The Future of Work: Hybrid Models and Human-Centered Design
- International Academy
- Dec 1, 2025
- 18 min read
Author: Sara Haddad
Affiliation: Independent Researcher
Abstract
The future of work is no longer a distant idea; it is unfolding in real time as organizations experiment with hybrid models that combine on-site and remote work. Hybrid work has become a dominant pattern in knowledge-intensive sectors, while remaining out of reach for many workers in routine or frontline roles. At the same time, the language of human-centered design has entered management discourse, promising workplaces that prioritize wellbeing, inclusion, and meaningful participation rather than merely optimizing for cost or technology.
This article examines the intersection between hybrid work and human-centered design and asks: who benefits from hybrid models, how can they be designed more fairly, and what structural forces shape their adoption? Using a qualitative, conceptual methodology, the paper synthesizes recent literature on telework, hybrid work, workplace wellbeing, and human-centered design and interprets it through three theoretical lenses: Bourdieu’s theory of capital and fields, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism.
Bourdieu’s concepts illuminate how economic, cultural, social, and symbolic capital influence access to hybrid work and shape status hierarchies in organizations. World-systems theory helps explain global inequalities in telework opportunities between core and peripheral regions and across sectors. Institutional isomorphism accounts for the rapid convergence of organizations toward similar hybrid arrangements and “best practices,” even when their local realities differ.
The analysis shows that hybrid work can support autonomy, work–life integration, and talent attraction when it is deliberately designed; yet it can also intensify inequalities between those whose work is “teleworkable” and those whose jobs remain tied to physical sites. The article proposes a human-centered hybrid work framework built around participation, equity, wellbeing, integrated physical–digital environments, and continuous learning. It concludes with implications for managers and policymakers in management, tourism, and technology sectors and outlines directions for future research.
Introduction
Over the past few years, hybrid work has shifted from a niche perk to a mainstream organizing principle in many organizations. What started as a health-driven emergency response—large-scale remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic—has evolved into a permanent rethinking of where and how work happens. Many organizations now use some form of hybrid arrangement: employees may spend certain days at the office and other days at home, in co-working spaces, or in other locations, while some teams operate largely online with occasional in-person gatherings.
At the same time, a new vocabulary has spread through management and design communities: human-centered design, employee experience, psychological safety, and wellbeing. These concepts reflect a broader shift from viewing workers as interchangeable resources to recognizing them as whole human beings with complex needs, identities, and responsibilities. However, the adoption of this vocabulary does not always translate into meaningful change. In some cases, hybrid work policies are rolled out in a top-down manner, driven primarily by real estate savings or technology considerations, with limited genuine attention to human needs.
This article argues that the future of work will be shaped by how seriously organizations take human-centered design when implementing hybrid models. The central questions are:
How are hybrid work models being structured and experienced in contemporary organizations?
How can human-centered design principles be applied to make these models more equitable, sustainable, and meaningful?
How do broader structures of power and inequality—captured by Bourdieu’s theory of capital, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism—shape who benefits from hybrid work and how it is implemented?
Background and Theoretical Framework
Hybrid Work: From Flexibility to a New Work Paradigm
Hybrid work refers to arrangements in which employees alternate between working on-site and remotely. It is not a simple compromise between “office” and “home,” but a new way of organizing work across time and space. Hybrid models differ in how much flexibility they grant, who controls scheduling, and how performance is defined. For some workers, hybrid work means choosing freely when to go to the office; for others, it involves mandated days of presence or rigid rotation schemes.
Before the pandemic, remote work was often limited to specific occupations or senior roles and sometimes carried a stigma, associated with lower commitment or reduced visibility. The sudden shift to remote work challenged this stigma and demonstrated that many jobs could be done effectively outside the office. As organizations reopened, they discovered that employees had developed new expectations. Many wanted to retain flexibility for reasons of work–life balance, caregiving, health, commuting time, and personal productivity.
However, the ability to work in a hybrid way is not evenly distributed. Certain jobs—especially in manufacturing, logistics, tourism, and face-to-face services—remain strongly tied to physical locations. Within similar jobs, differences in technology, space at home, and management culture can make hybrid work more or less feasible. Understanding these differences requires more than a purely managerial lens; it calls for a sociological perspective on power, capital, and global structures.
Bourdieu: Capital, Habitus, and Organizational Fields
Pierre Bourdieu’s theoretical toolkit is highly relevant to hybrid work. He conceptualizes social life as occurring in structured fields—such as education, art, or business—where actors compete for different forms of capital. Economic capital involves money and assets, cultural capital refers to education, qualifications, and valued skills, social capital consists of networks and connections, and symbolic capital is the prestige and recognition that legitimize power.
In a hybrid work setting, these forms of capital determine who can negotiate favorable arrangements and who is left with limited choice.
Economic capital affects the quality of home workspaces. Workers with higher incomes can afford larger homes, separate offices, ergonomic furniture, and reliable technology. Others may live in crowded accommodation, share devices, or lack stable internet, making remote work stressful and less productive.
Cultural capital includes digital literacy, self-management skills, and familiarity with professional norms of online communication. Employees who can navigate multiple collaboration tools, manage their time autonomously, and present themselves convincingly in virtual settings are better placed to succeed in hybrid environments.
Social capital shapes how individuals stay connected to key networks when they are not physically present. Strong ties with managers and peers can ensure continued access to information, mentoring, and opportunities even when working remotely, while weaker networks can lead to isolation.
Symbolic capital is reconfigured in hybrid work. Instead of being visible at a desk, prestige may be attached to being “always reachable,” efficient in virtual meetings, or skilled at digital facilitation. However, old symbols of status—corner offices, physical presence in headquarters, international travel—still coexist with new ones, generating tensions and hybrid hierarchies.
Bourdieu’s concept of habitus—the internalized dispositions that shape how people perceive and act—also matters. Employees whose habitus is aligned with flexible, self-directed, digital work may experience hybrid models as empowering. Others, socialized into cultures of close supervision and clear spatial boundaries, may feel uncertainty, loss of structure, or anxiety.
Hybrid work thus reveals and reshapes the distribution of capital within organizations. Without deliberate design, it tends to favor those already endowed with resources and skills, reinforcing existing inequalities.
World-Systems Theory: Global Inequalities in the Future of Work
World-systems theory, associated with Immanuel Wallerstein and others, analyzes the world economy as a hierarchy of core, semi-peripheral, and peripheral regions. Core regions concentrate high-value activities, advanced technologies, and powerful institutions. Peripheral regions often depend on lower-value, labor-intensive sectors and are more vulnerable to external shocks.
Hybrid work is embedded in this unequal world system. High-income countries tend to host a larger share of occupations that can be performed remotely: software development, finance, consulting, research, design, and high-level administration. They also generally have better digital infrastructure, more stable electricity, and more protective labor regulations that enable negotiation of flexible arrangements.
By contrast, many workers in lower-income regions are employed in agriculture, informal trade, small-scale manufacturing, or tourism roles that require physical presence. Even where tasks could be digitized, constraints such as poor connectivity, expensive devices, and limited social protection make hybrid work unrealistically risky.
This uneven distribution of teleworkable employment means that the celebrated “future of work” often describes the experience of workers in core economies more than those in peripheral regions. Hybrid work can also intensify global competition for skilled labor: firms in core countries may hire remote workers from elsewhere without relocating jobs, while local workers in peripheral regions may gain opportunities but also face downward pressure on wages and conditions.
When we speak of “borderless” hybrid work, therefore, we must remember that the borders of the world system remain very real: visa regimes, currency inequalities, and uneven digital infrastructures all shape who can participate effectively in global hybrid labor markets.
Institutional Isomorphism: Why Hybrid Work Looks the Same Everywhere
DiMaggio and Powell’s concept of institutional isomorphism helps explain why organizations facing uncertainty tend to become more similar over time. Coercive isomorphism arises from regulations or powerful stakeholders, mimetic isomorphism from imitation in response to uncertainty, and normative isomorphism from professional norms and standards.
All three mechanisms are visible in the spread of hybrid work:
Coercive pressures were obvious during the pandemic, as governments imposed lockdowns and health regulations. Later, shareholders, large clients, or accreditation bodies sometimes pushed for demonstrable flexibility or cost reductions.
Mimetic pressures led organizations to copy perceived success stories: if widely admired technology or consulting firms adopted two or three office days per week, others felt pressure to follow. “Best practice” reports and benchmark surveys amplified this imitation.
Normative pressures came from HR professionals, architects, workplace strategists, and designers who circulated models of “activity-based working,” “hot desking,” and “collaboration hubs,” with shared jargon and metrics.
The result is that hybrid workplaces around the world often end up looking surprisingly similar: open offices with bookable desks, focus rooms, video-conference pods, and digital tools standardized around familiar platforms. Policies, too, converge on common patterns such as “three days in, two days out,” even when organizational activities or local contexts might require different designs.
Institutional isomorphism is not inherently negative. It can spread useful innovations and create shared expectations. However, when combined with the unequal distribution of capital described by Bourdieu and the global hierarchies described by world-systems theory, it can lead to the uncritical transfer of models that fit some contexts but not others. This is where human-centered design offers a corrective.
Methodology
This article adopts a qualitative, conceptual methodology oriented towards theory-building rather than statistical estimation. The aim is to assemble a coherent picture of hybrid work and human-centered design in the current period and to organize existing insights into a framework that is meaningful for both scholars and practitioners.
The methodological steps are as follows:
Selective literature synthesisA wide range of books, peer-reviewed articles, and high-quality reports on telework, hybrid work, human-centered design, workplace health and wellbeing, and the sociology of work were reviewed. Preference was given to sources from the last five years for empirical insights, while classical works (such as those of Bourdieu, Wallerstein, and DiMaggio and Powell) were included for theoretical grounding.
Theoretical integrationThe literature was interpreted through three major theoretical lenses. From Bourdieu, the analysis draws on the concepts of capital, field, habitus, and symbolic power. From world-systems theory, it uses the idea of a core–periphery hierarchy and unequal development. From neo-institutional theory, it uses institutional isomorphism to understand convergence in organizational practice.
Thematic structuringThe synthesized material was organized around several central themes: evolution of hybrid work, human-centered design principles, inequalities of access and experience, sectoral variations, and emerging frameworks. Each theme combines theoretical discussion with practice-relevant examples and reflections.
Framework developmentBased on these themes, the article develops a conceptual human-centered hybrid work framework that can guide organizations in designing and evaluating their own arrangements.
The limitations of this approach are clear: it does not generate new quantitative evidence or test hypotheses statistically. Instead, it offers an interpretive lens and a structured synthesis that can be used to inform future empirical research and practical experimentation in organizations.
Analysis
1. The Changing Logic of Hybrid Work
Hybrid work is not simply about location; it alters fundamental assumptions about control, trust, and collaboration. In traditional office-centric models, control was often exercised through physical presence and direct observation. Managers could see whether workers were at their desks and equated presence with commitment. In hybrid models, control and evaluation must rely more explicitly on outputs, communication, and shared expectations.
This shift contains both opportunity and risk:
On the opportunity side, hybrid work encourages organizations to clarify goals, outcomes, and responsibilities. Rather than rewarding “face time,” they must define what good performance actually is. This can make evaluation more transparent.
On the risk side, the erosion of visible boundaries can lead to overwork, as employees compensate for physical absence by increasing digital presence, responding at all hours, and attending too many online meetings.
Hybrid work also reconfigures collaboration. Spontaneous, informal interactions in corridors or cafeterias are partially replaced by scheduled virtual meetings and digital chat. While this can improve inclusion for geographically dispersed colleagues—who now join the same virtual meetings as everyone else—it can also reduce the richness of informal socialization. Many employees report missing casual exchanges, mentoring moments, and the shared atmosphere of co-presence.
Organizations have reacted in different ways. Some have sought to re-create spontaneity through virtual social events, online coffee chats, or “open office” video rooms. Others have redesigned physical offices as collaboration hubs, emphasizing team areas, project rooms, and social spaces rather than individual desks. A few have tried to go fully remote, closing offices entirely, while others insist on frequent attendance to maintain culture and oversight.
These experiments reveal that no single hybrid recipe fits all. The most successful arrangements tend to be those that take seriously the specific nature of tasks, the diversity of workers’ situations, and the evolving expectations of clients and partners—precisely the kind of context-sensitive understanding emphasized by human-centered design.
2. Human-Centered Design in the Context of Work
Human-centered design began as a methodology in product and interaction design, where designers observe and collaborate with users to create solutions that fit their lived realities. The process typically involves stages such as understanding, ideation, prototyping, testing, and iteration. Applied to workplaces, human-centered design encourages leaders to treat policies, spaces, technologies, and norms as “designable” elements that should be shaped around human needs rather than people having to adapt to rigid systems.
Key principles of human-centered work design include:
Deep empathy and user researchOrganizations take time to understand the everyday lives of employees: their constraints, aspirations, identities, and pain points. This goes beyond generic surveys to include interviews, workshops, and observation.
Co-creation and participationEmployees and managers, along with designers and HR professionals, co-create possible hybrid models instead of receiving ready-made solutions. Participation helps reveal needs that management might not anticipate, such as the importance of certain informal rituals or the challenges of working in shared households.
Holistic perspectiveHuman-centered design considers physical, digital, social, and emotional aspects together. For example, a hybrid model that allows remote work but ignores access to ergonomic furniture or digital tools is incomplete. Likewise, a beautifully designed office that does not address psychological safety or career progression for remote team members is not truly human-centered.
Iteration and feedbackRather than designing a “perfect” hybrid policy once, organizations test prototypes—such as trial schedules or new office layouts—on a small scale, gather feedback, and refine them. This iterative approach acknowledges uncertainty and reduces the risks of large-scale missteps.
When these principles are applied to hybrid work, the resulting models tend to be more nuanced. For instance, instead of imposing uniform attendance rules, some organizations allow teams to decide together on their in-office days, balancing collaboration needs and individual constraints. Others combine core “anchor days” for in-person interaction with flexible days that employees can schedule around family responsibilities or personal preferences.
Human-centered design also highlights the emotional dimensions of hybrid work: the sense of belonging, the fear of missing out, the anxiety of being judged when not physically present, or the loneliness of remote work. Addressing these emotions requires leadership behaviors—such as inclusive communication, vulnerability, and fairness—that go beyond technical scheduling.
3. Inequalities and the Risk of a New Divide
Hybrid work can create or deepen several divides:
The teleworkability divide: not all jobs can be performed remotely. Workers in logistics, hospitality, manufacturing, retail, or care face structural limits on hybrid options. If organizations treat hybrid flexibility as a reward only for “top talent” in certain roles, they can inadvertently signal that some workers matter more than others.
The digital divide: while access to basic devices and connectivity has increased, quality differences remain significant. Workers with limited bandwidth, outdated hardware, or shared devices are at a disadvantage in video calls, collaborative platforms, and digital learning opportunities.
The visibility divide: employees who are more frequently in the office may enjoy more informal contact with managers and colleagues, which can translate into better evaluations, promotions, and access to stretch assignments. Others, who are mostly remote, may be perceived as less committed or less available, even if they are highly productive.
The care and gender divide: in many societies, women still carry a disproportionate share of unpaid caregiving responsibilities. Hybrid work can offer them flexibility, but it can also trap them in constant multitasking, blending professional duties with childcare or eldercare without clear boundaries. If organizations judge performance purely by outputs without considering this context, inequalities can persist or widen.
From Bourdieu’s perspective, these divides are expressions of unequal distributions of capital. Hybrid work, if left to market and managerial forces alone, risks reinforcing the privilege of those who already have more capital. World-systems theory adds that these divides occur not only within countries but also between them, as teleworkable, high-skill roles concentrate in core regions and global cities.
Human-centered design does not automatically resolve these structural issues, but it provides tools for making them visible and for designing mitigations. For example, organizations can:
Map which roles have access to hybrid work and develop targeted strategies to expand flexibility or enhance conditions for those who do not.
Offer financial or in-kind support for home office equipment and connectivity, particularly for lower-paid staff.
Train managers to evaluate performance based on clear, fair criteria, and track data on promotions and visibility to detect biases against remote workers.
Introduce policies such as core hours, right to disconnect, and protected focus time to support those with caregiving responsibilities.
These interventions require resources and political will. They can be seen as investments in social and symbolic capital—building an image as a fair, inclusive employer and strengthening trust within the workforce.
4. Sectoral Perspectives: Management, Tourism, and Technology
Hybrid work and human-centered design play out differently across sectors.
Management and professional servicesIn consulting, finance, legal services, and corporate functions, hybrid models are often relatively easy to implement because much of the work involves analysis, communication, and coordination that can be digitized. These sectors also compete globally for talent and therefore use hybrid flexibility as part of their employer value proposition. Human-centered hybrid design here focuses on:
Ensuring that junior staff can still access mentoring and informal learning.
Avoiding a “two-class” culture where those in the office are favored.
Supporting cross-border collaboration for international teams.
Tourism and hospitalityTourism is fundamentally about physical experiences—travel, accommodation, food, events, and attractions. Most frontline roles cannot be performed remotely. However, hybrid elements exist in back-office functions, marketing, reservations, revenue management, and virtual customer support. Human-centered design in this sector involves:
Extending some forms of flexible scheduling to frontline workers where possible, such as self-rostering or predictable shifts.
Using digital tools to improve communication between dispersed teams and to make schedules more transparent.
Designing staff areas and rest spaces that recognize employees’ physical and emotional needs, especially in high-pressure seasons.
Hybrid possibilities also emerge in new tourism products, such as “workation” packages where guests combine remote work with travel. This in turn changes the expectations placed on hospitality staff, who must support not only leisure experiences but also reliable working conditions for guests.
Technology and digital industriesTechnology companies are often early adopters of remote and hybrid work. Many have globally distributed teams and rely heavily on digital collaboration tools. However, they also face challenges with burnout, fragmented attention, and inclusion. In practice, human-centered hybrid work in tech includes:
Thoughtful meeting design: avoiding excessive synchronous meetings, using asynchronous tools, and rotating time zones.
Clear norms around availability and communication channels.
Inclusive practices in remote-first meetings, such as using written inputs, structured turn-taking, and visual facilitation.
Across all three sectors, a pattern emerges: the sectors most capable of moving towards hybrid work are also ones that rely on high levels of cultural and digital capital and are often located in core economies. Tourism shows how sectors with more physical, place-bound work must think carefully about fairness when some staff can benefit from hybrid flexibility and others cannot.
5. A Human-Centered Hybrid Work Framework
Drawing on the analysis, the following human-centered hybrid work framework is proposed. It is not a rigid model, but a set of design dimensions that organizations can adapt to their contexts.
Participation and Co-Design
Establish cross-functional design teams that include employees from different roles, levels, and demographic backgrounds.
Use structured workshops, storytelling, and journey mapping to understand typical workdays, pain points, and aspirations.
Involve employee representatives and, where relevant, unions in negotiating hybrid policies.
Equity and Inclusion
Audit access to hybrid work by role, seniority, gender, disability status, and other relevant categories.
Ensure that critical meetings and decisions are accessible to remote participants; avoid side conversations that exclude them.
Offer alternatives—such as compressed weeks, shift choice, or additional leave—where hybrid location flexibility is impossible.
Wellbeing and Boundaries
Set reasonable expectations for responsiveness; discourage “always-on” culture.
Provide training on boundary management, time management, and digital wellbeing.
Integrate wellbeing indicators into regular organizational dashboards, not treating them as separate from performance.
Integrated Physical and Digital Environments
Redesign offices as places for collaboration, creativity, and community-building rather than simply rows of desks.
Support home workspaces with allowances, guidance, and, where feasible, shared local hubs or co-working partnerships.
Choose digital tools with usability, accessibility, and low cognitive load in mind; avoid an overload of platforms.
Learning, Feedback, and Adaptation
Treat hybrid work as an ongoing experiment. Pilot changes in specific teams, collect feedback, and adjust.
Encourage managers to view unexpected issues as opportunities for learning, not signs of failure.
Share stories and examples of effective hybrid practices internally to build a culture of collective learning.
Recognition and Career Development
Make criteria for promotion and recognition explicit and independent of physical presence.
Track who receives high-visibility assignments and leadership opportunities, and correct biases.
Provide structured channels for remote employees to showcase work, propose ideas, and build networks.
Global Responsibility and Sustainability
Consider environmental impacts of reduced commuting and office space alongside increased digital energy use.
Reflect on global inequalities in hybrid work access and, where possible, support skills development and remote opportunities in less advantaged regions.
Align hybrid work strategies with wider commitments to social responsibility, diversity, and inclusion.
By systematically addressing these dimensions, organizations can move from ad hoc hybrid arrangements to intentionally designed systems that reflect human-centered principles and acknowledge structural realities.
Findings
The synthesis of literature and theory in this article leads to several key findings:
Hybrid work is structurally embedded in the future of work, but it is not universal. It is likely to remain a central feature in knowledge-intensive sectors, while large parts of the global workforce continue to work on-site. This duality must be recognized rather than glossed over by celebratory narratives of flexibility.
Human-centered design offers a practical and ethical framework for shaping hybrid work. When organizations follow human-centered principles—deep understanding, co-creation, holistic design, and iteration—they are more likely to create hybrid models that support wellbeing, equity, and performance.
Hybrid work interacts with existing inequalities structured by capital and global hierarchies. Bourdieu’s forms of capital explain why some individuals benefit more from hybrid work than others, while world-systems theory highlights that entire regions are differently positioned in the global teleworkable economy.
Institutional isomorphism encourages convergence on similar hybrid models, which can be both helpful and problematic. Shared frameworks and standards can speed up learning, but uncritical imitation can produce poorly fitting solutions and obscure local needs.
Sectoral differences matter but do not negate common design challenges. Management, tourism, and technology sectors all confront issues of fairness, wellbeing, and participation, though the balance between remote and on-site work differs.
Hybrid work is not a finished project but an evolving practice. Successful organizations treat it as a continuous process of learning and adaptation, rather than a one-time policy decision.
Conclusion
The future of work is being shaped by the interplay of hybrid models, human-centered design, and deep structures of power and inequality. Hybrid work offers real benefits: it can reduce commuting time, support work–life integration, expand talent pools beyond geographic limits, and encourage more outcome-focused management. Yet it also carries significant risks: new forms of overwork, visibility gaps, unequal access, and the reproduction of existing hierarchies.
This article has argued that human-centered design is essential for steering hybrid work in a more just and sustainable direction. By grounding design in the lived realities of workers, acknowledging the influence of capital and global hierarchies, and resisting the temptation to copy fashionable models uncritically, organizations can create hybrid systems that better serve both people and organizations.
For managers and policymakers, the challenge is to see hybrid work not merely as a technical or real estate issue, but as a profound reorganization of social relations in the workplace. Decisions about where and how people work are also decisions about whose needs are prioritized, whose voices are heard, and whose futures are imagined.
For researchers, there is a rich agenda ahead: empirical studies of long-term career outcomes under hybrid regimes; comparative analyses across countries and sectors; investigation of hybrid work in small and medium enterprises and in the Global South; and exploration of links between hybrid work, environmental sustainability, and new forms of collective organization.
The future of work, in short, is not predetermined. Hybrid models can be designed in ways that reinforce existing inequalities or in ways that open up more humane and inclusive possibilities. Human-centered design, informed by critical social theory, offers a path toward the latter.
Hashtags
References
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Fana, M., Torrejón Pérez, S., & Fernández-Macías, E. (2020). Employment impact of COVID-19 crisis: Teleworking and vulnerable workers. JRC Working Papers on Labour, Education and Technology.
Ngoc, H. N., van den Berg, R., & Bos, A. (2021). Human-centred design in industry 4.0: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 115(7–8), 2649–2667.
Sostero, M., Milasi, S., Hurley, J., Fernández-Macías, E., & Bisello, M. (2023). Teleworkability and the COVID-19 crisis: A new digital divide? IZA Journal of Labor Policy, 13(1), 1–32.
Waizenegger, L., McKenna, B., Cai, W., & Bendz, T. (2020). An affordance perspective of team collaboration and enforced working from home during COVID-19. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(4), 429–442.
Wallerstein, I. (1974). The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Academic Press.
Wilson, H. K., Finley, M. A., & others. (2024). Learning from the working-from-home experiment during COVID-19: Employees’ motivation to continue working from home. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness.
Fayyad, N., et al. (2024). Workplace wellbeing and the built environment: A systematic review. Ergonomics.
Knapp, D. F. (2024). The Experience of Knowledge Workers in Remote and Hybrid Environments. Doctoral dissertation, University of New England.
Chamberlain, S., et al. (2022). Applying human-centred design to innovation for development: Lessons from practice. BMJ Innovations, 8(3), 240–248.
Comments