc. In fact, remote and hybrid work has become part of the organizational culture in many companies. Rules are now clearer, and it has become a matter of personal choice for employees to work in such organizations or to prefer on-site opportunities.

Currently, the disadvantages of remote and also the hybrid work seem to be outweighed by numerous advantages, such as flexibility, mobility, and the possibility to combine the work tasks with the childcare or other non-work activities and duties. This may be why only 23% of respondents state they prefer working entirely or mostly on-site, as shown in Table 2. Achieving a good level of the work-life balance is an important goal for the working people. Supporting this process is also crucial for organizations in order to retain talented and experienced employees. One way to facilitate this is by creating opportunities for remote or hybrid work, providing evidence of people-oriented organizational policies. Results regarding the influence of respondents’ form of work on their scores on well-being, work engagement and work-life balance show that the 1st Hypothesis is partially supported.

Testing 2nd Hypothesis requires the application of Pearson Correlation analysis. Results are presented in Table 4 and indicate a strong positive correlation between the work engagement and the well-being, as well as a positive but weak correlation between the work engagement and the work-life balance. Analysis is performed for the UWES-9 as a whole, as well as for the subscales.

Table 4

Intercorrelations of work engagement from one side and well-being and work-life balance, from other side (to see Table 4, please click here)

The analysis of the results from the correlation analysis showed a strong positive relationship between the well-being of the surveyed employees in Bulgaria and overall work engagement (.574). The strongest relationship is with energy and enthusiasm (.622), but a positive and significant relationship is also seen with Dedication (.549) and Absorption (.417). When the employees feel mentally well, they approach their work with energy and enthusiasm, maintain a strong focus on tasks, feel more capable and active in their workplace, and are able to work more hours.

Regarding the strong relationship between dedication and well-being, it may be interpreted that people who feel mentally well are more likely to be dedicated to their work. Dedicated employees find their work meaningful and inspiring, feel enthusiastic about it, and often describe it as significant.

Absorption is characterized by a feeling of “immersion” in work, reluctance to be detached from it, a sense that time flies, and forgetting everything else. Employees with better mental well-being are more likely to feel happy while working hard, find it hard to disengage from their work, and do not notice the time passing as they enjoy what they are doing, and vice versa.

Engagement and its aspects can also significantly affect employee well-being. According to a study by Shuck and Reio among healthcare workers from the United States, Canada, and Japan, employees in the high engagement group has demonstrated a higher psychological well-being and personal accomplishment, while employees in the low engagement group exhibited higher emotional exhaustion and depersonalization (Shuck & Reio, 2014).

Employees with high Dedication scores identify with their work because it is inspiring, meaningful, and challenging. In contrast, those with low scores are usually neither inspired by nor proud of their work.

A positive but weak relationship was also found between the work-life balance and the work engagement (.212). The correlation between the work engagement and the work-life balance is more evident in relation to the Dedication subscale and it is discussed in details in previous authors’ analysis (Naydenova et al., 2024).

The presented results regarding the positive interrelationship between the work engagement and the well-being and also between work engagement and work-life balance, support Hypothesis 2.

In relation to the 3rd Hypothesis, Linear Regression analysis was applied and it is presented in Table 5. The results indicate that work-life balance influences well-being, with a positive R value. Hence, higher levels of work-life balance lead to higher levels of well-being.

Table 5

Regression analysis of influence of work-life balance on well-being (to see Table 5, please click here)

The R value of .465 indicates a medium effect size (<.50). The adjusted R2 value shows that 21% of the variation of well-being scores could be explained by the variation of the work-life balance scores.

These results confirm the expectations based on the previous researches in other countries. The positive influence of work-life balance on mental health and well-being highlights the importance of the skills for maintaining it. Employees and organizations should discuss the problem of work-life balance and work towards finding a mutually suitable approach. Organizing training in time management, coping with stress and conflicts, and similar topics provide a solid base for skill development. However, it should be emphasized that organizational work-life balance practices and policies play a crucial role—offering more flexibility, such as remote or hybrid work options, is essential.

It could be concluded that the 3rd Hypothesis, concerning the influence of work-life balance on well-being, is supported.

Discussions

The post-COVID-19 era, along with the increased digitalization, has brought positive changes for organizations and ways of working in Bulgaria. New opportunities are linked to hybrid and remote work options for certain professions, the convenience of online meetings, easier information retrieval, and the facilitation of some job roles through automation. Online training and connecting with people from different parts of the world have also become more accessible.

Of research interest is how this new reality affects employee’s well-being and engagement, as these factors are directly related to the organizational success, job performance, and talent retention.

In Bulgaria, there is a need to explore the role of hybrid and remote work, as well as the effects of digitalization over the past two years.

The study we conducted in 2024 among over 430 managers and employees yielded optimistic results for all elements of engagement, showing high values for the Bulgarian sample. Here, the favourable patterns are more prominent in the hybrid and office work, but remote work also demonstrates good engagement levels among managers and employees.

The obtained averages of engagement for the Bulgarian sample across different forms of work (mean 4.56 on-site work, 4.53 hybrid, and 4.14 remote) indicate positive results, as they are high and suggest frequent experiences of energy, dedication, and absorption in work. This means that in all three forms of work – remote, hybrid, and on-site – Bulgarian employees often experience high levels of work engagement in all its aspects. They are energetic at work, have enthusiasm, and are dedicated to their jobs. Notably, in the Bulgarian sample, the scores for the subscale “Absorption” are higher than the averages studied by Schaufeli in Western organizations. If we consider the results from the UWES-9 scale after surveying over 12,000 employees from various primarily Western countries (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004b), the average scores are Energy – 4.18, Dedication – 4.28, Absorption – 3.68, which are lower compared to those of Bulgarian employees.

Our research also found a strong positive relationship between the mental well-being and all the aspects of engagement. Similar connections have been identified in other empirical studies conducted outside Bulgaria. For example, researchers Reina-Tamayo and colleagues found that emotional work engagement reflects an intense emotional connection with the workplace and how a person feels mentally (Reina-Tamayo, Bakker, & Derks, 2018).

According to data from a study among service sector employees by Gomez and Chavez in 2022, the social well-being emerged as the strongest predictor of work engagement. The results of the survey indicated that for every unit increase in participants’ social well-being, there is a corresponding 0.400 increase in their work engagement (Gomez & Chavez, 2023). Additionally, a study by Holman from 2002 showed that managerial support and good communication were associated with higher levels of well-being (Holman, 2002). Furthermore, engaged employees possess positive thoughts and display high energy at work.

Employee engagement levels are influenced by their perceived well-being (physical, psychological, social, etc.), and if they feel good, they are more likely to be engaged in their work (Kuok & Taormina, 2017).

Data from this sample also showed that managers and employees who work remotely have significantly better work-life balance. This relationship has also been found in other studies, which emphasize that remote work can provide excellent flexibility, allowing both managers and employees to organize their time, tasks, and responsibilities much better, both for work and family (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). However, there are still challenges when discrepancies and lack of boundaries between work and personal life are noticed (Golden, Veiga, & Dino. 2008).

According to observations in the business sector, remote and hybrid work in Bulgaria has proven to be particularly beneficial for achieving better work-life balance, which also positively impacts engagement and job performance.

The results from the Bulgarian sample also showed that the work-life balance influences well-being – higher levels of work-life balance lead to higher levels of well-being.

Another significant and interesting finding from the study indicated that work-life balance is higher among people who are given the opportunity to work primarily remotely. In hybrid setups, we noticed higher work-life balance scores compared to those who work solely from the office.

It is notable that the hybrid form suggests good levels of engagement, as well as a balance between work and personal life. This is supported by other studies that highlight the benefits of the hybrid work, such as socializing in the office and occasionally working from home, which saves commuting time and allows for a better integration of work and personal commitments.

Conclusions

The study, based on the research model of interactions between the form of work, well-being, work engagement, and work-life balance, offers a detailed picture of important constructs related to both personal and organizational life. These types of interactions have not been studied among a Bulgarian sample of employees. Some of interrelations have been partially explored in studies in other countries, but there is a lack of comprehensive analysis on the issue. The main focus of present research is the form of work and how it influences both personal and organizational life. Another key point is exploring connections between the concepts that are crucial for people and organizations – attitudes toward work and non-work sphere (work engagement and work-life balance), as well as overall mental health (well-being).

The article presents interesting results from Bulgarian organizations in a study conducted in 2024. It addresses a largely unexplored topic in Bulgaria – how work arrangements, whether remote, hybrid, or in-office, affect engagement, well-being, and work-life balance.

The findings indicate that the hybrid work model significantly contributes to the engagement of Bulgarian employees. This model allows for a partial maintenance of work-life balance while also facilitating social contacts at work and fostering organizational culture.

In the future, we plan to conduct a follow-up study with a larger sample and across more organizations to track the influence of the form of work on the studied constructs.

It also becomes clear that employees who work remotely are not the most engaged but do enjoy a better work-life balance, which is important for their overall well-being, family happiness, and lifestyle.

The results are intriguing and evoke optimism about the situation in the studied Bulgarian organizations.

Limitations

The study was conducted by means of an online platform, in order to have the possibility to reach to the participants from a wider range of work experience and type of occupation. That aim was achieved successfully. One of the limitations of the method is the fact that mostly women and university graduates tend to fill such kind of online surveys and that was also the case of the present study. The share of employees in the research is larger than that of the managers, too. It could be probably related to the smaller percentage of managers at the labour marker, to a busier work schedule or to a greater concern about the confidentiality of results, compared to employees.

Acknowledgments

This study is financed by the European Union-Next Generation EU, through the National Recovery and Resilience Plan of the Republic of Bulgaria, project SUMMIT № 70-123-201 from 12.02.2024, in implementation of project BG-RRP-2.004-0008 “Sofia University – Marker for Innovation and Technology Transfer (SUMMIT)”, activity 3.4 Scientific research with potential for innovation or transfer of knowledge/intellectual property, under pillar 2 “Creating a network of research universities „BG-RRP-2.004-0008-C01”.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Consent to participate

Informed written consent was obtained from each participant at the time of recruitment. The subjects were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any stage, and they were assured of confidentiality.

References

  1. Angelova-Igova, B. (2019). Media Scandals as Fake News is Dangerous for the National Security. Przegląd Politologiczny,4, 31-37. https://doi.org/10.14746/pp.2019.24.4.3
  2. Arata, S., Sugiuchi, M., Yazawa, R., Funatsu, H., & Kawakubo, S. (2025). Effects of perceived office environment on the subjective well-being of workers: Insights from a structural equation modeling analysis. Building and Environment, 267, 112180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.112180
  3. Bakker, A. B., & Bal, P. M. (2010). Weekly Work Engagement and Performance: A Study among Starting Teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(1), 189-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317909X402596
  4. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout. Journal of occupational health psychology, 10(2), 170-180. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.170
  5. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Boer, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Job demands and job resources as predictors of absence duration and frequency. Journal of vocational behavior, 62(2), 341-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00030-1
  6. Batalova, D., & Naydenova, V. (2022). A psychological study in Bulgaria on the perceived stress and work-family balance. Anthropological Researches and Studies, 12, 317-335. ISSN (online): 2360-3445. http://doi.org/10.26758/12.1.24
  7. Bick, A., Blandin A., & Mertens K. (2023). Work from Home before and after the COVID-19 Outbreak. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 15(4), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1257/mac.20210061
  8. Boyadjieva, P., Haralampiev, K., P., & Ilieva-Trichkova, P. (2024). Social Justice Profiles: An Exploratory Study towards an Empirically Based Multi-Dimensional Classification of Countries Regarding Fairness of Participation in Higher Education. Societies, 14(4), 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14040044
  9. Brough, P., Timms, C., O’Driscoll, M. P., Kalliath, T., Siu, O. L., & Lo, D. (2014). Work–life balance: A longitudinal evaluation of a new measure across Australia and New Zealand workers. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(19), 2724-2744. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.899262
  10. Choudhury, P. (R), Foroughi, C., & Larson, B. (2021). Work-from-anywhere: The productivity effects of geographic flexibility. Strategic Managment Journal, 42, 655-683. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3251
  11. Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89-136.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x
  12. Del Boca, D., Oggero, N., Profeta, P., & Rossi M. (2020). Women’s and men’s work, housework and childcare, before and during COVID-19, Review of Economics of the Household, 18(4), 1001-1017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-020-09502-1
  13. DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: a meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological bulletin, 124(2), 197-229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.197
  14. Diener, E. (2006). Guidelines for national indicators of subjective well-being and ill-being. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 1, 151-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-006-9007-x
  15. Ferreira, R., Pereira, R., Bianchi, I. S., & da Silva, M. M. (2021). Decision factors for remote work adoption: advantages, disadvantages, driving forces and challenges. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1), 70. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010070
  16. Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524-1541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524
  17. Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Dino, R. N. (2008). The Impact of Professional Isolation on Teleworker Job Performance and Turnover Intentions: Does Time Spent Teleworking, Interacting Face-to-Face, or Having Access to Communication Enhancing Technology Matter?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1412-1421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012722
  18. Gomez M. D. C., & Chavez C. C. (2023). Thriving in the New Normal: Exploring the Link Between Employees’ Well-Being and Work Engagement. British Journal of Multidisciplinary and Advanced Studies: Business and Management Sciences, 4(4),44-51. https://doi.org/10.37745/bjmas.2022.0262
  19. Garg, N., & Singh, P.(2020). Work engagement as a mediator between subjective well-being and work-and-health outcomes. Management Research Review, 43(6), 735-752. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2019-0143
  20. Grzywacz, J. G., Casey, P. R., & Jones, F. A. (2007). The effects of workplace flexibility on health behaviors: A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 49(12), 1302-1309. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e31815ae9bc
  21. Haar, J. M., Russo, M., Suñe, A., & Ollier-Malaterre, A. (2014). Outcomes of work–life balance on job satisfaction, life satisfaction and mental health: A study across seven cultures. Journal of vocational behavior, 85(3), 361-373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.08.010
  22. Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. In A. B. Bakker (Ed.) & M. P. Leiter, Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. Psychology Press, 102-117. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203853047
  23. Haralampiev, K., Ilieva-Trichkova, P., & Boyadjieva, P. (2023). Does father’s class or mother’s education matter more? Decomposing and contextualising the influence of social origin on adult learning participation. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 42(2), 142-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2022.2153388
  24. Hill, E. J., Erickson, J. J., Holmes, E. K., & Ferris, M. (2010). Workplace Flexibility, Work Hours, and Work-Life Conflict: Finding an Extra Day or Two. Journal of Family Psychology. 24(3), 349-358. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019282
  25. Holman, D. (2002), Employee wellbeing in call centres. Human Resource Management Journal, 12(4), 35-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2002.tb00076.x
  26. Ilies, R., Wagner, D., Wilson, K., Ceja, L., Johnson, M., DeRue, S., & Ilgen, D. (2017). Flow at work and basic psychological needs: Effects on well-being. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 66(1), 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12075
  27. Ilieva, S., & Naydenova, V. (2009). Vliyanie na kachestvoto na zhivot varhu zdravnoto povedenie v universitetska sreda: mezhdukulturno izsledvane v Balgaria, Germania i Polsha. Psihologichni Izsledvaniya. 1, 57-73.
  28. Johnson, A., Dey, S., Nguyen, H., Groth, M., Joyce, S., Tan, L., …Harvey, S. B. (2020). A review and agenda for examining how technology-driven changes at work will impact workplace mental health and employee well-being. Australian Journal of Management, 45(3), 402-424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896220922292
  29. Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724. DOI: 5465/256287
  30. Karatepe, M. O., & Demir, E. (2014). Linking core self-evaluations and work engagement to work-family facilitation: A study in the hotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(2), 307-323. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-2013-0008
  31. Kniffin, K. M., Narayanan, J., Anseelm, F., Antonakis, J., Ashford, S. P., Bakker, A. B., & Vugt, M. V. (2021). COVID-19 and the workplace: implications, issues, and insights for future research and action, American Psychologist, 76(1) 63-77. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000716
  32. Kokt, D., & Seqhobane, M. (2024). The impact of remote and hybrid work and psychological wellbeing on organisational citizenship behaviour: The moderating effect of psychological capital. Acta Commercii 24(1), a1258. https://doi.org/10.4102/ac.v24i1.1258
  33. Kossek, E. E., Valcour, M., & Lirio, P. (2014). The Sustainable Workforce: Organizational Strategies for Promoting Work-Life Balance and Well-Being. Work and wellbeing, 3, 295-319. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118539415.wbwell030
  34. Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., Perrigino, M. B., Greenhaus, J. H., & Merriweather, T. J.(2023). Work-life Flexibility Policies: Moving from Traditional Views Toward Work-life Intersectionality Considerations. In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. Emerald Publishing Limited, 41, 199 243. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-730120230000041008
  35. Kuok, A. C., & Taormina, R. J. (2017). Work Engagement: Evolution of the Concept and a New Inventory. Psychological Thought, 10(2), 262-287. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.1866
  36. Landolfi, A., Brondino, M., Molino, M., & Presti, A. L. (2022). Don’t worry, be happy! Positive affect at work, greater balance at home. A daily diary study on work-family balance. European Review of Applied Psychology, 72(1), 100715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2021.100715
  37. Leijten, F. R. M., van den Heuvel, S. G., van der Beek, A. J., Ybema, J. F., Robroeck, S. J. W., & Burdorf, A. (2015).Associations of Work-Related Factors and Work Engagement with Mental and Physical Health: A 1-Year Follow-up Study Among Older Workers. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 25(1), 86-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-014-9525-6
  38. Medina-Garrido, J. A., Biedma-Ferrer, J. M., & Bogren, M. (2023). Organizational support for work-family life balance as an antecedent to the well-being of tourism employees in Spain. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 57, 117-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2023.08.018
  39. Mone, E., Eisinger, C., Guggenheim, K., Price, B., & Stine, C., (2011). Performance Management at the Wheel: Driving Employee Engagement in Organizations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 205-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9222-9
  40. Naydenova, V. (2022). Angazhiranost i obuchenie na sluzhitelite, Iztok-Zapad, Sofia, ISBN 978-619-01-1056-9
  41. Naydenova, V. G., Nedeva-Atanasova, V. G., Haralampiev, K.V., & Getova, A. (2024). Engagement and work-life balance in organizational context. Philosophy/Filosofiya, 33(3). 331-346. ISSN 0861-6302 (Print) ISSN 1314-8559 (Online) https://doi.org/10.53656/phil2024-03-09
  42. Nedeva-Atanasova, V., & Andreev, B. (2013). Psihichno I fizichesko zdrave pri zaeti litsa v malki i sredni predpriatia, v konteksta na konflikta semeen-profesionalen zhivot. Nauchni dokladi ot Mezhdunarodna Konferentsia „Psihologicheska intervencia i prevencia na konflikta pri sachetavaneto na semeinia i profesionalnia zhivot”, 19-20 septemvri 2013, IINCH – BAN, Sofia, 20-28. ISBN: 978-954-2987-05-5
  43. Omani-Samani, R., Maroufizadeh, S., Almasi-Hashiani, A., Sepidarkish, M., & Amini, P. (2019). The WHO-5 well-being index: a validation study in people with infertility. Iranian journal of public health, 48(11), 2058. PMID: 31970105; PMCID: PMC6961185.
  44. Orlandi, L. B., Pocek, J., Kraus, S., Zardini, A., & Rossignoli, C. (2024). Digital workers’ stress: The role of digital creativity in the future jobs. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(2), 100492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100492
  45. Osorio, M. L., & Madero, S. (2024). Explaining Gen Z’s desire for hybrid work in corporate, family, and entrepreneurial settings. Business Horizons. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2024.02.008
  46. Prodanova, J., & Kocarev, L. (2021). Is job performance conditioned by work-from-home demands and resources? Technology in Society, 66, 101672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101672
  47. Reina-Tamayo, A. M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2018). The work engagement–performance link: An episodic perspective. The Career Development International, 23(5), 478-496. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-10-2017-0179
  48. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), 141-166. https://doi.org/1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141
  49. Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiro, J. M. (2005). Linking Organizational Resources and Work Engagement to Employee Performance and Customer Loyalty: The Mediation of Service Climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217–1227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1217
  50. Santos, R. D. S., Magalhaes C., & Franca, C. (2024). Hybrid Work Well-Being: Software Professionals Finding Equilibrium. IEEE Software, 41(4), 78-85. https://doi.org/1109/MS.2024.3388551
  51. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004a). Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Preliminary Manual – Version 1.1, December 2004. Occupational Health Psychology Unit. Utrecht University. Retrieved September 2, 2024 from https://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/publications/Schaufeli/Test%20Manuals/Test_manual_UWES_English.pdf
  52. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004b). Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293-315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248
  53. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and psychological measurement, 66(4), 701-716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
  54. Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2009). Burnout: 35 Years of Research and Practice. Career Development International, 14(3), 204-220. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430910966406
  55. Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confrimatiry factor analytic approach. Journal of Happines Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 3(1), 71-9https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
  56. Schlegel, E. C., Tate, J. A., Pickler, R. H., & Smith, L. H. (2021). Practical strategies for qualitative inquiry in a virtual world. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 77(10), 4035-4044. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15000
  57. Shuck, B., & Reio, T. S. (2013). Employee Engagement and Wellbeing: A Moderation Model and Implications for Practice. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(1), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051813494240
  58. Sun, L., & Bunchapattanasakda, C. (2019). Employee Engagement: A Literature Review. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 9(1), 63-80. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijhrs.v9i1.14167
  59. Sutton, A. (2020). Living the good life: A meta-analysis of authenticity, well-being and engagement. Personality and Individual Differences, 153, 109645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109645
  60. Timms, C., Brough, P., O’Driscoll, M., Kalliath, T., Siu, O. L., Sit, C., & Lo, D. (2015). Flexible work arrangements, work engagement, turnover intentions and psychological health. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 53(1), 83-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12030
  61. Tokdemir, G. (2022). Software professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey: Factors affecting their mental well-being and work engagement in the home-based work setting. Journal of Systems and Software, 188, 111286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2022.111286
  62. Topp, C. W., Østergaard, S. D., Søndergaard, S., & Bech, P. (2015). The WHO-5 Well-Being Index: a systematic review of the literature. Psychotherapy and psychosomatics, 84(3), 167-176. https://doi.org/10.1159/000376585
  63. Ugargol, J. D., & Patrick, H. A. (2018). The Relationship of Workplace Flexibility to Employee Engagement among Information Technology Employees in India. South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management, 5(1), 40-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/2322093718767469
  64. Wang, B., Liu, Y., & Parker, S. K. (2020). How does the use of information communication technology affect individuals? A work design perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 695-725. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0127
  65. WHO (1998). Wellbeing Measures in Primary Health Care/The Depcare Project. WHO Regional Office for Europe: Denmark. Retrieved October 1, 2024 from https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/349766/WHO-EURO-1998-4234-43993-62027-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  66. WHO-5, Bulgarian version (2024). Retrieved October 4, 2024 from https://www.psykiatri-regionh.dk/who-5/Documents/WHO5_Bulgarian.pdf
  67. Wontorczyk, A., & Roznowski, B. (2022). Remote, Hybrid, and On-Site Work during the SARS CoV-2 Pandemic and the Consequences for Stress and Work Engagement. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(4), 2400. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042400
  68. Yang, X., & Jo, W. (2022). Roles of work-life balance and trait mindfulness between recovery experiences and employee subjective well-being: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 52, 459-468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.08.005

 

PDF
HTML
Scroll to Top