159 International Peer Reviewed Journal Effects of Hybrid Work Model on Employees and Staff’s Work Productivity: A Literature Review JINELLA MARIE M. CASTAÑEDA https://orcid.org/0009-0009-7685-6888 jinella.castaneda@gmail.com Polytechnic University of the Philippines Sta. Mesa, Manila, Philippines GENARO V. JAPOS https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7627-0988 gvjapos@pup.edu.ph Polytechnic University of the Philippines Sta. Mesa, Manila, Philippines WENIFREDA R. TEMPLONUEVO https://orcid.org/0009-0006-3651-0928 wfrtemplonuevo521@gmail.com Jesus Is Lord Colleges Foundation, Inc. Bocaue, Bulacan, Philippines Originality: 100% • Grammarly: 100% • Plagiarism: 0% ABSTRACT COVID-19 had remarkable effects on different sectors and industries that pushed them to cope and adjust to the abrupt change in all facets globally. Including universities and colleges, management prepared an effective action Vol. 50 · October 2022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7719/jpair.v50i1.537 Print ISSN 2012-3981 Online ISSN 2244-0445 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. https://orcid.org/0009-0009-7685-6888 mailto:jinella.castaneda@gmail.com mailto:gvjapos@pup.edu.ph https://orcid.org/0009-0006-3651-0928 mailto:wfrtemplonuevo521@gmail.com http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ 160 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Volume 48 • March 2022 plan in response to the current crisis. Institutions decided to adopt the hybrid work model where employees, including the management and educators, work by turns from home or remotely and on-site. The study uses the literature review to investigate available scientific literature on the possible effects of the hybrid work model on the employees’ work productivity, specifically in a higher education institution. The sources and references came from research databases such as Google Scholar, the Open Access Directory Journals, and other websites. The results suggest that employees should feel and experience positive well-being, a sense of belongingness in terms of collaboration, and continuous innovation to cope with the new set-up of hybridity, which will not compromise their work productivity. Keywords — Institutional Research, attribution theory, effects, hybrid work model, well-being, collaboration, innovation, review of literature, employees, higher education institution, Philippines INTRODUCTION The highly infectious coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has profoundly impacted many institutions globally, including higher education and public and private school systems. The pandemic has plagued the system of education, added to the workload of faculty and staff, and forced many colleges, universities, and schools to remain closed or operate with minimal resources to minimize the risk of infection (Dhawan, 2020; Rapanta et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2021). Universities and higher education institutions were forced to close during the consecutive COVID-19 lockdowns. As a result, most educational institutions implemented emergency remote teaching, and students’ online learning relied heavily on digital technology support. Although online and distance learning is familiar at the university level, this was a new and sudden experience for university students who usually attend face-to-face classes. (Ahmed et al., 2020; Iqbal et al., 2022; Van der Graaf et al., 2021). The shift to online teaching was a challenge for both teachers and students. In addition, transforming online courses has been a major challenge, especially for academic programs where collaboration and building social meaning are essential (Lapitan et al., 2021; Tomej et al., 2022; Nechita et al., 2023). The pandemic’s disrupted outcomes may last longer in the education sector and have a negative impact on educators’ interests and performance (Onyema et 161 International Peer Reviewed Journal al., 2020). While transforming traditional educational institutions into virtual organizations improves teaching and learning practices, it also poses challenges for leaders, organizations, and employees (Bolden & O’Regan, 2016; Kohntopp & McCann, 2019; Kohntopp & McCann, 2020; Vial, 2019). Pandemic-induced work transformations have compelled educational institutions to reconsider their leadership practices toward staff (Wiradendi Wolor et al., 2020), have raised the concern about staff training to cope with the challenges of technological emergence (Miao & Holmes, 2022), and have created uncertainty to endure secure employment (Onyema et al., 2020). Besides, the traditional education system’s transformation into virtual organizations has increased academic staff stress (García-González & Ramírez-Montoya, 2020) that influenced their performance. In times of crisis, universities must be resilient. In the educational system, resilience is the ability to overcome obstacles and challenges–trauma, tragedy, and crises and emerge stronger, wiser, and more powerful personally (Henderson, 2012). The educational system must prepare to move forward and address the new normal following the crisis. Higher education is necessary for resilience and must address teaching and learning continuity amid and beyond the pandemic. According to the Manila Bulletin (2022), schools may request that the blended learning modality be continued or adopted due to exceptional circumstances such as delays in school facility repair or construction. Furthermore, higher education institutions (HEIs) may elect to design and deliver their degree programs online. Chairperson of the Commission on Higher Education, Prospero de Vera III (CHED), stated that on-site or hybrid learning would begin in the second semester of the School Year (SY) 2022-2023 (Mocon-Ciriaco, 2022). With the institution’s support, employees from teaching and non-teaching departments adapted to the drastic change. However, employees being used to the flexibility of their work set-up could lead to needing more comfortable, especially when working from home. In addition, employees’ productivity should be highlighted so that tasks given will not be compromised and they will not feel that there are no boundaries between work and personal time that would lead them the other way around. Hybrid work is a versatile work model that combines in-office, remote, and on-the-go workers. It allows employees to work wherever and however they are most productive (Cisco, 2023). Hybrid work is a people-first approach to workforce management that boosts while addressing the significant challenges of remote work, such as isolation and job satisfaction, and a lack of community. Employees with a hybrid work model 162 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Volume 48 • March 2022 have the more remarkable ability to work from home and flexibility or anywhere they can be productive. The workplace is no longer contained within the four walls of the corporate office with hybrid work—it is an ecosystem of employees working from home, in co-working spaces, and in the office. Team members can migrate between various locations depending on the work they need to be done (Cisco, 2023). Hybrid work continues to grow. Some companies resisted, arguing against the concept of remote work. Companies mentioned productivity concerns and tactical problems that limited supervisors’ ability to observe and coach employees (Robinsons, 2020). Moreover, according to Tsipursky (2023), hybrid work environments have become increasingly popular in recent years, where employees work from home and in the office. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated this trend, forcing many businesses to adopt remote work arrangements. While hybrid work has many advantages, such as the increased ability to attract top talent from anywhere and flexibility, it also has disadvantages. It is challenging to maintain productivity when employees are all working in different physical locations. Supervisors could find innovative ways to connect with and manage workers from afar by ensuring their colleagues feel heard and know they are not alone. Exhibiting heightened sensitivity to emotional intelligence, particularly when physical isolation has become a necessity, is vital (Feast, 2020). In line with this, Teevan (2021) cited that worker productivity is difficult to define and quantify. However, researchers approximate two types of data: self- reported worker data, asking people if they feel productive, and worker activity data. For example, one year into the pandemic, Microsoft’s Work Trend Index survey revealed that the self-assessed productivity of over 30,000 global workers outside of Microsoft remained constant or increased. The results of Microsoft’s annual employee survey were similar. Regarding activity data, one Microsoft division found that the number of features checked in by developers per hour increased by 1.5%, while focus time increased by 6%. Therefore, the researchers were inspired to study the effects of the hybrid work model on the employees’ productivity, especially in their well-being, collaboration, and pursuit of innovation in the current situation. As a result, this paper presents and discusses published literature and studies that are relevant to the study. 163 International Peer Reviewed Journal OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY This study intended to identify the effects of the hybrid work model on employees’ productivity in a higher education institution, specifically on their well-being, collaboration, and innovation, working either remotely or on-site. METHODOLOGY This study uses a literature review that provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation concerning the research problems being investigated. The sources and references are from survey books and scholarly articles and are relevant to the particular issues in the different areas of the research (Fink, 2019). A literature review follows an organizational structure and combines summary and synthesis, frequently within specific conceptual categories. A summary is a recitation of the key points from the source. A synthesis, on the other hand, is a reorganization or reshuffling of that information in such a way that it informs how to investigate a research problem (Fink, 2019; Hart, 1998; Jesson et al., 2011; Knopf, 2006; Ridley, 2012). The researchers selected relevant literature and studies to determine the effects of the hybrid work model on the employees’ work productivity in a higher education institution, specifically in terms of the well-being, collaboration, and innovation of the subject. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Attribution Theory According to Heider (2013), the Attribution Theory concerns how people perceive information, how they interpret events, and how these events form causal chain judgments. No one would act or decide unless they attributed it to a cause or factor. Attribution theory deals with how individuals relate and make sense of the social world. It is more concerned with how people interpret events in their environment and how their interpretations influence their thinking and behavior. Attribution theory assesses the explanation people give to specific behaviors; it considers how individuals interpret their behaviors (Heider, 2013). Moreover, all behavior is determined by either internal or external factors. External attribution is also called situational attribution. Causality is attributed 164 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Volume 48 • March 2022 to an external factor, agent, or force. Outside factors fall outside of an individual’s control. Leaving an individual with no choice. So behavior is influenced, limited, or entirely determined by influences outside of an individual’s control. Therefore, the subject does not feel responsible. A generic example is the weather (Heider, 2013). According to Krampe et al. (2021), people with specific personality characteristics are well-equipped, whereas others are particularly vulnerable in times of crisis. According to the current study, people with an external locus of control are especially vulnerable. On the other hand, Individuals with an internal locus of control should be more likely to see complex tasks as challenges rather than as something to be avoided. They should thus be more hopeful, active, and more likely to take responsibility for themselves and their environment (Rotter, 1966). Latent Variables of the Study This part of the study is the literature and studies that are relevant and related to the researchers’ study. These will be used to understand further and to determine the effects and significance of these variables on the employees’ of a higher education institution. Hybrid Work Model According to Vidhyaa and Ravichandran (2022), hybrid work is a flexible work model that allows for a mix of in-office, remote, and on-the-go employees. It allows employees to work wherever and whenever they are most productive. Hybrid work is a people-first approach to workforce management that drives increased productivity and job satisfaction while addressing remote work’s significant challenges, such as isolation and a lack of community. Employees who work in a hybrid work model have more flexibility and can work from home or anywhere they can be productive. The workplace is no longer contained within the four walls of the corporate office with hybrid work.—it is an ecosystem of employees working from home, in co-working spaces, and in the office. Team members can migrate between various locations depending on the work they need to be done. Hybridity combines a physical work arrangement and a remote work system in the workplace (Cook et al., 2020). For example, some employees work on-site at the company or organization, while others work remotely via the internet. This arrangement could include the same group of people who come to the company’s location and remotely work the rest of the week. 165 International Peer Reviewed Journal The hybrid working system ensures that the organization that uses it benefits from remote working. Flexibility at work, lower labor costs, increased worker satisfaction, and better environmental experiences are all part of the package that comes with remote work. The benefit of the traditional working system is also included. There is a guarantee of hands-on interaction with the existing culture in the workplace. Likewise, there comes the advantage of informal networking, more likely in-person collaboration, and the added benefits of a structure to help foster creativity. The situation of hybridity refers to the coexistence of the benefits of traditional and remote workplace systems (Malhotra & Reay, 2019). The findings of the study by Waller (2022) show that the failing models are all location-centric, attaching some rigid on-site requirements. Only one model outperformed the rest: “hybrid-flexible,” which allows leaders and employees to choose where they work. A hybrid-flexible model that incorporates other vital elements of human-centric work design, such as location flexibility and the practices of intentional collaboration and empathy-based management, is even more successful. Furthermore, the recent study by De Castro (2022) found that a hybrid or remote work set-up is the next preferred evolution of the workplace, based on the 2022 survey “Going Hybrid: The Future of Work,” a local Software as a Service (SaaS) company, hosted the event. 91% of the 8,184 employees polled desired a hybrid or remote workplace. Of the remote employees, over 70% love their current remote set-up, but only around 43% feel engaged. According to the survey, 80% of human resources (HR) administrators and managers preferred hybrid or remote work, but 64.6% needed assistance figuring out how to make the arrangement work. Well-being Aryanti et al. (2020) cited that workplace well-being is an application component of subjective well-being in a work environment. Workplace well- being that will impact employee welfare is crucial in determining long-term sustainability in an organization. Workplace well-being is an obligation because improving workplace well-being will positively impact overall performance. According to Anwarsyah et al. (2012), workplace well-being is a sense of prosperity obtained from work that is related to the feelings of the workers in general (core effect) and the intrinsic and extrinsic value of the work (work values). Individual experience, whether emotional or social, clearly influences the person at work and in the non-working domain. Workers spend about one-third 166 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Volume 48 • March 2022 of their time at work and still carry the work even after leaving the workplace. Welfare can potentially affect workers and organizations negatively. Workers with poor welfare may be less productive, make low-quality decisions, be more vulnerable to absenteeism at work and consistently reduce overall contributions to the organizations (De Simone, 2014). Collaboration According to the study of Yang et al. (2022), Microsoft’s business groups became less interconnected as the company transitioned to firm-wide remote work. It also decreased the number of ties bridging structural gaps in the company’s informal collaboration network, causing people to spend less time collaborating with the remaining bridging ties. Furthermore, the transition to firm-wide remote work required employees to spend more time away from the office, a more significant share of their collaboration time with their stronger ties, better suited to information transfer, and less time with weak connections because they are more likely to provide new information. Baum et al. (2012) cited that previous research has also shown that workers’ performance is influenced not only by the network’s structure and the strength of its ties but also by its temporal dynamics. The advantages of various times vary with age, and people benefit from shifting their network position. (Burt & Merluzzi, 2016; Kneeland, 2019; Kumar & Zaheer, 2019), adding new ties (Soda et al., 2021; Zeng et al., 2021) and reconnecting with dormant ties (Levin et al., 2011). In addition, the existing theoretical perspectives and empirical results of Lengel and Daft (1984) suggest that employees’ communication modes impact knowledge transfer and collaboration. On the theoretical front, media richness theory posits that more prosperous. In-person interaction, for example, is best suited to communicating complex information and ideas. Furthermore, Dennis et al. (2008) media synchronicity theory proposes that synchronous communication channels (such as video calls) are better suited for information transmission. In contrast, asynchronous communication channels (such as email) are better suited for information convergence. A rich body of empirical research also documents the numerous implications of communication media selection for organizations. Previous research, for example, has shown that establishing a rapport, which is a crucial step, and an essential precursor to knowledge transfer, is impeded by email use, according to Morris et al. (2022), and that in-person and phone/video communication are stronger predictors of positive team performance than email and instant messaging (IM) communication (Pentland, 2012). 167 International Peer Reviewed Journal According to Yang et al. (2022), remote work eliminates in-person communication; however, results show that people must replace in-person interactions with video and voice calls. Broad remote work decreased observed synchronous communication, such as scheduled meetings and audio/video calls. In comparison, the findings of remote work caused employees to communicate more through more asynchronous media—sending more emails and instant messages. According to media richness theory, media synchronicity theory, and previous empirical studies, these communication media options employees may find it more challenging to communicate and communicate effectively and converge on the meaning of complex information. Innovation Traditionally, an organization’s performance has been measured using financial indicators such as profit, market share, earnings, and growth rate (Demirbag et al., 2006). However, non-financial indicators also must be considered in accessing performance, which usually develops in line with human resource outcomes such as turnover, absenteeism, job satisfaction, productivity, and quality (Abdalkrim, 2013; Dyer & Reeves, 1995). According to Sadikoglu and Zehir (2010), it was found that employees’ performance, including productivity, is influenced by innovation. So with that, innovation through employees’ generation of ideas for new products and services would eventually improve competitiveness, improve the administrative process, increase efficiencies and effective work management (Walker et al., 2010), increase organizational fitness (Choi et al., 2009), improve quality performance (Sadikoglu & Zehir, 2010). Additionally, innovation will increase the quantity, quality, and timeliness of output, attendance on the job, and efficiency and effectiveness of work completed (Tinofirei, 2011). Employee’s Productivity The notion of employee productivity is familiar in management (Palmer & Dean, 1973) as it has become multidimensional (Adeinat & Kassim, 2019). It has now been associated with motivation, work-life balance, work environment, internet, service profit chain, and compensation. As a result, organizations are becoming increasingly concerned about how to increase the productivity of employees (Burke & Hsieh, 2006; Yunus & Ernawati, 2018). Mainstream research revealed that the productivity of employees is associated with organizational performance; the higher the employee productivity, the better the organization’s 168 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Volume 48 • March 2022 performance (Yunus & Ernawati, 2018; Iqbal et al., 2019). Yunus and Ernawati (2018) defined employee productivity as the capability to produce goods and services to achieve the organization’s goals. Similarly, Iqbal et al. (2019) defined employee productivity as impersonal trust; therefore, a lack of trust between employees and employers can lower employees’ productivity, hindering the organization’s performance. Moreover, various other factors influence employee productivity, and the most important is the work environment in which people work (Awan & Tahir, 2015; Al-Shammari, 2015). The productivity of employees reflects the efficiency level indicating the time taken to perform a particular task. When employees tend to be productive, they perform a particular task more efficiently and effectively within a given period; on the contrary, they take longer to perform a particular task costing money if they are unproductive at work. Finally, employee productivity is also significantly influenced by employee commitment, satisfaction (Adeinat & Kassim, 2019), employee well-being (Sharma et al., 2016), and engagement (Lee et al., 2017). Research Hypotheses and Their Justification This section of the study will support why the researchers came up with these hypotheses and the fine points of the current study. Improved well-being in the workplace can reduce cases of presenteeism and absenteeism. Higher levels of workplace well-being correlate with higher productivity and happiness among employees. It will also often improve a company’s profitability and efficiency. Consequently, with the support of the above-stated literature and studies, the researchers used and will further test and verify that: H1: Well-being has a significant and positive effect on the employees and staff’s work productivity. Furthermore, Haddon (2018), Pfeffer (2018), and Isham et al. (2020) stated that well-being is associated with higher levels of employee engagement and lower levels of absenteeism and turnover. Human relations theory states that higher employee well-being is associated with higher morale, which, in turn, leads to higher productivity. Emotions theory argues that employees’ positive emotions lead to improved attitudes and motivation, hence better job outcomes and organizational citizenship (Isham et al., 2020). The effect on employees’ well-being should be considered, as the employees’ collaboration towards work productivity even in times of restructuring the work 169 International Peer Reviewed Journal set-up they got used to, such as the hybrid work setting. Collaboration is essential for creating a more transparent, productive, and happy workplace. Employees who collaborate by sharing ideas and skills feel more connected to one another are more engaged, and contribute to an environment of innovation and growth. This has been shown to improve employee retention and organizational success. In addition, collaboration is the key to keeping employees engaged and productive — no matter where they work — as remote and hybrid work settings become more viable alternatives to in-office work after the COVID-19 pandemic. Collaboration that is effective fosters a sense of belonging, drives innovation, makes employees feel like valued contributors and encourages them to do their best. Furthermore, because it improves productivity, collaboration is essential for both performance and maintaining a healthy work-life balance (Borrego, 2021). Furthermore, collaboration improves how a team works together and solves problems, according to Ribeiro (2020). This results in more innovation, efficient processes, tremendous success, and better communication. Therefore, with the support of the above-stated literature and studies, the researcher used and will further test and verify that: H2: Collaboration has a significant and positive effect on the employee and staff’s work productivity. The workplace is evolving quickly, becoming more hybrid and remote. To spark innovation, companies and facility managers (FMs) must create an innovative culture that caters to all employees, regardless of location or work schedule. Implementing workplace innovation begins at the top. Companies that want to maximize innovation must provide a conducive environment and initiatives for all employees. Employers must collaborate with FMs to design a supportive and collaborative workspace for remote and in-office workers to improve innovation and creative thinking (Mason, 2021). According to EIPA (2018), workplace innovation is how organizations divide the work performed in different jobs. It is an organizational model which explicitly focuses on new methods of improving the working environment to help employees work in a way that brings out the best in their capabilities and helps them work, perform, and live better. The critical objective of workplace innovation is to improve employees’ motivation, engagement, and performance. In addition, it aims at giving back energy and pleasure in work. Salesforce UK (2021) mentioned that there is a beautiful symbiosis between innovation and productivity. The more innovative a company is, the more it can drive productivity. This increased productivity allows the workforce to be more 170 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Volume 48 • March 2022 creative and innovative. On and on the cycle goes as the company grows. These gave the inspiration for one of the hypotheses: H3: Innovation has a significant and positive effect on the employee’s and staff’s work productivity. As the effects of the pandemic waned, most businesses adopted a new work structure that combines remote working with the pre-pandemic in-office set-up. Enter a hybrid work model. The hybrid structure provides employee flexibility and the benefits of both work arrangements. However, some business leaders have strong opinions about one structure or the other and wonder if hybrid work increases productivity. Hybrid working enables employees to choose their work location. Giving employees the ability to create their work schedule according to their needs and personal aeries is one of the benefits that positively affects productivity levels (Koeva, 2022). Clarke (2021) states that not all organizations and businesses measure productivity using the same performance standards. On the other hand, employee productivity usually depends on their employees’ positive behavior and capability of meeting employee performance goals and objectives by management. Research conducted by Bloom et al. (2014) from Stanford University, hybrid work led to more productive employees. It combines the needs of businesses to have employees in their offices and allows employees the flexibility to work from home and gain all of the benefits from that. Therefore, researchers would like to investigate further: H4: Effects of the hybrid work model has significant and positive effects on the employee’s and staff’s work productivity. Synthesis of the Reviewed Literature and Studies This study aims to determine and set a test in finding the results that will answer the significant effects of the hybrid work model on the employees’ productivity in a selected higher education institution. The researchers got interested in further studying how these effects of hybrid work set-up, specifically the well-being, collaboration, and innovation, affect employees’ productivity given the flexibility to work either at the very comfort of their home, remotely, or on-site. With that, researchers sought to study further and look for gaps that concern with hybrid work model that researchers aim to bridge these gaps. The most significant challenges of hybrid work are a need for adequate work tools, disconnect from the culture of the organization, impaired collaboration and relationships, and disrupted work processes (Wigert & White, 2022). 171 International Peer Reviewed Journal By thoroughly investigating the related and suited literature and studies, researchers found the framework that can support this study: the attribution theory. LITERATURE CITED Abdalkrim, G. M. (2013). The impact of strategic planning activities on private sector organizations performance in Sudan: An empirical research. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(10), 134. Adeinat, I., & Kassim, N. (2019). Extending the service profit chain: the mediating effect of employee productivity.  International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. Ahmed, I., Bhuiyan, M. E. M., Helal, M. S. A., Banik, N., Ahmed, I., Bhuiyan, M. E. M., ... & Banik, N. (2020). Hybrid instruction: Post covid-19 solution for higher education in Bangladesh. development, 61, 8. Al-Shammari, S. A. (2015). The Effect of Work Environment on Employees’ Productivity. International Journal of Science and Research, 1554. Anwarsyah, W. I., Salendu, A., & Radikun, T. B. S. (2012). Hubungan antara job demands dengan workplace well-being pada pekerja shift.  Jurnal Psikologi: PITUTUR, 1(1), 29-40. Aryanti, R. D., Sari, E. Y. D., & Widiana, H. S. (2020, October). A literature review of workplace well-being. In  International Conference on Community Development (ICCD 2020) (pp. 605-609). Atlantis Press. Awan, A. G., & Tahir, M. T. (2015). Impact of working environment on employee’s productivity: A case study of Banks and Insurance Companies in Pakistan. European Journal of Business and Management, 7(1), 329-345. Baum, J. A., McEvily, B., & Rowley, T. J. (2012). Better with age? Tie longevity and the performance implications of bridging and closure.  Organization science, 23(2), 529-546. 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. 172 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Volume 48 • March 2022 Bolden, R., & O’Regan, N. (2016). Digital disruption and the future of leadership: An interview with Rick Haythornthwaite, Chairman of Centrica and MasterCard. Journal of Management Inquiry, 25(4), 438-446. Borrego, T., (2021). Why Workplace Collaboration is the Secret Sauce to Higher Retention and Better Business Outcomes. http://bit.ly/3YyZc6u Burke, L. A., & Hsieh, C. (2006). Optimizing fixed and variable compensation costs for employee productivity.  International Journal of Productivity and performance management, 55(2), 155-162. Burt, R. S., & Merluzzi, J. (2016). Network oscillation. Academy of Management Discoveries, 2(4), 368-391. Choi, S., Jang, H., & Hyun, J. (2009). Correlation between innovation and performance of construction firms.  Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 36(11), 1722-1731. Cisco, W. (2023). What us hybrid work and what is hybrid work model. https:// www.webex.com/what-is-hybrid-work.html Clarke, M. (2021). The Impact of Hybrid Work on Productivity. http://bit. ly/3mvf90e Cook, J., Mor, Y., & Santos, P. (2020). Three cases of hybridity in learning spaces: Towards a design for a Zone of Possibility.  British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1155-1167. De Castro, M. (2022) Most Filipinos want a hybrid or remote workplace – HR study https://bit.ly/3IzyYL2 De Simone, S. (2014). Conceptualizing wellbeing in the workplace. International journal of business and social science, 5(12). Demirbag, M., Tatoglu, E., Tekinkus, M., & Zaim, S. (2006). An analysis of the relationship between TQM implementation and organizational performance: evidence from Turkish SMEs.  Journal of manufacturing technology management, 17(6), 829-847. Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS quarterly, 575-600. https://www.webex.com/what-is-hybrid-work.html https://www.webex.com/what-is-hybrid-work.html 173 International Peer Reviewed Journal Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of educational technology systems, 49(1), 5-22. Dyer, L., & Reeves, T. (1995). Human resource strategies and firm performance: what do we know and where do we need to go?.  International Journal of human resource management, 6(3), 656-670. EIPA. (2018). How to increase employee productivity and performance with Workplace Innovation. http://bit.ly/3T0Kl3M Feast, J. (2020). What is hybrid work and what is hybrid work model. Retrieved from https://www.webex.com/what-is-hybrid-work.html Fink, A. (2019). Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper. Sage publications. García-González, A., & Ramírez-Montoya, M. S. (2020). Social entrepreneurship competency in higher education: an analysis using mixed methods. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1-19. Haddon, J. (2018). The impact of employees’ well-being on performance in the workplace. Strategic HR Review. Hart, C. (1998).  Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. https:// bit.ly/41B2CZ4 Heider, F. (2013). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Psychology Press. Henderson, N. (2012). What is resiliency and why is it so important. Resiliency in Action. https://www. resiliency. com/what-is-resiliency/ Iqbal, N., Ahmad, M., & Allen, M. M. (2019). Unveiling the relationship between e-HRM, impersonal trust and employee productivity. Management Research Review. Iqbal, S. A., Ashiq, M., Rehman, S. U., Rashid, S., & Tayyab, N. (2022). Students’ perceptions and experiences of online education in Pakistani Universities and Higher Education Institutes during COVID-19. Education Sciences, 12(3), 166. https://www.webex.com/what-is-hybrid-work.html 174 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Volume 48 • March 2022 Isham, A., Mair, S., & Jackson, T. (2020). Wellbeing and productivity: a review of the literature. Jesson, J., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. M. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. Kneeland, M. K. (2019). Network churn: A theoretical and empirical consideration of a dynamic process on performance  (Doctoral dissertation, New York University). Knopf, J. W. (2006). Doing a literature review.  PS: Political Science & Politics, 39(1), 127-132. Koeva, E. (2022). Does Hybrid Work Increase Productivity? [A Surprising Answer]. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/3ymtQWh Kohntopp, T., & McCann, J. (2019). Virtual Leadership in Organizations: Potential Competitive Advantage?. Kohntopp, T., & McCann, J. (2020). Leadership in virtual organizations: Influence on workplace engagement.  The Palgrave Handbook of Workplace Well-Being, 1-26. Krampe, H., Danbolt, L. J., Haver, A., Stålsett, G., & Schnell, T. (2021). Locus of control moderates the association of COVID-19 stress and general mental distress: Results of a Norwegian and a German-speaking cross-sectional survey. BMC psychiatry, 21(1), 1-13. Kumar, P., & Zaheer, A. (2019). Ego-network stability and innovation in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 62(3), 691-716. Lapitan Jr, L. D., Tiangco, C. E., Sumalinog, D. A. G., Sabarillo, N. S., & Diaz, J. M. (2021). An effective blended online teaching and learning strategy during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Education for Chemical Engineers,  35, 116-131. Lee, J., Patterson, P. G., & Ngo, L. V. (2017). In pursuit of service productivity and customer satisfaction: the role of resources.  European Journal of Marketing, 51(11/12), 1836-1855. Lengel, R. H., & Daft, R. L. (1984).  An exploratory analysis of the relationship between media richness and managerial information processing. Texas A and M 175 International Peer Reviewed Journal Univ College Station Dept of Management. Levin, D. Z., Walter, J., & Murnighan, J. K. (2011). Dormant ties: The value of reconnecting. Organization Science, 22(4), 923-939. Malhotra, N., & Reay, T. (2019). Hybridity and power in the microfoundations of professional work. In Microfoundations of institutions (Vol. 65, pp. 241- 255). Emerald Publishing Limited. Manila Bulletin. (2022). MB Daily News Update: Public schools may still use blended learning if. http://bit.ly/41E1KmI Mason, N. (2021). Innovation in the workplace: 5 Ways to boost productivity and engagement. http://bit.ly/3T4d0oA Miao, F., & Holmes, W. (2022). International Forum on AI and Education: Ensuring AI as a Common Good to Transform Education, 7-8 December; synthesis report. Mocon-Ciriaco, C. (2022). CHED issues clarification on latest order on in-person learning for degree programs Retrieved from http://bit. ly/3kzfvCz Morris, M., Nadler, J., Kurtzberg, T., & Thompson, L. (2002). Schmooze or lose: Social friction and lubrication in e-mail negotiations. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(1), 89. Nechita, F., Rățulea, G. G., Borcoman, M., Sorea, D., & Leluțiu, L. M. (2023). Hybrid Events as a Sustainable Educational Approach for Higher Education. Trends in Higher Education, 2(1), 29-44. Onyema, E. M., Eucheria, N. C., Obafemi, F. A., Sen, S., Atonye, F. G., Sharma, A., & Alsayed, A. O. (2020). Impact of Coronavirus pandemic on education. Journal of Education and Practice, 11(13), 108-121. Palmer, W. W., & Dean, C. C. (1973). Increasing employee productivity and reducing turnover. Training & Development Journal. Pentland, A. S. (2012). The new science of building great teams. Harvard business review, 90(4), 60-69. 176 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Volume 48 • March 2022 Pfeffer, J. (2018). The overlooked essentials of employee well-being.  McKinsey Quarterly, 3(2018), 82-89. Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital science and education, 2, 923-945. Ribeiro, S. (2020). The Real Benefits of Team Collaboration in the Workplace. http://bit.ly/3kVghtz Ridley, D. (2012). The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students. Robinsons, B. (2022). 3 New Studies End Debate over Effectiveness of Hybrid and Remote Work. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/41wLgwJ Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological monographs: General and applied, 80(1), 1. Sadikoglu, E., & Zehir, C. (2010). Investigating the effects of innovation and employee performance on the relationship between total quality management practices and firm performance: An empirical study of Turkish firms. International journal of production economics, 127(1), 13-26. Salesforce UK, (2021). The Link between Productivity and Innovation. https:// bit.ly/3mkl206 Singh, J., Steele, K., & Singh, L. (2021). Combining the best of online and face- to-face learning: Hybrid and blended learning approach for COVID-19, post vaccine, & post-pandemic world.  Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 50(2), 140-171. Soda, G., Mannucci, P. V., & Burt, R. S. (2021). Networks, creativity, and time: Staying creative through brokerage and network rejuvenation.  Academy of Management Journal, 64(4), 1164-1190. Teevan, J. (2021). Let’s Redefine “Productivity” for the Hybrid Era.  Harvard Business Review (HBR)(09 2021). https://hbr. org/2021/09/lets-redefine- productivity-for-the-hybrid-era. Tinofirei, C. (2011).  The unique factors affecting employee performance in non profit organisations (Vol. 7). University Of South Africa. https://bit.ly/3mkl206 https://bit.ly/3mkl206 177 International Peer Reviewed Journal Tomej, K., Liburd, J., Blichfeldt, B. S., & Hjalager, A. M. (2022). Blended and (not so) splendid teaching and learning: Higher education insights from university teachers during the Covid-19 pandemic. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 3, 100144. Tsipursky, G. (2023). Recognizing and Rewarding Hybrid Work Productivity. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/3KMq3J2 Van Der Graaf, L., Dunajeva, J., Siarova, H., Bankauskaite, R., & Research for CULT Committee. (2021). Education and Youth in Post-COVID-19 Europe: Crisis Effects and Policy Recommendations. European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies. Vial, G. (2021). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. Managing Digital Transformation, 13-66. Vidhyaa, B., & Ravichandran, M. (2022). A Literature Review on Hybrid Work Model. Journal homepage: www. ijrpr. com ISSN, 2582, 7421. Walker, R. M., Damanpour, F., & Devece, C. A. (2011). Management innovation and organizational performance: The mediating effect of performance management.  Journal of public administration research and theory,  21(2), 367-386. Waller, G. (2022). Think Hybrid Work Doesn’t Work. The Data Disagree. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3ZuCvkF Wigert, B., & White, J. (2022). The Advantages and Challenges of Hybrid Work. On Gallup. Retrieved December, 1(2022), 8. Wiradendi Wolor, C., Solikhah, S., Fidhyallah, N. F., & Lestari, D. P. (2020). Effectiveness of e-training, e-leadership, and work life balance on employee performance during COVID-19.  Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(10). Yang, L., Holtz, D., Jaffe, S., Suri, S., Sinha, S., Weston, J., ... & Teevan, J. (2022). The effects of remote work on collaboration among information workers. Nature human behaviour, 6(1), 43-54. Yunus, E. N., & Ernawati, E. (2018). Productivity paradox? The impact of office redesign on employee productivity. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 67(9), 1918-1939. 178 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Volume 48 • March 2022 Zeng, A., Fan, Y., Di, Z., Wang, Y., & Havlin, S. (2021). Fresh teams are associated with original and multidisciplinary research.  Nature Human Behaviour, 5(10), 1314-1322.