The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2046-9012.htm

Approaches to
Evolving approaches to employee employee
engagement: comparing engagement

antecedents in remote work and

traditional workplaces
Omaima Hajjami and Oliver S. Crocco Received 3 October 2022
Revised 20 February 2023
School of Leadership and Human Resource Development, Accepted 24 February 2023
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate the factors that influenced employee engagement in
the context of remote work as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and compare them with antecedents of
employee engagement in traditional workplaces.
Design/methodology/approach – This study adopted an integrative literature review design of 27
empirical and conceptual peer-reviewed journal articles from a host of academic databases. Data were
analyzed via a matrix and mapped onto individual and organizational antecedents of employee
engagement.
Findings – This study identified 18 antecedents of remote work, which were categorized into
individual antecedents, for example, mindfulness and digital literacy, as well as organizational
antecedents, for example, job autonomy and supportive leadership. These findings were compared
with antecedents of employee engagement in traditional workplaces to generate new knowledge
about the impact of remote work on employee engagement as a result of the large shift to remote
work in 2020.
Originality/value – This study synthesizes the most recent literature on antecedents of employee
engagement in remote work settings as the result of the pandemic and contrasts these new approaches with
previously identified antecedents of employee engagement in traditional workplaces.
Keywords Employee engagement, Antecedents, Remote work, Technology, COVID-19
Paper type Literature review

Employee engagement has captivated the attention of training and development

practitioners and scholars in recent years (Shuck et al., 2021; Saks and Gruman, 2014).
Kahn’s (1990) seminal study and definition has had an enduring influence on current
employee engagement studies. Employee engagement is the “simultaneous employment
and expression of a person’s preferred self in task behaviors that promote connections to
work and to others” (Kahn, 1990, p. 700). Furthermore, engaged employees are
“physically involved in tasks,” “cognitively vigilant” and “empathically connected to
others” (Kahn, 1990, p. 700). While no widely agreed upon definition exists, the construct
has evolved into a tripartite set of components, that is, physical, emotional and cognitive
engagement, and has become oriented toward achieving desired organizational outcomes
(Shuck et al., 2017). This concept’s components, antecedents and applications have
continued to evolve (Kovaleski and Arghode, 2020; Shuck et al., 2017; Van and Nafukho,
2019; Saks and Gruman, 2014). In over 20 years of studies published in Human Resource European Journal of Training and
Development
Development Review, employee engagement was the second most commonly used © Emerald Publishing Limited
2046-9012
keyword (Park, 2021). DOI 10.1108/EJTD-10-2022-0103
EJTD The scholarly focus on employee engagement grew considerably during the COVID-19
pandemic (Pass and Ridgway, 2022). Scholars and practitioners stressed the need to study
how employees adapted their behaviors amid the enforced lockdown and the rapid
transition to work from home (Pass and Ridgway, 2022; Harter, 2021). In this sense, the
survey organization Gallup, which tracks levels of engagement through its popular Q12
survey (Gallup, 2023), found that employee engagement levels fluctuated in 2020, during the
COVID-19 period, with disengagement levels ranging from 13% to 15% (Harter, 2021). In
2021, with many employees still working remotely, employee engagement levels dropped in
the USA for the first time in 10 years with 16% of employees actively disengaged at work,
which is up from 13% in 2019 (Harter, 2022a). This continuing fluctuation in employee
engagement happened in a context that was characterized by increasing organizational
changes in policies and regulations and high stress levels among employees.
The enforcement of work-from-home policies required profound adjustment in the way
employees coordinate and accomplish their work goals. Consequently, these policies led to
severe stress among employees and directly affected their behaviors and attitudes at work
(Alshaabani et al., 2021). In addition, existing research showed remote workers felt more
isolated (Mikołajczyk, 2021), less secure about their jobs, emotionally exhausted (Chen and
Peng, 2021) and increasingly excluded (Byrd, 2022). Most relevant to this study were threats
to employee engagement (Pass and Ridgway, 2022; Harter, 2021).
Considering the effect of the pandemic on employee engagement, a host of scholars have
conducted empirical studies to explore the evolution of employee engagement in remote
work (Adisa et al., 2021; Mikołajczyk, 2021; Malik and Malik, 2021; Giorgi et al., 2020). Yet, to
date, findings of these studies have not been synthesized and presented in a way that is
accessible to training and development practitioners and reveals a gap in human resource
development (HRD) research. Furthermore, current literature reviews have discussed the
effect of remote work on employee outcomes during the pandemic, identifying some of the
factors (Arunprasad et al., 2022) and practices (Chanana and Sangeeta 2020; Pass and
Ridgway 2022; Kumar, 2021) that increase employee engagement. However, the literature
lacks a comparative approach that distinguishes between factors that drive employee
engagement in traditional workplaces and remote work during the pandemic.
As the body of literature on employee engagement continues to expand (Arwab et al.,
2022a), it has become increasingly important to examine how different work modalities impact
employee engagement. This study demonstrates that the advent of COVID-19 made it
especially relevant to distinguish between remote work and traditional workplaces with respect
to employee engagement. As remote work remains prevalent even in the post pandemic era
(despite the ongoing presence of the disease), this research offers a comprehensive
understanding that can assist HRD scholars and practitioners in distinguishing between the
factors that influence employee engagement based on differing work modalities.
Therefore, the purpose of this integrative literature review is to synthesize the current
scholarship on employee engagement among remote workers during the pandemic to
understand the evolution of employee engagement antecedents and how they differ from
existing knowledge largely built on research in traditional, face-to-face workplaces. The
following research question guided the study:

RQ1. What antecedents did organizations learn were essential to sustaining their
employee’s engagement in remote work during the pandemic?
While prior studies have stressed an urgent need to understand what personal resources and
job resources contribute to remote work that promotes employee engagement (Mäkikangas
et al., 2022), this study reviews existing literature by focusing on individual and
organizational factors (Wollard and Shuck, 2011) that drive employee engagement in remote Approaches to
work settings – an aspect that has not been explored in any literature review in remote work employee
settings. This is significant because while many individual studies exist that empirically
reveal antecedents of employee engagement in remote work during the pandemic, there
engagement
lacks synthesis across studies to integrate these empirical findings. Thus, this literature
review study provides useful insights into HRD by providing practical implications for
enhancing employee engagement in remote work through training and development and
leadership strategies. Finally, this study proposes a future research agenda to address the
current needs in research and to further expand our current knowledge on employee
engagement.

Literature review
In traditional workplaces, scholars have identified multiple factors that drive employee
engagement, which can be classified into organizational and individual antecedents
(Wollard and Shuck, 2011). Previous research that discussed organizational antecedents
showed that job resources are associated with positive employee engagement (Bailey et al.,
2015). Job resources refer to the physical, psychological and organizational aspects of the
work that reduce job demands and help achieve work goals (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008).
For example, job characteristics (Rana et al., 2014; Saks, 2019), job control, job fit (Wollard
and Shuck, 2011), supervisory support, colleague support, feedback and autonomy are
among the most commonly assessed job resources that drive employee engagement (Bailey
et al., 2015; Saks, 2006; Kossyva et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2017). Other studies found a positive
relationship between leadership and employee engagement (Carasco-Saul et al., 2015).
Leadership styles that were associated with improving employee engagement include
transformational (Alam et al., 2022), authentic, charismatic, ethical (Bailey et al., 2015) and
servant leadership (Lee et al., 2017). Additionally, previous studies identified the role of
manager self-efficacy (Wollard and Shuck, 2011), supervisory coaching and leader
empowering behavior in improving employee engagement (Bailey et al., 2015).
At the organizational level, research shows that factors such as HRD positively influence
employee engagement. For example, HRD practices that can boost employee engagement
include opportunities for training and development (Lee et al., 2017), talent management
(Wollard and Shuck, 2011), rewards and recognition (Basbous and Malkawi, 2017; Kossyva
et al., 2022), coaching (Lyons and Bandura, 2021) and performance management (Alam et al.,
2022). Also, existing literature supported other factors such as a climate of psychological
safety (Bailey et al., 2015), team and coworkers support (Lee et al., 2017) and connection to
mission and values (Akingbola and van den Berg, 2019).
At the individual level, antecedents to employee engagement relate to the strategies and
conditions applied directly to or by individual employees to improve employee engagement
(Wollard and Shuck, 2011). Individual antecedents to employee engagement include
perceived organizational support (Saks, 2006; Saks, 2019), value congruence, optimism,
active coping, self-efficacy, self-esteem and affective commitment (Wollard and Shuck, 2011;
Bailey et al., 2015). Perceived organizational support also includes support for training and
learning opportunities, which were positively linked with employee engagement (Lee et al.,
2017) and employee performance (Arwab et al., 2022b). Research also indicated a positive
relationship between the five personality traits and employee engagement, including
extraversion, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to experience (Ansari, 2020). In
addition, existing literature indicated three types of related psychological conditions:
psychological meaningfulness, psychological safety and psychological availability (Saks
and Gruman, 2011). Individual spirituality (Kossyva et al., 2022), mission attachment
EJTD (Svensson et al., 2021) and work/life balance (Wollard and Shuck, 2011) were also considered
positive predictors of employee engagement. Other studies considered factors such as age as
an individual antecedent to employee engagement, with older employees tending to be more
engaged than younger employees (Alam et al., 2022).
The list of factors that precede or influence employee engagement reveals that workers
tend to form a positive attachment to the physical space where they carry out their job.
Many aspects of traditional workplaces have been associated with fostering this sense of
engagement, resulting in employees who are highly engaged feeling a greater sense of
belonging (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004) to their workplace and exhibiting higher
performance (Liu et al., 2022). In remote contexts, employees may establish a connection
with different factors within their work environment. Remote work, particularly when done
from home, has its own unique characteristics and components that differ from those of a
traditional workplace. The remote work environment involves new interacting elements,
such as technology and family members. Therefore, it is important to investigate the factors
that impact employee engagement in a remote work environment and understand how they
differ from those in a traditional workplace, which is the primary aim of this study.

Methodology
Given that employee engagement in remote work is an established topic in scholarly
literature, we chose to conduct an integrative literature review (Torraco, 2016, 2005) to
summarize the literature and “[draw] overall conclusions from many separate
investigations” (Cooper, 1998, p. 3). According to Torraco (2005), integrative literature
reviews are appropriate particularly for “mature topics or new, emerging topics” (p. 357).
While the topic of employee engagement is considered mature (Shuck et al., 2021), the
dramatic increase in articles related to employee engagement specifically in remote work as
a result of the COVID-19 pandemic represents an emerging sub-topic within the employee
engagement literature. This sub-topic is deserving of review given the “inconsistencies” in
the emerging literature and the need for “fresh, new perspectives on the topic,” specifically
as it relates to HRD (Torraco, 2016, pp. 404–405). Given that HRD practitioners are often
responsible for employee engagement policies and practices (Shuck and Rose, 2013), an
integrative literature review of this topic provides HRD scholars and practitioners with a
comprehensive understanding of the antecedents to employee engagement in remote work.
To conduct this review, we adopted guidelines from Torraco (2016, 2005), Cooper (1998) and
the six W’s guidelines from Callahan (2010) as described below.
First, we used a variety of databases to extract relevant articles for our review. Databases
included Web of Science, ERIC and Academic Search Complete. To retrieve relevant articles
from the selected list of databases, we used Boolean operators to search a combination of the
following key terms that appeared in the abstract, the title of articles or through the text:
(employee engagement) AND (antecedent* OR factor OR predict*) AND (COVID-19 OR
pandemic OR lockdown) AND (remote* OR work from home OR virtual). We also used
Google Scholar and snowball selection to generate additional articles, for example, by
looking at references in articles to ensure no key studies were missed. This search was
conducted between March 2021 and January 2022.
Through our initial search, we identified 876 articles. After eliminating duplicates and
excluding certain types of publications, such as conference proceedings, books, book
chapters and dissertations and thesis, we narrowed the selection down to 402 studies. We
then screened articles based on titles and abstracts to identify those that were pertinent to
our research questions and identified 62 studies to check for further eligibility. At this stage,
we applied a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria to the full text articles that covered the
subject area, document type and language. Specifically, we included articles that explicitly Approaches to
discussed the factors of employee engagement in remote work, underwent peer review, employee
discussed employee engagement between March 2020 and December 2021 and came from
any geographical location or industry. During our selection process, we excluded articles
engagement
that focused on work engagement or job engagement instead of employee engagement,
given the differences between the terms. Additionally, we excluded articles that were not
published in the English language. This process resulted in 27 articles selected for final
review, of which 20 were quantitative, 4 were qualitative and 3 were conceptual. See
Figure 1 for details on the process of article identification.
In our analysis, we used a matrix to list the articles according to author(s), title, purpose,
findings, country, industry and methods to increase the rigor and clarity of the review
(Torraco, 2016). We also documented how employee engagement was operationalized
among the studies and whether they used scales aligned more with work engagement (e.g.
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale) or other adapted scales. Furthermore, in analyzing the
articles to understand the antecedents of employee engagement in remote work during
the pandemic, we identified the types of antecedents and frequency of antecedents studied in
the reviewed literature. This matrix allowed us to synthesize the findings across the 27
reviewed articles. Following Wollard and Shuck’s (2011) categorization model, we grouped
the antecedents into individual and organizational antecedents.

Findings
The findings first describe individual antecedents to employee engagement in remote work
followed by organizational antecedents. Then, a comparison between the antecedents of
employee engagement in remote work and traditional workplaces is discussed.

Records identified through database searching

Identification

(n = 876)

Duplicates and records

excluded based on type of
publication (n = 474)
Screening

Records screened
(n = 402)

Articles excluded on
the basis of
title/abstract (n = 340)
Eligibility

Articles assessed for eligibility

(n = 62)

Articles excluded based

on inclusion and
exclusion criteria
(n = 35)
Included

Articles included in the literature review

(n = 27)

Figure 1.
Source: The above figure is adapted from PRISMA flow chart Flow chart of the
review process
Moher et al. (2009)
EJTD Individual antecedents
Upon review of the 27 articles, results showed that one of the frequently supported
individual antecedents was perceived organizational support (POS) (Alshaabani et al., 2021;
De Klerk et al., 2021; Nguyen and Tran, 2021; Shamsi et al., 2021). POS is the extent to which
individual employees perceive that their organizations value their contributions and care for
their well-being (Kurtessis et al., 2015). Pre-pandemic research shows that the more an
employee perceives they are supported by the organization, the more comfort and sense of
belonging they will have amid a crisis (Kurtessis et al., 2015). In a study of 380 Hungarian
employees in financial services who transitioned to work remotely because of the pandemic,
Alshaabani et al. (2021) found that when employees felt their organization supported them
through the transition, it enhanced their engagement. In line with this, Nguyen and Tran
(2021) showed that POS was influenced by support from colleagues and supervisors but
with supervisor support being the most influential factor in their employee engagement.
Empirically, perceived team support was found to be a strong predictor of employees’ well-
being (Shamsi et al., 2021). Employee engagement also served as a mediator between POS
and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), which means that the more an employee is
engaged, the more likely their POS will lead to OCBs (Alshaabani et al., 2021).
Given that the vast majority of remote workers were working from home during the
pandemic, Nguyen and Tran (2021) highlighted that spousal and family members’ support
was positively linked to the development of employee engagement. Remote employees who
were fortunate to receive social support from their family members, friends and significant
others had lower levels of occupational stress and higher levels of resilience at work (Ojo
et al., 2021). Consequently, social support led to high energy and positive engagement at
work (Ojo et al., 2021; Rožman et al., 2021a).
In contrast, many studies identified family–work conflicts as one of the main antecedents
of employee disengagement in the shift to remote work. Conflict happened when work duties
conflicted with family-related activities (Wood et al., 2020). Indeed, work-from-home policies
led some employees to take on more responsibilities such as homeschooling and caregiving
duties (Collins et al., 2021; Heggeness and Fields, 2020). Sadly, given longstanding gender
disparities, these duties disproportionately negatively affected female employees (Collins
et al., 2021). Recent studies reported that female remote workers exhibited lower employee
engagement combined with lower passion toward work (Rožman et al., 2021b). This was
supported by Collins et al. (2021), who explained how family- and house-related
responsibilities that female employees tended to assume subtracted from their work hours
and negatively influenced their employee engagement. This influence was stronger the more
children a family had (Chaudhary et al., 2021), as this increased the level of distraction at
home.
To mitigate the effect of family–work conflict, a recent empirical study yielded promising
results showing that self-leadership can reduce the stress of remote work and positively
influence employee engagement (Galanti et al., 2021). Self-leadership is a process that relies
on control mechanisms using a set of individual behaviors and cognitive strategies to lead
oneself toward improved performance (Manz, 1986). Previous studies supported the positive
effect of self-leadership on employee outcomes including job performance, employee
engagement and employee satisfaction (Müller and Niessen, 2019; Van Dorsser-Boog et al.,
2020). During the shift to remote work, self-leadership was an influential antecedent of
employee engagement through setting one’s own goals and monitoring self-fulfillment
(Galanti et al., 2021).
Another resource that contributed to employee engagement was the practice of
mindfulness (Zheng et al., 2020). In the literature, mindfulness refers to the capacity of
disidentifying from one’s thoughts and personal narrative and adopting a non-judgmental Approaches to
awareness of one’s own experience (Brown and Ryan, 2003; Shapiro et al., 2006). Through a employee
field experiment study, Zheng et al. (2020) found that the daily practice of mindfulness
engagement
buffered the stress caused by remote work during COVID-19, which reduced the difficulty to
fall asleep and enhanced employee engagement at work. The authors explained that
mindfulness diminished the negative thoughts caused by the COVID-19 situation and led
employees to a more adaptive attitude in which they simply observed and accepted their
primary thoughts with nonjudgmental awareness. Furthermore, amid all the distractions
triggered by working from home, mindfulness enabled employees to sharpen their focus on
the present state and helped them build mental resilience to bounce back from distractions
quickly (Pattnaik and Jena, 2021).
Other individual antecedents of employee engagement included perceived motivating job
potential, which is the extent to which employees find their jobs potentially motivating. This
occurs when two dimensions are combined: motivating job characteristics, which is
represented by skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and job-based
feedback (Oldham and Hackman, 2010), and the social aspect of work, which is manifested
through positive social interactions (Oldham and Hackman, 2010). For example, one of the
empirical studies in this review found that teaching online among academic teachers
negatively influenced employee engagement mediated by a low level of motivating job
potential (Kulikowski et al., 2021). In other words, when faced with remote work as a result
of the pandemic, online academic teachers were faced with many challenges that negatively
impacted their motivating job potential and, therefore, their employee engagement
(Kulikowski et al., 2021). During the COVID-19 pandemic, the surveyed teachers reported
they had difficulties with finding a reliable e-learning platform, lack of access to the internet,
absence of interaction with students and insufficient computer skills, all of which
contributed to their disengagement (Kulikowski et al., 2021).
Similarly, recent literature also highlighted the role of digital literacy among remote
employees in the development of their employee engagement (Thayer et al., 2021). The
transition to remote work during the pandemic required the use of digital and computer
skills, in addition to reliable access to technology. Correspondingly, Chan et al. (2021) found
that employees who possessed digital literacy had a higher level of technology acceptance
and a positive attitude toward digital tools. In terms of employee engagement, the authors
explained that digital literacy, when supported by an innovative culture, enabled employees
to reap the benefits of technological tools in performing their remote work and, therefore,
contributed to their engagement (Chan et al., 2021). Furthermore, digital literacy positively
influenced the perceived ease of use of technology, which led to high engagement at work
(Shamsi et al., 2021; Thayer et al., 2021).
Other studies around individual antecedents concerned the effect of personality traits on
employee engagement (Evans et al., 2021). In this context, a four-wave longitudinal study,
which lasted from May to August 2020, examined the relationship between personality
traits and job outcomes, including employee engagement, among remote workers (Evans
et al., 2021). Findings showed that extroversion and conscientiousness negatively predicted
employee engagement. The authors reported over the last wave of the survey that the level
of employee engagement deteriorated among employees with high conscientiousness and
extroversion traits, which they attributed to the fact that conscientious employees rely more
on structure and that extroverted employees thrive in social interactions (Evans et al., 2021).
Similarly, both personality traits were associated with low productivity, low satisfaction
and high burnout (Evans et al., 2021).
EJTD Organizational antecedents
The reviewed articles revealed that several scholars examined the effect of high-
performance work systems on employee engagement in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.
For example, knowledge-sharing processes and structures that facilitated the easy transfer
of knowledge within the organization were found to positively influence remote workers’
engagement during the pandemic (Malik and Malik, 2021). In times of crisis, lack of
knowledge may affect personnel’s well-being and lead to destructive work behaviors
(Germain, 2010). However, when employees recognized the presence of knowledge-sharing
systems, they were more engaged at work and displayed more constructive deviance (Malik
and Malik, 2021). In line with this, Stranzl et al. (2021) indicated that transparent information
was essential to build trust and stimulate employee engagement in difficult times such as
the pandemic. Earlier studies identified different aspects of organizational transparency that
positively impact employee engagement in the virtual workplace, including constant
feedback from managers, open communication with colleagues (Bennis et al., 2008), active
listening (Lemon, 2019) and accessibility of virtual platforms and self-service applications
(Kim and Ausar, 2018). During the COVID-19 pandemic, transparency involved
“information disclosure, clarity, and accuracy,” which influenced engagement (Stranzl et al.,
2021, p. 275).
Additionally, teamwork emerged as a strong predictor of employee engagement among
remote workers during the pandemic (Thayer et al., 2021; Koekemoer et al., 2021). As
mentioned earlier, perceived support from colleagues was a crucial individual antecedent of
employee engagement (Nguyen and Tran, 2021); however, work-from-home policies have
prevented employees from in-person interactions and elevated the use of virtual platforms
for interpersonal communication. Research showed that these platforms were often helpful
to maintain team collaboration through video-conferencing and instant messaging, which
had the potential to positively influence employee engagement (Thayer et al., 2021). Most
evidently, virtual collaboration enhanced employee engagement when combined with
mutual trust, commitment, accountability and shared team goals (Koekemoer et al., 2021).
The latter of which predicted team effectiveness and employee engagement and
subsequently led to “adaptivity and proactivity” (Koekemoer et al., 2021, p. 5).
Virtual training and development were a critical antecedent to employee engagement in
the reviewed studies (Chanana and Sangeeta, 2020). Chaudhary et al. (2021) elaborated
on the types of virtual group training that enhance employee engagement for remote
workers. The first is emotional training, which can develop the team’s self-awareness and
social skills. The second is time management training to help reduce distraction and
leverage time when working from home. And the third program is communication training
to learn specific oral and written communication skills for virtual employees. In line with
this, in a quantitative study of Indonesian employees in the manufacturing industry, Purba
(2021) demonstrated that continuous e-learning predicted employee engagement, especially
in difficult times of COVID-19.
Another high-performance work system practice that influenced employee engagement
in the reviewed studies was job autonomy, which is not surprising given the need for job
autonomy in remote work. Job autonomy is:
The degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the
individual in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out
(Hackman and Oldham, 1980, p. 162).
Using the job demands – resources (JD-R) theory, job autonomy was considered a resource that
presented multiple advantages which positively affected employee engagement (Galanti et al.,
2021). In this study, job autonomy among employees working from home was found to create Approaches to
participatory leadership and goal-oriented schedules based on deadlines and priorities (Galanti employee
et al., 2021). This emphasizes the importance of both organizational support for remote workers
and using job designs that allow workers appropriate levels of autonomy.
engagement
Organizational leadership plays a key role in mediating the impact of crises on
employees (Stern, 2009). Drawing on event system theory that highlights the role of event
salience in influencing organizations (Morgeson et al., 2015), the COVID-19 pandemic was a
disruptive event worldwide that had a great impact on employees, including their levels of
engagement (Reinwald et al., 2021). However, evidence showed that when leader
consideration was high within an organization, employee engagement was not as affected
by increases in COVID-19 daily cases (Reinwald et al., 2021). In fact, it can be argued that the
accelerated digital transformation caused by the pandemic has even influenced the
development of new leadership behaviors and styles. Research from the pandemic showed
that leadership behaviors that positively predicted employee engagement included a calm
attitude in dealing with change, a clear plan, active responsibility and empathy toward
employees (Koekemoer et al., 2021; Amano et al., 2021). Additionally, leadership was
positively correlated with remote employee engagement when combined with agile
organizational principles and digital collaboration tools (Busse and Weidner, 2020).
Mental health support was another key driver for engaging employees working behind
screens. With the COVID-19 crisis bringing about widespread social and professional
isolation, many employees working from home suffered from the stressful situations,
including family stress, domestic violence, increased workload and reduced rest time
(Beland et al., 2020; De-la-Calle-Duran and Rodríguez-Sanchez, 2021). In this context,
research suggested that mental health support programs can effectively mitigate the impact
of isolation on employee engagement (Shin and Hur, 2021). For example, measures such as
encouraging regular mental checkups (Chaudhary et al., 2021), implementing resilience
training programs (Giorgi et al., 2020), developing compassionate behaviors (Muzee et al.,
2021) and helping to overcome uncertainty (De-la-Calle-Duran and Rodríguez-Sanchez, 2021)
reinforced employee engagement and positively affected employee well-being. In contrast,
an organizational climate that adds to employees’ mental load (Shamsi et al., 2021; Amano
et al., 2021) and work intensification (i.e. increased amount and complexity of work) (Adisa
et al., 2021) negatively affected employee engagement. Thus, in total, organizational factors
from leadership and training to organizational culture and job design all influenced
employee engagement for better or worse during the pandemic.

Discussion
This review synthesized the current scholarship on employee engagement among remote
workers during the pandemic to understand how they differ from existing knowledge built
on research in traditional workplaces. It is important to note that there is a significant body
of research on employee engagement in traditional work settings (Kossyva et al., 2022),
while studies on employee engagement among remote workers, especially during the
pandemic crisis, are relatively limited and emerging (Mäkikangas et al., 2022). The literature
review identified some antecedents that appear distinct yet complementary to existing
literature on employee engagement.
For example, perceived organizational support emerged as an individual antecedent to
employee engagement in both work settings. Based on the norms of reciprocity, employees
weigh the degree to which organizations value their contributions at work and reciprocate
by demonstrating greater engagement (Jin and McDonald, 2017). The existing literature has
highlighted various forms of organizational support, such as rewards and recognition
EJTD (Basbous and Malkawi, 2017), talent management (Wollard and Shuck, 2011) and
performance management (Alam et al., 2022), which can promote employee engagement in
traditional workplace. In addition, in the context of remote work, perceived organizational
support is emphasized by the role of supervisors (Nguyen and Tran, 2021). Specifically,
supervisors maintain the connection between remote workers and their organizations by
providing clear instructions, checking on their well-being and demonstrating compassionate
behavior. This support has been found to be particularly helpful in counteracting the
negative effects of isolation and work intensification (Deschênes, 2023) and has also been
shown to promote employee trust. Men et al. (2022) explained that supervisors who use
language that conveys meaning, empathy and clear direction have a positive impact on
employee trust.
Besides, the ability to direct personal energies was positively related to employee
engagement in traditional workplace (Wollard and Shuck, 2011). These practices, described
as health-oriented behaviors (Efimov et al., 2020), expanded to remote work through self-
leadership and mindfulness practices. Remote employees suffered from mental stress
caused by irregular working hours and high workload (Efimov et al., 2020). To reduce this
effect, it was important for them to discipline their own performance and set time
boundaries.
As opposed to traditional workplace, remote work heavily relies on the use of technology
and the possession of digital skills to be able to carry out work tasks. This review
emphasized the importance of organizational policies to boost technology acceptance and
addressing employees’ gap in digital literacy skills to drive employee engagement among
remote workers (Chan et al., 2021; Kulikowski et al., 2021). This is evident in the domain of
education, where teachers had to abruptly shift to remote work because of the pandemic.
Teachers with low levels of digital literacy and technology acceptance struggled to adapt to
the new work environment, leading to lower levels of employee engagement (Kulikowski
et al., 2021).
Among the factors that overlapped between traditional and remote workplaces were
training and development opportunities. In traditional workplaces, training programs
positively predict employee engagement (Lee et al., 2017) and task performance (Arwab
et al., 2022b). However, training and learning factors manifest differently in remote work
contexts and are, thus, qualitatively different depending on work modality. Employees
working remotely attach importance to opportunities for e-learning (Purba, 2021), virtual
training programs (Chaudhary et al., 2021) and virtual collaboration platforms (Kim and
Ausar, 2018). These factors are perceived as forms of organizational support and investment
in employee skills (Chanana and Sangeeta, 2020), which create a need for remote employees
to reciprocate by increasing their engagement.
In terms of reversed factors, our findings reported that occupational stress has a negative
impact on remote workers; however, this effect can be moderated by family and social
support (Ojo et al., 2021). Family and social support can be crucial in reducing the impact of
work–life conflict on employee engagement, as noted in studies by Nguyen and Tran (2021)
and Rožman et al. (2021a). Unlike on-site work, where physical boundaries can be set
through office hours and physical presence, making the non-work domain less prominent
(Shirmohammadi et al., 2022), remote work blurs the boundaries between work and non-
work domains, leading to their interference (Raghuram and Wiesenfeld, 2004). In this
regard, family support can reduce work–life conflict and help remote workers create
productive work environments at home. This can include providing a distraction-free
workspace, supporting the maintenance of a regular work schedule and respecting the
boundaries between work and personal life.
 Other reversed factors of employee engagement include personality traits. This review Approaches to
highlights that extraversion and conscientiousness negatively predict employee employee
engagement among remote workers (Evans et al., 2021). This is explained by the lack of
social interaction and the lack of clear structure when working remotely. This finding
engagement
contradicts that of traditional workplace where extraversion and conscientiousness are
significant predictors of employee engagement (Ansari, 2020).

Implications for research

This study fills a research gap by conducting a literature review on antecedents of employee
engagement in remote work during the pandemic and discussing those alongside
antecedents of employee engagement in traditional workplaces. As the need of this research
emanated to address the issue of declining levels of employee engagement among remote
workers during the pandemic, it is important to report that this issue expands beyond the
pandemic era. Harter (2022a, 2022b) tracked the evolution level of employee engagement
during the post-pandemic period and revealed a decline in engagement across all three
groups (i.e. on-site, remote and hybrid). This highlights the need for further investigation
into this phenomenon. In future research, the list of employee engagement antecedents from
the literature can be incorporated into longitudinal studies to assess their long-term effect on
employee engagement in remote work.
In the 27 articles selected for our review, 20 were quantitative studies. Although the
selection criteria were not restricted to a specific methodology, our review revealed that
quantitative studies produced more evidence to frame our understanding of the effect of
remote work on employee engagement (EE). To fill this gap, a future research line might
involve qualitative and mixed methods analysis to further explore employees’ experiences
with engagement while working remotely. For example, observations and semi-structured
interviews may be conducted with remote workers to explore the role of family support,
manager support and organizational policies in driving their employee engagement.
Similarly, empirical studies that investigate the influence of remote work on employee
learning and performance during COVID-19 are needed. In this sense, employee engagement
can be considered as a predictor variable instead of an outcome variable. Similarly, future
training and development scholars could study the link between organizational and
individual resources to employee learning and development, with the mediation effect of
employee engagement.
Additional research could address questions related to how demographic characteristics
impact employee engagement among remote workers. For example, our review found that
female employees reported lower levels of disengagement when working from home
compared to male employees. Therefore, future research could explore the moderating role
of gender and the mediating role of work–life conflict between remote work and employee
engagement.

Implications for practice

With regard to practice, the emergence of remote work has challenged the traditional factors
to employee engagement. This has brought employee well-being and healthy organizational
climate to the center of the discussion. While this study was limited to employee
engagement in remote work during the pandemic, its implications expand beyond
the pandemic context. This is because the impact of the COVID-19 led employees to re-
evaluate their career decisions and reorganize their priorities. Employers need to recognize
these changes and start considering more proactive approach to engage employees. This
approach stresses out the coalescence of both individual and organizational efforts to
EJTD sustain employee engagement, which we took into account to suggest practices related to
training and leadership.
Remote work became a reality that is not only associated with the pandemic but also
expands beyond that context. Many employees realized that the work-from-home option
brought flexibility to their daily schedule and allowed to some degree work–life balance
(Parker, 2020). Hence, our study highlights the need to ensure that employees working from
home have the necessary equipment to carry out work from home. Depending on the nature
of the work, this likely includes a combination of access to the internet, hardware, software
and virtual collaboration tools. When appropriate equipment is available, organizations
need to ensure that employees have the required digital competencies to perform their work
virtually.
To leverage employees’ digital competencies, training and development professionals
need to intervene by providing digital skills training and encouraging e-learning through
online learning platforms (Chaudhary et al., 2021). Given the centrality of continuous
learning to career development in both traditional and remote contexts (McDonald et al.,
2022), employers and practitioners must innovatively seek to provide e-learning
opportunities for employees working remotely. Learning providers must be innovative in
offering e-learning because some online tools have led to negative outcomes, such as
webinar and zoom fatigue (Mikołajczyk, 2021; Sharma et al., 2021).
In addition, training and development professionals need to implement digital and work-
from-home needs assessments to stay abreast of employee needs. Whereas traditional
workplaces often provide multiple touchpoints and check-ins that function as informal
needs assessments, more formal assessments will likely be required in remote contexts,
given the intentionality required for remote communication. In addition, training and
development professionals need to consider factors such as the perception of employees
toward technology use in improving employee engagement. For this, assessments of
perceived technology ease of use and usefulness of virtual tools are recommended.
Additionally, through the extended crisis of COVID-19, a common thread across the
literature is the essential role of leadership in supporting and elevating employees’
engagement. In line with the social exchange theory that postulates the implicit social
contract between employers and employees (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005), the more
organizations support employees through times of upheaval, the more likely they are to
reciprocate in terms of engagement and even organizational citizenship behaviors
(Alshaabani et al., 2021). Research suggests a multitude of leadership competencies essential
to keep remote employees engaged. For example, leaders should communicate clearly and
consistently with their teams to check not only for work updates but also about their well-
being (Dirani et al., 2020). Leaders need to show empathy through their messaging, use
positive reinforcement and appreciation and avoid coercive controls including unrealistic
deadlines and micromanaging, the negative effects of which can be exacerbated in a remote
context (Bradford and Ryan, 2020).

References
Adisa, T.A., Ogbonnaya, C. and Adekoya, O.D. (2021), “Remote working and employee engagement: a
qualitative study of British workers during the pandemic”, Information Technology and People,
doi: 10.1108/ITP-12-2020-0850.
Akingbola, K. and van den Berg, H. (2019), “Antecedents, consequences, and context of employee
engagement in nonprofit organizations”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 39
No. 1, pp. 46-74, doi: 10.1177/0734371X16684910.
Alam, J., Mendelson, M., Ibn Boamah, M. and Gauthier, M. (2022), “Exploring the antecedents of Approaches to
employee engagement”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, doi: 10.1108/IJOA-09-
2020-2433.
employee
Alshaabani, A., Naz, F., Magda, R. and Rudnak, I. (2021), “Impact of perceived organizational support
engagement
on OCB in the time of COVID-19 pandemic in Hungary: employee engagement and affective
commitment as mediators”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 14, p. 7800, doi: 10.3390/su13147800.
Amano, H., Fukuda, Y., Shibuya, K., Ozaki, A. and Tabuchi, T. (2021), “Factors associated with the
work engagement of employees working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan”,
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 18 No. 19, p. 10495, doi:
10.3390/ijerph181910495.
Ansari, J.A.N. (2020), “Driving employee engagement through five personality traits: an exploratory
study”, Metamorphosis, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 94-105, doi: 10.1177/09726225211007247.
Arunprasad, P., Dey, C., Jebli, F., Manimuthu, A. and El Hathat, Z. (2022), “Exploring the remote work
challenges in the era of COVID-19 pandemic: review and application model”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 3333-3355, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-07-2021-0421.
Arwab, M., Adil, M., Nasir, M. and Ali, M.A. (2022a), “Task performance and training of employees: the
mediating role of employee engagement in the tourism and hospitality industry”, European
Journal of Training and Development, doi: 10.1108/EJTD-01-2022-0008.
Arwab, M., Nasir Ansari, J., Azhar, M. and Ali, M. (2022b), “Exploring the influence of training and
development on employee’s performance: empirical evidence from the Indian tourism industry”,
Management Science Letters, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 89-100, doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2021.10.004.
Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K. and Fletcher, L. (2015), “The meaning, antecedents and outcomes of
employee engagement: a narrative synthesis”, International Journal of Management Reviews,
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 31-53, doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12077.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2008), “Towards a model of work engagement”, Career Development
International, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 209-223, doi: 10.1108/13620430810870476.
Basbous, O. and Malkawi, E. (2017), “The relationship between antecedents of employee engagement
and employee engagement in banking sector”, International Business and Management, Vol. 14
No. 2, pp. 70-74, doi: 10.3968/9322.
Beland, L.P., Brodeur, A., Haddad, J. and Mikola, D. (2020), “COVID-19, family stress and domestic
violence: remote work, isolation and bargaining power”, IZA Discussion Paper, No. 13332, doi:
10.2139/ssrn.3627031.
Bennis, W., Goleman, D. and O’Toole, J. (2008), Transparency: How Leaders Create a Culture of Candor,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Bradford, A.M. and Ryan, R.M. (2020), “3 Ways to motivate your team through an extended crisis”,
available at: www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/employee-relations/pages/3-ways-to-
motivate-your-team-through-an-extended-crisis.aspx (accessed 11 November 2021).
Brown, K.W. and Ryan, R.M. (2003), “The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in
psychological well-being”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 4,
pp. 822-848, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822.
Busse, R. and Weidner, G. (2020), “A qualitative investigation on combined effects of distant leadership,
organizational agility and digital collaboration on perceived employee engagement”, Leadership
and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 535-550, doi: 10.1108/LODJ-05-2019-0224.
Byrd, M. (2022), “Creating a culture of inclusion and belongingness in remote work environments that
sustains meaningful work”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 145-162, doi: 10.1080/13678868.2022.2047252.
Callahan, J.L. (2010), “Constructing a manuscript: distinguishing integrative literature reviews and
conceptual and theory articles”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 300-304,
doi: 10.1177/1534484310371492.
EJTD Carasco-Saul, M., Kim, W. and Kim, T. (2015), “Leadership and employee engagement: proposing
research agendas through a review of literature”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 38-63, doi: 10.1177/1534484314560406.
Chan, A.J., Hooi, L.W. and Ngui, K.S. (2021), “Do digital literacies matter in employee engagement in
digitalised workplace?”, Journal of Asia Business Studies, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 523-540, doi: 10.1108/
JABS-08-2020-0318.
Chanana, N. and Sangeeta. (2020), “Employee engagement practices during COVID-19 lockdown”,
Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 21 No. 4, p. e2508, doi: 10.1002/pa.2508.
Chaudhary, V., Mohanty, S., Malik, P., Apsara Saleth Mary, A., Pai Maroor, J. and Nomani, M.Z.M.
(2021), “Factors affecting virtual employee engagement in India during COVID-19”, Materials
Today: Proceedings, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 571-575, doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.05.685.
Chen, S.W. and Peng, J.C. (2021), “Determinants of frontline employee engagement and their influence
on service performance”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 32
No. 5, pp. 1062-1085, doi: 10.1080/09585192.2018.1505764.
Collins, C., Landivar, L.C., Ruppanner, L. and Scarborough, W.J. (2021), “COVID-19 and the gender gap in
work hours”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 101-112, doi: 10.1111/gwao.12506.
Cooper, H. (1998), Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews, 3rd ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900, doi: 10.1177/0149206305279602.
De Klerk, J.J., Joubert, M. and Mosca, H.F. (2021), “Is working from home the new workplace panacea?
Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic for the future world of work”, SA Journal of Industrial
Psychology, Vol. 47, p. a1883, doi: 10.4102/sajip.v47i0.1883.
De-la-Calle-Duran, M.C. and Rodríguez-Sanchez, J.L. (2021), “Employee engagement and wellbeing in
times of COVID-19: a proposal of the 5cs model”, International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, Vol. 18 No. 10, p. 5470, doi: 10.3390/ijerph18105470.
Deschênes, A.A. (2023), “Professional isolation and pandemic teleworkers’ satisfaction and
commitment: the role of perceived organizational and supervisor support”, European Review of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 2, p. 100823, doi: 10.1016/j.erap.2022.100823.
Dirani, K.M., Abadi, M., Alizadeh, A., Barhate, B., Garza, R.C., Gunasekara, N., Ibrahim, G. and Majzun,
Z. (2020), “Leadership competencies and the essential role of human resource development in
times of crisis: a response to covid-19 pandemic”, Human Resource Development International,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 380-394, doi: 10.1080/13678868.2020.1780078.
Efimov, I., Harth, V. and Mache, S. (2020), “Health-oriented self- and employee leadership in virtual
teams: a qualitative study with virtual leaders”, International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, Vol. 17 No. 18, p. 18, doi: 10.3390/ijerph17186519.
Evans, A.M., Meyers, M.C., De Calseyde, P.P.F.M.V. and Stavrova, O. (2021), “Extroversion and
conscientiousness predict deteriorating job outcomes during the COVID-19 transition to enforced
remote work”, Social Psychological and Personality Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 781-791, doi: 10.1177/
19485506211039092.
Galanti, T., Guidetti, G., Mazzei, E., Zappala, S. and Toscano, F. (2021), “Work from home during the
COVID-19 outbreak: the impact on employees’ remote work productivity, engagement, and
stress”, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 63 No. 7, pp. 426-432, doi:
10.1097/JOM.0000000000002236.
Gallup (2023), “Gallup’s employee engagement survey: ask the right questions with the Q12 survey”,
available at: www.gallup.com/workplace/356063/gallup-q12-employee-engagement-survey.aspx
Germain, M.L. (2010), “The role of HRD in crisis situations: lessons learned from hurricane Katrina”,
Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 536-551, doi: 10.1177/1523422310394432.
Giorgi, G., Lecca, L.I., Alessio, F., Finstad, G.L., Bondanini, G., Lulli, L.G., Arcangeli, G. and Mucci, N.
(2020), “COVID-19-related mental health effects in the workplace: a narrative review”,
 International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 17 No. 21, p. 7857, doi: Approaches to
10.3390/ijerph17217857.
employee
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, University of Michigan.
engagement
Harter, J. (2021), “U.S. employee engagement holds steady in first half of 2021”, available at: www.
gallup.com/workplace/352949/employee-engagement-holds-steady-first-half-2021.aspx
Harter, J. (2022a), “U.S. employee engagement drops for first year in a decade”, available at: www.
gallup.com/workplace/388481/employee-engagement-drops-first-year-decade.aspx
Harter, J. (2022b), “U.S. Employee engagement slump continues”, available at: www.gallup.com/
workplace/391922/employee-engagement-slump-continues.aspx
Heggeness, M.L. and Fields, J.M. (2020), “Working moms bear brunt of home schooling while working
during COVID-19”, available at: www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/08/parents-juggle-work-
and-child-care-during-pandemic.html
Jin, M.H. and McDonald, B. (2017), “Understanding employee engagement in the public sector: the role
of immediate supervisor, perceived organizational support, and learning opportunities”, The
American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 881-897, doi: 10.1177/
0275074016643817.
Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724, doi: 10.5465/256287.
Kim, J. and Ausar, K. (2018), “The impact of using a virtual employee engagement platform (VEEP) on
employee engagement and intention to stay”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 242-259, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-09-2016-0516.
Koekemoer, L., Beer, L.T., Govender, K. and Brouwers, M. (2021), “Leadership behaviour, team
effectiveness, technological flexibility, work engagement and performance during COVID-19
lockdown: an exploratory study”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 1, p. a1829, doi:
10.4102/sajip.v47i0.1829.
Kossyva, D., Theriou, G., Aggelidis, V. and Sarigiannidis, L. (2022), “Definitions and antecedents of
engagement: a systematic literature review”, Management Research Review, doi: 10.1108/MRR-
01-2021-0043.
Kovaleski, B.J. and Arghode, V. (2020), “Employee engagement: exploring higher education non-tenure
track faculty members’ perceptions”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 45
Nos 8/9, pp. 796-813, doi: 10.1108/EJTD-06-2020-0113.
Kulikowski, K., Przytuła, S. and Sułkowski, Ł. (2021), “The motivation of academics in remote teaching
during the COVID-19 pandemic in polish universities: opening the debate on a new equilibrium
in e-learning”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 5, p. 2752, doi: 10.3390/su13052752.
Kumar, P. (2021), “V-5 model of employee engagement during COVID-19 and post lockdown”, Vision,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 271-274, doi: 10.1177/0972262920980878.
Kurtessis, J.N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M.T., Buffardi, L.C., Stewart, K.A. and Adis, C.S. (2015),
“Perceived organizational support: a meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1854-1884, doi: 10.1177/0149206315575554.
Lee, Y., Shin, H.Y., Park, J., Kim, W. and Cho, D. (2017), “An integrative literature review on employee
engagement in the field of human resource development: exploring where we are and where we
should go”, Asia Pacific Education Review, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 541-557, doi: 10.1007/s12564-017-9508-3.
Lemon, L.L. (2019), “The employee experience: how employees make meaning of employee
engagement”, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 176-199, doi: 10.1080/
1062726X.2019.1704288.
Liu, X., Yu, J., JGuo, Q. and Li, J. J (2022), “Employee engagement, its antecedents and effects on
business performance in hospitality industry: a multilevel analysis”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 34 No. 12, pp. 4631-4652, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-12-
2021-1512.
EJTD Lyons, P. and Bandura, R.P. (2021), “Manager-as-coach: stimulating engagement via learning
orientation”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 45 Nos 8/9, pp. 691-705, doi:
10.1108/EJTD-07-2020-0123.
McDonald, K.S., Hite, L.M. and O’Connor, K.W. (2022), “Developing sustainable careers for remote
workers”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 182-198, doi: 10.1080/
13678868.2022.2047148.
Mäkikangas, A., Juutinen, S., Mäkiniemi, J., Sjöblom, K. and Oksanen, A. (2022), “Work engagement
and its antecedents in remote work: a person-centered view”, Work and Stress, Vol. 36 No. 4,
pp. 392-416, doi: 10.1080/02678373.2022.2080777.
Malik, P. and Malik, P. (2021), “Investigating the impact of knowledge sharing system on workplace
deviance: a moderated mediated process model in Indian IT sector”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 2088-2114, doi: 10.1108/JKM-07-2020-0567.
Manz, C.C. (1986), “Self-leadership: toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in organizations”,
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 585-600, doi: 10.2307/258312.
Men, L.R., Qin, Y.S. and Jin, J. (2022), “Fostering employee trust via effective supervisory
communication during the COVID-19 pandemic: through the lens of motivating language
theory”, International Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 193-218, doi:
10.1177/23294884211020491.
Mikołajczyk, K. (2021), “Changes in the approach to employee development in organizations as a result
of the COVID-19 pandemic”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 46 Nos 5/6,
pp. 544-562, doi: 10.1108/EJTD-12-2020-0171.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G. and The Prisma Group. (2009), “Preferred reporting
items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement”, PLoS Med, Vol. 6
No. 7, Article e1000097, doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
Morgeson, F.P., Mitchell, T.R. and Liu, D. (2015), “Event system theory: an event-oriented approach to
the organizational sciences”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 515-537,
doi: 10.5465/amr.2012.0099.
Müller, T. and Niessen, C. (2019), “Self-leadership in the context of part-time teleworking”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 883-898, doi: 10.1002/job.2371.
Muzee, H., Kizza, J. and Mugabe, G.M. (2021), “Organizational compassion and employee engagement
in virtual work environments during COVID-19 lockdown in Uganda and Rwanda”,
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, Vol. 10 No. 2021, pp. 127-137,
doi: 10.53615/2232-5697.10.127-137.
Nguyen, H.N. and Tran, M.D. (2021), “The effect of perceived organizational support on employee
engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic: an empirical study in Vietnam”, The Journal of
Asian Finance, Economics and Business, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 415-426, doi: 10.13106/JAFEB.2021.
VOL8.NO6.0415.
Ojo, A.O., Fawehinmi, O. and Yusliza, M.Y. (2021), “Examining the predictors of resilience and work
engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 5, p. 2902, doi: 10.3390/
su13052902.
Oldham, G.R. and Hackman, J.R. (2010), “Not what it was and not what it will be: the future of job
design research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 Nos 2/3, pp. 463-479, doi: 10.1002/
job.678.
Parker, K., Horowitz, J.M. and Minkin, R. (2022), “How the coronavirus outbreak has – and hasn’t –
changed the way Americans work”, Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends
Project, available at: www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/12/09/how-the-coronavirus-
outbreak-has-and-hasnt-changed-the-way-americans-work/
Park, S. (2021), “Human resource development review’s 20th anniversary of publication: main topics
and influence”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 101-112, doi: 10.1177/
15344843211069106.
Pass, S. and Ridgway, M. (2022), “An informed discussion on the impact of COVID-19 and ‘enforced’ Approaches to
remote working on employee engagement”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 254-270, doi: 10.1080/13678868.2022.2048605.
employee
Pattnaik, L. and Jena, L.K. (2021), “Mindfulness, remote engagement and employee morale: conceptual
engagement
analysis to address the ‘new normal’”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 873-890, doi: 10.1108/IJOA-06-2020-2267.
Purba, C.B. (2021), “Digital transformation in the Indonesia manufacturing industry: the effect of
e-learning, e-task and leadership style on employee engagement”, International Journal of Data
and Network Science, Vol. 5, pp. 361-368, doi: 10.5267/j.ijdns.2021.5.007.
Raghuram, S. and Wiesenfeld, B. (2004), “Work-nonwork conflict and job stress among virtual
workers”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 43 Nos 2/3, pp. 259-277, doi: 10.1002/hrm.20019.
Rana, S., Ardichvili, A. and Tkachenko, O. (2014), “A theoretical model of the antecedents and outcomes
of employee engagement: Dubin’s method”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 26 Nos 3/4,
pp. 249-266, doi: 10.1108/JWL-09-2013-0063.
Reinwald, M., Zimmermann, S. and Kunze, F. (2021), “Working in the eye of the pandemic: local
COVID-19 infections and daily employee engagement”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 12,
p. 654126, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.654126.
Rožman, M., Peša, A., Rajko, M. and Štrukelj, T. (2021a), “Building organizational sustainability during
the COVID-19 pandemic with an inspiring work environment”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 21,
p. 11747, doi: 10.3390/su132111747.
Rožman, M., Sternad Zabukovšek, S., Bobek, S. and Tominc, P. (2021b), “Gender differences in work
satisfaction, work engagement and work efficiency of employees during the COVID-19
pandemic: the case in Slovenia”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 16, p. 8791, doi: 10.3390/su13168791.
Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-619, doi: 10.1108/02683940610690169.
Saks, A.M. (2019), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement revisited”, Journal of Organizational
Effectiveness: People and Performance, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 19-38, doi: 10.1108/JOEPP-06-2018-0034.
Saks, A.M. and Gruman, J.A. (2011), “Manage employee engagement to manage performance”, Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 204-207, doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01328.x.
Saks, A.M. and Gruman, J.A. (2014), “What do we really know about employee engagement?”, Human
Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 155-182, doi: 10.1002/hrdq.21187.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 293-315, doi: 10.1002/job.248.
Shamsi, M., Iakovleva, T., Olsen, E. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2021), “Employees’ work-related well-being
during COVID-19 pandemic: an integrated perspective of technology acceptance model and JD-R
theory”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 18 No. 22,
p. 11888, doi: 10.3390/ijerph182211888.
Shapiro, S.L., Carlson, L.E., Astin, J.A. and Freedman, B. (2006), “Mechanisms of mindfulness”, Journal
of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 373-386, doi: 10.1002/jclp.20237.
Sharma, M.K., Sunil, S., Anand, N., Amudhan, S. and Ganjekar, S. (2021), “Webinar fatigue: fallout of COVID-
19”, Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association, Vol. 96, p. 9, doi: 10.1186/s42506-021-00069-y.
Shin, Y. and Hur, W.M. (2021), “Do organizational health climates and leader health mindsets enhance
employees’ work engagement and job crafting amid the pandemic?”, International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 18 No. 22, p. 12123, doi: 10.3390/ijerph182212123.
Shirmohammadi, M., Au, W.C. and Beigi, M. (2022), “Remote work and work-life balance:
lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and suggestions for HRD practitioners”,
Human Resource Development International, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 162-181, doi: 10.1080/
13678868.2022.2047380.
EJTD Shuck, B. and Rose, K. (2013), “Reframing employee engagement within the context of meaning and
purpose: implications for HRD”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 341-355, doi: 10.1177/1523422313503235.
Shuck, B., Kim, W. and Fletcher, L. (2021), “Engagement at 30: a retrospective and look forward
through an international cross-cultural context”, Human Resource Development International,
Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 465-467, doi: 10.1080/13678868.2021.1987657.
Shuck, B., Osam, K., Zigarmi, D. and Nimon, K. (2017), “Definitional and conceptual muddling:
identifying the positionality of employee engagement and defining the construct”, Human
Resource Development Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 263-293, doi: 10.1177/1534484317720622.
Stern, E.K. (2009), “Crisis navigation: lessons from history for the crisis manager in chief”, Governance,
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 189-202, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01431.x.
Stranzl, J., Ruppel, C. and Einwiller, S. (2021), “Examining the role of transparent organizational
communication for employees’ job engagement and disengagement during the COVID-19
pandemic in Austria”, Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research, Vol. 4
No. 2, pp. 271-308, doi: 10.30658/jicrcr.4.2.4.
Svensson, P.G., Jeong, S., Shuck, B. and Otto, M.G. (2021), “Antecedents and outcomes of employee
engagement in sport for development”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 673-696,
doi: 10.1080/14413523.2021.1880758.
Thayer, E.K., Pam, M., Al Achkar, M., Mentch, L., Brown, G., Kazmerski, T.M. and Godfrey, E. (2021),
“Best practices for virtual engagement of patient-centered outcomes research teams during and
after the COVID-19 pandemic: qualitative study”, Journal of Participatory Medicine, Vol. 13
No. 1, p. e24966, doi: 10.2196/24966.
Torraco, R.J. (2005), “Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples”, Human
Resource Development Review, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 356-367, doi: 10.1177/1534484305278283.
Torraco, R.J. (2016), “Writing integrative literature reviews: using the past and present to explore the future”,
Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 404-428, doi: 10.1177/1534484316671606.
Van Dorsser-Boog, P., de Jong, J., Veld, M. and Van Vuuren, T. (2020), “Self-leadership among
healthcare workers: a mediator for the effects of job autonomy on work engagement and health”,
Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 11, p. 1420, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01420.
Van, H.T.M. and Nafukho, F.M. (2019), “Employee engagement antecedents and consequences in
Vietnamese businesses”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 44 Nos 2/3,
pp. 89-103, doi: 10.1108/EJTD-03-2019-0036.
Wollard, K.K. and Shuck, B. (2011), “Antecedents to employee engagement: a structured review of the
literature”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 429-446, doi: 10.1177/
1523422311431220.
Wood, J., Oh, J., Park, J. and Kim, W. (2020), “The relationship between work engagement and work–life
balance in organizations: a review of the empirical research”, Human Resource Development
Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 240-262, doi: 10.1177/1534484320917560.
Zheng, M.X., Masters-Waage, T.C., Yao, J., Lu, Y., Tan, N. and Narayanan, J. (2020), “Stay mindful and
carry on: mindfulness neutralizes COVID-19 stressors on work engagement via sleep duration”,
Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 11, p. 610156, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.610156.

Corresponding author
Omaima Hajjami can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]