FROM CUBICLES TO COUCHES: EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
HYBRID WORKPLACE, ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT,
WORKPLACE ANXIETY AND JOB ENGAGEMENT
by
Akifa Rahman
B.B.A., United International University, 2013
E.M.B.A., North South University, 2018

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
July 2025
© Akifa Rahman, 2025

Abstract
Although hybrid workplace arrangements are increasingly touted as beneficial for
employee engagement, less is known about when and why such structural flexibility may
produce unintended consequences under conditions of resource threat. Drawing on the
Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, this study develops and tests a moderated mediation
model to examine how hybrid workplace (HW) structures influence job engagement (JE),
contingent on the effects of workplace anxiety (WA) and mediated by organizational, political
engagement (OPE). We propose that while HW represents a valuable contextual resource, its
effects on engagement are not uniformly experienced; instead, psychological anxiety may
activate compensatory behavioral strategies that alter these outcomes.
To test this framework, we conducted a time-lagged survey of N= 152 white-collar
employees across Bangladesh's manufacturing and telecommunications sectors who work in a
Hybrid workplace setup. Consistent with predictions, results indicate that HW positively predicts
OPE, with the effect significantly more substantial under high WA. Furthermore, OPE mediates
the interaction between HW and WA in predicting JE, such that the indirect effect of HW on JE
via OPE is amplified when WA is high. These findings suggest that anxious employees in hybrid
settings may engage politically as a resource-preserving response, paradoxically undermining
engagement.
Theoretically, this study extends COR theory by illustrating how structural resources and
resource threats interact to shape political engagement and impact overall employees' job
engagement.
Keywords: Hybrid workplace, post-pandemic, workplace anxiety, organizational
political engagement, job engagement, conservation of resource theory.

ii

Table of Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. ii
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. iii
List of the Tables .............................................................................................................. vi
List of the Figure ............................................................................................................. vii
List of Abbreviations...................................................................................................... viii
Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................ ix
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review .......................................................................................... 5
2.1 Hybrid Workplace (HW) ........................................................................................... 8
2.2 Workplace Anxiety (WA) ..........................................................................................11
2.3 Organizational Political Engagement (OPE) ......................................................... 14
2.4 Employees' Job Engagement (JE) ........................................................................... 16
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses .................................................. 20
3.1 Hybrid Workplace and Employee Job Engagement ................................................ 20
3.2 Hybrid Workplace and Organizational Political Engagement ............................... 21
3.3 Moderating Role of Workplace Anxiety (WA) ......................................................... 23
3.4 Mediating Role of Organizational Political Engagement....................................... 24
iii

Chapter 4: Method & Result Analysis .......................................................................... 26
4.1 Research Design ..................................................................................................... 26
4.2 Participants and Sampling...................................................................................... 26
4.3: Procedure............................................................................................................... 28
4.4 Measures ................................................................................................................. 29
4.5: Data Screening and Preparation ........................................................................... 30
4.6 Ethical Considerations............................................................................................ 31
4.7 Results and Analysis ............................................................................................... 31
4.8 Scale Validation and Model Fit............................................................................... 31
4.9 Reliability and Descriptive Statistics ...................................................................... 32
4.10 Hypothesis Testing ................................................................................................ 35
Chapter 5: Discussion ..................................................................................................... 39
5.1 Summary of Key Findings ....................................................................................... 39
5.2 Theoretical Contributions ....................................................................................... 40
5.3 Practical Implications ............................................................................................. 41
5.4 Limitations .............................................................................................................. 42
5.5 Future Research Directions .................................................................................... 45
Chapter 6: Conclusion .................................................................................................... 45
References ........................................................................................................................ 50
iv

Appendix .......................................................................................................................... 64
Appendix A: List of Questionnaires .............................................................................. 64
Appendix B: Survey Consent ......................................................................................... 67
Appendix C: Survey data collection .............................................................................. 72
Appendix D: List of Tables & Graphs ........................................................................... 73

v

List of the Tables

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities
Table 2: Hypothesis and Moderated Mediation

vi

List of the Figure

Figure 1: Theoretical Model of Current Research

vii

List of Abbreviations

HW

Hybrid Workplace

WA

Workplace Anxiety

OPE

Organizational Political Engagement

OPP

Organizational Political Perception

JE

Job Engagement

COR

Conservation of Resource Theory

viii

Acknowledgement
I would like to acknowledge and extend my heartfelt gratitude to Almighty Allah
first, who made everything possible. This research would not have been possible without the
insights I collected from all the survey participants and the organizations who consented to
participate in this study. We are grateful for your time, openness, and honesty, which contributed
to reaching valuable findings and conclusions. I hope you find meaningful takeaways from this
paper, giving a practical dimension to our gratitude to you. A big thank you goes to my
supervisor, Dr. Darren Brown. Your constructive feedback and direction helped me to stay on
track and ensure that the result of this study includes both theoretical and practical implications,
contributing new knowledge in the domain of the so-called new normal concerning the
workplace. We also want to thank the committee members who gave me meaningful feedback
and suggestions to proceed with my thesis. I would also like to thank all the professors, staffs in
the department and my friends in Bangladesh and Canada encourage and support me throughout.
Lastly, this thesis is dedicated to my husband (Jack) and my parents (Abdur Rahman &
Afroz Jahan), who supported and encouraged me during graduate school and life challenges. I
am truly thankful for having you in my life.
Thank you!

ix

Chapter 1: Introduction
The shift toward flexible work arrangements was accelerated by the COVID-19
epidemic, which brought about a significant change in working habits. Among these, the hybrid
workplace (HW), a concept that uses digital technologies to combine remote and in-person work,
has become a popular post-pandemic work arrangement (Smith & Lee, 2023). Long-held beliefs
about productivity, visibility, and teamwork have been upended by this change, which has
radically reshaped where, when, and how employees interact with their work (Halford, 2005;
Milenko et al., 2021; Salleh & Rajah, 2023). In line with changing demands for work-life
balance and well-being, employees now describe hybrid work environments as providing
flexibility and autonomy (Lund et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2020).
Although the advantages of HW are well known and include better time management,
less stress from commuting, and increased employee satisfaction (Giovanis, 2019; Hill et al.,
2003), the effects on employee behavior and psychology are still complicated. According to a
McKinsey global survey, more than half of workers preferred hybrid models over typical office
environments, and 30% of workers would think about leaving their jobs if they had to return onsite (Alexander et al., 2021). These results highlight the increasing need to look at both the
psychological sensations HW evokes and its functional success. The constant worry, trepidation,
or uncertainty in completing tasks, evaluating one's performance, or comparing oneself to others
is known as workplace anxiety (WA) (McCarthy et al., 2016; Zeidner & Matthews, 2005).
Although WA is not new to organizational research, little is known about how it manifests
in hybrid situations. The effects of worry on concentration, emotional weariness, and job
performance have long been recognized by academics (Eysenck et al., 2007; Fay & Sonnentag,
2002; Ford et al., 2011). Employees may feel more vulnerable to being ignored or

1

underappreciated in HW settings, where there is less physical visibility and performance reviews
can be unclear (McDonald et al., 2008; Call et al., 2015). Organizational political engagement
(OPE)—strategic actions taken to safeguard or improve one's standing at work, frequently by
forming alliances or using informal influence—may be triggered by this worry (Ferris et al.,
2000; Kacmar & Ferris, 1991).
The current study addressed the lack of studies that included HW, WA, and OPE in a
single model despite these theoretical links. Because they are physically separated from the
workplace, employees in remote or hybrid settings are less likely to participate in organizational
politics, according to earlier research (Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Fonner & Roloff, 2010). Even
in decentralized or virtual contexts, however, new research indicates that political behaviors may
reappear when employees are anxious about losing resources because they want to keep control,
visibility, and growth (Salleh & Rajah, 2023). In this way, HW could paradoxically be a doubleedged sword, promoting independence but also triggering workplace anxiety that impedes
participation and teamwork.
This study actively closed this crucial gap by investigating how and under what
conditions hybrid workplace arrangements affect employees' job engagement (JE), especially in
the presence of workplace anxiety and organizational political engagement. This study frames
WA as a moderator, a psychological signal of perceived resource threat, and OPE as a mediator, a
behavioral mechanism aimed at resource conservation drawing on the Conservation of Resources
(COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001), which holds that people are motivated to acquire, retain,
and protect valued resources.
This study aims to investigate whether and how workers in HW contexts act politically
when their WA levels are high and how this influences their degree of job engagement. The

2

study specifically looks at how OPE operates as a mechanism for how HW and WA interact to
affect JE. Furthermore, this study examines the relationship between HW and OPE in light of
theoretical ambiguities in the currently available literature. It finds that while moderate levels of
HW promote engagement, ambiguity regarding performance visibility may cause political
engagement in situations where workplace anxiety is high (Fonner & Roloff, 2010).
This research addresses the following questions: (1) Does hybrid work improve or impair
employee job engagement? (2) Under what condition (WA) and mechanism (OPE) do
detrimental effects on job engagement arise in HW setup?
To address the research questions of the present study, we employed a time-lagged survey
design involving N= 152 employees from the manufacturing and telecommunications sectors in
Bangladesh, all working under a hybrid workplace arrangement. We use a time-logged survey to
collect the data to mitigate common method bias. The results provided empirical support for the
proposed moderated mediation model grounded in the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory.
Specifically, hybrid workplace practices were positively associated with organizational political
engagement. Moreover, workplace anxiety significantly moderates this relationship, such that the
positive association between hybrid work and organizational political engagement was stronger
under higher levels of workplace anxiety. Additionally, organizational political engagement
mediated the interactive effect of hybrid work and workplace anxiety on job engagement,
revealing a more substantial adverse indirect effect on job engagement when workplace anxiety
levels were high. These findings underscore the complex role of workplace anxiety in shaping
employee experiences within hybrid work environments.
This study contributes to the body of literature in a number of ways by tackling these
issues. First, by pinpointing WA and OPE as important explanatory processes, it advances

3

empirical knowledge of how hybrid workplace arrangements impact employees' job
engagement. Second, it advances COR theory by presenting political participation as a means of
resource protection, especially in the face of workplace anxiety, rather than as deviant
behavior. Third, it presents a fresh viewpoint on hybrid work, questioning the belief that these
settings naturally lower political behavior and boost well-being. Lastly, it offers managers and
organizations practical advice on creating hybrid workplace policies that balance autonomy,
accountability, flexibility, and structure.
By doing this, this study reframes the hybrid workplace as both a risk and an opportunity.
Although it provides tools to promote job engagement, it can also lead to workplace anxieties
that encourage employees to participate in organizational politics, which ultimately undermines
the results that hybrid work aims to improve as a way for employees to engage with their jobs.

4

Chapter 2: Literature Review
Due to the worldwide pandemic, there has been a significant change in workplace norms
and structures. The hybrid workplace setup has become the new standard, causing a move away
from traditional in-person office settings and toward more flexible and remote work models that
enable employees to work from any location (Chen et al., 2023). The growing popularity of
remote work and, more recently, the Hybrid Workplace (HW), an archetype that blends the
structure and collaboration of traditional office settings with the flexibility of remote work, are at
the center of this change (Milenko et al., 2021; Oygür et al., 2022). Although remote work was
first used as a crisis response strategy in all organizations during the pandemic, its long-term use
has completely changed how businesses function and workers engage with their jobs.
During the height of the epidemic, several studies highlighted the benefits of remote and
hybrid work, especially regarding workplace engagement, psychological well-being, and
employee autonomy (Schulze et al., 2023; Giovanis, 2019). Psychologically, the option to work
from home gave many workers a renewed sense of control over their surroundings and
schedules, which has been demonstrated to improve work-life balance and lower stress (Darouei
& Pluut, 2021; Sardeshmukh, Sharma, & Golden, 2012). These findings are supported by the Job
Demands–Resources (JD-R) model, which proposes that increased autonomy and flexibility act
as job resources that mitigate the effects of job demands and boost motivation and job
engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). This is also consistent with the current study's
drawing theory, which is COR theory, which states that employees experience higher levels of
job engagement when they have access to resources like autonomy and flexibility (Hobfoll,
1989, 2001).

5

Only a small number of studies have examined the long-term psychological and
behavioral effects of hybrid models in the post-pandemic workplace, even though the literature
generally supports the short-term benefits of remote and hybrid work, especially during times of
crisis (De Lucas Ancillo, del Val Núñez, & Gavrila, 2020). Many organizations are investigating
hybrid models as a long-term structure rather than just a short-term fix as the pandemic fades,
and they rethink the nature of work in the future. There are advantages and disadvantages to this
change. Although hybrid models give workers freedom and autonomy, they can also lead to
uncertainty about corporate culture, performance standards, and visibility (Choudhury, Foroughi,
& Larson, 2021; Bloom et al., 2015).
The need for flexible work schedules has only increased. More than half of employees
questioned by Alexander et al. (2021) said they would like to work remotely at least three days a
week after the pandemic, and about 30% said they would think about changing employment if
they had to return to full-time, on-site work. This increased employee expectations highlights a
more significant cultural movement toward employee-driven flexibility and autonomy. To
balance efficiency with employee satisfaction and well-being, the Hybrid Workplace has become
a popular paradigm for businesses and employees (Naqshbandi et al., 2023).
Even while it is becoming increasingly common, the hybrid workplace is still poorly
understood, particularly in terms of how it impacts interpersonal relationships and employee
behavior. At the same time, most of the existing research focused on the operational or
technological aspects of hybrid work, such as task management, cybersecurity, and
communication tools, while paying less attention to the other aspects, which include workplace
anxiety, trust, and performance visibility (Moglia et al., 2021) which has been acknowledged in
the present study. Employees in hybrid environments frequently worry about how peers and

6

supervisors will see their work, particularly when working remotely for long periods. As
workers try to stay relevant and recognized, this perceived invisibility may cause workplace
anxiety, lower motivation, or even lead to political behavior or strategic self-presentation
(McDonald et al., 2008; Salleh & Rajah, 2023).
The differences in how employees experience hybrid work depending on personal and
environmental characteristics are another topic that needs more research. For instance, whereas
some workers do well in settings that allow them to be autonomous, others could find it
challenging to deal with a lack of structure, a blurring of the lines between work and family life,
or limited access to organizational assistance (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). These arguments
create the need for a different view of hybrid work, which views it as a dynamic experience
influenced by relational, organizational, and psychological elements rather than just a static
model.
In summary, although the literature mainly recognizes the advantages of hybrid work
arrangements, little is known about how they affect employees' job engagement when workplace
anxiety and organizational political engagement are present, particularly in post-pandemic
environments where hybrid structures are becoming the new way of workplace. Because of this
disparity, there is a pressing need for empirical study that examines how hybrid work influences
outcomes such as job engagement and the circumstances and methods by which these impacts
manifest. In order to close this gap, the current study looks at how organizational political
participation and workplace anxiety function as important explanatory factors in the context of a
hybrid workplace.

7

2.1 Hybrid Workplace (HW)
The hybrid workplace setup, which combines remote and in-office work arrangements,
has become a worldwide accepted strategic response to the demands of a post-pandemic
workforce in the context of the new normal. Depending on the nature of their work, personal
preferences, and company needs, this approach allows employees to split their time between
working remotely and on-site (Amigoni, 2021; Naor et al., 2022). Christel Kraemerer first
proposed the idea of flextime in the 1970s (Kane, 1976). Since then, it has changed dramatically
due to the development of digital technologies, cloud computing, and virtual communication
tools, allowing asynchronous and real-time work across time zones and geographical boundaries
(Moglia et al., 2021).
The COVID-19 pandemic sparked the broad acceptance of hybrid work. Organizations
swiftly adopted virtual infrastructures to continue operations when employees were forced to
work from home due to health and safety concerns. The effectiveness of remote work during the
pandemic showed that many roles could be carried out effectively without constant physical
presence, even though it was first thought to be a temporary solution. Consequently, hybrid
workplace models are currently being adopted as long-term agreements that strike a compromise
between individual autonomy and flexibility and organizational efficiency (Choudhury,
Foroughi, & Larson, 2021; Wang et al., 2020).
The idea that hybrid work improves employee autonomy, psychological health, and
workplace engagement is supported by established literature. According to Giovanis (2019),
who bases this claim on the COR theory, which defines resource gain (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001),
having flexible work arrangements helps employees better manage their time and resources,
enhancing work-life balance and overall satisfaction. According to Bakker and Demerouti's

8

(2017) Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model, autonomy and flexibility are job resources that
increase motivation and reduce burnout. Hybrid work environments, which provide employees
with flexibility over their work schedule, location, and methods, offer these resources. This
flexibility has been connected to higher job engagement and motivation (Surma et al., 2021;
Xanthopoulou et al., 2009).
Additionally, employment that provides a hybrid workplace setup can support inclusive
employment practices by accommodating employees with assigned duties or preferences for
quieter work environments (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Since workers view their freedom as
an indication of their employers' empowerment and trust, this approach frequently also promotes
increased organizational commitment (Becker, Belkin, Tuskey, & Conroy, 2022). These
elements support better retention rates, organizational citizenship practices, and increased work
satisfaction (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017).
Despite these advantages, the mixed workplace has disadvantages. Researchers have
voiced concerns about the potential for employee isolation, reduced visibility, and disconnects in
communication in hybrid teams (Choudhury et al., 2021; McDonald et al., 2008). Most of the
time, employees who work in a hybrid setup may feel isolated from their teams or less visible to
management, which could impact their prospects of promotion or recognition and create
workplace anxiety. These problems are particularly apparent in business cultures where success
or dedication is correlated with visibility (Bloom et al., 2015).
Furthermore, there can be a lack of clarity on the availability of the policies, performance
standards, and how to properly balance flexibility and accountability in a hybrid work setup
(Naqshbandi, Kabir, Ishak, & Islam, 2023). It can be challenging for managers to effectively lead
hybrid teams, especially with no clear structures and communication standards. For distant

9

workers, hybrid arrangements may result in unequal access to resources, higher cognitive
demands, and coordination issues if proper leadership and supportive structures are lacking
(Salleh & Rajah, 2023).
Additionally, increasing research shows that not every employee gains the same
advantages from mixed work arrangements. Some people find that hybrid models increase stress
instead of lowering it, particularly those who have high levels of workplace anxiety
(WA). Anxious workers may fear being missed or misunderstood if performance is assessed on
output rather than visibility, particularly in remote work environments where informal feedback
and acknowledgment are less common (McCarthy et al., 2016; Zeidner & Matthews, 2005). Due
to this concern, employees may resort to compensatory behaviors to recover control and
relevance.
Despite these new worries, there is still little scholarly research on the psychological
effects of hybrid labor, particularly in the post-pandemic period, which our study focuses
on. Few studies have examined how psychological states like workplace anxiety affect
employees' behaviors and results in these contexts, despite many emphasizing the technical and
operational advantages of hybrid work (Call et al., 2015; Salleh & Rajah, 2023). This study aims
to fill a gap in the literature by examining how workplace anxiety may interact with hybrid
structures to influence organizational behavior and job engagement.
The hybrid workplace (HW) is thus positioned in this thesis as a key contextual element
that influences employee experience. In particular, it looks into how workplace anxiety and HW
interact to affect behaviors like organizational and political engagement (OPE) and, eventually,
job engagement (JE). Thus, it advances a more complex view of hybrid labor by recognizing its
advantages and the potential psychological hazards that it may provide in specific situations.

10

2.2 Workplace Anxiety (WA)
According to McCarthy et al. (2016) and Zeidner & Matthews (2005), workplace anxiety
(WA) is the experience of ongoing trepidation, worry, or nervousness that people have in
connection with their job duties, performance reviews, or interpersonal encounters at work. This
type of anxiety is usually task-oriented and results from workers' fears of not performing up to
par or receiving unfavorable feedback from peers or superiors (Eysenck et al., 2007). WA is
categorized as a strain symptom, a psychological reaction that happens when people believe that
their job resources, such as growth and autonomy, are in danger and that job demands do not
align with their coping skills (Jex, 1998). It is strongly linked to more general concepts like
evaluation anxiety, occupational stress, and dread of a poor evaluation, all of which can have a
significant impact on the behavior and general well-being of employees.
The sensation of workplace anxiety has become even more complex with the rise of
hybrid work environments (HW) at the height of the pandemic. According to Giovanis (2019)
and Wang et al. (2020), HW setup provides better autonomy, flexibility, and work-life balance,
all of which are linked to reduced workplace stress and anxiety and higher levels of job
engagement. However, the shift from conventional, face-to-face communication creates
invisibility, especially for remote workers who feel anxious about whether their contributions are
being recognized or how their performance is being viewed (McDonald et al., 2008; Bloom et
al., 2015). This visibility gap becomes particularly troublesome in corporate environments
where in-person face time is associated with commitment and skill (Cooper & Kurland, 2002).
It has been demonstrated that WA considerably lowers motivation, increases burnout, and
impairs cognitive performance (Eysenck et al., 2007; Ford et al., 2011). High levels of
workplace anxiety might make it harder for employees to focus, make decisions, or keep up

11

productive relationships as they face a threat to their growth in the organization. This can result
in withdrawal symptoms, a drop in creativity, or decreased involvement (Schaufeli & Taris,
2014). Due to fewer opportunities for informal reassurance, feedback, or social support—which
usually operate as a buffer against anxiety in face-to-face situations—these effects might be
exacerbated in hybrid work settings (Allen et al., 2015; Sardeshmukh et al., 2012).
The Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, which holds that people are driven to get,
hold onto, and safeguard valuable resources, including time, recognition, autonomy, and job
possibilities, can also be used to conceptualize WA (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001). According to this
viewpoint, anxiety is an indicator of perceived resource threat as well as a symptom of
stress. Employees may worry about losing their professional status, chances for career
progression, or social capital in hybrid work contexts when access to important stakeholders may
be unequal, and performance visibility is reduced. Overperformance, excessive self-monitoring,
and involvement in organizational politics are compensatory behaviors that might be triggered by
these anxieties and are intended to protect resources (Ferris et al., 2000; Eldor, 2016).
Although WA is acknowledged as a stressor in traditional workplaces by a large portion
of the present literature, less empirical attention has been paid to how WA works in hybrid work
situations, especially in the post-pandemic age. Hybrid work introduces new behavioral norms
and performance measures, but they might not be consistently enforced or adequately
explained. Workers may experience increased anxiety due to this uncertainty if they are unsure of
how their contributions are evaluated or meeting expectations (Choudhury et al., 2021; Salleh &
Rajah, 2023). Additionally, less visible employees may feel anxious at work, which could
exacerbate impact performance and engagement.

12

Beyond personal stress, WA has ramifications in hybrid environments. By encouraging
self-defense or politically motivated actions, anxiety can also have an impact on more general
workplace dynamics. According to research, anxious people may participate in organizational
political engagement (OPE) to gain more attention, win over decision-makers, or strategically
control perceptions in settings where they believe their contributions are in jeopardy (Ferris et
al., 2000; Kacmar & Ferris, 1991). In this sense, WA may indirectly influence the corporate
atmosphere and employee engagement by encouraging competitive rather than cooperative
behaviors.
Few research has empirically examined how WA moderates the effects of hybrid work on
participation or how it could incite organizational, political engagement as a resourceconservation tactic. This is an important aspect given the increasing acceptance of hybrid
workplace setups and the heightened attention paid to workplace well-being. Thus, this study
closes a significant gap in the literature by examining WA as a moderating condition that
influences how workers view and respond to mixed work environments.
In conclusion, although WA is a psychological concept that has been extensively
explored, little is known about how it influences employee behavior in mixed work
environments. According to this concept, high levels of workplace anxiety in the setting of HW
may turn the sense of autonomy from strength into weakness, leading workers to participate in
organizational politics to protect opportunities, increase visibility, and maintain job
satisfaction. The study adds to a more thorough understanding of how psychological aspects
affect the success or failure of hybrid work arrangements by examining these dynamics.

13

2.3 Organizational Political Engagement (OPE)
Individual actions intended to persuade others to accomplish one's or a group's goals,
frequently through unofficial or informal ways within the workplace, are referred to as
organizational political engagement (OPE) (Ferris et al., 2002; Kacmar & Ferris, 1991). These
actions may not always be in line with official organizational goals, but they are thought to be
required to obtain resources, power, or visibility. These behaviors include impression
management, favoritism, alliance formation, information control, and strategic self-promotion
(Drory & Vigoda-Gadot, 2010). OPE usually stems from employees' views of organizational
politics (POP), which is the conviction that social connections and self-interest have a greater
influence on workplace decisions than merit (Ferris & Kacmar, 1992).
There is some disagreement in the literature regarding the hybrid workplace (HW). On
the one hand, several academics have contended that because HW arrangements lessen the need
for social capital for development, physical presence, and informal interactions, they may lessen
exposure to organizational politics (Hill, Ferris, & Märtinson, 2003; Cooper & Kurland,
2002). This viewpoint holds that because they have fewer possibilities to participate in political
activities, remote or hybrid workers are less likely to do so, and the nature of remote
communication channels (such as emails and scheduled video calls) tends to restrict informal
political maneuvering.
This perspective, however, can ignore a crucial psychological component: how
workplace anxiety (WA) influences employee behavior. The current study presents WA as a
moderating condition that can reverse the association between HW and political behavior, which
is thought to decrease it. In particular, we contend that workers in hybrid environments who
experience high levels of WA might become more politically active in response to perceived

14

challenges to access resources, influence, or visibility. People under stress from possible
resource loss—such as lessened recognition, missed growth chances, or unclear performance
evaluation—may try to defend or reclaim resources through political behaviors, according to the
Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989).
This viewpoint aligns with earlier studies that indicate political behavior frequently
develops as a coping strategy when resources are scarce or unclear (Eldor, 2016; Treadway et al.,
2005). The fear of being ignored or cut off from organizational power structures might result in
compensatory political behavior in hybrid contexts, where employees are physically separated
from important decision-makers and have fewer opportunities for casual encounters. Examples
of actions meant to restore control over career outcomes include lining up with powerful
coworkers, inflating accomplishments in online meetings, or disparaging others to get a job.
OPE is a two-edged sword since it can have two effects in HW settings. On the one
hand, political actions can momentarily protect a person's access to resources or employment
prospects, especially without official acknowledgment. However, such behavior can cause
emotional tiredness, decrease teamwork, and damage employee engagement (Chang, Rosen, &
Levy, 2009; Landells & Albrecht, 2016). Favoritism, information hoarding, and covert
competitiveness are a few behaviors that can create a toxic work environment, impair teamwork,
and escalate interpersonal conflict all of which take away from sincere participation and
dedication.
Furthermore, in hybrid environments, when staff members may already be dealing with
communication obstacles, coordination issues, and a feeling of loneliness, the resource-depleting
effects of political behavior are especially pertinent (Choudhury et al., 2021; Salleh & Rajah,
2023). Political techniques can demand time, mental energy, and emotional labor—resources that

15

may be used for more constructive endeavors. Therefore, even if OPE offers temporary
psychological security or visibility, it may unintentionally deplete workers' energy and focus,
which, over time, could result in poorer workplace engagement (Ferris et al., 2002; Gkorezis et
al., 2014).
According to the current study, the WA employee experience degree determines the
association between HW and OPE. Increased workplace concern may cause such participation as
a resource-conserving mechanism, even though hybrid work may not always result in more
political engagement. This nuanced perspective presents a paradigm in which workplace anxiety
drives organizational political engagement, challenging previous notions that distant or hybrid
employment (Cooper & Kurland, 2002).
In conclusion, OPE in the hybrid workplace is an important reaction to the perceived
resource protection mechanism. By investigating OPE as a mediating mechanism that explains
how workplace anxiety in hybrid contexts can affect job engagement outcomes, this study adds
to the body of literature. Realizing the actual effects of hybrid work on worker performance and
well-being requires an awareness of the intricate interactions among structure (i.e., HW),
psychology (i.e., WA), and behavior (i.e., OPE).
2.4 Employees' Job Engagement (JE)
Over the time of management research, the most important concept in organizational
behavior and human resource management is employee job engagement, also frequently called
employee engagement. According to Schaufeli et al. (2002), it is a pleasant, contented mental
state associated with labor that is marked by vigor, devotion, and immersion. The positive
opposite of burnout is job engagement, which includes sentiments of vitality, involvement, and
efficacy at work (Maslach et al., 2001). Highly engaged employees have a deep emotional and

16

cognitive connection to their jobs, show perseverance despite adversities, and are more inclined
to go above and beyond in their responsibilities (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008).
Numerous beneficial organizational outcomes, such as improved job performance,
innovation, organizational commitment, and lower turnover, are closely associated with
engagement (Saks, 2006; Rich et al., 2010). Therefore, Organizations have placed greater
emphasis on determining the psychological states and working situations that encourage
employee engagement. One such circumstance that has surfaced in recent years is hybrid work
(HW), which provides workers with flexibility, autonomy, and control over their workplace—
resources that are very compatible with the engagement-promoting elements included in the Job
Demands–Resources (JD-R) paradigm (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017).
Data from recent studies support the notion that HW has a good impact on employee
engagement. According to Surma et al. (2021), hybrid work arrangements help employees
manage their time and personal obligations by lowering everyday pressures like commuting and
increasing job engagement. Similarly, Giovanis (2019) observed that schedule and location
flexibility increase intrinsic motivation and engagement. Additionally, workers are more likely
to feel appreciated, empowered, and psychologically invested in their work when they believe
their bosses trust them and give them autonomy, which is frequently the case in HW systems
(Becker et al., 2022).
Nevertheless, even with these advantages, employee job engagement in hybrid workplace
contexts is not certain. Recent studies indicate that the benefits of HW may be compromised
under some psychological situations, particularly high levels of workplace anxiety (WA). As
mentioned earlier, WA can make workers question their work, worry about their visibility, and
fear they will not be given opportunities inside the company (McCarthy et al., 2016; Zeidner &

17

Matthews, 2005). These issues are especially pertinent in HW settings, where there are fewer inperson encounters and less informal input. Workers who experience WA might view flexibility
as a source of uncertainty and perhaps danger rather than a benefit, undermining the very
engagement HW aims to foster (Salleh & Rajah, 2023).
Employees with high WA may try to preserve their psychological resources by putting in
less effort or emotionally removing themselves from their work. These are signs of low job
engagement, drawing from the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989). They
would instead focus their energies on organizational political engagement (OPE) to protect their
performance and growth, which could further exhaust the mental and emotional resources
required for actual participation (Ferris et al., 2002; Eldor, 2016). OPE in these situations
becomes a moderating behavioral reaction to worry and a competing demand that reduces
engagement by taking away from task-focused attention.
Furthermore, studies reveal that actions that drain resources, such as internal
competitiveness and impression management, can negatively impact employee
engagement. According to Chang et al. (2009), political behavior eventually lowers employees'
psychological availability for work, even though it may be advantageous soon. Employees may
suffer from emotional tiredness, cynicism, and decreased dedication—all indicators of
disengagement—when they feel pressured to act selfishly out of worry or fear of being invisible
in HW contexts (Maslach et al., 2001; Kacmar et al., 2007).
Therefore, rather than being a direct positive correlation, the relationship between HW
and job engagement depends on behavioral reactions like OPE and psychological characteristics
like WA. Under the right circumstances, HW can empower workers and increase engagement,
but it can also unintentionally set off anxiety-driven coping mechanisms that eventually reduce

18

engagement. These complex interactions have not yet been fully explored in the literature,
especially in post-pandemic hybrid situations where psychological vulnerability and structural
flexibility interact.
Consequently, this study aims to determine if organizational political engagement
mediates the association between increased workplace anxiety and the impact of hybrid work on
employee job engagement. Doing this advances a more complex view of job engagement that
considers not just the structural aspects of work (like HW) but also the behavioral and
psychological factors that affect how workers relate to their jobs in modern environments.

19

Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
This chapter aims to establish the theoretical foundation of this research and explain the
hypotheses tested in this study. This chapter is based on the Conservation of Resources (COR)
theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001, 2011), a widely used resource theory for stress and motivation
literature. COR theory provides a comprehensive lens to understand how individuals react to
perceived threats to valued personal and organizational resources. By integrating COR theory
with emerging literature on hybrid work environments, workplace anxiety, and organizational
political engagement, this chapter outlines a series of interrelated propositions that explain how
modern work structures influence employee engagement.
3.1 Hybrid Workplace and Employee Job Engagement
A hallmark of post-pandemic organizational design, the hybrid workplace (HW) model
combines aspects of in-office and remote work, giving workers flexibility in deciding when and
where to work (Choudhury et al., 2021). The model has gained popularity because it can improve
work-life balance, increase autonomy, and reduce commuting stress—all strongly associated
with job satisfaction and engagement (Barbour et al., 2021; Surma et al., 2021). In many
instances, employees now request hybrid options as a requirement for joining or staying with an
organization (Alexander et al., 2021).
A key determinant of employee performance and well-being, job engagement is described
by Schaufeli et al. (2002) as a pleasant, rewarding condition relating to one's work that is marked
by vigor, devotion, and absorption. According to Bakker and Demerouti (2008), engaged
workers are more dedicated to their companies, creative, and productive. Therefore, modern
firms have made increasing work engagement a strategic focus.

20

A convincing framework for comprehending how the HW model affects employee job
engagement is provided by the Conservation of Resources (COR) hypothesis. According to
COR theory, people work hard to get, safeguard, and preserve important resources like time,
independence, social support, and emotional vitality (Hobfoll, 1989). People feel motivated,
involved, and well-being when resources are abundant; on the other hand, they feel stressed,
anxious, and burned out when resources are endangered or disappear (Hobfoll, 2001; Treadway
et al., 2005). The ability to work flexibly, control one's environment, and personalize one's
schedule are resource-enhancing factors that can positively affect employee job engagement in
the context of HW.
Employees in hybrid models report higher levels of autonomy and satisfaction, according
to studies, particularly when they feel their workplace meets their personal and professional
needs (Giovanis, 2019; Wang et al., 2020). Furthermore, the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R)
model states that flexibility and autonomy are significant job resources that support COR theory
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). According to Xanthopoulou et al. (2009), employees with more
autonomy over their jobs are more likely to feel intrinsic motivation, promoting higher
engagement at work.
These empirical and theoretical underpinnings indicate a favorable correlation between
job engagement and HW.
Therefore, we set our first hypothesis for this study:
H1a: A hybrid workplace is positively related to employee job engagement.
3.2 Hybrid Workplace and Organizational Political Engagement
Organizational political engagement (OPE) is the term used to describe discretionary acts
that influence colleagues to achieve individual or group goals, often informally or indirectly

21

(Ferris et al., 2002). These behaviors can include self-promotion, favoritism, withholding
information, forming alliances, and other strategic acts that may not be in line with
organizational goals but are believed to be necessary for personal advancement (Kacmar &
Ferris, 1991; Drory & Vigoda-Gadot, 2010). Even while it's frequently seen negatively, political
participation can also be understood as a calculated coping strategy when resources are limited or
unstable.
Due to less in-person connection and informal communication, previous research has
suggested that distant or hybrid work arrangements decrease chances for political behavior
(Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Ellison, 2004). There may be fewer opportunities for employees not
physically present to be exposed to or participate in office politics. It is assumed that employees
are shielded from the political climate of traditional office settings by distance and flexibility.
However, by applying knowledge from COR theory, this study takes a more nuanced
stance. Although it may decrease exposure to traditional politics, HW may enhance perceived
risks to vital resources like visibility, influence, and leadership access. Employees may act
politically as a compensatory response to regain control or guarantee recognition when they are
unsure of how their work is being assessed or whether they are "seen" by supervisors,
particularly in a virtual or asynchronous setting (McDonald et al., 2008; Bloom et al., 2015).
According to COR theory, when individuals perceive potential resource loss—even in a
seemingly resource-rich environment like HW—they are motivated to protect or regain those
resources (Hobfoll, 1989; Eldor, 2016). Political engagement may, therefore, emerge as a
resource-preserving strategy, especially under psychological strain. HW may inadvertently
produce a dual feeling in this situation. While providing flexibility and autonomy, it may also

22

heighten the demand to demonstrate one's value, especially for workers who feel alienated or
invisible.
Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1b: A hybrid workplace is positively related to employee organizational political
engagement.
3.3 Moderating Role of Workplace Anxiety (WA)
According to McCarthy et al. (2016), workplace anxiety (WA) is the emotional tension,
worry, and fear associated with job performance and evaluation. Employees frequently have
fewer possibilities for peer connection, informal feedback, and supervisor visibility in hybrid
work situations, which might increase concern about job security and performance (Zeidner &
Matthews, 2005). Anxiety serves as a psychological signal that indicates the possibility of
resource loss, according to COR theory (Hobfoll, 2001).
This study proposes that WA moderate the link between HW and OPE. Although HW
promotes resource gain such as flexibility and autonomy, not every employee may benefit
equally from these advantages. Suppose they believe their contribution is not adequately visible
or recognized. In that case, people with high WA may interpret the same setting differently,
viewing flexibility as a risk or threat toward their goal rather than empowerment (Salleh &
Rajah, 2023).
These people might be more inclined to act politically to protect or reclaim resources
under danger, such as recognition, acceptance, or career progression chances (Eldor, 2016;
Hochwarter, 2012).
On the other hand, workers with low WA might be less inclined to view HW as dangerous
and more assured of their capacity to handle ambiguity. For many, hybrid employment's

23

independence increases motivation and lessens the need for employee engagement in
organizational politics.
Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: Hybrid workplace and workplace anxiety will interact to influence employee
organizational political engagement, such that the relationship between HW and OPE will be
stronger when workplace anxiety is high rather than low.
3.4 Mediating Role of Organizational Political Engagement
Although OPE is frequently examined, this study views it as a mediating mechanism that
connects job engagement and HW, particularly when WA is elevated. According to the COR
theory, people may shift their focus from engaging in productive labor to engaging in protective
behaviors (politics) when their resources are threatened. These political actions drain the
emotional and mental resources that might usually sustain job engagement, even while they may
protect short-term visibility or influence (Chang et al., 2009; Landells & Albrecht, 2016).
Using the Conservation of Resource Theory (Hobfoll, 2001), we contend that workers'
reactions are moderated when they see hybrid work demands as threats or challenges (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984). OPE manages perceived risks because people with high WA are more prone to
view ambiguity in hybrid work as a danger. Over time, this shift in focus from task-related
engagement to political navigation leads to a decline in job engagement (LePine et al., 2005).
Consequently, we suggest that OPE mediates the relationship between job engagement
and HW, especially when WA is high.

The following hypotheses are presented:

24

H3a: Hybrid workplace and workplace anxiety will interact to influence employee job
engagement.
H3b: The interactive effect of hybrid workplace and workplace anxiety on employee job
engagement will be mediated by organizational political engagement, such that the indirect
effect will be negative when workplace anxiety is high rather than low.

Figure 1: Theoretical Model of Current Research

25

Chapter 4: Method & Result Analysis
4.1 Research Design
The primary research is based on a quantitative (survey questionnaire) method as it
allows numerical measurement and in-depth exploration. The secondary research has been
conducted through journals, books, and newspaper articles. The respondents are white-collar
employees working in hybrid workplaces set up from the Manufacturing and Telecom industries
in Bangladesh. The survey sample size is N= 152 individuals to examine the relationship
between hybrid workplace arrangements, organizational, political engagement (OPE), workplace
anxiety (WA), and job engagement (JE), framed through the Conservation of Resources (COR)
theory (Hobfoll, 1989). The design was selected for statistical testing of a moderated mediation
model, evaluated using Hayes' PROCESS Macro Model 7 (Hayes, 2018). The primary goal was
to test how workplace anxiety moderates the relationship between hybrid workplace and
organizational political engagement, and whether OPE mediates the effect of hybrid workplace
on job engagement under varying anxiety levels.
4.2 Participants and Sampling
The final sample consisted of N= 152 working professionals employed in hybrid
workplace settings in Telecom and Manufacturing industries in Bangladesh. In the
manufacturing industry, hybrid work arrangements were more common among administrative,
managerial, and support staff who had access to digital infrastructure and flexible scheduling.
These roles typically included HR officers, finance personnel, operations coordinators, and midlevel managers positions that allowed for partial remote work while still requiring occasional onsite presence. While for telecom we have covered all employees as they mostly work in hybrid
set up despite the positions. The eligibility criteria are clearly communicated with the

26

participating organizations that highlighted the discrepancy. A two-stage consent process is
followed to recruit the participants which require approval from both the organization and the
individual. Following approval from the Research Ethics Board (REB) at the University of
Northern British Columbia, we contacted the Human Resources departments of relevant
organizations via email to obtain formal permission to invite their employees to participate in the
study (appendix 2), after getting their organizational consent and approval from REB we proceed
with collecting participants consent.
After acquiring the consent from the participating organizations, prospective participants
received an information letter along with a Microsoft Forms link to submit their individual
consent which is anonymous and voluntary. The form detailed the research objectives, possible
risks and benefits, confidentiality protocols, and emphasized that participation was entirely
voluntary. Participants were asked to review the information and provide informed consent
electronically through Microsoft Forms (Appendix 2).
Only after receiving their consent to participate in the survey a link of the survey is
shared, which was hosted on SurveyMonkey. This ethically guided and structured recruitment
process ensured voluntary participation and compliance with institutional ethical standards.
We have employed a time logged survey to avoid single-source bias. We have conducted
a four-phase survey. To reduce potential common method bias (CMB), the data collection was
conducted in four temporally separated phases, each spaced approximately one week apart. This
time separation was intended to psychologically distance participants from earlier responses,
thereby minimizing consistency motif and demand characteristics (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Each
phase focused on a distinct construct: hybrid workplace experience (Phase 1), workplace anxiety
(Phase 2), organizational political engagement (Phase 3), and job engagement (Phase 4). While

27

multi-phase survey designs are commonly used to reduce CMB, a four-phase structure was
selected to maximize construct separation and reduce participants’ ability to cognitively link
predictor and criterion variables. Each time we have collected each variable such as phase one
Hybrid workplace, phase two workplace anxiety etc.
Then, the summary of the collected data is demonstrated with descriptive statistics, and
the confirmatory factor analysis. The present study also analyzes the multiple correlation analysis
and Cronbach alpha which is discussed in the result section. The study model is a moderatedmediation; therefore, to test the hypotheses present study use Hayes method (model- 7) proposed
my Preacher and Hayes (2008) which indicate the indirect effect of HW on JE through OPE
moderated by WA.
4.3: Procedure
The data was collected through an online survey administered via survey monkey. The
participating organization and the Participants were provided with an informed consent form
outlining the purpose of the study, their rights, and the confidentiality of their responses. The
study received ethics approval from the University of Northern British Columbia Research
Ethics Board.
To address potential common method bias (CMB), both procedural and statistical
remedies were implemented (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Richardson et al., 2009). Procedurally, the
study ensured anonymity, used validated scales, introduced temporal separation in survey
distribution, and included an unanticipated moderator variable (Workplace Anxiety) to reduce
response pattern bias (Evans, 1985; Lai et al., 2013; Schmitt, 1994).
Statistically, Harman’s single-factor test was conducted using exploratory factor analysis
(Principal Axis Factoring) in SPSS. The first unrotated factor accounted for 46.17% of the total

28

variance (Eigenvalue = 1.847), which is below the 50% threshold commonly associated with
CMB concerns (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Fuller et al., 2016). The emergence of multiple factors
with eigenvalues >1 further supports the absence of a dominant single factor, suggesting that
CMB is unlikely to pose a significant threat to the validity of the results.
4.4 Measures
All measures used a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly
agree) unless otherwise noted. Scale reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) ranged from .810 to .883,
indicating acceptable internal consistency (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
Hybrid Workplace (HW): Hybrid Workplace (HW) was assessed using nine items
adapted from multiple validated sources to comprehensively capture the dimensions of work-life
balance, autonomy, and the benefits of work-from-anywhere arrangements in hybrid settings.
Items related to work-life balance were adapted from Brough et al. (2014), items reflecting
autonomy were taken from Morgeson et al. (2005), and items addressing the efficiency and
psychological well-being aspects of work-from-anywhere flexibility were drawn from Chaudhuri
et al. (2022). Example items include: “I currently have a good balance between the time I spend
at work and the time I have available for non-work activities in a hybrid setup,” “I can decide on
my own how to go about doing my work,” and “The work-from-anywhere option provides
employees flexibility for choosing their workplace.”
Workplace Anxiety (WA): Measured with eight items from McCarthy and Goffin’s
(2004) Workplace Anxiety Scale, adapted for the workplace context (e.g., “I worry that my work
performance will be lower than that of others at work”).
Organizational Political Engagement (OPE): Measured using six items adapted from
Hochwarter et al. (2003), organizational political perception reflecting strategic behaviors aimed

29

at navigating organizational politics (e.g., “Individuals are stabbing each other in the back to look
good in front of others”).
Job Engagement (JE): Assessed using the nine-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
(Schaufeli et al., 2006), which captures vigor, dedication, and absorption (e.g., “I am enthusiastic
about my job”).
Control Variables: To account for individual differences, several control variables were
included in the model: gender, education, tenure, and industry. Gender differences are relevant as
prior research has shown women may experience greater work-home role conflict (Eagly, 2009).
Education and tenure were included to control career stage and experience, which could
influence political engagement and job commitment (Gaines et al., 1997). Including these
demographic controls ensures a more accurate estimation of the main effects.
4.5: Data Screening and Preparation
Prior analysis, the dataset was screened for missing responses, careless answering, and
outliers. A total of N= 175 responses were initially collected through the online survey. After data
screening, 23 cases were removed due to excessive missing values (i.e., more than 20% of items
unanswered) or evidence of straight lining, which was identified by respondents providing the
same response across all items in a scale. The final sample included N= 152 valid cases, resulting
in an effective response rate of 86.9%.
All retained cases were checked for univariate normality using skewness and kurtosis
values, and no severe violations were found. Before creating interaction terms, continuous
predictor variables were mean-centered to reduce multicollinearity. Descriptive statistics (means
and standard deviations), internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha), and bivariate
correlations among the main variables were computed using SPSS shown in Table 1.

30

4.6 Ethical Considerations
All research procedures adhered to the ethical guidelines of the University of Northern
British Columbia Research Ethics Board. Participants provided informed consent prior to survey
participation. Data was collected anonymously and stored securely in encrypted digital formats.
No identifiable personal data was retained, and participation was voluntary with the right to
withdraw at any time.
4.7 Results and Analysis
This chapter presents the empirical results of the study and interprets the findings in light
of the proposed hypotheses. The analysis is grounded in the Conservation of Resources (COR)
theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001), which posits that individuals strive to acquire, retain, and protect
valuable resources. The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS 26 and AMOS 26. Confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) was performed to validate the measurement model. Reliability and
correlations were assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and Pearson’s correlation matrix. Hypotheses
were tested using Hayes’ PROCESS macro for SPSS (Model 7), which allows for simultaneous
testing of moderated mediation models (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).
This model tests how the hybrid workplace (HW) affects job engagement (JE), with
organizational political engagement (OPE) as a mediator and workplace anxiety (WA) as a
moderator. Additional statistical diagnostics and procedural remedies were applied to ensure the
robustness and reliability of findings.
4.8 Scale Validation and Model Fit
To assess construct validity, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using
AMOS 26. The hypothesized four-factor model, comprising hybrid workplace (HW), workplace
anxiety (WA), organizational political engagement (OPE), and job engagement (JE), exhibited an

31

acceptable fit to the data: (χ²(424) = 647.790, CFI = .903, TLI = .887, RMSEA = .059).
Following Kline’s (2015) recommendations, we made theoretically justified modifications by
allowing residual covariances between selected items within the same construct to improve
model fit.
To evaluate discriminant validity, we compared the hypothesized model to five
alternative models, each combining two of the four constructs. These included a model
combining a. HW and OPE (χ²(466) = 1304.71, CFI = .591, TLI = .565, RMSEA = .109), b. a
model combining WA and JE (χ²(471) = 1523.66, CFI = .487, TLI = .460, RMSEA = .122), c. a
model combining OPE and JE (χ²(447) = 1245.83, CFI = .587, TLI = .570, RMSEA = .109), d. a
model combining HW and WA (χ²(486) = 1608.81, CFI = .453, TLI = .441, RMSEA = .124), and
e. a model combining both HW with OPE and WA with JE (χ²(482) = 1804.27, CFI = .355, TLI =
.337, RMSEA = .135). Therefore, the four-factor model demonstrated superior fit compared to
all alternative models, each of which showed significantly worst fit indices (CFI < .60 and
RMSEA > .10). These results support the discriminant validity of HW, WA, OPE, and JE as
distinct constructs.
Furthermore, the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct exceeded the
recommended 0.50 threshold (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), and all squared inter-construct
correlations were lower than the AVE values, providing further support for discriminant validity.
Collectively, these analyses confirm the measurement model’s adequacy and validate the use of
the four-factor structure in hypothesis testing.
4.9 Reliability and Descriptive Statistics
The means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and intercorrelations among the main
variables are presented in Table 1. Of the participants, 31.6% held a bachelor's degree, 67.8%

32

obtained a master's degree, and 0.7% held a PhD degree. The majority of participants were male
(67.8%). The average age fell into the 31–40 years category (M = 2.12, SD = 0.67, on a 4-point
scale), and the average organizational tenure was in the "more than 5 years" category (M = 3.25,
SD = 0.98). Cronbach's alpha values for all multi-item scales are reported on the diagonal in
Table 1. Internal consistency for all constructs was acceptable, with alpha values ranging from
.810 (Hybrid Workplace) to .883 (Workplace Anxiety) exceeding the commonly accepted cutoff
of .70 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). While all values fall below the .90 threshold, thereby
avoiding concerns of item redundancy (Boyle, 1991; Clark & Watson, 1995), they indicate
strong reliability for the measurement of each construct. These findings support the internal
consistency of the established scales used in this study.
These values provide preliminary insight into the respondents’ overall experiences in
hybrid workplaces. Notably, the moderate levels of WA and OPE highlight the psychological and
political complexities of the HW structure, which merit further exploration in subsequent
hypothesis testing.

33

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities

Note. N = 152. M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; α = Cronbach’s Alpha. p < .05 (*), p < .01 (**). Internal reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) are reported on the
diagonal in parentheses. Gender: 1 = male, 2 = female; Age: 1 = 21–30, 2 = 31–40, 3 = 41–50, 4 = 51 and above; Education: 1 = bachelor’s degree, 2 = master’s
degree, 3 = PhD; Industry: 1 = manufacturing, 2 = telecom; Tenure: 1 = less than 1 year, 2 = 1–3 years, 3 = 3–5 years, 4 = more than 5 years. p < .05, p < .01, *p <
.001.

34

4.10 Hypothesis Testing
We tested our conceptual model using Hayes’s (2013) PROCESS macro (Model 7),
which allows estimation of conditional indirect effects in a moderated mediation framework.
This model is consistent with our theoretical foundation rooted in Conservation of Resources
(COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989), which posits that individuals are motivated to conserve, protect,
and invest resources. In this context, we conceptualized hybrid workplace (HW) flexibility as a
valuable contextual resource gain, workplace anxiety (WA) as a resource threat condition, and
organizational political engagement (OPE) as a resource conservation element and job
engagement (JE) was positioned as the ultimate outcome reflecting personal resource investment
in work. All models controlled for age, gender, education, industry, and tenure to isolate the
effects of the focal variables.
H1a: Hybrid Workplace and Organizational Political Engagement
To test Hypothesis 1a, a simple regression analysis was conducted with HW as the
predictor and OPE as the outcome. The results revealed a significant positive relationship (β =
0.482, SE = 0.133, t = 3.61, p < .001), supporting the hypothesis. The standardized coefficient (β
= .29) indicates a moderate effect size. This suggests that employees working in hybrid settings
may feel compelled to engage in organizational politics as a means to enhance or preserve their
visibility, access to resources, or influence—particularly in the absence of daily face-to-face
interactions. These findings align with COR theory’s assertion that individuals engage in
strategic behavior to protect valued resources under conditions of uncertainty.
H1b: Hybrid Workplace and Job Engagement
Regression analysis further supported Hypothesis 1b, which predicted a positive
association between HW and JE. The results were statistically significant (β = .54, SE = 0.067, t

35

= 7.86, p < .001;), indicating that employees in hybrid settings report significantly higher levels
of job engagement. This finding underscores the positive role that autonomy, flexibility, and
perceived controlled by job resources identified in COR theory—play in fostering psychological
investment in work.
H2: Moderating Effect of Workplace Anxiety on HW → OPE
To test Hypothesis 2, we used Hayes PROCESS Macro (Model 1) to examine whether
WA moderates the relationship between HW and OPE. Results indicated a significant interaction
effect (β = 0.1848, SE = 0.0870, t = 2.12, p = .036), confirming the hypothesis. Simple slope
analysis revealed that the positive association between HW and OPE was stronger at high levels
of WA (β = 0.63, p < .001) than at low levels (β = 0.31, p = .048). This finding is consistent with
COR theory, which suggests that under conditions of perceived threat or resource loss (i.e., high
WA), individuals are more likely to engage in compensatory behaviors such as political
engagement.
H3a: Moderating Effect of Workplace Anxiety on HW → JE
Hypothesis 3a proposed that WA moderates the relationship between HW and JE. Using
PROCESS Model 7 we found a significant interaction (β = 0.26, SE = 0.091, t = 2.85, p = .005; β
= .26). Simple slope tests revealed that hybrid work had a stronger positive effect on JE for
employees experiencing high levels of WA (β = 0.68, p < .001) compared to those with low WA
(β = 0.39, p = .029). This finding suggests that employees experiencing workplace anxiety may
derive into political engagement to reduce their workplace anxiety in hybrid workplace, from
where present study brings the effect of organizational political engagement as a mediator in this
model. Notably, although β = 0.39 appears in both H1b and H3a findings, it represents different

36

model conditions β = 0.523 in H1b reflects the unconditional main effect, while β = 0.39 in H3a
refers specifically to the conditional effect under low workplace anxiety.
H3b: Moderated Mediation via Organizational Political Engagement
PROCESS Macro Model 7 was used to examine whether the indirect effect of HW on JE
via OPE is conditional on levels of WA. The moderated mediation index was statistically
significant (Index = 0.12, Boot SE = 0.049, 95% CI [0.03, 0.22]), providing strong support for
Hypothesis 3b. Specifically, the conditional indirect effect was significant at high WA (Effect =
0.46, SE = 0.12, 95% CI [0.23, 0.70]), but not at low WA (Effect = 0.20, SE = 0.18, 95% CI
[−0.16, 0.54]). This indicates that organizational political engagement increases as a strategy to
protect resources primarily among those experiencing greater resource threat due to high
workplace anxiety, consistent with the COR theory assertion that individuals invest in protective
behaviors to mitigate perceived loss.
The results provide robust empirical support for the proposed moderated mediation
framework. Hybrid workplace practices enhance job engagement both directly and indirectly by
shaping organizational political engagement. These effects are further conditioned by the level of
workplace anxiety. High WA strengthens both the likelihood of engaging in organizational
politics and that impacts hybrid work on job engagement. In line with COR theory, the findings
suggest that under threat (WA), employees pursue both resource-gaining (JE) and resourcepreserving (OPE) strategies simultaneously. This dual-pathway dynamic offers a nuanced
understanding of how hybrid work structures interact with individual psychology to influence
work outcomes. The findings have practical implications for leaders and HR professionals
seeking to manage engagement and minimize negative political behaviors in flexible work
environments.

37

38

Chapter 5: Discussion
This study examined the effects of hybrid workplace (HW) arrangements on employee
job engagement (JE), accounting for the moderating influence of workplace anxiety (WA) and
the mediating role of organizational political engagement (OPE). This study, which was framed
under the Conservation of Resources (COR) paradigm (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001), sought to
understand how resource threat and resource gain (autonomy, flexibility) interact to influence
resource conservation by involving in (OPE) and secure the (JE) results. The study provides a
complex explanation of employee job engagement in hybrid work settings by illustrating that
everyone does not feel the advantages of HW and that WA greatly influences how these benefits
materialize.
5.1 Summary of Key Findings
The results supported the proposed hypotheses and revealed several noteworthy patterns.
First, HW was found to have a direct positive association with both OPE and JE, indicating that
employees who perceive higher levels of workplace flexibility and autonomy are more likely to
engage in political behavior and report higher engagement at work. These findings resonate with
existing scholarship emphasizing that flexible work arrangements can increase employee
motivation and commitment by supporting personal control and enhancing work-life balance
(Giovanis, 2019; Wang et al., 2020).
Second, WA was found to moderate both the HW–OPE and HW–JE relationships.
Specifically, the effects of HW on both OPE and JE were more potent when WA was high. This
finding is especially significant because it highlights that psychological strain—often treated as a
detrimental factor—can heighten employee sensitivity to contextual resources, such as HW,
leading to protective and performance-enhancing behaviors. Third, the analysis demonstrated a

39

significant moderated mediation effect, with the indirect relationship between HW and JE via
OPE being stronger under high WA. This suggests that OPE is a coping mechanism that allows
anxious employees to leverage workplace flexibility to maintain or increase their engagement.
5.2 Theoretical Contributions
This study makes several meaningful contributions to organizational behavior and human
resource management, particularly in the context of hybrid work and resource management.
First, it advances COR theory by showing that resource-rich environments like HW
arrangements do not function uniformly across all individuals. Rather, the perceived utility of
HW as a resource appears to depend on the psychological state of the employee. While
employees with lower workplace anxiety may benefit from HW passively, those experiencing
higher levels of WA may actively engage in resource-protective behavior, such as OPE, in
response to protect the resources from threat of loss.
Second, the findings help reposition organizational political engagement as a strategic
coping behavior rather than solely dysfunctional or manipulative act. Traditional literature has
often cast political engagement in a negative light—associating it with deception, backstabbing,
or self-serving motives (Ferris et al., 1989). However, consistent with emerging scholarship
(Hochwarter et al., 2003; Brouer et al., 2011), this study demonstrates that political behavior can
be contextually adaptive, particularly when individuals are attempting to navigate ambiguous
environments or resource threats. For anxious employees working in hybrid arrangements where
visibility and control may be uncertain, OPE may provide a means to retain influence and
visibility within the organization.
Third, the study contributes to hybrid workplace literature, which has grown substantially
since the COVID-19 pandemic. While many studies have focused on the benefits of hybrid

40

models—such as increased flexibility, improved satisfaction, and reduced commuting stress—
few have explored the boundary conditions of these benefits. This study shows that the very
features that make hybrid work attractive can also create uncertainty and role ambiguity,
especially for employees already experiencing high levels of anxiety. Therefore, HW must be
understood not only as a structural resource but also as a context that interacts with internal
states, shaping how employees interpret and respond to their work environment.
Fourth, this study provides empirical support for the resource gain and loss spirals
proposed by COR theory. Employees with higher WA are already at a perceived resource deficit.
Thus, when exposed to a potentially empowering context like HW, they may be more motivated
to secure their standing within the organization by engaging politically. This behavior, in turn,
helps them maintain or boost their JE. This cascading process mirrors COR’s assertion that
resource investment is driven by the motivation to prevent further loss and secure future gains
(Hobfoll, 2001).
5.3 Practical Implications
The findings have direct implications for managers, HR professionals, and organizational
leaders seeking to implement or optimize hybrid work policies. First, while HW provides
structural autonomy and flexibility, it does not inherently reduce stress or disengagement. Rather,
its effectiveness is contingent on the psychological readiness and emotional state of the
employee. Organizations should recognize that HW may introduce new stressors—such as
isolation, lack of visibility, or role confusion—that could exacerbate existing workplace anxiety.
As such, hybrid work initiatives should be paired with support systems that foster psychological
safety, including consistent communication, performance feedback, mental health resources, and
inclusive leadership practices.

41

Second, the fact that OPE plays a mediating role under high WA implies that managers
should not automatically interpret political engagement as negative. Instead, such behavior may
reflect employees' efforts to stay relevant, maintain their position, or ensure fairness in resource
distribution when traditional workplace cues (like face-to-face recognition or proximity to
leaders) are absent. Managers should therefore be trained to identify when political engagement
stems from adaptive self-regulation rather than manipulation, and to respond with empathy and
transparency.
Third, organizations must understand that promoting JE under hybrid conditions is not
simply about offering location flexibility. Emotional regulation strategies, trust-building, and role
clarity are essential for ensuring that all employees—especially those experiencing anxiety—can
thrive. Creating a culture where employees feel secure regardless of physical location can reduce
the need for defensive behaviors and instead promote proactive engagement.
Finally, the findings suggest that “one-size-fits-all” hybrid policies may be insufficient.
Employees vary in their ability to navigate autonomy, ambiguity, and stress. Tailoring hybrid
arrangements to match individual needs and regularly checking in on emotional well-being can
help optimize both individual and organizational outcomes.
5.4 Limitations
Despite its strengths, this study has limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the
cross-sectional design limits the ability to make definitive causal inferences. Although theoretical
reasoning and statistical techniques support the proposed direction of effects, longitudinal or
experimental designs would better capture the temporal and causal dynamics among HW, WA,
OPE, and JE.

42

Second, the study relied on very few indications that impact HW and how that impact
employee’s JE; however, including more areas of organizational dynamics will enrich the
research more in future. Future studies could also use more behavioral indicators (e.g.,
performance metrics, peer ratings) to strengthen the validity of this research.
Third, the sample was drawn exclusively from the telecom and manufacturing sectors in
Bangladesh, which may limit the generalizability of findings. Cultural norms around hierarchy,
communication, and political behavior may differ in other contexts. For example, collectivist
versus individualist cultures may interpret political behavior differently (Hofstede, 2001).
Replication across sectors and cultures would enhance the external validity of the model.
Fourth, workplace anxiety was measured as a general trait in this study. However, anxiety
is often situation-specific and can fluctuate depending on leadership behavior, task demands, or
external stressors. Future studies could adopt experience sampling methods (ESM) or daily diary
studies to better capture these fluctuations and their influence on engagement.
Fifth, due to time constraints, the sample size for the present study was relatively limited,
which may restrict the generalizability and depth of the findings. The small and non-random
sample reduces the capacity to fully capture the variability and potential interactions among the
study variables, thereby limiting the broader applicability of the results (Creswell & Creswell,
2018).
Lastly, while statistical tests indicated that common method bias (CMB) was not a serious
concern specifically, the Harman’s single-factor test showed that the first unrotated factor
accounted for 46.17% of the total variance, below the commonly accepted 50% threshold this
value is still relatively high. Ideally, variance explained by a single factor should fall between
10% and 20% to minimize the risk of CMB. Although procedural and statistical remedies were

43

implemented in the study (Podsakoff et al., 2003), the relatively elevated variance suggests that
CMB cannot be entirely ruled out and should be interpreted as a limitation of the study.

44

5.5 Future Research Directions
Future research should explore the long-term consequences of organizational political
engagement (OPE) under hybrid work conditions. While the present study found that OPE
facilitates engagement under conditions of high workplace anxiety, prolonged reliance on such
coping mechanisms may lead to emotional exhaustion, burnout, or workplace cynicism over time
(Vigoda-Gadot, 2007). Longitudinal research is needed to examine whether OPE remains a
sustainable engagement strategy or whether it ultimately contributes to employee withdrawal,
stress, or reduced performance outcomes in the long run (Cropanzano et al., 2003).
Additionally, future work could examine moderators that may shape the HW–OPE–JE
relationship. The impacts found in this study may be contextually buffered or amplified by
variables like leadership style, team cohesion, organizational fairness, and perceived supervisor
support (Aryee et al., 2002; Erdogan & Bauer, 2010; Tepper, 2000). Comprehending these
moderating factors would improve the development of theories and facilitate more focused
workplace interventions.
Future studies ought to look into whether gender disparities affect how workers perceive
and react to hybrid work arrangements. According to earlier studies, gender may influence how
people view career progression prospects, visibility, and work-life balance in flexible work
settings (Becker et al., 2022). In order to better tailor hybrid policies to the varied requirements
of employees, it would be beneficial to examine if men and women differ in their levels of job
engagement, political engagement, and workplace anxiety in hybrid workplace.
By encouraging trust, communication, and shared values, strong, encouraging, and
inclusive organizational cultures may mitigate the harmful effects of political engagement and
workplace anxiety (Naqshbandi et al., 2023). To better understand how firms might use culture to

45

improve engagement in hybrid work environments, it would be helpful to examine cultural
aspects including supportiveness, communication norms, and performance evaluation
procedures.
Qualitative research may also offer deeper insights into how workers understand political
engagement in settings with limited visibility and structural ambiguity, as well as how they
weigh the trade-offs of hybrid work. These methods would assist in revealing the underlying
reasons, justifications, and anticipated results of political engagement—all of which are
frequently overlooked in quantitative survey designs (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Finally, future research should explore the intersection of technology, surveillance, and
trust in hybrid work contexts. As organizations increasingly deploy digital monitoring and
productivity-tracking systems, employees may experience heightened pressure and a perceived
loss of autonomy—factors that may trigger new forms of political engagement or disengagement
(Ball, 2010; Jeske & Santuzzi, 2015). Investigating how these surveillance dynamics influence
employee behavior would be particularly relevant as hybrid work becomes a long-term
organizational strategy.

46

Chapter 6: Conclusion
This study contributes to the growing body of literature on hybrid work by emphasizing
the conditional and interactive nature of workplace resources, particularly within the framework
of Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001). The findings underscore that
structural changes such as the implementation of hybrid work models do not exist in isolation.
Rather, their effectiveness is significantly influenced by employees’ psychological states,
especially the presence of workplace anxiety (WA). By exploring how hybrid workplace (HW)
arrangements interact with WA to influence organizational political engagement (OPE) and,
ultimately, job engagement (JE), this research adds depth to our understanding of modern work
environments and the dynamic mechanisms that underpin employee behavior.
Importantly, this study challenges the prevailing notion that hybrid work is a universally
positive solution. While many organizational narratives emphasize the benefits of HW—such as
autonomy, work-life balance, and productivity—this study demonstrates that individual
differences in emotional and psychological resilience can significantly moderate these effects.
Employees experiencing elevated levels of anxiety may perceive hybrid work as ambiguous or
threatening, prompting them to engage in political behaviors as a compensatory strategy to
manage visibility, control, and resource access within the workplace. In this context, political
engagement serves not as a dysfunctional behavior, but as a resource-conserving mechanism
triggered in response to resource threats. Such findings advance the COR-based understanding
that individuals under resource threat actively seek to conserve and regain resources through
both behavioral and strategic efforts.
Moreover, the study provides evidence for a moderated mediation model, illustrating that
the indirect effect of HW on JE via OPE is significantly stronger under high levels of anxiety.

47

This nuanced relationship indicates that hybrid work policies must be designed with an
awareness of employee emotional states and coping behaviors. The positive impact of hybrid
work on engagement is not guaranteed; rather, it is mediated and moderated by how individuals
interpret and respond to their working conditions. This insight has significant theoretical
implications for refining COR theory in the context of flexible work and for rethinking how
organizational behavior constructs—such as political engagement—are viewed within modern,
digitally mediated, and psychologically complex work environments.
From a practical standpoint, the findings highlight the critical importance of integrating
psychological and structural factors in workplace policy and management practices.
Organizations that adopt hybrid work models without addressing the emotional well-being of
their employees may inadvertently trigger resource-depleting conditions that reduce the
effectiveness of these models. Therefore, HR professionals and organizational leaders should
implement supportive infrastructures that promote psychological safety, role clarity, transparent
communication, and inclusive performance recognition systems. Tailored interventions that
consider both environmental design and individual needs will be essential in maximizing
engagement and minimizing maladaptive coping strategies in hybrid settings.
Furthermore, as hybrid work continues to evolve from a pandemic-era necessity into a
long-term organizational strategy, there is a pressing need for evidence-based policy making.
This study provides empirical support for the view that flexible work arrangements must be
context-sensitive and psychologically attuned. It contributes to ongoing discussions about future
work design, offering insights that can inform leadership development, change management, and
employee support programs in the digital era.

48

In conclusion, this research underscores the value of adopting an integrated approach to
understanding workplace behavior—one that simultaneously accounts for structural flexibility
and emotional complexity. By framing OPE as a strategic, context-dependent response to hybrid
work environments under anxiety, and by demonstrating its mediating role in sustaining JE, this
study provides a meaningful contribution to theory, research, and practice. Organizations that
wish to cultivate a resilient and engaged workforce must go beyond logistical redesign and invest
in the emotional intelligence of systems, ensuring that both human and structural resources are
aligned to promote well-being and productivity in a hybrid future.

49

References
Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational
perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(3), 414–435.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2000.1774
Alexander, A., de Smet, A., Langstaff, M., & Ravid, D. (2019). What do we know about the
future of work? In What do we know and what should we do about the future of work?
(pp. 27–52). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526481351.n3
Allen, D. G., & Griffeth, R. W. (2001). Test of a mediated performance–turnover relationship
highlighting the moderating roles of visibility and reward contingency. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86(5), 1014–1021. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.1014
Anderson, S. E. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices:
Links to work–family conflict and job-related outcomes. Journal of Management, 28(6),
787–810. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630202800605
Arshad, R. (2016). The role of needs-supplies fit and job satisfaction in predicting employee
engagement. Journal Pengurusan, 47, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.17576/pengurusan-201647-01
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between
organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.138
Attridge, M. (2009). Employee assistance programs: A research-based primer. In J. C. Quick &
L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology (pp. 383–407).
Wiley-Blackwell.

50

Babapour Chafi, M., Hultberg, A., & Bozic Yams, N. (2021). Post-pandemic office work:
Perceived challenges and opportunities for a sustainable work environment.
Sustainability, 14(1), 294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010294
Bahmannia, S., Brown, D. K., van Knippenberg, D., Lowe, K. B., Cui, L., & Chen, Z. X. (2022).
A wolf in sheep’s clothing: Exploring the relationship between leader humility and
unethical behavior. Journal of Management, 48(7), 2009–2030.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221076933
Bahmannia, S., Brown, D. K., van Knippenberg, D., & Lowe, K. B. (2023). Even nectar is
poisonous in excess: The impact of leader humility on pride, entitlement, and
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies.
https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518231204675
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking
forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285.
https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2020). Too burned-out to deal with weekly
job demands? A multilevel approach of employee well-being, coping, and selfundermining. International Journal of Stress Management, 26(3), 238–249.
https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000108
Ball, K. (2010). Workplace surveillance: An overview. Labor History, 51(1), 87–106.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00236561003654776
Barbour, N., Menon, N., & Mannering, F. (2021). A statistical assessment of work-from-home
participation during different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Transportation

51

Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 11, 100441.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2021.100441
Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1990). Point-counterpoints: Anxiety and social exclusion.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(2), 165–195.
https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1990.9.2.165
Becker, W. J., Belkin, L. Y., Tuskey, S. E., & Conroy, S. A. (2022). Surviving remotely: How job
control and loneliness during a forced shift to remote work influenced work behaviors
and employee perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 132, 103681.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103681
Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J., & Ying, Z. J. (2015). Does working from home work?
Evidence from a Chinese experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(1), 165–218.
https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju032
Boyle, G. J. (1991). Does item homogeneity indicate internal consistency or item redundancy in
psychometric scales? Personality and Individual Differences, 12(3), 291–294.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90115-R
Brouer, R. L., Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2011). The moderating effects of political skill on
the perception of politics–outcome relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
32(6), 869–885. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.718
Brough, P., Timms, C., O’Driscoll, M. P., Kalliath, T., Siu, O. L., Sit, C., & Lo, D. (2014, March
31). Work–life balance: a longitudinal evaluation of a new measure across Australia and
New Zealand workers. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
25(19), 2724–2744. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.899262

52

Call, M. L., Nyberg, A. J., Ployhart, R. E., & Weekley, J. A. (2015). The dynamic nature of
collective turnover and unit performance: The impact of time, quality, and replacements.
Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1208–1232.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0669
Chang, C.-H., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The relationship between perceptions of
organizational politics and employee attitudes, strain, and behavior: A meta-analytic
examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 779–801.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.43670894
Chaudhuri, R., Chatterjee, S., Vrontis, D., & Alessio, I. (2022, August 8). Work from anywhere
and employee psychological well-being: moderating role of HR leadership support.
Personnel Review, 51(8), 1967–1989. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-02-2022-0086
Chen, Y., Zhan, C., & Wang, Y. (2023). Remote work and job satisfaction during the COVID-19
pandemic: A resource-based view. Journal of Business Research, 161, 113850.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113850
Choudhury, P., Foroughi, C., & Larson, B. Z. (2021). Work-from-anywhere: The productivity
effects of geographic flexibility. Strategic Management Journal, 42(4), 655–683.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3251
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale
development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/10403590.7.3.309
Cooper, C. D., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee
development in public and private organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
23(4), 511–532. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.145

53

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Darouei, M., & Pluut, H. (2021). Work from home today for a better tomorrow! How working
from home influences work–family conflict and employees' start of the next workday.
Stress and Health, 37(5), 986–999. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3053
De Lucas Ancillo, A., del Val Núñez, M. T., & Gavrila, S. G. (2020). Workplace change within
the COVID-19 context: A grounded theory approach. Economic Research-Ekonomska
Istraživanja, 33(1), 2373–2390. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2020.1862689
Drory, A., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2010). Organizational politics and human resource management:
A typology and the Israeli experience. Human Resource Management Review, 20(3),
194–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.08.005
Eagly, A. H. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social
psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64(8), 644–658.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.644
Eldor, L. (2016). Public service sector: The compassionate workplace—The effect of compassion
and stress on employee engagement, burnout, and performance. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 26(3), 572–587.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muv023
Ellison, N. B. (2004). Telework and social change: How technology is reshaping the boundaries
between home and work. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2010). Differentiated leader–member exchanges: The buffering role
of justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1104–1120.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020578

54

Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in
moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 36(3), 305–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(85)90002-0
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive
performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7(2), 336–353.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.336
Fay, D., & Sonnentag, S. (2002). Rethinking the effects of stressors: A longitudinal study on
personal initiative. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(3), 221–234.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.7.3.221
Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of
Management, 18(1), 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800107
Ferris, G. R., Davidson, S. L., & Perrewé, P. L. (2005). Political skill at work: Impact on work
effectiveness. Davies-Black Publishing.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas,
C., & Frink, D. D. (2005). Development and validation of the political skill inventory.
Journal of Management, 31(1), 126–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304271386
Ford, M. T., Cerasoli, C. P., Higgins, J. A., & Decesare, A. L. (2011). Relationships between
psychological, physical, and behavioral health and work performance: A review and
meta-analysis. Work & Stress, 25(3), 185–204.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2011.609035
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

55

Fonner, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (2010). Why teleworkers are more satisfied with their jobs than
are office-based workers: When less contact is beneficial. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 38(4), 336–361.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2010.513998
Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common methods
variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3192–3198.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008
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/10.1037/00219010.92.6.1524
Gaines, J., Jermier, J. M., & Thomas, K. W. (1997). The effects of tenure on job satisfaction.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(6), 597–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10991379(199711)18:6<597::AID-JOB819>3.0.CO;2-T
Giovanis, E. (2019). The relationship between flexible employment arrangements and workplace
performance in Great Britain. The British Journal of Industrial Relations, 57(2), 249–
278. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12327
Gkorezis, P., Petridou, E., & Krouklidou, T. (2014). The detrimental effect of perceived
organizational politics on employees’ engagement: The role of leadership styles.
International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, 9(1), 36–45.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijbsam.2014.9.1.36
Halford, S. (2005). Hybrid workspace: Re-spatialising work, re‐engaging bodies. Information,
Communication & Society, 8(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180500055574

56

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.
Hill, E. J., Ferris, M., & Märtinson, V. (2003). Does it matter where you work? A comparison of
how three work venues influence aspects of work and personal/family life. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 63(2), 220–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00042-3
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress
process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50(3), 337–
421. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062
Hochwarter, W. A. (2012). The interactive effects of leader political skill and follower
Machiavellianism on attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
97(2), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025212
Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C., Perrewé, P., & Johnson, D. (2003). Perceived organizational
support as a mediator of the relationship between politics perceptions and work
outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 438–456.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00048-9
Jeske, D., & Santuzzi, A. M. (2015). Monitoring what and how: Psychological implications of
electronic performance monitoring. New Technology, Work and Employment, 30(1), 62–
78. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12039
Jex, S. M. (1998). Stress and job performance: Theory, research, and implications for
managerial practice. SAGE Publications.

57

Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1991). Perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPS):
Development and construct validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
51(1), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164491511019
Kacmar, K. M., Bozeman, D. P., Carlson, D. S., & Anthony, W. P. (1999). An examination of the
perceptions of organizational politics model: Replication and extension. Human
Relations, 52(3), 383–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679905200304
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford
Press.
Landells, E. M., & Albrecht, S. L. (2016). Organizational political climate and peer political
behavior: Influence on employee well-being, performance and job stress. Human
Resource Management Journal, 26(3), 379–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/17488583.12110
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.
LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta‐analytic test of the challenge
stressor–hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships
among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 764–775.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.18803921
Lund, S., Madgavkar, A., Manyika, J., Smit, S., Ellingrud, K., Meaney, M., & Robinson, O.
(2022). The future of work after COVID-19. McKinsey Global Institute.
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/the-future-of-work-aftercovid-19.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397

58

McCarthy, J. M., & Goffin, R. D. (2004). Measuring job interview anxiety: Beyond weak knees
and sweaty palms. Personnel Psychology, 57(3), 607–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17446570.2004.00002
McCarthy, J. M., Trougakos, J. P., & Cheng, B. H. (2016). Are anxious workers less productive
workers? It depends on the quality of social exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology,
101(2), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000035
McDonald, P., Bradley, L., & Brown, K. (2008). Visibility in the workplace: Still an essential
ingredient for career success? The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 19(12), 2198–2215. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190802479447
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook
(2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Milenko, M., Manfreda, A., & Indihar Štemberger, M. (2021). Challenges and solutions for the
digitalization of work: Employee perspectives from the Adriatic region. Transforming
Government: People, Process and Policy, 15(3), 436–453. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-012021-0002
Moglia, M., Cook, S., Tapsuwan, S., & Marchand, G. (2021). Evaluating and designing remote
working environments: Flexibility and sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production,
293, 126164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126164
Morgeson, F. P., Delaney-Klinger, K., & Hemingway, M. A. (2005). The Importance of Job
Autonomy, Cognitive Ability, and Job-Related Skill for Predicting Role Breadth and Job
Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 399–406.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.399

59

Naqshbandi, M. M., Kabir, M. R., Ishak, S., & Islam, M. Z. (2023). Post-pandemic HRM: The
hybrid working model and its impact on organizational performance. Employee
Relations, 45(5), 1031–1051. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-02-2022-0089
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Oygür, I., Özdemir, A. I., & Güler, Ö. (2022). Hybrid working and well-being: The role of
autonomy, workload, and organizational support. Journal of Organizational
Effectiveness: People and Performance, 9(3), 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP06-2022-0121
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/00219010.88.5.879
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods,
40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M. J., & Sturman, M. C. (2009). A tale of three perspectives:
Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method
variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 762–800.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109332834
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects
on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988

60

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169
Salleh, N. M., & Rajah, R. (2023). Navigating remote work: Visibility management and career
sustainability in hybrid workplaces. Career Development International, 28(3), 284–302.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-01-2022-0012
Sardeshmukh, S. R., Sharma, D., & Golden, T. D. (2012). Impact of telework on exhaustion and
job engagement: A job demands and job resources model. New Technology, Work and
Employment, 27(3), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2012.00284
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement
with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2014). A critical review of the Job Demands–Resources model:
Implications for improving work and health. In G. F. Bauer & O. Hämmig (Eds.),
Bridging Occupational, Organizational And Public Health (pp. 43–68). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5640-3_4
Schulze, M., Felfe, J., & Krumm, S. (2023). Predicting job satisfaction and work engagement
among remote workers: The role of perceived autonomy support and intrinsic motivation.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 96(1), 111–133.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12412
Smith, J. A., & Lee, K. T. (2023). Navigating the hybrid work landscape: Digital transformation
in post-pandemic organizations. Journal of Management & Organization, 29(4), 567–
582. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.45

61

Surma, J., Mielniczuk, M., & Ostrowski, P. (2021). Employee engagement and remote work
during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 18(21), 11333. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111333
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal,
43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556375
Treadway, D. C., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., & Ammeter, A. P.
(2005). The interactive effects of political skill and future time perspective on career
success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 504–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/00219010.90.3.504
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Redrawing the boundaries of OCB? An empirical examination of
compulsory citizenship behavior in modern organizations. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 21(3), 377–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-006-9034-5
Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J., & Parker, S. K. (2020). Achieving effective remote working during
the COVID-19 pandemic: A work design perspective. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 16–59.
https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12290
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Work engagement
and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 183–200.
https://doi.org/10.1348/096317908X285633
Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2005). Evaluation anxiety: Current theory and research. In A. J.
Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 141–163).
Guilford Press.

62

63

Appendix
Appendix A: List of Questionnaires
Items for Organizational political perception: Hochwarter, Kacmar, Perrewé, and Johnson
(2003)
1. There is a lot of self-serving behavior going on in my organization.
2. People do what’s best for them, not what’s best for the organization.
3. People spend too much time sucking up to those who can help them.
4. People are working behind the scenes to ensure that they get their piece of the pie.
5. Many employees are trying to maneuver their way into the in group.
6. Individuals are stabbing each other in the back to look good in front of others.
Items for Workplace Anxiety: McCarthy and Goffin (2004).
1. I am overwhelmed by thoughts of doing poorly at work.
2. I worry that my work performance will be lower than that of others at work.
3. I feel nervous and apprehensive about not being able to meet performance targets.
4. I worry about not receiving a positive job performance evaluation.
5. I often feel anxious that I will not be able to perform my job duties in the time
allotted.
6. I worry about whether others consider me to be a good employee for the job.
7. I worry that I will not be able to successfully manage the demands of my job.
8. Even when I try as hard as I can, I still worry about whether my job performance
will be good enough.
Item for Hybrid Workplace visibility:
Hybrid Workplace: To measure we adopt items from multiple contexts.
1. I currently have a good balance between the time I spend at work and the time I
have available for non-work activities in hybrid set-up.
2. Overall, I believe that my work and non-work life are balanced.
3. I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work.
4. I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job.
5. I believe that work from anywhere flexibility makes employees more efficient.
6. Remote working helps individuals work towards a common goal.
64

7. The work from anywhere option provides employees flexibility for choosing their
workplace.
8. The work from anywhere option enables employees to spend more quality time
with their families.
9. The psychological well-being of the employees includes both the emotional and
mental conditions of the employees in hybrid workplace.
Item name
Work-life balance

Autonomy

Work from
anywhere
promote wellbeing and
efficiency

Questions
1.I currently have a good balance
between the time I spend at work and
the time I have available for nonwork activities in hybrid set-up
2.I have difficulty balancing my
work and non-work activities.
3.I feel that the balance between my
work demands and non-work
activities is currently about right
4.Overall, I believe that my work and
non-work life are balanced.
1.I have significant autonomy in
determining how I do my job
2. I can decide on my own how to go
about doing my work
3. I have considerable opportunity
for independence and freedom in
how I do my job

Journal
Brough, P., Timms, C., O’Driscoll, M. P.,
Kalliath, T., Siu, O. L., Sit, C., & Lo, D. (2014,
March 31). Work–life balance: a longitudinal
evaluation of a new measure across Australia
and New Zealand workers. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management,
25(19), 2724–2744.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.899262.

1.I believe that work from anywhere
flexibility makes employees more
efficient
2.Remote working helps individuals
work towards a common goal
3.Work from anywhere gives
employees the option to work
anywhere and at any time so that the
firms’ operations are not interrupted
4.The work from anywhere option
provides employees flexibility for
choosing their workplace
5.The work from anywhere option
enables employees to spend more
quality time with their families
6.The psychological well-being of
the employees includes both the
emotional and mental conditions of
the employees in hybrid workplace

Chaudhuri, R., Chatterjee, S., Vrontis, D., &
Alessio, I. (2022, August 8). Work from
anywhere and employee psychological wellbeing: moderating role of HR leadership
support. Personnel Review, 51(8), 1967–1989.
https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-02-2022-0086

Morgeson, F. P., Delaney-Klinger, K., &
Hemingway, M. A. (2005). The Importance of
Job Autonomy, Cognitive Ability, and JobRelated Skill for Predicting Role Breadth and
Job Performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(2), 399–406.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.399

65

Item for Job Engagement: on (Schaufeli et al. (2006)
1. At my work, I feel bursting with energy.
2. At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.
3. I am enthusiastic about my job.
4. My job inspires me.
5. When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.
6. I feel happy when I am working intensely.
7. I am proud of the work that I do.
8. I am immersed in my work.
9. I get carried away when I am working.

66

Appendix B: Survey Consent
Sample Email Script
To whom it may concern,
I hope everything is going well and find you are safe and sound. I am Akifa Rahman, a
graduate student at the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC); writing this email to
you to assist me with my research project regarding a survey study with the reference of Mr./Mrs.
Xyz.
Project Highlights: The research study aims to clarify how Hybrid Workplace, such as
flexibility in working place and hour, contribute to Employee’s Job Engagement and how high
Workplace Anxiety and Employee’s Organizational Political Engagement impact or create
detrimental effect on Employee’s Job Engagement in Hybrid Workplace.
Survey Highlights: There will be a unique numerical code for your organization, and
employees’ responses will be matched with the code for the specific organization. In the meantime,
employees working in different teams in hybrid set-up will be randomly chosen via a lottery draw.
The survey procedure involves filling out an online (via SurveyMonkey) or in-person survey (if
online is unavailable) that will take approximately 30 minutes. Participants may skip any questions
they are not interested in answering and end the survey at any time according to their wish.
Participants’ privacy and safety: Participation in this survey study is voluntary, so
employees may choose not to participate. If any employee decides not to participate in the study
or wants to withdraw at any time, they will not be penalized. However, the results of this study
will be used for scholarly purposes only and will be shared with you after being available in the
UNBC library; kindly deliver the result to the interested survey participants. Besides, participants’
responses will be confidential, and all data will be stored in a password-protected electronic
format. Moreover, the study has been reviewed by UNBC Research Ethics Board (REB), which
maintains research ethics protocols for research involving human participants.
Organizational and Employee Benefits: The survey study's research findings may provide
an opportunity to improve individual and organizational outcomes of your organization through
reviewing hybrid workplace set-up, minimizing workplace anxiety, increase employee’s job
engagement, and engagement in organizational politics.
However, I have attached the sample questionnaire for your review. Please see the attached.

67

Please let me know if you have any queries. I look forward to hearing from you soon and
thank you for your time and consideration.
Kind regards,
Akifa Rahman
MSc in Business Administration
School of Business, University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC)
Student ID: 230154227

68

Information Letter / Consent Form
Date:
Project Title: From Cubicles to Couches: Exploring the Relationship between Hybrid
Workplace, Organizational Political Engagement, Workplace Anxiety and Job Engagement.

Who is conducting the study?
Principal researcher name: Akifa rahman
Program/Department/School: MSc in Business Administration (School of Business)
University of Northern British Columbia
Prince George, BC V2N 4Z9
Email address: rahmana@unbc.ca
Cell number: (+1) 236 550 6039
Supervisor’s name and position: Dr. Darren Brown, Assistant Professor, School of Business
Email address: darren.brown@unbc.ca

The research is for a graduate degree (MSc in Business Administration) and is part of a thesis
(public document). The collected data will be used for scholarly purposes only, and the researcher
will be able to access it.

69

Purpose of Project:
This study aims to examine how and under what conditions in hybrid workplace(HW) employee's job
engagement (JE) is impacted. In order to understand the driving forces underlying employee's high
workplace anxiety (WA), which influence employee’s organizational political engagement (OPE), we
refer to Hobfoll's (1989) Conservation of Resource (COR) theory. The core ideas of COR theory
concern both resource acquisition and conservation. We want to develop and test a model that
argues that the relationship between the HW and employee's JE is mediated by OPE, on a condition
of high WA.
Participation in this study is entirely voluntary; you are in no way obligated to participate in this
research. Moreover, you are free to withdraw from this study at any time and free not to answer any
questions that make you feel uncomfortable.

70

71

Appendix C: Survey data collection

72

Appendix D: List of Tables & Graphs
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities

Note. N = 152. Internal reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) are reported on the diagonal in
parentheses. Gender: 1 = male, 2 = female; Age: 1 = 21–30, 2 = 31–40, 3 = 41–50, 4 = 51 and
above; Education: 1 = bachelor’s degree, 2 = master’s degree, 3 = PhD; Industry: 1 =
manufacturing, 2 = telecom; Tenure: 1 = less than 1 year, 2 = 1–3 years, 3 = 3–5 years, 4 = more
than 5 years. p < .05, p < .01, *p < .001.

73

74

Correlations, and Reliabilities

Table 2: Hypothesis Testing and Moderated Mediation Relationship

Graph 1: Sample biological mapping

AGE

6

20

26

49

103

100

GENDER

21-30

FEMALE

103

MALE

111

EDUCATION

31-40

41-50

51- ABOVE

1

41

48

INDUSTRY

MASTERS

MANUFACTURING

PHD

TELECOM

20

35

89

TENURE

8

BACHELOR

LESS THAN
1

1-3 YEARS

3-5 YEARS

5 YEARS
AND MORE

75