This work assessed the moderating role of recovery from work stress in the relationship between Flexibility i-deals and SWBW patterns in Brazilian teleworkers. This research tested two main hypotheses: (1) that i-deals are directly associated with the happy-productive pattern (H1), and that recovery experiences moderate the relationship between i-deals and the happy-productive pattern, enhancing this relationship (H2). The analysis supports the idea that recovery experiences moderated the relationship between i-deals and sustainable well-being at work patterns, partially confirming our hypothesis (H2). However, recovery experiences moderate this relationship in several ways, depending on the outbreak (Study 1 or 2) and the operationalization used for well-being. In the first and second outbreak, we found that more Psychological detachment was associated with more Flexibility i-deals and unsustainable well-being at work patterns. Relaxation moderates the relationship between Flexibility i-deals and SWBW only for emotions. Finally, Mastery and Control moderated the relationship between Flexibility i-deal and the sustainable pattern catalyzing them in the first pandemic outbreak. However, in the second outbreak, Mastery and Control moderated the relationship in the opposite direction. These results offer several implications for both theory and practice.
7.1. Theoretical Implications
This study has at least five theoretical implications. The first explains how teleworkers and organizations managed to shelter Brazil’s stressful environment from the effects of the pandemic [
2,
3,
6]. Some organizations facilitated flexibility i-deals and helped teleworkers face highly stressful situations following the Job Demands and Job Resources model to diminish stress [
4,
63]. However, this arrangement works differently depending on the situation, rejecting the “one-size-fits-all” idea.
Second, we showed how teleworkers develop individual resources that self-aid their recovery. For instance, upon the scarcity of resources due to the fear of viral infection (e.g., no social contact or going to public places), the use of relaxation-orientation activities through mindfulness [
60] helps manage the stressful demands of work and the uncertain environment, which is in line with COR theory [
51,
58].
Third, this article also offers empirical evidence to the i-deal, SWBW, and recovery literature by expanding our knowledge regarding the direct and moderated effects of organizational and personal resources on sustainable patterns [
4,
17,
18,
75,
76]. In particular, our results were unexpected because, generally speaking, we found no significant direct effects. Still, it is possible to discuss the directions of the relationships. Study 1 reflects that the beginning of the pandemic (2–3 months into the pandemic in Brazil) was hard, but at the same time, those who could work from home considered their privileges over those who were unable to do it [
43,
77]. In addition, the uncertainty [
3] was more widespread than in Study 2. One year later, the workers were exhausted, and the customized practices of i-deals generated an increase in eudaimonic well-being, perhaps accompanied by a lower fear of losing their jobs. Therefore, i-deals could directly predict the eudaimonic sustainable pattern. It must be pointed out that the reality of vaccines also crossed the relations between workers and employees after this time. Despite the lack of credibility of most Brazilian institutions, the SUS (Single Health System) received a great reception from the Brazilian population. Although we have other reasons that affected labor relations, as in other countries, the vaccine generated hope for change in the pandemic scenario.
Contrary to empirical research that showed that i-deals protect emotional contagion [
14], i-deals did not act as a protective mechanism for emotions in this study. One possible explanation for these results is that employees resort to i-deals as a treatment-oriented strategy (when they are already experiencing ill-being) and not a prevention-oriented strategy. In any event, hedonic well-being, understood as emotions, decreased in Brazil last year [
2]. We knew that, in general, the Brazilian organizations showed little or no practical support to work from home [
43,
78]. Thus, people adapted to the situation and, after one year, things changed, hence the result.
Regarding the low i-deal impact in this sample, there is another explanation:
jeitinho. Some coercive practices and Brazil’s gap between formal bureaucracy and lenient social practices open places for different arrangements [
5,
8].
Jeitinho, a Brazilian way to conduct and solve problems, could blur the effects of i-deals.
Jeitinho is defined as a “voluntary act that variously uses creativity, deception, interpersonal empathy, and cordiality to solve an unexpected problem or to obtain favors” [
79](p. 333). This arrangement is so widespread in the culture that it could be difficult for a Brazilian not to think that the organization wants something in return for i-deals. Thus, Brazilian workers could interpret i-deals as shady [
10].
Fourth, this work contributes to the SWBW proposition made by Peiró et al. [
16]. They pointed out that linearity, operationalization, predictors, and long-run affect the relationship between well-being and performance. We used two different well-being measures, hedonic and eudaimonic, and found four patterns for both (
Figure 3,
Figure 5 and
Figure 7). Eudaimonic clusters (emotions) were more linear than the hedonic variable. We also obtained four patterns of sustainable well-being at work with self-performance [
18]. We added a moderation model between individual arrangements (i-deals) and personal resources, i.e., recovery experience, to predict both hedonic and eudaimonic clusters. This combination is partially aligned with our expectations. Although limitations in the data collection hindered us from testing a lagged model, we could infer some changes in the sample results from the uncertainty of the environment [
3] and the actions carried out by workers and organizations. It is crucial to continue measuring these variables because the dynamics between them could change through time, as in the present case. Additionally, the way we measured SWBW from eudaimonic and hedonic measures revealed how MOW (future-oriented eudaimonic happiness) changed through time due to changes in the environment, and how emotions (hedonic happiness) are more influenced by relaxation than other recovery experiences. In this sense, our study covered the two main propositions in the field of happiness and performance [
16,
26].
Finally, this research deepens our understanding of the mechanisms that moderate situational variables (i-deals) with outcomes (clusters) by revealing the importance of time and context (at the beginning of the pandemic and one year after) to understand the effect of different recovery experiences. Sonnentag [
12] suggested that this paradoxical tension can be explained by “high negative activation, depletion of energetic resource, and constant connectivity to work caused by job stressors as well as individual and organizational factors” (p. 175). Sonnentag also describes, in her recovery paradox proposition, that those who have a high need for recovery have a low propensity to actually recover, particularly to detach from work. In our study, we observed the mechanisms described by this author, particularly in the eudaimonic measure at the first pandemic outbreak and the hedonic measure in the second, opening a new avenue of research.
It is important to remark that Mastery and Control recovery experience changed direction in this period. In Study 1, they protected and increased the probability of being in the happy-productive pattern. However, in Study 2, MOW clusters showed the opposite. In contrast, emotions did not change between Studies. We could interpret that one year of the COVID-19 pandemic increased the quantitative and qualitative demands, and even Mastery and Control drained in the long run, harming exhausted people who needed to protect their scarce resources [
51,
58,
80]; this interpretation is aligned with the COR theory [
51]. He relaxation experience, which shows no effect on the Meaning of Work clusters, reveals an essential and protective experience for positive emotions, replicating previous results [
60]. These results provide a new nuance of the recovery experience repercussions.
7.2. Managerial Implications
Our findings have implications for human resource management and individuals, especially for the employee-support process regarding i-deals and recovery experiences. For i-deals, HR practitioners should consider how, when, and what kind of i-deal to conduct and what kind of outcome to expect. Within an increasing workplace diversity, i-deals should facilitate employees to deal with their needs [
20]. However, because workers or their colleagues might think of i-deals as shady, their success strongly depends on interpretation and context [
10]. Flexibility i-deals are tools to increase the employees’ resources and help them manage stress. If managers arrange i-deals with employees, they could perform better and be happier, provided employees combine them with recovery experiences.
Another managerial implication is related to the recovery process. Our results showed the benefits of the recovery experiences during off-job time as a moderator of organizational arrangements. These results support the positive interaction between work and non-work factors and open avenues for designing interventions to enrich this interaction [
81,
82]. However, different recovery experiences suggest different outcomes depending on the situation. Relaxation, Mastery, and Control experiences showed positive results regarding well-being and performance. However, Mastery and Control only showed positive results at the beginning of the pandemic, probably because people still had resources to apply in other life domains [
19,
83]. In the long run, the depletion of resources seems to backfire, changing these results [
51]. In this sense, it is essential to know the employee’s situation and context before suggesting one or another experience.
7.3. Limitations and Future Research Suggestions
This study described some interesting results; however, it was restricted by some limitations. The first and foremost limitation was that the sampling method employed non-longitudinal data collection. At the beginning of the sampling, we did not expect such a long pandemic. Because we used the same snowball technique with colleagues, friends, and family, we probably collected data from the same public, but we could not merge it. Future longitudinal studies in countries or organizations that suffer contextual effects [
55], with or without a pandemic environment, should test long- and short-term responses and the extent and conditions where the recovery experiences protect the teleworkers. In addition, it is crucial to consider that half of the labor market in Brazil is informal; future studies should focus on this situation [
77].
Aside from the common method bias, which implies that the results should be interpreted cautiously, the results are consistent with previous studies. The inability to assess outcomes at other sources limits the extension of the results. Future research should explore the mechanisms behind the relation between work arrangements, outcomes, and personal resources through the lens of more than one source [
43,
57]. Recent studies on telecommuting as a function of COVID-19 have shown interesting relationships between perceived job characteristics and procrastination and how both predict well-being and performance [
84]. Future studies should also analyze the work characteristics among teleworking i-deals initiated by the employee or forced by the organization.
Our study showed that no single resource is applicable for employees, and can be detrimental to employees in some circumstances, as pointed out elsewhere [
85]. It can mean an inflection point, where increasing the level of resource, recovery and/or i-deal, may even be harmful. Although we showed evidence of the complex relationship between personal and organizational resources [
80], we did not include and compared cultural variables [
5].
Finally, teleworking has involved a complex modification of the organization of work. This modification could influence many aspects of the health of employees; among these are leadership style (intrusive leadership style), off-time work, and workaholism [
86], so these aspects could be analyzed in future studies. In addition, future research should also focus on the relationships between supervisors’ behaviors that facilitate scheduled-flexibility i-deals and employee outcomes [
87], including the organization’s perspective and the benefits it derives from telecommuting work arrangements.