The Relationship between Remote Work and Job Satisfaction: A Literature Review

ABSTRACT

Objective:  to review the remote work arrangements (RWA) literature and propose a framework of the effects on job satisfaction, incorporating mediators and moderators that explain remote work nuances through the lens of self-determination and organizational support theories.

Methods:  we used a mixed narrative and developmental review. Starting with 11,280 remote work and job satisfaction (and related keywords) articles, we focused on English and Portuguese studies thematically aligned from a curated list of journals, reducing the sample to 270 articles. The narrative review was used to summarize previously published research, focusing on concepts and research outcomes. Later, we provide a conceptual framework for the impact of working from home on employee satisfaction.

Results:  remote work presents both opportunities and challenges. Employee-related elements such as autonomy, competence, and a sense of belonging (among others), as well as company-related factors like organizational ties and cultural strength, are crucial. However, experiences can vary due to organizational and employee characteristics, such as gender dynamics.

Conclusions:  proactive strategies are necessary to create inclusive and sustainable RWAs. Future research should explore these moderators and pathways, as well as aspects such as gender, roles, career progression, and strategies to reduce work-life conflicts.

Keywords:
remote work; job satisfaction; work from home; telecommuting; telework

INTRODUCTION

In the 21st century, technological and cultural shifts have driven the expansion of remote work. Its adoption evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced organizations to transition from traditional in-person interactions to virtual communication, making remote work a mainstream practice (Klarsfeld et al., 2024). While the current prominence of remote work may seem recent, its origins trace back to the 1970s, when advancements in information and communication technologies (ICT) enabled more flexible and distributed work environments (Alassaf et al., 2023; Wöhrmann & Ebner, 2021).

Remote work, defined as professional activities conducted outside traditional office settings using ICT, encompasses modalities such as home office, distance work, and hybrid arrangements (Law no 13,467, 2017; Norman et al., 2020). It promotes flexibility, enabling employees to better balance professional and personal demands (Konrad, 2018). Alternative terms, such as telecommuting and work-from-anywhere (Choudhury et al., 2021), emphasize mobility and adaptability.

Self-determination theory (SDT) by Deci and Ryan (2000) suggests that flexibility enhances autonomy, a basic psychological need, which correlates with greater job satisfaction. Yet, challenges such as social isolation, connectivity issues, and fluctuating workloads can negatively impact employees’ well-being (Brandão & Ramos, 2023; Marzban et al., 2021). Y. Wang et al. (2021)emphasize problems like work-life interference, communication barriers, and loneliness, which undermine socialization and job satisfaction. Such challenges can diminish employees’ sense of relatedness, leading to emotional exhaustion and reduced work meaningfulness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).

Despite these challenges, supportive management practices that foster connectivity and balance can mitigate negative outcomes, improving well-being and the sense of productivity in remote settings (Jaiswal & Prabhakaran, 2024; Metselaar et al., 2023). Drawing on organizational support theory, perceived organizational support plays a crucial role in enhancing employees’ sense of value and well-being, reinforcing their commitment and engagement (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Achieving work-life balance is critical, as it enhances job satisfaction, reduces stress, and strengthens organizational commitment (Popoola & Fagbola, 2023). However, constant technological connectivity can blur boundaries, causing technostress and affecting mental health (Chan et al., 2023).

Additionally, individual and organizational factors, such as personality, workplace dynamics, and demographics like age, gender, and skills, influence remote work experiences (Pereira et al., 2021). Gender disparities, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, revealed that women in dual-career households experienced more significant declines in job satisfaction and sense of productivity due to increased caregiving and domestic responsibilities (Carli, 2020; Feng & Savani, 2020). Greater work-life conflicts for women (Çoban, 2022) led to higher stress and lower satisfaction (Chan et al., 2023; Mahomed et al., 2022; Metselaar et al., 2023). These would be explained by social and gender role theory - how societal expectations and biological factors shape gendered behaviors and work patterns, reinforcing traditional roles (Eagly & Wood, 2016; Greenhaus & Powell, 2003).

In light of these complexities, understanding individual (e.g., job satisfaction) and organizational outcomes (e.g., productivity) in remote work becomes crucial. This study aims to review the remote work arrangements (RWA) literature in business administration and propose a framework addressing the direct effects on employees’ satisfaction, while also incorporating mediators and crucial moderators that explain the nuanced impact of remote work. We understand that literature reviews (LR) on this emerging and important topic can help researchers’ limited “ability to retain, organize, and synthesize earlier knowledge” (Templier & Paré, 2015, p. 113), as LR serve as background or standalone pieces of what has already been done and what the key issues of a topic are, also guiding decision-making and managerial practices on an evidence-based paradigm (Templier & Paré, 2015). Therefore, this study aims to answer the following research question: How can remote work arrangements (RWA) impact employees’ satisfaction?

To answer the overall research question, we formulated several supporting sub-questions:

• RQ1: What are the main effects of RWA on employees’ satisfaction?

• RQ2: Besides employee satisfaction, are there other relevant positive and negative outcomes of remote work arrangements (RWA) described in the extant literature?

• RQ3: What are the pathways (mediators) to achieve positive (and negative) outcomes described in the RWA literature?

• RQ4: What are the main supports and constraints that organizations need to address to achieve positive RWA outcomes?

• RQ5: What are the main organizational and employee characteristics that will influence the achievement of positive RWA outcomes?

METHODOLOGY

This article is a literature review that examines theoretical and empirical data on job satisfaction in remote work. It also seeks to explore other relevant individual and organizational outcomes. Furthermore, it investigates pathways (mediators) to achieve positive (and negative) outcomes and identifies organizational (e.g., sector/segment) and individual characteristics (e.g., employee gender, traits, etc.) that could intensify or attenuate the results.

The review followed a structured approach, using a mixed narrative and developmental review. According to Paré et al. (2015), they share similar steps that can complement each other, with their main difference being in objectives. A narrative review summarizes previously published research on a topic of interest, focusing on theories, concepts, or research outcomes, “providing a much-needed bridge between the vast and scattered assortment of articles” (p. 118), while developmental reviews provide new conceptualizations, theories, methodological approaches, or, as in this study, frameworks “that [go] beyond simply gathering prior studies” (p. 119). Like Paré et al. (2015), we argue that a particular review might pursue several objectives. Therefore, we not only sought to produce an analytical summary of knowledge but also to present a conceptual framework for the impacts of working from home on employee satisfaction.

Following the steps of a mixed narrative and developmental review (Paré et al., 2015), the process (Figure 1) began with defining the research problem and research questions. Next, we started with a primary study focus, identifying publications containing facts, concepts, and evidence that express various viewpoints on the subject. A preliminary search (Web of Science, JSTOR, Emerald Insight) of the topic helped us gather different remote work terminologies and keywords related to the research questions (work-from-home - job satisfaction - productivity - stress at work - work-life balance - remote work - professional behavior - flexibility - teleworking - e-work - telecommuting). The timeframe for this research was from 2015 to 2024, reflecting the significant increase in studies before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Relevant older works were also included due to their contextual significance.

Figure 1
Systematic process of the literature review.

This resulted in 11,280 initial records. Filters were applied to narrow the scope, focusing on articles in English or Portuguese, published in relevant research areas such as business, behavioral sciences, and public administration, resulting in 778 articles. To ensure the selection of high-quality and thematically aligned studies, we further restricted the sample to a curated list of journals (e.g., Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Business Research, Public Management Review, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Human Relations, and International Journal of Human Resource Management, among others) and to fields such as organizational studies, human resource management, public administration, work psychology, and business management. This reduced the number of articles to 270, improving the coherence and focus of the review.

To ensure we covered a representative portion of the literature and also included studies central to the topic (Paré et al., 2015), we used the Tree of Science (ToS) platform. This tool applies graph theory metrics to visually map knowledge fields, classifying classic articles as roots, foundational works as the trunk, and recent studies as leaves. Among the 270 identified articles, 134 were classified in the ToS structure, and 121 were selected as directly relevant. The platform also helped to visualize the relationships between studies and the evolution of the research domain (Zuluaga et al., 2022).

The final selection of articles involved abstract and superficial review, cataloging, and detailed analysis of critical points. The articles were divided among authors so that at least two researchers reviewed each abstract. The selection comprises studies with different methodologies (qualitative: interviews, case studies, reviews / quantitative: surveys, secondary data, etc.).

First, we organized studies that presented different terminologies and the evolution of the phenomenon. Other relevant themes emerged from this first analysis: remote work concept and its benefits; satisfaction as an outcome in remote work; satisfaction and the sense of productivity in remote work; satisfaction and work-life balance in remote work; and satisfaction and gender in remote work - so the narrative summarization stage was organized in this way. After this, the articles were organized by their dependent, independent, mediating, and moderating variables, forming the basis for the theoretical framework on job satisfaction in remote work.

THEORETICAL REVIEW

Remote work evolution

Work has undergone profound transformation in the 21st century due to rapid technological, cultural, and social shifts. Globalization has led organizations to manage geographically dispersed teams, reinforcing the relevance of remote work in a globalized context. The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically accelerated this shift, replacing in-person interactions with virtual communication and prompting new modes of collaboration and knowledge sharing (Jackowska & Lauring, 2021).

Although the current prominence of remote work is recent, its origins date back to the 1970s, when advancements in information and communication technologies (ICT) enabled more flexible work arrangements (Alassaf et al., 2023; Wöhrmann & Ebner, 2021). While debates on ICT’s role have endured for decades, the pandemic transformed telework into a mainstream practice (Klarsfeld et al., 2024). With personal computers and internet access becoming more widespread, working from home became feasible and beneficial for both employers and employees (Grant et al., 2013).

Forecasts from 2012 already projected significant growth, estimating 144 million e-workers in OECD countries (Nilles, 2007). Brazil registered over 12 million home-based workers by 2013 (Sociedade Brasileira de Teletrabalho [Sobratt], 2013), and Switzerland saw telework double between 2005 and 2012 (Vilhelmson & Thulin, 2016).

The pandemic intensified this trajectory. In the EU, remote work rose from 12.3% to 48% in 2020, with over a third working exclusively from home (Kerman et al., 2022; Peñarroja, 2024). In the U.S., 12.7% of full-time employees currently work remotely, with 28.2% following hybrid models; by 2025, this figure is expected to reach 22% (32.6 million workers) (Forbes, 2024).

Globally, flexibility dominates. In South Africa, 89% anticipate continued remote options (Mahomed et al., 2022). In the Czech Republic, 45% transitioned to remote work, with 48% now preferring home office, and 61% of employers offering hybrid formats (Jurníčková et al., 2024). Latin America leads globally, with 81% of companies adopting hybrid or remote models - surpassing North America’s 65%, with hybrid work representing 71% (Latinometrics, 2024).

Remote work concept, benefits, and downfalls

Remote work, also referred to as telework or work-from-home (Bailey & Kurland, 2002), refers to professional activities performed outside traditional office environments, using information and communication technologies (ICT) to maintain organizational contact (Law no 13,467, 2017). This concept appears in legal and formal documents and encompasses various modalities, including home office, where work is conducted from the employee’s residence (Gonçalves et al., 2018).

Several terminologies are related to remote work. Distance work is a broad term describing any activity performed outside the conventional office (Oliveria & Mill, 2020), while remote work refers specifically to tasks executed beyond the company’s premises (Silva et al., 2024). Hybrid work combines remote flexibility with in-office presence, fostering a balanced model (Norman et al., 2020). Other terms include e-work, denoting electronically supported tasks (Smith et al., 2015); telecommuting, common in English-speaking countries, involving internet- and telecom-based office communication (Brandão & Ramos, 2023; Lane et al., 2024); mobile work, characterized by constant travel and mobile device use (Park et al., 2020); and working-from-anywhere (WFA), highlighting location-independent work (Choudhury et al., 2021).

Though often used interchangeably, subtle distinctions exist. For instance, Amigoni and Gurvis (2009) treat remote work and telecommuting as synonyms, while Sobratt (2013) argues that not all remote work occurs off-site, as some tasks can be performed within company facilities using telecom tools.

A prominent advantage of remote work is its flexibility, allowing employees to manage their schedules and achieve better work-life balance (Konrad, 2018). According to self-determination theory (SDT), developed by Deci and Ryan, autonomy, competence, and relatedness are essential psychological needs. Remote work addresses these needs by offering schedule autonomy, fostering skill development, and enabling virtual connections (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000, 2008). This leads to increased satisfaction and well-being.

Remote work also reduces commuting time and could increase more work-time at home (Aczel et al., 2021), increases organizational performance (Mutingada et al., 2022), and enhances productivity by minimizing interruptions (O’Neill et al., 2014). It fosters work-life integration, especially for those with caregiving responsibilities. Irawanto et al. (2021) conceptualize work-from-home as a setting enriched by organizational support, which can enhance satisfaction and reduce stress.

However, remote work poses several challenges. Limitations in infrastructure, access to equipment, and perceived job insecurity, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, hinder its effectiveness (Ipsen et al., 2021). Reduced social interaction can result in isolation and lower motivation (Afota et al., 2024; Rockman & Pratt, 2017). Technological barriers, inadequate training, and weakened organizational bonds also create obstacles (Alok et al., 2021; Dharma, 2021; Mahmud et al., 2023; Meunier et al., 2022). Communication breakdowns are common when support systems are lacking.

Security and privacy risks also escalate in remote settings, necessitating stronger cybersecurity protocols (Lane et al., 2024). Managers must adapt to remote supervision, developing digital collaboration Technologies and communication optimization (Lane et al., 2024; Martins et al., 2004). Additionally, remote work often blurs the boundaries between personal and professional life, increasing the risk of overwork and burnout (Allen et al., 2014. These factors must be addressed to sustain effective remote work models.

Recent literature has identified distinct teleworker profiles. Peñarroja (2024) categorized them as realistic, ambivalent, and enthusiastic, based on variables such as education, income, and weekly hours. Similarly, Jurníčková et al. (2024) identified four employee types: working from home is not for me, yin and yang, holiday with emergency, and chameleon. These typologies reflect diverse psychological and behavioral adaptations, underscoring the role of individual personality and motivation, as suggested by SDT.

As remote work becomes more prevalent, debates persist regarding its long-term effects. While research affirms its benefits for well-being, satisfaction, and performance (Y. Wang et al., 2021), further inquiry is needed into how different professional behaviors and attitudes shape its success (Kaduk et al., 2019). Legal, social, and spatial dimensions, such as gender roles and time-use patterns, also intersect with remote work and deserve deeper analysis.

Despite broad exploration, knowledge gaps remain regarding teleworker profiles, motivations, and lived experiences. Although flexibility and time savings are well-documented benefits (Berberat et al., 2021), further studies should clarify their relationship with job satisfaction, a central outcome of remote work (Irawanto et al., 2021; Schall, 2019).

Satisfaction as an outcome in remote work

In the context of remote work, companies prioritize maintaining employee performance and preserving organizational culture (Marzban et al., 2021). However, remote workers often experience social isolation, connectivity issues, and workload fluctuations, which can impact job satisfaction and well-being. Drawing on self-determination theory (SDT), which posits that behavior is influenced by internal motivations and external factors (Deci & Ryan, 2000), these challenges raise concerns about the effects of remote work on socialization and satisfaction. Job satisfaction is a complex construct involving emotional, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions (Judge et al., 2017; Locke, 1969; Rebouças et al., 2007; Spector, 2012), and emerges from the alignment between individual expectations and the reality of work (Irawanto et al., 2021). Failing to meet the need to belong can result in negative emotions such as anxiety and depression, undermining satisfaction (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).

Remote work may reduce satisfaction by limiting social interaction and weakening the intrinsic need for relatedness, which can lead to emotional exhaustion and loss of work meaningfulness, particularly for those with strong relational ties to coworkers (Afota et al., 2024). Therefore, fostering community and connection among remote workers is essential to support well-being and satisfaction.

Research shows that telecommuters’ affective commitment is negatively associated with psychological isolation, whereas continuance commitment is positively related to both psychological and physical isolation. According to Meyer and Allen’s (1991) framework of organizational commitment, which includes affective, normative, and continuance components, remote employees may remain in their roles not due to emotional attachment but because of perceived benefits, energy conservation, or reduced job mobility (W. Wang et al., 2020).

Organizational support plays a key role in counteracting the effects of isolation. It positively influences outcomes such as commitment, loyalty, job satisfaction, and retention (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). During physical separation, technological and managerial support help fulfill the SDT need for competence, increasing employees’ willingness and motivation (Alok et al., 2021; Dharma, 2021). Daily leader-member exchanges (LMX) also reduce isolation, and trust in supervisors improves telework satisfaction and perceived career prospects (de Vries et al., 2019; Golden, 2006; Nakrošienė et al., 2019). Supportive leadership enhances competence and reinforces a sense of inclusion.

Autonomy is another key element in remote work satisfaction. Mehta (2021) emphasizes its relevance to work engagement, aligning with SDT’s emphasis on autonomy as a fundamental condition for well-being. Engagement also depends on psychosocial safety and the absence of social harm (Dollard & Bakker, 2010). Remote work’s flexibility contributes to greater happiness at work, which, in turn, improves learning, performance, and satisfaction (Choudhury et al., 2021; Deci & Vansteenkiste, 2004; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness are universal and necessary for intrinsic motivation (Van den Broeck et al., 2016).

Flexible work practices, such as choosing one’s work location, enhance satisfaction by giving employees greater control over their environment and facilitating work-life balance. Characteristics like codifiability, standardizability, and modularizability also affect satisfaction, especially when ICT systems support task performance (Neirotti et al., 2019). Company size can moderate the relationship between functional remote infrastructure and satisfaction, while quality models of telework contribute to improved outcomes (Margheritti et al., 2023).

Leaders managing predominantly millennial teams must consider this generation’s strong preference for flexibility. Strategies such as strengthening communication, building trust, offering mentoring, and resolving conflicts can sustain job satisfaction, engagement, and commitment. Virtual integration initiatives and effective delegation contribute to fulfilling the need for relatedness (Camp et al., 2022).

Institutional support also matters. The 2010 Telework Enhancement Act (TEA) structured federal telework programs in the United States, promoting performance-focused cultures supported by expectations, feedback, and incentives (Kwon & Jeon, 2020). ‘Smart working,’ as applied in Italy during the pandemic, improved flexibility, collaboration, and organizational resilience in the public sector (Todisco et al., 2023). Yet, supervisory challenges related to resource allocation and monitoring can reduce satisfaction, particularly when work-life boundaries are unclear, reinforcing the need for targeted support strategies.

Satisfaction in remote work results from positive experiences and acts as a precursor to other organizational and individual outcomes. Autonomy enhances intrinsic motivation and well-being (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000), while satisfaction strengthens the perception of productivity and work-life balance. Ultimately, satisfaction contributes to generativity at work, reflecting a sense of purpose and a desire to make meaningful contributions to the organization and society (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Understanding satisfaction as a bidirectional dynamic - improving personal well-being while fostering professional engagement - is essential to fully grasp the impact of remote work on individual performance and organizational success.

Satisfaction and the sense of productivity in remote work

Remote work has prompted investigations into the relationships between job satisfaction, productivity, work-life balance, and stress. Satisfaction reflects working conditions and can enhance the sense of productivity when teleworkers are content. Jaiswal and Prabhakaran (2024) found that emotional and mental well-being significantly predict remote performance, indicating that well-being supports efficiency.

A study with 957 Chinese workers showed that employees working from home experienced higher satisfaction and lower attrition, despite loneliness and promotion concerns. Performance improved among call center workers without affecting work quality (Majan et al., 2023). Satisfaction also encourages self-directed learning and focus due to autonomy, contributing to higher productivity (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

According to Alassaf et al. (2023), 84.4% of teleworkers reported satisfaction, primarily due to flexibility and the use of saved time for personal and social activities. This emphasizes satisfaction as a driver of productivity. However, during lockdowns, despite increased autonomy, motivation and productivity declined due to reduced coworker interaction (Rietveld et al., 2022), underscoring the importance of social integration promoted by supervisors (T. Kim et al., 2021).

Remote work enhances autonomy and work-life balance satisfaction, positively influencing perceived performance (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). However, working in locations like cafés had no significant performance impact, possibly due to lower autonomy and balance benefits (Metselaar et al., 2023). Research in South America found a reciprocal relationship between satisfaction and productivity, where feeling productive also influenced perceived balance and stress (Cardoso et al., 2025).

Professional isolation negatively impacts performance by undermining the need for relatedness, as proposed by SDT. The link between satisfaction and performance strengthens when boundary control is high and isolation is low, highlighting the value of managing work-life boundaries and maintaining coworker ties (Jaiswal & Prabhakaran, 2024).

Van der Lippe and Lippényi (2020) reported that employees perform worse when coworkers are remote for extended periods, with managers perceiving reduced team performance in remote setups. Nonetheless, autonomy and social connection can enhance motivation and align with intrinsic motivation principles (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Remote work effectiveness depends on decision-making autonomy, supportive technologies, and structured practices. Burnout arises from excessive workloads, limited downtime, and blurred boundaries (Grant et al., 2013). Trust and leadership styles also affect productivity, with supported and connected employees reporting greater satisfaction and performance (Spreitzer et al., 2005).

Although productivity and satisfaction are often linked, there is limited evidence confirming that telework enhances both. Most research relies on self-reported data, which may be biased, and empirical findings are mixed (Bailey & Kurland, 2002). Evans et al. (2022) observed that extroversion and conscientiousness, though typically associated with positive outcomes, were linked to declining performance and satisfaction during remote transitions.

Persistent availability through communication technologies can increase stress and reduce satisfaction (Ferreira et al., 2018; Hsu et al., 2019). When workloads exceed expectations and organizational support is weak, satisfaction drops and stress rises (Chowhan & Pike, 2023; Ramirez et al., 1996). Conflicts between work and life domains also affect job satisfaction, indicating the need for further research on satisfaction as a precursor to balance.

Satisfaction and work-life balance in remote work

Job satisfaction in remote work is strongly associated with increased well-being, fostered by improved work-life balance, autonomy, reduced stress, and a more customized workspace. Well-being reflects an individual’s perception of work and influences satisfaction (Spector, 2012). Mediation analyses suggest that teleworking enhances motivation, satisfaction, and balance (Palumbo et al., 2022). Employees who maintain work-family balance tend to be more committed (Popoola & Fagbola, 2023).

The shift from traditional office settings impacts job effort, satisfaction, and well-being. Remote workers report higher satisfaction and organizational commitment than on-site employees (Felstead & Henseke, 2017), often exchanging increased effort for flexibility. Flexibility allows work to align with personal needs (Dilmaghani, 2021; Vilhelmson & Thulin, 2016) and promotes autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Autonomy enhances competence and relatedness, boosting motivation and satisfaction. Managing home responsibilities improves work-family balance, especially for experienced teleworkers, while new remote workers may require more structure (Carlson et al., 2024).

Satisfaction and balance are also influenced by personality, job characteristics, and employment terms. Employees under rigid contracts may report greater happiness (Bellmann & Hübler, 2020). Kossek et al. (2006) found that formal teleworkers received higher ratings, but integration strategies sometimes led to family-to-work conflict. Psychological job control reduces turnover and stress, emphasizing the importance of perceived control for mental health and satisfaction. However, remote work can blur work-life boundaries, negatively affecting balance.

Greenhaus et al. (2003) associate work-family balance with life quality, shaped by time and satisfaction in both domains. Individuals prioritizing family report less stress and conflict, while work-focused individuals face more conflict, reducing life quality. Teleworking may strain balance due to frequent boundary violations (Palumbo et al., 2022). Interruptions between personal and work tasks reduce satisfaction, though effects vary by contextual factors, including data collection timing (Kerman et al., 2022).

Transitions between roles influence conflict levels depending on whether individuals prefer to segment or integrate domains (Delanoeije et al., 2019). Boundary permeability can relieve or intensify exhaustion, especially in high-demand jobs (Lazauskaite-Zabielske et al., 2022). Remote work may extend hours, blur boundaries, and intrude on family time (Bolisani et al., 2020; Eddleston & Mulki, 2017). High permeability increases interruptions but may also empower individuals to manage conflicts autonomously. Clear segmentation reduces conflict and enhances well-being (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985).

Satisfaction with remote work depends on balancing flexibility with structured boundaries (Allen et al., 2014; Clark, 2000; Kossek & Lautsch, 2018; Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012). While technology supports communication and reduces isolation (Van Zoonen & Sivunen, 2022), overuse drains cognitive and emotional resources, leading to stress, burnout, and difficulty maintaining balance (Chan et al., 2023). Techno-invasion and overload aggravate work-life conflict.

In India, millennial teleworkers reported communication gaps, lack of managerial support, long hours, and logistical barriers during the pandemic, increasing stress and isolation (Sengupta & Al-Khalifa, 2022). In Portugal, excessive technology use and low autonomy led to more work-family conflict (Andrade & Lousa, 2021). In South Africa, job demands and work-home conflicts harmed well-being, while autonomy, communication, and social support mitigated negative effects (Mahomed et al., 2022).

Using data from the European Working Conditions Survey, Palumbo (2020) found that remote work increased dedication and vigor but also intensified work effort, causing unintended consequences. Balancing work demands is essential, as prolonged hours raise stress (Ingusci et al., 2021). Predefined hours promote balance, lowering anxiety and depression (Bellmann & Hübler, 2020). According to self-determination theory, allowing autonomy in scheduling helps employees maintain a healthier balance.

Although remote workers often struggle to separate domains (Felstead & Henseke, 2017), these blurred boundaries bring both benefits and difficulties (S. Kim & Hollensbe, 2018). Cardoso et al. (2025) noted that reduced coworker interaction can be offset by stronger family contact.

Individual behavior and perception shape boundary management. Both segmentation and integration can support well-being depending on personality and coping strategies (Desrochers & Sargent, 2004). Establishing clear boundaries between work and personal life enhances happiness and perceived productivity (Ahmad et al., 2022; Bader et al., 2018).

Cavanagh (1992) outlined three factors influencing satisfaction: personality, job characteristics, and attributed values. Organizational elements such as salary, career advancement, autonomy, and leadership style influence satisfaction, along with personal variables like age, and gender (Pereira et al., 2021). Gender differences are especially relevant in shaping experiences and outcomes related to remote work, work-life balance, and satisfaction.

Satisfaction and gender in remote work

Historically, economic and gender inequalities led women to domestic roles, either as a survival strategy or to conform to patriarchal expectations. Societal norms traditionally positioned men in the workforce and women as primary caregivers (Van der Lippe & Lippényi, 2020). Despite societal advances, UN Women (2020) reports that women still dedicate three hours daily to unpaid domestic work, compared to one hour by men (Ferreira & Reis, 2021).

Before the pandemic, productivity and job satisfaction levels were similar between men and women in dual-career households (Feng & Savani, 2020). However, during the pandemic, women’s productivity and satisfaction declined more due to increased responsibilities with household and childcare tasks. Older workers and women reported fewer benefits from telework, and having more children negatively affected satisfaction, productivity, and career prospects (Nakrošienė et al., 2019). These dynamics reinforced traditional gender roles, increasing work-life conflict and undermining women’s well-being (Carli, 2020; Çoban, 2022).

Women have faced greater work-life conflict than men, as caregiving duties intensified (Chan et al., 2023; Mahomed et al., 2022). A Dutch study found higher balance satisfaction among men, confirming that women continue to shoulder most domestic responsibilities (Metselaar et al., 2023). Acting as household managers, women experience increased stress balancing professional and personal obligations (Sengupta & Al-Khalifa, 2022).

According to Dilmaghani (2021), remote work is more advantageous for adults without children. For men, telework improves motivation and belonging, while older women with children often prioritize caregiving, disrupting their professional routines. From the perspective of self-determination theory, flexible arrangements enhance autonomy and competence for some but diminish these for others, especially caregivers.

Work-family integration presents challenges. Women, who tend to favor integration (Desrochers & Sargent, 2004; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007), initially welcome proximity to family but struggle with competing demands, increasing stress (Ray & Pana-Cryan, 2021). This undermines expected gains in job satisfaction and balance (Wessel & Lachman, 2020). Women also report emotional exhaustion due to overlapping roles, affecting well-being (Ferreira & Reis, 2021).

Social and gender role theory (Eagly & Wood, 2016) suggests that societal expectations and behavioral norms shape gendered roles, influencing professional experiences. These roles impact autonomy, competence, and motivation. Motivations for telework vary, with women often seeking flexibility to manage caregiving, while younger employees pursue autonomy and parents seek balance (Thompson et al., 2022). Job satisfaction improves when telework is autonomous and voluntary (Anderson & Kelliher, 2020).

Irawanto et al. (2021) found that women experience fulfillment when personal and professional values align, despite stress from remote work. According to self-determination theory (Deci & Vansteenkiste, 2004), well-being arises from autonomy and competence, reducing perceived inefficiency and tension. Gender differences also affect perceptions of work-family conflict. Men tend to prioritize work and are less affected by imbalance (Wood & Eagly, 2010), while women prioritize family and suffer more from overlapping demands (Anderson & Kelliher, 2020; Keene & Quadagno, 2004).

Both genders experience stress from telework challenges like family interference and organizational detachment. In France, with lower gender equality, stress gaps were more pronounced, while in Quebec, telework stress impacted men more than women (Klarsfeld et al., 2024). J. Kim (2023) showed that autonomy, goal clarity, fairness, and performance-based culture improved telework satisfaction during the pandemic. Satisfaction was higher when employees had control, clear objectives, and meritocratic environments, with gender and generational differences shaping outcomes.

The interplay between gender, achievement, balance, and stress reflects the complexity of job satisfaction in remote work. Human behavior, molded by both biology and socio-cultural contexts, influences telework dynamics. Cultural differences also shape remote work experiences and management approaches (Hofstede, 1983).

Exploring flexibility requires attention to both objective and subjective dimensions. Occupational cultures and work conditions impact boundary management (Kossek et al., 2006). The next section presents the findings from the literature and discusses their implications for remote work outcomes.

DISCUSSION

The literature review encompasses various perspectives on remote work and job satisfaction. From a total of 121 articles (Table 1), work evolution is addressed by 13 authors (10.7%), while concepts and benefits are covered in 32 studies (26.4%). Job satisfaction as an outcome is explored by 27 authors (22.3%), and its link to productivity by 20 (16.5%). Work-life balance is the most frequently discussed topic (36 authors, 29.7%), followed by gender and satisfaction (31 authors, 25.6%). Notably, 29 authors (approximately 25%) appear in multiple sections, highlighting the interconnectedness of these themes.

Table 1
Distribution of authors across remote work and job satisfaction themes.

Authors	Remote Work Evolution	Remote Work and its Benefits	Satisfaction as an Outcome	Satisfaction and Productivity Perception	Satisfaction and Work-life Balance	Satisfaction and Gender
Aczel et al. (2021)		X
Afota et al., 2024			x
Ahmad et al. (2022)					x
Alassaf et al. (2023)	x	x		x
Allen et al. (2014, 2015)		x	x		x
Alok et al. (2021)		x	x
Amigoni and Gurvis (2009)		x
Anderson and Kelliher (2020)						x
Andrade and Lousa (2021)					x
Bader et al. (2018)					x
Bailey and Kurland (2002)		x		x
Baumeister and Leary (1995)			x
Bellmann and Hübler (2020)					x
Bolisani et al. (2020)					x
Brandão and Ramos (2023)		x		x	x
Cardoso et al. (2025)				x	x
Carlson et al. (2024)					x
Carli (2020)						x
Chan et al. (2023)					x	x
Choudhury et al. (2021)		x	x
Chowhan and Pike (2023)				x
Clark (2000)					x
Çoban (2022)						x
Deci and Ryan (1985, 2000, 2008)		x	x	x		x
Delanoeije et al. (2019)					x
Desrochers and Sargent (2004)					x	x
de Vries et al. (2019)			x
Dharma (2021)		x	x
Dilmaghani (2021)					x	x
Eagly et al. (2000)						x
Eagly and Wood (2016)						x
Eddleston and Mulki (2015, 2017)					x	x
Evans et al. (2022)				x
Felstead and Henseke (2017)					x
Feng and Savani (2020)						x
Ferreira and Reis (2021)						x
Ferreira et al. (2018)				x	x
Gagné and Deci (2005)				x
Gajendran and Harrison (2007)			x	x		x
Golden (2006)			x
Gonçalves et al. (2018)		x
Grant et al. (2013)	x	x		x
Greenhaus and Beutell (1985)					x
Greenhaus et al. (2003)					x
Greenhaus and Powell (2006)						x
Hofstede (1983)						x
Hsu et al. (2019)				x	x
Ingusci et al. (2021)					x
Irawanto et al. (2021)		x	x			x
Jackowska and Lauring (2021)	x
J. Kim (2023)						x
Jaiswal and Prabhakaran (2024)				x
Judge et al. (2017)			x
Jurníčková et al. (2024)	x
Kaduk et al. (2019)		x
Keene and Quadagno (2004)						x
Kerman et al. (2022)	x				x
Klarsfeld et al. (2024)	x					x
Konrad (2018)		x
Kossek and Lautsch (2018)					x
Kossek et al. (2006)					x
Kwon and Jeon (2020)			x
Lane et al. (2024)		x
Law no 13,467 (2017)		x
Authors	Remote Work Evolution	Remote Work and its Benefits	Satisfaction as an Outcome	Satisfaction and Productivity Perception	Satisfaction and Work-life Balance	Satisfaction and Gender
Latinometrics (2024)	x
Lazauskaite-Zabielske et al. (2022)					x
Lemos and Cavazotte (2018)						x
Lemos et al. (2020)					x	x
Locke (1969)			x
Mahomed et al. (2022)	x				x	x
Mahmud et al. (2023)					x
Margheritti et al. (2023)			x
Martins et al. (2004)		x
Marzban et al. (2021)		x
Mehta (2021)			x
Metselaar et al. (2023)				x		x
Meyer and Allen (1991)			x
Mutingada et al. (2022)	x	x
Nakrošienė et al. (2019)						x
Neirotti et al. (2019)			x
Nilles (2007)		x
Norman et al. (2020)		x
Oliveria and Mill (2020)		x
O’Neill et al. (2014)		x	x	x
Palumbo (2020)					x
Palumbo et al. (2022)
Park et al. (2020)		x			x
Peñarroja (2024)	x
Pereira et al. (2021)		x	x
Popoola and Fagbola (2023)					x
Ramirez et al. (1996)				x
Rau and Triemer (2004)						x
Ray and Pana-Cryan (2021)					x	x
Rebouças et al. (2007)			x
Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002)			x
Rietveld et al. (2022)				x
Rockman and Pratt (2017)		x	x
Ryan and Deci (2000, 2017)		x	x	x		x
Schall (2019)		x
Sengupta and Al-Khalifa (2022)					x	x
Silva et al. (2024)		x			x
Sobratt (2013)	x	x
Smith et al. (2015)		x	x
Spector (2012)			x
Spreitzer et al. (2005)				x
S. Kim and Hollensbe (2018)					x
Templier and Paré (2015)			x
Ten Brummelhuis and Bakker (2012)					x
Thompson et al. (2022)						x
Todisco et al. (2023)					x
T. Kim et al. (2021)				x
Van den Broeck et al. (2016)			x
Van der Lippe and Lippényi (2020)	x			x		x
Van Zoonen and Sivunen (2022)					x
Vilhelmson and Thulin (2016)	x				x
W. Wang et al. (2020)			x
Y. Wang et al. (2021)		x	x
Wessels and Lachman (2020)
Wöhrmann and Ebner (2021)	x
Wood and Eagly (2010)						x
Yang et al. (2023)				x

• Note. Developed by the authors.

Job satisfaction in remote work presents advantages that, depending on the context, may also become challenges. Greater control over one’s routine promotes work-life balance, enhancing motivation and a sense of belonging (Alassaf et al., 2023; Konrad, 2018). However, the lack of clear boundaries can lead to overwork and burnout (Allen et al., 2014; Grant et al., 2013).

Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000, 2008) emphasizes autonomy as a key factor for satisfaction and well-being, fostering self-management and efficiency (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Yet, without proper organizational support, autonomy may lead to isolation and lack of guidance (Jaiswal & Prabhakaran, 2024; Van der Lippe & Lippényi, 2020). Organizational support theory (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) suggests that structured support mitigates these risks, strengthening engagement.

Flexibility and a personalized work environment enhance productivity by reducing interruptions (O’Neill et al., 2014). However, technology, while increasing efficiency, also extends work hours and raises stress levels (Ferreira et al., 2018; Hsu et al., 2019).

Social interaction is another paradox. Fewer workplace distractions improve focus but reduce knowledge sharing and team cohesion (Afota et al., 2024; Rockman & Pratt, 2017). Moreover, women and parents face additional challenges in balancing professional and household responsibilities (Feng & Savani, 2020; Nakrošienė et al., 2019).

In summary, remote work offers significant benefits but also presents challenges that depend on context, support systems, and individual circumstances. Understanding these complexities is essential for organizations and employees to maximize advantages while mitigating potential drawbacks. The following section presents the final considerations, highlighting key insights and future perspectives on remote work and job satisfaction.

RWA INFLUENCE ON JOB SATISFACTION FRAMEWORK

In this section, we present an integrative framework illustrating the complex relationships between remote work arrangements and their key outcomes. The model extends beyond simple direct effects by incorporating mediators and crucial moderators that explain the nuanced impact of remote work. We aim to elucidate both positive and negative results for individuals (employees) and companies.

The framework (Figure 2) begins with the central construct of remote work arrangements, encompassing various modalities such as work-from-home, hybrid work, telecommuting, distance work, e-work, mobile work, and work-from-anywhere. Although already mentioned, it is important to reiterate that remote work is used as the overarching term to describe work performed outside the traditional organizational environment.

Figure 2
Framework of remote work arrangement and job satisfaction.

Remote work arrangements directly influence two sets of mediators (pathways): employee experiences and company experiences. These mediated experiences, in turn, lead to the ultimate outputs of the model. Employee experiences encompass both beneficial and detrimental outcomes. Positive experiences include increased flexibility, improved work-life balance, enhanced autonomy, greater well-being, higher work quality, and a stronger sense of competence, purpose, and productivity. These align with self-determination theory (SDT), which posits that fostering intrinsic needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness can lead to positive psychological outcomes like job satisfaction and motivation. Consistent with empirical findings, when supported adequately, remote work can boost employee commitment and loyalty (Irawanto et al., 2021). Job satisfaction, expressed in its emotional, cognitive, and behavioral facets, can lead to higher performance and productivity for organizations (Jaiswal & Prabhakaran, 2024; Judge et al., 2017; Locke, 1969; Rebouças et al., 2007; Spector, 2012).

Conversely, remote work arrangements can also lead to negative employee experiences. These include isolation and reduced socialization, a decreased sense of work meaningfulness, tech stress and general stress, burnout, blurred boundaries between work and personal life (often termed ‘boundary violations’), and communication barriers.

For company experiences, positive mediated outcomes include talent retention and reduced turnover, as well as lower infrastructure costs. However, challenges such as weakened organizational ties and culture can also emerge.

These mediated employee and company experiences ultimately lead to the model’s outputs. For individuals, these are individual outcomes such as job satisfaction (emotional, cognitive, behavioral), commitment, loyalty, and mental health. For organizations, the organizational outcomes are productivity and performance.

The model’s novelty lies in the explicit recognition and integration of moderators, which influence the strength and direction of the relationships between remote work arrangements and the mediating employee and company experiences. These moderators explain when and for whom remote work yields specific outcomes.

The support/constraint environment functions as a crucial moderator, including factors that can either enhance or constrain the positive and negative pathways. Key elements are the quality of organizational support (e.g., infrastructure, psychological support, communication), leadership commitment, effective performance monitoring and a performance-oriented culture, efforts to foster social connections/integration and a sense of community, and the degree of technological adequacy. Conversely, inadequate tools, excessive technology use, insufficient training, communication barriers, excessive monitoring, inadequate cybersecurity measures, and insufficient resource allocation can negatively moderate these relationships. Consistent with organizational support theory (OST), which emphasizes the importance of perceived organizational support via infrastructure, psychological support, and communication, a robust support environment can mitigate negative effects like isolation and technostress while enhancing well-being and a sense of competence.

Furthermore, organizational and employee characteristics are explicitly positioned as moderators in this model. Organizational moderators encompass factors such as company size, sector/segment, environment, job characteristics, employment contracts, work environments, management style, and local/organizational culture. For example, the effect of remote work on productivity might be stronger in certain sectors due to specific job characteristics, or a supportive management style might reduce stress levels associated with remote work.

Employee moderators include individual attributes such as intrinsic motivation (specifically the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness as per self-determination theory - SDT), extrinsic motivation, worker expectations, work/job experience, demographics (gender, age/generation), family interference, number of children, societal roles (e.g., dual-career households, childcare responsibilities, domestic responsibilities, caregiving, domestic tasks, educational responsibilities, boundary permeability), and personal traits (e.g., extraversion, conscientiousness, coping strategies). For instance, an employee’s intrinsic need for autonomy might enhance the positive impact of remote work on job satisfaction, while high family interference might exacerbate work-life balance challenges.

The interplay of these elements suggests that remote work success is highly contingent. The model argues that it is more appropriate to expect that cultural values and individual characteristics influence the effectiveness of a work mode, such as telework, by influencing employees’ specific beliefs about it. In summary, the remote work model can be successful when the organization provides adequate support to mitigate its negative effects, while considering the environment in which it operates as well as the characteristics and needs of its employees.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

In conclusion, this literature review reveals that remote work presents a complex landscape, offering both opportunities and challenges that are shaped by a multitude of factors. Central to understanding this paradigm is the concept of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which forms the cornerstone of job satisfaction in remote settings. The potential of remote work to enhance these elements, driven by advancements in information and communication technologies, is undeniable.

However, the reality of remote work is far from uniform. Gender dynamics significantly influence the experience, with disparities often amplified by the demands of domestic and caregiving responsibilities. This creates a situation where the benefits of remote work are not equally distributed, placing additional strain on certain segments of the workforce. The review highlights the critical need for interventions that address these imbalances, ensuring that remote work promotes equity rather than reinforcing existing inequalities.

Addressing disparities in gender roles and family structures requires multi-level actions. Broader protections, via federal laws and regulations, are essential and must be ensured by higher-level policy bodies. For example, Brazil’s Law no 13,467 (2017) amended the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT) to formally regulate telework through written agreements clarifying employer and employee responsibilities. This federal regulation aims to reduce legal ambiguity and mitigate gender-based disparities in remote work, where unpaid domestic demands often fall disproportionately on women.

Organizations, in turn, can adopt context-sensitive strategies: flexible scheduling aligned with school hours, task-based checkpoints, and inclusive leave policies. Organizational support may include communication optimization (clear channels, responsive feedback), improved connectivity tools, infrastructure investment (hardware, secure networks), and outcome-based performance monitoring. But, most of all, organizations should foster social connections or a sense of community through virtual team-building, mentoring programs, integration efforts, and leadership commitment to equity. Supportive leadership is particularly critical, as it fosters trust, reduces feelings of isolation, and enhances employees’ sense of value and connection in remote settings (de Vries et al., 2019; Nakrošienė et al., 2019).

Moreover, achieving a healthy work-life balance, fostering a sense of productivity, and providing adequate organizational support are crucial for the success of remote work arrangements. While remote work offers the promise of flexibility, the absence of clear boundaries, the potential for isolation, and the challenges of maintaining effective communication can undermine its intended advantages. These factors underscore the importance of proactive management strategies that prioritize employee well-being and create a supportive virtual environment.

The findings of this review contribute theoretically by highlighting the interface between self-determination theory (SDT) and organizational support theory (OST) in understanding job satisfaction within the remote work context. SDT offers a lens to examine how autonomy, competence, and relatedness impact employees’ motivation and well-being, while OST underscores the significance of perceived organizational support in mitigating the challenges of remote work and fostering a positive work environment. By integrating these perspectives, this study advances the comprehension of how individual psychological needs and organizational factors interact to shape job satisfaction in remote settings.

Building on this foundation, further research is needed to explore the complexities of remote work, particularly regarding gender and individual differences. Developing innovative strategies to enhance remote work practices is essential for fostering a more equitable and sustainable work environment that promotes employee well-being, satisfaction, and the sense of being productive. This calls for inclusive policies, targeted support systems, and a deeper understanding of the diverse experiences within the remote workforce.

A limitation of this study is the absence of an empirical investigation into how remote work dynamics vary across institutional contexts such as welfare regimes, technological infrastructure, or gender policies. These dimensions constitute additional analytical variables that would entail the formulation of new research questions and hypotheses. As such, they fall beyond the scope of the present analysis but represent important directions for future research.

Moreover, in the absence of cross-cultural studies, it may be interesting to explore how cultural values and norms shape remote work experiences and impact job satisfaction, examining behavioral factors that could provide valuable insights for adapting remote work policies across cultures. Future studies should also focus on the long-term effects of remote work on career progression, particularly for women, and explore strategies to mitigate work-life conflict in varying sociocultural settings.

REFERENCES

• Aczel, B., Kovacs, M., van der Lippe, T, & Szaszi, B. (2021). Researchers working from home: Benefits and challenges. Plos One 16(3) 25, e0249127. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249127
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249127
• Afota, M. C., Savard, Y. P., Léon, E., & Ollier-Malaterre, A. (2024). Changes in belongingness, meaningful work, and emotional exhaustion among new high-intensity telecommuters: Insights from pandemic remote workers. Journal Of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 97(3), 817-840. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12494
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12494
• Ahmad, Z., Asmawi, A., & Samsi, S. Z. M. (2022). Work-from-home (WFH): The constraints-coping-effectiveness framework. Personnel Review, 51(8), 1883-1901.
• Alassaf, P., El-assaf, B. M., & Szalay, Z. G. (2023). Worker’s satisfaction and intention toward working from home-foreign non-EU citizens vs. national workers’ approach: Case study of Central European countries (Visegrad Group (V4)). Administrative Sciences, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13030088
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13030088
• Allen, T. D., Cho, E., & Meier, L. L. (2014). Work-family boundary dynamics. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 99-121. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091330
  » https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091330
• Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(2), 40-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615593273
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615593273
• Alok, S., Kumar, N., & Banerjee, S. (2021). Vigour and exhaustion for employees working from home: The mediating role of need for structure satisfaction. International Journal of Manpower, 45(1), 72-88. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-04-2022-0168
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-04-2022-0168
• Amigoni, M., & Gurvis, S. (2009). Managing the telecommuting employee: Set goals, monitor progress, and maximize profit and productivity. Kindle ebook. Adams Business.
• Anderson, D., & Kelliher, C. (2020). Enforced remote working and the work-life interface during lockdown. Gender in Management, 35(7-8), 677-683. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-07-2020-0224
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-07-2020-0224
• Andrade, C., & Lousa, E. P. (2021). Telework and work-family conflict during COVID-19 lockdown in Portugal: The influence of job-related factors. Administrative Sciences, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11030103
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11030103
• Bader, A. K., Froese, F. J., & Kraeh, A. (2018). Clash of cultures? German expatriates’ work-life boundary adjustment in South Korea. European Management Review, 15(3), 357-374. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12102
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12102
• Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 383-400. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.144
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/job.144
• Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
• Bellmann, L., & Hübler, O. (2020). Working from home, job satisfaction and work-life balance - robust or heterogeneous links? International Journal of Manpower, 42(3), 424-441. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-10-2019-0458
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-10-2019-0458
• Berberat, S., Rosat, D. & Kouadio, A. B. (2021). What motivates people to telework? Exploratory study in a post-confinement context. Post-Print hal-03365484, HAL. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2110.03399
  » https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2110.03399
• Bolisani, E., Scarso, E., Ipsen, C., Kirchner, K., & Hansen, J. P. (2020). Working from home during COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learned and issues. Management and Marketing, 15(S1), 458-476. https://doi.org/10.2478/mmcks-2020-0027
  » https://doi.org/10.2478/mmcks-2020-0027
• Brandão, S., & Ramos, M. (2023). Teleworking in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic: Advantages, disadvantages and influencing factors - the workers’ perspective. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 25(2), 253-268. https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v25i2.4221
  » https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v25i2.4221
• Camp, K. M., Young, M., & Bushardt, S. C. (2022). A millennial manager skills model for the new remote work environment. Management Research Review, 45(5), 635-648. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-01-2021-0076
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-01-2021-0076
• Cardoso, A. N., Fernandes, B. H. R., Sousa, P. R., & Cruz, M. A. (2025). Relações entre produtividade, satisfação no trabalho, equilíbrio entre vida pessoal-profissional e estresse no home office. Revista de Carreiras e Pessoas, 15(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.23925/recape.v15i1.61499
  » https://doi.org/10.23925/recape.v15i1.61499
• Carli, L. L. (2020). Women, gender equality and COVID-19. Gender In Management, 35(7-8), 647-655. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-07-2020-0236
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-07-2020-0236
• Carlson, D. S., Perry, S. J., Kacmar, M., Wan, M., & Thompson, M. J. (2024). When work and family collide: “Resource Caravans” of personal and contextual resources in remote work. New Technology Work and Employment, 39(1), 19-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12274
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12274
• Cavanagh, S. J. (1992). Job satisfaction of nursing staff working in hospitals. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17(6), 704-711. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1992.tb01968.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1992.tb01968.x
• Chan, X. W., Shang, S., Brough, P., Wilkinson, A., & Lu, C. (2023). Work, life and COVID-19: A rapid review and practical recommendations for the post-pandemic workplace. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 61(2), 257-276. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12355
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12355
• Choudhury, P., C., Foroughi, & Larson, B. (2021). Work-from-anywhere: The productivity effects of geographic flexibility. Strategic Management Journal, 42(4), 655-683. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3251
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3251
• Chowhan, J., & Pike, K. (2023). Workload, work-life interface, stress, job satisfaction and job performance: A job demand-resource model study during COVID-19. International Journal of Manpower, 44(4), 653-670. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-05-2022-0254
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-05-2022-0254
• Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53(6), 747-770. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700536001
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700536001
• Çoban, S. (2022). Gender and telework: Work and family experiences of teleworking professional, middle-class, married women with children during the Covid-19 pandemic in Turkey. Gender Work And Organization, 29(1), 241-255. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12684
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12684
• de Vries, H., Tummers, L., & Bekkers, V. (2019). The benefits of teleworking in the public sector: Reality or rhetoric? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(4), 570-593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X18760124
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X18760124
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
  » https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182-185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801
• Deci, E. L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2004). Self-determination theory and basic need satisfaction: Understanding human development in positive psychology. Ricerche di Psicologia, 27, 23-40.
• Delanoeije, J., Verbruggen, M., & Germeys, L. (2019). Boundary role transitions: A day-to-day approach to explain the effects of home-based telework on work-to-home conflict and home-to-work conflict. Human Relations, 72(12), 1843-1868. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718823071
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718823071
• Desrochers, S., & Sargent, L. D. (2004). Boundary/border theory and work-family integratio1. Organization Management Journal, 1(1), 40-48. https://doi.org/10.1057/omj.2004.11
  » https://doi.org/10.1057/omj.2004.11
• Dharma, P. (2021). Exploration study of the impact of working from home (Wfh) on employee performance during the Covid-19 pandemic. Airlangga Development Journal, 5(2), 101. https://doi.org/10.20473/adj.v5i2.32050
  » https://doi.org/10.20473/adj.v5i2.32050
• Dilmaghani, M. (2021). There is a time and a place for work: Comparative evaluation of flexible work arrangements in Canada. International Journal of Manpower, 42(1), 167-192. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-12-2019-0555
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-12-2019-0555
• Dollard, M. F., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to conducivework environments, psychological health problems, and employeee ngagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 579-599. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X470690
  » https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X470690
• Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123-174). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
• Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2016). Social role theory of sex differences. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss183
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss183
• Eddleston, K. A., & Mulki, J. (2015). Toward understanding remote workers’ management of work-family boundaries: The Complexity of Workplace Embeddedness. 42(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115619548
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115619548
• Eddleston, K. A., & Mulki, J. (2017). Toward understanding remote workers’ management of work-family boundaries: The complexity of workplace embeddedness. Group & Organization Management, 42(3), 346-387.
• Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986) Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
• Evans, A. M., Meyers, M. C., De Calseyde, P. P. F. M. V., & Stavrova, O. (2022). Extroversion and conscientiousness predict deteriorating job outcomes during the COVID-19 transition to enforced remote work. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(3), 781-791. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211039092
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211039092
• Felstead, A., & Henseke, G. (2017). Assessing the growth of remote working and its consequences for effort, well-being and work-life balance. New Technology Work and Employment, 32(3), 195-212. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12097
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12097
• Feng, Z. Y., & Savani, K. (2020). Covid-19 created a gender gap in perceived work productivity and job satisfaction: Implications for dual-career parents working from home. Gender in Management, 35(7-8), 719-736. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-07-2020-0202
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-07-2020-0202
• Ferreira, C. A. A., & Reis, C. Á. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 on Brazilian Women in Teleworking. Revista Brasileira de Estudos de Populacao 38, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.20947/S0102-3098a0180
  » https://doi.org/10.20947/S0102-3098a0180
• Ferreira, I. S., Campolina, C. M., & Mantovani, A. (2018). Intercom - Sociedade Brasileira de Estudos Interdisciplinares da Comunicação Organizations in motion: Professional relationships and practices in the context of remote work. http://hdl.handle.net/1843/76455
  » http://hdl.handle.net/1843/76455
• Forbes © (2024). Forbes Media LLC. All Rights Reserved. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/remote-work-statistics/
  » https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/remote-work-statistics/
• Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322
• 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
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524
• Golden, T. D. (2006). The role of relationships in understanding telecommuter satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.369
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/job.369
• Gonçalves, M. C. B., Almeida, T. C., & Moura, V. F. (2018). Qualidade de vida no trabalho e métodos flexíveis de trabalho: Uma análise multimétodo sobre o impacto do home office na qualidade de vida do colaborador. Revista Liceu Online, 8(2), 74-94. https://liceu.fecap.br/LICEU_ON-LINE/article/view/1797/1049
  » https://liceu.fecap.br/LICEU_ON-LINE/article/view/1797/1049
• Grant, C. A., Wallace, L. M., & Spurgeon, P. C. (2013). An exploration of the psychological factors affecting remote e-worker’s job effectiveness, well-being and work-life balance. Employee Relations, 35(5), 527-546. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-08-2012-0059
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-08-2012-0059
• Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76-88. https://doi.org/10.2307/258214
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/258214
• Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., & Shaw, J. D. (2003). The relation between work-family balance and quality of life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 510-531. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00042-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00042-8
• Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2003). When work and family collide: Deciding between competing role demands. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(2), 291-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00519-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00519-8
• Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2), 75-89. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490867
  » https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490867
• Hsu, Y. Y., Bai, C-H., Yang, C-M., Huang, Y-C., Lin, T-T., & Lin, C-H. (2019). Effects of long hours on work-life balance and satisfaction. BioMed Research International. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5046934
  » https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5046934
• Ingusci, E., Signore, F., Giancaspro, M. L., Manuti, A., Molino, M., Russo, V., Zito, M., & Cortese, C. G. (2021). Workload, techno overload, and behavioral stress during COVID-19 emergency: The role of job crafting in remote workers. Frontiers In Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.655148
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.655148
• Ipsen, C., Van Veldhoven, M., Kirchner, K., & Hansen, J. P. (2021) Six key advantages and disadvantages of working from home in Europe during Covid-19. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041826
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041826
• Irawanto, D., Novianti, K., & Roz, K. (2021). Work from home: Measuring satisfaction between work-life balance and work stress during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. Economies, 9(3), 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies9030096
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/economies9030096
• Jackowska, M., & Lauring, J. (2021). What are the effects of working away from the workplace compared to using technology while being at the workplace? Assessing work context and personal context in a global virtual setting. Journal of International Management, 27(1), 100826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2021.100826
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2021.100826
• Jaiswal, A., & Prabhakaran, N. (2024). Impact of employee well-being on performance in the context of crisis-induced remote work: Role of boundary control and professional isolation. Employee Relations, 46(1), 115-132. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-08-2022-0384
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-08-2022-0384
• Judge, T. A., Weiss, H. M., Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Hulin, C. L. (2017). Job attitudes, job satisfaction, and job affect: A century of continuity and of change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000181
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000181
• Jurníčková, P., Matulayová, N., Olecká, I., Šlechtová, H., Zatloukal, L., & Jurníček, L. (2024). Home-office managers should get ready for the “new normal.” Administrative Sciences, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14020034
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14020034
• Lane, J., Leonardi, P. M., Contractor, N. S, & DeChurch, L. A. (2024) Teams in the digital workplace: Technology’s role for communication, collaboration, and performance. Small Group, 55(1), 139-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964231200015
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964231200015
• Kaduk, A., Genadek, K., Kelly, E. L., & Moen, P. (2019). Involuntary vs. voluntary flexible work: Insights for scholars and stakeholders. Community, Work & Family, 22(4), 412-442. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2019.1616532
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2019.1616532
• Keene, J. R., & Quadagno, J. (2004). Predictors of perceived work-family balance: Gender difference or gender similarity? Sociological Perspectives, 47(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2004.47.1.1
  » https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2004.47.1.1
• Kerman, K., Korunka, C., & Tement, S. (2022). Work and home boundary violations during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of segmentation preferences and unfinished tasks. Applied Psychology, 71(3), 784-806. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12335
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12335
• Kim, S., & Hollensbe, E. (2018). When work comes home: Technology-related pressure and home support. Human Resource Development International, 21(2), 91-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2017.1366177
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2017.1366177
• Kim, T., Mullins, L. B., & Yoon, T. (2021). Supervision of telework: A key to organizational performance. American Review of Public Administration, 51(4), 263-277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074021992058
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074021992058
• Kim, J. (2023). Public management strategies for improving satisfaction with pandemic-induced telework among public employees. International Journal of Manpower, 44(3), 558-575. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-01-2022-0048
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-01-2022-0048
• Klarsfeld, A., Carillo, K., Cachat-Rosset, G., Saba, T., & Marsan, J. (2024). Does the welfare regime impact the telework gender stress gap? New Technology Work and Employment, 39(1), 168-195. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12287
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12287
• Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work-family effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(2), 347-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.07.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.07.002
• Kossek, E. E., & Lautsch, B. A. (2018). Work-life boundary management styles in organizations: A cross-level model. Organizational Psychology Review, 8(1), 52-73. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386611436264
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386611436264
• Konrad, A. (2018). Reimagining work: Normative commonplaces and their effects on accessibility in workplaces. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 81(10). https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490617752577
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490617752577
• Kwon, M., & Jeon, S. H. (2020). Do leadership commitment and performance-oriented culture matter for federal teleworker satisfaction with telework programs? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(1), 36-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X18776049
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X18776049
• Latinometrics. (2024). Why are 71% of LatAm companies embracing the hybrid work model? [LinkedIn]. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/latinometrics_why-are-71-of-latam-companies-embracing-activity-7168243974539845633-7YFe
  » https://www.linkedin.com/posts/latinometrics_why-are-71-of-latam-companies-embracing-activity-7168243974539845633-7YFe
• Lazauskaite-Zabielske, J., Ziedelis, A., & Urbanaviciute, I. (2022). When working from home might come at a cost: The relationship between family boundary permeability, overwork climate and exhaustion. Baltic Journal of Management, 17(5), 705-721. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-12-2021-0491
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-12-2021-0491
• Law no 13,467 from July 13, 2017. (2017). Altera a Consolidação das Leis do Trabalho (CLT) para dispor sobre a reforma trabalhista. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF.
• Lemos, A. H. C, Barbosa, A. O., & Monzato, P. P. (2020). Mulheres em home office durante a pandemia da Covid-19 e as configurações do conflito trabalho-família. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 60(6), 388-399. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020200603
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020200603
• Lemos, A. H. C., & Cavazotte, F. S. C. N. (2018). É possível ter tudo? Carreira, maternidade e extensão da jornada na contemporaneidade. In A. Carvalho Neto & F. Versiani (Eds.), Mulheres profissionais: Quem é o sexo frágil? (p. 295). PUC-Minas.
• Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction?. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4(4), 309-336. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(69)90013-0
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(69)90013-0
• Mahmud, S., Mohsin, M., Dewan, M. N., & Muyeed, A. (2023). The global prevalence of depression, anxiety, stress, and insomnia among general population during COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends in Psychology, 31(1), 143-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43076-021-00116-9
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s43076-021-00116-9
• Mahomed, F., Oba, P., & Sony, M. (2022). Exploring employee well-being during the COVID-19 remote work: Evidence from South Africa. European Journal of Training and Development, 47(10), 91-111. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-06-2022-0061
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-06-2022-0061
• Majan, J. A., Uy, G. T., Valenton, J. L., Julag-ay, L. R., & Magallanes, C. (2023). Motivational factors and job satisfaction among call center employees. Virtutis Incunabula, 10(1), 25-35. https://doi.org/10.63173/8v5nvw60
  » https://doi.org/10.63173/8v5nvw60
• Margheritti, S., Picco, E., Gragnano, A., Dell’aversana, G., & Miglioretti, M. (2023). How to promote teleworkers’ job satisfaction? the Telework Quality Model and its application in small, medium, and large companies. Human Resource Development International, 27(4), 481-500. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2023.2244705
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2023.2244705
• Martins, L. L., Gilson, L., Maynard, M. T. (2004) Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 805-835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.05.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.05.002
• Marzban, S., Durakovic, I., Candido, C., Mackey, M. (2021). Learning to work from home: Experience of Australian workers and organizational representatives during the first Covid-19 lockdowns. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 23(3), 203-222. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-10-2020-0049
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-10-2020-0049
• Mehta, P. (2021). Work from home-work engagement amid COVID-19 lockdown and employee happiness. Journal of Public Affairs, 21(4), e2709. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2709
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2709
• Metselaar, S. A., den Dulk, L., & Vermeeren, B. (2023). Teleworking at different locations outside the office: Consequences for perceived performance and the mediating role of autonomy and work-life balance satisfaction. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 43(3), 456-478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X221087421
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X221087421
• Meunier, S., Bouchard, L., Coulombe, S., Doucerain, M., Pacheco, T., & Auger, E. (2022). The association between perceived stress, psychological distress, and job performance during the COVID-19 pandemic: The buffering role of health-promoting management practices. Trends in Psychology, 30(3), 549-569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43076-021-00136-5
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s43076-021-00136-5
• Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
• Mutingada, J. C., Witavaara, B., Heiden, M., Svensson, S., Fagerström, A., Bergeström, G., & Aboagye, E. (2022). A systematic review of the research on telework and organizational economic performance indicators. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1035310
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1035310
• Nakrošienė, A., Bučiūnienė, I., & Goštautaitė, B. (2019). Working from home: Characteristics and outcomes of telework. International Journal of Manpower, 40(1), 87-101. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-07-2017-0172
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-07-2017-0172
• Neirotti, P., Raguseo, E., & Gastaldi, L. (2019). Designing flexible work practices for job satisfaction: The relation between job characteristics and work disaggregation in different types of work arrangements. New Technology Work and Employment, 34(2), 116-138. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12141
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12141
• Nilles, J. M. (2007). Editorial: The future of e-work. The Journal of e-Working, 1(1), 1-12.
• Norman, S. M., Avey, J., Larson, M., & Hughes, L. (2020) The development of trust in virtual leader-follower relationships. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 15(3), 279-295. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-12-2018-1701
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-12-2018-1701
• Oliveria, R. N., & Mill, D. (2020). Teletrabalho docente, cultura digital e as transformações na legislação trabalhista. Trabalho & Educação, 29(2), 47-60. https://doi.org/10.35699/2238-037X.2020.21854
  » https://doi.org/10.35699/2238-037X.2020.21854
• O’Neill, T. A., Hambley, L. A., & Bercovich, A. (2014). Prediction of cyberslacking when employees are working away from the office. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 291-298.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.015
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.015
• Palumbo, R. (2020). Let me go to the office! An investigation into the side effects of working from home on work-life balance. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 33(6-7), 771-790. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-06-2020-0150
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-06-2020-0150
• Palumbo, R., Flamini, G., Gnan, L., Pellegrini, M. M., Petrolo, D., & Manesh, M. F. (2022). Disentangling the implications of teleworking on work-life balance: A serial mediation analysis through motivation and satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness-People and Performance, 9(1), 68-88. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-08-2020-0156
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-08-2020-0156
• Paré, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52(2), 183-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008
• Park, J-C, Kim, S., Lee, H. (2020) Effect of work-related smartphone use after work on job burnout: Moderating effect of social support and organizational politics. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 106194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106194
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106194
• Peñarroja, V. (2024). Are there differences in the perceived advantages and disadvantages of teleworking? The identification of distinct classes of teleworkers. International Journal of Manpower, 45(10), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-07-2023-0416
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-07-2023-0416
• Pereira, H., Fehér, G., Tibold, A., Esgalhado, G., Costa, V., & Monteiro, S. (2021). The impact of internet addiction and job satisfaction on mental health symptoms among a sample of Portuguese workers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(13), 6943. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136943
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136943
• Popoola, S. O., & Fagbola, O. O. (2023). Work motivation, job satisfaction, work-family balance, and job commitment of library personnel in Universities in North-Central Nigeria. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 49(4), 102741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2023.102741
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2023.102741
• Rau, R., & Triemer, A. (2004). Overtime in relation to blood pressure and mood during work, leisure, and night time. Social Indicators Research, 67(1-2), 51-73. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SOCI.0000007334.20490.52
  » https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SOCI.0000007334.20490.52
• Ramirez, A. J., Graham, J., Richards, M. A., Cull, A., & Gregory, W. M. (1996). Mental health of hospital consultants: The effects of stress and satisfaction at work. The Lancet, 347, 724-728. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(96)90077-x
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(96)90077-x
• Ray, T. K., & Pana-Cryan, R. (2021). Work flexibility and work-related well-being. International Journal of Environment Research and Public Health, 18(6), 3254. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063254
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063254
• Rebouças, D., Legay, L., & Abelha, L. (2007). Satisfação com o trabalho e impacto causado nos profissionais de serviço de saúde mental. Revista de Saúde Pública, 41(2), 244-250. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-89102007000200011
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-89102007000200011
• Rietveld, J. R., Hiemstra, D., Brouwer, A. E., & Waalkens, J. (2022). Motivation and productivity of employees in higher education during the first lockdown. Administrative Sciences, 12(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12010001
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12010001
• Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698-714. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698
• Rockman, K. W., & Pratt, M. G. (2017). Rethinking telecommuting and the distributed work organization. Academy of Management Proceedings, 30. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2011.65870087
  » https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2011.65870087
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.
• Schall, M. A. (2019). The relationship between remote work and job satisfaction: The mediating roles of perceived autonomy, work-family conflict, and telecommuting intensity [Master’s Thesis]. San Jose State University. SJSU Scholar Works.
• Sengupta, D., & Al-Khalifa, D. (2022). Pandemic imposed remote work arrangements and resultant work-life integration, future of work and role of leaders-a qualitative study of Indian millennial workers. Administrative Sciences, 12(4), 162. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040162
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040162
• Silva, A .J., Neves, P. N., & Caetano, A. (2024) Procrastination is not only a “thief of time”, but also a thief of happiness: It buffers the beneficial effects of telework on well-being via daily micro-events of IT workers. International Journal of Manpower, 45(1), 89-108. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-05-2022-0223
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-05-2022-0223
• Smith, S. A., Patmos, A., & Pitts, M. (2015). Communication and teleworking: A study of communication channel satisfaction, personality, and job satisfaction for teleworking employees. International Journal of Business Communication, 55(1), 44-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415589101
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415589101
• Sociedade Brasileira de Teletrabalho. (2013). Trabalho a distância reúne mais de 12 milhões de profissionais no Brasil. Por Brasil Econômico - Cintia Esteves. https://www.sobratt.org.br/18042013-trabalho-a-distancia-reune-mais-de-12-milhoes-de-profissionais-no-brasil/
  » https://www.sobratt.org.br/18042013-trabalho-a-distancia-reune-mais-de-12-milhoes-de-profissionais-no-brasil/
• Spector, P. E. (2012). Psicologia nas organizações. Saraiva.
• Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M. (2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization Science, 16(5), 537-549. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0153
  » https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0153
• Takeuchi, N., Takeuchi, T., & Jung, Y. (2021). Making a successful transition to work: A fresh look at organizational support for young newcomers from an individual-driven career adjustment perspective . Journal of Vocational Behavior, 128, 103587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103587
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103587
• Ten Brummelhuis, L. L., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). A resource perspective on the work-home interface: The work-home resources model. American Psychologist, 67(7), 545-556. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027974
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027974
• Thompson, R. J., Payne, S. C., Alexander, A. L., Gaskins, V. A., & Henning, J. B. (2022). Correction to: A taxonomy of employee motives for telework. Occupational Health Science, 6(2), 179-182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-022-00112-0
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-022-00112-0
• Todisco, L., Tomo, A., Canonico, P., & Mangia, G. (2023). The bright and dark side of smart working in the public sector: Employees’ experiences before and during COVID-19. Management Decision, 61(13), 85-102. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2022-0164
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2022-0164
• UN Women. (2020). About UN Women. https://www.unwomen.org/en/about-us/about-un-women
  » https://www.unwomen.org/en/about-us/about-un-women
• Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C. H., & Rosen, C. C. (2016). A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1195-1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316632058
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316632058
• Van der Lippe, T., & Lippényi, Z. (2020). Co-workers working from home and individual and team performance. New Technology, Work and Employment, 35(1), 60-79. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12153
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12153
• Van Zoonen, W., & Sivunen, A. E. (2022). The impact of remote work and mediated communication frequency on isolation and psychological distress. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31(4), 610-621. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2021.2002299
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2021.2002299
• Vilhelmson, B., & Thulin, E. (2016). Who and where are the flexible workers? Exploring the current diffusion of telework in Sweden. New Technology Work and Employment, 31(1), 77-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12060
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12060
• Wang, W., Albert, L., & Sun, Q. (2020). Employee isolation and telecommuter organizational commitment. Employee Relations, 42(3), 609-625. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-06-2019-0246
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-06-2019-0246
• Wang, Y., Lee, J., & Kim, H. (2021). Flexibility and infrastructure: Key drivers of remote work satisfaction in Nordic countries. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(7), 1320-1345. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1894567
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1894567
• Wessels, W. C. L., & Lachman, I. M. (2020). Parenting for lifelong health for young children: A randomized controlled trial of a parenting program in South Africa to prevent harsh parenting and child conduct problems. Journal of Child Psychol Psychiatry, 61(4), 503-512. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13129
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13129
• Wöhrmann, A. M., & Ebner, C. (2021). Understanding the bright side and the dark side of telework: An empirical analysis of working conditions and psychosomatic health complaints. New Technology Work and Employment, 36(3), 348-370. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12208
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12208
• Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2010). Gender. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., vol. 1, pp. 629-667). Oxford University Press.
• Yang, E., Kim, Y., & Hong, S. (2023). Does working from home work? Experience of working from home and the value of hybrid workplace post-COVID-19. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 25(1), 50-76. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-04-2021-0015
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-04-2021-0015
• Zuluaga, M., Robledo, S., Arbelaez-Echeverri, O., Osorio-Zuluaga, G.A., & Duque-Méndez, N. (2022). Tree of Science - ToS: A web-based tool for scientific literature recommendation. Search less, research more! Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 100. https://doi.org/10.29173/istl2696
  » https://doi.org/10.29173/istl2696

• How to cite:
  Ploszaj, H. H. B., Fernandes, B. H. R., & Viacava, J. J. C. (2025). The relationship between remote work and job satisfaction: A literature review. BAR-Brazilian Administration Review, 22(3), e250059. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-7692bar2025250059
• Funding:
  The authors stated that there is no funding for the research.
• Peer Review Report:
  The disclosure of the Peer Review Report was not authorized by its reviewers.
• Data Availability:
  Given that this study is a literature review and does not involve primary data collection, there are no datasets or supplementary materials available for submission. BAR - Brazilian Administration Review encourages data sharing but, in compliance with ethical principles, it does not demand the disclosure of any means of identifying research subjects.
• Plagiarism Check:
  BAR maintains the practice of submitting all documents received to the plagiarism check, using specific tools, e.g.: iThenticate.
• Peer review:
  is responsible for acknowledging an article’s potential contribution to the frontiers of scholarly knowledge on business or public administration. The authors are the ultimate responsible for the consistency of the theoretical references, the accurate report of empirical data, the personal perspectives, and the use of copyrighted material. This content was evaluated using the double-blind peer review process. The disclosure of the reviewers’ information on the first page is made only after concluding the evaluation process, and with the voluntary consent of the respective reviewers.
• JEL Code:
  M1

Edited by

• Editors-in-Chief:
  Ricardo Limongi https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3231-7515
  (Universidade Federal de Goiás, Brazil)

• Associate Editor:
  Dusan Schreiber https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4258-4780
  (Universidade Feevale, Brazil)

Edited by

• Editorial assistants:
  Eduarda Anastacio and Simone Rafael (ANPAD, Maringá, Brazil).

Data availability

Given that this study is a literature review and does not involve primary data collection, there are no datasets or supplementary materials available for submission. BAR - Brazilian Administration Review encourages data sharing but, in compliance with ethical principles, it does not demand the disclosure of any means of identifying research subjects.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  20 Oct 2025
• Date of issue
  2025

History

• Received
  20 May 2025
• Accepted
  20 Aug 2025
• Published
  23 Sept 2025