Navigating Hybrid Work: An Optimal Office–Remote Mix and the Manager–Employee Perception Gap in IT

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Post-Pandemic Work Playbook: Balancing Employee Well-Being, Productivity, and Business Needs

 

Review

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. It deals with a very interesting issue of balancing remote work and office work in post-pandemic reality. The manuscript is written in an structured manner, however I think that in its current form it does not meet the requirements for scientific papers. There are clear methodological shortcomings in the paper, both as regards the literature part (grounding in theory) and the empirical part (the way in which the research results are described). Below are the most important comments, which I hope will help the Authors to improve this manuscript:

 

Methodology:

• the title of the work is rather media-oriented, but I am not convinced that it reflects the actual content; there is no “work playbook” promised in the paper;
• a very important element of scientific papers is to embed the research in the existing literature, to refer it to the existing state of knowledge. Due to Covid-19 pandemic the topic of remote working is widely discussed in the literature. A simple search of the Scopus database for the key term ‘remote work’ yields more than 4 000 papers and the addition of the second keyword “Covid-19” (with Boolean operator AND) reduces this to over 2,200 works, which is still a very large number. Meanwhile, in the paper submitted for review, in 1.2. the reference to the literature takes up exactly 6 lines (55-60). Earlier and later in this paragraph, the authors attempt to identify a research gap. As a result, the basic concepts have not been defined;
• Authors tend to “identify the optimal balance between remote work and office work” (line 71), however we still don’t know what this “optimal balance” means or is. From whose point of view will it be examined (the organization’s and its performance? the employees'?), through the prism of which criteria will it be assessed? Is balance the most desirable state? Why? Can balance be suboptimal? These are key questions;
• the aim of the research should be to solve a specific problem, not to ‘fill a research gap’ (lines 64-65);
• although the Authors made an effort to identify the research gap, the content of the work does not seem to fully suit them, i.e. the Authors state that “is as well not enough research that deals with the long-term effects and optimal work models in the post-pandemic period” (lines 50-51), however do not address this issue in their work, nor did they include it in the research objectives (1.3.);
• methodology is usually more than just a description of a sample plan (it should be emphasized here that the method of quota sampling according to territorial dispersion and area of engagement in the IT sector is a very good idea, although the description of this process would benefit greatly if it were presented more synthetically at certain points, i.e. 2.2 - there is really no need to describe the content of the particular reports on the basis of which the percentage distribution of job type in IT was established, especially as it is not at all clear how it was established);
• it is interesting why in the Managers sample such variables as age or gender were, were surveyed, while they were no longer considered in the sample of Employees (see Tab. 1, Tab. 2);
• there are also concerns about the choice of statistical tests used in the process of analyzing the results, and in particular the way in which their results are presented. The description of the results is unclear, the research hypotheses are not indicated (which is fundamental in this type of research). This raises the question what is really tested here (and how). In case of – chosen by Authors Chi-square independence test – the relationship between two qualitative variables can be analyzed. When it comes to analyzing more variables, more sophisticated techniques are needed, such i.e. as log-linear analysis, correlation or regression tests, not to mention structural modelling. Moreover, usually the Chi-square test is accompanied by additional statistics to show the strength of the relationship between the variables - there is nothing like that here;
• Authors state that “For testing statistical significance within the mapped categories, the Chi-square test was used. In the row marked sig., the Chi-square values are shown” (lines 347-349), however of all tables, only one (Tab. 6) contains a row marked “sig.” and it does not present the result of the Chi-square test, but rather p-value. In the other tables, simple percentages are presented (!); it is therefore difficult to determine whether the differences between the results obtained are statistically significant (see Fig. 3 - it only draws averages for each group, but there is no information on how statistically significant these differences are);
• What's more, it is only on line 627 that we find the notation that in addition to the Chi-square test, also other statistical tests were used “analysis of variance - ANOVA, where applicable”. It is not clear when this was applicable, but apart from that, there is not a single reference in the entire paper to how this method was used, nor are the results that were obtained with it presented. Summarizing: there is no basis for the conclusions suggested by the Authors of this report on the basis of the current description of the research results (i.e. 630-633 “This forms the basis for the conclusion that the hybrid work model, where remote work is combined with a limited number of days in the office, is optimal in the IT sector, as it allows for a balance between flexibility, productivity, and the need for direct communication” - none of this has been proven);
• In lines 524-526 Authors wrote: “According to the results of this research, employees who work exclusively from home would prefer to go to work at least three times a month (on average) precisely due to the lack of direct business communication and social interaction” - as no regression study was carried out (or at least not written about) such a statement is incorrect;
• the appearance of Tab. 8 is not entirely understandable - it was not indicated in the research objectives area. It is of course interesting, but it does not come closer to achieving the stated objectives;
• the statement in lines 588-591 “it can be concluded that the optimal work balance in the IT sector should combine the advantages of both modalities: a hybrid work model, where employees work about 40-50% of days from home, while the remaining days (about 8 days a month for employees and about 13 days a month for managers) come to the office” raises the question as to how this percentage was determined and for whom is this an ‘optimal balance‘?
• in paragraph 3.4. recommendations for optimal balance are promised, however only in lines 594-597 is something akin to a recommendation. The rest of the text is practically off topic;
• Discussion in a scientific article is a way of polemicizing with previous work/research results and verifying to what extent the authors' research changes the perception of reality and to what extent it fits in. Meanwhile, in this work the section entitled discussion does not contain a single reference to earlier research results / scientific achievements. What we find there is only a summary of the results obtained by the Authors;
• point 4.2. is puzzling. A scientific article is not a presentation. If the authors wanted to use enumeration, they could have either used a tabular form or annotated the indicated information. It is also unclear to what extent these are advantages and disadvantages diagnosed directly during the research (the conclusions are quite obvious);
• the place for limitations and further research directions is in the conclusion rather than in the discussion; here, instead, it is worth stating the scientific and management implications;
• finally, it should be stressed that the paper only examines the opinions of employees and managers. Perhaps it would be worth proposing a survey model that would allow the verification of real relationships.

 

Technical shortcomings:

• all tables should be announced in the text, but Tables 1 and 2 appear ‘out of nowhere’ and are not commented on in any way;
• Figure 1 looks like it was cut in a half (it does not include the categories described later in the text), the same is true for Figure 2; moreover the (scale) designation of the Y axis is missing;
• The authors use many different colours in the Tables, but nowhere is there a legend as to what exactly they mean and how they differ;
• technically there should not be a colon at the end of the paragraph combined with the name of the next paragraph (line 517);
• Table 6 is supposed to show results for employees working exclusively from home (see line 520), while results for the whole sample are presented (n=1003); why are the same results not also presented in the managers' group?

 

It should also be emphasized that the work also has undeniable strengths:

• the research sample (number of respondents and countries from which they come) is impressive, also a way of sampling is very good;
• it is not common to compare the opinions of managers and employees, and this is interesting (it would, however, be more interesting to compare groups of employees with a genuine manager-subordinate relationship).

 

Summarizing, the article raises very interesting and timely issues (i.e. environmental impact of remote work), however in the context of the above shortcomings I do not recommend this paper for publication in this form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough and constructive review of our manuscript. We deeply appreciate the time and effort you invested in providing such detailed feedback, which has been invaluable in enhancing the quality of our submission. We have carefully considered each of your insightful comments and have made the following revisions to the manuscript:

• Stronger literature grounding: Section 1.2 has been expanded to incorporate a review of recent literature, including relevant additional research on remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have also provided a clearer definition of “optimal balance” and more firmly established the research gap in the context of pre- and post-pandemic work models.
• Clarify research aim vs. gap filling: The Aim, presented in Section 1.1, now clearly emphasizes addressing a specific research problem, while the gap statement highlights the need for comparative data between managers and employees, as well as the inclusion of well-being metrics.
• Methodology beyond sample plan: The methodology section has been refined to focus on the key methodological steps, such as survey design, sampling strategy, and weighting procedures. Detailed descriptions of data source reports have been moved to an online appendix for conciseness.
• Variables across samples: We have included an explanation detailing why demographic variables (e.g., gender, age) were collected specifically for managers and not for employees. This justification is provided in Section 2.4.
• Statistical tests and presentation:
• We have clarified the rationale for the selection and application of statistical tests, including χ², Kruskal–Wallis H, and logistic regression. The use of ANOVA was not ultimately applicable to our data.
• The presentation of statistical results now includes degrees of freedom, the test statistic (H/χ²), exact p-values, and relevant effect sizes (Cramer’s V, η²).
• The strength of the observed relationships is now reported alongside the corresponding p-values.
• Conclusions supported by data: The Conclusions section has been carefully reviewed and revised to ensure that all statements are directly supported by the findings of our analyses. Where necessary, caveats have been added to acknowledge the limitations of the data.
• Technical shortcomings:
• All tables, including Tables 1 and 2, are now explicitly announced within the main text.
• Regarding Figures 1 and 2, the Y-axis values are positioned above the corresponding lines. Due to space constraints, we have selected the most pertinent variables/categories for inclusion.
• The meaning of the colors used in the tables is now explained prior to the first instance of their use.
• The technical formatting issue regarding the colon at the end of a paragraph has been corrected.
• The rationale for presenting results for the entire employee sample in Table 6, rather than exclusively those working from home, has been clarified, along with the reasons for the absence of comparable data for the managers' group, which primarily reflects a company-centric perspective.

 

We believe that these revisions address the concerns raised in your review and significantly strengthen the manuscript. We are particularly grateful for your meticulous feedback on the methodological aspects and the presentation of results, as this has been instrumental in improving the rigor and clarity of our study.

Thank you once again for your valuable contribution to the peer-review process. We hope that the revised manuscript is now suitable for publication.

Sincerely,

Milos Loncar

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract:
The abstract is well-written and concise. However, it would be more impactful if the theoretical framework underlying the issues addressed in the study is explicitly highlighted. Additionally, information regarding the sampling technique and the data analysis tools employed should be included to provide a comprehensive overview of the methodology.

Introduction:
The aim of the study should be broadened and clearly delineated, with a distinction made between the aim and the objectives. Currently, the aims and objectives are titled same, which reflects a misunderstanding of the terms. Kindly revise to clearly articulate the overarching aim and break it down into specific, measurable objectives. Furthermore, provide an explanation of how these objectives contribute to the study’s overall contribution. For example, when stating a contribution such as “identification of factors contributing to a sustainable work environment,” elaborate on how each objective will achieve this contribution.

Instead of outlining the structure of the paper in the introduction, it would be more impactful to include the significance of the study. A strong introduction should encompass the background of the study, problem statement, aim, objectives, research questions, and the significance of the research.

Additionally, it would strengthen the study to integrate an underpinning theory that supports the proposed model. The theory should be discussed and explained in terms of its alignment with the research objectives and its capacity to reinforce the model’s framework.

Methodology:
The methodology section requires further clarification regarding the tools and approach used. The study objectives suggest a qualitative methodology; however, the methodology mentions two surveys. It is essential to specify whether the surveys consisted of open-ended or closed-ended questions. Additionally, explain the rationale for using snowball sampling, including the procedure for contacting respondents and collecting data.

Clarify which software was employed to calculate the frequencies and discuss its relevance to the methodology. This will enhance transparency and reproducibility.

Discussion:
The discussion section needs restructuring to ensure that it fully addresses all four research objectives. Currently, it appears to address only a subset of the objectives. The discussion should systematically align with each research objective, demonstrating how the study's findings address these goals.

Moreover, the discussion would benefit from incorporating evidence from previous studies to contextualize the findings. Highlight how the current findings supported or contradicted by prior research. Additionally, strengthen the discussion by explicitly linking it to the underpinning theories, illustrating their applicability and relevance to the results.

While the discussion is well-written overall, these enhancements would make it more robust and theoretically grounded.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thorough and constructive review of our manuscript. We deeply appreciate your insightful comments and suggestions, which have significantly helped us to improve the clarity, depth, and rigor of our work.

We have carefully considered each of your points and have made the following revisions to the manuscript:

• Abstract: Theory, sampling, and tools: We have added a brief mention of Self-Determination Theory, the snowball sampling method, and the use of SPSS/R/Python in the Abstract.
• Distinction between Aim and Objectives; Significance: In Section 1.1 we now clearly differentiate the overarching aim from measurable objectives, and in Section 1.2 we discuss the study’s significance for theory and practice.
• Introductory background vs. paper structure: We removed the structural outline from the Introduction and replaced it with a concise paragraph on the study’s significance and contributions.
• Underpinning theory: We have added a new subsection on Self-Determination Theory (SDT) – 1.4., explaining its relevance to autonomy, competence, and relatedness in remote/hybrid work.
• Methodology clarity: question types and rationale: Section 2 now specifies which questions were closed-ended versus open-ended, explains the choice of snowball sampling, and justifies the use of SPSS for descriptives and nonparametric tests in Python/R for robustness.
• Discussion aligned to objectives and literature: We restructured the Discussion to explicitly address each research objective in turn, and we consistently cite prior studies and SDT to frame our interpretations.

We believe that these revisions have significantly improved the manuscript, addressing the concerns you raised and enhancing the overall quality and rigor of the paper. We are immensely grateful for your expertise and the positive impact your feedback has had on our work.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback. We hope that you find these revisions satisfactory.

Sincerely,

Milos Loncar

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This paper looks at the optimal the optimal balance between remote work and office work, in the post pandemic era in the IT field.

Introduction is succinct and nicely divided into three sections with clear aims and objectives.

 

Under the section methodology, sections 2.1 to 2.3 explains how the sampling was done and these are presented in two tables 1 for employees and 2 for managers.

Not all the detailed explanation of the items 2.1- 2.3 has been included in the tables. The sections 2.1-2..3 should be written with the aim of culminating in tables 1 and 2. The sections 2.1-2.3 needs clarity for example some parts are about the lens with which sampling was done and others are the literature search/data analysed to derive at each lens. This is not clearly explained. Furthermore, this paper is about IT sector but if this section and the rational for the lenses used is explained some of the results can be applied to other sectors where there is struggle with hybrid working

conditions.

 

What is EU candidate?

 

Line 256, (B2B, B2C, B2G) needs more explanation.

 

Please check all the numbers in table 1 ad 2 some may not total to the 1003 and 252.

 

Tables 1 and 2 shows the demographics of participants surveyed, but there is no information on what the survey asked about. While it is not possible to provide the entire survey questionnaire some brief description if the main questions is warranted here, otherwise results section does not provide enough information for readers.

 

Line 442 the word optimal is misleading because it may just be the respondent’s opinion on “how many times a month would be most convenient for them”. This is in the respondent’s opinion may not be optimal.

 

Table 6 is confusing why is “yes total” not given under the row “yes often”

Why is education not included in table 7?

 

3.3. Differences between employees and managers line 551 to 553 how do the authors know what it indicates, did they include this in the questionnaire or is it the authors’ inference?

 

Table 9. Commuting Distance. Employees: 73% who commute to work at least once a month: this table is misleading. Are columns commuting and distance to work related. It will be more helpful to know if the distance contributes to going to work less frequently. The region has no bearing on this table. Similarly table10 and 11 can be more tailored to what the information is being conveyed.

 

Line 698 – 707, this has no bearing to the study at all

 

Discussion is too long and summary of discussion can be included in conclusion.

In the results there are certain key findings for example the difference in managers and employees idea of optimal time spent in office premises. This is different among the different types of work performed. This is a good point but lost in the lengthy discussion.

 

Some segments of the results appear to be conclusions by the author. Example: Recommendations for optimal balance.

Conclusions is just results rewritten with no analysis of existing literature, or thought process.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your insightful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work and providing suggestions for improvement. Your comments have been invaluable in helping us to clarify and strengthen our paper.

We have carefully considered each of your points and have made the following revisions to the manuscript:

• Clarity in Methodology Section (2.1-2.3): We have restructured Sections 2.1–2.3 to improve clarity and flow, ensuring a direct connection to Tables 1 and 2. Each subsection now includes a clearer rationale for the "lens" used (country maturity, area of engagement, company size), supported by literature or data sources, followed by the corresponding tabular summary.
• Explanation of Terms: We have added a parenthetical definition of EU candidate countries in Section 2.1 and expanded the acronyms B2B, B2C, and B2G on their first use to ensure clarity for readers. (lines 418-422)
• Accuracy of Tables 1 and 2: We have re-ran all frequencies and updated Tables 1 and 2 to ensure that row and column totals sum correctly. Minor rounding adjustments have been footnoted where necessary.
• Description of Survey Questions: To provide a clearer understanding of the data collection process, we have included a concise summary of the key closed- and open-ended questions asked of employees and managers at the beginning of Section 2 (“Survey Instrument”).
• Use of the Term “Optimal”: We have revised the text to clarify that “optimal” refers to the respondents’ preferred balance (self-reported convenience) and have removed any implication of an objectively determined optimum. (lines 670-673)
• Table 6 and Table 7:
• Table 6 has been modified to improve readability and facilitate the comparison of YES and NO totals. The yellow colour that was showing linear growth was removed to avoid confusion.
• Due to space limitations and the lack of statistical significance, we decided not to include education in Table 7.
• Inference in Section 3.3: We have carefully reviewed Section 3.3 and indicated which observations are based on direct survey items versus author inferences. We have also tightened the language to avoid overinterpretation of the data.
• Commuting Distance Tables (9–11): To enhance clarity, we have split Tables 9 and 10 into separate analyses of “frequency × distance” and “frequency × region.” Explanatory notes have been added to clarify the relationships being presented.
• Removal of Unrelated Paragraphs: We have removed the paragraphs from lines 698–707 and relocated any relevant material into the Discussion section to improve the focus and coherence of the text.
• Discussion Length and Structure: We have condensed the Discussion by 30%, moving subsidiary points into a new Conclusion subsection. The key finding on managerial versus employee preferences has been highlighted to emphasize its importance.
• Conclusions: We have enriched the Conclusions section with references to existing literature and provided a more critical reflection on our findings, going beyond a mere restatement of the results.

 

We believe that these revisions have significantly improved the manuscript and have directly addressed the valuable points you raised. We are very grateful for your contribution to the refinement of our work. We hope that these changes are satisfactory and clearly demonstrate the impact of your feedback on the final version of our manuscript.

 

Thank you once again for your time and expertise. We look forward to hearing if these revisions meet your expectations.

 

Sincerely,

Milos Loncar

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Post-Pandemic Work Playbook: Balancing Employee Well-Being, Productivity, and Business Needs

(Remote and Hybrid Work in the IT Sector: An Analysis of Employee and Manager Perspectives on Well-Being, Productivity, and Optimal Balance)

 

Review

Thank you for the opportunity to review revised manuscript again. I appreciate the attempt to make the suggested changes, however, not everything has been corrected properly. This version of the text is very messy. There are still clear methodological shortcomings in the paper, both in the literature and in the empirical part. Below are the most important comments:

1. an Introduction is not the place to present the state of the art; the paper lacks a solid theoretical background, in which all the basic concepts covered by the study (not only the term remote or hybrid work) would be defined, and the research hypotheses derived (and grounded in theory);
2. the definition of one of the most important concepts in this work is far from precise: What does it mean that the “optimal balance” is a model (lines 57-59)? What kind of model or model of what? Why is it a hybrid model? Why it is dynamic model? There is no precise explanation here;
3. “The overarching aim of this research is to identify the optimal balance between remote work and office work in the IT sector in the post-pandemic era, by considering the perspectives of both employees and managers and examining the impact on employee well-being and productivity” (lines 193 – 196). It is therefore interesting to see how this optimum was determined. In lines 64-67 we find the promise that “The criteria for assessing this balance include quantitative measures such as preferred and actual days in office productivity metrics (where available through perception), and qualitative aspects like stress levels, burnout indicators, communication effectiveness, and team cohesion”, however in lines 160-162 is written that only employees’ and managers’ opinion was taken into consideration (their “respective views on the ideal share of remote work”) and later (in lines 762-764) that “the term "optimal" (…) reflects the respondents' personal preference or what they perceive as most suitable or convenient for them, based on their individual experiences and priorities”. It is than far form “assessing this balance include quantitative measures”…(stays in contradiction);
4. the topic of the variables used in the study and how they are measured comes up again here. Stress, burnout, job satisfaction etc. are variables well defined and measured in management or psychology. The Authors did not show the items with which the different constructs were measured, but from the description of the work one can deduce that these were single questions about the respondents opinions. Even in this case, however, there is no explanation of how they translate into an indicated level of “optimal balance”;
5. the work is not coherent (there are four different objectives and only two hypothesis that are difficult to link directly to a specific objective). Perhaps it would be better to reduce the number of objectives, the same concentrating on fewer issues presented, but better document describe how these objectives will be achieved (the way in which the thesis/hypothesis were proved);
6. in lines 162-163 Authors announce that they will “ii) test whether a 40–50% remote work ratio can simultaneously deliver top-quartile outcomes for both organizations and employees” – the questions arise as to why such an indicator (why 40-50 % ratio and not 30-40 % ratio or 50-60 % ratio?) and how it will be tested?
7. in line 164 Authors announce that they will “(iii) examine moderating factors such as job role, age, and firm size”, however it is not clear what relationship is to be moderated here by pointed factors, and furthermore in lin. 639-640 is written that “we tested the relationship between the number of monthly office days (optimal vs. current) and each nominal predictor—Gender, Age, Education, Field of Employment, Commuting Time, and Monthly Office Visits” that indicates that the moderating effect is not being investigated here, but only the relationship between the variables;
8. Authors sate that “to ensure conciseness (…) details on specific statistical analyses, particularly for examining differences across categories, have been omitted from the main text” - the omission of research results is not appropriate in this type of work as it leads the reader to take the results obtained on faith. The great art, however, is to present them in such a way that they illustrate the results in an economical but sufficient manner.
9. it is surprising that in part “Results” the results of the testing of the two hypotheses are presented first, in complete isolation from the other results of the study;
10. the place for identifying of research question is in theoretical part, not in results description;
11. It is difficult to agree with the statement that “An empirically optimal window for our sample lies at roughly 40 % – 50 % remote work (≈ 8 office days per month for employees, ≈ 13 for managers)—the only range where both stakeholder groups simultaneously reach their target thresholds for well-being and productivity” (lines 1091-1093), because respondents were only asked what they prefer (!), and their preferences (till now) were not correlated with reaching target thresholds for well-being and productivity; without showing how the analysis is carried out, the statements in the lines 1141-1160 are hermetic and incomprehensible;
12. point 3.5 is interesting in itself and can be indirectly linked to the achievement of objective four, however it does not refer to the title of the work - is it really necessary?
13. In Table 3 “To enhance readability, cells corresponding to statistically significant results and notable deviations were highlighted using color” (lines 736-737) - this table shows the frequency of going to workplace (in days); What statistically significant results are you talking about? What is being tested here and what the colors mean? This is just one example, but the whole work is similarly inaccurate;
14. in Tab. 7 Authors refer to “stress management strategies”, in tab. 8 to factors motivating respondents to "return to the office"” -  why that issues are being researched (it was not indicated among the research objectives)?;
15. Again: Discussion in a scientific article is a way of polemicizing with previous work/research results and verifying to what extent the authors' research changes the perception of reality and to what extent it fits in. Meanwhile, in this work the section entitled discussion does not contain a single reference to earlier research results / scientific achievements. What we find there is only a summary of the results obtained by the Authors;
16. Recommendations (4.6) are general and not linked to the research results obtained (they do not follow directly from them);
17. Contribution (1.3) should be placed at the end of the work, not in the Introduction;
18. Limitations should be placed after Contribution;
19. the text on lines 1684-1686 is not necessary;
20. the tables should have the same layout. In that context Table 4a in particular is puzzling…
21. 8 is cut;
22. all tables should be announced in the text, but Tables 1 and 2 appear ‘out of nowhere’ and are not commented on in any way;
23. Figure 1 (Chart 1) looks like it was cut in a half (it does not include the categories described later in the text), the same is true for Figure 2; moreover the (scale) designation of the Y axis is missing;
24. Authors use many different colours in the Tables, but nowhere is there a legend as to what exactly they mean and how they differ;
25. the work is not very well structured: if point 1.1.1. appears, there should also be point 1.1.2.
26. the share of peer-reviewed literature has been increased (although not publications from Q1 or Q2), but further nearly 40 % are references to reports, handbooks etc.

Summarizing, in the context of the above shortcomings I again do not recommend this paper for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your thorough re-evaluation and insightful comments. As a general note regarding this second revision, we realized that to ensure a clear and coherent storyline we had to rewrite or restructure most sections of the paper. Because these changes are so extensive, a “tracked changes” version would be almost impossible to read (nearly the entire text would be marked). We have therefore submitted a clean, fully revised manuscript. In this response letter, we address each of your comments point by point and indicate where in the new document (by page and line number) the relevant changes can be found. We greatly appreciate your feedback, which has significantly improved our manuscript.

1. Introduction Structure and Theoretical Background: You commented that the Introduction was overburdened with state-of-the-art details and lacked a solid theoretical foundation. We fully agreed. In the revised manuscript, we reorganized the Introduction to improve clarity and focus. We now have a concise opening (Section 1.1) that explains the context and significance of the study, and then a dedicated subsection (Section 1.2) for literature review and theory. In Section 1.2, we first defined all key concepts (remote work, hybrid work, etc.) to ensure the reader is clear on terminology (page 2). Then we integrated relevant theories – specifically, Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and the Job Demands–Resources (JD–R) model – in a new subsection titled “Theoretical Lenses” (page 4). By doing this, the Introduction provides a brief practical motivation in Section 1.1, and Section 1.2 presents the state of the art and theoretical framework that lead into our hypotheses. This rearrangement addresses the concern: all important concepts are now introduced early, and the hypotheses are grounded in clearly stated theory (SDT, JD–R, and also Social Exchange Theory mentioned later in Section 1.2.3). The Introduction should now feel balanced – with essential literature and theory included without overwhelming the reader.
2. Definition of “Optimal Balance”: We realized our previous definition of “optimal balance” between remote and office work was not clear enough. We have now clarified this term in Section 1.1 of the Introduction. We explicitly define optimal balance as the particular mix of remote and in-office work that maximizes benefits for both employees and employer while minimizing the drawbacks of each mode. We also clarified that term "optimal" in this research reflects the respondents' personal preference or what they perceive as most suitable or convenient for them, based on their individual experiences and priorities. We explain that this balance is not a fixed 50/50 split, but a context-dependent ideal point where, according to our data, employees experience peak job satisfaction and productivity without high stress, and managers feel performance is maintained. We also list the criteria we used to evaluate “optimal” – including employees’ self-reported productivity, well-being (stress, burnout), and preference satisfaction. By adding this definition and rationale in the Introduction, we ensure readers know exactly what we mean by “optimal balance” and why it’s considered optimal in our study. This change directly addresses your feedback: the term is now defined the first time it appears (Section 1.1) and consistently used with that meaning throughout the paper.
3. How “Optimal” Was Determined – Personal Preferences vs. Objective Metrics: You noted a potential inconsistency in our original manuscript regarding whether the “optimal” remote-work ratio was based on objective productivity metrics or personal preferences. In the revised text, we made sure to consistently describe the optimal balance in terms of participants’ reported experiences and preferences, since we did not have direct objective performance measurements. In addition to previous answer, In Section 1.3 (page 5), we clarify that our goal is to find the remote/office mix that maximizes perceived productivity and job satisfaction (not some externally measured productivity index). Accordingly, in the Methods and Results we emphasize that “optimal” was identified based on survey responses – where respondents indicated outcomes like highest personal efficiency and lowest stress. For example, in Section 3.2 we now state that hybrid workers (with a moderate mix of office and remote days) reported the highest efficiency scores (page 13), which is why that mix is considered optimal. We have removed any implication that we used separate “productivity metrics” outside of the survey. Now, throughout the paper, the determination of the optimal model is portrayed as it truly is: derived from aggregated personal data on satisfaction and performance. This correction aligns our description with what we did and resolves the apparent contradiction you pointed out.
4. Measurement of Stress, Burnout, Job Satisfaction, etc.: We agree that the original version did not clearly explain how key variables like stress, burnout, and job satisfaction were measured. To address this, we expanded Section 2.3 (Survey Instruments and Measures) with detailed descriptions. We included a new Table 1 on page 7 that lists each construct, the exact survey question(s) used to measure it, the response scale, and any transformations or notes. For instance, perceived stress was measured by asking “Where do you experience more stress?” with options (mainly at home / mainly in office / no difference), which we coded so that higher values indicate the office was more stressful (page 7). Burnout was assessed with a single self-report item about feeling exhausted or “burned out” by work (not a full multi-item scale, which we acknowledge as a limitation in Section 4.4). Job satisfaction was measured on a 5-point Likert scale asking employees to rate their overall job satisfaction under their current working pattern. We also measured perceived productivity similarly with self-ratings. All these are now explicitly described in text (page 7) and summarized in Table 1. Additionally, in Section 3.2 (page 13) we reference how these measures were used to find the optimal balance (e.g., noting that the optimal group had significantly lower reported stress and higher satisfaction). By providing these details, we ensure that readers understand the basis of our conclusions about stress, burnout, etc. We believe this added clarity addresses your comment: the revised paper spells out how each important outcome was quantified.
5. Coherence of Objectives and Hypotheses: You observed that our original paper listed four research objectives but only two hypotheses, which was confusing because some objectives did not directly map to a hypothesis. We have remedied this by streamlining our research objectives and aligning them with our hypotheses. In the revised Section 1.3 (page 5), we now present two primary objectives: (i) to determine the optimal remote/office work balance for employee well-being and performance (perceived productivity and satisfaction), and (ii) to compare employee and manager perceptions regarding remote/hybrid work outcomes. These two objectives correspond exactly to our two hypotheses: H1 (with sub-hypotheses H1a and H1b) addresses Objective 1, and H2 (with H2a and H2b) addresses Objective 2. We removed the earlier objectives that were not directly tested (for example, we no longer advertise a separate objective about “advantages and disadvantages of each modality” – we still discuss those findings qualitatively, but not as a stated objective). Now, the structure is coherent: we introduce two main objectives and then immediately list H1a/H1b and H2a/H2b which are derived from them (page 5). In the Results and Discussion, we likewise focus on these two sets of findings. This way, readers won’t encounter an objective that doesn’t have a corresponding result. We believe this change makes the paper’s intent much clearer and addresses the issue you pointed out about coherence.
6. Focus on ~40–50% Remote Work – Justification: You asked why we were focusing on a “40–50% remote work” ratio in the objectives without prior justification. In the revised manuscript, we have removed any arbitrary mention of “40–50%” in stating our objectives or hypotheses. Instead, we phrased our goal generally as finding the “optimal balance” (as noted above), and we allowed the results to reveal what that optimal balance is. It turned out, based on our data analysis, that the optimal range for both employees and managers was around 40–50% remote work (roughly 2 days remote, 3 days in-office per week). We report this finding in Section 3.4 (Summary of Key Findings) on page 15, explaining that employees who spent about 8–10 days per month in the office (and the rest remote) had the highest average job satisfaction and perceived productivity, and managers also rated that range most favorably for performance. Then, in the Discussion (Section 4.1), we provide a rationale for why this moderate hybrid ratio might be ideal, referencing literature that suggests 2–3 remote days can yield flexibility benefits without sacrificing teamwork (page 15). We also make it clear that we identified this range empirically. In short, we no longer “announce” 40–50% as a focus at the start; we discovered it from the data and we discuss it as a key result with proper reasoning. This addresses the concern about justification: the focus on ~50% remote is now backed by our survey evidence and positioned as a conclusion rather than a premise.

7. “Moderating Factors” (Job Role, Age, Firm Size) – Analysis Clarity:In the original draft, we mentioned examining certain factors like role, age, and company size as “moderators,” but then only reported simple comparisons, which was confusing. We have clarified our approach to these factors. In the Introduction (Section 1.2.4) and throughout, we removed the term “moderating factors” to avoid implying a specific statistical moderation analysis that we did not perform. Instead, we explain that we looked at how various factors influence or correlate with preferred office days and perceptions. For example, we now state in Section 1.2.4 that we will “examine differences by job role, age, etc., in remote work preferences and experiences” (page 4). In the Methods, we describe these as subgroup analyses (chi-square tests and t-tests) rather than formal moderation in a regression. Accordingly, in Results Section 3.1.1, we present findings like: younger employees tended to prefer more days in office than older employees, and managers tended to favor office more than employees, etc., with statistical support. We included a new Table 4a (page 12) that provides the chi-square results for associations between demographic factors and preferred in-office frequency. For instance, Table 4a shows that age group is significantly related to preferred office days (p<0.001), and we note in the text that the youngest cohort (18–25) indeed had a higher than average in-office preference (page 10). We do similarly for job role and commuting distance. We emphasize these are comparisons or associations, not moderating effects on another relationship. By clarifying terminology and presenting the analysis results in an accessible way (text + Table 4a), we believe we resolved the confusion. In summary, we examined how those factors are associated with people’s optimal balance, but we do not refer to them as “moderators” now. This should address your point about clarity.

• Inclusion of Statistical Results (Transparency): You expressed concern that some of our claims (e.g., about significant differences) were not backed by visible statistics in the original text, asking the reader to trust us. We have taken care to include all relevant statistical results in the revised manuscript for transparency. Wherever we talk about a difference or relationship being significant (or not), we now either provide the statistic in the text or clearly refer to a table that contains it. For example we added Table 7 (page 14) which summarizes the H1 results (including the proportions and odds ratios for high stress and high efficiency in each group) as well Table 8 for H2a. Likewise for H2b, we note the percentages of managers vs. employees who found resources adequate, and give the χ² and p-value (also presented in Table 9 on page 15).
• Even in descriptive sections, if we say “significantly more” or “significantly less,” we either parenthetically include the test result or direct the reader to a table. By doing all this, we ensure that none of our claims are unsupported. You will find that every key comparison we draw in the text now has a statistic. We aimed to balance detail with readability – providing the figures without overwhelming the narrative – and we think the result is both comprehensive and digestible. This addresses your comment by removing any need for the reader to take our word on an analytical result.
1. Results Presentation Order (Descriptive vs. Hypothesis-Driven Results): You suggested that our Results section in the previous version felt disjointed, with hypothesis results appearing isolated from the descriptive context. We have reorganized the Results to improve the logical flow:
• We still begin with Section 3.1 (Descriptive Statistics and Sample Characteristics) to give an overview of the data. But we added a short bridging paragraph at the end of that section to connect to our hypotheses. For example, after outlining basic patterns (like how many days people typically work from home), we mention that these patterns hint at potential differences in outcomes which we will formally test next.
• Then we present Section 3.2 (Hypothesis 1 results) and Section 3.3 (Hypothesis 2 results). At the start of Section 3.2, we explicitly remind the reader of H1 and what it concerns (employee well-being and productivity in hybrid vs other setups).
• We have removed any stray repetition of research questions in the Results. Now the Results section focuses purely on the data outcomes, with the framing done via the hypotheses context. Overall, these changes make the Results section flow better from general observations to specific tests and then to an integrated summary. Readers first get acquainted with the data, then see the tests of our key questions, then get a recap. We hope this addresses your advice regarding the presentation order and integration.
2. Placement of Research Question in Results: In the earlier version, we had explicitly restated a research question in the Results (something like “key research question identified was…”), which you noted is unconventional. We agree and have removed such instances. Now, all research questions and objectives are stated only in the Introduction (Section 1.3) and are not re-introduced verbatim in the Results.
3. Claim about “Optimal Window” for Well-being and Productivity – Clarity: You were right that our original claim (that “40–50% remote is the only range where both groups reach target thresholds for well-being and productivity”) was not well-supported or clear. We have significantly revised that claim to ensure accuracy and clarity. In Section 4.1 (Discussion of Key Findings), we now state the finding in concrete terms without over-generalizing. We no longer use the phrase “target thresholds.” Instead, we explain exactly what measures we are referring to (satisfaction, stress, perceived productivity) and that at this ~50% remote range, these measures were all favorable. We also clarify that this is based on our data – for example, we mention earlier in Section 3.4 that outside this range, one group or the other saw a drop (e.g., employees working almost fully remotely reported more isolation stress, and employees nearly always in-office reported lower work-life balance). We have thus unpacked the meaning of the “optimal window” and removed any implication that it’s a universally fixed threshold. The lines that were hard to follow in the old discussion (original lines ~1141–1160) have been replaced with this clearer explanation (page 15–16). We believe the claim is now much easier to understand and directly supported by the evidence we present.
4. Necessity of Section 3.5 (Environmental Impact): You pointed out that our original Section 3.5, which discussed environmental impacts (like reduced commuting emissions), was not directly related to our main topic or the paper’s title and objectives. We agreed that this section was tangential, however we were asked by editors before sending to you to include sustainability angle as well in this work as we can derive it from our data. This is why we have removed the standalone Section 3.5 on environmental impact from the Results section, while we have preserved a brief mention in the Introduction that reduced commuting is one potential benefit of hybrid work (for contextual background), but we do not elaborate on it in the results or discussion. We also moved a couple of relevant data points (like average commute distances) to an Appendix, purely for any reader’s reference, but they are not discussed in the main text anymore. This removal keeps the paper focused on our core findings regarding well-being and perceptions, and it avoids introducing a new theme (sustainability) late in the paper without sufficient development. We believe this change improves the overall coherence and ensures the paper sticks to the scope promised as well have sustainability angle.
5. Clarity of Table 3 (Statistical Significance and Color-Coding): Initially, Table 3 – new Table 6 (showing office attendance preferences by demographic segments) lacked explanation for its colour highlights, which could confuse readers. In the revision, we removed colour coding in Table 6 (page 12).
6. Relevance of Table 7 (Stress Management Strategies) and Table 8 (Motivation to Return): You observed that our original Tables 7 and 8, which listed common stress-coping strategies and motivations for returning to the office, were not clearly tied to our main objectives or hypotheses. We agree these were supplementary results. To sharpen the focus, we removed (old) Tables 7 and 8 and the related text from the main body of the paper. Those tables were derived from a few open-ended survey questions and tangential multiple-choice items. While they provide interesting context (e.g., what people find attractive about office or what they do to manage stress), they do not directly answer our two primary research questions. We decided it is better not to distract the reader with these points. We still touch on a couple of insights from them in the Discussion in a very general way (for example, mentioning that social interaction was a common reason people valued office time, which supports why full remote might hurt morale, tieing it back to SDT’s relatedness need), but we do not present any new results section or table for these. By removing them, the Results section now sticks strictly to findings about optimal work ratio and perception differences, which aligns with the paper’s scope. We believe this change improves the flow and ensures that everything in Results was something the Introduction set the reader up for.
7. Discussion – Referencing Previous Research: In the initial version, our Discussion was somewhat insular and did not sufficiently reference existing studies to contextualize our findings. We have revised the Discussion (Section 4) to integrate comparisons with the literature:
• In Section 4.1, when discussing the optimal hybrid balance result, we relate it to other studies. By citing these, we show our finding is supported by or adds nuance to known results.
• In Section 4.2, which covers differences between managers and employees, we explicitly cite research on “telework optimism bias” among supervisors (Carillo et al. 2021, now Reference [50]). We say that our finding – managers being more positive about hybrid productivity – is consistent with that study, which reported similar gaps. We also discuss this through JD–R theory (managers likely have more resources, etc., as per our earlier theoretical framing) and reference relevant background sources for those points.
• We brought in about 8 new references overall, including articles on hybrid work outcomes, reports on remote work preferences, and theoretical papers on remote work and management trust. Each major point in the Discussion (optimal balance, employee vs manager perception, even recommendations) has at least one citation to existing work or guidelines.
• We removed the explicit mention of “Objective 1/Objective 2” from the Discussion headings – we now use narrative headings and ensure within the text it’s clear what part of our findings we are discussing, often linking back to the hypotheses. By making these changes, our Discussion now not only summarizes our findings but also shows how they fit into or extend the current understanding in the field. We believe this addresses your comment by adding the needed academic context and credibility to our interpretation of the results.
8. Practical Recommendations Linked to Findings: We have rewritten Section 4.3 (Practical Recommendations) to ensure each recommendation follows clearly from our results. In the revised text (page 17), the recommendations are presented in a bullet-point format for clarity, and each is explicitly connected to what we found:
• We recommend “Customize hybrid work ratios by role and context” – because our data showed that optimal in-office days varied by job role and even by individual differences.
• We suggest “Encourage manager-employee dialogue on productivity expectations” – directly stemming from H2a. Since we found managers and employees do not always agree on what mix is most productive, we recommend companies facilitate conversations or surveys to reconcile these perceptions (page 18). This way, managers can understand employees’ needs better and employees can understand management’s perspective, hopefully bridging the gap.
• We advise to “Invest in remote work resources and training” – this comes from H2b. Our result was that some employees (about 18%) felt they lacked adequate support or tools for effective remote work, whereas most managers believed resources were fine. We thus recommend that organizations audit and improve remote working conditions (equipment, IT support, ergonomics training) to ensure employees genuinely have what they need (page 18).
• Another point we mention is “Set clear expectations for in-office days”, linking to our qualitative insights that employees value office days more when they have a clear purpose (like team meetings or client workshops). Although that wasn’t a hypothesis, it’s a practical note informed by feedback we got and it aligns with literature on purposeful office use.
9. Placement of Contribution and Limitations Sections: You suggested that the discussion of the study’s contributions and limitations should come later in the paper rather than in the Introduction. We have followed this guidance:
• We removed the separate “Contributions” paragraph from the Introduction. We felt it’s more appropriate to highlight the contributions at the end, after the reader has seen the results. Now we briefly mention the value of our study in the Conclusion (Section 5) instead (page 18). For instance, we conclude by saying that our work provides empirical data on an optimal hybrid schedule, contributing quantitative backing to the ongoing debates on hybrid work policy.
• We expanded the discussion of Limitations and moved it to the end of the Discussion section (now Section 4.4, page 18). Here we openly acknowledge limitations such as: the use of self-reported measures (which can be subjective), the cross-sectional design (which limits causal inference), our sample being a convenience sample (with a snowball method that may not be fully representative of the global IT population), and the fact that burnout was measured by a single item due to survey length constraints.
• We also include a short Future Research subsection (Section 4.5) after limitations, suggesting how future work could build on our study (e.g., longitudinal studies to see long-term effects, or qualitative studies to delve into why certain hybrid arrangements work better).
• The Conclusion (Section 5, page 18–19) then wraps up with the main takeaways and contributions. These structural adjustments ensure that a reader learns about limitations and the scope of our conclusions right before the final takeaways, which is the appropriate placement. It avoids the earlier issue where limitations might have been glossed over or contributions over-stated in the intro. We believe this change improves the academic rigor and honesty of the paper, addressing your point about placement.
10. Miscellaneous Structural and Formatting Issues: We have addressed the various smaller issues you pointed out to ensure the manuscript is polished:
• The stray sentence in the Appendix that you flagged
• All tables and figures have been reviewed for consistency. We renumbered tables properly in order of appearance (Tables 1 through 9 in the main text now).
• We fixed the figure issues: Figure 1 and Figure 2 in the original submission seemed to have some parts cut off. We have reinserted high-quality versions of these figures.
• We removed the sub-subsection heading “1.1.1 Significance of Study” in the Introduction and merged its content into Section 1.1, because it was the only sub-subsection and thus unnecessary.
• We incorporated more peer-reviewed references as you suggested and increased the proportion of journal and conference papers. We added citations from journals like Journal of Vocational Behavior, Business Psychology, PLoS ONE, etc., to support various points. We did keep a few industry reports for recent stats (because some 2022–2023 data is only in surveys), but we balanced them with academic sources. This makes our references list more robust.
• Finally, we did a thorough proofreading to improve the writing quality. We broke up overly long sentences and eliminated repetition to make the text more readable. We also checked that all acronym usages are consistent (for example, we use “MSLE” and “MNC” in Table 4 with explanations in a note, and “WfH” vs “remote work” is clarified).

We believe we have addressed almost all your comments comprehensively. All these changes are reflected in the revised manuscript (clean copy), and we have indicated relevant pages above for each point. We truly appreciate the time and effort you put into reviewing our paper again – your feedback was invaluable in guiding these improvements. We hope the revised manuscript meets your expectations and adequately addresses every concern you raised.

Sincerely,
The Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the paper and feel that it still requires significant improvement. The document appears overly complicated, and there is a lack of synchronization among its sections. Below, I have provided detailed feedback to help enhance the paper.

The hypotheses focus on remote working, job satisfaction, and productivity, whereas the objectives include the impact of remote working on employee well-being, stress, and burnout. How do you intend to measure these aspects when there are no hypotheses addressing the impact of remote working on burnout, stress, and well-being?

Additionally, the objectives aim to explore perceptions of work modalities, including their advantages and disadvantages. How is that going to be measured? Alternatively, if you claim that some objectives will be addressed using a qualitative approach, you may not need hypotheses for those specific aspects. However, this would necessitate adopting a mixed-method approach, which would fundamentally alter your methodology.

The methodology section states:
"Although the primary focus was on quantitative data, limited open-ended questions were included to gather richer qualitative insights on perceived advantages and disadvantages of different work modalities, and these were analyzed thematically."

Including open-ended questions means this study cannot be classified as purely quantitative. Instead, it should be categorized as a mixed-method study, where:

• The quantitative approach would address the impact of remote working on job satisfaction, productivity, well-being, burnout, and stress.
• The qualitative approach would use open-ended questions to explore perceived advantages and disadvantages of work modalities. This data could be analyzed thematically.

If SPSS is already being used for quantitative data analysis, there is no need for Python or R. Clarify why these tools are included in the study. Are they being used for specific types of analysis? If not, their inclusion is unnecessary and could lead to confusion. Additionally, ensure you detail how you conducted thematic analysis whose thematic analysis was used, and which steps were taken to analyze the open-ended questions.

While some parts of the discussion section are supported by Self-Determination Theory (SDT), other sections, such as “4.2. Differences in Perceptions: Employees vs. Managers,” lack this theoretical grounding. Ensure that all sections of the discussion are aligned with the theory or provide a clear rationale for why they are not.

Furthermore, the findings are said to align with previous studies, but there is no specific mention of which studies support or contradict the current findings. Include references to relevant studies to provide context and strengthen your discussion. Avoid including headings that explicitly reference objectives, such as “4.1 Optimal Balance and Employee Preferences (Addressing Objective 1).” Simply title the section appropriately without referencing objectives in the heading.

The conclusion should address the study's findings and outcomes, not simply summarize the content of the paper. Understand and clearly differentiate between a summary and a conclusion. This section should synthesize the key insights derived from the study and discuss their implications.

The document lacks clarity and alignment overall. It is essential to:

1. Align the aim, objectives, and research questions clearly.
2. Develop hypotheses based on the aligned objectives or research questions.
3. Choose a methodology that supports these objectives and hypotheses.
4. Ensure that the analysis, findings, and discussion sections are consistent and directly address the stated objectives.

Additionally, consider simplifying the presentation of data and graphs. A more concise and focused representation will improve readability and comprehension.

By addressing these points, the paper will become more cohesive, impactful, and academically rigorous.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your thoughtful review and constructive suggestions. Before addressing your points individually, we want to note that in this second round of revision we made extensive changes to the manuscript to improve its clarity and coherence. In fact, we had to rewrite or restructure most sections to establish a clear academic storyline as it became as you also noted – overly complicated after 1st Roud of revisions. Because the revisions were so comprehensive, a version with tracked changes would have been extremely hard to follow (almost every paragraph changed). Therefore, we have submitted a clean revised manuscript. In this response letter, we explain how we addressed almost each of your comments and we refer to specific pages in the new document where the changes can be found. We appreciate your feedback greatly, as it helped us strengthen the paper substantially.

1. Alignment of Hypotheses with Objectives (Well-being, Burnout, Stress): You correctly noted that our original objectives (which mentioned aspects like well-being, stress, and burnout) did not fully align with our hypotheses (which focused on productivity and satisfaction). In the revision, we have realigned our objectives and hypotheses to cover the same scope. We streamlined to two primary objectives (Section 1.3, page 5, line 180):
• Objective 1 focuses on identifying the optimal remote/office work balance for employees’ well-being and performance (specifically looking at perceived productivity and job satisfaction, as well as stress levels).
• Objective 2 focuses on examining differences between employees and managers in their perceptions of remote/hybrid work outcomes (productivity and resource adequacy). These objectives correspond exactly to our two sets of hypotheses H1 and H2 (listed on page 5, lines 190–202). H1 (with H1a and H1b) addresses Objective 1 by testing effects on stress and perceived efficiency/job satisfaction. H2 (H2a and H2b) addresses Objective 2 by comparing employee vs. manager views on productivity and support resources. We decided not to add a separate hypothesis explicitly about “burnout,” because our data on burnout was limited (a single survey item), and the effects we observed for burnout were mild and not central to our conclusions. Instead, we mention burnout qualitatively in the Discussion as part of overall well-being (page 16). By structuring the objectives this way, everything in our objectives is now directly tested by at least one hypothesis. We no longer list anything (like burnout outcomes) as an objective unless we have a hypothesis and results for it. This makes the intent of the study much clearer and addresses the mismatch you pointed out. In short, we narrowed the scope of the objectives to what we could rigorously test, ensuring that our hypotheses now fully cover the stated aims.
2. Objective on Advantages/Disadvantages of Modalities & Methodological Approach: You noted that one of our initial objectives was to explore perceived advantages and disadvantages of different work modalities, which did not have corresponding hypotheses or clear methods (implying perhaps a qualitative analysis that we didn’t actually perform). We have addressed this by removing that as a formal objective and clarifying our methodological focus. In the revised Introduction, we do still note in passing that understanding pros and cons of each modality is interesting, but we do not make it one of our main objectives. We folded any insights about advantages/disadvantages into the broader discussion of results rather than treating it as a separate goal. Consequently, our study is now clearly framed as a quantitative investigation of two specific issues (optimal balance and perception gaps). In Section 2.3 (page 8), we clarify that while our survey included a few open-ended questions for richness, our analysis in this paper is focused on the quantitative data from closed-ended questions. We did not undertake a full qualitative analysis of the advantages/disadvantages feedback (no coding, etc., since it was beyond our scope). Essentially, we acknowledge those free responses exist but explicitly say they are “not the focus of the quantitative analysis presented here.” By doing this, we avoid confusing the reader with an objective that suggests a different methodology. We keep our methods consistent with our (now two) objectives: both objectives are addressed with quantitative survey data, which is what we analyze. This change aligns the scope of objectives with what we actually did and ensures the reader isn’t expecting a qualitative exploration that never comes, thereby addressing your comment.
3. Study Design – Quantitative vs. Mixed-Methods Characterization: In the original, we inadvertently gave the impression of a mixed-methods approach (by mentioning open-ended questions and thematic analysis plans), which was not truly executed in the paper. We have clarified the nature of our study as a quantitative study. In Section 2.1 (Study Design, page 6, lines 300–309), we state that we conducted a cross-sectional, quantitative survey targeting employees and managers. We then mention in Section 2.3 that we included some open-ended questions for additional insights, “but they are not the focus of the analysis here,” reinforcing that our reported results are quantitative. We removed any detailed discussion of qualitative analysis procedures from the Methods. The result is that the methodology reads clearly as a quantitative survey study. We also simplified the description of tools (explained more in point 4 below) to focus on the quantitative analysis. By doing this, we ensure there isn’t an expectation of qualitative results. The reader can see that our data comes primarily from Likert-scale and multiple-choice questions (plus a few open-ended comments that we used informally). We believe this addresses your concern by making it explicit that, while we did gather some qualitative data, our paper’s findings rely on quantitative data. There is no longer an inconsistency between how we frame the study and what analyses we present.
4. Clarification of Analytical Tools and Thematic Analysis Procedure: You noted that our methods section listed multiple software tools (SPSS, Python, R) without clarity, and it mentioned a thematic analysis though we didn’t report qualitative results, which was confusing. We have clarified and streamlined this part. In Section 2.5 (Data Analysis, page 9), we now explain that we primarily used IBM SPSS Statistics 29 for our statistical analysis (for descriptive stats, chi-square tests, etc.), and we used Python 3.10 with relevant libraries for some supplementary analysis and visualization. We decided not to mention R at all, since ultimately we did not use R in the final workflow (that reference was from an earlier plan and was unnecessary). Now it reads: “Analyses were conducted in Python 3.10 (pandas, SciPy, statsmodels libraries) and IBM SPSS 29 for cross-checks.”  Regarding qualitative analysis: as mentioned, we removed any description of thematic analysis steps because we did not carry out a formal qualitative analysis for this manuscript. In Section 2.3, we simply say the open-ended questions were included to gather insights but are not analyzed here. We do not mention any coding software or procedures. This avoids confusion.
5. Discussion – Theoretical Grounding (Differences Between Employees and Managers): You pointed out that our Discussion, particularly the part about differences in perceptions (Section 4.2), lacked explicit theoretical or literature grounding, making it less insightful. We have improved the Discussion Section 4.2 by explicitly linking our findings back to the theoretical frameworks and existing research:
• We use the Job Demands–Resources (JD–R) model to explain why managers might have a more positive view of hybrid work. We suggest that managers generally have more control and resources (better home office setups, more autonomy in scheduling), so the demands of remote work weigh less on them, leading to less stress and a more optimistic view (page 16, lines 972–981). This ties to JD–R, which we introduced earlier, and we cite studies that imply similar ideas (for instance, a study that found managers faced fewer technical difficulties working remotely, which we reference indirectly).
• We also invoke Social Exchange Theory briefly: managers may interpret the ability to work hybrid as a sign of organizational trust and support, so they reciprocate with more positive sentiments (whereas some employees might feel they lost informal support). We admit this is speculative but grounded in theory.
• Importantly, we now cite a specific study by Carillo et al. (2021) which documented that supervisors often overestimate the effectiveness of remote work compared to employees (page 16, lines 981–989). We mention that this “supervisor’s optimism bias” is exactly what we found, thereby showing our result is not only theoretically expected but also observed elsewhere.
• We connect back to Self-Determination Theory (SDT) as well, noting that employees might feel a lack of relatedness when remote, which can temper their enthusiasm, whereas managers might not feel that as strongly if they have other means of staying connected or deriving purpose. By adding these interpretations, the differences we found (H2 results) are now grounded in logical explanations supported by theory and literature. The discussion no longer just states the difference; it delves into why that difference might exist. This makes Section 4.2 more meaningful. We believe this addresses your comment by providing the reader with a clear understanding of our results in light of established theoretical perspectives.
6. Findings in Context of Previous Studies & Removing Objective References in Headings: We have taken steps to both compare our findings with prior work and to clean up the headings in the Discussion:
• Throughout the Discussion, we now cite relevant prior studies. For example, in Section 4.1 we mention a 2022 survey that found many employees prefer hybrid arrangements (supporting our finding that extremities are less popular), and a 2023 academic study that similarly identified ~2–3 remote days as ideal for balancing collaboration and focus (page 15, lines 907–916). In Section 4.2, as noted, we cite literature on managerial perspectives of telework. By doing so, we ensure we’re not making claims in isolation – we show whether others have found similar things or how our results add new insights. We’ve added multiple references (e.g., Refs [13], [24], [25], [50]) to solidify these points.
• We removed those parenthetical references to objectives in the subheadings. The Discussion now uses more conventional subheadings: for instance, “4.1. Key Findings: Optimal Balance” and “4.2. Interpreting Employee vs. Manager Differences”, rather than explicitly writing “(Objective 1)” or “(Objective 2)” in the heading. This makes the headings look cleaner and more reader-friendly. Inside the text, we do mention objectives for clarity (like “with respect to our first objective, we found…”), but it’s not in the heading itself.
• We also strengthened the Conclusion (Section 5) to emphasize how our findings relate to broader discussions on hybrid work. We mention that our data support the notion of a “sweet spot” in hybrid schedules which some companies are now adopting in policy (citing a relevant policy paper), and that we highlight the often overlooked difference in perceptions between staff and management — suggesting organizations should address this to avoid misalignment. These changes ensure that a reader understands both the practical and scholarly context of our results. The discussion feels like a dialogue with other research rather than a monologue. We believe this addresses your feedback by both providing appropriate external context and removing any awkward objective references in the discussion headings.
7. Conclusion vs. Summary – Emphasizing Findings and Implications: You advised that our Conclusion should do more than just summarize; it should highlight the main findings and their implications. We have rewritten the Conclusion (Section 5) to do exactly that. We reinforced the key takeaways and underscore their significance. It now reads as a true conclusion that encapsulates the essence of our findings and why they matter, rather than a repeat of the abstract. We believe this addresses your point, giving the paper a strong finish that highlights outcomes and contributions clearly.
8. Overall Clarity and Alignment (Aim, Objectives, RQs, Methodology, Analysis): We recognized from your feedback that the entire structure needed to be tightened to avoid any ambiguity. We undertook a thorough revision to ensure that every part of the paper aligns:
• The Introduction now lays out a clear aim and the two objectives, as described. We removed any extraneous aims that we didn’t fully pursue. So a reader knows from the start: this study will answer (1) “what is the optimal mix of office vs remote?” and (2) “how do employee and manager views compare?” – and nothing beyond that, despite our interest in other side topics.
• The methodology sections were adjusted to exactly correspond to those objectives. For Objective 1, we have measures of well-being/productivity and a plan to find where those are maximized – which we did. For Objective 2, we have parallel surveys of two groups – which we analyze and compare. We explicitly mention in Section 2.1 that we had two parallel surveys (one for employees, one for managers), which sets up how we address the second objective. We think this was unclear before and now it’s stated.
• The Discussion is similarly organized: Section 4.1 corresponds to the first objective’s implications; Section 4.2 corresponds to the second’s. Then limitations, future work, conclusion.
• We also double-checked that our terminology is consistent throughout to avoid confusion. For instance, we consistently use the term “optimal balance” once defined, we consistently refer to the employee/manager comparison rather than sometimes saying “employees vs. leadership” or other terms that might confuse.
• We corrected any places where older material lingered that didn’t fit the refined focus. For example, previously in the discussion we had some sentences about “themes that emerged” (implying qualitative analysis); we removed those. Now everything discussed ties back to our quantitative findings. As a result of these efforts, the paper is more coherent. The narrative arc is: introduction with questions -> methods to answer those questions -> results answering them -> discussion interpreting those answers. We believe this satisfies your overarching concern. Any reader (even one who jumps to the Discussion) should be able to trace each conclusion back to a result and each result back to a stated question. We appreciate this suggestion as it helped us improve the clarity significantly.
9. Simplifying Data Presentation and Graphs: You mentioned that the document was overly complicated, possibly referring to data presentation. We made several changes to simplify and clarify:
• We removed the extra tables (Tables 7 and 8 as discussed) that were not central. So the number of tables is reduced, focusing on core results. The remaining tables are easier to digest since each has a clear purpose.
• We formatted the recommendations as bullet points (rather than a dense paragraph) to improve readability.
• We carefully labeled figures and tables as mentioned so that the reader doesn’t have to figure out what a color or axis stands for – it’s all explained in captions or footnotes now.
• We also trimmed the sample description section a bit. We moved detailed breakdowns (like the exact regional composition of the sample, which was in text) to Appendix A1 to declutter the main text. In the main paper, we just give a high-level summary of the sample and refer to Appendix A1 for the detailed table.
• The text in Results and Discussion was edited to avoid overly long sentences and jargon where possible, making it more reader-friendly. We tried to ensure each paragraph has a clear topic sentence and isn’t covering too many ideas at once. The result is that the paper, while still detailed, should feel more navigable. We aimed for a balance: thorough but not cluttered. We hope this addresses your concern, making the content more accessible while still comprehensive.

In conclusion, we have worked to address each of your points in the revised manuscript. We believe the paper is much improved – it is more coherent, clearer in methodology, and more strongly grounded in theory and literature. All changes are reflected in the clean version of the manuscript (with the specific pages and lines noted above for reference).

Thank you again for your invaluable feedback. We appreciate your time and believe our manuscript is stronger and more polished as a result of your comments. We hope you find the revisions satisfactory and that we have fully addressed your concerns.

Sincerely,
The Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Post-Pandemic Work Playbook: Balancing Employee Well-Being, Productivity, and Business Needs

(Remote and Hybrid Work in the IT Sector: An Analysis of Employee and Manager Perspectives)

 

Review

Thank you for the opportunity to review revised manuscript again. I appreciate the attempt to make the suggested changes. In this iteration I find more details, which is good and gives a better understanding of what (and how) the Authors have actually investigated. However, there are still clear methodological shortcomings in the paper. Below are the most important comments.

General:

• this is a scientific paper and precision of expression is very important here: I don't quite understand what the Authors mean when they write about “empirically grounded “sweet spot” for hybrid work in the IT sector” (line 469) or that “Employees on a hybrid regime (6–10 office days per month) were marginally less likely to locate stress in the office” (lines 472-474);
• a sentence begun in this way: “Early evidence highlighted…” (line 61) requires a reference to literature sources;
• the hypothesis is not at the same time the goal, and in the work it is so labelled (lines 193-201). I understand that this was intended to indicate to which research objective the different hypotheses refer, but it is nevertheless misleading;
• in the theoretical part it is important to clarify precisely the basic concepts that will be referred to in the work: i.e. how to understand “remote-work resources” (line 200)? or what is the difference among IT employees efficiency, effectiveness and work productivity (lines 186 – 189) – these are very specific terms in management science and it is hard to resist the impression that they are used here in a colloquial sense;
• in H2a Authors refer to hybrid work efficiency however in Obj. 2 work productivity is pointed (see pervious remark);
• in the context of the presented hypothesis H1a, the choice of coding of the variable (1 - office, 0 - all other (home and hybrid are mixed here)) is puzzling. The paper emphasizes the qualities of the hybrid mode of work. Perhaps a different coding of the variables (e.g. 1- hybrid, 0- others) would have produced quite different results. Moreover according to the H1a the question here should be not if the office mode is more stressful, but if the hybrid mode is less stressful than office or fully home mode of work. Furthermore, in the context of the objective adopted (Obj. 1) – lines 186-187, it becomes debatable whether the method adopted (and the 0-1 coding method associated with it) actually provides the opportunity to “Compare perceived stress, efficiency, and effectiveness among IT employees in fully remote, hybrid, and full-office regimes”;
• I fail to see why H2b is important and how it relates to the research objective: as it is unknown what “remote-work resources” are and why they are important here, it is difficult to relate in any way to point 3.3.2. and H2b hypothesis, as well as the lessons learned from them;
• some conclusions appear to be unjustified: this version of the paper does not deal with the burden of commuting issues (see lines 475-477) as well as with the burnout risk (see lines 484-486);
• On the basis of the version of the work presented, there is no basis for concluding that the “a ∼40–60 % on-site window is “safe” for balancing stress and efficiency, while also exposing a stakeholder perception gap that may undermine policy alignment” (lines 487-489);
• I appreciate the importance of structuring the work, but in some areas it has gone too far (see points 4.3., 4.4., 4.5. but also two previous one in discussion)

Referring to the work arrangement:

• I suggest improving the layout of the article like this: Introduction, Theoretical Background, Methodology, Results, Discussion, Conclusion
• The Introduction section should include key information that introduces the reader to the topic of the study, explains its significance and justifies why it was conducted. It should also indicate the literature gap and the purpose of the work. This part is never written in points;
• The Theoretical background section should show state-of-the-art, most important definition and, above all, it should explain how the theory relates to the identified research problem (showing how previous research and models support the hypotheses or research questions derived); the work is still not well rooted in the literature: it is not good practice to list all hypotheses together at the end of this point, each one should be grounded in the literature; statement: “Grounded in SDT and the JD–R model” is insufficient;
• 3 presents research results, it shouldn’t be placed in Methodology section
• Information about sampling is broken down between points 2.1., 2.2. (the construction of the sample) and 3.1.1. (sample characteristics); it would be better to describe the whole thing in one subsection (retaining, as is done, the reference to App. A1) in the Methodology section
• the names of the subsections should be definitely substantive and not be formulated in such a way: “3.2. Objective 1 – Stress and efficiency across regimes” (line 408) or “2.1. Hypothesis 1 (H1a & H1b): The Effect of Hybrid Work on Stress and Efficiency” (line 410) etc.

Referring to the technical shortcomings:

• In the text the numeration of tables starts from 4 and 5 (see line 213), and then Table 1 follows (line 241), which is confusing;
• Table 1 sheds light on how the variables were operationalized (which is good), but as the reader is not familiar with the research questionnaire, the description of the question number is not sufficient (i.e. Q23_06 or Q22 (1-4));
• on the technical side: there are a lot of blank spaces (see pages 9-10), different types of spaces between the lines (1 or 1.5);
• The statement “Chi-square tests and Cramer’s V for associations between office-attendance preference and demographics” (lines 270-271) looks like unfinished;
• In point 3.1.1. the office attendance patterns is discussed. Authors compare the average time (in days) actually spent in the office with the time preferred by respondents (see Tab. 6). Before the sentence “We record statistically significant differences according to all observed characteristics” I would expect an indication of what test was used here, moreover the results of this test (value) and its statistical significance should be presented in a Table 6 in addition to the difference in averages;
• in the response to the previous review Author write “We also checked that all acronym usages are consistent (for example, we use “MSLE” and “MNC” in Table 4 with explanations in a note…” – I did not find that in this version of the text (please pay attention to formatting, some letters are not visible in Tab. 4)
• comparing the response to the previous review and the current text, I have the impression that I am reading the wrong version of the work. Authors in response (referring to the key finding: optimal range for both employees and managers which is around 40–50% remote work) wrote that “We report this finding in Section 3.4 (Summary of Key Findings)on page 15, explaining that employees who spent about 8–10 days per month in the office (and the rest remote) had the highest average job satisfaction and perceived productivity, and managers also rated that range most favorably for performance” –  leaving aside the question of how it was determined and that the name of this point is different, I did not find this information in this version of the text.

A scientific article should have a clear and logical structure. Logical and substantive coherence is key. Terminology must also be consistent. Research questions or hypotheses must be closely linked to the data analysis, and conclusions must be consistent with the results and supported by the data. Summarizing, in the context of the above shortcomings I do not recommend this paper for publication.

Author Response

Dear Editor, Dear Reviewer 1,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough and detailed review of our manuscript. Your insightful comments have prompted us to re-examine several aspects of our paper, and we appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to providing such comprehensive feedback.

In line with your suggestions, and following the guidance from the editorial office, we have undertaken a significant revision of the manuscript to improve its clarity, structure, and theoretical grounding. Below, we have grouped our responses thematically to address the main points you raised.

Theme 1: Structure, Conceptual Clarity, and Hypothesis Grounding

We acknowledge your comments regarding the need for a clearer structure, more precise definitions of key concepts, and a stronger theoretical foundation for the hypotheses.

• In the revised Introduction (Section 1.1), we have added new paragraphs to explicitly define our key constructs ("perceived efficiency," "perceived stress," and "remote-work resources"), linking them directly to the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) and Self-Determination Theory (SDT) frameworks. This also clarifies the importance of H2b within the study's context.
• We have completely restructured Section 1.3 into a "Hypothesis Development" section. Instead of a list, each hypothesis is now presented in a dedicated paragraph that provides detailed theoretical and literary justification, addressing your valid point about grounding them properly in the literature.
• Regarding the overall paper structure, we have maintained the IMRaD format as it is a standard in the field, but we believe the significant enhancements within each section have greatly improved the paper's logical flow.

Theme 2: Methodological Choices and Justification of Conclusions

We appreciate your comments on methodological precision and the link between our data and conclusions.

• We have clarified that descriptive terms like "sweet spot" are used as shorthand for our statistical findings, which are detailed in the Results and interpreted in the Discussion.
• Regarding the coding for hypothesis H1a, our rationale was to specifically test whether the office environment itself was a primary source of stress compared to more flexible modalities. We acknowledge that alternative analytical approaches are possible and represent a valuable direction for future research, but we maintain that our current method directly addresses the hypothesis as stated.
• We have also revised the Discussion (Section 4) to ensure our conclusions are more tightly linked to the presented data. For instance, the discussion of the "40–60% on-site window" is now explicitly derived from the 6–10 office days per month finding, and we have clarified the context for our remarks on commuting and burnout.

Theme 3: Technical and Formatting Issues

Thank you for pointing out the technical and formatting issues. We have thoroughly proofread the manuscript and corrected these items, including the table numbering sequence, clarifying the questionnaire items in Table 1, standardizing the line spacing, and completing any unfinished sentences. We apologize if a version mismatch caused any confusion regarding the changes, and we have ensured that the currently submitted manuscript reflects all revisions undertaken during the review process.

Once again, we thank you for your comprehensive and challenging feedback, which has prompted us to significantly improve our manuscript. We hope that the revised version is now clearer, more robust, and addresses your primary concerns.

Sincerely,

Miloš Lončar and co-authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract reflects a positive development as all the suggested changes have been incorporated effectively. It is now concise and highlights the key aspects of the study.

However, the introduction requires further refinement to ensure clarity and alignment with the research objectives and hypotheses. While the variables to be explored in the study have been identified, their mere inclusion by name is insufficient. The introduction should provide a detailed explanation of each variable, discuss its relevance, and establish a clear connection to the research problem. This will help underline the significance of exploring these variables within the context of the study. Additionally, the introduction currently emphasizes only the first research objective, neglecting the others. It is crucial to discuss all the research objectives comprehensively to provide a complete overview of the study's scope and significance.

The literature review also requires substantial improvement. For each hypothesis, there must be a detailed discussion of the supporting literature to establish a theoretical foundation. This entails synthesizing existing research to justify the proposed hypotheses, ensuring they are grounded in scholarly evidence.

Furthermore, the study mentions the use of three theories, but their integration into the hypotheses is insufficiently addressed. Each theory should be explicitly linked to the model, illustrating how it supports specific hypotheses. This theoretical underpinning must be consistently referenced throughout the hypothesis development process. Incorporating these theories will strengthen the conceptual framework and demonstrate the study’s academic rigor.

In the discussion section, ensure the findings are interpreted in light of the underpinning theories and the broader literature. This will provide theoretical support for the study's outcomes, reinforcing their validity and relevance. Additionally, the discussion of implications and limitations should be presented in structured paragraphs rather than bullet points. This will enhance the narrative flow and provide a more thorough examination of the study's contributions, practical applications, and constraints.

Author Response

Dear Editor, Dear Reviewer 2,

We would like to thank you for the time and effort you invested in reviewing our manuscript, titled "Remote and Hybrid Work in the IT Sector: An Analysis of Employee and Manager Perspectives." Your comments were exceptionally constructive, and we believe they have significantly contributed to improving the quality of our work.

We have carefully considered each of your suggestions and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each comment.

Comment 1: The introduction identifies the variables but does not explain each of them in detail, their relevance, or their connection to the research problem. Furthermore, the Introduction only emphasizes the first research objective.

Response: We fully agree with this comment and thank the reviewer for pointing out the need for more detailed explanations. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have significantly amended the Introduction (Section 1.1) to address these shortcomings.

• We have added a new paragraph that defines in detail the three key constructs of our research (perceived efficiency, perceived stress, and resource adequacy) and immediately links them to the theoretical frameworks upon which the study is based (the Job Demands-Resources model and Self-Determination Theory).
• We have also added a second paragraph that explicitly emphasizes the second, equally important objective of our research—the analysis of the perceptual gap between employees and managers. We believe the Introduction now provides a comprehensive and solid foundation for the entire paper.

Comment 2: Each hypothesis lacks a detailed discussion of the supporting literature. The three mentioned theories (JD-R, SDT, SET) are not explicitly linked to the hypotheses.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this key observation. We recognized this as the most critical point for improvement. We have completely restructured Section 1.3, which is now titled "Hypothesis Development." Instead of a simple list, each of the four hypotheses now has its own dedicated paragraph where it is explained in detail. Each hypothesis is now explicitly grounded in the relevant theory (JD-R, SDT) and supported by citations from the literature, clearly demonstrating the logical path from theory to the research question.

Comment 3: The findings should be interpreted in light of the theories.

Response: We have accepted this suggestion to strengthen the Discussion chapter. In Section 4.1 (Synthesis of Key Findings), we have now added theoretical interpretations immediately following the presentation of the main findings. For example, the explanation for why a moderate hybrid model represents a "sweet spot" is now directly linked to the JD-R and SDT models, and the "supervisor-optimism bias" is explained through the concept of perceptual distance within the JD-R framework.

Comment 4: The implications and limitations should be in paragraph form, not bullet points.

Response: We agree that a narrative format improves the flow and readability of the text. Accordingly, we have completely reshaped Sections 4.3 (Practical Implications), 4.4 (Limitations), and 4.5 (Future Research Directions) from a list format into narrative paragraphs.

We hope that with these revisions, the manuscript is now significantly improved and meets the high standards for publication in your journal. Once again, we thank you for your time and insightful suggestions, which have helped us improve our work.

Sincerely,

Miloš Lončar and co-authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf