1. Introduction
The periodical lockdowns and social distancing in the years 2020–2022 led to adaptation of business and social activity based on the common awareness of the division of work into indispensable and remote from home. Indispensable work involved an elevated life or health risk for the employee working at the physical workstation in order to maintain the social function capacity, mainly in terms of securing health care, food, accommodation, gas and electricity, trash removal, etc. In the initial period, these people were praised by others for their dedication [1] and were even glorified in mass media [2]. A new category emerged in employment typologies [3], which required not only original theoretical frameworks, but also repositioning towards other categories like meaningful work [4] or applying the opposite criteria of bullshit jobs. The latter were defined as work, which does not contribute anything sensible, useful, or creative, but still fulfilling specific needs. It included for example 24/7 pizza delivery, receptionists, and security guards [5].
Researchers started to focus on home office, which became a necessity. It was the subject of numerous multifaceted studies, which demonstrated the expectations of certain theoreticians, according to which the benefits of working from home would lead to a considerable growth of the numbers of home offices and various forms of flexible employment [6,7]. However, now that the pandemic is over, home offices are returning to normal and their statistical indicators are returning to the levels from before 2020. This is also the situation in the United States, where flexible forms still have little share in overall employment [8] despite the potential to have 37% of workplaces installed at home [9].
The existing research gap and the shortage of explicit proposals mean that the search and exploration for other determinants of home office development are continuing. Certain authors still propose research on the cultural determinant. For example, it has been suggested that the expansion of organisational limits with home offices is an instrument of a network capable of continuous innovation due to being positioned in a “variable geometry” with an ephemeral, flashing, and kaleidoscopic culture [10]. Moving work to a home, from which it was absent, results from the impact of various cultural environments, which force us to deal with tensions between our public identity of employees and the private and intimate identity of family members or friends—or of ourselves if we happen to live alone [11,12]. The submitted proposals also pointed out the missing contextual factors such as regulations, attitudes of employees and managers, or work culture [13]. When searching for the determinants of development, the experiences of the COVID-19 period should be taken into account. It is of particular importance to consider sustainability as a sustainable functional capacity or the ability to adapt and sometimes proactively create new opportunities. The emerging work ecosystem, extended to the home, is sustainable human and social development in professional life understood as the ability of employees, groups, and organisations to continue functioning in any situation [14,15,16]. This forces the necessity to determine whether the research results implemented in the adopted concept determine the implementation of sustainable development or perhaps the emerging concept of harmonisation.
The concept of home office development requires a shift of resource allocation and organisational limits, including spatial ones [17]. Due to the above, it requires not only cultural research, but also recognition of the neo-institutional perspective, which is developed on the grounds of economic studies, organisation, and management. Ząbkowicz notes that the new institutional economy deals in human transactions in the sense of contracts and resource allocation models, emphasising those outside of the markets, which determine prices in organisational structures [18]. Organisations are sometimes presented as institutions and the people taking advantage of them. Misiński, in turn, believes that the essence of an enterprise based on moving the main form of management from the function of production to the function of selection of the forms of coordination and the systems managing them affects the different limit establishments [19]. Our contemplations adapt the premises assumed in the research of organisation and management. Moving the limits does not alter the essence and point of employee actions, which are directed into the organisation, and the employees’ system of individual values and perception are aligned with the organisational culture model [20].
According to the literature, institutional logics are very important, as they combine the meaning/sense on one side with the social structures and practices on the other, e.g., combining the identity and actions of the actors with cultural values [21]. It is also important to study logic as the result of a specific context defined in the categories of the location [22]. This study aims to analyse employee perception of two work institutionalisation determinants. The first concerns diagnosis of the state and changes in organisational culture models in the conditions of onsite work and home office. The second concerns the evaluation of the impact of institutional logics on working from home in the aspect of cultural models and logic relations. In this sense, there is the possibility of evaluating the potential impact of employees on organisational culture changes in the event of a mass home office system.
The authors believe that a contribution can be made to the literature by analysing the following research propositions of the cultural effects of working from home:
Proposition 1. Employees expect a reduction in the significance of market culture in work processes in favour of a culture of creation and cooperation;
Proposition 2. The changes in the levels and structures of the model organisational culture have been historically accompanied by a developed institutional order, which is a relatively structurally constant system of employee values and opinions (so-called structural change paradox);
Proposition 3. The position of family logic in work formation rises alongside with the importance of the domination of “non-productive” cultures (i.e., clans and adhocracy).
The research requires development of innovative and original methods composed of the following stages: (a) selection and adaptation of the organisational culture model; (b) selection of organisational metalogics; (c) development of an integrated poll questionnaire; (d) selection of the research sample; (e) collection of empirical data; and (f) statistical analyses and compilation of research results.
The structure of the work is assigned to the issues and methodological premises listed and described in detail in individual sections. The next chapter reviews the literature covering home office development trends and the essence of institutional logics. This is followed by a presentation of research methodologies. The final chapter demonstrates and discusses the results and presents the conclusions, including certain restrictions and future studies.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Home Office
Home offices have a long historical tradition. This mainly involves the functional multiplexes in medieval England, where single-floor and single-room homes served as kitchens and spinning/weaving/tailoring shops, bedrooms and dairy shops, dining rooms, slaughterhouses, tanneries, etc. They were followed by hybrid workhouses, which had stores or workshops in the street and living spaces elsewhere. On a wider scale, home offices returned in the late 20th century, when the possibility to work efficiently outside of the employer’s location emerged [23].
The lockdown experiment of the COVID-19 era inspired work researchers to diagnose various aspects of the forced home offices. This involved two research perspectives: of the work location and employee (whose home hosted the home office) and of the organisation. The initial stage included research of matters such as work and employment risks, home office workstation organisation and the scope of work content transitioned there [24], the research response to the recommendations of the article in form of identifying of meaning of impact of monitoring synergy, technical equipment, and work sustainability on the level of satisfaction derived from working from home [25], rhythm of work regulated using ICTs through workflow interlacing practices and changing work intensity [26], adaptation of assignments to material, personal, and efficiency dimensions [27], fitting remote workstations into the physical and emotional space of home and periodical expansion of organisational space [17], or the efficiency and effectiveness of home offices and the quality of maintaining business contacts [28,29]. The differences between onsite work and compulsory remote work have been specified in five dimensions: personal, time, spatial, social, and technical. The significances of fear, uncertainty, anxiety, isolation, and stress of the employees, schedules, the working environment, socialisation, and application of technologies were all established [30]. In scope of personal attributes of the individuals working remotely during the pandemic, the evaluation covered variability of the mood spectrum, sleeping disorders, and general impact of the pandemic on everyday life. In conclusion, it was recommended that authorities should develop local family support programmes [31]. The accumulation of the various types of activities at home led to a decline in physical activity, more pain and stress for parents, and deteriorating disposition [32]. The academic community was also established to have problems in scope of working from home, which included the inability to adapt, no home office availability, loneliness and isolation, inability to harmonise family and professional life, and improve satisfaction from working at home [33].
According to the analysis of the results and effects of working at home in scope of fulfilment of the objectives of sustainable development (wellbeing, dignified work, gender equality, and production benefiting social inclusion), there is a generally positive impact on the short-term disposition of employees and there are now more flexible and proactive opportunities to design work [34].
The organisational perspective also covers various compilations of specific areas. The dominating aspects are those of the output capacity, productiveness, and effectiveness of remote work. The level of factors with potential impact on the productiveness of home offices and working platforms is derived from international research [35]. The research established the conditions required to attain the desired levels of productivity [36]. It was established that the impact of the remote work model on employee productivity and output capacity is determined by numerous factors, including the nature of the work, the profile of the employer and the industry, and the conditions at home. Researchers suggest that strategic applications of remote work depend on improvement of technology and IT training and development of capabilities [37]. An important aspect in the context of remote work is working time registration. With a working time registration system, employees can understand the provisions governing their working time and the expectations of the company. They can also monitor their working hours and labour load alongside the employer. Employers can also take advantage of work registration systems to program employee learning and development and monitor reorganisation of the workflow within the organisation [38]. Another organisational instrument is provided by legal tools aimed to regulate the differences between onsite and remote workers [39].
It was also established that remote work can improve output capacity with appropriate hardware, training, and management, as well as the level of sustainable development by reducing commuting to work and providing for dignified work involving more independence and flexibility [40]. The studies of working at home adapted the operationalisation of Lefebvre’s triad model in order to depict the workstations spatially (physical space, cyberspace, social space) for purposes of the analysis of securing developmental continuity in scope of the home office system, in particular ensuring continuity of education through home-office system [41].
The perspective of the organisation also includes various thematic studies. The level of factors potentially impacting the productiveness of home offices and work platforms was based on international research [30]. In addition to sector-specific and international research, the solutions adopted by major global corporations are also important to practical aspects of the solution. In the context of a long-term home office strategy, the recommendations are rather pessimistic. The historical experiences of returning to the office due to dropping revenues in Yahoo in 2014 or IBM in 2017 [42] are pointed out. Facebook’s projections of having 50% of employees working from home by 2025 seem excessively optimistic following the sharp decline in the company’s value and employment reductions. The study also covered the work of 61.2 thousand employees of the American Microsoft from the first half of 2020 to assess the impact of home office throughout the company on cooperation and communication. As it turned out, the employee cooperation network turned more static and intracellular with fewer relations between specific departments. Furthermore, synchronous communication decreased and asynchronous communication increased. Instead of developing the “network communication effect” expected in big corporations, information acquisition and sharing and work paces slowed down [43]. Thus, the research conducted on global corporations indicates an adaptive and conservative nature of work organisation in the COVID-19 era, which indicates a shortage of “good practices” possible to engage in strategic home office development.
In light of the presented results of research of material, psychological, social, and spatial factors, attention was turned to previously unresearched cultural aspects of home offices, which—in addition to the institution—serve as one of the foundations of management. The positioning of culture is presented in the Williamson schematic, which demonstrates the levels of analyses and frequencies of changes, especially in scope of management and resource allocation, suggesting that the effective research period would be up to ten years. When it comes to home offices requiring structural optimisation, the variant of constant change applies [44].
2.2. The Essence of Institutional Logic
Organisations are often subject to research regarding the impact of institutions on individual and organisational behaviours and on the ways institutions are established and transformed by entities and organisations. An advanced social sciences instrument—including organisation and management—is the perspective of institutional logic [45]. Institutional logic is defined broadly and specifically. The broad definition sees it as socially structured models of material practices and symbols, premises, values, beliefs, and standards used by entities and organisational to produce and reproduce their material preservation, organise their time and space, and attribute meaning to their social reality [46]. The more specific definition covers cultural element systems (normative expectations, values, beliefs), which make it possible for people, groups, and organisations to attribute meaning and evaluate their daily activities and organise said actions in time and space [47].
The idea comes from the concept of a society constituted by various institutional orders. Thornton developed a theoretical research programme around the concept of institutional logic and started to develop the relation of logic with the institutional system, defining seven institutional orders (family, society, religion, market, state, occupation, and corporation) to represent various repertoires of excuses used by entities and organisations to attribute meaning to and rationalise their decisions. They constitute contemporary sources of legitimisation of motivation. The literature defines them as metalogics or “high-level institutional orders” [48]. Logics also appear on lower levels of the analysis, down to and including the organisation. Examples of such logics include quality, equal access, and effectiveness in health care [49] or institutional logics forming the reactions of cooperative banks in Poland, specifically in the context of organisational identity [50]. The valuable insights into the (de)motivation of Gen Z women and men at work offer a comparative analysis of gender differences in motivation within the young generation [51]. Understanding the factors that motivate or demotivate individuals in the workplace is crucial to establishing sustainable and productive remote work environments, especially with consideration of the preferences and needs of the younger workforce. The concept of emotional intelligence is highly relevant to the topic of sustainable remote work and the (re)institutionalisation of home offices [52]. Emotional intelligence plays a crucial role in remote work environments, as it influences individual abilities to manage stress, communicate effectively, and maintain positive working relationships, all of which are essential in order to maintain sustainable remote work practices. Understanding emotional intelligence profiles, particularly in the context of intergenerational collaboration, can provide valuable insights into fostering a supportive and inclusive remote work environment, which accommodates the needs of diverse age groups within the workforce.
The methodical separation of institutional logic from institutional order makes it possible to treat organisations, industries, or fields as sets of multiple coexisting logics. An individual logic may also be associated with or derived from numerous institutional orders. Organisational research assumed study of the relations of logics and coexisting conditions, conflicts, or in the sense of the effect of achieving domination, competition, disorder, substitution, complementarity [53,54,55], preservation of existing logics [56], or an institutional bricolage of numerous logics [57]. The methodical process of applying logic in research is presented by Ławrynowicz [50].
In organisational research, institutional logic determines objectives and measures, i.e., what is valuated, and the methods used to valuate, while rationality is established only according to the limitations of the specific logic. From the perspective of the presented research, identification of logics in organisational development is important for instances of creation of new organisational fields, and in order to understand the ways organisations can manage complex objectives and processes [53]. Logics contribute to the creation of organisational culture, i.e., the attitudes, beliefs, customs, standards, and rules believed to be enforced in the given organisation [56]. Therefore, culture is a unique desired functional mechanism of the given organisation and its standard is composed of the owners and management. Employees represent various sets of logics formed in their life cycles, which must be assigned to the culture of the given organisation or impact its development.
Researchers recently conducted a study focusing on employability, proactiveness, and workplace behaviours, with a specific interest in whether socioeconomic status acts as a mediator [58]. While their study may not directly address the concept of home office (re)institutionalisation, it provides valuable insights into the factors influencing workplace behaviours and employability. The findings of this study could be relevant in understanding how socioeconomic status may impact individual readiness and ability to adapt to remote work setups. For instance, individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may face different challenges and require specific support in transitioning to remote work. When seeking answers on how remote work leads to sustainable behaviour, discussions about sustainable transformation of financial institutions and its impact on value [59] should be taken into consideration. The findings and insights from this study could be applied in order to understand how sustainable practices can be metamorphosed into value within the framework of remote work setups. By examining the strategies and mechanisms through which financial institutions integrate sustainability into their value systems, valuable lessons can be drawn for organisations, which aim to establish sustainable and value-driven remote work environments.
According to the literature review, institutional logic research must recognise four components, which are (1) the researched logics, (2) relations between logics, i.e., institutional complexity, (3) institutional order, and (4) the strength of logic impact in institutional fields. This determines the methodological assumptions of the research, specifying workplaces at home as institutional fields.
3. Research Method and Material
The research problem required development of the methodology and performance of supplementary studies in scope of the project entitled “Remote work in organisational and social dimension” [24]. The research method was based on development of an integrated surveying instrument covering basic research aspects in scope of creation and functioning of long-term home office workstations. From the perspective of research problems, they included the model of organisational culture and the study of institutional logic relations, i.e., institutional complexity [60].
The first step was to select the organisational culture model. Upon analysis of the appropriate literature, an adapted Cameron
The second stage involved selection of the logic level and type. The most important logics are those of the topmost level, which are common and serve as the foundation for human development. The following metalogics were selected for research purposes based on the literature: organisation, occupation, family, and free time. They were verified in scope of a pilot study. The labels and locations of the researched attributes are presented in Table 1. They are expanded upon in the items of the questionnaire. For example, “Continuity” item in organisation’s logic means that “home office workplaces may ensure working continuity and increase the innovative efficiency of the organisation”. Item R2D (“Right to disconnect”) in the logic of free time is “organisation of free time to take a break from work-related tensions. Full separation from work-right to disconnect”. Item “Multiskills” in professional logic is defined as “extensive encouragement to develop new skills and competences. Striving to develop a broad range of skills”. Item “Networking” in organisational logic is “full and punctual functioning of home office workstations with skilful networking with the rest of the organisation”. In total, 20 items were established and distributed in four types of logics corresponding to specific culture types in the OCAI model.
The data on relations between institutional logics—the database used to survey the level of institutional complexity—were gathered in a separate information block. Said data were established with the method of paired comparisons in order to identify the levels of logic impact autonomy and cohesion. For example, item PROFESSIONAL VALUES ARE INDEPENDENT AND DO NOT SUPPORT FULFILMENT OF FAMILY VALUES in the OC/FM relation defines autonomy. In turn, item HOME OFFICE ORGANISATION AND ASSIGNMENTS EXCLUDE AND/OR IMPEDE FULFILMENT OF PROFESSIONAL VALUES concerning OR/OC relations surveys the level of logic impact cohesion. The obtained results were converted to the sums of coexistence relations (support, redundancy, complementarity, substitution) and conflict, such as domination, competition, disturbance, and exclusion.
The individual elements of all surveys composing the research package were graded on the 7-point Likert scale as follows: 1 = “I strongly disagree”, 2 = “I disagree”, 3 = “I somewhat disagree”, 4 = “I neither agree nor disagree (sometimes no, sometimes yes)”, 5 = “I somewhat agree”, 6 = “I agree”, 7 = “I strongly agree”. The results were converted into values of average item attributes of the OCAI model and organisational logics.
The selected logic criteria and items were tested in a pilot survey in October and November 2022 on a sample of 20 employees. The proper research was conducted between December 2022 and February 2023 on a sample of 254 employees, which produced 246 surveys verified for research purposes. The selected sample was partially random (CAWI method) and partially intentional in order to obtain information from the Generation Z community, i.e., young workers born after 1995. The cohesion result for institutional logics was high as Cronbach’s alpha reached 0.708 for organisation, 0.725 for occupation, 0.849 for family, and 0.869 for free time. The Cronbach’s alpha value for the entire logic set was 0.863. The obtained results indicate a high level of credibility falling between 0.7 and 0.95 [63,64]. The research involved structural analyses and correlation methods (Pearson, partial and full correlation) in order to establish the coexistence of effects.
The profile of respondents in the surveyed group of 246 people indicates a clear majority of women (167, i.e., 68%), ages 21–30 (93, i.e., 38%) and 31–40 (89, i.e., 36%), with tenure of 6–10 years (98, i.e., 40%) and over 10 years (91, i.e., 37%), academic education (160, i.e., 65%), 3 household members on average (167, i.e., 68%), one child (152, i.e., 62%), working in administration (98, i.e., 40%) and commerce (93, i.e., 38%) as an executive (202, i.e., 82%). The data indicates a strong level of professional feminisation and complex social relations (household members, children), which may be significant in scope of working from home.
4. Results
4.1. Home Office Organisational Culture Models
The first research problems subject to empirical verification were the current state and the expected model of attributes for workstations located at home. This problem was surveyed with the aforementioned adaptation of the Cameron
Subsequently, the respondents graded their feelings in scope of the attributes of the four selected organisational logics in reference to the creation of home office workstations from the perspective of the model OCAI attributes. Here, logic features were assigned up to 100 points in total for each model feature. This was because the logics selected for research purposes were the most probable ones and as such did not have to cover every opinion of the respondents. This is why there are five circles inside the rectangles referring to each type of culture (Figure 1), as a white field depicts no indication.
The survey results indicate expectations of radical changes to the model of organisational culture in the event of a strategic and long-term home office campaign. According to the opinions of respondents representing various organisations, jobs, and social environments, the current model is dominated by hierarchy (28%), clan (26%), and market (25%). Adhocracy—creation is clearly supplementary (20%). In practice, this means that there is a balanced model, but the position of each element of the triumvirate is determined by different factors. The “lean” market instruments appearing commonly in various sectors and industries must be recognised. The structure of respondents—with 40% representing various state or local administration institutions—may also have an impact.
The expectations of respondents develop the target model based on the dominating role of cooperation, i.e., the clan. This value, established at 33%, clearly supersedes the cultures of adhocracy (25%) and hierarchy (22%) supported by the supplementary role of the culture of rivalry (19%). This means that people are expecting new solutions with attributes desired by employees, which include joint objectives and values with a strong sense of “community” in the organisation, employee responsibility, the spirit of teamwork, a friendly atmosphere at work, and personal development of employees [50]. The items of ad hoc, dynamic, and periodical organisational formulas (adhocracy) as well as of formalisation and hierarchy (control) have supportive pillar roles in the expected model of the researched form of home offices (outside of the organisation’s premises).
The introduction of home offices, which would “despatialise” work by moving the permanent location of the workstation from the organisation to home, restores the significance of the physical distance from the location of the organisation (office) and colleagues, some of whom may also be “nomadised” by having to work from home or other places. The model result signifies specific employee expectations in light of previous experiences and “fluctuation” of solutions in corporations. This is about creating practical solutions allowing to “bypass” or minimise the impact of the space factor on work (work distribution, assignments, schedules, crunch, working models—e.g., e-conferences, asynchronous work, etc.), the atmosphere at work (mainly in the context of work management, inability to manage face-to-face, machine control of employees), employee rights (from the always-discussed HSE issues to the organisation being charged for using space at home), etc.
The sets of opinions on the sets of values and beliefs in scope of strategic application of the home office formula are important in the proposed model transformations. The blocks of institutional logics indicate that respondents expect preservation of a high level of organisational logic in the culture of hierarchy (25 points), which results from the “novelty effect” of the formula and the inexperience of employees and management. The other logics in this culture act as stabilisers with the same meaning. The model transformation is determined mainly by the reduced significance of logic in the type of market culture as respondents used only 75% of the available points to demonstrate logics in market culture as a heterogeneous system of two blocks—the stimulator in the form of organisation and profession (21 each) and the stabiliser created by family and free time (17 points each). In this block, the significance measured with the value of averages is the lowest out of all types of culture, which—together with the low grades—is a sign of an expected reduction in market culture’s significance in work processes. This verified Proposition 1. Employees are expecting a reduction in the significance of market culture in work processes in favour of the cultures of creation and cooperation.
Respondents indicate repositioning of cultural significance in relation to introducing home offices. The dominating culture is the clan, which is based on the logic of organisation and occupation (23 points each) with a stabilising role of free time and family. The considerable advantage of this culture (33 points) demonstrates an “intuitive” employee opinion, according to which the previous direct support and cooperation in the workplace must be replaced with well-organised cooperation and communication. This indicates the general significance of organisational and professional logics as stabilisers of home offices. A similar mechanism is demonstrated by the culture of adhocracy, which is five points more significant with the same structural mechanism, as the clan. The proposals to make work more flexible, innovative, and creative implemented in reality together with the standards of financial support from the European Union [65] pose another challenge for the organisers of remote work and home offices.
4.2. Relations between Logics in Home Offices
In the presented research results, institutional logics demonstrate stabilised structures of size and order (significance). It is also important to establish the nature of the relations occurring between logics in establishment of the impact on working from home.
According to the presented results (Figure 2), over 50% of positive relations in establishment of home offices comes from substantive logics (organisation and occupation—OR/OC) and the logics of organisation and family (social context—OR/FM). The positive coexistence of social logics (family and free time—FM/T) appears almost half of the time. The remaining relations of substantive logics with free time and the logics of occupation and family demonstrate more turbulence as they impede, exclude, or fail to support fulfilment of the presented confronted logic values. The relations between the key occupation logic and the logic of family (OC/FM) as well as the logic of free time (OC/T) specifically demonstrate that introduction of home offices for the long run may produce changes irrespective of opposite logic (27.2% for family and 25.1% for free time) or are ambivalent towards it (30.2% for family and 31.2 for free time). Meanwhile, the relations between organisational logic and the logic of free time demonstrate a high—35.8%—level of expected exclusion of the value of free time and only 20.6% independence between the two types of logic in question. This means that adaptability to changes is declared by only one in five employees, which indicates a low level of psychological readiness for and maturity toward changes. Employees see 22% more differentiations and various forms of logic disturbances in professional activity and home office evaluations than positive co-occurrence. However, it should be noted that in relation to the base logic of occupation and the logic of family-substantive logic, i.e., the logic of organising work from home, this demonstrates high values of cooperation and complementarity factors (38% for OR/OC and 32% for OR/FM) and indicates potential autonomy in 17.4% for occupation and 23% for family.
The results indicate a duality in the distribution of values. Organisational logic, which determines establishment of home offices, demonstrates a favourable and positive distribution of coexistences with other ones. The logic of occupation will be ambivalent in over 30% for the logics of family and free time. Simultaneously, respondents are expecting a considerable—over 35%—exclusion of the value of free time and only one in five respondents reports readiness for changes. This means that specific criteria for assigning employees to home offices must be assumed. The aforementioned stabilised structures of organisational size and order and the relational roles of professional and organisational logics verify Proposition 2. The nature of changes in the levels and structures of the organisational culture model are evolutionary and the role of stabiliser is being played by the historically established institutional order (so-called structural change paradox) and the role of professional and organisational logics in logic relations.
4.3. Institutional Logics versus Organisational Culture in Home Offices
The next element is the attempt to capture the statistical relations between co-occurrence of logics and the current and desired state of organisational cultures (Table 2). The results of statistical calculations suggest that the current market and hierarchy model demonstrates the decisive role of the logic of occupation. The values of professional attributes are the statistically significant “spine” of the model in reference to all market attributes, together with the attributes of organisational logic for the market and hierarchy. There are no statistically significant relations between the logics of family and free time with the dominating types of market and hierarchy. Therefore, it is possible to suggest that the current state, which includes a small percentage of long-term home offices, does produce any references due to a lack of broader meaning. The logic of family is currently oriented towards creation and cooperation, while the logic of free time demonstrates significance with the attributes of the culture of hierarchy. The listed relations reflect the current working system.
For mass deployment of home offices, the relations with the desired model of organisational culture demonstrate a foundation of opinion changes rooted in institutional logics. The cooperation and creation models are stimulated by the fundamental role of the logic of occupation supported by the significant correlation with the logic of family. The statistical system is also confirmed by the stabilising role of market culture, which is still determined to a considerable degree by the logics of occupation and organisation, although to a lesser extent. Simultaneously, individual elements of all logics affect the hierarchy culture.
According to the presented research results, the main determinant of organisational culture development for home offices and workstations at home is the logic of occupation. The logic of organisation stimulates the cultures of clan and market. Meanwhile, the logic of family finds more application in the future model based on home offices. The logic of free time has occasional and isolated significance on the development of the types of organisational culture based on home offices. Together with the results of the aforementioned statistical verification, the values of the models (4.1.) and logics (4.2.) verify Proposition 3. The position of family logic in work formation rises alongside with the importance of the domination of “non-productive” cultures (i.e., clans and adhocracy, or cooperation and creation).
5. Conclusions, Restrictions, and Future Research
Home offices have a long history of experiences associated with the previous periodical nature of their application by major companies. It was more a privilege of certain occupational groups or specialists, such as IT specialists. In recent years, we have seen a mass home office experiment, which was forced by the need to preserve social distancing during the epidemic. This led to theoretical explorations supported by employee expectations in scope of the creation of a rational theoretical framework, which could be developed and implemented in the social and economic reality.
The raised and published research results indicate that there are various aspects of home offices requiring diagnosis and consideration in practical premises. This led to the decision to explore instruments allowing for evaluation from the perspective of sets of values, opinions, and beliefs of employees working from home.
A methodical neo-institutional approach formula was established under the assumption that (a) it is possible to distribute employee values into specific sets of institutional logic attributes; (b) it is possible to apply the selected organisational culture model as a carrier of organisational values represented by the respondents; (c) it is possible to apply institutional logics in the field of organisation, i.e., remote work and home office workstations; and (d) it is possible to establish the scope and strength of the impact of logics on the development of the organisational field in question by developing the organisational culture model. It also took into consideration that home offices and remote work models are more sustainable. The Cameron
Consequentially, methodical innovations were proposed and implemented by the research team. The discourse formula was abandoned in favour of measurements and parametric analyses. The research methodology also recognises the ambiguity
According to research, the awareness of the types of cultures dominating the context of introducing home offices is transforming. Market and controlling culture are yielding to the culture of cooperation and creation. The new and desired type of culture is determined by the logics of organisation and occupation, which act as stimulators. The logic of occupation is of particular importance, as it continues to have key meaning for onsite solutions and prospectively for home offices. The role of the logic of home is rising, as the home is becoming the location of the physical concentration of the professional world, which had been “alien” for years. Combining professional and occupational life at home also restores—or creates contemporarily new—meanings and needs in scope of the “out-of-home activity” of the employees and the members of their families [66]. The stimulating role of organisational logic remains intact as well, while the logic of free time is statistically unimportant from the perspective of home offices. However, the impact of this logic is shifting from adhocracy to control, which also needs to be identified in additional research. In evaluation of the research results, we must remember that institutional logics are “reflected” in 83% in organisational cultures, which confirms the thesis on “ownership” creation of organisational cultures.
The relations between institutional logics indicate the significance of metalogics enrooted in employees in the expansion of organisational cultures over home space outside the organisation. Organisational logic coexists positively with other logics, although the results indicate a considerable—35%—decline in the significance of the impact of the logic of free time, an ambivalent role of the logic of occupation, and only one in five respondents ready for changes. Therefore, the positive logic impact trends are accompanied by a low readiness level among employees.
The research demonstrates the assumed and unchanged institutional order as the order of strength and significance of individual logics is the same in every organisational culture type. The logic of occupation is the determinant, as it continues to be the core of both types of cultures. It is followed by the logic of organisation, which—in the desired type of culture—is supplemented with the increased significance of the logic of family. In scope of the logics, employees want to be sure that working from home will be efficient despite having to abandon “market intensification” instruments such as lean, high-performance practices (HPWS), high engagement practices (HPWI), etc.
Paradoxically, the results of the research in question, specifically the relations between logics, demonstrate the enormous scale of diverse assignments and the need to develop forms and methods of organisational actions in order to prevent the application of home offices in periodical waves. This is a completely different work model, which requires a specialised set of instruments in scope of all human resource management functions: recruitment; conditions, criteria, and procedures of creating home office workstations; quality requirements towards employees, including the ability to self-organise, resistance to stress resulting from solitude, etc. This also requires beneficial legal solutions and mature management—especially in scope of managing “from a distance” (asymmetric work, crunch, R2D, etc.).
The presented research results do not clearly determine adoption of the concept of determinants in the development of remote work systems. Sustainability options for workplaces, especially when the home is used as a workplace, directly related to WORK-LIFE BALANCE matters, may be insufficient. Perhaps research should also include assumptions of harmonisation of workplace components, including in qualitative dimensions related to technological development such as AI. This is necessary for successful strategic home office implementation. Cost “deinstitutionalisation” and dumping problems on self-employment, outsourcing, or franchising like in the nineties, when the “new American workplace” concept was being implemented, will not be successful.
The results produced by our research should be analysed according to its limitations. The first is the established research methodology. The assumed measures of perception are not entirely free of wrong answers. Our surveys are derived from a cross-section study conducted in the COVID-19 era, which cannot be tested in scope of causal relations. Future research should collect longitudinal data from bigger, more uniform, and more diverse samples. Future research should also emphasise the innovative transformations in scope of product and technological procedures implemented by organisations due to their experiences obtained from remote work during the COVID-19 era. The tremendous financial support of the European Union in scope of development purposes focuses mainly on innovations, sustainable development of digital transformation, and the battle with climate changes, which means that it aims to fulfil the developmental requirements of new forms of work as tools of innovation and effectiveness of contemporary organisations.
Conceptualisation, J.R. and V.D.; data curation, K.L.; formal analysis, J.R. and K.L.; investigation, J.R., K.L. and V.D.; methodology, J.R., K.L. and V.D.; resources, K.L. and V.D.; software, K.L.; writing—original draft, J.R.; and writing—review and editing, J.R. and V.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due to data collection process specificity (the data was collected anonymously and the participants could not be identified).
The surveyed employees participated voluntarily and anonymously after explaining them the purpose of the study and offering guaranties that the information provided will be never presented individually but only as aggregated.
Available on request.
The authors thank Witold Gedymin, of the University of Economics in Poznań for expert assistance and complex statistical analyses.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Coexistence of home office institutional logics and types of organisational culture according to the Cameron–Quinn OCAI model (N = 246). Source: research results.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Types of institutional logic dependencies in the survey of home office workplaces. Source: research results.
Institutional logic features attributed to Cameron
| Type of Culture | Institutional Logics | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisation | Occupational | Family | Free Time | |
| Communication | Knowledge | Trust | Balance | |
| Supporting | Skills | Support | Confidence | |
| Clan | Networking. | Qualifications | Mobilisation | Activate social |
| E-conferences | Collectivity | Infrastructure | Volunteering | |
| Punctuality | Training | Communication | Work habits | |
| Energy | New solutions | Rationalisation | Active risks | |
| Creation | Method innovations | Patterns from firm | New resources | |
| Adhocracy | Initiative | Procedures | Activity | The habit of action |
| Independence | Polyvalency | Originality | Innovate solutions | |
| Continuity | Multiskilling | Family features | Search | |
| Work priority | Initiative | Current needs | Hobby | |
| Active reactions | Changes | Company goals | R2D | |
| Market | Maturity | Professional competition | Competitive spirit | Purposeful efficiency |
| Rivalry | Market dynamics | Efficiency | Expansion activity | |
| Surroundings | Intensity | Mentality | ||
| Regulations | Subordination | Isolation from work | Freedom | |
| Rules | Rules acceptance | Rules style | Otherness | |
| Hierarchy | Subordination | Company standards | No pressure | Organise like work |
| Security | Systematics | Peace of mind | Favourite relaxation | |
| Consistency of tasks | Stability | Family org | The same organising principles | |
Institutional logics versus work and home office workplaces.
| Institutional Logics | Organisational Culture | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stationary Positions | Remote Positions | |||||||
| Clan | Adhocracy | Market | Hierarchy | Clan | Adhocracy | Market | Hierarchy | |
| Organisational Logic | ||||||||
| ORG_C | −0.019 | −0.038 | −0.086 | 0.104 | −0.023 | −0.144 | 0.011 | 0.138 |
| ORG_A | 0.038 | 0.253 | 0.005 | −0.187 | −0.098 | 0.039 | 0.163 | −0.001 |
| ORG_M | −0.430 *** | −0.068 | 0.372 *** | 0.149 | −0.323 ** | 0.088 | 0.280 * | 0.160 |
| ORG_H | −0.323 ** | −0.262 | −0.033 | 0.488 *** | −0.229 | −0.218 | 0.009 | 0.413 *** |
| Professional Logic | ||||||||
| OCC_C | 0.186 | 0.248 | −0.148 | −0.178 | −0.015 | −0.097 | 0.049 | 0.061 |
| OCC_A | −0.213 | 0.231 | 0.138 | −0.028 | −0.329 ** | 0.051 | 0.350 *** | 0.081 |
| OCC_M | −0.378 *** | 0.033 | 0.306 ** | 0.095 | −0.408 *** | 0.032 | 0.355 *** | 0.241 |
| OCC_H | −0.253 | −0.136 | 0.028 | 0.305 ** | −0.345 *** | −0.020 | 0.113 | 0.333 ** |
| Family Logic | ||||||||
| FAM_C | 0.043 | 0.314 ** | 0.045 | −0.225 | 0.015 | 0.224 | 0.153 | −0.291 * |
| FAM_A | −0.096 | 0.286 ** | 0.063 | −0.073 | −0.137 | 0.337 ** | 0.141 | −0.170 |
| FAM_M | −0.160 | 0.068 | 0.088 | 0.083 | −0.221 | 0.211 | 0.244 | −0.031 |
| FAM_H | −0.242 | 0.046 | 0.083 | 0.145 | −0.307 ** | 0.285 * | 0.209 | −0.003 |
| Free Time Logic | ||||||||
| FT_C | 0.024 | 0.088 | 0.030 | −0.068 | −0.028 | 0.116 | 0.176 | −0.186 |
| FT_A | 0.038 | 0.216 | 0.044 | −0.172 | −0.015 | 0.184 | 0.204 | −0.261 * |
| FT_M | 0.106 | 0.227 | −0.093 | −0.131 | −0.051 | 0.085 | 0.197 | −0.148 |
| FT_H | 0.109 | 0.292 * | −0.135 | −0.100 | 0.044 | 0.247 | −0.031 | −0.223 |
Notes: institutional logic opinion codes focused on organisational cultures: _C—clan; _A—adhocracy; _M—market; _H—hierarchy. Significance levels * p < 0.01; ** p < 0.005, *** p < 0.001. Statistically significant features are bold. Source: research results.
References
1. Wolfe, R.; Harknett, K.; Schneider, D. Inequalities at Work and the Toll of COVID-19. Health Affairs; 4 June 2021; Available online: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20210428.863621/full (accessed on 3 March 2022).
2. Wyld, D.C. The Black Swan of the Coronavirus and How American Organizations Have Adapted to the New World of Remote Work. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. Res.; 2021; 6, pp. 9-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24018/ejbmr.2022.7.1.1170]
3. Herzog, L.; Sold, K.; Zimmermann, B. Essential Work: A Category in the Making?. Shifting Categories of Work. Unsettling the Ways We Think about Jobs, Labor, and Activities; Herzog, L.; Zimmermann, B. Routledge—Taylor & Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, London, UK, 2023; pp. 252-264.
4. Bailey, C.; Lips-Wiersma, M.; Madden, A.; Yeoman, R.; Thompson, M.; Chalofsky, N. The Five Paradoxes of Meaningful Work: Introduction to the special Issue ‘Meaningful Work: Prospects for the 21st Century’. J. Manag. Stud.; 2019; 56, pp. 481-499. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joms.12422]
5. Graeber, D. Bullshit Jobs: The Rise of Pointless Work, and What We Can Do about It; Penguin: London, UK, 2019.
6. Bellmann, L.; Hübler, O. Working from home, job satisfaction and work−life balance—Robust or heterogeneous links?. Int. J. Manpow.; 2021; 42, pp. 424-441. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJM-10-2019-0458]
7. Dockery, A.M.; Bawa, S. When two worlds collude: Working from home and family functioning in Australia. Int. Labour Rev.; 2018; 157, pp. 609-630. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ilr.12119]
8. Mas, A.; Pallais, A. Alternative Work Arrangements. Annu. Rev. Econ.; 2020; 12, pp. 631-658. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-022020-032512]
9. Dingel, J.I.; Neiman, B. How many jobs can be done at home?. J. Public Econ.; 2020; 189, 104235. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104235] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32834177]
10. Hirst, A.; Humphreys, M. Finding OurSelves in Space: Identity and Spatiality. The Oxford Handbook of Identities in Organizations; Brown, A.D. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2020; pp. 698-714. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198827115.013.2]
11. Wapshott, R.; Mallett, O. The spatial implications of homeworking: A Lefebvrian approach to the rewards and challenges of home-based work. Organization; 2012; 19, pp. 63-79. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1350508411405376]
12. Richardson, J.; McKenna, S. Reordering spatial and social relations: A case study of professional and managerial flexworkers. Br. J. Manag.; 2014; 25, pp. 724-736. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12017]
13. Holgersen, H.; Jia, Z.; Svenkerud, S. Who and how many can work from home? Evidence from task descriptions. J. Labour. Mark. Res.; 2021; 55, 4. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12651-021-00287-z] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33681696]
14. Kira, M.; van Eijnatten, F.M. Sustained by work: Individual and social sustainability in work organizations. Creating Sustainable Work Systems. Developing Social Sustainability; 2nd ed. Docherty, P.; Kira, M.; Shani, A.B. Routledge: London, UK, 2009; pp. 233-246.
15. Kira, M.; van Eijnatten, F.M.; Balkin, D.B. Crafting sustainable work: Development of personal resources. J. Organ. Chang. Manag.; 2010; 23, pp. 616-632. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534811011071315]
16. Ones, D.S.; Dilchert, S.; Wiernik, B.M.; Klein, R.M. Environmental Sustainability at Work. The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2018; pp. 371-383.
17. Rymaniak, J. Remote workplaces over the time of COVID-19 in Poland as a form of organisational space. Sci. Pap. Silesian Univ. Technol. Organ. Manag. Ser.; 2022; 164, pp. 437-448. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.29119/1641-3466.2022.164.33]
18. Ząbkowicz, A. Instytucje: Między mechanizmem rynkowym a mechanizmami władzy. Ekonomista; 2019; 2, pp. 145-162. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.52335/dvqp.te116]
19. Misiński, W. Instytucjonalna Teoria Przedsiębiorstw(a). Paradygmat (?) czy Wstęp (?) Do Instytucjonalnej (?) Teorii (?) Przedsiębiorstw(a) (?); Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu: Wrocław, Poland, 2021.
20. Cyfert, S. Granice Organizacji; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego: Poznań, Poland, 2012.
21. Weber, K.; Pater, H.; Heinze, K.L. From cultural repertoires to institutional logics: A content-analytic method. Institutional Log. Action Part B Res. Sociol. Organ.; 2013; 39, pp. 351-382.
22. Ponte, D.; Pesci, C. Institutional logics and organizational change: The role of place and time. J. Manag. Gov.; 2022; 26, pp. 891-924. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10997-021-09578-6]
23. Weiler Reynolds, B.; Bibby, A. The Complete History of Working from Home. Flexjobs. Available online: https://www.flexjobs.com/blog/post/complete-history-of-working-from-home/ (accessed on 6 December 2022).
24. Rymaniak, J.; Lis, K.; Davidavićiene, V.; Pérez-Pérez, M.; Martínez-Sánchez, A.Á. From Stationary to Remote: Employee Risks at Pandemic Migration of Workplaces. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 7180. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13137180]
25. Yu, J.; Wu, Y. The Impact of Enforced Working from Home on Employee Job Satisfaction during COVID-19: An Event System Perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2021; 18, 13207. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413207] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34948823]
26. Thulin, E.; Vilhelmson, B. Pacesetters in contemporary telework: How smartphones and mediated presence reshape the time–space rhythms of daily work. New Technol. Work Employ; 2022; 37, pp. 250-269. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12224]
27. Rymaniak, J.; Lis, K. Praca zdalna w początkowym okresie pandemii—Świadomość zmian a relacje organizacyjne. Psychologiczny i Społeczny Obraz Pandemii; Paluchowski, B.L. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza: Poznań, Poland, 2021; pp. 243-250.
28. Bolisani, E.; Scarso, E.; Ipsen, C.; Kirchner, K.; Hansen, J.P. Working from home during COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learned and issues. Manag. Mark.; 2020; 15, pp. 458-476. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/mmcks-2020-0027]
29. Hackney, A.; Yung, M.; Somasundram, K.G.; Nowrouzi-Kia, B.; Oakman, J.; Yazdani, A. Working in the digital economy: A systematic review of the impact of work from home arrangements on personal and organizational performance and productivity. PLoS ONE; 2022; 17, e0274728. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274728] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36223418]
30. Săvescu, R.; Kifor, Ș.; Dănuț, R.; Rusu, R. Transition from Office to Home Office: Lessons from Romania during COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 5758. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14105758]
31. Costa, C.; Teodoro, M.; Mento, C.; Giambò, F.; Vitello, C.; Italia, S.; Fenga, C. Work Performance, Mood and Sleep Alterations in Home Office Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2022; 19, 1990. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19041990] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35206177]
32. Wilms, P.; Schröder, J.; Reer, R.; Scheit, L. The Impact of “Home Office” Work on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2022; 19, 12344. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912344] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36231651]
33. Iwu, C.G.; Okeke-Uzodike, O.E.; Anwana, E.; Iwu, C.H.; Esambe, E.E. Experiences of Academics Working from Home during COVID-19: A Qualitative View from Selected South African Universities. Challenges; 2022; 13, 16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/challe13010016]
34. Crawford, J. Working from Home, Telework, and Psychological Wellbeing? A Systematic Review. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 11874. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su141911874]
35. Ziomek, A. Produktywność Pracy Zdalnej w Ocenie Pracowników w Warunkach Gospodarki Cyfrowej; Wydawnictwo UEP w Poznaniu: Poznań, Poland, 2022.
36. Joia, L.A.; Leonardo, L.F. The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Digital Transformation of Workplace: The Social Representation of Home-Office. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 14987. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su152014987]
37. Anakpo, G.; Nqwayibana, Z.; Mishi, S. The Impact of Work-from-Home on Employee Performance and Productivity: A Systematic Review. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 4529. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15054529]
38. Hadi Khorsand, P.N.N.; Peráček, T.; Bajzíková, L’. The link between knowledge management and the implementation of a working time recording system in the home office. Cogent Soc. Sci.; 2023; 9, 2281287. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2281287]
39. Marica, M. The legal framework of on call duty for teleworkers. Jurid. Trib.; 2023; 13, pp. 82-92. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24818/TBJ/2023/13/1.06]
40. Edvardsson, I.R.; Gardarsdottir, J. Navigating Uncharted Waters: Exploring Leaders’ Challenges in the Era of COVID-19 and the Rise of Telework. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 16471. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su152316471]
41. Rymaniak, J.; Davidavićiene, V.; Lis, K. Remote workplaces as a determinant of working conditions in education during COVID-19. Econ. Sociol.; 2023; 16, pp. 123-138. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2023/16-2/8]
42. Streitfeld, D. The Long, Unhappy History of Working from Home. New York Times; 29 June 2020.
43. Yang, L.; Holtz, D.; Jaffe, S.; Suri, S.; Sinha, S.; Weston, J.; Joyce, C.; Shah, N.; Sherman, K.; Hecht, B. et al. The effects of remote work on collaboration among information workers. Nat. Hum. Behav.; 2022; 6, pp. 43-54. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01196-4] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34504299]
44. Wilkin, J. Instytucjonalne i Kulturowe Podstawy Gospodarowania. Humanistyczna Perspektywa Ekonomii; Wydawnictwo Naukowe SCHOLAR: Warszawa, Poland, 2016.
45. Thornton, P.H.; Ocasio, W.; Lounsbury, M. The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure and Process; Oxford University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199601936.001.0001]
46. Thornton, P.H.; Ocasio, W.; Lounsbury, M. The Institutional Logics Perspective. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource; Scott, R.; Buchmann, M.; Kosslyn, S. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0187]
47. Haveman, H.A.; Gualtieri, G. Institutional Logics; Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Business and Management: Oxford, UK, 2017; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.137]
48. Berg Johansen, C.; Boch Waldorff, S. What are Institutional Logics—And Where is the Perspective Taking Us?. New Themes in Institutional Analysis. Topics and Issues from European Research; Krücken, G.; Mazza, C.; Meyer, R.E.; Walgenbach, P. Chapter: 3 Edward Elgar Publishing Limited: Cheltenham, UK, 2017; pp. 51-76.
49. WHO. Monitoring the Building Blocks of Health Systems: A Handbook of Indicators and Their Measurement Strategies; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010.
50. Ławrynowicz, M. Tożsamość Organizacyjna Banków Spółdzielczych w Polsce. Ujęcie Instytucjonalne; Poltext: Warszawa, Poland, 2013.
51. Lašáková, A.; Vojteková, M.; Procházková, L. What (de)motivates gen Z women and gen Z men at work? Comparative study of gender differences in the young generation’s motivation. J. Bus. Econ. Manag.; 2023; 24, pp. 771-796. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2023.20439]
52. Fedorova, Y.; Pilková, A.; Mikuš, J.; Munk, M.; Rehák, J. Emotional intelligence profiles and intergenerational collaboration in business. J. Bus. Econ. Manag.; 2023; 24, pp. 797-817. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2023.20280]
53. Jay, J. Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Acad. Manag. J.; 2013; 56, pp. 137-159. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0772]
54. Pache, A.-C.; Santos, F. When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Acad. Manag. Rev.; 2010; 35, pp. 455-476.
55. Besharov, M.L.; Smith, W.K. Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Acad. Manag. Rev.; 2014; 39, pp. 364-381. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0431]
56. Lawrence, T.B.; Suddaby, R. Institutions and institutional work. Sage Handbook of Organization Studies; 2nd ed. Clegg, S.R.; Hardy, C.; Lawrence, T.B.; Nord, W.R. Sage: London, UK, 2006; pp. 215-254.
57. Cancialosi, C. What Is Organizational Culture?. 17 July 2017; Available online: https://gothamculture.com (accessed on 28 April 2023).
58. Păunescu, C.; Acatrinei, C.; Argatu, R.; McGuire, S.J.J.; Zhang, Y. Employability, proactiveness and workplace behaviors: Is socioeconomic status a mediator?. J. Bus. Econ. Manag.; 2024; 25, pp. 47-65. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2024.20745]
59. Lapinskaitė, I.; Skvarciany, V. Sustainable metamorphosis: Examining sustainability transformation into value of financial institutions. J. Bus. Econ. Manag.; 2023; 24, pp. 923-938. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2023.20665]
60. Reay, T.; Jones, C. Qualitatively capturing institutional logics. Strateg. Organ.; 2016; 14, pp. 441-454. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1476127015589981]
61. Cameron, K.S.; Quinn, R.E. Kultura Organizacyjna—Diagnoza i Zmiana. Model Wartości Konkurujących; Wolters Kluwer: Warszawa, Poland, 2015.
62. Renkema, M.; Meijerink, J.; Bondarouk, T. Advancing multilevel thinking in human resource management research: Applications and guidelines. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev.; 2017; 27, pp. 397-415. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.03.001]
63. Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. Making Sense of Cronbach’s Alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ.; 2011; 2, pp. 53-55. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28029643]
64. Taber, K. The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Res. Sci. Educ.; 2018; 48, pp. 1273-1296. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2]
65. Oslo Manual. Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation; 4th ed. The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities OECD/Eurostat: Luxembourg, 2018.
66. Jaakson, K.; Kallaste, E. Beyond flexibility: Reallocation of responsibilities in the case of telework. New Technol. Work Employ; 2010; 25, pp. 196-203. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2010.00248.x]
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Davidavičienė, Vida 2
; Lis, Katarzyna 3
1 Faculty of Business, WSB Merito University in Gdańsk, 80-266 Gdańsk, Poland;
2 Department of Business Technologies and Entrepreneurship, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania
3 Department of Labour and Social Policy, Poznań University of Economics and Business, 61-712 Poznań, Poland;