Model R R˛ F B-value p-value Model 1 0.3804 0.1447 6.931 0.364 0.2351 Model 2 0.3206 0.1028 4.6978 0.310 0.5225 Model 3 0.5536 0.3065 18.1192 0.455 0.0021 Model 4 0.4940 0.2440 13.2337 0.412 0.1534 Model R R˛ F B-value p-value Model 1 0.364 0.133 19.888 0.481 0.000 Model 2 0.310 0.096 13.842 0.272 0.000 Model 3 0.455 0.207 32.902 0.545 0.000 Model 4 0.412 0.170 25.803 0.329 0.000 Personality mean Job satisfaction mean Resilience mean Mindset mean Work mode during N Valid 145 132 128 148 127 Missing 16 29 33 13 34 Skewness -.219 -1.1453 -.246 -.602 -.195 Standard error of skewness .201 .211 .214 .199 .215 Kurtosis -.330 3.603 1.288 .838 -1.721 Standard error of kurtosis .400 .419 .425 .396 .727 Range 5.80 6.00 5.67 4.00 3 N Minimum Maximum Mean Standard deviation Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Standard error Statistic Standard error Age 127 2 5 3.02 1.198 0.685 0.215 -1.141 0.427 Employment 127 1 7 1.70 1.143 2.911 0.215 9.330 0.427 Income 127 1 6 3.16 1.883 0.167 0.215 -1.455 0.427 Job satisfaction mean 132 1.00 7.00 5.3924 1.06216 -1.453 0.211 3.603 0.419 Mindset mean 148 2.00 6.00 4.4572 .77789 -0.602 0.199 0.838 0.396 Personality mean 145 1.00 6.80 4.1869 1.20521 -0.219 0.201 -0.330 0.400 Resilience mean 128 1.00 6.67 4.3346 .97149 -0.246 0.214 1.288 0.425 Work mode before 127 1 4 1.45 .906 1.846 0.215 2.032 0.427 Work mode change satisfaction 127 1 4 2.13 .920 0.102 0.215 -1.168 0.427 Work mode during 127 1 4 2.65 1.313 -0.195 0.215 -1.721 0.427 Work mode wish 127 1 4 2.09 .968 0.251 0.215 -1.177 0.427 Valid N (listwise) 127 R R2 p-value (significance) b-value (coe.cient) ß Standard error of the estimate H1a 0.155 0.024 0.072 0.283 0.155 1.13380 H1b 0.0182 0.033 0.037 0.258 0.182 0.86175 H2a 0.406 0.165 0.000 0.577 0.406 0.80098 H2b 0.453 0.205 0.112 0.849 0.453 1.02332 H3a 0.1799 0.0324 0.9747 0.0017 — 0.3872 H3b 0.2695 0.0726 0.0247 -0.1434 — 0.3597 No. Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Age 3.02 1.198 1 2 Workload 3.922 0.627 -0.057 1 3 Time management 4.588 0.605 -0.119 -0.014 1 4 Well-being 4.379 1.157 0.183* -0.227** -0.205* 1 5 Work–life balance 4.963 1.143 -0.024 0.155 0.453** -0.484** 1 6 Job performance 5.178 0.873 0.250** -0.182* 0.406** 0.005 0.247** 1 “My husband and I live in a small one-bedroom in a 110-year-old apartment building, and we have noticed how living and working here 24-7 has taken an additional toll on our living space and emotional health.” “I’ll be divorced if it carries on much longer, that’s for sure.” “We have no room in our place for a separate o.ce; however two of us are supposed to be working from home, one of whom has to make reasonably confidential phone calls to service users.” “The thing is you can’t really work from home and do childcare at the same time. Not e.ectively, one if not both will su.er. Regardless of anyone being irresponsible.” “It’s really the online schooling part that distracts from the day. I have my kid’s desk set up right next to mine and I have to help her and work. It’s been detrimental to my work.” “My concern is that if you are working longer hours and not getting the right support and leadership it just amplifies how little investment organisations have made in providing both training and coaching on how to be an e.ective remote manger/ leader to those supposed to be facilitating new ways of working.” “[Work from home] is always extra hours of work with no additional pay, when you are above to close your laptop you see new email requirement and that’s will take 3-5 hours of work. Next thing is your Supervisor asking for the report which came in last night and he will yell at you first thing in the morning.” “The problem is the management is unable to trust its employees when working from home. How have results been achieved, if the employees have not worked, nobody is bothering to look or acknowledge that,” “Face-to-face social cues and inhibitions are compromised, such that communication becomes fraught with passive aggression, misunderstandings etc.” “Virtually collaborating with the team is a bit di.erent and takes quite a lot of time to understand your colleagues, the way they like to work, the norms they follow, the frequency with which the entire team operates.” “You can’t pull up a chair next to your co-worker and solve a problem immediately. The feel of accomplishment is less because no one is around you to share that excitement. Just basic human interaction, the background noise, the city views, lunch walks.” “Definitely missing out on social interactions and water-cooler conservations! Now it’s just Skype calls or either chasing your co-worker over phone calls if you have something to work together on.” “I also miss the social interaction and the informality of an In person meeting for tea, drinks, lunch where a lot more gets said than the formality of virtual co.ee/tea sessions.” “There is also the human factor, where personal interaction with colleagues is a much more enjoyable experience than the odd person posting something ‘humorous’ on Skype.” “It is easy to find oneself working longer hours and weekends (I just checked my e-mail and did some work on Sunday after Thanksgiving for example).” “My boundaries are blurred now that work is home and home is work.” “I often catch myself feeling guilty if I’m not answering emails at 9pm cause...well, I’m home anyway, so I’m not doing anything else, right?” “Starting early, few breaks, back to back on calls, late hours. A daily struggle to keep a boundary between work and home life.” “My working hours have increased by at least 30 mins and usually more. During those hours I have not taken enough frequent breaks from screen time, [...], resulting in a stressful role being even more demanding.” Variable Dependent variable: TOBINSQ Coe.cient P-value Coe.cient P-value Coe.cient P-value C 1.087 0.000*** 0.979 0.000*** 1.195 0.000 *** HIGH_ENTROPY -0.256 0.045** HIGH_HHI 0.211 0.025** HIGH_SEG -0.232 0.037** CEOMEET -0.286 0.003*** -0.065 0.158 -0.299 0.007*** HIGH_ENTROPY*CEOMEET 0.248 0.008*** HIG_HHI*CEOMEET -0.232 0.014** HIG_SEG*CEOMEET 0.234 0.014** SIZE 0.366 0.000*** 0.365 0.000*** 0.373 0.000*** AGE -0.118 0.282 -0.122 0.274 -0.139 0.259 LOSS 0.064 0.294 0.054 0.323 0.079 0.323 LEV 1.132 0.000*** 1.130 0.000*** 1.147 0.000*** R2 0.280 0.271 0.278 PROB > CHI2 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 912 912 912 Note: See Table 1 for variable definitions. *, **, and *** denote significance at a = 10, 5, and 1 percent, respectively (one-tailed) Variable Dependent variable: TOBINSQ Coe.cient P-value Coe.cient P-value Coe.cient P-value C 0.540 0.020** 0.870 0.000*** 1.255 0.000*** ENTROPY -1.440 0.000*** HHi 1.808 0.015** SEG -0.209 0.019** CEOMEET -0.374 0.001*** 0.224 0.111 -0.345 0.010*** ENTROPY*CEOMEET 0.458 0.002** HHi*CEOMEET -0.585 0.015** SEG*CEOMEET 0.057 0.0705* SIZE 0.367 0.000*** 0.368 0.000*** 0.369 0.000*** AGE -0.120 0.278 -0.114 0.000*** -0.111 0.299 LOSS 0.064 0.291 0.063 0.296 0.062 0.302 LEV 1.116 0.000*** 1.141 0.000*** 1.148 0.000*** R2 0.278 0.270 0.283 PROB > CHI2 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 912 912 912 Note: See Table 1 for variable definitions. *, **, and *** denote significance at a = 10, 5, and 1 percent, respectively (one-tailed) TOBINSQ ENTROPY HHI SEG CEOMEET SIZE AGE LOSS LEV TOBINSQ 1.000 ENTROPY -0.103* 1.000 HHi -0.035 -0.848* 1.000 SEG -0.121* 0.731* -0.550* 1.000 CEOMEET 0.005 0.110* -0.095* 0.033 1.000 SIZE 0.503* 0.098* -0.132* 0.164* 0.067* 1.000 AGE 0.226* -0.130* 0.076* -0.100* 0.033 0.320* 1.000 LOSS -0.054 -0.135* 0.157* -0.119* -0.042 -0.221 -0.049 1.000 LEV 0.001 -0.131* 0.132* -0.033 -0.034 -0.281 -0.080* 0.337* 1.000 Note: See Table 1 for variable definitions. * denotes 5% significance level Variable Max Min Mean SD N Skew TOBINSQ 5.680 0.600 1.696 1.353 912 1.784 ENTROPY 1.739 0 0.461 0.425 912 0.582 HHi 1 0 0.710 0.261 912 -0.434 SEG 10 1 2.794 1.570 912 1.273 CEOMEET 4.277 0.693 2.589 0.621 912 0.022 SIZE 33.941 18.380 27.813 2.311 912 0.100 AGE 3.611 1.386 2.919 0.404 912 -1.112 LEV 1.278 0.132 0.525 0.269 912 0.820 LOSS 0 = 84% 1 = 16% TOBINSQit = company performance, total debt, and market capitalization scaled by total assets of company i in year t; DIVit = diversification of company i in year t (ENTROPY, HHI, and SEG); CEOMEETit = natural logarithm of the number of meetings attended by the CEO of company i in year t; SIZEit = company size in the form of the natural logarithm of the market value of company i shares in year t; AGEit = company age, i.e., the number of years company i had been listed on the stock exchange as of year t; LOSSit = dummy variable: 1 if company i in year t reports a loss, and 0 otherwise; and LEVit = leverage, i.e., total debt divided by total assets of company i in year t. b SE p Intercept 2.08 0.27 0.00 Highly educated 0.15 0.03 0.00 Firm-specific knowledge 0.09 0.03 0.01 Permanent employees 0.08 0.03 0.01 Organizational size -0.11 0.04 0.00 Subsidiary site -0.53 0.24 0.03 Developments expected 0.18 0.05 0.00 Sector (ref = Industry and production) Construction 0.25 0.24 0.29 Retail – food -0.40 0.31 0.21 Retail – nonfood -0.02 0.24 0.94 Wholesale -0.04 0.25 0.89 Cars and repair -0.16 0.36 0.65 Catering -0.27 0.28 0.34 Transport and communication 0.13 0.32 0.69 Business services 0.24 0.22 0.29 Other services -0.13 0.25 0.61 Information technology 0.33 0.26 0.21 Financial institutions -0.12 0.35 0.73 Adjusted R squared 0.16 Min/Max Mean Standard deviation Percentage Work autonomy 1/5 3.46 1.15 Highly educated 1/5 2.94 1.58 Knowledge-specificity 1/5 3.67 1.35 Permanent employees 1/5 2.99 1.69 Organizational size 1/5 1.17 0.58 Organizational size (categories) 1–9 0/1 88.20 10–49 0/1 7.50 50–99 0/1 2.00 100–249 0/1 1.20 250 or more 0/1 1.20 Subsidiary site 0/1 3.30 Developments expected 1/5 2.45 0.89 Sector Industry and production 0/1 4.70 Construction 0/1 6.60 Retail – food 0/1 3.10 Retail – nonfood 0/1 13.20 Wholesale 0/1 7.40 Cars and repair 0/1 1.90 Catering 0/1 3.90 Transport and communication 0/1 3.20 Business services 0/1 35.20 Other services 0/1 10.20 Information technology 0/1 8.50 Financial institutions 0/1 2.10 How does the contribution … Which field? Which discussion? By which authors? Scope of the contribution (small, moderate, large) Why is it relevant? (theoretically, not just practically) Advance HRD/M Linking training interventions with job design decisions to achieve performance targets. Campbell et al., 1993; Felstead et al., 2009; Marsick & Watkins, 2015; McLagan, 1989 Moderate Accounting for constructs at di.erent levels; the importance of developing lateral capabilities of their workforce in addition to socially enriched job design. Complement HRD/M Narrowly defined job/task performance; importance of social job characteristics and extra-role performance. Alagaraja, 2013; Mohan & Sophia, 2019; Wong et al., 2017 Moderate New cross-disciplinary HRM–HRD nexus knowledge about socially structured and cognitive aspects of human behavior. Debunk/ contrast HRD/M Depart from a traditional subspecialized role of HRD and acknowledge that HRD has become a well-established and mature field of its own. Jeung et al., 2011; McLagan, 1989; Ruona, 2016; SHRM, 2014; Torraco, 2005a; Yoo et al., 2019 Moderate Demonstrating how a multilevel perspective on HRD can create transdisciplinary value. How does the contribution … Which field? Which discussion? By which authors? Scope of the contribution (small, moderate, large) Why is it relevant? (theoretically, not just practically) Advance/progress Complement/integrate Debunk/contrast Confirm/corroborate Dynamic Relationships Management Journal CONTENTS Volume 10, Number 2, November 2021 Framing Theoretical Contributions: The AC/DC Positioning Grid Matej Cerne ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Organizing for Autonomy: A Combined Contingency and Agency Perspective Ferry Koster ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Diversification, CEO Commitment, and Firm Performance Engelbertha E. Silalahi, Irenius Dwinanto Bimo ................................................................................... 19 Work is Where Home is, or Vice Versa? A Multi-Stakeholder Lens on Nurturing Relationships for Thriving Katarina Katja Mihelic, Ajda Merkuž, Jose Aldo Valencia Hernandez, Diellza Gashi Tresi .................... 31 The Interplay Among Work Overload and Time Management in Predicting Job Performance and Work–Life Balance Iza Zorec, Jan Hocevar, Luka Eržen ....................................................................................................... 47 The Interaction Between Individual Characteristics and Mode of Work in Predicting Resilience and Job Satisfaction Gašperlin Janina, Dovžan Nuša, Ferjan Karmen, Lamovšek Amadeja .................................................. 67 Author Guidelines................................................................................................................................ 83 Aims & Scope The Dynamic Relationships Management Journal is an international, double blind peer-reviewed bi-annual publication of academics’ and practitioners’ research analyses and perspectives on relationships management and organizational themes and topics. The focus of the journal is on management, organization, corporate governance and neighboring areas (including, but not limited to, organizational behavior, human resource management, sociology, organizational psychology, industrial economics etc.). Within these fields, the topical focus of the journal is above all on the establishment, development, main­tenance and improvement of dynamic relationships, connections, interactions, patterns of behavior, structures and networks in social entities like firms, non-profit institutions and public administration units within and beyond individual entity bound­aries. Thus, the main emphasis is on formal and informal relationships, structures and processes within and across individual, group and organizational levels. DRMJ articles test, extend, or build theory and contribute to management and organizational practice using a variety of empirical methods (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, field, laboratory, meta-analytic, and combination). Articles format should include, but are not restricted to, traditional academic research articles, case studies, literature reviews, method­ological advances, approaches to teaching, learning and management development, and interviews with prominent exec­utives and scholars. Material disclaimer Responsibility for (1) the accuracy of statements of fact, (2) the authenticity of scientific findings or observations, (3) expressions of scientific or other opinion and (4) any other material published in the journal rests solely with the author(s). The Journal, its owners, publishers, editors, reviewers and sta. take no responsibility for these matters. Information for Readers Dynamic Relationships Management Journal (ISSN 2232-5867 - printed version & ISSN 2350-367X - on-line version, available in (full text) at the DRMJ website) is published in 2 issues per year. For ordering the printed version, please contact the editor at matej.cerne@ef.uni-lj.si. Call for papers The Dynamic Relationships Management Journal (DRMJ) is inviting contributions for upcoming issues. The manuscript can be submitted per e-mail to the editor (matej.cerne@ef.uni-lj.si). Before the submission, authors should consult Author Guidelines. There is no submission or publication fee. Open Access statement This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access. Please read »Copyright / licensing conditions« statement for addition info about legal use of published material. Copyright / licensing conditions Authors of the articles published in DRMJ hold copyright with no restrictions and grant the journal right of first publi­cation with the work. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.) Articles published in DRMJ are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). Under this license, authors retain ownership of the copyright for their content, but allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content for NonCommercial purposes as long as the original authors and source are cited. Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 1 FRAMING THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS: THE AC/DC POSITIONING GRID Matej Cerne University of Ljubljana How to frame theoretical contributions in a way that positions them within existing literature-spe­cific conversations in a meaningful way is a chal­lenge that has bedeviled researchers for decades. Theory is at the very heart of scholarship, and is a key criterion for evaluating the quality and contri­bution of research (Cornelissen, Höllerer & Seidl, 2021). Theory is an “umbrella concept” (Suddaby, 2014) or a “container term” (Sandberg & Alvesson, 2021). It refers to the scholarly work that re­searchers do in pursuit of making informed claims about a generalizable account of events in the social world. As Cornelissen et al. (2021, p. 3) put it, The informed nature of these claims refers here to the fact that researchers make a qualified asser­tion regarding how something can generally be un­derstood or explained, or indeed how they argue it should be compared to familiar or more limited un­derstandings. The strength of researchers’ claims rests directly on the scholarly work that they have done, and how this has been articulated in a paper; for example, in sharply defining concepts or con­structs, in developing a coherent set of explana­tions, or by o.ering a compelling point of critique that counters past thinking on a topic. To no surprise, review and editorial comments regarding “overaching theory,” “theoretical contribu­tions,” or “the so-what question” are almost ever-present in contemporary review processes in academic journals, often acting as gates between submitted research reports and their actual publica­tion. Implications for theory and relevance of a par­ticular piece for the extant literature are extremely important issues underlying the fact that new re­search actually provides something unique beyond the current body of knowledge. Many prominent re­searchers and their contributions thus have ad­dressed challenges related to theorizing and making theoretical contributions in recent decades (e.g., Whetten, 1989; DiMaggio, 1995; Sutton & Staw, 1995; Weick, 1995; Feldman, 2004; Cornelissen & Durand, 2014). At the same time, review comments listed above as examples oftentimes come across as generic and vague, without clear and constructive guidance about how the submitted manuscripts could be improved upon regarding those matters. Providing an accurate account of (1) what the extant literature already knows (“standing on the shoulders of giants”), (2) what currently is missing (what are the gaps/lacunas in the existing research), (3) what new research will do and in what way, and (4) how it contributes to the existing conversations are key elements that scholars usually include in the front (introduction) part of their papers. The com­ponents described above also can act as a template (“the four-paragraph model”1) for crafting an intro­duction, for example, by devoting a paragraph to each of the points above. Such an approach can help scholars navigate the most important elements of their positioning. The “craft” side of scholarly writing also embodies a well-documented area of academic endeavor, producing many important and readily applicable guidelines published in the form of articles, books and book chapters, or editorials (e.g., Bem, 1987; Bergh, 2003; Fernandez, 2020; Grant & Pollock, 2011; Gregor & Hevner, 2013). In recent years, many of those resources have moved online, producing outlets such as institutional (uni­versity) or other research writing guides, and online coaches and materials. Despite these foundations and resources, how to actually approach positioning research within existing conversations, and how to evaluate, de­scribe, narrate, and articulate particular contribu­tions to the “existing table occupied by already published research(ers) on the topic,” remains an open, creative, imaginative task. At the same time, it epitomizes an intangible, di.cult, elusive under­taking, often leaving scholars without ideas about how to tackle it successfully. This editorial comple­ments existing pieces referred to above by o.ering and describing a tool that can help scholars do this, framing their thought process and assisting in pro­viding an accurate account of specific contributions. The framework described and depicted in Table 1 encompasses two sets of elements. The rows in­clude four ways a particular contribution can be framed; it can Advance (progress), Complement (in­tegrate), Debunk (contrast), or Confirm (corrobo­rate) existing conversations in the literature, constituting the AC/DC positioning grid/matrix. This editorial describes and provides examples of each of those types of positioning, additionally de­scribing them through elements provided in the col­umn headers of the grid. I argue that each contribution should be posi­tioned specifically in a way that defines the schol­arly field (broad research area – narrower field – specific topic) in which it attempts to make a contri­bution, to which discussion in the extant literature it intends to contribute, the key authors and their contributions to the conversation, the scope of this potential contribution, and why it is relevant theo­retically (not just logically or practically). These all represent evaluation criteria for specific contribu­tions, which can take one of four key types of fram­ing a theoretical contribution. (1) Advancing or progressing a particular scholarly discussion implies that the new contri­bution would alter, fundamentally or marginally, an existing theoretical point of view of a specific topic. Such a contribution would imply that the scholarly conversation would be steered in a dif­ferent (not opposing, just modified) direction on the basis of presented findings. The conversation would be advanced by the presented evidence that will need to be accounted for in ongoing dis­cussion (i.e., contributions succeeding it). For ex­ample, We intend to advance the literature of con­sumer negativity towards brands by highlighting the mechanism of the occurrence of obsessive be­haviours. We propose that obsess is more likely to occur when consumers hate the brand. (Japutra, Roy, & Pham, 2021, p. 2) Such a theoretical contribution progresses the literature in such a way that subsequent studies in the marketing field on the topic of consumer nega­tivity will have to consider consumer hate as a mechanism of obsessive behavior. 2) Complementing an existing conversation im­plies that the research adds something to the cur­rent body of knowledge, simply complementing what we already know with additional insight. This insight could stem from a di.erent (empirical) con­text that has theoretical implications, it could stem from a di.erent theoretical background (for exam­ple, with a di.erent theoretical perspective provid­ing additional insight into the studied matter dominated by another theoretical framework), or it could be achieved through integration of conceptu­alizations and findings from di.erent areas of re­search. For instance, We intend to complement the literature on bud­geting in institutional complexity, and the funding situation matters in a study that deals with budget­ing. (Amans, Mazars-Chapelon, & Villesčque-Dubus, 2015, p. 52) Such a contribution would imply that the study of the topic of budgeting in institutional complexity thus far has not considered the funding situation, and that this paper complements the current stream of research with this perspective. (3) Debunking or contrasting existing research implies that the current perspective or viewpoint prevalent in the existing conversation does not hold, either universally, or in a specific setting. In claiming such a type of theoretical contribution, authors fre­quently provide contrasting evidence that enables additional theoretical development for contrasting the current stream of research. Insights used to de­velop such counter views could stem from a di.er­ent theoretical perspective that the current body of knowledge has not yet considered, or a recombina­tion of theoretical viewpoints that have been used to date. For example, The big myth the authors aim to debunk is that creativity cannot really be managed-that it’s a largely solitary process involving a few somewhat eccentric individuals with very high IQs. (Holt, 1999, p. 15) Here, the author provides strong evidence that counters the existing “myth” in the creativity litera­ture. With such a contribution, one is bound to con­trast existing streams and individuals, which perhaps raises fears of such a contribution not being accepted well. However, science is updating and re­newing constantly, and most academic should be glad to see their ideas or findings that might have worked in a particular context, or were appropriate in light of particular zeitgeist, challenged with novel evidence or di.erent streams of thought. (4) Finally, and just the opposite of #3, confirm­ing or corroborating existing research also is a noble feat, especially in light of the reproducibility and replicability crisis in social sciences. Although fre­quently interpreted as perhaps less “grand” and rad­ical of a contribution, it nonetheless is crucially needed, either as a form of generalization (i.e., con­firming a finding in a di.erent context or replicating in similar contexts) or as a stepping stone for an­other contribution that can advance or complement what has been confirmed additionally. For example, In a dynamic perspective, we have argued that SMEs are therefore more responsive to intensifying disincentives for innovation than large firms are. We intend to corroborate this view by controlling for confounding factors such as those resulting from changes in sector compositions or growth dynamics of particularly innovative firms. (Rammer & Schu­bert, 2018, p. 384) The authors attempt to confirm and verify the assertion previously posited in the literature by adding additional controls. These shed additional light onto findings, and make conclusions more rig­orous in light of including controls of sector compo­sitions or firms’ growth dynamics. In this way, such a contribution does not shift or change the view­point present in a particular area of research, but makes it more robust and generalizable. Taken together, the AC/DC framework is a grid or a matrix, meaning that not all cells need to be (and almost surely will not be) filled by positioning one academic paper. As a rule of thumb, there usu­ally are one to three, or likely a maximum of as many as five key contributions each paper makes. Each of them could very well be placed in the same positioning type (e.g., they all could complement ex­isting streams, but perhaps di.erent streams), and definitely not all positioning types need to be cov­ered. The tool and its underlying table is intended to be adapted to a specific paper that attempts to make specific contributions, depending on the con­tent. Next I demonstrate the application of the AC/DC positioning matrix on our published piece in Human Resource Development Quarterly (Hernaus, Cerne, & Škerlavaj, 2021). In this paper, we drew on a relational perspective to human resource devel­opment and management (HRD/M), and conducted a multilevel and multisource field study that exam­ined how HRM practices of job interaction require­ments/task interdependence and HRD practice of cross-training interact to enhance employees’ job/task citizenship performance. We presented three contributions to the literature at the intersec­tion of HRD/M. First, we complemented existing HRD/M re­search that has traditionally focused on narrowly defined employees’ job/task performance by vali­dating the importance of social job characteristics (i.e., communication and coordination) for a specific type of extra-role performance. Second, we ad­vanced the conversation linking training interven­tions with job design decisions to achieve workplace performance targets, something that was men­tioned in the late 1980s and early 1990s (we used the expression “we reopen the discussion”) by ac­counting for both organizational- and individual-level constructs, providing evidence that organizations need to put an additional team train­ing e.ort to develop lateral capabilities of their workforce in addition to socially enriched job de­sign. Third, we contrasted the traditional view of HRD that has considered it to be a subspecialization of HRM, o.ering a showcasing example of how a multilevel perspective on HRD can create transdis­ciplinary value. Table 2 summarizes how these con­tributions were framed. To conclude, the tool described in this editorial perhaps could be applied universally. However, it was developed on the basis of prior research stem­ming from the business, management, organization studies, and organizational behavior/psychology fields, likely making it more suitable in those areas. The examples mentioned herein reflect the author’s background, knowledge of the fields, and search history. The list is not exhaustive, and even better examples likely exist. It needs to be emphasized that the use of this tool is preconditioned by deep analysis of the existing literature, careful thought related to conceptualizing research, and executing it in an honest way in the best form possible. The AC/DC matrix with its ele­ments is intentionally simplistic, and is intended to assist prospective academic writers and make their job easier, enabling them to focus on the actual con­tent of their contributions. However, the craft of clever writing and positioning a paper in a more ar­ticulate manner cannot replace the much-needed ex­cellence in all the other parts of the research journey. The basic idea of making academic writing even more of a “craft” does not come without challenges. Undoubtedly, it makes academic papers, especially those reporting similar types of research designs, more and more similar to one another. This notion acts counter the concept of intellectual pluralism upon which academia is (or should be) founded. To some extent, this does diminish creativity that is left to researchers in crafting their manuscripts. At the same time, excellent research always should come through, regardless of its format, and many journals have become open to accepting manuscripts that employ innovative techniques of writing, research design, or indeed structuring specific elements of final research reports. The current academic system of publishing might not be optimal, but it is the best we have. Members of the academic community should strive to uphold it in an ethical way, doing our best to approach it with utmost care, responsi­bility, and diligence. We all take part in, compose, and contribute to the academic world. Let us act in making it a place that celebrates excellent research that is articulated in the best manner possible. REFERENCES Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271. Amans, P., Mazars-Chapelon, A., & Villesčque-Dubus, F. (2015). Budgeting in institutional complexity: The case of performing arts organizations. Management Accounting Research, 27, 47-66. Bem, D. (1987). Writing the empirical journal article. The complete academic: A practical guide for the begin­ning social scientist, 2, 185-219. Bergh, D. D. (2003). From the Editors: Thinking Strategi­cally about Contribution. Academy of Management Journal, 46(2), 135-136. Cornelissen, J. P., & Durand, R. (2014). Moving forward: Developing theoretical contributions in management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 51(6), 995-1022. Cornelissen, J., Höllerer, M. A., & Seidl, D. (2021). What Theory Is and Can Be: Forms of Theorizing in Organi­zational Scholarship. Organization Theory, 2(3), 1-19. DiMaggio, P. J. (1995). Comments on “What theory is not”. Administrative science quarterly, 40(3), 391-397. Feldman, D. C. (2004). What are We Talking About When We Talk About Theory? Journal of Manage­ment, 5(30), 565-567. Fernandez, K. V. (2020). PROVE it! A practical primer to positioning theoretically. Australasian Marketing Journal, 28(1), 57-64. Grant, A. M., & Pollock, T. G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ—Part 3: Setting the Hook. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 873-879. Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and pre­senting design science research for maximum im­pact. MIS Quarterly, 337-355. Hernaus, T., Cerne, M., & Škerlavaj, M. (2021). The inter­play between relational job design and cross-training in predicting employee job/task citizenship perfor­mance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21427. Japutra, A., Roy, S. K., & Pham, T. A. N. (2021). Relating brand anxiety, brand hatred and obsess: Moderating role of age and brand a.ection. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 60, 102465. Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2021). Meanings of theory: Clarifying theory through typification. Journal of Man­agement Studies, 58, 487–516 Suddaby, R. (2014). Why theory? Academy of Manage­ment Review, 39, 407–411 Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Ad­ministrative Science Quarterly, 371-384. Whetten, D. A. (1989). What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 490-495. Weick, K. E. (1995). What Theory Is Not, Theorizing Is. Ad­ministrative Science Quarterly, 40(3): 385-390. 1 The author thanks the anonymous reviewer of one of the earlier submissions of author’s work to one of the top journals in the field of management. That manuscript was rejected at the time, but this constructive comment resulted in many subsequent papers hopefully being fra­med much better. Vol. 10, No. 2, 1-5 doi:10.17708/DRMJ.2021.v10n02a00 2 Matej Cerne: Framing Theoretical Contributions: The AC/DC Positioning Grid Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 Table 1. The AC/DC positioning grid for framing theoretical contributions Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 3 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 Matej Cerne: Framing Theoretical Contributions: The AC/DC Positioning Grid 4 Table 2. The application of the positioning grid in Hernaus et al. (2021) Note: References listed in the table are presented in Hernaus et al. (2021) Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 5 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 6 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 7 ORGANIZING FOR AUTONOMY: A COMBINED CONTINGENCY AND AGENCY PERSPECTIVE Ferry Koster Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands koster@essb.eur.nl This paper explains work autonomy using contingency theory and agency theory. Whereas prior research relied on individual-level data (sometimes across nations), the present analysis specifically focused on understanding work au­tonomy as a management decision at the organizational level. Data were collected among 670 private companies in the Netherlands using a survey. The companies represented a cross section of the Dutch economy. The data were an­alyzed using regression analysis. The factors derived from contingency theory and agency theory predicted the use of work autonomy. More generally, they can be understood as internal and external fit factors and the agency problems associated with them. These contingency factors include task characteristics, organizational size, organizational gov­ernance, and external developments. Whereas work autonomy often is viewed as a matter of organizational design, much of the empirical work relied on individual-level data. As a result, little is known about organizational factors re­lated to the provision of autonomy of workers. For actors involved in organizational practices (e.g., managers and consultancy), a number of suggestions are o.ered for managing autonomy. This paper focused specifically on the or­ganizational level by examining data collected among companies. Keywords: Bureaucracy, Organizational Theory, Organization Design & Development, Survey Research, Work Autonomy 1INTRODUCTION Autonomy in the workplace has a central place in organization studies. Early writings about formal organizations relied on Weber’s work on bureau­cracy, with its emphasis on hierarchical structure and centralized decision-making (Blau, 1958; Eisen­stadt, 1959). However, the benefits of centralization over decentralization have been debated ever since (Billinger & Workiewicz, 2019; Martela, 2019). First, from the perspective of organization design, the hi­erarchical nature of organizations has been chal­lenged. Classical accounts include the ideas of Barnard (1938) and Fayol (1949), which emphasized that strict hierarchies may not work under all con­ditions, an idea that later was adopted widely in the organizational literature, as well as in sociological work focusing on the unintended consequences of overly rigid hierarchies (Merton, 1940). From a dif­ferent perspective, increasing attention was paid to the humanization of work in that period, which fo­cused mainly on the need to provide freedom to workers to improve the quality of work (Fairfield, 1974). Hence, from the start of organizational stud­ies, the topic of work autonomy has been on the agenda of organizational researchers, for example in e.orts to understand how new organizational forms relate to the autonomy of workers. However, despite its central place in the orga­nizational literature, research into the topic of work autonomy remains fragmented. Basically, three strands of literature can be identified which investigated job autonomy. These strands of liter­ature differ in their approach to work autonomy, the research questions they address, and their the­oretical explanations. By far the largest body of re­search views work autonomy as the independent variable in its research. In this body of research, two subfields can be distinguished. The first field consists of individual-level studies focusing on the role that autonomy has in explaining individual motivation, job satisfaction, and productivity. The­ories such as self-determination theory (SDT) (1985) and the job demands–resources (JDR) model (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner & Schaufeli, 2001) are well-known examples of this (Cassar & Meier, 2018). Work autonomy also is investigated at other levels of analysis, such as the team and the organization levels (Pinnington & Haslop, 1995). In the latter subfield, much research falls under the heading of high-performance work sys­tems (HPWSs). Work autonomy is regarded as one of the main parts of these systems (Posthuma, Campion, Masimova & Campion, 2013), which are believed and found to be related to several perfor­mance dimensions of organizations (Boxall & Macky, 2008). Although these two strands of the literature yielded interesting and relevant insights into the individual-, team-, and organizational-level conse­quences of work autonomy, they remained silent on an important issue, namely under what condi­tions do employers choose to provide autonomy to workers. Given the favorable outcomes of work au­tonomy based on the aforementioned studies, there is little reason to argue why organizations would not grant autonomy to their workers. The argument would be that the contributions of work autonomy to the functioning of organizations are considerable, and hence all organizations should aim to maximize their level of autonomy. However, this argument is too strong, because all these the­ories acknowledge that there are limits to the use of work autonomy, for example, because auton­omy does not work for every worker (because it does not fit their personal needs and traits, for ex­ample, because they have a high need for struc­ture) or because it does not fit the organizational or national culture (Hirst, Budhwar, Cooper, West, Long, Chongyuan & Shipton, 2008; Erez, 2010; Posthuma, Campion, Masimova & Campion, 2013; Koster & Gutauskaite, 2018). In both instances, the usefulness of applying work autonomy in organi­zations is undermined. In other words, it is not expected that organiza­tions benefit from using work autonomy in all cir­cumstances. Nevertheless, those studies focused on the way in which work autonomy interacts with in­dividual, organizational, and national characteristics, and thus they did not explain the extent to which or­ganizations make use of work autonomy. Hence, such research does not address other drivers and barriers to the use of work autonomy. To understand that, one has to look at theories in which work au­tonomy is the dependent variable rather than the in­dependent variable. This brings us to the two other strands of the literature in which work autonomy is examined, namely structural contingency theory and agency theory. To a large extent, these two theoreti­cal perspectives supplement each other (Eisenhardt, 1985; 1989). Structural contingency theory provides the most general account regarding the use of work autonomy. The main idea underlying this theory is that organizations thrive if they achieve internal and external fit (e.g., organizations need to make sure that their internal structure is coherent and that the organizational structure matches the organizational environment) (Mintzberg, 1980; Stonebraker & Afifi, 2004). From this it follows that work autonomy varies across organizations depending on the inter­nal and external factors a.ecting or determining the structure of organizations. The other strand of the literature in which the use of work autonomy is ex­plained has its roots in agency theory (Shapiro, 2005). Agency theory emphasizes the role of control and incentives in order to let organizations (and eco­nomic interactions in general) function. Following the basic premise of agency theory that the interests of workers and employees diverge, organizations are hesitant to grant autonomy to workers. This reluc­tance lies in the lack of trust between the parties in­volved. Hence, the focus of agency theory on the provision of work autonomy mainly is on the risks of granting work autonomy and the agency costs asso­ciated with it. This also is where the two theoretical perspectives complement each other: whereas con­tingency theory provides a clear view of which fac­tors should be taken into account to construct a theory of work autonomy, agency theory provides some of the main theoretical explanations as well as an account of the limits to the provision of autonomy and under which conditions it may be granted in or­ganizations. This analysis contributes to existing insights as fol­lows. Several studies have investigated work autonomy as a part of the general notion of high-performance work systems (HPWPs; Kalleberg, Marsden, Reynolds & Knoke, 2006; Posthuma, Campion, Masimova & Campion, 2013). Those studies relied on organiza­tional-level data but focused mainly on di.erences be­tween public- and private-sector organizations, which refers to the sectoral level. Kaufmann and Miller (2011) also investigated HPWPs to understand the application of these practices by formulating a demand function. Their analyses also relied on organizational data but used spending data to test their expectations. Lorenz and Valeyre (2005) conducted a cross-national inves­tigation of four di.erent work systems. One of the di­mensions they used to construct their systems was work autonomy. Their analyses, however, were based on individual-level data, and provided little insight into the organizational-level factors explaining work auton­omy. Finally, several studies explicitly focused on work autonomy, again using cross-national comparative data at the individual level, which provides little infor­mation regarding organizational-level explanations (Dobbin & Boychuk, 1999; Au & Cheung, 2004; Lopes, Calapez & Lopes, 2015). Thus, previous studies using organizational-level data regarded work autonomy as an integral part of the high-performance work system of organizations, and studies that did focus specifically on work autonomy did so by using information from employees. In the first case, it is both theoretically and empirically impossible to determine the role of work autonomy, and in the second case, the inclusion of or­ganizational-level factors is di.cult. The present paper adds to that a specific focus on work autonomy and its organizational-level determinants by analyzing data from 670 private organizations from the Netherlands. 2THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2.1Insights from Contingency Theory and Agency Theory Whereas much of the aforementioned research relied on either individual- or national-level explana­tions and data for the use of work autonomy, the pre­sent analysis focused on the application of work autonomy as an organizational decision (Pinnington & Haslop, 1995). As a result, neither individual- nor national-level explanations su.ced to understand autonomy, and organizational theories were applied to understand this decision. Instead, the theoretical framework was developed by applying to theories at the organizational level to explain work autonomy. Contingency theory provides some of the core assumptions regarding the structure of organizations. Its main argument rests on fit assumptions: organi­zations need to be aligned with their external and in­ternal environments. These environments vary, for example, with regard to their complexity and uncer­tainty, which explains why organizational structures vary (Helms, 2000). Agency theory also focuses on the design of organizations. The basic assumptions of agency theory are the (1) principals hire agents to perform tasks (within the context of organizations, the principals are representatives of the organization and workers are the agents), (2) the information be­tween agents and principals is asymmetric (agents have more information about the performance of their jobs than principals), and (3) the interests of principals and agents diverge (principals prefer more e.ort for less money than the agents). Based on the agency framework, it is expected that principals try to device mechanisms intended to solve agency prob­lems. Although contingency theory and agency the­ory di.er in many respects, they overlap on that they both assume that decisions are made by bounded, rational actors, that information is asymmetrically distributed, and that organizations strive for e.­ciency (Eisenhardt, 1989). Combining these two the­oretical perspectives helps to understand why organizations choose to apply autonomy or not. 2.2Tasks Characteristics Regarding the internal fit of the organizations, the tasks that are being performed are among the main contingency factors. The basic idea is that the way in which workers are governed depends on the kind of tasks they perform. Based on consideration derived from agency theory regarding how organi­zations deal with information asymmetry (Eisen­hardt, 1985), three characteristics of these types of tasks are linked with work autonomy, namely how strongly the work rests on the knowledge-intensity of the work, whether the knowledge is firm-specific, and the length of the relationship between princi­pals and agents. The knowledge-intensity of the work empha­sizes the crucial role of information in the produc­tion of goods and services. The development in the direction of a knowledge economy (Powell & Snellman, 2004) underscores the importance of knowledge and information in organizations. The extent to which information is needed has conse­quences for the way in which people are man­aged and the extent to which they can be controlled by formal monitoring systems. One of the main characteristics of knowledge-intensity is that it relies on workers having more local knowl­edge than their supervisors. In terms of the agency problem, the information-asymmetry among principals and agents is larger than in a work situation in which less knowledge is needed. In that sense, it may be expected that organiza­tions would invest more strongly in monitoring these workers. However, in practice, there are ad­ditional mechanisms at work, lowering the need for monitoring them directly. Knowledge-intensity also relates to professionalism and education. As a result, the behavior of these workers is bound to professional rules and socialization (Trede, Macklin & Bridges, 2012), which lowers the need to monitor these workers. Furthermore, to make ultimate use of their knowledge, organizations need to give them a level of autonomy to solve problems independently. Another characteristic of the kind of tasks that workers perform within an organization refers to the extent to which the knowledge that is needed is specific to the organization or is of a general na­ture. Knowledge that is firm-specific is applicable only in that organization and is of no use in other organizations (Becker, 1964). It is developed within the boundaries of a single organization through learning (Argote & Miron-Spektor, 2011), and is among the unique resources that organizations have to gain a competitive edge (Barney, 1991). From an agency perspective, knowledge-specificity provides a strong incentive for worker to perform in accordance with the goals of the organization. Here the basic argument is that investing in firm-specific knowledge (both from the side of the work2.3Organizational Size Research into organizational size as a contin­gency factor usually follows a well-known argument that dates back to Blau (1970) (Bluedorn, 1993). Ac­cording to this argument, the larger organizations are, the more their structure becomes formalized and centralized. Hence, it is likely that larger orga­nizations tend to provide less work autonomy. This also is found empirically (Lopes, Calapez & Lopes, 2015). Agency theory o.ers a theoretical justifica­tion for this finding. Because agency problems in­crease as organizations become larger, it is expected that formal monitoring is applied more extensively in larger organizations. Therefore, work autonomy will be lower. These theoretical insights lead to the following hypothesis about the relationship be­tween organizational size and the provision of work autonomy by organizations: Hypothesis 4: There is a negative relationship be­tween work autonomy and the size of the organiza­tion. 2.4Organizational Governance The principal–agent structure not only applies to relations within the organizations, but transcends organizational boundaries. Organizations di.er re­garding the level of leeway they have themselves to formulate their own policies and make their own decisions. Organizations can fully be independent, but they also can be part of a larger company, mean­ing that there is a certain level of dependence on another organization (Stock, Greis & Dibner, 1996; Delany, 2000). In the latter case, an agency problem arises between the parent organization and the sub­sidiary. From an agency perspective, the expectation is that parent organizations will try to exercise con­trol over subsidiaries (Gong, 2003; Kim, Prescott, Kim & Kim, 2005). As a consequence, the subsidiary will have less room to instill autonomy within the organization. These theoretical considerations are summarized in the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 5: There is a negative relationship be­tween work autonomy and the dependence on other organizations. 2.5External Fit: Organizational Environment Whereas the organizational environment and the theoretical idea of external fit have been part of the contingency literature from its outset, there is not one specific conceptualization of the organiza­tional environment (Baum & Rowley, 2002). Re­search takes di.erent positions regarding how to view the external environment. This paper takes a middle position between two extremes. These ex­tremes range from very general conceptions of the organizational environment to more specific ones. General approaches picture the organizational en­vironment in terms of complexity, dynamics, and so forth. For example, this is how transaction cost eco­nomics (Williamson, 1981) explains the way in which organizations are governed. On the other end of the continuum are specific approaches that focus on the impact of a single environmental dimension, such as technological change or the aging of em­ployees (Stone & Deadrick, 2015). The middle posi­tion, chosen here, is that organizations face multiple challenges, which may be phrased in terms of com­plexity, but also can have an impact due to other de­mands they put on organizations, as well as providing opportunities in the near future. To cap­ture this, the environment is regarded as a number of forces with which organizational actors may be confronted. Among the main phenomena that organiza­tions face are developments with regard to digital­ization and robotization, internationalization, flexibilization, and population aging. Digitalization and robotization reflect technological innovations impacting organizations through digitalization of the workplace and the rise of the robots (Frey & Os­borne, 2013; Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014). Whereas digitalization mainly concerns communi­cation structures and flows of information, roboti­zation changes work processes by introducing intelligent machines. Internationalization reflects processes increasing the cross-national interdepen­dence among individuals, organizations, and nations (De Beer & Koster, 2009). To a large extent, these processes are driven by international trade. and hence mainly can be regarded as one of the eco­nomic trends that organizations face. Population aging is a macrolevel trend (Lutz, Sanderson & Scherbov, 2008) that has consequences for labor the Netherlands report above average levels of au­tonomy, as in countries such as Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Denmark (Koster, 2011). Focusing on organizations in a country where the provision of autonomy is more common also may shed more light on the factor facilitating it. The data were gath­ered as part of a larger project focusing on several aspects of organizational innovation. The survey was developed by a team consisting of academic re­searchers and consultants in the field of organiza­tional collaboration and innovation. The survey collected data about organizational innovation, human resource practices and policies, and several background characteristics of organizations. Kantar Public collected the data using their panel with pri­vate organizations (NIPObase Business). In total, the responses of 670 organizations were included in the analyses. The organizations in this sample vary in size, operate in di.erent economic sectors, and rep­resent a cross section of the Dutch economy. Although the extent to which organizations are a.ected by these trends di.ers, and some trends re more visible in one organization than another, it is hard to tell them apart completely. As was sug­gested in the discussion of trends, they all relate to the broader (economic, technological, social, politi­cal, and demographic) trends with which organiza­tions may be confronted. Furthermore, they are interconnected: for example, the rise of self-em­ployed workers is made possible by digitalization of the workforce, policy choices, and global competi­tion (Rubery, 2015). Hence, instead of viewing these trends as isolated events, it makes more sense to put them under the same rubric, namely trends or developments that organization may face in the near future. These theoretical considerations are summarized in the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 6: There is a positive relationship be­tween work autonomy and developments in the ex­ternal environment. The preceding theoretical considerations show that there is considerable overlap between the pre­dictions based on contingency theory and those de­rived from agency theory, and that the two can complement each other. To a certain extent, contin­gency o.ers the factors to examine to understand the application of work autonomy, and agency the­ory provides deeper insights into the underlying mechanisms that explain why these factors matter. 3METHODOLOGY 3.1Sample and collection of data The hypotheses were tested with data from the Innovative HRM Survey (Koster, Korte, Van de Goor­bergh & Bloem, 2017). This survey generated infor­mation about a random sample of private firms in the Netherlands. These Dutch organizations may provide valuable insights, because it is known from international comparative studies that workers in erable variation in the organizations included in the sample; they were from di.erent economic sectors and di.ered in size. The majority of organizations were small companies. This reflects the actual situ­ation, and hence overcomes the problem men­tioned in other studies that much of the information comes from larger organizations (Cardon & Stevens, 2004; Koster, 2020). Furthermore, the knowledge-specificity among these organizations may be con­sidered high, with an average of 3.67 on a five-point scale. Finally, Table 1 confirms that the companies in this sample belonged to an economy in which work autonomy is common; the mean level was 3.46 on a five-point scale. as well as by the organization) creates interdepen­ Independent Variables The variable “highly educated” was measured with a five-point scale indicating to what extent the organi­zation consisted of highly educated employees. Knowledge-specificity indicated on a five-point scale to what extent the organization needs to apply knowledge that is specific to that particular organiza­tion (for example, in terms of knowledge about the technology used in the organization). The variable “permanent employees” was measured by asking re­spondents to indicate to what extent the organization consisted of employees with a permanent contract (measured on a five-point scale). Organizational size was measured by asking respondents to indicate the number of employees in the organization. The vari­able “subsidiary site” had a value of 1 if the organiza­tion was owned by another organization, and 0 if the organizations was independent. The variable “devel­opments expected” was a composite of several items asking respondents to indicate whether they ex­pected that the organization would experience the following issues in the near future: employee aging, flexibilization, internationalization, robotization, and digitalization. The items were measured on a five-point scale. An investigation of the correlation coe.­cients and a principal component analysis showed that these items belonged to a single dimension. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.75. Control Variable The variable “economic sector” indicates the sector in which the organization operated. This variable served as a control variable to account for the pos­sibility that levels of autonomy can vary across sec­tors (e.g., Kashefi, 2011). The main reason for adding economic sector as a control variable was that it provides a general indication of the work en­vironment in which organizations decide to o.er au­tonomy to workers. Table 1 summarizes the descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, and percentage) of the variables included in the analysis. There was consid­the organization chose to provide to their workers (Hypothesis 6). Together with the control variable, the model explained 16% of the variance in work autonomy. Based on these results, it was concluded that all six hypotheses had empirical support, show­ing that these factors can be regarded to explain part of the autonomy granted by organizations. The p-values indicated that work autonomy was related to the educational level of the workforce (b = 0.15; p < 0.01), organizational size (b = -0.11; p < 0.01), and external developments (b = 0.18; p < 0.01). dence between the worker and the organization. The worker has fewer external opportunities from 5DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This paper provides an organizational-level analysis of why organizations decide to grant au­tonomy to their workers. By combining arguments from contingency theory and agency theory, it was possible to select relevant factors and explain them. The overall conclusion is that the decision to provide work autonomy depends on several or­ganizational-related factors concerning the internal and external fit-seeking behavior of organizations along with the agency problems they face and try to manage. The paper’s theoretical contribution lies in the combination of theoretical expectations derived from contingency theory and agency mod­els to explain work autonomy. This is plausible be­cause it withstood the empirical test. The paper’s empirical contribution mainly concerns its focus on the organizational level as an addition to the stud­ies focus on the individual level. The results showed that there is merit in focusing on these or­ganizational-level factors and explanations. Theo­retically, this leads to a model which helps to determine which factors are likely to be related to work autonomy, namely contingency factors, with an emphasis on internal and external fit, and agency theory explains why these factors facilitate or hinder the use of work autonomy by organiza­tions. Hence, this study provides a stepping-stone to integrate these theories even further. Although agency theory often is regarded as producing mod­els which ignore the context of agency relations (Shapiro, 2005), this analysis showed how the in­ternal and external context of organizations may be integrated in such models. The analysis should be interpreted with the following limitations in mind. First, the data were cross-sectional. In itself this does not reduce the insights related to the explanation of the applica­tion of work autonomy across organizations. How­ever, it does mean a restriction in terms of causality, which always is the case in using such data. With the data at hand, it can simply not be excluded that (some of the) relationships (also) run the other way around. For example, organiza­tions providing work autonomy also may provide permanent contracts more often, and the more work autonomy an organization offers, the fewer are the possibilities to grow. This implies that we cannot speak about the outcomes in terms of causes of work autonomy. Nevertheless, even if this is the case, if the arrows go from work auton­omy in the other direction, it still is possible to in­terpret them in terms of contingency theory and agency theory. A second limitation of this study concerns its empirical setting. The data were collected among private organizations in the Dutch economy. Be­cause there are cultural and institutional di.erences that explain cross-national variation in the use of work autonomy (e.g., Dobbin & Boychuk, 1999), one should be careful when generalizing the outcome to other countries. It is possible that the strength of the relationship depends on location. Finally, some of the measures used in this study can be improved upon. Some variables were mea­sured with reliable scale, but there also were some single-item measures, which may be less reliable than these scales. These three limitations indicate a direction for future research. Further disentangling the causes of work autonomy would require either longitudinal or experimental data. Using longitudinal data allows assessing whether a change in one of the determi­nants of work autonomy actually results in changes in work autonomy. Additionally, experimental data could be gathered to determine whether the pres­ence or absence of an experimental condition changes the willingness of organizational decision makers to provide work autonomy. The issue of hav­ing single-country data can be dealt with by having organizational-level data from more countries. There are not many comparative data sets that in­clude information of organizations, but the Euro­pean Company Survey (ECS) is a notable exception. These data also may be used to delve further into interactions between the country and the organiza­tional level. Finally, future research is needed to as­sess whether more-extensive measures improve the model. Several practical implications can be derived from the analysis. First, those involved in designing organizations (or supporting organizations through consultancy) are advised to think in terms of inter­nal and external fit. The analysis found that this was the main thread to understand the use of work au­tonomy. For these practitioners, it is worthwhile to develop means to scan organizational needs and de­velopments. For example, they may be advised to grant more work autonomy if processes become more knowledge-intense, and to balance work au­tonomy with the labor contracts they o.er. At the same time, if larger organizations have an interest in granting work autonomy, for example, if they see it as a means to enhance the well-being and produc­tivity of workers, they are advised to think about adapting their workforce. The second practical ad­vice is related to agency problems in organizations. The analysis showed that the provision of work au­tonomy can be seen as a trust problem between principals and agents. Hence, organizations that are in need of work autonomy should determine which conditions should be met to deal with that trust problem. For example, it may be necessary to devise extra controls or incentives. However, informal mechanisms and interactions also are have a strong influence on trust in the workplace. Hence, the cre­ation of collaborative and supportive means of gov­ernance also can be a means of enhancing work autonomy. REFERENCES Argote, L. & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organiza­tion Science, 22(5), 1123-1137. Au, K. & Cheung, M. W. (2004). Intra-cultural variation and job autonomy in 42 countries. Organization Stud­ies, 25(8), 1339-1362. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competi­tive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. Baum, J. A. C. & Rowley, T. J. (2002). Companion to orga­nizations: An introduction. In J. A. C. Baum (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizations (pp. 1-34). Ox­ford: Blackwell Publishers. Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research. Bendickson, J., Muldoon, J., Liguori, E. & Davis, P. E. (2016). Agency theory: The times, they are a-changin’. Management Decision, 54(1), 174-193. Billinger, S. & Workiewicz, M. (2019). Fading hierarchies and the emergence of new forms of organization. Journal of Organization Design, 8, 17. Bluedorn, A. C. (1993). Pilgrim’s progress: Trends and con­vergence in research on organizational size and envi­ronments. Journal of Management, 19(2), 163-191. Boxall, P. & Macky, K. (2009). Research and theory on high-performance work systems: Progressing the high-involvement stream. Human Resource Manage­ment Journal, 19(1), 3-23. Breaugh, J. A. (1985). The measurement of work auton­omy. Human relations, 38(6), 551570. Brynjolfsson, E. & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age. New York: Norton. Cardon, M. S. & Stevens, C. E. (2004). Managing human re­sources in small organizations: What do we know? Human Resource Management Review, 14(3), 295-323. Cassar, L. & Meier, S. (2018). Nonmonetary incentives and the implications of work as a source of meaning. Jour­nal of Economic Perspectives, 32(3), 215-38. De Beer, P. T. & Koster, F. (2009). Sticking together or falling apart? Solidarity in an era of individualization and glob­alization. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. Delany, E. (2000). Strategic development of the multina­tional subsidiary through subsidiary initiative-taking. Long Range Planning, 33(2), 220-244. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F. & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512. Dobbin, F. & Boychuk, T. (1999). National employment systems and job autonomy: Why job autonomy is high in the Nordic countries and low in the United States, Canada, and Australia. Organization Studies, 20(2), 257-291. Erez, M. (2010). Culture and job design. Journal of Orga­nizational Behavior, 31(2/3), 389400. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1985). Control: Organizational and eco­nomic approaches. Management Science, 31(2), 134-149. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57-74. Fairfield, R. P. (1976). Humanizing the workplace. Bu.alo: Prometheus Books. Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management. London: Pitman. Frey, C. B. & Osborne, M. A. (2013). The future of employ­ment. How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Oxford: Oxford Martin Publication. Gong, Y. (2003). Subsidiary sta.ng in multinational en­terprises: Agency, resources, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 728-739. Hatfield, I. (2015). Self-employment in Europe. London: IPPR. Hirst, G., Budhwar, P., Cooper, B. K., West, M., Long, C., Chongyuan, X. & Shipton, H. (2008). Cross-cultural variations in climate for autonomy, stress and organi­zational productivity relationships: A comparison of Chinese and UK manufacturing organizations. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(8), 1343-1358. Kalleberg, A. L., Marsden, P. V., Reynolds, J. & Knoke, D. (2006). Beyond profit? Sectoral di.erences in high-performance work practices. Work and Occupations, 33(3), 271302. Kashefi, M. (2011). High performance work organizations and job rewards in manufacturing and service economies. International Sociology, 26(4), 547-570. Kaufman, B. E. & Miller, B. I. (2011). The firm’s choice of HRM practices: Economics meets strategic human re­source management. ILR Review, 64(3), 526-557. Kim, B., Prescott, J. E. & Kim, S. M. (2005). Di.erentiated governance of foreign subsidiaries in transnational corporations: An agency theory perspective. Journal of International Management, 11(1), 43-66. Koster, F. (2011). Able, willing, and knowing: The e.ects of HR practices on commitment and e.ort in 26 Eu­ropean countries. International Journal of Human Re­source Management, 22(14), 2835-2851. Koster, F. & Gutauskaite, D. (2018). HRM-culture fit Why the link between human resource practices and com­mitment varies across countries. Dynamic Relation­ships Management Journal, 8(1), 13-27. Koster, F. (2020). Arbeidsrelaties in beweging. Een overzicht van de literatuur naar de inzet van de factor arbeid. The Hague: WRR. Koster, F., Korte, M., Van de Goorbergh, P. & Bloem, D. (2017). Innovative HRM Survey. Descriptive results. ICOON Paper 10. Tilburg: ICOON. Lorenz, E. & Valeyre, A. (2005). Organisational innovation, human resource management and labour market structure: A comparison of the EU-15. Journal of In­dustrial Relations, 47(4), 424-442. Lutz, W., Sanderson, W. & Scherbov, S. (2008). The com­ing acceleration of global population ageing. Nature, 451(7179), 716. Martela, F. (2019). What makes self-managing organiza­tions novel? Comparing how Weberian bureaucracy, Mintzberg’s adhocracy, and self-organizing solve six fundamental problems of organizing. Journal of Or­ganization Design, 8, 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s41469-019-0062-9. Merton, R. K. (1940). Bureaucratic structure and person­ality. Social Forces, 18, 560-568. Mintzberg, H. (1980). Structure in 5’s: A synthesis of the research on organization design. Management Sci­ence, 26(3), 322-341. Pfe.er, J. & Baron, J. N. (1988). Taking the workers back out: Recent trends in the structuring of employment. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 257-303. Pinnington, A. & Haslop, D. (1995). Team leader auton­omy in new product development. Management De­cision, 33(9), 5-11. Posthuma, R. A., Campion, M. C., Masimova, M. & Campion, M. A. (2013). A high performance work practices taxon­omy: Integrating the literature and directing future re­search. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1184-1220. Powell, W. W. & Snellman, K. (2004). The knowledge economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 199-220. Raub, W. (2017). Rational models. Expanded version of farewell lecture as dean of social and behavioral sci­ences at Utrecht University. Utrecht: Utrecht University. Rubery, J. (2015). Change at work: feminisation, flexibili­sation, fragmentation and financialisation. Employee Relations, 37(6), 633-644. Shapiro, S. P. (2005). Agency theory. Annual Review of So­ciology, 31, 263-284. Stock, G. N., Greis, N. P. & Dibner, M. D. (1996). Parent-subsidiary communication in international biotech­nology R&D. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 43(1), 56-68. Stone, D. L. & Deadrick, D. L. (2015). Challenges and op­portunities a.ecting the future of human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 25(2) 139–145. Stonebraker, P. W. & Afifi, R. (2004). Toward a contingency theory of supply chains. Management Decision, 42(9), 1131-1144. Trede, F., Macklin, R. & Bridges, D. (2012). Professional identity development: A review of the higher educa­tion literature. Studies in Higher Education, 37(3), 365-384. Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociology, 87(3), 548-577. 3.2Measurement Work autonomy is a composite measure with items indicating whether people in organizations have freedom of choice over four aspects of their work, namely their working time, location of work, ways of working, and extra hours. These items are in line with those investigated by Breaugh (1985), which provide a standard measure of work auton­omy, but also extends them by including whether people have leeway in where they work and in num­ber of hours they work. A major di.erence with the existing measure is that the level of autonomy is not rated by the individual job holder but by a represen­tative of the organization. Respondents were asked to indicate to what extent this applies to their own organization. The items were measured on a five-point scale. Of these four measures of work auton­omy, freedom to choose their location of work was the least popular among organizations (mean = 2.94), whereas freedom in the ways of working is applied most often by organizations (mean = 3.73). To assess whether the items measured a similar di­mension, the correlations between them were cal­culated. The correlation coe.cients ranged from 0.55 to 0.75, indicating that they were positively and significantly related to each other. Principal compo­markets and organizations. Flexibilization reflects the shift toward all kinds of temporary work, and more recently the number of self-employed workers increased (Pfe.er & Baron, 1988; Hatfield, 2015). The hypotheses were tested using ordinary least squares regression analysis. One model was calculated which included the control variables and the variables testing the theoretical predictions. 4RESULTS The results of the regression analysis are pre­sented in Table 2. The first set of variables investi­gated in the regression model related to the internal fit and agency problems of organizations. All three variables indicating the types of tasks being per­formed in the organization were positively related to the extent to which organizations provided work autonomy. The more permanent workers an orga­nization employed (Hypothesis 1), the more highly educated workers the organization employed (Hy­pothesis 2). The more these workers performed tasks requiring firm-specific knowledge (Hypothesis 3), the more work autonomy the organizations pro­vided to workers. The other organizational contin­gency factor, organizational size, was negatively associated with work autonomy. The larger the or­ganization, the less work autonomy it provided, which is in accordance with Hypothesis 4. With re­gard to the governance of organizations, the analy­sis showed that subsidiary sites provided less work autonomy, as expected by Hypothesis 5. Finally, with regard to the external fit, the results showed that there was a positive association between the extent to which organizations face developments in the near future and the level of autonomy that the organization applied. The stronger the influence of the external environment, the more work autonomy nent analysis showed that the items loaded on 1 di­mension. The scale was constructed by adding the scores of these items and dividing the total by 4. The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was 0.88. investments in firm-specific knowledge, and for or­Finally, the extent to which organizations are able to overcome agency problems, depends on the length of the relationship between the principal and the agent. Based on social exchange and game-theoretic considerations (Raub, 2017), the agency problem is reduced if principals and agents interact over a longer period (Shapiro, 2005). The basic mechanisms at work here are learning and control that contribute to the cooperation between princi­pals and agents. Through past interactions, the principal gathers information about the reliability of the worker, and if there are future interactions, it is possible to provide positive and negative sanc­tions. Hence, if there is a long-term relationship be­tween the principal and the agent, agency problems are lower and thus there is more room for providing work autonomy. These theoretical considerations lead to a num­ber of predictions concerning the relationships be­tween tasks characteristics and the level of work autonomy that organizations provide. The following hypotheses are formulated: Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship be­tween work autonomy and the share of permanent workers. Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship be­tween work autonomy the share of highly educated workers. Hypothesis 3: There is a positive relationship be­tween work autonomy and the firm-specificity of tasks. ganizations, investment in the firm-specific knowl­edge of workers implies the risk of losing that knowledge once a worker moves to another orga­nization and bearing a cost to re-invest in the knowledge of a new worker. Because the depen­dence between them is stronger, the agency prob­lem decreases in size as goals of the principal and the agent become aligned; they both have an in­centive to work for their mutual goal because there are costs associated with ending their relationship. This in turn paves the way for increasing the auton­omy for the worker. Abstract Vol. 10, No. 2, 7-18 doi:10.17708/DRMJ.2021.v10n02a01 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 8 Ferry Koster: Organizing for Autonomy: A Combined Contingency and Agency Perspective Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 9 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 10 Ferry Koster: Organizing for Autonomy: A Combined Contingency and Agency Perspective Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 11 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 12 Ferry Koster: Organizing for Autonomy: A Combined Contingency and Agency Perspective Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 13 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 Ferry Koster: Organizing for Autonomy: A Combined Contingency and Agency Perspective 14 Table 1: Descriptive statistics Source: Innovative HRM Survey. Note: n = 670 firms. Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 15 Table 2: Regression analysis of work autonomy Source: Innovative HRM Survey. Note: SE = standard error; n = 670 firms. Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 Ferry Koster: Organizing for Autonomy: A Combined Contingency and Agency Perspective 16 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 17 EXTENDED SUMMARY/IZVLECEK V clanku avtor pojasnjuje avtonomijo dela s pomocjo teorije nepredvidljivih dogodkov in agen­cijske teorije. Medtem ko so predhodne raziskave temeljile na podatkih na ravni posameznika (vcasih tudi na meddržavni ravni), se ta raziskava osredotoca na razumevanje avtonomije dela na organi­zacijski ravni. Podatki so zbrani s pomocjo ankete v katero je bilo vkljucenih 670 zasebnih podjetji na Nizozemskem. Podjetja so predstavljala presek nizozemskega gospodarstva. Podatki so bili analizirani z uporabo regresijske analize. Dejavniki, ki izhajajo iz teorije nepredvidljivih dogodkov in agencijske teorije, so predvideli uveljavitev avtonomije dela. Na splošno jih je mogoce razumeti kot notranje in zunanje dejavnike ustreznosti ter z njimi povezane agencijske težave. Ti dejavniki vkljucujejo znacil­nosti nalog delavca, velikost organizacije, organizacijsko upravljanje in zunanji razvoj. Kljub temu, da se na samostojnost dela pogosto gleda kot na odlocitev na ravni organizacije, je bila vecina empiricne raziskave opravljena na ravni posameznika. Posledicno je na voljo manj informacij glede organizaci­jskih dejavnikov, povezanih z zagotavljanjem avtonomije delavcev. Za akterje, ki sodelujejo v organi­zacijskih praksah (npr. menedžerji in svetovalci), je na voljo vec predlogov za uravnavanje avtonomije. S preucevanjem podatkov, zbranih na podlagi raziskave med razlicnimi podjetji, se ta clanek osredo­toca predvsem na organizacijsko raven avtonomije dela. Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 Ferry Koster: Organizing for Autonomy: A Combined Contingency and Agency Perspective 18 1INTRODUCTION The implementation of diversification strategies to boost company performance has been of consid­erable interest to many previous studies in strategic management (Palich, Cardinal, & Miller, 2000; Mackey, Barney, & Dotson, 2017; Subramaniam & Wasiuzzaman, 2019), but it is apparent that the im­pact of diversification still generates much debate given the mixed findings (Palich et al., 2000; Volkov & Smith, 2015). Some studies revealed that imple­menting a diversification strategy can adversely the performance a.ect (Zhou, 2011; Hashai, 2015; Gyan, 2017), which is in contrast to other studies that pinpointed how diversification strategies actu­ally can improve the company performance (Kup­puswamy & Villalonga, 2016; Chan, Bany-Ari.n, and Nasir, 2019). One of the factors causing the di.ering re­search results is the use of variables that moderate the relationship between diversification and com­pany performance (de Andrés, Fuente, & Velasco, 2017). Among these factors is corporate gover­nance, which includes the level of supervision and chief executive o.cer (CEO) performance (Jara-Bertin, 2015). In particular, diversification can cause a company’s organizational structure to expand, which leads to higher information asymmetry. Such an issue poses great di.culty for coordination and supervision (Bushman, Chen, Engel, & Smith, 2004; Rodríguez-Pérez & Van Hemmen, 2010), decreasing the company’s performance. DIVERSIFICATION, CEO COMMITMENT, AND FIRM PERFORMANCE Engelbertha E. Silalahi Faculty of Economics and Business, Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia engelberthaesilalahi@gmail.com Irenius Dwinanto Bimo Faculty of Economics and Business, Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia irenius.dwinanto@atmajaya.ac.id The increasingly complex coordination in companies with a broader organizational structure makes it vital to establish an effective coordina­This study examined the e.ect of diversification strategies on firm performance and the extent to which the chief ex­ecutive o.cer (CEO) commitment moderates this relationship. The e.ect of diversification on firm performance was analyzed in a sample with both above-average and below-average diversification levels. The sample consisted of 76 manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) from 2007 to 2018, which were analyzed using panel data regression with a balanced panel. Tobin’s Q was utilized to measure firm performance, compounded with three measures of diversification strategies: entropy index, Herfindahl index, and the number of segments. The results show that diversification leads to lower firm performance, whereas CEO commitment eliminates the negative influence of diversification on company performance in all measurement models (i.e., entropy, Herfindahl index, and the number of segments). Accordingly, the negative e.ect of diversification strategies and consistent CEO commitment were ob­served among the samples with high and low diversification levels. Keywords: diversification, firm performance, corporate governance, CEO commitment tion function (Chandler, 1962). Coordination be­tween all elements in a business entity is an es­sential determinant of the company’s operational quality (Cha, Kim, Lee, & Bachrach, 2015), and at a managerial level, the person responsible for ex­ecuting the coordination function is top manage­ment or the chief executive officer. The greater the CEO’s commitment to handling the coordina­tion and supervision tasks at a company, the bet­ter is the coordination function. Likewise, the CEO’s commitment to be involved in coordination across divisions determines the efficacy of diver­sification strategies. Much of the research on diversification and firm performance originally stems from various—and at times contradictory—perspectives on diver­sification practices. One theory, for example, posits that a diversified company can cross-subsidize be­tween segments, whereas another theory suggests that diversification may harm firm performance considering the motivation for such decisions—for example, management’s opportunistic behavior (Volkov & Smith, 2015). From the concept of economies of scale (Rumelt, 1974), diversification is observed to increase company performance, which was corroborated by Chan et al. (2019), who main­tained that the optimal use of resources as a conse­quence of sharing of resources can help achieve economies of scale and ultimately improve com­pany performance. However, in agency theory, di­versification is argued to increase information asymmetry and coordination costs, which will re­duce firm performance (Hernández-Trasobares & Galve-Górriz, 2017). Because of the opposing findings and theories regarding the actual impacts of diversification, this study sought to enrich the literature on the relation­ship between diversification and firm performance. In contrast to previous studies (Hernández-Traso­bares & Galve-Górriz, 2017; Chan et al., 2019), this study examined the direct e.ect of diversification strategies on company performance and the role of CEO commitment as the moderating variable. This study also analyzed both full sample and specific samples with di.erent diversification levels, that is, those above and below the average level. Diversifi­cation levels in this study were measured using sev­eral diversification measurement methods, namely the entropy index, the Herfindahl index, and the number of segments. The purpose of using di.erent measurement techniques was to test the data ro­bustness. To provide a solid empirical contribution, this study used the panel data analysis method (i.e., balanced panel) to test the hypothesis. By combin­ing both cross-section and time-series data, this method can thus eliminate any collinearity between variables, increase degrees of freedom, boost e.­ciency, and minimize bias (Gujarati, 2004). 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2.1 Diversification and Firm Performance Diversification is a strategy used by companies to market their products, goods, or services for dif­ferent segments (Anso., 1957). Companies com­monly strive to expand their market segmentation by either creating new businesses and product types (Gyan, 2017) or enriching their product port­folios (Chan et al., 2019). Several aspects are con­sidered when a company implements diversification strategies, such as the tendency to decrease market demand for the products, the bolstering of the com­pany’s competitive advantage, profit stability, tech­nological developments, the allocation of retained earnings for investment, and risk distribution (An­so., 1957; Lizares, 2019). Furthermore, diversification allows manage­ment to optimize the utilization of resources owned by the company. Resources include tangible re­sources such as production capacity, machinery, equipment, and other production facilities, as well as intangible resources such as management capa­bilities, company reputation, and information (Chartejee & Wernerfelt, 1991). Prahalad & Hamel (1990) stated that economies of scale can grow when companies use production factors concur­rently for each business line. Diversification of resources and activities can benefit companies because they then are able to take advantage of investment opportunities to create added value (Mackey, 2017). In the context of strategic management, diversification can in­crease the economic scope and synergy between business segments, strengthen the company’s market power, carry out cross-subsidies, prevent predatory pricing, increase purchases and sales of products between segments, and create barriers to the potential entry of new competitors (Lewellen, 1971; Chan et al., 1989; de Andrés, Fuente, & Velasco, 2017). These benefits likely will be optimized if management is able to allocate re­sources among existing businesses, allowing all segments to operate effectively and efficiently (Gyan, 2017). Nevertheless, diversification may pose some threats to company performance, including changes in industry-specific risk, company size, number of businesses, or levels of relatedness of diversification (Chang & Howard, 1989). The logical consequence of diversification is the formation of a new strategic business unit, which can cause the company’s orga­nizational structure to widen. This situation poten­tially can engender higher coordination costs and information asymmetry (Zhou, 2011; Hashai, 2015; Hernández-Trasobares et al., 2017; Parker-Lue & Lieberman, 2020). According to agency theory, the latter may even lead to moral hazards and adverse selection (Gomariz & Ballesta, 2014). Another drawback of diversification strategies is that they will complicate coordination measures given the company’s increasingly complex struc­ture, which can result in high information asym­metry (Zhou, 2011; Hashai, 2015). In other words, the multi-divisional structure is an inevitable con­sequence when a company opts for a diversifica­tion strategy. Although such separation of structures typically is intended to reduce search and coordination costs in order to optimize mar­ket opportunities (Lien & Li, 2013), they have some detrimental impacts on the firm perfor­mance. These negative outcomes may include complicated transactions, operational complexity, and information asymmetry, all of which will make coordination efforts more difficult (Bushman et al., 2004; Lien & Li, 2013). Given the contradictory perspectives on the in­fluence of diversification on firm performance, this study proposes the following hypothesis to be tested: H1: Diversification has a negative e.ect on firm per­formance. 2.2CEO Commitment It is suggested that corporate governance prac­tices can minimize the adverse e.ects of diversifica­tion strategies on firm performance (Volkov & Smith, 2015). In a diversified company, there usually is a need to establish separate divisions or strategic business units (SBUs) to handle di.erent segments (Henderson & Fredrickson, 2001). As a result, coor­dination becomes an important issue, especially at the highest level of the decision-making process. This process involves the board of directors, also re­ferred to as the top management team, and their decisions in devising strategic policies have an im­pact on the company’s performance (Sirén, 2018). One of the key figures in the top management is the CEO, who plays a strategic role in realizing the vision and mission of the company, cultivating val­ues by personally engaging in the development of systems and policies, and ensuring the implemen­tation of these systems and policies (Keramati & Azadeh, 2007; Miminoshvili, 2016). Top leaders have the task of formulating strategic policies in response to all situations that potentially can threaten the company’s operations. They also have to oversee the allocation of resources, manage information that is relevant to the company, and resolve any in­ternal conflicts. CEOs need to understand precisely the situation faced by the company using the infor­mation collected and processed by the members of top management (Sirén, 2018). Excellent coordina­tion among di.erent counterparts therefore is nec­essary to ensure the satisfactory completion of the duties. The CEO can carry out the coordination function to overcome coordination problems stemming from the more complex organizational structure (Chan­dler, 1962). The CEO’s commitment to handling the company’s internal coordination plays a crucial role in increasing firm performance. Furthermore, the collaboration or coordination between departments, divisions, strategic business units, and functional areas is an essential determinant of the company’s operational e.ectiveness (Cha et al., 2015). How­ever, in reality, the CEO can be preoccupied with other commitments outside the company, which likely will damage the company’s performance (Harymawan, Nasih, Ratri, & Nowland, 2019). It is the responsibility of the CEO as the high­est executive leader in the company to coordinate among the entire top management in managing the company. To do this successfully, the CEO needs to be involved in top management meetings in which the executives exchange information in order to proportion the company’s capital among existing divisions more effectively. The importance of board meetings is evidenced further by the is­suance of Regulation Number 33/POJK.04/2014 concerning the Board of Directors and Board of Commissioners of Issuers or Public Companies by the Indonesian Financial Services Authority. It is evident that top management meetings have re­ceived substantial attention owing to their roles in improving corporate governance. However, the sig­nificance of these coordination meetings, notably those attended by CEOs, has been relatively under-investigated. Therefore, this study explored the ex­tent to which the CEOs’ involvement in such meetings influences firm performance. In line with earlier studies on the effect of corporate gover­nance on firm performance (Liang, Kuo, Chan, & Chen, 2020; Liu, 2019), this study took the view that CEOs’ involvement in top management meet­ings mitigates the negative effect of diversification on firm performance. Based on the preceding argument, this study proposes its second hypothesis: H2: The relationship between diversification and firm performance di.ers between companies with high CEO commitment and those with low CEO com­mitment. 3 METHODOLOGY The purposive sampling method was used to derive the required data, which consisted of a list of manufacturing companies obtained from the In­donesia Stock Exchange (IDX). A total of 76 firms, complemented by 912 firm-year observations col­lected in the balanced panel data set, were selected based on the period from 2007 to 2018 during which the firms were registered. The sample was limited only to companies that published their an­nual reports and audited financial reports. These manufacturing companies operate in var­ious sectors, such as basic industry, chemical indus­try, miscellaneous industry, and consumer goods industry. The selection of the manufacturing sector in this study was pertinent because of its significant contribution to the Indonesian economy. The man­ufacturing sector has the greatest number of com­panies registered on the IDX, and the sector’s market capitalization is larger than that of other sec­tors. Given its prominence, it is important to study the influence of corporate strategies and the role of management in improving company performance in this sector. Firm performance was measured using Tobin’s Q, which was calculated with the equation from Kang, Anderson, Eom, & Kang (2017). Tobin’s Q is equal to the sum of the book value of debt and market value of equity divided by the book value of assets ( ). To assess the degree of diversifications in a com­pany, three main diversification measures are used, namely entropy, the Herfindahl index, and the num­ber of segments (George & Kabir, 2012; Lien & Li, 2013; Chan et al., 2019). The entropy method (EN­TROPY) was developed by Jacquemin & Berry (1979) with the equation This index indicates that the greater the value of DT, the higher is the level of diversification. Second, the Herfind­ahl index is calculated using the equation formulated by Hirschman (1964): . If the Herfindahl index (HHi) approaches 1, the com­pany is said to be more concentrated, whereas if the index approaches 0, the company is said to be more diversified. The third measure of diversification is the logarithm of the number of segments (SEG). A larger number of segments denotes a higher degree of diversification in a company. CEO commitment as a moderating variable is subject to the number of meetings attended by the CEO (CEOMEET), estimated by the natural logarithm of the number of top management meetings at­tended by the CEO. The use of proxies is grounded in the notion that coordination is an essential deter­minant in increasing the operational e.ectiveness of the company (Cha et al., 2015), implying that if the CEO is not committed to being involved person­ally in the coordination e.orts, firm performance will be a.ected negatively (Keramati & Azadeh, 2007; Harymawan et al., 2019). Other variables were assessed in this study. One variable was company size, which was mea­sured based on the logarithm of stock market value (Randřy & Nielsen, 2002). The value indicates that the greater the stock capitalization, the higher is the firm performance. Another variable examined was the number of years the company was listed on the stock exchange (AGE), because older companies might have lower firm performance (George & Kabir, 2012). Also taken into account was the report­ing of loss (LOSS), using binary numbers, with 1 de­noting the presence of loss reports and 0 otherwise. A company that reports a loss tends to have lower performance. The final variable was leverage (LEV), which is the total debt divided by the total assets (George & Kabir, 2012). A high value of leverage in­dicates a higher level of performance. Considering all variables, the hypothesis testing used the follow­ing model: In summary, the dependent variable of com­pany performance was measured using Tobin’s Q, whereas the independent variable was the diversifi­cation strategy (DIV), which was examined with three widely used measures in diversification studies (entropy, the Herfindahl index, and the number of segments). The moderating variable of CEO commit­ment (CEOMEET) was assessed using the natural log­arithm of the number of meetings attended by the CEO. Other variables included company size, which was based on the natural logarithm of the market value of company shares (r); company age, which was based on the number of years the company had been listed on the stock exchange (AGE); the report­ing of loss (LOSS); and the value of leverage (LEV). 4 RESULTS 4.1 Descriptive Statistics and Variable Correlations Winsorization was performed to treat the out­lier data based on the average value criteria plus or minus a standard deviation of 2. A normality test was conducted using the skewness value, with a value between 2 and -2 indicating that the data were normally distributed. The descriptive statistics of each variable are presented in Table 1. Table 1: Descriptive statistics The average TOBINSQ was 1.1696, meaning that the debt value and market value of the companies’ shares was 1.696 times the total assets owned. The level of diversification was ENTROPY = 0.461 and HHi = 0.710, indicating that the diversification level was not too high. This finding is supported further by the low average number of segments, 2.794; the maxi­mum number of segments was 10. The average CEO attendance at top management meetings (CEOMEET) was 16.21272 (log 7.265) meetings/year. The maxi­mum number of meetings attended by the CEO in a year was 72, and the minimum was 2. In addition, companies that reported losses (not reported in Table 1) accounted for 16% of the total observations. There was a strong correlation between the variables used to measure diversification (EN­TROPY, HHi, and SEG) and company performance (Table 2). It is clear that diversification had a signifi­cant negative correlation with TOBINSQ. A strong correlation was observed between HHi and SEG with ENTROPY, but because these two variables were independent of each other in the three mod­els, they were not part of the correlational analysis in this study. Furthermore, CEOMEET was found to have a positive correlation with TOBINSQ, corre­sponding to the variables of company size and com­pany age, which also had a positive correlation with TOBINSQ. 4.2Hypothesis Testing Hypothesis testing in this study used panel data regression with a balanced panel. The Chow test, Breusch–Pagan Lagrange multiplier, and the Hausman test show how the data were processed using panel data with a random-effects regression model. Due to the problem of autocorrelation, ob­taining a variant of constant error required a ro­bust function in the statistical software STATA version 14. Table 3 displays the results of the panel data regression test. Company diversifica­tion had a negative effect on firm performance in all measurement models of diversification (en­tropy, Herfindahl index, and the number of seg­ments) with a significance level of 0.05 (a = 0.05). This supports the notion that higher levels of di­versification correlate with lower levels of firm performance. The number of CEO meetings (CEOMEET) was found to moderate the effect of diversification on firm performance in all size models of diversifica­tion: ENTROPY*CEOMEET and HHi*CEOMEET at a = 0.01, and HHI*CEOMEET at a = 0.10. The effect of diversification on firm performance in compa­nies with high rates of CEO attendance at top man­agement meetings was different from that on those with low rates of CEO attendance. The em­pirical evidence shows how the presence of the CEO at the board of directors meeting can mitigate the negative effect of diversification on company performance. From the internal capital market approach (Volkov & Smith, 2015), the negative e.ect of diver­sification on company performance is attributed to the company’s reliance on internal capital, which in turn reduces the supervision from external capital providers. This condition results in ine.cient use of internal capital. As a consequence, the companies cannot optimize the use of corporate resources, whether tangible or intangible, when running di.er­ent business lines. In contrast, collective diversifica­tion may allow companies to produce various products or services more optimally. Regarding the CEO role, the results were con­sistent with those of previous studies that scruti­nized CEO contribution to improving company performance (Fang, Wade, Delios, & Beamish, 2007). These findings support the argument that the coordination function performed by the CEO can indeed mitigate the adverse e.ects of informa­tion asymmetry caused by diversification strategies (Chandler, 1962). The coordination between SBUs can increase the e.ectiveness of company manage­ment (Cha et al., 2015), and in the case of a direct relationship, the CEO’s commitment to actively par­ticipate in coordination activities through board meetings can increase the company’s performance (Harymawan et al., 2019). The empirical evidence shows that CEO commit­ment is a critical factor in improving company perfor­mance. Top leaders play an essential role in designing strategic policies, managing conflicts, making deci­sions to respond to changing business environments, and implementing diversification strategies. He high commitment can enhance the e.ectiveness of coor­dination between departments, divisions, SBUs, and the functional areas (Cha et al., 2015). 4.3Additional Analysis Additional testing studied the effect of diver­sification on company performance in companies with a high diversification level. In the model, a value of 1 represents companies with diversifica­tion values above the average level of diversifica­tion for all the observed companies, and 0 represents otherwise. The diversification vari­ables (ENTROPY, HHi, and SEG) were multiplied by the dummy variable to determine which compa­nies had diversification levels above the average value. At the 5% significance level in all measure­ment models (ENTROPY, HHi, and SEG), high diver­sification had a negative effect on company performance (Table 4), confirming the first hy­pothesis (H1). Clearly, companies with a high level of diversification tend to have low performance. In the analysis of the effect of CEO commitment on the relationship between diversification and company performance in companies with a high diversification level, the results also were consis­tent with the second hypothesis, testing the three diversification measures. High CEO commitment can mitigate the adverse effects of diversification on a company’s performance despite its high di­versification levels. 5DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 5.1Theoretical Contributions This study makes several theoretical contribu­tions to the study of strategic management. First, this study provides more insights into the effect of diversification strategies on firm performance from the agency theory perspective (Zhou, 2011; Hernández-Trasobares & Galve-Górriz, 2017). In particular, the findings show that diversification tends to harm corporate performance as tested in all measurement models (entropy index, Herfind­ahl index, and a number of segments). The higher the level of diversification, the more likely it is that companies will have higher information asymme­try and more-complex coordination efforts, thereby reducing firm performance. Diversifica­tion leads companies to create SBUs to manage a new business or manufacture new products, re­sulting in a wider organizational structure. As a consequence, business operations and informa­tion flows become increasingly more complex, which is likely to cause high information asymme­try, moral hazard, and adverse selection. Second, when the effect of CEO commitment is considered, it is evident that frequent atten­dance of the CEO at top management meetings can attenuate the negative impact of diversifica­tion on company performance. Effective coordina­tion between SBUs can mitigate information asymmetry and improve operational quality (Cha et al., 2015). These coordination efforts can en­courage more-effective and -efficient allocation of resources, create a more transparent and reliable flow of information, and reduce internal conflicts as each unit has its internal targets to achieve. Cor­respondingly, to enhance the company’s perfor­mance, the presence of the CEO at coordination meetings of the board of directors becomes of considerable importance. These meetings can serve as the venue in which relevant information is coordinated and exchanged among the top man­agement members, encouraging effective alloca­tion of the company’s resources across different divisions. Another contribution of empirical nature of this study is its research methodology. Based on the panel data regression analysis (i.e., balanced panel), the results are consistent in both the full sample and the specific samples of companies whose levels of diversification are either above or below the aver­age level. 5.2Practical Implications Regarding practical contributions to the field of strategic management, this study provides practi­tioners with insights essential to the implementa­tion of diversification. Although diversification strategies can be beneficial to the improvement of company performance, they still pose potential risks. The varied range of control resulting from di­versification practices requires an e.ective control mechanism to mitigate any moral hazard and ad­verse selection in the management of strategic busi­ness units. Optimal economies of scale from sharing resources, if not utilized properly, will have a nega­tive impact on company performance. Therefore, an excellent managerial capability is needed in the management of sharing resources in a diversified company so that economies of scale can be achieved to the utmost extent. Another implication is that in companies using diversification strategies, there is an increas­ing need for systematic coordination among the top management to improve firm performance. The coordination between different departments, divisions, and SBUs has been shown to contribute to operational effectiveness and to anticipate in­formation asymmetry, both of which can lead to better firm performance. Moreover, as one of the primary leaders, the CEO is expected to be in­volved in the coordination process by regularly at­tending high-stakes meetings. By doing so, the CEO actually demonstrates strong commitment to the tasks, which can mitigate any possible unde­sirable effects on company performance. Top management leadership in coordination efforts is an essential factor determining the effectiveness of a company’s strategy. It is a key component of the success of any strategies adopted to improve firm performance. 5.3Limitations and future research Nonetheless, there are some limitations to this study that were not addressed. Firstly, when exploring the issue of diversification and firm performance, future researchers can examine several aspects that this study did not consider. One aspect is the nonlinear effect of diversifica­tion on company performance, which is said to be present in the relationship between the two variables (Palich et al., 2000). In relation to CEO commitment, the influence of share ownership also can be considered as one of the control vari­ables in future studies. The last limitation is that the hypothesis testing was carried out using panel data regression. Future research can con­sider using a structural equation model to test the relationship between the variables simulta­neously. REFERENCES Anso., H.I. (1957). Strategies for diversification. Harvard business review, 35(5), 113-124. Bushman, R., Chen, Q., Engel, E., & Smith, A. (2004). Fi­nancial accounting information, organizational com­plexity and corporate governance systems. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 37(2), 167-201. Cha, J., Kim, Y., Lee, J.Y. & Bachrach, D.G. (2015). Trans­formational leadership and inter-team collaboration: Exploring the mediating role of teamwork quality and moderating role of team size. Group & Organization Management, 40(6), 715-743. Chan, L.F., Bany-Ari.n, A.N. & Nasir, A.B.M. (2019). Does the Method of Corporate Diversification Matter to Firm’s Performance? In Asia-Pacific Contemporary Fi­nance and Development. Emerald Publishing Limited. Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American industrial enter- prise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chang, Y., & Howard, T. (1989). The Impact Of Diversifi­cation Strategy On Risk-Return Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 10(3), 271. Chartejee, S. & Wernerfelt, B. (1991). The Link Between Resources and Type of Diversification. Strategic man­agement journal, 12(1), 33-48. de Andrés, P., de la Fuente, G. & Velasco, P. (2017). Does it really matter how a firm diversifies? Assets-in-place diversification versus growth options diver­sification. Journal of Corporate Finance, 43, 316-339. Fang, Y., Wade, M., Delios, A. & Beamish, P.W. (2007). In­ternational diversification, subsidiary performance, and the mobility of knowledge resources. Strategic Management Journal, 28(10), 1053-1064. Gomariz, M.F.C. & Ballesta, J.P.S., (2014), “Financial re­porting quality, debt maturity and investment e.­ciency.” Journal of Banking & Finance, 40, 494-506. George, R. & Kabir, R., 2012. Heterogeneity in business groups and the corporate diversification–firm performance rela­tionship. Journal of business research, 65(3), 412-420. Gujarati, D. N. (2004). Basic Econometrics : Fourth Edition. The McGraw-Hill Companies. Gyan, A.K. (2017). Moderating role of productivity on di­versified conglomerates and performance: the case of Malaysia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Admin­istration, 9(2), 118-133. Hernández-Trasobares, A., & Galve-Górriz, C. (2017). Di­versification and family control as determinants of performance: A study of listed business groups. Euro­pean Research on Management and Business Eco­nomics, 23(1), 46-54. Harymawan, I., Nasih, M., Ratri, M.C. and Nowland, J. (2019). CEO busyness and firm performance: evi­dence from Indonesia. Heliyon, 5(5), p.e01601. Hashai, N. (2015). Within-industry diversification and firm performance—An s-shaped hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 1378–400. Henderson, A.D. & Fredrickson, J.W. (2001). Top management team coordination needs and the CEO pay gap: A com­petitive test of economic and behavioral views. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 96-117. Hirschman, A.O. (1964). The paternity of an index. Am. Econ. Rev. 54 (5), 761–770. Jara-Bertin, M., López-Iturriaga, F.J. & Espinosa, C. (2015). Diversification and control in emerging markets: The case of Chilean firms. BRQ Business Research Quar­terly, 18(4), 259-274. Jacquemin, A. P., & Berry, C. H. (1979). Entropy measure of diversification and corporate growth. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 359-369. Kang, H.C., Anderson, R.M., Eom, K.S. and Kang, S.K. (2017). Controlling shareholders’ value, long-run firm value and short-term performance. Journal of Corpo­rate Finance, 43, 340-353. Keramati, A. & Azadeh, M.A. (2007), Exploring the e.ects of top management’s commitment on knowledge management success in academia: A case study. In Proceedings of World Academy of Science, Engi­neering and Technology (Vol. 21). Kuppuswamy, V. & Villalonga, B. (2016). Does diversifica­tion create value in the presence of external financing constraints? Evidence from the 2007–2009 financial crisis. Management Science, 62(4), 905-923. Lewellen, W.G. (1971). A pure financial rationale for the conglomerate merger. The journal of Finance, 26(2), 521-537. Liang, H.Y., Kuo, L.W., Chan, K.C. & Chen, S.H. (2020). Bank diversification, performance, and corporate gover­nance: evidence from China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 27(4), 389-405. Lien, Y. C., & Li, S. (2013). Does diversification add firm value in emerging economies? E.ect of corporate governance. Journal of Business Research, 66(12), 2425-2430. Liu, TK. (2019). Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Governance and Business Performance of Non-Finan­cial Industry. International Journal of Economics and Business Administration, Volume VII, Issue 3, 260-278. Miminoshvili, M. (2016). The leadership role in the orga­nizational culture change at local self-government in­stitutions. Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, 5(2), 49-67. Mackey, T.B., Barney, J.B. & Dotson, J.P. (2017). Corporate diversification and the value of individual firms: A Bayesian approach. Strategic Management Jour­nal, 38(2), pp.322-341. Palich, L.E., Cardinal, L.B. & Miller, C.C. (2000). Curvilinear­ity in the diversification–performance linkage: an ex­amination of over three decades of research. Strategic management journal, 21(2), 155-174. Parker-Lue, S., & Lieberman, M. (2020). The impact of di­versification on task performance: Evidence from kid­ney transplant centers. Strategic Management Journal, 41(7), 1169-1190. Prahalad, C.K. & Hamel, G. (1997). The core competence of the corporation. In Strategische Unternehmungs­planung/Strategische Unternehmungsführung (pp. 969-987). Physica, Heidelberg. Randřy, T. & Nielsen, J. (2002). Company performance, corporate governance, and CEO compensation in Nor­way and Sweden. Journal of Management and Gov­ernance, 6(1), pp.57-81. Rumelt, R.P. (1974). Strategy, structure, and economic performance. Sirén, C., Patel, P.C., Örtqvist, D. & Wincent, J. (2018). CEO burnout, managerial discretion, and firm perfor­mance: The role of CEO locus of control, structural power, and organizational factors. Long Range Plan­ning, 51(6), pp.953-971. Subramaniam, V. & Wasiuzzaman, S. (2019). Geographical diversification, firm size and profitability in Malaysia: A quantile regression approach. Heliyon, 5(10), p.e02664. Rodríguez-Pérez, G. & Van Hemmen, S. (2010). Debt, di­versification and earnings management. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 29(2), 138-159. Volkov, N.I. & Smith, G.C. (2015). Corporate diversification and firm value during economic downturns. The Quar­terly Review of Economics and Finance, 55, 160-175. Zhou, Y. M. (2011). Synergy, coordination costs, and di­versification choices. Strategic Management Jour­nal, 32(6), 624-639. Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 19 Abstract Vol. 10, No. 2, 19-29 doi:10.17708/DRMJ.2021.v10n02a02 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 20 Engelbertha E. Silalahi, Irenius Dwinanto Bimo: Diversification, CEO Commitment, and Firm Performance Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 21 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 22 Engelbertha E. Silalahi, Irenius Dwinanto Bimo: Diversification, CEO Commitment, and Firm Performance Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 23 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 24 Engelbertha E. Silalahi, Irenius Dwinanto Bimo: Diversification, CEO Commitment, and Firm Performance Table 2: Correlation coe.cients between variables Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 25 Table 3: E.ect of diversification on firm performance Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 26 Engelbertha E. Silalahi, Irenius Dwinanto Bimo: Diversification, CEO Commitment, and Firm Performance Table 4: Additional teting based on diversification above sample average value Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 27 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 28 Engelbertha E. Silalahi, Irenius Dwinanto Bimo: Diversification, CEO Commitment, and Firm Performance EXTENDED SUMMARY/IZVLECEK Študija preucuje ucinek strategij diverzifikacije na uspešnost podjetja in obseg, v katerem za­vezanost glavnega izvršnega direktorja (CEO) ublaži to razmerje. Ucinek diverzifikacije na uspešnost podjetja je bil analiziran v vzorcu, ki je vkljuceval podjetja tako z nadpovprecno kot tudi s pod­povprecno stopnjo razpršenosti. Vzorec je sestavljalo 76 proizvodnih podjetij, ki so kotirala na In­donezijski borzi (IDX) med letoma 2007 in 2018. Analiz je bila opravljena z uporabo regresije uravnoteženih panelnih podatkov. Tobinov Q je bil uporabljen za merjenje uspešnosti podjetja, skupaj s tremi merili strategij diverzifikacije: indeksom entropije, Herfindahlovim indeksom in številom seg­mentov. Rezultati kažejo, da diverzifikacija vodi do nižje uspešnosti podjetja, medtem ko zavezanost generalnega direktorja odpravlja negativni vpliv diverzifikacije na uspešnost podjetja v vseh modelih merjenja (tj. entropija, Herfindahlov indeks in število segmentov). V skladu s tem so med podjetji tako z visoko ko tudi z nizko stopnjo diverzifikacije opazni negativni ucinki strategij diverzifikacije in dosledne zavezanosti generalnega direktorja. Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 29 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 30 WORK IS WHERE HOME IS, OR VICE VERSA? A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER LENS ON NURTURING RELATIONSHIPS FOR THRIVING Katarina Katja Mihelic University of Ljubljana School of Economics and Business, Slovenia katja.mihelic@ef.uni-lj.si Ajda Merkuž University of Ljubljana School of Economics and Business, Slovenia ajda.merkuz@ef.uni-lj.si Jose Aldo Valencia Hernandez National University of Ireland, Maynooth University, Ireland aldo.valencia@mu.ie Diellza Gashi Tresi, PhD Kolegji Riinvest, Kosovo diellzag@gmail.com Since the beginning of the pandemic, working from home has become the prevalent way of working for many employees around the world. Consequently, the nature of daily interactions that previously were taken for granted has changed pro­foundly, a.ecting the quality of the work experience. Pursuing connections rather than disconnecting oneself from others can be a purposeful act leading to a positive work experience and thriving. However, there is limited research available about how to thrive while working remotely. Drawing on the micro-organizational literature, this paper presents a frame­work for individual thriving while working from a home o.ce by nurturing relationships with various stakeholders. Guided by theory on relationships, thriving, and individual accounts of relationship challenges while working from home during the pandemic, we propose strategies for maintaining fruitful relationships in circumstances characterized by uncertainty, anxiety, and loneliness. We argue that employees can be the designers of the following high-quality relationships, which may transform their remote work experience: the relationship with self, with colleagues, with leaders, and with one’s part­ner and family. In this way we make theoretical contributions to Spreitzer et al.’s model of employee thriving. Keywords: working from home, remote work, relationships, thriving, strategies Acknowledgement We gratefully acknowledge funding received from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Inno­vation program under Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement number 734824 that facilitated the writing of this paper. 1INTRODUCTION In 2020 the volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA) world of work obtained a new meaning when working from home (WFH) becoming a requirement for many and not simply a matter of personal preference. Whereas in 2019 only 5.4% of EU citizens worked from home (Eurostat, 2020), in 2020 the social distancing measures required for the COVID-19 pandemic forced many to cease going to an o.ce and to set up a permanent workspace at home. This exacerbated the characteristics of the pre-COVID-19 contemporary workplace such as constant connec­tivity, expectations to respond quickly, and blurring of boundaries between work and nonwork (Kolb, Caza, & Collins, 2012; Mazmanian, 2013). Anecdotal evi­dence indicates that the speed of working while at home actually has increased, alongside a spike in the number of virtual meetings, making Zoom fatigue a real-life phenomenon (Fosslien & Du.y, 2020). Although remote working, which refers to per­forming work at a location that is not a company o.ce (including working from home and working from any­where) brings benefits in terms of improved produc­tivity, well-being, job satisfaction, and commitment (Choudhury, 2020; Felstead & Henseke, 2017), evi­dence points to various drawbacks that prevent em­ployees from thriving under such conditions—for example, the intensification of work, the di.culty of switching o. (Felstead & Henseke, 2017), and nega­tive interference with regard to the twin spheres of home and work (Wang, Liu, Qian, & Parker, 2021) along with the related strain (Perry, Rubino, & Hunter, 2018). Another consequence is reflected in the re­duced number of face-to-face interactions with col­leagues, leaders, and business partners. With COVID-19 and lockdowns, which forced individuals to work exclusively from home, the number of daily in­teractions in work as well as non work social circles has been drastically reduced, and thus loneliness has become a major mental health concern (Killgore, Cloonen, Taylor, & Dailey, 2020), because loneliness, alongside social isolation, leads to depression, cogni­tive decline, and cardiovascular disease (Smith & Lim, 2020). Therefore, it is important to consider how so­cial interactions in particular could contribute to e.ec­tive job performance and thriving, and thus feelings of vitality and learning, while working from home. This paper developed, through a multi-stake­holder lens, a framework for managing relationships while WFH in order for individuals to thrive. The proposed framework is grounded theoretically in Spreitzer et al.’s model of thriving (Spreitzer, Sut­cli.e, Dutton, Sonenshein, & Grant, 2005). To spec­ify the key relationships and the accompanying challenges while WFH, we analyzed comments posted on LinkedIn threads about two articles that were published during the second wave of the pan­demic. Based on that, we outlined evidence-based strategies for nurturing relationships with the self, with colleagues, with leaders, and with one’s part­ner and family. This focus on such relationships is timely, be­cause COVID-19 has demanded social isolation, and with this, feelings of social awkwardness have in­creased (Murphy, 2020). Hence, we need to draw at­tention to how to nurture relationships in order to build the social skills muscle and thrive in a home of­fice. Although organizations can implement systems and adopt routines to support employees WFH1, employees themselves play a pivotal role as co-de­signers of fruitful work and nonwork relationships. In other words, a focus on employees, which we adopt in this paper, is essential in order to facilitate productive and psychologically healthy WFH. Obtain­ing evidence-based recommendations for how best to do this also is important because the percentage of workers permanently WFH is projected to rise to 34% globally in 2021 (Chavez-Dreyfuss, 2020). 2THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2.1A multi-stakeholder framework for thriving while WFH Thriving at work is a “psychological state in which individuals experience both a sense of vi­tality and a sense of learning at work” (Spreitzer et al., 2005, p. 538). But why is work-related thriv­ing important while WFH? Because in the work domain, it increases work engagement (Abid, Saj­jad, Elahi, Farooqi, & Nisar, 2018), job perfor­mance (Elahi, Abid, Arya, & Farooqi, 2020), and job satisfaction (Zhai, Wang, & Weadon, 2020). Consequently, it helps individuals increase their positive attitudes toward self-development (Kleine, Rudolph, & Zacher, 2019) and well-being (Yousaf, Abid, Butt, Ilyas, & Ahmed, 2019). Be­cause COVID-19 took a great toll on the latter, by facilitating thriving, people can increase their well-being and overcome the strain caused by WFH. Specifically, WFH has altered working rela­tionships as people interact only digitally, making relationships more formal and less spontaneous, and interactions are limited to seeing only a per­son’s face on a computer screen in the form of a small image. Because the nature of relationships is pro­foundly different while WFH, we propose a frame­work which outlines four human pillars of thriving in a home office, namely four crucial relationships that employees WFH nurture and that are consid­ered to be drivers of thriving. This framework is grounded theoretically in the existing literature that views relationships that are energy-giving (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003) as one of the key ele­ments for employee thriving in the workplace (Feeney & Collins, 2015; Spreitzer et al., 2005). Specifically, we build on the socially embedded model of thriving at work (Spreitzer et al., 2005), which presents the dynamics of social systems and dynamic interactions between individuals. In turn, it helps employees to experience vitality and learn­ing. The model focuses on the unit contextual fea­tures (e.g., decision-making discretion, broad information sharing, and a climate of trust and re­spect) and resources (e.g., knowledge, positive meaning, positive affective resources, and rela­tional resources) that are produced in work con­text, which fuel the engine of thriving: individual agentic work behaviors (Spreitzer et al., 2005). The authors of the model presented task focus, explo­ration, and heedful relating as agentic work behav­iors in the model, and together they help individuals to feel active and purposeful (Spreitzer et al., 2005). This paper focuses on heedful relating through energy-giving relationships from different relational resources (Riaz, Xu, & Hussain, 2020). When employees are relating heedfully, they demonstrate understanding of how their job fits with those of others at work in order to achieve team or organizational goals (Spreitzer et al., 2005). Through heedful relating, individuals be­come more conscious, learn more from colleagues, and boost their energy through interrelated work (Riaz et al., 2020). Only a handful of studies have addressed heedful relating specifically. These pro­vided evidence that perceived organizational sup­port (Abid, Zahra, & Ahmed, 2016), support climate, psychological capital (Paterson, Luthan, & Jeung, 2014), servant leadership (Usman et al., 2020b), and abusive supervision (Usman et al., 2020a) affect heedful relating. Moreover, in addi­tion to its effect on thriving at work, which has been proven repeatedly (Paterson et al., 2014; Sia & Duari, 2018; Usman et al., 2020a; Usman et al., 2020b), Abid et al. (2016) showed that heedful re­lating mitigates the effects of turnover intentions in the organization. Relational ties at work, especially during the pandemic, can be an important source of em­ployee energy (Gerbasi, Porath, Parker, Spreitzer, & Cross, 2015). An interrelated working environ­ment and high-quality relationships stimulate heedful relating, helping employees through sharing knowledge (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003) and providing an opportunity to learn from each other (Riaz et al., 2020). The connectivity among employees further helps to promote a sense of vitality as employees become more energized due to the social support (Carmeli & Spritzer, 2009). Moreover, these agentic behaviors foster collaboration and elevate feelings of together­ness, community, and proximity through care, mutual respect, and offering support (Carmeli & Russo, 2016), and in turn may contribute to less-frequent feelings of loneliness caused by the physical separation from colleagues at work. By engaging in micromoves such as small acts of kindness and gratitude, employees can demon­strate care. Attentive relating to others is associ­ated with vitality (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003), and through maintaining positive relationships, work performance is improved (Carmeli & Spreitzer, 2009), along with well-being and thriving (Carmeli & Russo, 2016). 3METHODOLOGY This study answers the following research ques­tions: RQ1: Which are the key relationships while WFH and how are they a.ected? RQ2: Which strategies facilitate thriving while WFH through nurturing each of the respective relation­ships? To answer the first research question, namely to specify the different stakeholders’ and employ­ees’ current sentiments while WFH, we collected and analyzed LinkedIn comments on two articles2 that were published during the second wave of the pandemic. These comments are public and can be accessed online. We employed thematic analysis to analyze the comments. The choice of articles was guided by the fact that they needed to capture both the work domain and the home domain, which are intertwined when WFH, and they needed to provide personal accounts related to maintaining relationships while WFH. This allowed us to gain insight into the relevant stakeholders that commenters mentioned, as well as into their struggles pertaining to their efforts to nurture con­nections with different people. Furthermore, we focused on the two articles due to the level of trac­tion received and diversity of comments related to the WFH experience and how it has affected the commenters’ relationships. In the analysis, we looked for specific mentions of managing relation­ships with different stakeholders while WFH during the pandemic. At the moment of data collection, both articles together had received more than 2,500 likes and 550 comments by LinkedIn users. From the 550 comments analyzed, some com­ments expressed agreement with the authors, a group of comments stated that WFH actually worked for the commenters, and a large number of comments (more than 300) expressed the strug­gles faced with managing relationships while WFH. Our analysis focused on the 300 comments that ex­pressed struggles with managing relationships with stakeholders while WFH. In times when social connections are involuntarily reduced to a mini­mum due to COVID-19, fostering virtual connec­tions with colleagues at work and nonvirtual connections with family may be a fundamental mechanism to facilitate thriving while WFH. 4RESULTS The first article describes how employees WFH are working longer hours, and the second article ex­plores the negative impacts of eliminating o.ce space. After publication on The Economist and Quartz websites, respectively, active LinkedIn users commented by describing their personal view­points and daily struggles. When analyzing the comments, we focused on longer comments, which went beyond simply praising the article or agreeing with its content. Regarding the first research ques­tion, the authors individually read through the com­ments and identified the following stakeholders: self (the employee WFH), colleagues from work, leaders and supervisors, and significant others and children. We dubbed these human pillars of thriv­ing, which refer to relationships with proximal play­ers in the work and nonwork realms and reflect a multi-stakeholder perspective (Figure 1). Next, we analyzed employees’ personal accounts related to maintaining their work and nonwork relationships. Specifically, we individually searched for statements related to challenges, struggles, and attitudes to­ward each of the relationships. The personal ac­counts (Tables 1–4) motivated our search for evidence-based strategies. The following comment on one of the articles succinctly captures the state of living and the relevance of this topic for aca­demic research: Living at work is how it is currently. It’s been ex­tremely di.cult at times when it’s all work and no play, no socializing and no human connection. Psy­chologically I’ve never known a bigger test on my mental health and I’m sure this is a silent disease. The following sections (1) present each of the identified relationships in terms of the quotations representing the attitudes related to the particular relationship (RQ1), and (2) o.er evidence-based strategies for thriving, whereby the individual de­signs nurturing relationships with each of the stake­holders in question (RQ2). We propose that through a systematic approach to managing relationships, employees themselves can contribute proactively to sustained thriving even in trying times. 4.1Relationship with self The increased demands, constant connectivity (Mazmanian, 2013), and numerous phone and video calls, coupled with prolonged working hours along with the fear of missing out can cause stress­ful interactions with colleagues, leaders, partners, and family members. To facilitate positive interac­tions with others (Carmeli & Russo, 2016), one first needs to consider the relationship with oneself. Table 1 reflects the sentiment and self-related chal­lenges while WFH. To move from surviving to thriv­ing while WFH, an employee could first adopt the strategy of building self-compassion competence (Ne., 2003). Self-compassion is an individual’s view of themselves, which “involves being touched by and open to one’s own su.ering, not avoiding or dis­connecting from it, generating the desire to alleviate one’s su.ering and to heal oneself with kindness” (Ne., 2003, p. 87). It also entails a nonjudgmental stance toward one’s pain, su.ering, and failures. Table 1: Relationship with self while WFH: illustrative quotations Self-compassion rather than self-blame is im­portant in times of adversity and high workload. When WFH the high expectations related to work (e.g., telepressure, the need to respond quickly to incoming emails, and working until late in the evening), at times can be self-imposed rather than organizationally demanded (Grawitch, Werth, Palmer, Erb, & Lavigne, 2018). This means that an employee on their own initiative creates a routine of long working hours, causing overwork, or gradu­ally increases their working day by picking up such cues from the supervisor (i.e., social contagion) (Afota, Ollier-Malaterre, & Vandenberghe, 2019). Both cause stress, which in turn negatively a.ects thriving (Kleine et al., 2019). Similarly, perfectionism about work can lead to depressive symptoms (Gluschko. et al., 2017). Self-compassion here serves as a resource that reduces depression and anxiety (de Souza, Policarpo, & Hutz, 2020). Self-compassion has three components: (1) self-kindness in times of failure or pain; (2) common humanity/connection, i.e., viewing one’s own expe­rience as a part of a bigger picture; and (3) mindful­ness, i.e., not letting painful thoughts overwhelm one, but rather accepting them as they are (Ne., 2003). When WFH, self-compassion can protect an individual from negative thoughts and potential per­sistent feelings of “never working long enough.” Strategies for building self-compassion include the compassionate mind training (CMT) program (Gilbert & Procter, 2006), which is designed to help an individual accept their emotions with a compas­sionate attitude. Next are strategies to increase self-compassion through mindfulness exercises, which include practicing short micro-meditations multiple times a day, longer sitting and walking meditations with the help of apps, establishing daily yoga rou­tines, and pranayama breathing practices. While WFH, individuals also can engage in five mindful­ness-based behaviors (i.e., behavioral self-monitor­ing), as suggested by Kiburz, Allen, and French (2017): dismissing thoughts and bringing the mind back to the present moment, focusing on breathing, noticing the breath moving through di.erent body parts, embracing the sensations in one’s body, and walking rather than rushing through the day. The ex­ercise of behavioral self-monitoring involves first tracking the frequency of performing such behaviors in a given week, and then setting goals to increase each of them. When WFH, the boundaries between a per­son’s work and nonwork lives become nonexistent due to the fact that the two domains are physically intertwined. Moreover, technology has enabled working anytime, not just anywhere, which leads to overwork (Mazmanian, 2013). With this, it is impor­tant to be mindful of one’s working hours and care­fully craft a boundary management style. There are said to be three types of people in terms of prefer­ences for combining work and other realms of life. Segmentors prefer to keep their professional and private lives separate, tend not to bring work home or discuss private matters with colleagues, and even keep separate devices for work and personal mat­ters (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000). Integrators like to intertwine the two, and do not mind perform­ing a job task in the evening and tending to a family phone call at work. They also transition more easily between work and nonwork roles (Rothbard, 2020). Finally, volleyers tend to switch between the two realms (Kossek & Lautsch, 2008). With the need to work from home due to COVID-19, many employees were forced to adopt an integrator mindset in the physical sense, with segmentors facing a significant challenge. However, integrators also tend to experience challenges in WFH, including those related to more undesired in­terruptions (Ashforth et al., 2000). To thrive while WFH, it is important to create temporal and spatial boundaries, which may include establishing and sticking to clear working hours, as well as negotiat­ing them with one’s employer and family members (Rothbard, 2020); and adopting a routine of dress­ing for work and dressing casually when work ends (Rothbard, 2020). With regard to the latter point, creating routines helps one mentally transition be­tween work and nonwork (Shockley & Clark, 2020). These are referred to as routinized role transitions, which become easier over time as employees de­velop transition scripts (Ashforth et al., 2000). Rites of separation/transition, as Ashforth et al. (2000) call them, may include having a cup of co.ee, listen­ing to a favorite work-related podcast. or planning the day ahead before starting work. Similarly, at the end of the workday, taking a quick walk (Shockley & Clark, 2020) or riding on a bicycle can serve as psy­chological momentum which helps one transition back to the nonwork role. Employees also could be asked to prepare their to-do list for the next day or rate how their day went to ease the transition to the nonwork role (Bass, 2020), because this will help with switching o. and beginning the process of re­covery, as well as enabling one to focus more on other life roles. In terms of creating spatial bound­aries, segmentors are advised to set up a home of­fice which should be the only space in which they perform their job duties. When the workday ends, the door to this o.ce is shut, and this serves as a signal that leisure time, or another part of nonwork, has begun. Finally, it is advisable to develop a sense of tolerance to intrusions from family members (e.g., children needing help, and children or pets ap­pearing in front of a camera during a meeting). Prac­ticing self-compassion toward both work and family roles is related positively to more satisfaction and less burnout in both these roles (Nicklin, Seguin, & Flaherty, 2019). This is particularly important in times of significant changes, such as the move from a regular o.ce to working exclusively from home during the first lockdown. 4.2Relationships with colleagues Colleagues are a fundamental source of support for successful work performance (Collins, Hislop, & Cartwright, 2016), as positive interactions with col­leagues increase learning and knowledge (Paterson et al., 2014) through the experience and vitality thus gained (Carmeli & Spreitzer, 2009), thereby impacting thriving. That said, WFH alters both the frequency as well as method of these relationships. Specifically, it decreases opportunities for personal conversations and sharing of experiences and knowledge, and makes reciprocal norms di.cult to establish (Lippe & Lippényi, 2019). Due to working at di.erent locations (i.e., being physically separated) and the inability to directly pick up the cues that a colleague is facing a problem, WFH also has inhibited helping and proso­cial behaviors (Kni.n et al., 2020), thus minimizing the opportunities to learn from colleagues. Table 2 reflects the sentiment and challenges faced in nur­turing relationships with colleagues while WFH. It is important to facilitate building positive relationships among colleagues in order to enable thriving while WFH, and such interactions can be co-created by em­ployees by implementing specific strategies. Table 2: Relationship with colleagues while WFH: illustrative quotations An employee could begin by practicing informal one-on-one chats with colleagues (White, 2015) via phone, in which they can talk and share what hap­pened during the day and any issues that they have faced. They can use these brief meetings to share knowledge, coordinate ongoing work tasks, and en­sure that work runs smoothly without unnecessary delays. This will help both individuals feel less lonely, energize them, and promote a steady flow of infor­mation, which can lead to increased learning and also vitality. These brief sessions should not be for­mal or involve many people, but rather should in­volve only two people at a time. Another strategy is for employees to eat lunch together via a video con­nection, during which they can talk about their fam­ilies, hobbies, and other personal matters (Knight, 2020). During these virtual get-togethers, colleagues also could share their experiences and stories about how they are managing the challenges of WFH, both professional and personal, which can result in learn­ing, and hence in thriving. Next, colleagues could or­ganize virtual exercise sessions (e.g., yoga, cardio exercises, or stretching) with a gym instructor or a colleague who also is a certified instructor (Liu, 2020). This would enable bonding while maintaining physical stamina and would give the participants more energy. A similar strategy is setting up video chat room links through which employees can gather for morning co.ee–type meetings to get ready for the workday (Liu, 2020). In this way, they will feel less lonely while WFH and might not miss chatting in per­son as much, because this ritual would be done on­line, creating bonds among colleagues, giving a sense of teamwork and thus that they are in this new situation together (Pollack, 2020). Employees also could thrive by o.ering swift help through making themselves available to col­leagues by responding to any requests for assistance promptly (Back, 2020). Specifically, if Slack or Base­camp are used for instant messaging, an employee can mark their status as ‘available’ to show others that they can ask questions if needed (Back, 2020). However, caution should be exercised here, because one should not give the impression of being avail­able anytime during the day and that work–non­work boundaries can be overstepped at any time. Thus it is best to inform colleagues of one’s avail­ability (Back, 2020). Finally, actually asking for help when needed, even if an employee thinks colleagues are too busy, could improve performance and thrive. It turns out that individuals are more prone to help than is ac­tually assumed (Newark, Bohns, & Flynn, 2017), and even more so during times of crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Kni.n et al., 2020). Hence, an employee should remember that asking for help solving a particular work issue actually is likely to lead to an improvement in the situation that they are facing (McDermott et al., 2017). 4.3Relationship with leaders Leaders play an important role in the motiva­tion of employees to complete the required tasks (Andersen, 2016). Passionate and persistent leaders and transformational leaders have been shown to promote employee thriving (Lin, Xian, Li, & Huang, 2020; Rego et al., 2020). Therefore, fruitful relation­ships with the leader are crucial for successful em­ployee performance, vitality, and learning. However, because WFH minimizes the direct contact between employee and leader (immediate supervisor), it also a.ects the quality of the relationship between the two. Namely, WFH increases employee insecurity and leads to working overtime, due to doubting whether the leader will notice and adequately eval­uate the results of their work (Raišiene, Rapuano, Varkuleviciute, & Stachová, 2020). WFH also de­creases opportunities for contact with leaders and negatively a.ects trust, the creation of mutual pur­pose (Grenny & Maxfield, 2017; Parker, Knight, & Keller, 2020), and knowledge-sharing opportunities (Lippe & Lippényi, 2019). In a similar vein, it may im­pede thriving. Table 3 reflects the sentiment and challenges faced in nurturing relationships with the leader while WFH. Thus, creating a trusting relation­ship with leaders, particularly while WFH, is very im­portant because it leads to frequent sharing of work-related information (Golden & Raghuram, 2010), instructions, and advice. Moreover, a fruitful relationship between an employee and a leader might positively impact the leader’s well-being and energy, in turn nurturing the relationship even fur­ther. Along these lines, employees can implement various strategies to cultivate a thriving relationship with their leaders and supervisors. Table 3: Relationship with leaders while WFH: illustrative quotations “My concern is that if you are working longer hours and not getting the right support and lead­ership it just amplifies how little investment organ­isations have made in providing both training and coaching on how to be an effective remote manger/ leader to those supposed to be facilitat­ing new ways of working.”“[Work from home] is al­ways extra hours of work with no additional pay, when you are above to close your laptop you see new email requirement and that’s will take 3-5 hours of work. Next thing is your Supervisor asking for the report which came in last night and he will yell at you first thing in the morning.” “The prob­lem is the management is unable to trust its em­ployees when working from home. How have results been achieved, if the employees have not worked, nobody is bothering to look or acknowl­edge that,”“Face-to-face social cues and inhibitions are compromised, such that communication be­comes fraught with passive aggression, misunder­standings etc.” Employees could regularly revisit their work­ing regime and discuss it with their leaders. Em­ployee sets specific goals that need to be achieved in a day, building personal standards which then can be used as a form of self-evaluation, accom­panied by better self-administration (Bakker, 2017). In the working regime, expectations need to be outlined clearly from the beginning, with both employee and leader offering suggestions. Clarity helps to eliminate potential misinformation and builds trust and cooperation in the relation­ship (Veil et al., 2020). The self-initiated changes help employees to establish their own job de­mands and resources, although due to the changes in their job tasks and relationships at work, employees WFH should continuously ask for feedback, guidance, and clarification (Bakker, 2017). Seeking contact via phone, email, or video helps build trust. Here, the proactive stakeholder should be the employee, but it is important that they can count on their leader to offer assistance quickly and provide reassurance when challenges arise in completing tasks. Asking for help to share some of the workload or when the employee does not have adequate competences increases trans­parency and helps to reach timely solutions. This requires demonstrating vulnerability on the part of the employee. Bakker (2017) suggested that employees could use reminders that help them focus on accomplish­ing their work tasks and increasing their self-cueing. At the end of the work week, an employee, via a video call with the leader, can inform them of com­pleted work tasks along with providing a self-as­sessment of e.ciency and e.ectiveness. The discussion then helps to improve work regimes fur­ther, although open communication is highly ad­vised from both sides to enable this (Bakker, 2017; Veil et al., 2020). Another strategy that employees can under­take is to make pursuing a connection with the leader part of their weekly routine in order to in­crease their visibility. This can be done by schedul­ing weekly check-ins via phone to briefly inform the leader of projects that are in progress. These check-ins also can be spontaneous, brief moments of interaction, during which the employee pro­vides information or thanks the leader for support in a particular matter. This means that the em­ployee is proactive in creating a relationship with the leader. Important milestones and small victories could be a reason for organizing an online celebration with the leader and a work group, enabling informal chatting. Such social events are energy-boosters in times of adversity and challenge and serve to in­crease morale and perceptions of psychological safety. They also reveal the human side of individu­als and the struggles that they with work–family in­tegration, and thus help promote empathy, care, and compassion, which are at the core of contem­porary crisis leadership. 4.4Relationship with partner Stress caused by problems in a marital or other intimate relationship may lead to burnout (Peasley, Hochstein, Britton, Srivastava, & Stewart, 2020). Conversely, a fruitful relationship with one’s partner and family members can help employees feel ener­gized about work, enrich their work experience, and facilitate their path toward learning. Close and meaningful relationships with family members and spouses are a conduit for health, well-being, and thriving (Feeney & Collins, 2015; Leung, Mukerjee, & Thurik, 2020), as well as for coping with work-re­lated stress and adversity (Leung et al., 2020). Close relationships also provide opportunities for individ­ual growth and a sense of fulfilment (Feeney & Collins, 2015). However, WFH also can negatively a.ect per­sonal relationships with one’s partner and family. With the home being turned into an o.ce, creating boundaries between work and personal life obvi­ously becomes more di.cult (Kolb et al., 2012; Mazmanian, 2013). Although an employee is phys­ically present at home, they may not be available to their partner or spouse due to work responsibil­ities. Furthermore, during COVID-19, the whole family, including children, are likely to be working or studying from home (Dunn, 2020), and this has a profound e.ect on the quality of the resulting personal relationships. Moreover, WFH means that employees might end up working in unsuitable workspaces and be overloaded with further re­sponsibilities such as household chores and parent­ing and teaching children (Petriglieri, 2020a). Table 4 reflects the sentiment and challenges faced in nurturing relationships with partner and family while WFH. Table 4. Relationship with partner/family while WFH: illustrative quotations These greater responsibilities while WFH mean that partners can neglect one another (Petriglieri, 2020a), making them feel lonely and less likely to thrive. Therefore, couples could schedule in their calendars two weekly conversations, one related to work-related support and the other to maintaining the household and caregiving responsibilities. By being psychologically available, partners can o.er cognitive support by sharing their experience or giv­ing advice on solving a specific work challenge. Scholars advise couples to negotiate household re­sponsibilities (Ward, 2020), which need to be put in writing, communicated clearly, and shared with every member of the household in order to make sure that no one is surprised (Ward, 2020). Experi­menting with di.erent divisions of housework and caring contingent on the workload in the current week can lead to solutions that fit a couple well. When children are being home-schooled, as was the case during lockdown, their needs increase and change as well. However, with one or both partners WFH, meeting children’s needs might become more di.cult, temporarily impairing their relationships with the children. In situations in which both partners WFH one strategy is for them to acknowledge their significant others’ work stress in order to protect their well-being (Petriglieri, 2020a). One way to do so is to find the best way to support the partner by clarifying their needs so that energy is focused correctly and the aim of trying to help is achieved (Petriglieri, 2020a). To ad­dress the issue of loneliness, dual-career couples can allocate a certain amount of time and undivided at­tention in which they listen to one another at the end or beginning of each working day (Katzman, 2020; Petriglieri, 2020a). Specifically, they can ask one an­other questions such as “What do you need?” or “Do our WFH arrangements need to be redefined?” (Katz­man, 2020). This emotional support will help both partners overcome stress (Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988), obtain better work–life balance (Russo, Shteigman, & Carmeli, 2015), understand that they are not alone and that they have someone to talk to and express how they feel, and overall have a partner who supports them and helps them be successful. This also will help employees feel more energized about work. Another strategy is to set the o.ce hours (i.e., working hours) in a calendar so that both partners and/or older children know when someone is working and they do not disturb them. Such a strat­egy would mean that work is not part of life 24/7 (Katzman, 2020), but rather that there is a dedicated time for work, and what remains can be allocated to joint activities with partners and family members. A further strategy is to create new rituals with one’s partner and family members in order to nur­ture the relationships and feel more energised (Katzman, 2020). For example, partners can have lunch together during working hours, do yoga, or engage in micro-meditations (Katzman, 2020). In this way, partners or family members will enjoy some relaxing time together which will help them to momentarily switch o.. Along the same lines, to nurture the relationship, couples can work to con­stantly appreciate one another, understand that they are in this situation together, and acknowledge the roles that each plays in the other’s life (Brower, 2020). If both partners make themselves psycholog­ically available to one another, this can increase the positive energy in the relationship (Russo et al., 2015). Simple gestures such as a thank-you text dur­ing the day can go a long way toward showing ap­preciation and support (Brower, 2020). With regard to nurturing relationships with chil­dren, Petriglieri (2020b) proposed that parents need to write on a sheet of paper what each child needs from their parents both practically and emotionally, which expectations can be loosened for each child, and how each child can help the family while the parents are WFH. In this way, children’s needs will be acknowledged and parents can better work to­ward meeting them. Some easy-to-implement strategies pertaining to each of the four focal rela­tionships, which do not require much investment, are presented in Figure 2. 5DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 5.1Theoretical Contributions The main contribution of our research is the socially embedded model of thriving. Specifically, we decipher the heedful-relating dimension of the model by explicating which relationships drive em­ployee thriving at work. Firstly, we contributed to the research on heedful relating, as this agentic be­havior is very much understudied, with some no­table exceptions (e.g., Sia & Duari, 2018, Usman et al., 2020a; Usman et al., 2020b). Secondly, we pro­vide solutions for how individuals can sustain thriv­ing in unpredictable situations through energizing relationships at work and at home (Riaz et al., 2020). We demonstrated how can different agents and individuals preserve and reshape the condi­tions which lead to thriving. Thirdly, we explored these relationships in the context of a home office, which thus far has not been done in the thriving literature. 5.2Practical Implications In terms of practical contributions, we o.er specific evidence-based strategies through which employees can nurture the di.erent relationships even in the di.cult times of pandemic. Our inten­tion was to bring theory closer to practice and assist employees as they face working and living from the home o.ce and switching from one lifestyle to an­other practically overnight. It is our hope that the strategies presented herein can assist employees in pursuing stronger connections as part of their daily routines, thereby creating the conditions for their own thriving. 5.3Limitations and Future Research However, this study has limitations that need to be addressed by further research. Although the comments on the two articles which received much traction on LinkedIn were well fitted to our research objectives in the sense that they enabled us to identify different types of relationships that were affected while WFH, there is a possibility of selection bias, such that the users who com­mented on the two LinkedIn posts were more in­terested in sharing their struggles with managing relationships with different stakeholders than was the average population. To mitigate the selection bias, the framework could be cross-validated on different subsets of highly commented articles. One of the ways to do this would be to search for articles that were published across different waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Future research on thriving while WFH should focus on samples that are bias-free and ideally representative. An­other avenue for research could be diary studies in which each relationship could be observed and analyzed daily. 5.4Conclusion COVID-19 has profoundly altered the nature of relationships, especially at work. Relationships that previously took place in an o.ce have been trans­ferred to the intimacy of the home. By adopting a multi-stakeholder perspective based on an analysis of employees’ personal accounts while WFH, this paper developed a framework for managing rela­tionships while WFH in order for individuals to thrive. Our research was guided by two research questions concerning the key relationships while WFH and how these are a.ected, as well as by strategies that facilitate thriving while WFH by nur­turing each relationship. In answering our research questions, we identified four main relationships, namely relationships with self, colleagues, leader, and partner, which a.ect employee thriving in a home o.ce. Based on this, we propose evidence-based strategies that can be undertaken to facilitate thriving while WFH by nurturing each of the respec­tive relationships. REFERENCES Abid, G., Sajjad, I., Elahi, N. S., Farooqi, S., & Nisar, A. (2018). The influence of prosocial motivation and ci­vility on work engagement:The mediating role of thriving at work. Cogent Business & Management, 5(1), 1-19. Abid, G., Zahra, I., & Ahmed, A. (2016). Promoting thriv­ing at work and waning turnover intention: A rela­tional perspective. Future Business Journal, 2(2), 127-137. Afota, M.C., Ollier-Malaterre, A., & Vandenberghe, C. (2019). How supervisors set the tone for long hours: Vicarious learning, subordinates’ self-motives and the contagion of working hours. Human Resource Man­agement Review, 29(4), 100673. Andersen, J.A. (2016). An old man and the “sea of lead­ership”. Journal of Leadership Studies, 9(4), 70-81. Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a Day’s Work: Boundaries and Micro Role Transitions. Academy of management review, 25(3), 472-491. Back, K. (2020, June 29). Creating & Maintaining Relation­ships with Remote Co-Workers Blueprint. Virtual Vo­cations. Retrieved from: https://www.virtualvocations.com/blog/remote-working-tips/relationships-with-remote-co-workers-blueprint/. Bakker, A. B. (2017). Strategic and proactive approaches to work engagement. Organizational Dynamics, 46(2), 67-75. Barber, L., & Santuzzi, A. (2014). Please Respond ASAP: Workplace Telepressure and Employee Recovery. Jour­nal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(2), 172-189. Bass, D. (2020, September 23). Microsoft has a solution for work days that blend into home life: a virtual commute. Fortune.com. Retrieved from https://fortune.com/2020/ 09/23/microsoft-teams-virtual-commute-work-from-home/ Brower, T. (2020, April 13). Find a balance working from home with your spouse, without driving each other apart. Fast Company. Retrieved from: https://www.fastcompany.com/90489428/how-to-find-a-balance-working-from-home-with-your-spouse-without-driving-each-other-insane. Carmeli, A., & Spreitzer, G.M.(2009). Trust, connectivity, and thriving: Implications for innovative behaviors at work. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 169–191. Carmeli, A., & Russo, M. (2016). The power of micro-moves in cultivating regardful relationships: Implica­tions for work–home enrichment and thriving. Human Resource Management Review, 26(2), 112-124. Chavez-Dreyfuss, G. (2020). The number of permanent re­mote workers is set to double in 2021. Retrieved from: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/2010/per­manent-remote-workers-pandemic-coronavirus-covid-2019-work-home/. Choudhury, P. (2020, November-December). Our Work-from-Anywhere Future. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 98(6), 58-67. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/ 2020/11/our-work-from-anywhere-future. Collins, A.M., Hislop, D, &Cartwright, S. (2016). Social Support in the Workplace Between Teleworkers, Of­fice-based Colleagues and Supervisors. New Technol­ogy, Work and Employment 31, 161–175. de Souza, L. K., Policarpo, D., & Hutz, C. S. (2020). Self-compassion and symptoms of stress, anxiety, and de­pression. Trends in Psychology, 1-14. Dunn, J. (2020, March 2020). How to Work From Home Alongside Your Partner Without Losing It. New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/parenting/ coronavirus-work-from-home-spouse.html Dutton, J., & Heaphy, E. (2003). The power of high quality connections. In K.S.Cameron, J.E. Dutton, & R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: foundations of a new discipline (pp. 263-278). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Elahi, N. S., Abid, G., Arya, B., & Farooqi, S. (2020). Work­place behavioral antecedents of job performance: mediating role of thriving. The Service Industries Jour­nal, 40(11-12), 755-776. Eurostat. (2020). How usual is it to work from home? Re­trieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-euro­stat-news/-/DDN-20200424-20200421. Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2015). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Re­view, 19(2), 113-147. Felstead, A., & Henseke, G. (2017). Assessing the growth of remote working and its consequences for e.ort, well-being and work-life balance. New Technology, Work and Employment, 32(3), 195-212. Fosslien, L., & Du.y, M. W. (2020, April 29). How to com­bat zoom fatigue. Harvard business review. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2020/04/how-to-combat-zoom-fatigue Gadeyne, N., Verbruggen, M., Delanoeije, J., & De Cooman, R. (2018). All wired, all tired? Work-related ICT-use outside work hours and work-to-home con­flict: The role of integration preference, integration norms and work demands. Journal of Vocational Be­havior, 107, 86-99. Gerbasi, A., Porath, C. L., Parker, A., Spreitzer, G., & Cross, R. (2015). Destructive de-energizing relationships: How thriving bu.ers their e.ect on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1423-1433. Gilbert, P., & Procter, S. (2006). Compassionate mind training for people with high shame and self-criticism: Overview and pilot study of a group therapy ap­proach. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy: An In­ternational Journal of Theory & Practice, 13(6), 353-379. Gluschko., K., Elovainio, M., Hintsanen, M., Mullola, S., Pulkki-Rĺback, L., Keltikangas-Järvinen, L., & Hintsa, T. (2017). Perfectionism and depressive symptoms: The e.ects of psychological detachment from work. Personality and individual di.erences, 116, 186-190. Golden, T. D., & Raghuram, S. (2010). Teleworker knowl­edge sharing and the role of altered relational and technological interactions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 1061-85. Grawitch, M. J., Werth, P. M., Palmer, S. N., Erb, K. R., & Lavi­gne, K. N. (2018). Self-imposed pressure or organizational norms? Further examination of the construct of work­place telepressure. Stress and Health, 34(2), 306-319. Grenny, J., & Maxfield, D. (2017, November 2). A Study of 1,100 Employees Found That Remote Workers Feel Shunned and Left Out. Harvard Business Review. Re­trieved from: https://hbr.org/2017/11/a-study-of-1100-employees-found-that-remote-workers-feel-shunned-and-left-out. Katzman, M.A. (2020, March 13). Relationship Survival Strategies for Working From Home When you are lit­erally “in it together.” Psychology Today. Retrieved from: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/con­ nect-first/202003/relationship-survival-strategies-working-home. Kiburz, K. M., Allen, T. D., & French, K. A. (2017). Work–family conflict and mindfulness: Investigating the ef­fectiveness of a brief training intervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(7), 1016-1037. Killgore, W. D., Cloonen, S. A., Taylor, E. C., & Dailey, N. S. (2020). Loneliness: A signature mental health concern in the era of COVID-19. Psychiatry Research, 113-117. Kleine, A. K., Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2019). Thriving at work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(9-10), 973-999. Kni.n, K.M., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., Antonakis, J., Ash­ford, S.P., Bakker, A.B., . . . van Vugt, M. (2020). COVID-19 and the Workplace: Implications, Issues, and Insights for Future Research and Action. Working paper 20-127. American Psychologist. DOI: 10.1037/amp0000716. Knight, R. (2020, October 7). How to manage a hybrid team. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2020/10/how-to-manage-a-hybrid-team. Kolb, D. G., Caza, A., & Collins, P. D. (2012). States of con­nectivity: New questions and new directions. Organi­zation Studies, 33(2), 267-273. Kossek, E. E., & Lautsch, B. A. (2008). CEO of me: Creating a life that works in the flexible job age. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Leung, Y.K., Mukerjee, J., Thurik, R. (2020). The role of family support in work-family balance and subjective well-being of SME owners. Journal of Small Business Management, 58(1), 130-163. Lippe, T., & Lippényi, Z. (2019). Co-workers working from home and individual and team performance. New Technology, Work and Employment, 35, 60-79. Liu, J. (2020, March 25). Virtual happy hours, team yoga sessions: How coworkers are staying connected while they work from home. CNBNC. Retrieved from: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/25/how-coworkers-are-staying-connected-while-they-work-from-home.html Lin, Cp., Xian, J., Li, B., & Huang, H. (2020). Transforma­tional Leadership and Employees’ Thriving at Work: The Mediating Roles of Challenge-Hindrance Stres­sors. Frontiers of Psychology,11, 1-19. Mazmanian, M. (2013). Avoiding the trap of constant connectivity: When congruent frames allow for het­erogeneous practices. Academy of Management Jour­nal, 56(5), 1225-1250. McDermott, R., Cheng, H., Wong, J., Booth, N., Jones, Z., & Sevig, T. (2017). Hope for help seeking: A positive psychology perspective of psychological help-seeking intentions. The Counseling Psychologist, 1-29. Murphy, K. (2020, September1). We’re All Socially Awk­ward Now. The New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/2009/2001/sunday-review/coronavirus-socially-awkward.html. Ne., K. (2003). Self-compassion: An alternative concep­tualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and identity, 2(2), 85-101. Newark, D., Bohns, V., & Flynn, F. (2017). A helping hand is hard at work: Underestimating help quality. Orga­nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 139, 223-226. Nicklin, J. M., Seguin, K., & Flaherty, S. (2019). Positive work-life outcomes: Exploring self compassion and balance. European Journal of Applied Positive Psychol­ogy, 3(6), 1-13. Parker, Sh.K., Knight, C., & Keller, A. (2020, July 30). Remote Managers Are Having Trust Issues. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2020/07/re­ mote-managers-are-having-trust-issues. Paterson, T. A., Luthans, F., & Jeung, W. (2014). Thriving at work: Impact of psychological capital and supervi­sor support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 434–446. Peasley, M.C., Hochstein, B., Britton, B.P., Srivastava, R.V., & Stewart, G.T.(2020). Can’t leave it at home? The effects of personal stress on burnout and sales­person performance. Journal of Business Research, 117, 58-70. Perry, S. J., Rubino, C., & Hunter, E. M. (2018). Stress in remote work: two studies testing the Demand-Con­trol-Person model. European Journal of Work and Or­ganizational Psychology, 27(5), 577-593. Petriglieri, J. (2020a, June 4). Don’t Let Your Partner’s Work Stress Become Your Own. Harvard Business Re­view. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2020/06/dont-let-your-partners-work-stress-become-your-own. Petriglieri, J. (2020b). Couples That Work @ Home: The Survival Series. Jennifer Petriglieri. Retrieved from: https://www.jpetriglieri.com/couples-that-work-home-the-survival-series. Pollack, S. (2020, March 18). How to Stay Connected With Your Colleagues Remotely While Working From Home. Workfest. Retrieved from: https://www.zene­ fits.com/workest/how-to-stay-connected-with-your-colleagues-while-working-from-home/. Raišiene, A. G., Rapuano, V., Varkuleviciute, K., & Sta­chová, K. (2020). Working from Home—Who is Happy? A Survey of Lithuania’s Employees during the Covid-19 Quarantine Period. Sustainability, 12(13), 1-21.doi:10.3390/su12135332 Rego, A., Cavazotte, F., Cunha, M.P., Valverde, C., Meyer, M., & Giustiniano, L. (2020). Gritty Leaders Promoting Employees’ Thriving at Work. Journal of Manage­ment, 20(10),1–30. Riaz, S., Xu, Y., & Hussain, S. (2020). Role of relational ties in the relationship between thriving at work and in­novative work behavior: an empirical study. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Ed­ucation, 10(1), 218-231. Rothbard, N. P. (2020, July 15). Building work-life boundaries in the WFH era. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2020/2007/building-work-life-boundaries-in-the-wfh-era. Russo, M., Shteigman, A., & Carmelic, A. (2015). Work­place and family support and work–life balance: Im­plications for individual psychological availability and energy at work. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(2), 173–188. Shockley, K. M., & Clark, M. A. (2020). Work-Family Balance Struggles in the Time of COVID-19. Retrieved from: https://www.siop.org/Research-Publications/Items-of-Interest/ArtMID/19366/ArticleID/3454/Work-Family-Balance-Struggles-in-the-Time-of-COVID-19?utm_source=Social&utm_medium=Post&utm_campaign=Re­moteWork. Sia, S. K., & Duari, P. (2018). Agentic work behaviour and thriv­ing at work: Role of decision making authority. Bench­marking: An International Journal, 25(8), 1463-5771. Smith, B. J., & Lim, M. H. (2020). How the COVID-19 pan­demic is focusing attention on loneliness and social isolation. Public Health Research & Practice, 30(2), e3022008. Spreitzer, G., Sutcli.e, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M. (2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization Science, 16(5), 537-549. Usman, M., Liu, Y., Zhang, J., Ghani, U., & Gul, H. (2020a). Why do employees struggle to thrive in the work­place? A look at the impact of abusive supervision. Personnel Review, 1-21. Usman, M., Liu, Y., Zhang, J., Ghani, U., & Gul, H. (2020b). Enabling the engine of workplace thriving through servatn leadership: The moderating role of core self-evaluations. Journal of Management & Organization, 1-19. Veil, S. R., Anthony, K. E., Sellnow, T. L., Staricek, N., Young, L. E., & Cupp, P. (2020). Revisiting the best practices in risk and crisis communication: A multi-case analysis. The Handbook of Applied Communication Research, 377-396. Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J., & Parker, S. K. (2021) Achieving e.ective remote working during the COVID-19 pan­demic: A work design perspective. Applied psychol­ogy, 0, 1-44. Ward, M. (2020, March 9). How to keep your relationship intact if you’re forced to work from home because of the coronavirus outbreak. Business Insider. Retrieved from: https://www.businessinsider.com/does-work­ ing-from-home-hurt-a-relationship-what-experts-say-2020-2. White, S.K. (2015, November 25). How to maintain strong relationships with remote workers. CIO. Retrieved from: https://www.cio.com/article/3008872/how-to-maintain-strong-relationships-with-remote-workers.html. Yousaf, K., Abid, G., Butt, T. H., Ilyas, S., & Ahmed, S. (2019). Impact of ethical leadership and thriving at work on psychological well-being of employees: me­diating role of voice behaviour. Business, Manage­ment and Education, 17(2), 194-217. Zhai, Q., Wang, S., & Weadon, H. (2020). Thriving at work as a mediator of the relationship between workplace support and life satisfaction. Journal of Management & Organization, 26(2), 168-184. Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived So­cial Support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 30–41. 1 Throughout the paper, we refer to remote work, which is done exclusively from home, as often occurred in the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore most of the aforementioned relationships need to be maintained virtually. 2 https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/11/ 24/people-are-working-longer-hours-during-the-pan­ demic?utm_campaign=the-economist-today& utm_medium=newsletter&utm_source=salesforce-marketing-cloud&utm_term=2020-11-25&utm_con­ tent=article-link-4&etear=nl_today_4. Comments posted on https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activ­ ity:6739222167185047552/ https://qz.com/work/1923220/esther-perel-gianpiero-petriglieri-on-the-loss-of-the-physical-o.ce/amp/. Comments posted on https://www.linkedin.com/feed/news/why-you-might-miss-the-o.ce-4265681/ Abstract Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 31 Vol. 10, No. 2, 31-46 doi:10.17708/DRMJ.2021.v10n02a03 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 32 Katarina Katja Mihelic, Ajda Merkuž, Jose Aldo Valencia Hernandez, Diellza Gashi Tresi: Work is Where Home is, or Vice Versa? A Multi-Stakeholder Lens on Nurturing Relationships for Thriving Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 33 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 34 Katarina Katja Mihelic, Ajda Merkuž, Jose Aldo Valencia Hernandez, Diellza Gashi Tresi: Work is Where Home is, or Vice Versa? A Multi-Stakeholder Lens on Nurturing Relationships for Thriving Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 35 Figure 1: A framework of human pillars facilitating thriving in a home o.ce Source: Own work Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 36 Katarina Katja Mihelic, Ajda Merkuž, Jose Aldo Valencia Hernandez, Diellza Gashi Tresi: Work is Where Home is, or Vice Versa? A Multi-Stakeholder Lens on Nurturing Relationships for Thriving Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 37 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 38 Katarina Katja Mihelic, Ajda Merkuž, Jose Aldo Valencia Hernandez, Diellza Gashi Tresi: Work is Where Home is, or Vice Versa? A Multi-Stakeholder Lens on Nurturing Relationships for Thriving Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 39 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 40 Katarina Katja Mihelic, Ajda Merkuž, Jose Aldo Valencia Hernandez, Diellza Gashi Tresi: Work is Where Home is, or Vice Versa? A Multi-Stakeholder Lens on Nurturing Relationships for Thriving Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 41 Figure 2: Strategies for nurturing relationships that facilitate thriving while WFH Source: Own work Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 Katarina Katja Mihelic, Ajda Merkuž, Jose Aldo Valencia Hernandez, Diellza Gashi Tresi: Work is Where Home is, or Vice Versa? A Multi-Stakeholder Lens on Nurturing Relationships for Thriving 42 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 43 EXTENDED SUMMARY/IZVLECEK S pojavom pandemije je delo od doma postala prevladujoca oblika dela za mnoge zaposlene po svetu. Prav to je mocno zaznamovalo tudi naravo interakcij med zaposlenimi, ki smo jih do tedaj imeli za samoumevne. To je vplivalo na kakovost delovnih izkušenj. Zasledovanje povezanosti namesto locevanja od drugih je lahko zavesten nacin, ki vodi v pozitivno delovno izkušnjo in uspeh pri delu. Kljub vsemu je literatura precej skopa, ko gre za vprašanje kako uspešno delati od doma. Namen clanka je preko mikro-organizacijske literature zasnovati teoreticni okvir za individualni uspeh pri delu iz “domace pisarne”, in sicer s pomocjo negovanja odnosov s kljucnimi deležniki. V nadaljevanju na podlagi teorije odnosov, uspevanja pri delu in zapisov o izzivih v odnosih v casu dela od doma med pandemijo, predlagamo na dokazih utemeljene strategije za ohranjanje kakovostnih odnosov v okolišcinah, ki jih zaznamujejo negotovost, tesnoba in osamljenost. Trdimo, da so zaposleni lahko ustvarjalci visoko-kakovostnih odnosov, ki spreminjajo njihovo izkušnjo dela od doma na bolje: odnos s seboj, odnos s sodelavci, odnos z vodjo in odnos z življenjskim partnerjem in družino. Na ta nacin prispevamo k uveljavljenemu modelu uspeha pri delu. Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 Katarina Katja Mihelic, Ajda Merkuž, Jose Aldo Valencia Hernandez, Diellza Gashi Tresi: Work is Where Home is, or Vice Versa? A Multi-Stakeholder Lens on Nurturing Relationships for Thriving 44 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 45 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 Katarina Katja Mihelic, Ajda Merkuž, Jose Aldo Valencia Hernandez, Diellza Gashi Tresi: Work is Where Home is, or Vice Versa? A Multi-Stakeholder Lens on Nurturing Relationships for Thriving 46 Britton & Tesser, 1991). According to Valcour (2007) work–life balance is of huge importance for organi­zations, employees, and societies across the world. It improves organizational e.ciency, reduces stress, and improves employee well-being and health. (Sánchez-Hernández, González-López, Buenadicha-Mateos, & Tato-Jiménez, 2019). Furthermore, controlIn modern organizational settings, more and more employees report work overload, complex work demands, and longer working hours (Vogel, 1INTRODUCTION THE INTERPLAY AMONG WORK OVERLOAD AND TIME MANAGEMENT IN PREDICTING JOB PERFORMANCE AND WORK–LIFE BALANCE Iza Zorec School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana zorec.iza@gmail.com Jan Hocevar School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana jan.hocevar2@gmail.com Luka Eržen School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana luka.erzen@ef.uni-lj.si The subject of work–life balance (WLB) con­nected with the role of work overload is extremely relevant nowadays (Aggarwal, 2018). As workplace expectations rise, employees struggle to manageWork overload and time management are becoming increasingly important as demands increase in both professional and personal life, which relates to work–life balance. Work overload and time management also have serious implica­tions for individual work performance. This study examined how time management moderates the e.ect of job overload on job performance, as well as the relationship between work overload and work–life balance. The results show that work overload has a negative impact on job performance and work–life balance. This study also shows that time man­agement moderates the relationship between work overload and job performance, making the relationship between these two factors less negative. These findings suggest that it is important for both individuals and organizations to pay more attention to time management because it can improve work–life balance and work performance. Keywords: work overload, time management, job performance, work–life balance their time and juggle work and personal lives, as well as to achieve high results at work (Kossek et al., 2010). Managing the time or time management can be viewed as a way of monitoring and controlling time (Eilam & Aharon, 2003). In essence, what people gain from time management is not more time, but better work–life balance (Misra & McKean, 2000; 2012). Employees often feel overloaded with work because of an excessive number of performance re­quirements (Lewis, 1998). Virick, Lilly, and Casper (2007) found that employees with increased work­load have lower perceived work–life balance. Poulose and Dhal (2020) demonstrated that individ­uals with high workload face di.culties in balancing work and life. Other findings suggest that positive time management is associated with self-rated aca­demic performance (Macan, Shahani, Dipboye, & Phillips, 1990), job satisfaction (Landy, Rastegary, Thayer, & Colvin, 1991), self-perceived organiza­tional performance (Lim & Seers, 1993), and lower perceived job overload. As far as we are aware, there currently are no studies that discussed a clear relationship between time management as a moderator and WLB, work overload, and job performance. However, there are some studies of time management as a moderator between di.erent constructs, which we discuss sub­sequently. Numerous studies have focused on work–life balance and its importance in today’s world (Fleetwood, 2007; Crompton & Lyonette, 2006; Hjálmsdóttir & Bjarnadóttir, 2021). However, despite the increasing interest of researchers in studying work–life balance, to our knowledge there is little re­search describing a clear relationship between work–life balance and time management skills. Fen­ner and Renn (2010) showed that individuals who practice time management are able to separate their work behaviors from their family behaviors and es­tablish a better work–life balance. Jex & Elacqua (1999) demonstrated that the relationship between work–family conflict and mental health was strongest among respondents who reported practic­ing more time management. In addition, Khatib (2014) found a negative correlation between time management and perceived stress. This means that better time management skills lead to lower stress levels, which is associated with better performance. With our research, we hope to gain new insights into this relationship between time management and work performance. However, several studies have shown a strong correlation between work–life bal­ance and employee job performance, implying that they are connected (Kim, 2014; Smith, Smith, & Brower, 2016), yet represent two di.erent but re­lated aspects of desirable work outcomes. When talking about job performance, it is im­portant to bring work overload into the picture. Job performance can be increased and decreased by work overload (Bazillai, 2021). Brown & Benson (2005) showed a positive correlation between work­load and job performance, whereas Ladebo & Awotunde (2007) showed that overload leads to employee exhaustion when they find it impossible to meet the resource demands of job requirements. The present study adds another contribution to this not fully clarified correlation between overload and job performance. When discussing work overload, another area needs to be addressed, namely WLB. Virick et al. (2007) found that employees with in­creased workload have a lower perceived work–life balance. Poulose & Dhal (2020) showed that indi­viduals with high workloads have di.culty balanc­ing work and life. We clarified and further examined these connections between the two domains. This study examined how time management moderates the e.ects of work overload on job per­formance, which is crucial for organizations and their productivity, and how time management mod­erates the relationships between work overload and work–life balance. Firstly, we predicted that time management would be related positively to job per­formance and work–life balance. Secondly, we pre­dicted that higher perceived work overload leads to poorer work–life balance, and lower perceived work overload leads to higher job performance. Accord­ing to Johari, Ridzoan, & Zarefar (2019), work over­load does not have a significant impact on job performance; however, people usually react di.er­ently to workload. Some embrace it and take it as a challenge, whereas others show frustration. We in­vestigated this further under specific boundary con­ditions of time management. Recently, many employees changed their job occupation due to COVID-19 (25% more than usual), and many employees work from home (McKinsey, 2021). COVID-19 has led to a rapid change in the workplace. Many people began working from home, which has become the new normal (Kirby, 2020). This can be a problem for some, because the bound­aries between work and leisure can become blurred. Work and private life easily threaten to merge when people live and work in the same rooms, leading to poorer work–life balance if an em­ployee’s perceived workload is higher (Telser, 2021). Therefore, we investigated whether a higher per­ceived workload leads to a worse work–life balance in this changed work environment. Skinner and Pocock (2008) found that work overload has two ef­fects on work–life balance. Moreover, increased workload often leads to longer working hours, and this contributes to feelings of strain. This research evaluated this on a di.erent sample of individuals whose work environment had recently changed. Finally, we studied whether lower perceived workload leads to higher job performance. Previous research found inconsistencies with these two con­structs. Overload may increase job performance in some cases and decrease it in others. Brown & Ben­son (2005) showed a positive correlation between workload and job performance, whereas some other studies showed that overload is associated with the outcome of lower job performance. Ladebo & Awotunde (2007) showed that overload leads to employee exhaustion when it is impossible for them to meet the resource requirements of job demands. However, a moderate workload can lead to performance gains. Our research has the potential to contribute to the literature in several ways. Firstly, we investigated whether negative e.ects of work overload can be tamed through better time management. Secondly, we investigated how work overload a.ects job per­formance and work–life balance, adding time man­agement as a moderator. To our knowledge, this has not been studied before, and therefore is of great value to future researchers. In addition, we investi­gated how work overload and time management alone a.ect job performance and work–life balance. Kumar, Kumar, Aggarwal, & Yeap (2021) found that job performance is a.ected by di.erent factors such as family distractions, distress, and discomfort. They found that role overload does not negatively a.ect job performance when working from home. We tested this finding on a di.erent sample and investi­gated specific boundary conditions related to time management. These findings may be of practical use to organizations and individuals who wonder if over­load when working from home can be tamed through better time management, leading to better produc­tivity. Organizations can assess whether it is beneficial to train their employees to be more productive in order to learn better time management. In addition, Jex & Elacqua (1999) found that engagement in time management activities had a positive feedback e.ect on employee mental health, but their research also showed that time management behaviors did not moderate the e.ect on overwork. We tested these results in a modern setting in which technology plays an important role in time management activities. Finally, our research also could provide practical benefits to organizations to better understand em­ployee health and performance in the workplace. Nowadays, with more and more tasks to complete, we can feel greater strain, which can translate into poorer mental health and consequently poorer job performance. The findings on time management as a moderator between work overload and job per­formance may be of use to organizations as feelings of overload can be prevented through time manage­ment training. However, people tend to struggle in the search for perfect work–life balance, so our re­search may be of practical use to managers respon­sible for employee job satisfaction and e.ciency. 2THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2.1Work–Life Balance and Work Overload Work–life balance is a relatively modern ex­pression (Warren, 2015). The concept might give an impression that it is a new problem, but there is no novelty in the core concept (Phipps & Prieto, 2016). The WLB metaphor is a social construct that has emerged in recent years, but the dilemmas associ­ated with managing paid work alongside other areas of life, particularly family, have been the subject of research for several decades (Lewis, Gambles, & Rapoport, 2007; Sirgy & Lee, 2017; Peeters, Jonge, & Taris, 2014; Warren, 2015). Work–life balance is defined as a person’s ability to meet his or her work and family obligations as well as other nonwork activities and responsibilities. All definitions of work–life balance can be catego­rized based on two key dimensions. The first can be defined as role engagement in multiple roles in work and nonwork life (Sirgy & Lee, 2017). The second can be understood as minimal conflict between work and nonwork roles (Sirgy & Lee, 2017). Sirgy & Lee (2017) also stated that WLB equilibrium is achieved through e.ective management of role conflict, in which conflict or disruption occurs when resources to meet role demand are threatened or lost Work or workplace environments of employees can strongly influence their non-work life situations and vice versa, which is often referred to as “work–family interference” (Mache, Bernburg, Groneberg, Klapp, & Danzer, 2016). Over the last two decades, the line between a person’s work life and nonwork life has become increasingly blurred (Peeters et al., 2014). This largely is due to changes in family struc­tures, the increasing participation of women in the workforce, and technological changes that have al­tered the nature of work through the introduction of remote working practices (Peeters et al., 2005). Work overload refers to the inability to com­plete tasks in the allotted time, which can lead to impairment of social and private life (Kirch, 2008). It can result from additional workload, but it does not have to. It also can be caused by mistakes some­one makes at work, poor time management, or or­ganizational problems (Daniels, 2017). It is believed that massive work overload can deplete workers’ existing resources, resulting in fewer resources available to cope with tasks or de­mands outside of work (Karatepe, 2013). Vogel (2012) pointed out that workers who are given too many work tasks are more likely to experience stress and fatigue, leading to an imbalance between work and life domains. Chawla & Sondhi (2011) examined the relationships between perceived work overload and WLB among Indian women and found that WLB was negatively predicted by perceived work over­load. This is because WLB provides benefits in the form of a combination of increased job satisfaction and loyalty; promotion of job performance; reduc­tion of costs due to turnover, absenteeism, recruit­ment, and selection; and increased organizational productivity (Lazar, Osoian, & Ratiu, 2010). To adapt organizational structures to the needs of employees or to respond to government regulations on gender equality and family protection, many companies al­locate resources to work–life balance initiatives (Pasamar & Cabrera, 2013). H1a: Perceived work overload is negatively related to work–life balance. 2.2Work Overload and Job Performance Work overload can also occur when a person is exposed to a higher-than-normal workload (Daniels, 2017). Kirch (2008) defined work overload as a situa­tion in which the demands of the job exceed the indi­vidual’s ability (time or resources) to cope with them. Job performance is one of the most important criteria for determining the e.ciency of an organi­zation (Vathanophas, 2007). It is a function of the ap­plication of a person’s skills, abilities, and inclinations in performing a job in an organization (Hackman & Oldham 1976; Steers & Rhodes 1978). Performance is influenced by the complexity of the job, and is de­fined in di.erent ways depending on the many phases and complications of the job (June & Mah­mood, 2011). There seem to be so many variables that a.ect job performance that it is almost impos­sible to make sense of them (Pushpakumari, 2008). According to Johari et al. (2019), people react di.erently to their workloads at the workplace. Some embrace it and take it as a challenge, whereas others show frustration. As people are promoted and climb the corporate ladder, their workload in­creases. This can a.ect their job performance, be­cause they have to handle more pressure at their workplace (Johari et al., 2019). Chadegani, Mo­hamed, & Iskandar (2015) found that when employ­ees are exposed to more work than they can handle, they begin to perform the work with less e.ort, which means that the tasks are completed with lower quality. Ali & Farooqi (2014) also supported this in their research, which found that work over­load leads to poor employee performance, which also leads to job dissatisfaction. Furthermore Johari et al. (2019) suggested that the relationship be­tween workload and job performance is not always linear. Employee productivity increases up to a cer­tain point, after which it begins to decline. There­fore, these results indicate that job performance is highest when workload is moderate (Johari et al., 2019). However, if an incentive plan and proper training are given to employees, their performance can increase and they can become more satisfied with their jobs (Tahir et al., 2012). However, Johari et al. (2019) showed that work overload has no significant e.ect on the job perfor­mance of government auditors. When auditors’ cur­rent workload exceeds their usual workload, they experience stress. When this situation occurs, they usually make extra e.ort to cope with this high de­mand. They often view work overload as a chal­lenge, and this means that it can have a positive e.ect on job performance in this situation. Johari et al. showed that there is a positive correlation be­tween work overload and job performance, which is not always the case. Furthermore, Brown & Ben­son (2005) also showed a positive correlation be­tween work overload and job performance. On the other hand, other studies showed that work over­load is associated with lower job performance of in­dividuals. Ladebo & Awotunde (2007) stated that overload leads to employee exhaustion when it is impossible for them to meet the resource require­ments of job demands. However, moderate work­load also can lead to performance gains. H1b: Perceived overload is positively related to job performance. 2.3Time Management and Work–Life Balance Individuals who excel at time management often overestimate the passage of time, set dead­lines for themselves, and consistently monitor time use. These individuals typically get more work done, which increases their e.ciency and often lowers their perception of work overload. When working from home, these improvements in e.ciently man­aging work demands through time management often lead to a reduction in work–family conflict (Fenner & Renn, 2010). Time management is the process of planning and consciously controlling the time spent on cer­tain activities with the aim of increasing e.ciency or productivity (Ahmad, Ahmad, Wahab, & Shobri, 2012). This is very important because if one does not develop skills for better time management, one’s life can become very stressful and unproduc­tive (Size, 2004). To avoid this, it is crucial that a per­son creates a good work–life balance in addition to good time management skills (Anwar, Hasnu, & Jan­jua, 2013). WLB is about people having some degree of control over when, where, and how they work. The results of a good WLB strategy include higher productivity; better recruitment and retention; lower absenteeism; lower overhead costs; a better customer experience; and a more motivated, satis­fied, and equitable workforce (Anwar et al., 2013). Nowadays, there are more and more interrup­tions in the workday because people must switch between professional and personal texts, emails, and websites, which often leads to fragmented and short attention spans and loss of process because they cannot focus on their work or nonwork role for longer periods (Kossek, 2016). Therefore, time man­agement skills need to be used to balance work and leisure (Grissom, Loeb, & Mitani, 2015). Although there are many ways to organize and manage time, the fundamental basis for any time management process is linked to the planning process (Farrell, 2017). In setting and planning individual and orga­nizational priorities, an organization’s vision and purpose help employees determine their work and what is most important to accomplish. Plans help to avoid wasted tasks and underproductive time (Fit­simmons, 2008). In addition to planning, goal setting is impor­tant. If one is juggling a variety of tasks and respon­sibilities, one will have a better sense of what is important if one knows the vision and goals of the organization or one’s personal goals so one can focus on priority projects (Farrell, 2017). Jex & Elacqua (1999) provided evidence of the positive relationship between time management and employee health mediated by other factors such as perceived control and conflict between work and family demands. The relationship between work–family conflict and mental health was strongest among respondents who reported using more time management. Fenner & Renn (2010) found that in­dividuals who practice time management behaviors, specifically setting goals and priorities on a daily basis, can separate their work behaviors from their family behaviors. Those who do not practice this time management often actively switch between family and work activities while at home, resulting in higher levels of reported work–family conflict. Time management practices have been shown to mitigate the e.ects of work–family conflict. H2: Time management is positively related to work–life balance. 2.4Time Management and Job Performance Green & Skinner (2005) showed that time man­agement training programs can lead to an under­standing of the key principles of time management, which leads to improvements in relevant skill areas, which also are encouraged by their line managers. They found that the key factor leading individuals to experience the environment as stressful was related to control over workload and individuals’ percep­tions of their ability to meet the demands placed on them. Green & Skinner suggested that time man­agement training has a potential role in stress man­agement that positively a.ects the e.ectiveness of individuals and organizations. However, Macan (1994) found that time management behaviors are not directly associated with positive outcomes for individuals, but work through perceptions of control over time, which has positive impact on job perfor­mance. If a person thinks they have control over time, those outcomes will manifest. Benefits of e.ective time management may re­sult in improved job satisfaction and lower stress levels (Chase et al., 2013). Furthermore, Khatib (2014) found a negative correlation between time management and perceived stress. Individuals who have better time management and consequently ex­perience lower levels of stress were associated with better academic performance. However, time man­agement does not always have positive e.ects on individuals. Macan (1994) found that certain time management behaviors can have a positive e.ect on tension and job satisfaction, but not on job per­formance. Macan (1994) concluded that the use of time management behaviors, such as making to-do lists, is not beneficial for everyone. Making a list of tasks that individuals need to complete gives them objective feedback on their progress on projects or tasks that they need to complete. If they do not complete these listed activities, the perception of having little control over time can be a deterrent. Campbell & Wiernik (2015) stated that job per­formance must be explained from two perspectives: the behavioral perspective, and the outcome per­spective. From the behavioral perspective, job per­formance refers to what employees do or how their behavior is visible at work. From the outcome per­spective, performance refers to the results of em­ployees’ behavior. The behavioral and outcome as­pects of performance are interrelated (Campbell et al., 1993). In addition, job performance also can be divided into the dimensions of e.ectiveness and productivity (Pritchard, 1995). There is a significant di.erence between productivity and e.ectiveness. Whereas e.ectiveness refers to the degree to which something successfully produces a desired result, productivity is explained as the e.ectiveness of pro­ductive e.orts (Darvishmotevali & Ali, 2020). For more than 20 years, stressful working con­ditions have been shown to be associated with poor mental health in workers (Jex & Elacqua, 1999). This has been shown to a.ect work performance. How­ever, these e.ects can be tamed by better time man­agement, because it has a positive impact on stress and consequently on the e.ectiveness of the indi­vidual (Green & Skinner, 2005). Therefore, it is im­portant for every individual, especially managers, to know the benefits of time management behaviors. Chase et al. (2013) divided time management into three di.erent categories: time estimation behav­iors, planning behaviors, and monitoring behaviors. Understanding and incorporating certain parts of time management could be beneficial to individuals because it could increase their work performance. Chase et al (2013) stated that time management al­lows researchers to focus on their work. Time man­agement activities can help individuals eliminate distractions that a.ect their productivity. After scheduling activities, an individual can monitor which task needs to be completed at a given time and can focus fully on that task, knowing that other work is due at another time (Chase et al., 2013). H2b: Time management is positively related to job performance. 2.5Time Management as a Moderator between Work Overload and Work–Life Balance A high workload often leads to an increase in work hours, which in turn contributes to feelings of overload (Skinner & Pocock, 2008). Frone, Yardley, & Markel (1997) found that work overload was posi­tively correlated with hours worked, and both were positively related to work–life conflict. Skinner & Pocock (2008) confirmed that work overload was the strongest predictor of work–life conflict. Moreover, work–life conflict was found to increase with higher perceived workload. In general, researchers have found a negative relationship between time manage­ment and burnout or work overload, meaning that those who engage in less time management may ex­perience higher levels of burnout than those who manage their time better (Peeters & Rutte, 2005). A recent study (Daniels, 2017) found that more than 200,000 respondents reported being over­worked and having di.culty balancing their per­sonal and professional lives. For these individuals, working more than 39 hours per week seems to make it too di.cult to balance their personal and professional lives (Daniels, 2017). Kirch (2008) found that work overload also often leads to work-related stress, which in turn can cause burnout syndrome. Furthermore, according to Taylor, Repetti, & See­man (1997), employees who feel they have to work too long and too much on too many tasks report more stress, poorer health habits, and more health complaints than employees who do not su.er from work overload. As mentioned previously, Jex & Elac­qua (1999) found that the relationship between work–family conflict and health was strongest among respondents who reported using more time management. Specifically, regarding time manage­ment as a moderator between work–family conflict and strain, Jex & Elacqua’s results showed that time management behaviors did not moderate the ef­fects on strain. Furthermore, strain was positively associated with overload, implying that time man­agement may have had an influence as a moderator between work–family conflict and overload, al­though the links are not direct. However, all dimensions of time management were negatively related to workload, implying that those who engage in more time management are less likely to su.er from work overload and conse­quently are better able to balance work and life, ac­cording to Skinner & Pocock (2008). Fenner & Renn (2010) highlighted the fact that individuals who practice time management are able to separate their work behaviors from their family behaviors. Macan (1994) also found that practicing time man­agement behaviors was associated with lower levels of work–related tension, and thus of overload, and higher levels of job satisfaction. Moreover, the ef­fects of work overload can be minimized through time management (Macan, 1994). Previous studies and numerous guidebooks suggest that one can use and improve time e.ciently and productively by setting short- and long-term goals, keeping time logs, prioritizing tasks, making to-do lists and sched­ules, while also organizing one’s workspace (Claessens, van Eerde, Rutte, & Roe, 2007; Macan, 1994). The purpose of time management is to in­crease the nature of activities to be carried out within a limited period, which means that activities are planned wisely and one can limit the e.ects of overload (Karakose, 2015). Additionally, e.ective time management provides an individual with the opportunity to devote more time to his/her family and relatives despite being loaded with work, and enjoy life nonetheless (Karakose and Kocabas 2009). Consequently, by minimizing the e.ects of work overload and improving time management skills, one can establish a better work–life balance (Karatepe, 2013; Aryee, Srinivas, & Tan, 2005; Vogel, 2012; Chawla and Sondhi, 2011). H3a: Time management moderates the relationship between overload and work life balance. For high levels of time management, the relationship is less negative. 2.6Time Management as Moderator between Work Overload and Job Performance Time management can be helpful in avoiding work overload and possibly improving an individual’s work performance. Karatepe (2013) stated that work overload often leads to ine.ective work perfor­mance; therefore, limiting work overload would ben­efit the individual’s job performance. Employees who are overworked in terms of the number of tasks to be completed report more stress, practice poorer health habits, and report more health complaints (Taylor et al., 1997). These causes of overwork lead to employee dissatisfaction at work, which has been shown to reduce an individual’s job performance (Ali & Farooqi, 2014). Brown & Benson (2005) suggested that stress not only causes employees not to per­form at their best, but s also can cause high perform­ers in an organization to take shortcuts in their work or even be tempted to leave the organization be­cause they feel pressured at work. Daniel (2020) found that when time management is high, individ­uals are better able to cope with pressure at work and their work performance also increases. The value of time management lies in identifying and managing tasks according to their importance and coordinating them with other resources. Time man­agement keeps things in order, which allows one to be more productive and fulfilled. This positive or negative time management is reflected in the per­formance of the organization, which is why it is so important for managers (Daniel, 2020). Jex & Elacqua (1999) found overload to be pos­itively related to strain, and time management be­haviors were positively related to feelings of control over time. Moreover, individuals who have a feeling of control over time experience lower levels of strain. Thus, feelings of control over time were neg­atively related to overload, implying that individuals who engage in more time management behaviors are less likely to be a.ected by overload (Jex & Elac­qua, 1999). In addition, Macan (1994) found that time management behavior operates through per­ceptions of control over time. If a person believes that he or she has control over time, his or her work performance will increase. Using these two studies, we can conclude that with high time management, the relationship between overload and job perfor­mance is less negative, which means that when overload is higher, the use of time management can increase an individual’s job performance, because they have a feeling of control over time. In addition, Ahmad et al. (2012) found that job performance is a.ected significantly by time man­agement. They also pointed out that it is crucial for organizations to train their employees in the proper management of their time, because this is an im­portant factor in achieving high employee perfor­mance, which then is reflected in organizational performance. Specifically, employees pointed out that time management can be extremely beneficial for them to maintain their job performance when they do not have enough time to complete all their tasks (Ahmad et al., 2012). Ahmad et al. (2012) sug­gested that by analyzing and prioritizing tasks and making to-do lists, employees can structure and dis­tribute their workload, and consequently improve their performance. Employees also can save time through the use of technology, which also was rec­ommended by Packard (2016), who emphasized the positive e.ects of the use of various apps to orga­nize everything from work to personal life. Technol­ogy in conjunction with scheduled breaks can help an employee clear their mind and fully focus on cur­rent scheduled activities (Packard, 2016). Specifi­cally, the use of the Evernote application was suggested, because it proved to be the most e.­cient (Packard, 2016). However, nowadays there are numerous applications on the market that can help employees improve their time management and performance, such as Trello, Asana, and ClickUp. H3b: Time management moderates the relationship between overload and job performance. For high levels of time management, the relationship is less negative. The relationships between work overload, work–life balance, time management, job perfor­mance, and time management as a moderator be­tween work overload and job performance and between work overload and work–life balance are expressed by the six formulated hypotheses visual­ized in Figure 1. 3METHODOLOGY 3.1Sample and collection of data To test the hypothesized relationships between overload, job performance, work–life balance, and how time management moderates these relation­ships, we surveyed 127 working professionals. Of these respondents, 41% were students, 33% were full-time employees, and 3% were self-employed in­dividuals. Percentages of individuals who were re­tired, out of work or looking for work, unable to work, and other were negligible. This study was quantitative in nature, based on questionnaire sur­vey technique. The survey method was used for data collection; a questionnaire was used as an in­strument of the survey method, and the question­naire was distributed to a sample of the population. 3.2Measurement Our sampling type was convenience sampling, which is a nonprobability sampling method and in­cludes individuals who are most accessible to the researcher (McCombes, 2019). Participants in con­venience sampling are selected based on their avail­ability and willingness to take part in research (Barratt & Shantikumar, 2010). The survey was distributed through social media sites, emails, direct contact with persons, and direct messages. Our constructs in the survey con­sisted of workload, work–life balance satisfaction, time management (assessment of time manage­ment skills), well-being/stress scale, and job perfor­mance. Work mode (before, during, and after COVID-19, and preference for work mode in the fu­ture) and demographic-based questions were also assessed. The questionnaire contained a total of 20 questions, including seven demographic questions; four questions about work mode before, during, and after COVID-19 (physical location, hybrid, or work from home; if it has changed; do respondents like it; and what will they prefer in the future); four scales from another group we worked with; and five scales of our own. The first scale, workload, con­sisted of nine items or statements to which respon­dents selected responses ranging from “”strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” The second scale, time management, consisted of 15 items. The third scale, well-being or overload, consisted of six items. The fourth scale, work–life balance satisfaction, con­sisted of seven items. The fifth scale, job perfor­mance, consisted of six items. This was followed by questions about work mode, demographic ques­tions, and work experience. The survey was open for 26 days and was sent to 421 individuals, from whom 260 questionnaires were incomplete and 34 were partially finished, leaving us with 127 usable questionnaires (30% re­sponse rate). These 127 questionnaires were used for the final analysis of the study. Matrix questions were used for well-being, job performance, time management, work–life balance, and workload. Respondents selected responses ranging from “strongly disagree” to ”strongly agree” with the statement that was part of the question on a particular construct. All constructs were measured using 7-point Likert scales ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Multiple-choice, open-ended questions were used for work mode and demographic data. The questionnaire was based on previously val­idated scales. For workload, we followed questions used by De Bruin & Taylor (2006) (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.137). When creating the work–life balance ques­tionnaire, we used Omar, Mohd, & Ari.n’s (2015) Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance scale (2013) (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.922). For time management, we applied the questionnaire by White, Riley, & Flom (2013) (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.591). For well-being, work overload and for examining the impact on work performance, we used the study by Rod­well, Kienzle, & Shadur (1998) (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.717). The questions on demographics were based roughly on the questionnaire of Omar, Mohd & Ar­i.n (2015), with adaptations for our research con­structs and our target group of respondents. 4RESULTS Table 1 summarizes the respondents’ age, mean, and standard deviation for our constructs. For age, we asked a multiple-choice question with response options of 17 and younger, 18 to 24 years, 25 to 34 years, 35 to 44 years, 45 to 54 years, and 54 or older. The mean was 3.02, which means that the average age of the respondents was between 25 and 34 years old, with a standard deviation of 1.198, which means that the responses were be­tween 18 and 44 years old. The average age of 25–34 years indicates that the respondents on average probably already were working or studying at some point in time, which was consistent with our target group. In response to our question about employ­ment, 41% of respondents answered that they were students and 33% answered that they were full-time employees, which was consistent with our desired sample, because these two groups were the most a.ected by the change due to COVID-19 in terms of work. This means that their work–life balance was challenged, and that their perceived overload had changed, which may lead to a di.erent work perfor­mance. Our study also investigated whether these e.ects could be tamed through time management. Table 1 lists the means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlation coe.cients for the main variables. Interestingly, the correlation between work–life balance and overload is moderate, nega­tive, and statistically significant. This implies that the work–life balance of individuals with higher levels of overload worsens. Another interesting finding is that the linear relationship between time manage­ment and work–life balance is positive and of mod­erate to high strength. This means that, on average, the higher the level of time management, the better was the work–life balance. Therefore we can con­clude that, on average, time management has a pos­itive impact on our lives. The mean values for workload show that, on average, respondents are not exposed to excessive workload or that their workload is in line with their expectations. The standard deviation shows that a small number of respondents’ answers were far from the global mean, which means that they had similar answers. Analysis of the results for time management in­dicated that, on average, respondents agreed that they managed their time well (mean = 4.84), but they disagreed, on average, that they could cor­rectly estimate how much time they need to com­plete a task (mean = 3.16). However, on average, respondents tended to agree (mean = 5.29) that they made to-do lists, which shows that although respondents felt that they controlled time, their time management was not necessarily e.ective. Based on our hypotheses, when we examined overload and well-being, we found that respondents who planned their daily activities (mean = 5.13) or engaged in time management answered, on average, that they had enough time to do their work properly (mean = 5.13). Interestingly, when asked if most peo­ple feel overwhelmed by work at their job, respon­dents answered that they agreed with this statement (mean = 4.7), but, on average, they tended to dis­agree that work overwhelmed them (mean = 3.8). The overall mean scores for work–life balance show that, on average, most respondents were suc­cessful in balancing their work and personal lives and had a good work–life balance (mean = 4.96). However, the standard deviation for all work–life balance scores is somewhat high (standard devia­tion = 1.14), which means that the responses were more scattered around the mean. When asked if re­spondents were satisfied with their work–life bal­ance, on average they tended to somewhat agree (mean = 5), with 34% of responses rated as agree. Interestingly, 23% of respondents indicated that they felt that they run out of time before getting im­portant things done, the mean for which was 4.3 (neither agree nor disagree = 4), but they also indi­cated that they felt they were among the slowest at work (mean = 5.36; 31% agree and 20% strongly agree). This shows that it is not necessarily poor time management that causes them to run out of time to do their work; it also could be the speed of the work that the respondents are doing. 4.1Hypotheses testing To test Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b, we used linear regression. For Hypotheses 3a and 3b, we used the process method with linear regression. Lin­ear regression is used when the value of one variable is to be predicted based on the value of another vari­able (Isobe & Feigelson, n.d.). First, we tested the re­lationship between work overload and work–life balance resulting from Hypothesis 1a. Work–life bal­ance is the dependent variable, and the constant is represented by work overload. The model summary of Hypothesis 1a is presented in Table 2. The values of R and R2 are given. The R value indicates the simple correlation, which is 0.155 for Hypothesis 1a, which does not indicate a high de­gree of correlation. The R2 value indicates how much of the total variation in the WLB variable can be explained by the workload variable; in this case, only 2.4% of the total variation can be explained, which is not very much. Significance indicates how well the regression model predicts the dependent variable. In our case, the statistical significance of the regression performed was not su.cient: p = 0.072, which is more than 0.05, and means that the regression model did not predict the outcome vari­able statistically significantly. We found that the em­pirical results do not support Hypothesis 1a. Secondly, we tested the hypothesis that lower perceived overload leads to higher job perfor­mance. Job performance is the dependent variable, and the constant is represented by work overload. The model summary of Hypothesis 1b is presented in Table 2, with the R and R2 values. The R value was 0.182 and the R2 value is 0.033. This means that 3.3% of job performance can be explained by work overload, which is not much. We also can determine whether the regression model predicts the depen­dent variable significantly well. The significance value indicates the statistical significance of the re­gression model performed. The p-value is 0.037, which is less than 0.05 and indicates that the whole regression model does predict the outcome variable statistically significantly. On this basis, we can accept Hypothesis 1b. The next hypothesis we tested states that bet­ter time management has a positive e.ect on work–life balance. In this case, the dependent variable is work performance and the independent variable is time management. The model summary of Hypoth­esis 2a is presented in Table 2, which gives the val­ues of R and R2. The R value, which indicates the simple correlation, is 0.406, which indicates a high degree of correlation. The R2 value in this case is 0.165, which is higher than that of other models. The p-value is less than 0.05. The p-value allows us to support Hypothesis 2a, which means that the re­gression model as a whole predicts the outcome variable statistically significantly. Hypothesis 2b states that better time manage­ment leads to higher work performance. Table 2 summarizes this model. The dependent variable is WLB, and the independent variable again is time management. The R-value is 0.453, and the R2 value is 0.205, which is slightly higher than that of the pre­vious models. To support or reject our hypothesis, the significance Value was determined. The p-value is 0.112, which is higher than 0.05. The overall re­gression model did not statistically significantly pre­dict the outcome variable. Consequently, empirical data did not support Hypothesis 2b. The last two hypotheses we tested involved time management as a moderator of the relation­ships between the other domains. Hypothesis 3a states that time management moderates the rela­tionship between overload and work–life balance. When the level of time management is high, the re­lationship is less negative. In this case, the depen­dent variable is workload, and the independent variables are represented by work–life balance and time management. The summary of the model for this hypothesis is presented in Table 2. The R value or simple correlation is 0.1799, which is not very high and does not indicate a high degree of correla­tion. The R2 value, which indicates how much of the total variation in the workload variable can be ex­plained by the WLB and time management vari­ables, indicates in this case that only 3.24% of the total variation can be explained, which is signifi­cantly su.cient. The p-value is 0.9747, which is sig­nificantly higher than 0.05. Therefore, we cannot accept Hypothesis 3a. Hypothesis 3b states that time management moderates the relationship between overload and job performance. When time management is high, the relationship is less negative. Again, we used lin­ear regression, with work overload as the depen­dent variable and work performance and time management as the independent variables. The re­sults are summarized in Table 2. The R-value is 0.2695, and the R2 is 0.0726, which is quite high compared to the other models. Most importantly, the p-value indicates how well the regression model predicts the dependent variable, and in this case, the statistical significance of the regression per­formed was su.cient, because the p-value is 0.0247 which is less than 0.05. This means that we can sup­port Hypothesis 3b. 5DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 5.1Theoretical Contributions Time management is becoming increasingly im­portant due to the amount and variety of work to which people are exposed. As a result, people often are subject to overload, which a.ects their work–life balance and job performance. This issue is par­ticularly important because people’s workspaces and locations have changed during the pandemic. From a theoretical perspective, our study investi­gated whether and how overwork a.ects work per­formance and work–life balance. We tested this on a di.erent sample of individuals who were a.ected by the pandemic COVID-19. We found that time management as a modera­tor can help reduce the negative relationship be­tween work overload and work performance when time management is high. However, we cannot demonstrate this for the relationship between work overload and work–life balance. In this case, the re­lationship is not less negative even when time man­agement is high. As far as we are aware, these relationships have not been studied before. Conse­quently, our study provides additional empirical ev­idence of how focusing on time management can improve job performance even when work overload is present. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the relationship between work overload and work–life balance. Contrary to the findings of Brown & Benson (2005), who showed a positive correlation between workload and job performance, our study found that lower perceived overload leads to higher job performance. This is in line with research by Ladebo & Awotunde (2007), who showed that overload leads to employee exhaustion when it is impossible for them to meet the resource requirements of job demands. In line with the research of Chadegani et al. (2015), Ali & Farooqi (2014), and Karatepe (2013), all of whom found that work overload leads to poorer employee performance, our study showed that lower overload leads to higher work performance. Thus, we confirmed the findings in the literature. However, we cannot say the same for the relation­ship between overload and work–life balance. Al­though the previous studies by Frone et al. (1997) and Skinner & Pocock (2008) indicated a positive cor­relation between work hours and work–life conflict, our results refute the statement that higher overload leads to poorer work–life balance. This could be due to the change in workplace of the individuals whose work was shifted from o.ce to home. According to Jex & Elacqua (1999), time man­agement actually leads to better work–life balance and satisfaction, which is consistent with our find­ings. We can confirm that better time management has a positive e.ect on work–life balance. In con­trast, we cannot claim that time management leads to higher job performance. This is consistent with research by Macan (1994), who found that certain time management behaviors can have positive ef­fects on tension and job satisfaction, but not on job performance. We found that better time management is not necessarily associated with higher job performance. This is in contrast to Khatib (2014), who found that time management has a positive e.ect on perceived stress and that individuals with better time manage­ment and consequently lower stress also perform better academically. Our study found that, on average, respondents agreed that they could manage their time well, but disagreed that they could correctly estimate how much time they need to complete a task. They also agreed, on average, that they tended to write to-do lists. All of this shows that although the respondents felt that they had control over time, their time man­agement was not necessarily e.ective, which is con­trary to Macan’s (1994) research which showed that positive outcomes occur when a person feels that they have control over time. In our study, this was not the case, because, on average, respondents were confident that they could complete their daily tasks, but they also somewhat agreed that they often ran out of time before they could get impor­tant things done and that they did not manage their time well. 5.2Practical Implications From a practical perspective, we can say that our research has the potential to raise awareness of the importance of time management, job perfor­mance, work–life balance, and work overload in both corporate culture and personal life. The boundary between work and personal life slowly is disappearing, which has become one of the biggest problems today. In particular, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many people reported that they had dif­ficulty juggling work and personal life. Our study found that time management has a positive e.ect on the relationship between overload and job per­formance, suggesting that organizations would ben­efit from time management training for their employees. Consequently, these findings can be very useful for managers if they want to increase the e.ciency and job performance of their employees. It is of great importance for them to know that plac­ing a heavy workload on their employees will not lead to the desired results. In contrast, if they im­pose only as much work on their employees as they can handle, the results are likely to be better than expected. One of the main aspects of this study is the concept of time management, which, if used properly, can be very useful for managers. As men­tioned previously, by developing their employees’ time management skills, managers can expect to have a positive impact on their employees’ work–life balance, which can benefit both the company and the employees themselves. With a better work–life balance, employees can focus fully on their work and give 100% because they are less preoccupied with non-work-related concerns. Time management is useful not only when it comes to work–life bal­ance; as mentioned previously, it also can serve as a mediator between overload and job performance. Thus, when managers provide time management training to their employees, it can have a positive impact on the relationship between overload and job performance and make the relationship less negative, which ultimately can lead to better work outcomes and higher employee satisfaction. 5.3Limitations and Future Research This research was conducted with 127 respon­dents, which is a slightly smaller sample size than we expected. This could be due to the lack of time. We merged the survey with another group with sim­ilar topics, which resulted in a larger questionnaire and longer survey completion time. This could be why many respondents did not complete the survey. Furthermore, all the main variables were measured based on a single survey, which possibly could lead to bias in the common methodology. For future research, we suggest conducting the questionnaire with a larger sample. We also recom­mend conducting some interviews with di.erent se­lected respondents, e.g., full-time employees, students, self-employed people, managers, etc. This not only would provide a larger number of re­sponses on which to base the analysis, but also would show whether the survey results are credible. Our study was limited in time and resources; therefore, we did not examine the long-term e.ects of COVID-19 on perceived work overload and work–life balance. Therefore, for future research, it would be interesting to compare the perceived work over­load and work–life balance of individuals who work in an o.ce with those of individuals who work from home after the pandemic. According to Telser (2021), working from home could be a problem be­cause the boundaries between work and leisure could become blurred. When people live and work in the same space, their home and work could merge, leading to higher perceived work overload and consequently to a poorer work–life balance (Telser, 2021). In this context, future research could conduct a longitudinal study that would show the long-term e.ects of changes in the work environ­ment on people. For some people, working from home is better than working in an o.ce; for others, it is the oppo­site. In a future study, we will investigate whether working from home has a positive or negative e.ect on work performance when it is associated with a higher workload. It could be that people who have a lighter workload to manage at home start to be­come preoccupied with their personal tasks, which can make them feel overworked and reduce their job performance. However, if they have more work to do, this could lead to better job performance be­cause they do not have time for personal tasks dur­ing working hours. This would be contrary to the findings of Ladebo & Awotunde (2007), who showed that increased workload leads to employee exhaustion, which in turn leads to lower job perfor­mance. 5.4Conclusion In today’s world, better time management is becoming increasingly important as demands in­crease in both professional and personal life, also known as work–life balance. Work–life balance often is a.ected by work overload. Especially in a corporate culture, many employees are over­worked, which can lead to both poorer work–life balance and poorer job performance. It is important that companies figure out how to help their employ­ees improve their time management skills, because this can increase the success of the company and the health of employees as they learn to better bal­ance their work and personal lives. Our study con­firms that companies can help their employees achieve a better work–life balance and increase their job performance through better time manage­ment. It also is important for managers to know that our research shows that business results are likely to be better when employees are less overworked. We also showed that advanced time management moderates the relationship between overload and work performance, making the relationship be­tween the two less negative. The results are impor­tant for organizations, and especially for managers. If they provide su.cient time management training, they can increase employee satisfaction as well as work e.ciency and company results. The results also can be very helpful for employees, who can learn that higher work pressure or overload usually does not lead to higher work performance. Employ­ees also can understand how important mastering time management is to their career and perfor­mance, as well as to their health and family relation­ships. One of the main objectives of this study was to analyze time management as a moderator between other domains in which, to our knowledge, there is a gap in the literature. Our research provided new insights into time management, which is becoming increasingly important in daily life. Given the fast pace of everyday life, it is important for both indi­viduals and organizations to pay more attention to time management. As this study proved, employees can improve their work performance if they pay more attention to their time management skills, and this is extremely important for companies. REFERENCES Aggarwal, A. K. (2018). A Study on the Work-Life Balance Issues Faced by Micro and Small Village En­trepreneurs (MSVEs) in India. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3183655 Ahmad, N. L., Ahmad, Y., Wahab, S., & Shobri, M. (2012). The Relationship between Time Management and Job Performance in Event Management | Elsevier Enhanced Reader. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.223 Ali, S., & Farooqi, Y. (2014). E.ect of Work Overload on Job Satisfaction, E.ect of Job Satisfaction on Employee Performance and Employee Engagement (A Case of Public Sector University of Gujranwala Division). IN­TERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCI­ENCES AND ENGINEERING. Anwar, J., Hasnu, S., & Janjua, S. Y. (2013). Work-Life Bal­ance: What Organizations Should do to Create Balance? Aryee, S., Srinivas, E. S., & Tan, H. H. (2005). Rhythms of Life: Antecedents and Outcomes of Work-Family Balance in Employed Parents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 132–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.132 Barratt, H., & Shantikumar, S. (2010, June 20). Methods of sampling from a population [Text]. Health Knowl­edge. https://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/public-health-textbook/research-methods/1a-epidemiology/methods-of-sampling-population Bataineh, K. adnan. (2019). Impact of Work-Life Balance, Happiness at Work, on Employee Performance. Inter­national Business Research, 12(2), 99. https://doi.org/ 10.5539/ibr.v12n2p99 Bazillai, A. (2021). Impact of Work Overload and Work Hours on Employees Performance of Selected Manufac­turing Industries in Ogun State [Preprint]. Open Science Framework. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/7vpes Beauregard, T. A., & Henry, L. C. (2009). Making the link between work-life balance practices and organiza­tional performance. Human Resource Management Review, 19(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.hrmr.2008.09.001 Britton, B. K., & Tesser, A. (1991). E.ects of Time-Manage­ment Practices on College Grades. Undefined. /paper/Ef­fects-of-Time-Management-Practices-on-College-Britton-Tesser/8c7afb32043a6f030c753b85d9acd056438c6105 Brown, M., & Benson, J. (2005). Managing to Overload?: Work Overload and Performance Appraisal Processes. Group & Organization Management, 30(1), 99–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601104269117 Campbell, J. P., & Wiernik, B. M. (2015). The modeling and assessment of work performance. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav., 2(1), 47-74. Chadegani, A. A., Mohamed, Z. M., & Iskandar, T. M. (2015). The Influence of Individual Characteristics on Auditors’ Intention to Report Errors. Journal of Eco­nomics, Business and Management, 3(7), 710–714. https://doi.org/10.7763/JOEBM.2015.V3.271 Chase, J.-A. D., Topp, R., Smith, C. E., Cohen, M. Z., Fahrenwald, N., Zerwic, J. J., Benefield, L. E., Ander­son, C. M., & Conn, V. S. (2013). Time Management Strategies for Research Productivity. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 35(2), 155–176. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0193945912451163 Chawla, D., & Sondhi, N. (2011). Assessing Work-Life Bal­ance Among Indian Women Professionals. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 47(2), 341–352. Claessens, B. J. C., van Eerde, W., Rutte, C. G., & Roe, R. A. (2007). A review of the time management literature. Personnel Review, 36(2), 255–276. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/00483480710726136 Collier, S. (2021, January 8). Best Time-Management Apps for Students. Top Universities. https://www.topuni­versities.com/blog/best-time-management-apps-stu­dents Crompton, R., & Lyonette, C. (2006). Work-Life ‘Balance’ in Europe. Acta Sociologica, 49(4), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699306071680 Daniel. (2020). E.ective Time Management on Employee Performance of Northern Nigeria Noodle Company Ltd. 2020, 11. Daniels, R. (2017, September 20). Work Overload in the Workplace | How to Handle Work Overload. Business Study Notes. https://www.businessstudynotes.com/ tips-tricks/work-overload-in-the-workplace/ Darvishmotevali, M., & Ali, F. (2020). Job insecurity, sub­jective well-being and job performance: The moder­ating role of psychological capital. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 87, 102462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102462 De, B. G. P., & Taylor, N. (2006). The job demand-control model of job strain across gender. SA Journal of In­dustrial Psychology, 32(1), 66–73. https://doi.org/ 10.10520/EJC89075 Eilam, B., & Aharon, I. (2003). Students’ planning in the process of self-regulated learning. Contemporary Ed­ucational Psychology, 28(3), 304–334. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00042-5 Farrell, M. (2017). Time Management. Journal of Library Administration, 57(2), 215–222. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01930826.2017.1281666 Fenner, G. H., & Renn, R. W. (2010). Technology-assisted supplemental work and work–to-family conflict: The role of instrumentality beliefs, organizational expecta­tions and time management. Human Relations, 63(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709351064 Fitsimmons, G. (2008). Time management part II: The action plan. The Bottom Line, 21(3), 94–96. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/08880450810912853 Fleetwood, S. (2007). Why work–life balance now? The International Journal of Human Resource Manage­ment, 18(3), 387–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09585190601167441 Frone, M., Yardley, J., & Markel, K. (n.d.). Developing and Testing an Integrative Model of the Work-Family In­terface | Elsevier Enhanced Reader. https://doi.org/ 10.1006/jvbe.1996.1577 Gha.ari, S., Shah, I., Burgoyne, J., Nazri, M., & Salleh, J. (2017). The Influence of Motivation on Job Performance: A Case Study at Universiti Teknoligi Malaysia (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2969825). Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2969825 Gorenak, M., & Popovi, A. (n.d.). QUALITY OF WORK-LIFE BALANCE AND WORKPLACE VIOLENCE. 9. Green, P., & Skinner, D. (2005). Does time management training work? An evaluation. International Journal of Training and Development, 9(2), 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2005.00226.x Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., & Shaw, J. D. (2003). The relation between work–family balance and quality of life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22. Grissom, J. A., Loeb, S., & Mitani, H. (2015). Principal time management skills: Explaining patterns in principals’ time use, job stress, and perceived e.ectiveness. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(6), 773–793. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2014-0117 Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organi­zational Behavior & Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7 Haider, S., Jabeen, S., & Ahmad, J. (2018). Moderated Me­diation between Work Life Balance and Employee Job Performance: The Role of Psychological Wellbeing and Satisfaction with Coworkers. Revista de Psicología Del Trabajo y de Las Organizaciones, 34(1), 29–37. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2018a4 Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Jour­nal of School Psychology, 19. Hall, B. L., & Hursch, D. E. (2008). An Evaluation of the Ef­fects of a Time Management Training Program on Work E.ciency. Journal of Organizational Behavior Manage­ment. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v03n04_08 Hao, J., Wu, D., Liu, L., Li, X., & Wu, H. (2015). Association between Work-Family Conflict and Depressive Symp­toms among Chinese Female Nurses: The Mediating and Moderating Role of Psychological Capital. Interna­tional Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(6), 6682–6699. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph120606682 Hardrive, F. (n.d.). Work-Life Balance and Employ­ees' Performance: The Mediating Role of A.ec­tive Commitment. Retrieved 27 June 2021, from https://www.academia.edu/23514925/Work_Life_Balance_and_Employees_Performance_The_Mediat­ing_Role_of_A.ective_Commitment Hjálmsdóttir, A., & Bjarnadóttir, V. S. (2021). “I have turned into a foreman here at home”: Families and work–life balance in times of COVID-19 in a gender equality paradise. Gender, Work & Organization, 28(1), 268–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12552 Isobe, T., & Feigelson, E. D. (n.d.). LINEAR REGRESSION IN ASTRONOMY. I. ApJ. . ., 10. Jansen, N. W., Kant, Ij., Nijhuis, F. J., Swaen, G. M., & Kris­tensen, T. S. (2004). Impact of worktime arrangements on work-home interference among Dutch employees. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 30(2), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.771 Jex, S. M., & Elacqua, T. C. (1999a). Time management as a moderator of relations between stressors and em­ployee strain. Work & Stress, 13(2), 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/026783799296138 Johari, R. J., Ridzoan, N. S., & Zarefar, A. (2019). The In­fluence of Work Overload, Time Pressure and Social Influence Pressure on Auditors’ Job Performance. In­ternational Journal of Financial Research, 10(3), 88. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijfr.v10n3p88 June, S., & Mahmood, R. (2011). The relationship be­tween person-job fit and job performance: A study among the employees of the service sector SMEs in Malaysia. International Journal of Business, Humani­ties and Technology, 1(2), 95-105. Karakose, T. (2015). The Relationship between Medical Students’ Time Management Skills and Academic Achievement. Studies on Ethno-Medicine, 9(1), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09735070.2015.11905418 Karatepe, O. M. (2013). The e.ects of work overload and work-family conflict on job embeddedness and job performance: The mediation of emotional exhaus­tion. International Journal of Contemporary Hospital­ity Management, 25(4), 614–634. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/09596111311322952 Khatib, A. S. A. (2014). Time Management and Its Rela­tion To Students’ Stress, Gender and Academic Achievement Among Sample of Students at Al Ain University of Science and Technology, UAE. Interna­tional Journal of Business and Social Research, 4(5), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.18533/ijbsr.v4i5.498 Kim, H. K. (2014). Work-Life Balance and Employees’ Perfor­mance: The Mediating Role of A.ective Commitment. Un­defined. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Work- Life-Balance-and-Employees%27-Performance% 3A-The-Kim/b2a0018b12b37416dd8418ef1342bbb34dde02a0 Kirby, S. (2020, June 2). 5 ways COVID-19 has changed workforce management. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/covid-homeworking-symptom-of-changing-face-of-work­force-management/ Kirch, W. (Ed.). (2008). Work OverloadWork overload. In Encyclopedia of Public Health (pp. 1466–1466). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5614-7_3775 Kocaba, I., & Karakose, T. (2009). Ethics in school admin­istration. African Journal of Business Management, 3, 126–130. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM.9000266 Kossek, E. E. (n.d.). Managing work-life boundaries in the digital age. Retrieved 18 August 2021, from https://core.ac.uk/reader/82147160 Kossek, E. E., Lewis, S., & Hammer, L. B. (2010a). Work—life initiatives and organizational change: Overcoming mixed messages to move from the margin to the mainstream. Human Relations, 63(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709352385 Kumar, H., & Chakraborty, S. K. (2013). Work Life Balance (WLB): A Key to Organizational E.cacy. Aweshkar Re­search Journal, 15(1), 62–70. Kumar, P., Kumar, N., Aggarwal, P., & Yeap, J. A. L. (2021). Working in lockdown: The relationship be­tween COVID-19 induced work stressors, job per­formance, distress, and life satisfaction. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01567-0 Ladebo, O. J., & Awotunde, J. M. (2007). Emotional and Behavioral Reactions to Work Overload: Self-E.cacy as a Moderator. Lazar, I., Osoian, C., & Ratiu, P. (2010). The Role of Work-Life Balance Practices in Order to Improve Organiza­tional Performance. European Research Studies Journal, XIII(1), 201–214. Lewis, P. (1998). Managing performance-related pay based on evidence from the financial services sector. Human Resource Management Journal, 8(2), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.1998.tb00167.x Lewis, S., Gambles, R., & Rapoport, R. (2007). The con­straints of a ‘work–life balance’ approach: An inter­national perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(3), 360–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190601165577 Lim, Y. M., & Seers, A. (1993). Time dimensions of work: Relationships with perceived organizational perfor­mance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 8(1), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02230395 Macan, T. H. (1994). Time management: Test of a process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(3), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.3.381 Macan, T. H., Shahani, C., Dipboye, R. L., & Phillips, A. P. (1990). College students’ time management: Corre­lations with academic performance and stress. Jour­nal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 760–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.760 Mache, S., Bernburg, M., Groneberg, D. A., Klapp, B. F., & Danzer, G. (2016). Work family conflict in its rela­tions to perceived working situation and work en­gagement. Work (Reading, Mass.), 53(4), 859–869. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-162257 Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple Roles and Role Strain: Some Notes on Human Energy, Time and Commitment. American Sociological Review, 42(6), 921–936. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094577 Marks, S. R., & MacDermid, S. M. (1996). Multiple roles and the self: A theory of role balance. Journal of Mar­riage and the Family, 58(2), 417–432. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/353506 McCombes, S. (2019, September 19). Sampling Methods | Types and Techniques Explained. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/ methodology/sampling-methods/ McKinsey. (2021). The future of work after COVID-19 | McK­insey. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/fu­ture-of-work/the-future-of-work-after-covid-19# Mohammadi, H., & Shahrabi, M. (2013). A study on rela­tionship between quality of work life and job satisfac­tion. Management Science Letters, 3. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2013.08.034 Okurame, D. E. (2012). Linking Work–Family Conflict to Career Commitment: The Moderating E.ects of Gen­der and Mentoring Among Nigerian Civil Servants. Journal of Career Development, 39(5), 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845310391903 Omar, M. K. (2013). Non Standard Work Arrangements and A.ective Commitment: The Mediating Role of Work-life Balance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 107, 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro. 2013.12.392 Omar, M. K., Mohd, I. H., & Ari.n, M. S. (2015). Workload, role conflict and work-life balance among employees of an enforcement agency in Malaysia. International Journal of Business, Economics and Law, 8(2), 52-57. Packard, R. (2016, May 16). Time management to prevent work overload: Top 10 ideas—Medical Device Academy Medical Device Academy. MEDICAL DEVICE ACADEMY. https://medicaldeviceacademy.com/time-management/ Pasamar, S., & Cabrera, R. V. (2013). Work-life balance under challenging financial and economic conditions. International Journal of Manpower, 34(8), 961–974. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJM-07-2013-0172 Peeters, M. A. G., & Rutte, C. G. (2005). Time Manage­ment Behavior as a Moderator for the Job Demand-Control Interaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(1), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 1076-8998.10.1.64 Peeters, M. C. W., J. Jonge, D., & Taris, T. W. (2014). An in­troduction to contemporary work psychology. Wiley-Blackwell. https://research.tue.nl/en/publications/ an-introduction-to-contemporary-work-psychology Peeters, M. C. W., Montgomery, A. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). Balancing Work and Home: How Job and Home Demands Are Related to Burnout. International Journal of Stress Management, 12(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.12.1.43 Phipps, S. T. A., & Prieto, L. C. (2016). A Discovery of Early Labor Organizations and the Women who Advocated Work–Life Balance: An Ethical Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 134(2), 249–261. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10551-014-2428-9 Poulose, S., & Dhal, M. (2020). Role of perceived work–life balance between work overload and career com­mitment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 35(3), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-03-2018-0117 Pritchard, R. D. (1995). Productivity Measurement and Improvement: Organizational Case Studies. Green­wood Publishing Group. Pushpakumari, M. D. (n.d.). The Impact of Job Satisfaction on Job Performance: An Empirical Analysis. 17. Rastegary, H., & Landy, F. J. (1993). The Interactions among Time Urgency, Uncertainty, and Time Pres­sure. In O. Svenson & A. J. Maule (Eds.), Time Pressure and Stress in Human Judgment and Decision Making (pp. 217–239). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-1-4757-6846-6_15 Rodwell, J. J., Kienzle, R., & Shadur, M. A. (1998). The rela­tionship among work-related perceptions, employee at­titudes, and employee performance: The integral role of communications. Human Resource Management, 37(3–4), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-050X(199823/24)37:3/4<277::AID-HRM9>3.0.CO;2-E Sánchez-Hernández, M. I., González-López, Ó. R., Bue­nadicha-Mateos, M., & Tato-Jiménez, J. L. (2019). Work-Life Balance in Great Companies and Pending Issues for Engaging New Generations at Work. Inter­national Journal of Environmental Research and Pub­lic Health, 16(24), 5122. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph16245122 Sharma, Dr. E. (2011). Interpersonal Needs of Manage­ment Students:Facilitator in the Choice of Electives. Journal Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 37, 86–92. Sirgy, M. J. (n.d.). Work-Life Balance: An Integrative Re­view. 26. Size, G. (2004). Time Management. Journal for Vascular Ultrasound, 28(3), 174–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 154431670402800318 Skinner, N., & Pocock, B. (2008). Work—life conflict: Is work time or work overload more important? Asia Pa­cific Journal of Human Resources, 46(3), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1038411108095761 Smith, K., Smith, M. D., & Brower, T. (2016). How Work-Life Balance, Job Performance and Ethics Connect: Perspec­tives of Current and Future Accountants. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1574-076520160000020008 Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. R. (1978). Major influences on employee attendance: A process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4), 391–407. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0021-9010.63.4.391 Tahir, S., Mdyuso., R., Azam, Assoc. Prof. Dr. K., Anwar, K., & Kaleem, S. (2012). The E.ects of Work Overload on the Employees’ Performance in relation to Cus­tomer Satisfaction: A Case of Water & Power Devel­opment Authority, Attock, Pakistan. Taylor, S., Repetti, R., & Seeman, T. (1997). Health Psychology: What is an Unhealthy Environment and How Does It Get under the Skin? Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 411–447. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.411 Telser, F. (2021, February 24). Work and leisure blur in the home o.ce, a study shows—How you can protect yourself. Business Insider. https://www.businessin­sider.com/overwork-in-home-o.ce-so-you-can-pro­tect-yourself Thomason, B., & Williams, H. (n.d.). What Will Work-Life Balance Look Like After the Pandemic? 4. Valcour, M. (2007). Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between work hours and satisfac­tion with work-family balance. Journal of Applied Psy­chology, 92(6), 1512–1523. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-9010.92.6.1512 Vathanophas, V. (2007). Competency Requirements for E.ective Job Performance in Thai Public Sector. Con­temporary Management Research, 3(1), 45–45. https://doi.org/10.7903/cmr.49 Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2000). Organizational Politics, Job Atti­tudes, and Work Outcomes: Exploration and Implica­tions for the Public Sector. Journal of Vocational Behavior - J VOCAT BEHAV, 57, 326–347. https://doi.org/ 10.1006/jvbe.1999.1742 Virick, M., Lilly, J., & Casper, W. (2007). Doing more with less: An analysis of work life balance among layo. sur­vivors. Career Development International, 12, 463–480. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430710773772 Vogel, S. (2012, April 5). Overtime Hours Threaten Work-Life Balance. https://globaledge.msu.edu/blog/post/ 1274/overtime-hours-threaten-work-life-balance- Warren, T. (2015). Work–life balance/imbalance: The dominance of the middle class and the neglect of the working class. The British Journal of Sociology, 66(4), 691–717. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12160 White, S. M., Riley, A., & Flom, P. (2013). Assessment of Time Management Skills (ATMS): A Practice-Based Outcome Questionnaire. Occupational Therapy in Mental Health, 29(3), 215–231. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/0164212X.2013.819481 over work hours or quality time management also has been associated with lower work family conflict (Jansen, Kant, Nijhuis, Swaen, & Kristensen, 2004). Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 47 Abstract Vol. 10, No. 2, 47-65 doi:10.17708/DRMJ.2021.v10n02a04 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 48 Iza Zorec, Jan Hocevar, Luka Eržen: The Interplay Among Work Overload and Time Management in Predicting Job Performance and Work–Life Balance Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 49 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 50 Iza Zorec, Jan Hocevar, Luka Eržen: The Interplay Among Work Overload and Time Management in Predicting Job Performance and Work–Life Balance Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 51 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 52 Iza Zorec, Jan Hocevar, Luka Eržen: The Interplay Among Work Overload and Time Management in Predicting Job Performance and Work–Life Balance Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 53 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 54 Iza Zorec, Jan Hocevar, Luka Eržen: The Interplay Among Work Overload and Time Management in Predicting Job Performance and Work–Life Balance Figure 1: Research model Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 55 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 56 Iza Zorec, Jan Hocevar, Luka Eržen: The Interplay Among Work Overload and Time Management in Predicting Job Performance and Work–Life Balance Table 1: Descriptive statistics and correlations * denotes correlation significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) ** denotes correlation significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 57 Table 2: Model summary of hypotheses Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 58 Iza Zorec, Jan Hocevar, Luka Eržen: The Interplay Among Work Overload and Time Management in Predicting Job Performance and Work–Life Balance Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 59 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 60 Iza Zorec, Jan Hocevar, Luka Eržen: The Interplay Among Work Overload and Time Management in Predicting Job Performance and Work–Life Balance Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 61 EXTENDED SUMMARY/IZVLECEK Zahteve v poklicnem in zasebnem življenju se povecujejo, zato postajata delovna preobre­menitev in upravljanje casa, v povezavi z ravnovesjem med delom in družino, vse pomembnejša. Oba imata prav tako lahko resne posledice na individualno delovno uspešnost, zato je ta študija proucila, kako uspešno upravljanje casa blaži ucinek delovne preobremenitve na delovno uspešnost, in razmerje med delovno preobremenitvijo ter ravnovesjem med poklicnim in zasebnim življenjem. Rezultati kažejo, da delovna preobremenitev negativno vpliva tako na uspešnost pri delu kot tudi na ravnovesje med poklicnim in zasebnim življenjem. Ugotovljeno je bilo, da uspešno upravljanje casa ugodno vpliva na temeljno razmerje in ga naredi manj negativno. Te ugotovitve kažejo na pomemb­nost tega, da posamezniki in organizacije vec pozornosti namenijo upravljanju casa, saj le-ta lahko izboljša delovno uspešnost in ravnovesje med poklicnim in zasebnim življenjem. Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 62 Iza Zorec, Jan Hocevar, Luka Eržen: The Interplay Among Work Overload and Time Management in Predicting Job Performance and Work–Life Balance Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 63 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 Iza Zorec, Jan Hocevar, Luka Eržen: The Interplay Among Work Overload and Time Management in Predicting Job Performance and Work–Life Balance 64 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 65 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 66 ployees who are happier at their jobs are more satis­fied, and their performance is a.ected positively, which is why job satisfaction is relevant and needs to be explored (Adigun, Oyekunle & Onifade, 2017). Re­silience is another important factor, because there is clear evidence that more-resilient people are able to 1INTRODUCTION THE INTERACTION BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS AND MODE OF WORK IN PREDICTING RESILIENCE AND JOB SATISFACTION Gašperlin Janina School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana janina.gasperlin@gmail.com Dovžan Nuša School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana nusad@icloud.com Ferjan Karmen School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana karmenferjankarmen@gmail.com Lamovšek Amadeja School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana amadeja.lamovsek@ef.uni-lj..si Since the COVID-19 virus has become part of our lives, organizations have been looking for ways to adjust work ar­rangements and adopt di.erent modes of work (e.g., hybrid and remote work) while maintaining job satisfaction among their employees. This paper explored the relationships between employee’s personality traits and their mindset and their influence on employee resilience and job satisfaction. Additionally, we investigated whether the relationship between personality traits, employee mindset, and desired outcomes varied across di.erent modes of work. This study is important for managers because it helps them better understand the importance of their employees’ individual characteristics in relation to desired outcomes. Keywords: personality traits, resilience, mindset, job satisfaction, mode of work The COVID-19 pandemic is currently reshaping our world and impacting not only our personal lives, but our work lives as well. The way we work is chang­ing from the o.ce to hybrid or even completely re­mote workplaces, and di.erent people are reacting di.erently to all the changes and protective measures (Shokrkon & Nicoladis, 2021). Job satisfaction has an impact on material advantage and well-being. Em­ence a company’s resilience, and resilience seems to be as important to companies as the bottom line (Noopur, 2021). Despite clearly being recognized as salient, many factors that potentially can impact job satisfaction and resilience have not been studied yet and need to be explored further. Some studies have shown the relationship be­tween employee personality traits and their impact on job satisfaction and resilience. For example, re­cent research has found that extraverts are more prone to depression (Wijngaards, Sisouw de Zilwa & Burger, 2020), and that people with a positive atti­tude cope better with current circumstances (Fuller & Huseth-Zosel, 2021). In a study of the Latvian Na­tional Guard, extraverted employees were found to be less resilient than introverts (Kalinnikova, Za­vodilov & Dmitrijeva, 2020), which could mean that introverts experience far less stress due to their re­silience. In addition, one study showed that people with a positive mindset have higher job satisfaction (Orkibi & Brandt, 2015). Luthans and Youssef (2007) found a positive correlation between the contribu­tion of hope, optimism, and resilience (i.e., elements of positive psychological capital or positive mindset) and job satisfaction and job happiness. Due to recent developments in the environment in which COVID-19 circumstances have evolved suddenly, the topic also is quite new and unexplored, and as such pro­vides a unique opportunity for scientific insight. The literature does not give us answers to the question of what happens when subjects are not ex­posed to extreme conditions as in the study by Kalinnikova et al. (2020), but are observed in their natural environment. Moreover, no clear study has confirmed that introverts are more resilient when exposed to any kind of stressful situation (e.g., the COVID-19 situation). Wei (2020) showed that intro­verts actually reported worse psychological changes than extraverts as a result of the pandemic (i.e., a stressful situation) and had higher levels of depres­sion, anxiety, and loneliness. Because of these con­flicting claims, we determined which of these claims proves to be true. In addition, many studies focused on the e.ects of a positive mindset on performance, which of course is relevant for organizations, but they focused less on the e.ects on job satisfaction, which we also believe is important and should be researched more. We also found a lack of research on the correlation between employee positivity or negativity and organizational resilience, and be­cause this currently is a hot topic and a desirable trait, we explored this in greater depth. Finally, to the best of our knowledge, no research has ad­dressed whether the relationship between person­ality traits, employees’ mindsets, and desired outcomes varies across di.erent modes of work. Our study explored interrelationships among employees’ personality traits, their mindset, and how they a.ect their resilience and job satisfaction, in the hope of finding clues about which type of trait might be more successful in coping with stress, and whether any of these traits are better predictors of employees’ resilience. This could make an important contribution to the scholarly discussion initiated by Cain (2012) regarding the strength of introverts in the workplace and their job satisfaction. By concep­tualizing and testing our model, organizations can gain perspective on the importance of positivity in the workplace and can educate their employees to­ward a more positive attitude. This study advances the research area examin­ing personality traits and their e.ects on job satis­faction and resilience. We wanted to find out whether more-extraverted people are more re­silient, because studies in this area seem to be con­tradictory (Kalinnikova et al., 2020; Wei, 2020). On the other hand, the research on individual mindset and resilience seems to be fairly clear, so we want to confirm findings from the existing theory. How­ever, if the results of our research showed the op­posite, this could point us in a new direction to find an optimistic aspect of pessimistic thinking within specific settings related to modes of work. Along these lines, we wanted to find out whether there is a relationship between the mode of work and work­ers’ resilience. If such a relationship exists, our study could be an important help for many di.erent peo­ple—managers, HR managers, employees, and oth­ers—in making decisions about how to work after the COVID-19 constraints have been relaxed. In ad­dition, this study could be highly significant if we find a positive relationship between the mode of work and employee job satisfaction. Our study fills some gaps in the literature on the relationship be­tween positive mindset and job satisfaction, be­cause research on this topic is very scarce. 2THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2.1Personality Traits Personality traits can be defined as patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that reflect how an individual tends to react in certain situations under certain circumstances (Sanchez-Roige, Gray, MacKil­lop, Chen & Palmer, 2017). The five-factor model of personality was developed by several researchers (Digman, 1990) who agreed that there are five trait dimensions that capture a wide range of individual di.erences in personality, namely neuroticism, agreeableness, openness to experience, conscien­tiousness, and extraversion (Soto, Kronauer & Liang, 2015; Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz & Knafo, 2002). We de­cided to focus on extraversion because it recently has been included in scientific debates (Shokrkon & Nicoladis, 2021) and seems to be a topical issue. The idea of extraversion can be depicted with a bell curve, in which introversion and extraversion are at opposite ends (Houston, 2021). People who sup­posedly are extraverts engage in social activities to a greater extent, prefer group activities, and become energized by social interactions (Lucas, Le & Dyren­forth, 2008; ter Bogt, Engels & Dubas, 2006). The op­posite might be true for introverts, who tend to prefer solitary activities and easily are overwhelmed by too much stimulation from social gatherings and engagement (Goby, 2006). Both terms, introvert and extravert, were introduced by Carl Jung (1921), but his original definitions have been interpreted in var­ious ways. He also introduced the term ambivert, which lies in the middle of the spectrum, and Conklin (1923) added that ambiverts draw energy inter­changeably from both ends of the spectrum. With the idea of a spectrum, we can say that it is di.cult to create a benchmark and say when someone is introverted or extraverted. Instead, we can use the spectrum of extraversion as a scale to determine where people fall in terms of behavior compared to others (Houston, 2021). Therefore, we decided to not use the terms introvert and extravert in our study, because it is di.cult to put a bench­mark on a scale and categorize people into groups of introverts and extraverts based solely on the data obtained. Instead, we categorized our participants from more to less extraverted. As attitudinal standards are much more “ex­traverted” these days, society has tried to cure in­troverts in some ways (Taylor, 2020; Lounsbury, Mo.tt, Gibson, Drost & Stevens, 2007). It has been shown that there is a relationship between extraver­sion and selection success (Stewart, Dustin, Barrick & Darnold, 2008), because extraverts tend to pre­sent themselves better (Kristof-Brown, Barrick & Franke, 2002). According to Wilmot, Wanberg, Kam­meyer-Mueller & Ones (2019), extraverts perform better in the workplace than their introverted coun­terparts due to their proactive nature and constant suggestions to improve their career and company. Therefore, and because they tend to earn more than their introverted counterparts (Gensowski, 2018), we could say that extraverts have the upper hand when it comes to being more satisfied with their jobs than introverts. However, because extraverts are more likely to be satisfied in roles that involve high levels of social interaction (Huang et al., 2016), they currently are in a poor position to be completely satisfied with their jobs because the pandemic has taken away this opportunity. This was confirmed by Liu et al. (2021), who found that extraverts showed higher levels of distress due to the inability to interact so­cially. In addition, Kalinnikova et al. (2020) showed that introverted national guards showed lower lev­els of stress and thus higher levels of resilience than their extraverted counterparts. However, Wei (2020) indicated that introverts actually experi­enced worse psychological changes than extraverts as a result of the pandemic (i.e., a stressful situa­tion) and exhibited higher levels of depression, anx­iety, and loneliness. Taken together, these studies report conflicting information about the response of people with di.erent personality types. 2.2Mindset Mindset is a certain belief of how someone per­ceives the world and themselves. There are many types of mindset (Rhinesmith, 1992). For example, Dweck (2007) distinguished between the growth mindset and the fixed mindset, which are associated with abilities. The fixed mindset is associated with innate abilities that cannot grow. A growth mindset, on the other hand, is associated with hard work that can lead to success. On the other hand, Sagiv and Schwartz (2007) developed a theory that there are eight types of mindsets, namely hierarchical individ­ualism, egalitarian individualism, hierarchical syner­gism, egalitarian synergism, hierarchical populism, egalitarian populism, hierarchical collectivism, and egalitarian collectivism. There is a relationship be­tween these eight types of mindsets (Yolles & Fink, 2013). A positive mindset also can be associated with optimism, which refers to a person’s future. It is about having hope for the future. Optimism has a positive impact on well-being (Carver, Scheier & Segerstrom, 2010). In our research, we decided that the definition of positive and negative mindset was the most suitable for our research because we think that these terms are used first when we use the word mindset. The positive mindset described in conservation of resources theory gains positive outcomes such as well-being (Hobfoll, 2011). Individuals who are more likely to have positive thinking balance work better and experience positive life outcomes. Individuals’ positivity is more likely to lead to success because positive individuals are more likely to face their problems (Carver & Scheier, 1998; Scheier & Carver, 2003). In one study, it was found to have no e.ect on performance, but positive people are more de­termined, which can lead to better performance in the long run (Tenney, Logg & Moore, 2015). Sagone and Caroli (2015) showed a positive correlation with resilience: individuals with a more positive attitude toward life exhibited higher resilience. People who are more positive tend to be more resilient than less positive-minded people. 2.3Mode of Work The last decade witnessed a trend of increas­ing use of work from home, an increasing number of digital nomads, and the formation of different modes of work. The first mode of work is a tradi­tional office specified for employees who do their entire work at the company’s physical location. The opposite is remote work, in which people can work from anywhere. Between these are two types of hybrid systems. First hybrid option is one in which the employees can choose to work from home or in the office. Another hybrid system is called hybrid rotation, in which working groups have a schedule for working in the workplace and from home or an­other location. As a result of the pandemic, there has been some digital transformation in most com­panies. There is a growing trend for companies to focus on employee well-being in the workplace and develop more-flexible working models such as hybrid systems. The question of the best way to work post-pandemic remains for many companies (Rubin, Nikolaeva, Nello-Deakin & te Brömmel­stroet, 2020). A traditional o.ce means that employees pri­marily work in a designated space on the premises of the company. (Hill, Ferris & Märtinson, 2003). A rotation system, one of the possible hybrid systems, means that groups of students or employees rotate on a fixed schedule among di.erent learning or working modalities. The rotation system always in­cludes at least one station for online working or learning. One of the benefits of the rotation system is that it allows working in smaller groups. That mode of work might be the answer to dealing with the lack of facilities (Staker & Horn, 2012). The sec­ond hybrid system arranges the employee’s working location according to their preferences. In this case, work can be done partly at home and partly at the workplace (Employers’ Federation of India, 2020). “Work from home” is a term used for labour ac­tivities accessed through the use of information technology and is performed away from the tradi­tional workplace’ (Employers’ Federation of India, 2020). Work from home is a subcategory of remote work, which first was defined as “periodic work away from the main o.ce one or more days per week” either at home or from abroad (Nilles, 1998). During COVID-19, the lockdown has led to an in­creasing use of work from home. Companies with experiences in di.erent types of remote work have found some advantages and disadvantages com­pared with working in the o.ce. For example, Google learned that the key to successful remote work was both formal and informal communication. Employees sometimes struggled with the feeling of not being connected to the outside world, and there also were some logistical di.culties such as coordi­nating schedules when employees were in di.erent time zones (Katz, 2019). Work from home entails a number of long-term unexplored problems, such as social distancing, self-management, household dilemmas, employer dilemmas, work–life balance, being less recognized by superiors, putting sensitive information at risk, higher costs of computer devices and internet for the employee, etc. Some constraints are culture- or industry-specific. (Jewson, 2002). International re­search on experiences of working from home during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic found that the top disadvantages were lack of social contacts, inability to focus, and worse work–life balance (Rubin et al., 2020). On the other hand, working remotely increases productivity when one needs a controlled environ­ment; it enables working flexible hours and elimi­nates commuting costs. Another advantage of working remotely is that enabling more freedom in choosing the mode of work in organizations as a “dual agenda” meets both organizational goals and the ability to integrate the demands of work and personal life (Rapoport, Bailyn, Fletcher & Pruitt, 2002). A work-from-home experiment at Ctrip with 16,000 employees found a 13% increase in perfor­mance due in part to working more minutes per shift and in part to more calls per minute in a more comfortable and quiet home environment (Bloom, Liang, Roberts & Ying, 2014). Employees also re­ported an improvement in job satisfaction (Bloom et al., 2014). 2.4Job Satisfaction There is no clear definition of job satisfaction. Di.erent authors define job satisfaction di.erently. However, the issue is important in organizations, both today and in the past (Aziri, 2011). Vroom (1964) defined it as a workplace that fo­cuses on employees who are oriented to their role at work. Hoppock (1935) said that satisfaction is a combination of environmental, psychological, and physiological conditions of an individual who con­sequently takes pride in his or her work. It has something to do with how a person feels and what elements are the cause of satisfaction. Workers most commonly associate satisfaction with their feelings toward work. It reflects to what extent they loathe or like their jobs (Aziri, 2011). According to Davis, Leach and Clegg (1985) satisfaction is the ex­tent to which the expectations of a worker are met in his or her position and, it is related closely to how people behave at work. Job satisfaction is in a sense success at work. Usually, it is associated with pro­ductivity and personal well-being. It means that a person enjoys doing his or her job and receives a re­ward for it. It suggests happiness, and can lead to fulfilment (Kaliski, 2007). It also is defined as a col­lection of beliefs and feelings about a person’s work. It can range from extreme satisfaction to extreme dissatisfaction, and is described as an attitude to­ward a job. Job satisfaction can be an essential element of e.ciency and productivity of an organization. Workers should be treated morally by considering their needs, wants, and other aspects. It is said that a satisfied employee is a successful employee. When satisfaction is not present, other negative consequences occur, such as absenteeism, dissatis­faction, lack of loyalty, etc. (Dziuba, Ingaldi & Zhu­ravskaya, 2020). We assumed from previous research that posi­tive-minded people are more satisfied with their job. Because the literature is scarce, we wanted to confirm our hypothesis. Orkibi and Brandt (2015) showed that satisfaction comes from people with positive mindset. Luthans and Youssef (2007) stud­ied job satisfaction, and the results showed a posi­tive correlation between hope (an element of positive capital) and job satisfaction. H1a: Employees’ positive mindset is positively re­lated to job satisfaction. In line with Bloom (2014) and Rapoport (2002), we assumed that working from home, when em­ployees have a positive mindset, also contributes to higher job satisfaction through improved perception of freedom, and brings more passion to work with easier integration of work and personal life. H1b: Mode of work moderates the positive relation­ship between employees’ positive mindset and job satisfaction such that the basic relationship is more positive when employees work from home. Next, because Huang et al. (2016) suggested that more-extraverted individuals are more satisfied with jobs that demand high social interaction, we wanted to see if this could be generalized for all types of jobs, and therefore we propose the follow­ing hypothesis: H2a: Employees’ extraversion is positively related to their job satisfaction. Due to a lack of social interaction, which extro­verted employees need in order to thrive (Huang et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2021), we expect them to be less satisfied when they work from home. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis: H2b: Mode of work moderates the positive relation­ship between extraversion personality type and job satisfaction such that the basic relationship is more negative when employees work from home. 2.5Resilience Resilience is the ability to cope with shocks and continue to function in the same way. It is a measure of a society, business, or ecosystem that demonstrates the ability to change before passing a tipping point. It includes capabilities such as adaptation, change, and restructuring in coping with disruption. “It is about changing to avoid being changed” (Walker, 2020). According to Walker (2020), nine attributes pro­mote overall resilience: exposure to disruption; diver­sity of response; modularity or interconnectedness; ability to respond quickly to change or shock; readi­ness for transformation; thinking, planning, and man­aging across scales; and leading rather than directing. Therefore, exposure to variability is necessary to build and maintain resilience, whereas attempting to pro­tect a system from shocks reduces its resilience. On the other hand, resilience can be understood as a capacity to rebuild and recover quickly (Herbane, 2015) or as a response to a crisis (Pal, Torstensson & Mattila, 2014). Furthermore, resilience can be seen as a characteristic that an organization possesses before, during, and after an event. Four categories of resilience in relation to time are resilience as a proactive attribute, an absorptive and adaptive attribute, a reactive at­tribute, or a dynamic attribute (Conz & Magnani, 2020). As a proactive attribute, resilience can be un­derstood as an ability to be ready in times of crisis and maintain superior organizational performance (Pal et al., 2014). In addition, resilience as an ab­sorptive attribute is defined as the ability to persist in the face of significant change or to withstand dis­ruption and catastrophic events (Acquaah, Amoako-Gyampah & Jayaram, 2011). A third definition of resilience as a reactive attribute explains it as the ability to survive disruptions (McPhee, 2014). From a dynamic perspective, resilience is con­ceptualized as a temporal process consisting of two pathways: adaptive and absorptive (Conz & Mag­nani, 2020). The goal of resilience as a dynamic at­tribute is to develop multiple sources of competitive advantage (Reinmoeller & van Baardwijk, 2005). From a psychological perspective, there is some evidence showing a relationship between loneli­ness, mental health, and resilience in the era of COVID-19 (Killgore, Taylor, Cloonan & Dailey, 2020). Child adjustment is determined in many cases by the influence of family members. Relationship qual­ity, marital conflict, family beliefs, and communica­tion have significant e.ects (especially during COVID-19) on family well-being and resilience (Prime, Wade & Browne, 2020). We assumed that a positive mindset is positively related to resilience, because a positive mindset and resilience both are reinforced by similar factors, such as positive family beliefs and quality relationships, as discussed by Prime, Wade and Browne (2020). H3a: Employees’ positive mindset is positively re­lated to resilience. H3b: Mode of work moderates the positive relation­ship between employees’ positive mindset and re­silience such that the basic relationship is more positive when employees work from home. Because less-extraverted individuals tend to have more mental health problems (Janowsky, 2001) and more adjustment problems in general (Davidson, Gillies & Pelletier, 2015), we developed the following hypothesis: H4a: Employees’ extraversion is positively related to their resilience. This might be based on the suggestion that ex­traverted individuals show increased levels of help-seeking behavior (Kakhnovets, 2011). However, contrary to Kalinnikova et al. (2020), who showed that less-extraverted individuals tend to be more re­silient when exposed to extreme stress, Wei (2020) suggested that the change of mode of work should be salient in this line of inquiry. Although this contra­dicts the general belief that more-extraverted indi­viduals need social interaction to function “normally” (Lucas et al., 2008; ter Bogt, Engels & Dubas, 2006), we decided to test Wei’s (2020) assumption. H4b: Mode of work moderates the positive relation­ship between the personality trait of extraversion and resilience such that the basic relationship is more positive when employees work from home. 3METHODOLOGY 3.1Sample and collection of data The survey was conducted online using the 1KA web-based survey tool. The survey was distributed via Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and email randomly to di.erent age groups. It was available from 18 June 2021 to 13 July 2021. A total of 421 people started participat­ing in our survey, of whom 230 (55%) skipped the entry page and 161 (38%) started answering our questions but did not finish; only 127 (30%) surveys were com­pleted in total. Of the 127 respondents, 81 were female and 45 were male. Most respondents (50%) were be­tween the ages of 18 and 24, and the average age was 30.5 years. The education level of the respondents var­ied; 57 had completed high school, 39 had a bachelor’s degree, 27 had a master’s degree, and 2 had a profes­sional degree. Regarding marital status, 71 respondents identified as single, 51 identified as married or cohabit­ing, one identified as widowed, and four identified as divorced. In terms of work status, 67 respondents were students, 53 had full-time jobs, one was retired, one was unable to work, and five were self-employed. 3.2Measurement The research questionnaire consisted of 11 sets of questions, from which one set of questions in­volved mindset; one involved resilience; one involved personality traits; one involved job satisfaction; one set contained four questions about work mode be­fore, during, and after COVID-19; and another set of questions involved demographic data (including gen­der, age, education, marital status, employment sta­tus, monthly income, and years of work experience). There were 10 statements in the question set measuring mindset, 10 statements measuring person­ality traits, six statements measuring resilience, and five statements measuring job satisfaction. With three sets of four statements, we measured the mode of work (i.e., o.ce/physical location, hybrid system as rotation, hybrid system as working at the preferable destination, and work from home) before and during COVID-19, and the preferred mode of work in the future. All the measuring scales were validated and checked beforehand, but for easier analysis, we con­verted the measuring scale from 5-point to 7-point Likert scales. In the quantitative part of the survey, each item was rated on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 for “strongly disagree” to 7 for “strongly agree.” Scheier, Carver, and Bridges’ (1994) 10-item scale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.546) was used to measure per­ceived mentality. Personality traits were measured using the 10-item scale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.899) by Topolewska-Siedzik (2014). Job satisfaction was mea­sured using the five-item scale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.905). To measure resilience, we used the Brief Re­silience Scale (BRS) (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.758), which consists of six items and was developed by Smith, Dalen, Tooley, Christopher and Bernard (2008). To analyze the respondents’ work practises, we asked three questions about their primary work practises before COVID-19 and after COVID-19, and their preferred work practises in the future. For each of the three questions, there were four re­sponse options: o.ce/physical location, hybrid - ro­tation, hybrid (being able to choose to work from home or in the o.ce), and from home/remote. 3.3Research Model In our research model, we hypothesized that job satisfaction and resilience can be predicted by mindset and personality traits. We assumed that the relationship between the variables is moderated by the conditional variable “mode of work.” 3.4Procedure To obtain an overview of the data, we first per­formed a descriptive analysis, obtaining the means, standard deviations (SDs), and Pearson correlation co­e.cients of our main variables. Then we conducted a multiple linear regression analysis to examine the re­lationships between extraversion and resilience, mindset and resilience, extraversion and job satisfac­tion, and mindset and job satisfaction. In addition, we conducted moderated regression using Model 1 in PROCESS macro version 3 (Hayes, 2018) to examine the moderating e.ect of mode of work on the basic association between the observed variables. 4RESULTS Through descriptive analysis in SPSS, we ob­tained the following data (Tables 1 and 2). From 148 valid answers (N = 148) we obtained a general idea about the individuals’ mindsets, indicating that our participants had, on average, more positive mind­sets (M = 4.4572). Standard deviations showed that all data were quite clustered (SD = 0.77789). For our measurement of extraversion, the number of valid answers decreased (N = 145). The mean score was approximately in the middle of the extraversion spectrum (M = 4.1869), yet the stan­dard deviation was quite high, as expected, be­cause people are di.erent in terms of their extraversion (SD = 1.20521). In terms of job satisfaction, our participants (N = 132) were more on the satisfied side (M = 5.3924, SD = 1.06216). Finally, for our last mea­sured trait, resilience, which also had the fewest valid answers (N = 128), the scoring was about av­erage for our group of participants (M = 4.3346, SD = 0.97149). Most respondents (32.3%; N = 127) said that before COVID-19 they mostly worked from the of­fice/physical location, and during the COVID-19 cri­sis, this percentage increased to 42%. Furthermore, 35% said their mode of work had not changed and that they liked it, but for future preferences, most participants said that they would prefer to work from the o.ce/physical location again. In the next step, linear regression was conducted. The results are summarized in Table 3. Model 1 had mindset as a predictor and job satisfaction as the de­pendent variable), and Model 2 had personality as pre­dictor and job satisfaction as the dependent variable. In Model 3, mindset was the predictor and resilience was the dependent variable. In Model 4, personality was the predictor and resilience was the dependent variable. To test Hypothesis H1a, Model 1 with mindset as predictor and job satisfaction as the dependent variable had an R-value of 0.364 and R˛ = 0.133. Therefore, 13.3% of variation in job satisfaction could be explained by variation in mindset. How­ever, the p-value, which meanes statistical signifi­cance, was 0.000. Hence, we can accept our hypothesis that employees’ positive mindset is pos­itively related to job satisfaction, and with a 1% in­crease in the mindset score, we would expect a 0.481% increase in job satisfaction. In Model 2, testing the H2a hypothesis, with per­sonality as the predictor and job satisfaction as the dependent variable, the R-value was 0.310 and R˛ = 0.096, meaning that only 9.6% of variation in job satis­faction could be explained by variation in the person­ality trait of extraversion. A p-value of 0.000 indicated statistical significance, and therefore with 1% increase in the personality trait of extraversion, we would ex­pect a 0.272% increase in job satisfaction. Therefore we can accept our hypothesis that employees who are more extraverted are more satisfied with their job than those who are less extraverted. Model 3, which tested Hypothesis H3a, had an R-value of 0.455 and R˛ = 0.207, meaning that 20.7% of variation in resilience can be explained by a vari­ation in mindset. The p-value was 0.000, which means that there is a connection between mindset and resilience, and we can accept our hypothesis and say that employees’ positive mindset is posi­tively related to resilience. Based on our results, with a 1% increase in an individual’s mindset, we can expect a 0.545% increase in the resilience score. There appears to be a connection between the personality trait of extraversion and resilience as we predicted with Hypothesis H4a and as described in Model 4. The R-value for Model 4 was 0.412 and R˛ = 0.170, meaning that 17.0% of variation in re­silience can be explained by variation of personality trait of extraversion. The p-value was 0.000, so we can accept our hypothesis that employees who are more extraverted are more resilient than the ones who are less extraverted. With a 1% increase in the personality trait of extraversion, we would expect a 0.329% increase in the resilience score. Finally, the results of the analysis with the PRO­CESS macro modelling tool (Hayes, 2018) in SPSS are reported in Table 4. With mode of work during the COVID-19 lockdown set as a moderator, regressions were run. Model 1 had mindset as the independent variable and job satisfaction as the dependent vari­able, and in Model 2 the dependent variable was job satisfaction and the independent was the individual’s personality traits (extraversion). In Model 3, the de­pendent variable was changed to resilience and the observed independent variable was mindset. In Model 4, personality trait (extraversion) was the independent variable and the dependent variable was resilience. In our first hypothesis, we predicted that mode of work moderates the relationship between mind­set and job satisfaction (H1b). The p-value for Model 1 (mindset and job satisfaction) was 0.2351, so we can reject Hypothesis H1b and say that mode of work does not moderate the positive relationship between employees’ positive mindset and job satis­faction such that the basic relationship is more pos­itive when employees work from home. Next, we tested whether mode of work moder­ates the relationship between extraversion and job satisfaction (H2b). Model 2 (personality trait and job satisfaction) had a p-value of 0.5225, so we reject Hypothesis H2b that mode of work moderates the positive relationship between extraversion person­ality type and job satisfaction such that the basic re­lationship is more negative when employees work from home. Our third hypothesis (H3b) tested whether mode of work moderates the relationship between mindset and resilience. Model 3, with mindset as the independent variable and resilience as the depen­dent variable, indicated statistically significant re­sults, with a p-value of 0.0021. The R˛ value indicates that about 30.65% of the variability in resilience can be explained by changes in mindset. Therefore, we can accept our hypotheses that an employee’s pos­itive mindset is positively related to resilience and that mode of work moderates the positive relation­ship between employees’ positive mindset and re­silience such that the basic relationship is more positive when employees work from home. The fourth moderator hypothesis (H4b), Model 4, with personality traits (extraversion) as the inde­pendent variable and resilience as the dependent variable, had the second best significance, with a p-value of 0.1534. The R˛ value indicates that extraver­sion could be accountable for 24.40% of the variability in resilience. Still, we have to reject the hypothesis that mode of work moderates the posi­tive relationship between personality trait of ex­traversion and resilience. 5DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 5.1Interpretation of Findings We systematically approached our goal and used di.erent methods of research to determine if there are any existing connections between the in­dividual characteristics (personality trait of extraver­sion and positive mindset) of employees and their job satisfaction and resilience. We also determined if mode of work as a moderator had any impact on those connections. Based on the obtained results, we can draw some conclusions. The descriptive statistics indicate that our sample was quite repre­sentative in terms of mean scores for each observed variable. Job satisfaction varies between coun­tries—it is highest in India (79%) and lowest in Japan (42%); the value for Europe is about 73% (Randstad, 2021). The number of participants who had a mean score of five or higher indicates that 75% of them appear to be satisfied with their jobs. This again sug­gests that our sample is representative. Further­more, 73 participants also scored above the mean in extraversion, which represents an approximate middle of the extraversion scale spectrum; we could say that approximately 61% of participants can be classified as extraverts. This agrees with the general approximation that extraverts make up 50%–74% of the population (Buettner, 2012). Therefore, we can say that our sample is representative because the percentage of extraverts appears to be similar to that in real life. Linear regression confirmed all our hypotheses and the existing connections between the observed variables. The strongest connections were between the individual’s mindset and resilience (R˛ = 0.207) and between the personality trait of extraversion and resilience (R˛ = 0.170). However, PROCESS macro modelling using mode of work during COVID-19 as a moderator confirmed only the hypothesis that em­ployees’ positive mindset is positively related to re­silience and that mode of work moderates the positive relationship between employees’ positive mindset and resilience such that the basic relation­ship is more positive when employees work from home. Mode of work during COVID-19 was chosen because we were measuring job satisfaction, which is a dynamic parameter and is very situation-depen­dent. Therefore we had to use the current situation to obtain the best results. All the other hypotheses with mode of work during COVID-19 set as modera­tor were rejected. We found existing connections be­tween observed variables. There appear to be stronger connections between mindset, extraversion and resilience, whereas job satisfaction was not con­nected strongly to any of those variables. 5.2Theoretical Contributions Our research provides some theoretical contri­butions in the field of extraversion and its e.ect on job satisfaction and resilience. We found that a weak connection between extraversion and job sat­isfaction. This means that other factors have more impact on job satisfaction, and, theoretically, a very introverted and a very extraverted individual could be equally satisfied with their jobs regardless of their mode of work. Because no significant connec­tion was found between job satisfaction and ex­traversion with mode of work as moderator, we advance and contrast the findings of Huang et al. (2016) by showing that more-extraverted individu­als need more stimulation to be satisfied with their jobs. We confirmed the hypothesis that more-ex­traverted individuals tend to be more resilient than those who are less extraverted and we. We also re­inforced what the has literature already suggested, that there is a strong connection between mindset and resilience. Our research also helps to fill the gap about the connections between mindset and job satisfaction, which was very scarce; we showed that there in fact is a weak connection. 5.3Practical Contributions As a practical contribution, we can say that managers need to encourage their employees to build a positive mindset, because this seems to strengthen the resilience we need in times of crisis. Furthermore, we rejected the hypothesis that mode of work moderates the positive relationship be­tween extraversion personality type and job satis­faction, which means that actions regarding returning to the o.ce after the COVID-19 epidemic has passed (or at least calmed down) require a more individualized approach than was thought. There­fore, managers will need to consult with their em­ployees to make decisions, because our research found that less-extraverted individuals are not nec­essarily more likely to want to work from home. 5.4Limitations The first problem with the questionnaire we used was that it was too long, so our completion rate was very low. To improve this, we should have created a separate questionnaire from another re­search group to make it shorter, which probably would have given us a larger sample and thus a bet­ter insight into the phenomenon. In addition, we should have worded some of the questions better and added some additional questions to avoid pos­sible bias and to determine whether other variables could have an impact on our research subjects. For example, we could ask participants if they recently have been exposed to very stressful events (e.g., the death of a relative, illness, failing a course, being fired, etc.). If so, this could be a factor a.ecting re­silience, and we might therefore expect to see a change in resilience scores. Furthermore, the timing of our survey could have been better. Because we conducted the survey just before the summer holi­days, we could have expected that some of the em­ployees might have been annoyed and not interested in our survey, or that their answers might have been biased. For example, if their boss gave them a bonus just before the holidays, they may have been more likely to say that they currently were very satisfied with their job than if they were surveyed at another time. The sampling method we used was not random; opportunity sampling was used, which had an e.ect on our sample, as is evi­dent from the demographic information. Many of the participants were in the same age group as the researchers, and many of them said that they were still full-time students, which was not ideal for mea­suring job satisfaction, because they did not have experience or their experience was limited. From this perspective, we could improve our research by sending our survey directly to large companies, which would distribute it to their employees. Of course, we would have to be careful to include as many di.erent industries as possible and determine if there are any di.erences between them. 5.5Future Research Our research raises some questions and points to some areas and issues that could be explored fur­ther. One possible issue is the impact of ambition on job satisfaction. Some research suggests that ex­traverts are more likely to respond to rewards than are introverts (Ashton, Lee & Paunonen, 2002; Lucas & Diener, 2000), which could mean that extraverts currently are more frustrated, because climbing the social ladder is seen as a reward. It would be inter­esting to test whether there is a correlation between individuals’ personality traits and their ambitions in terms of how they respond to working from home and how it a.ects their job satisfaction. Next, we also could investigate whether the tasks that partic­ipants have to complete at their workplace correlate with their satisfaction. Previous research has shown that tasks that do not match personality traits and personal preferences can cause irritability, boredom, anxiety, and dissatisfaction (Edwards & Harrison 1993; Kristo.-Brown et al., 2005). The displacement of these tasks as a result of the epidemic could lead to individuals being less satisfied with their jobs. Fur­thermore, we could determine whether certain areas are preferred by employees with di.erent per­sonality traits. In conducting this type of research, we also could examine the design of o.ce spaces, because di.erent people have di.erent preferences for their workspace (Davis et al., 2011). Because in­troverts are more easily overstimulated by the envi­ronment, it would be interesting to see if the design of their current workspace a.ects their job satisfac­tion. Based on recent studies, we also could study whether less-extraverted people find the current form of remote work more satisfying than those who are more extraverted. In addition, current employer preferences and their impact on employee job satis­faction could be explored further. Aziz and Pangil (2017) found that individuals who are more ex­traverted and therefore “better at selling them­selves” (Kristof-Brown et al., 2002) are more likely to be hired than are their introverted counterparts; however, some studies suggest that introverts may outperform their extraverted counterparts in making risky decisions, yet they often are overlooked (Kuh­nen & Chiao, 2009). Lastly, the aspect of resilience also could be included here, because introverted employees often feel excluded and overlooked (Mc­Cord & Joseph, 2020). Research here could include both perspectives—that of the employer, and that of the employee. We could study how well intro­verted employees perform under stress (taking safety precautions into account) and how they be­have after making mistakes. This could be interest­ing, because Brebner and Cooper (1978) found that extraverts become faster after making a mistake, whereas introverts tend to pause and examine what happened to avoid making the same mistake in the future. Especially in times of uncertainty brought about by the pandemic, it would be interesting to observe how individuals with di.erent personality traits deal with risk and how the mistakes they make a.ect their job satisfaction. REFERENCES Acquaah, M., Amoako-Gyampah, K. & Jayaram, J. (2011). Resilience in family and nonfamily firms: an examina­tion of the relationships between manufacturing strategy, competitive strategy and firm performance. International Journal of Production Research, 49, 18, 5527-5544. Adigun, A. O., Oyekunle, I. A. & Onifade, T. (2017). Influ­ence of job satisfaction on employees’ performance in MTN Nigeria. Global Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(5), 54-60. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K. & Paunonen, S. V. (2002). What is the central feature of extraversion? Social attention versus reward sensitivity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 83(1), 245. Aziri, B. (2011). Job satisfaction: a literature review. Man­agement Research & Practice, 3(4). Aziz, A. & Pangil, F. (2017). Moderating E.ect of Emo­tional Intelligence on the Relationship between Per­sonality Traits and Employability. Saudi Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(2), 132-139. Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J. & Ying, Z. (2014). Does Working from Home Work? Evidence from a Chinese Experiment. The Quarterly Journal Of Economics, 130(1), 165-218. Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J. & Ying, Z. J. (2015). Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Eco­nomics, 130(1), 165-218. Brebner, J. & Cooper, C. (1978). Stimulus-or response-in­duced excitation. A comparison of the behavior of in­troverts and extraverts. Journal of Research in Personality, 12(3), 306-311. Buettner, D. (2012). Are Extroverts Happier Than Intro­verts? Retrieved July 2021, from https://www.psy­chologytoday.com/us/blog/thrive/201205/are-extroverts-happier-introverts Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking. Crown Publishers/Random House. Carver, C. S. & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behaviour. Cambridge University Press. New York, NY, US. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F. & Segerstrom, S. C. (2010). Op­timism. Clinical psychology review, 30(7), 879-889. Cavus, M. F. & Gokcen, A. (2015). Psychological capital: Definition, components and e.ects. Journal of Educa­tion, Society and Behavioural Science, 244-255. Conklin, E.S. (1923). The definition of Introversion, Extro­version and Allied Concepts. Journal of Abnormal Psy­chology and Social Psychology, 17, 367-382 Conz, E. & Magnani, M. (2020). A dynamic perspective on the resilience of firms: A systematic literature review and a framework for future research. European Man­agement Journal, 38,(3), 400-412. Davidson, B., Gillies, R. & Pelletier, A. (2015). Introversion and Medical Student Education: Challenges for Both Students and Educators. Teaching And Learning In Medicine, 27(1), 99-104. Davis, K. and Nestrom, J.W. (1985). Human Behavior at work: Organizational Behavior, 7th edition. McGraw Hill, New York, p.109 Davis, M. C., Leach, D. J. & Clegg, C. W. (2011). The Phys­ical Environment of the O.ce: Contemporary and Emerging Issues. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organi­zational Psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 193 - 235). Chich­ester, UK: Wiley. Digman, J. (1990). Personality Structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model. Annual Review Of Psychology, 41(1), 417-440. Dweck CS. (2007). Mindset: The New Psychology of Suc­cess. Updated Edition. Ballantine Books. Dziuba, S. T., Ingaldi, M. & Zhuravskaya, M. (2020). Em­ployees’ job satisfaction and their work performance as elements influencing work safety. System Safety: Human-Technical Facility-Environment, 2(1). Edwards, J. R., & Van Harrison, R. (1993). Job demands and worker health: Three-dimensional reexamination of the relationship between person-environment fit and strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 628–648. Employers’ Federation of India. (2020). Work from home. A policy prescription. ILO. Fuller, H. R. & Huseth-Zosel, A. (2021). Lessons in Resilience: Initial Coping Among Older Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic. The Gerontologist, 61(1), 114–125. Gensowski, M. (2018). Personality, IQ, and lifetime earn­ings. Labour Economics, 51, 170-183. George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2005). Understanding and managing organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice Hall. Gilrane, V. (2019). Working together when we’re not to­gether. Google. Retrieved August 1st from: https://blog.google/inside-google/life-at-google/work­ing-together-when-were-not-together/. Goby, V. P. (2006). Personality and online/o.ine choices: MBTI profiles and favored communication modes in a Singapore study. Cyberpsychology & behavior, 9(1), 5-13. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, modera­tion, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. Herbane, B. (2015). Threat orientation in small and medium-sized enterprises: understandingdi.erences toward acute interruptions. Disaster Prevention and Management, 24(5), 583-595. Hill, E., Ferris, M. & Märtinson, V. (2003). Does it matter where you work? A comparison of how three work venues (traditional o.ce, virtual o.ce, and home of­fice) influence aspects of work and personal/family life. Journal Of Vocational Behavior, 63(2), 220-241. Hobfoll, S. E. (2011). Conservation of resources theory: Its implication for stress, health, and resilience. In S. Folkman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of stress, health, and coping (pp. 127–147). Oxford University Press. Hoppock, R. (1935). Job Satisfaction. Harper and Broth­ers, New York, p. 47 Houston, E. (2021). Introvert vs Extrovert: A Look at the Spectrum and Psychology. Retrieved 10 August 2021, from https://positivepsychology.com/introversion-ex­troversion-spectrum/ Huang, J. L., Bramble, R. J., Liu, M., Aqwa, J. J., Ott-Hol­land, C. J., Ryan, A. M., ... & Wadlington, P. L. (2016). Rethinking the association between extraversion and job satisfaction: The role of interpersonal job con­text. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy­chology, 89(3), 683-691. Janowsky, D.S. (2001). Introversion and extroversion: Im­plications for depression and suicidality. Curr Psychi­atry Rep, 3, 444–450. Jewson, N. (2002). In Work, At Home: Towards an Under­standing of Homeworking. Routledge. Jung, C. G. (1921). Psychological Types. The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, Vol. 6, Bollingen Series XX. Kakhnovets, R. (2011). Relationships among personality, ex­pectations about counseling, and help-seeking attitudes. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89(1), 11–19. Kalinnikova, L., Zavodilov, A. & Dmitrijeva, O. (2020). Stress Symptoms under Extreme Circumstances in Latvian National guard Personnel with di.erent Per­sonality Supertraits. Kaliski, B.S. (2007). Encyclopedia of Business and Finance. Thompson Gale, Detroit, p. 446 Katz, G. (2019). Future of work: What Google learned about remote work from its employees. Retrieved Au­gust 14, 2021 from https://www.theladders.com/ca­ reer-advice/what-google-learned-about-remote-work-from-its-employees . Kempf Taylor, Melissa. (2020). Personality Styles: Why They Matter in the Workplace. 10.37075/EA.2020.1.08. Killgore, W. D. S., Taylor, E. C., Cloonan, S. A. & Dailey, N. S. (2020). Psychological resilience during the covid-19 lockdown. Psychiatry Research, 291, 113216. Kristof-Brown, A., Barrick, M. & Franke, M. (2002). Appli­cant Impression Management: Dispositional Influences and Consequences for Recruiter Perceptions of Fit and Similarity. Journal Of Management, 28(1), 27-46. Kristo.-Brown, A., R. Zimmerman, E. Johnson. (2005). Con­sequences of individual’s fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and per­son-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281-342 Kuhnen, C. & Chiao, J. (2009). Genetic Determinants of Financial Risk Taking. Plos ONE, 4(2), e4362. Liu, S., Lithopoulos, A., Zhang, C., Garcia-Barrera, M. & Rhodes, R. (2021). Personality and perceived stress during COVID-19 pandemic: Testing the mediating role of perceived threat and e.cacy. Personality And Individual Di.erences, 168, 110351. Lounsbury, J. W., Mo.tt, L., Gibson, L. W., Drost, A. W., & Stevens, M. (2007). An Investigation of Personality Traits in Relation to Job and Career Satisfaction of In­formation Technology Professionals. Journal of Infor­mation Technology, 22(2), 174–183. Lucas, R. E., Le, K. & Dyrenforth, P. S. (2008). Explaining the extraversion/positive a.ect relation: Sociability cannot account for extraverts’ greater happiness. Jour­nal of personality, 76(3), 385-414. Luthans, F., Vogelgesang, G. R. & Lester, P. B. (2006). De­veloping the Psychological Capital of Resiliency. Human Resource Development Review, 5(1), 25–44. McCord, M. & Joseph, D. (2020). A framework of negative responses to introversion at work. Personality And In­dividual Di.erences, 161. McPhee, W. (2014). A new sustainability model: Engaging the entire firm. Journal of Business Strategy, 35(2), 4-12 Mullins, L. J. (2005). Management and organisational be­haviour. Harlow, England: Prentice Hall/Financial Times. Nilles, J.M. (1998). Managing Telework: Strategies for Managing the Virtual Workforce. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Noopur, R. B. (2021). Role of perceived HRM toward workplace bullying and turnover intention: mediating role of resilience and psychological health. Asia-Pa­ cific Journal of Business Administration. Orkibi, H. & Brandt, Y. I. (2015). How positivity links with job satisfaction: Preliminary findings on the mediating role of work-life balance. Europe’s journal of psychol­ogy, 11(3), 406. Pal, R., Torstensson, H. & Mattila, H. (2014). Antecedents of organizational resilience in economic crises—an empirical study of Swedish textile and clothing SMEs. International Journal of Production Eco­nomics, 147, 410-428. Prime, H., Wade, M., Browne, D., T. (2020). Risk and Re­silience in Family Well-Being During the COVID-19 Pandemic. American Psychologist, 75, 631-643. Randstad Workmonitor (2021). Q4 2019 report. Retrieved 1 August 2021, from https://workforceinsights.rand­ stad.com/hr-research-reports-workmonitor-q42019 Rapoport, R. Bailyn, L. Fletcher, J. & Pruitt, B. (2002). Be­yond Work-Family Balance. Advancing Gender Equity and Workplace Performance. London: Wiley. Reinmoeller, P. & van Baardwijk, N. (2005). The link be­tween diversity and resilience. MIT Sloan Manage­ment Review, 46(4), 61. Rhinesmith, S. H. (1992). Global mindsets for global man­agers. Training & Development, 46(10). Richard E. Lucas & Ed Diener (2000).Cross-Cultural Evidence for the Fundamental Features of Extraversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 452–68. Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. & Knafo, A. (2002). The Big Five Personality Factors and Personal Values. Per­sonality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 789-801. doi: 10.1177/0146167202289008 Rubin, O., Nikolaeva, A., Nello-Deakin, S. & te Brömmel­stroet, M. (2020). What can we learn from the COVID-19 pandemic about how people experience working from home and commuting. Centre for Urban Studies, University of Amsterdam. Sagiv, L. & Schwartz, S.H. (2007). Cultural values in orga­nizations: insights for Europe. European Journal of In­ternational Management, 1(3), 176–190. Sagone, E. & Caroli, M. E. (2015). Positive personality as a predictor of high resilience in adolescence. Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Science, 3(2), 45-53. Sagone, E. & Caroli, M. E. (2015). Positive personality as a predictor of high resilience in adolescence. Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Science, 3(2), 45-53. Saltiel, F. (2020). Who can work from home in developing countries? Covid Economics, 7, 104–118. Sanchez-Roige, S., Gray, J., MacKillop, J., Chen, C. & Palmer, A. (2017). The genetics of human personality. Genes, Brain and Behavior, 17(3), e12439. Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (2003). Self-regulatory pro­cesses and responses to health threats: E.ects of op­timism on well-being. In J. Suls & K. A. Wallston (Eds.), Social psychological foundations of health and illness (pp. 395–428). Blackwell Publishing. Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Dis­tinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anx­iety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A re-evaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063-1078. Shokrkon, A. & Nicoladis, E. (2021). How personality traits of neuroticism and extroversion predict the e.ects of the COVID-19 on the mental health of Canadians. Plos one, 16(5), e0251097. Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P. & Bernard, J. (2008). The Brief Resilience Scale: As­sessing the ability to bounce back. International Jour­nal of Behavioral Medicine, 15(3), 194–200. Soto, C. J., Kronauer, A. & Liang, J. K. (2016). Five-factor model of personality. In S. K. Whitbourne (Ed.), Ency­clopedia of adulthood and aging (Vol. 2, pp. 506-510). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Staker, H., B. Horn, M. (2012). Classifying K-12 Blended Learning. Innosight Institute. Stewart, G. L., Dustin, S. L., Barrick, M. R. & Darnold, T. C. (2008). Exploring the handshake in employment in­terviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1139–1146. ter Bogt, T.F.M., Engels, R.C.M.E. & Dubas, J.S. (2006).. Party people: Personality and MDMA use of house partyvisitors. Addictive Behaviors, 31, 1240–1244. Tenney, E. R., Logg, J. M. & Moore, D. A. (2015). (Too) op­timistic about optimism: The belief that optimism im­proves performance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 108(3), 377. Topolewska-Siedzik, E., Skimina, E., Strus, W., Cieciuch, J. & Rowinski, T. (2014). The short IPIP-BFM-20 ques­tionnaire for measuring the big five. Roczniki Psycho­logiczne, 17(2), 367-384. Vinkers, C. H., van Amelsvoort, T., Bisson, J. I., Branchi, I., Cryan, J. F., Domschke, K., Howes, O. D., Manchia, M., Pinto, L., de Quervain, D., Schmidt, M. V. & van der Wee, N. J. A. (2020). Stress resilience during the coro­navirus pandemic. European Neuropsychopharmacol­ogy, 35, 12–16. Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Walker, B. H. (2020). Resilience: what it is and what is not. Ecology and Society, 25. Walne, M. B. (2012). Emerging Blended-Learning Models and School Profiles. EduStart LLC. Wei, M. (2020). Social Distancing and Lockdown – An In­trovert’s Paradise? An Empirical Investigation on the Association Between Introversion and the Psycholog­ical Impact of COVID19-Related Circumstantial Changes. Frontiers In Psychology, 11. Wijngaards, I., Sisouw de Zilwa, S. & Burger, M. J. (2020). Extraversion Moderates the Relationship Between the Stringency of COVID-19 Protective Measures and De­pressive Symptoms. Frontiers in psychology, 11, 568907. Wilmot, M., Wanberg, C., Kammeyer-Mueller, J. & Ones, D. (2019). Extraversion advantages at work: A quanti­tative review and synthesis of the meta-analytic evi­dence. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 104(12), 1447-1470. Yolles, M. & Fink, G. (2013). An Introduction to Mindset Theory. SSRN Electronic Journal, Youssef, C. M. & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: The impact of hope, opti­mism, and resilience. Journal of Management, 33(5), 774–800. bounce back from di.cult experiences, adapt, de­velop, and in some cases even grow (Luthans, Vo­gelgesang & Lester, 2006). Many employers are focusing increasingly on the critical factors that influ­ Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 67 Abstract Vol. 10, No. 2, 67-82 doi:10.17708/DRMJ.2021.v10n02a05 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 68 Gašperlin Janina, Dovžan Nuša, Ferjan Karmen, Lamovšek Amadeja: The Interaction Between Individual Characteristics and Mode of Work in Predicting Resilience and Job Satisfaction Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 69 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 70 Gašperlin Janina, Dovžan Nuša, Ferjan Karmen, Lamovšek Amadeja: The Interaction Between Individual Characteristics and Mode of Work in Predicting Resilience and Job Satisfaction Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 71 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 72 Gašperlin Janina, Dovžan Nuša, Ferjan Karmen, Lamovšek Amadeja: The Interaction Between Individual Characteristics and Mode of Work in Predicting Resilience and Job Satisfaction Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 73 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 74 Gašperlin Janina, Dovžan Nuša, Ferjan Karmen, Lamovšek Amadeja: The Interaction Between Individual Characteristics and Mode of Work in Predicting Resilience and Job Satisfaction Figure 1: Research model with hypotheses Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 75 Table 1: Descriptive statistics Table 2: Symmetry measures Table 3: Linear regression results Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 76 Gašperlin Janina, Dovžan Nuša, Ferjan Karmen, Lamovšek Amadeja: The Interaction Between Individual Characteristics and Mode of Work in Predicting Resilience and Job Satisfaction Table 4: Moderated linear regression Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 77 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 78 Gašperlin Janina, Dovžan Nuša, Ferjan Karmen, Lamovšek Amadeja: The Interaction Between Individual Characteristics and Mode of Work in Predicting Resilience and Job Satisfaction Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 79 EXTENDED SUMMARY/IZVLECEK Organizacije so v casu pandemije COVID-19 iskale nove nacine, kako prilagoditi ureditev dela in vpeljati razlicne pojavne oblike dela (npr. hibridno delo, delo na daljavo) ter ob tem ohraniti zado­voljstvo svojih zaposlenih. Ta clanek je raziskal razmerje med osebnostnimi karakteristikami za­poslenih in njihovimi vplivi na trdoživost zaposlenih in zadovoljstvo pri delu. Študija je prav tako raziskala ali se ta razmerja razlikujejo v razlicnih pojavnih oblikah dela. Izsledki raziskave so pomembni za managerje, saj jim pomagajo razumeti povezavo med individualnimi karakteristikami zaposlenih in rezultati pri delu v okviru dolocene pojavne oblike dela. Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 80 Gašperlin Janina, Dovžan Nuša, Ferjan Karmen, Lamovšek Amadeja: The Interaction Between Individual Characteristics and Mode of Work in Predicting Resilience and Job Satisfaction Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 81 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 82 Gašperlin Janina, Dovžan Nuša, Ferjan Karmen, Lamovšek Amadeja: The Interaction Between Individual Characteristics and Mode of Work in Predicting Resilience and Job Satisfaction Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 83 AUTHOR GUIDELINES 1.GENERAL INFORMATION All articles submitted to the Dynamic Relationships Management Journal are double-blind reviewed. The manuscript should submitted via e-mail to the editor (matej.cerne@ef.uni-lj.si). Send two files: one that contains author contact information along with the text, references, tables, figures, and exhibits; and one where author contact information will be deleted. Authors should keep an exact, extra copy of the manuscript for future reference. Manuscripts are reviewed with the understanding that they are original, not under consideration by any other publisher, have not been previously published in whole or in part, have not been previously ac­cepted for publication, and will not be submitted elsewhere until a decision is reached regarding their pub­lication in the Dynamic Relationships Management Journal. Manuscripts must be written in English. Authors are responsible for the quality of written English and proof reading of the text is required. Manuscripts should be double-spaced (including references) in 12 point font, with pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire paper. (The title page is page one.) Text alignment should be justified. Margins should be one inch (2.5 cm) at the top, bottom and sides of the page. Manuscripts inclusive of all text, references, tables, figures, appendices etc. should be no longer than 30 pages and should not exceed 60.000 characters including spaces. Authors should provide a summary, which will be published in Slovene (for foreign authors, translation will be provided by editors). Manuscripts that report quantitative analyses of data should typically include descriptive statistics, correlation matrices, the results of statistical tests and so forth. If these items are not included in the manuscript, they should be reported in a separate technical appendix. Authors of manuscripts that report data dependent results also must make available, upon request, exact information regarding their proce­dures and stimuli (excluding data). If we receive files that do not conform to the above requirements, we will inform the author(s) and we will not begin the review process until we receive the corrected files. The author(s) submitting the manuscript for review should clearly indicate to the editor the relation of the manuscript under review to any other manuscripts currently under review, in press or recently pub­lished by the authors. The editor may ask the authors to submit copies of such related papers to the Editorial Board. 2.GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 1.First page: Name of author(s) and title; author(s) footnote, including present positions, complete ad-dress, telephone number, fax number, email address, and any acknowledgment of financial or technical assistance. 2.Second page: Title of paper (without author's name) and an abstract of no more than 250 words sub­stantively summarizing the article. Also include up to six keywords that describe your paper for indexing and for web searches in your manuscript. 3.Next: Text alignment justified with major headings and subheadings flush with the left margin. The in­troduction should state clearly the objective of the paper as well as the motivation and the context of the research. The literature review should be limited to the articles, books and other items that have a direct bearing on the topic being addressed. In empirical papers, details of the empirical section tests should not be included in the paper itself. The conclusion should summarize key findings and state their importance to the field. Footnotes should be kept to an absolute minimum and must be placed at the foot of the page to which they refer. They should not be used for citing references. 4.Then: Tables, numbered consecutively, each on a separate page. If tables appear in an appendix, they should be numbered separately and consecutively, as in Table A-1, A-2, and so on. 5.Next: Figures, numbered consecutively, each placed on a separate page. If tables appear in an appendix, they should be numbered separately, as in Figure A-1, A-2, etc. 6.After conclusion: Longer summary (1-2 pp, depending on length of article) in Slovenian language (for foreign authors, translation will be provided by editors). 7.Last: References, typed in alphabetical order by author's last name and in APA style. 3. TABLES 1.The table number and title should be centered and placed above the table. 2.Source(s) should also be provided and centered below the table: i.e. Mabey & Gooderham, The impact of management development on perceptions of organizational performance in European firms, 2005: 136. 3.Designate units (e.g., %, $) in column headings. 4.Align all decimals. 5.Refer to tables in the text by number only. Do not refer to tables by "above," "below," and "preceding." 6.If possible, combine closely related tables. 7.Clearly indicate positions of tables within the text on the page where they are introduced: e.g. Table 1 about here. 8.Measures of statistical significance should be reported within the table. 4.FIGURES, PHOTOGRAPHS AND CAMERA-READY ARTWORK 1.For graphs, label both vertical and horizontal axes. The ordinate label should be centered above the ordinate axis; the abscissa label should be placed beneath the abscissa. 2.Place all calibration tics inside the axis lines, with the values outside the axis lines. 3.The figure number and title should be typed on separate lines, centered and placed above the figure. 4.When appropriate, source(s) should also be provided and centered below the figure (see example under the Tables section). 5.Clearly indicate positions of figures within the text on the page where they are introduced. 6.Once a manuscript has been accepted for publication, complex tables and all figures must be submitted both electronically and as camera-ready (hard) copy. Do not embed figures in the Word file; instead, submit them separately in the program in which they were created (i.e., PDF, PowerPoint, Excel). 7.Lettering should be large enough to be read easily with 50% reduction. 8.Any art not done on a computer graphics program should be professionally drafted in India ink. 9.Do not submit photographs or camera-ready art until your manuscript has been accepted. If the pho­tograph or artwork is completed, submit copies. 5.MATHEMATICAL NOTATION 1.Mathematical notation must be clear and understandable. Since not all journal readers are mathe­matically proficient, the authors should ensure that the text (i.e., words) also conveys the meaning ex­pressed by the mathematical notation. We recommend that extensive mathematical notation (e.g., proofs) should be provided in a separate technical appendix. 2.Equations should be centered on the page. Equations should be numbered; type the number in paren­theses flush with the left margin. If equations are too wide to fit in a single column, indicate appropriate breaks. Unusual symbols and Greek letters should be identified by a note. 6.REFERENCE CITATIONS WITHIN THE TEXT Cite all references at the appropriate point in the text by the surname of the author(s), year of publi­cation, and pagination where necessary. Pagination (without 'p.' or 'pp.') to give the source of a quotation or to indicate a passage of special relevance, follows the year of publication and is preceded by a colon, i.e. Parsons (1974: 238). Page numbers should be given full out, i.e. 212-230 not 212-30. When providing quotes, these should be in italics. In general, references to published works must be cited in text according to the guidelines for APA style (for more information see the DRMJ website). 7.REFERENCE LIST STYLE 1.Single Author: Last name first, followed by author initials. Berndt, T. J. (2002). Friendship quality and social development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 7-10. 2.Two Authors: List by their last names and initials. Use the ampersand instead of “and.” Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Mood management across a.ective states: The hedonic contin­gency hypothesis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 66, 1034-1048. 3.Three to Six Authors: List by last names and initials; commas separate author names, while the last author name is preceded again by ampersand. Kernis, M. H., Cornell, D. P., Sun, C. R., Berry, A., & Harlow, T. (1993). There’s more to self-esteem than whether it is high or low: The importance of stability of self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1190-1204. 4.Organization as Author American Psychological Association. (2003). 5.Unknown Author Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary (10th ed.).(1993). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster. 6.Two or More Works by the Same Author: Use the author’s name for all entries and list the entries by the year (earliest comes first). Berndt, T. J. (1981). Berndt, T. J. (1999). References that have the same first author and di.erent second and/or third authors are arranged alphabetically by the last name of the second author, or the last name of the third if the first and second authors are the same. For other examples, see the DRMJ website. Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 84 Author Guidelines Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 85 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 86 Author Guidelines