Job Satisfaction, Perceived Performance and Work Regime: What Is the Relationship Between These Variables?

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to study the effect of job satisfaction on performance and whether this relationship is moderated by work regime (face-to-face, hybrid and remote) and to study the effect of work regime on performance and whether this relationship is mediated by job satisfaction. The sample consisted of 332 participants working in organizations based in Portugal. The results show that job satisfaction positively and significantly correlates with perceived performance. The work regime significantly affects perceived performance, with hybrid workers having the highest perceived performance. The work regime significantly affects job satisfaction, with remote workers having the highest levels of job satisfaction. Job satisfaction has a mediating effect on the relationship between work regime and perceived performance. Contrary to expectations, the work regime does not moderate the relationship between job satisfaction and perceived performance. Human resource management is recommended to keep employees satisfied and boost their performance. This study has shown how hybrid and remote working arrangements are fundamental to this.

1. Introduction

In recent years, technological developments and changes in the job market have changed how companies and their employee’s work. With the emergence of new digital communication and collaboration tools, remote working, which used to be considered an option restricted to a few areas and functions, has become increasingly common in various sectors. The COVID-19 pandemic has intensified the process, forcing organizations to adopt remote working as a temporary solution and, in some cases, as a permanent policy. This paradigm shift has brought new challenges and opportunities for organizations and, above all, for professionals who have come to experience a different working model from the traditional one.

Remote work can offer benefits in terms of flexibility, reduced travel, and a potential increase in autonomy. However, other factors can affect employee satisfaction and productivity, such as social isolation, difficulties maintaining boundaries between work and personal life, and lack of direct interaction with colleagues and superiors.

This topic is highly relevant since understanding the factors influencing satisfaction and productivity in remote work is crucial for companies to develop policies that optimize this type of work. In a study conducted by Jamaludin and Kamal (2023), these authors concluded that remote work has a positive and significant association with job satisfaction, i.e., job satisfaction levels are higher among employees who work remotely. According to Selvanayagam et al. (2025), workers with greater flexibility in remote work have higher levels of job satisfaction and productivity. At a time when retaining talent and motivating employees are constant ongoing challenges, the ability to promote a satisfactory and productive remote working environment can set an organization apart in the market and became a competitive factor.

In addition, understanding the impact of remote work on employee satisfaction allows us to explore aspects, such as mental health, quality of life, and work–life balance, topics that have been studied. If well managed, remote work can provide employees with a better quality of life, allowing for greater flexibility and autonomy. However, a remote working model that does not consider individual needs can have the opposite effect, resulting in demotivation, decreased performance and even burnout (Bielińska-Dusza et al., 2023).

Research into this subject also seeks to assess how different companies implement and manage remote work and analyze the results obtained, identifying which organizational practices are most effective in promoting employee satisfaction and productivity. In this way, this study could contribute to understanding the management practices that best suit this new working context, providing relevant insights for managers and human resources professionals.

There are many studies that focus on the relationship between remote work and job satisfaction and the relationship between remote work and performance, but very few analyze the relationship between these variables and the three work regimes (in-person, hybrid and remote). Another factor that makes this study relevant is the moderating and mediating effects that it aims to study.

This research aims to answer fundamental questions about remote working, such as: “What are the main factors that influence employee satisfaction when working remotely?” and “How does remote working impact productivity in the short and long term?” The answer to these questions will guide organizations in adapting to the new demands of the world of work and developing effective strategies to maximize the potential of remote work, promoting employee well-being and organizational efficiency.

To answer the research questions, the following objectives were established: to study the effect of job satisfaction on perceived performance and whether this relationship is moderated by the work regime (face-to-face, hybrid, and remote); to study the effect of the work regime on perceived performance and whether this relationship is mediated by job satisfaction.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction has been one of the most widely studied topics in human resource management due to its direct influence on organizational productivity and talent retention. According to Baxi and Atre (2024), job satisfaction is the degree of contentment employees feel about their work. This feeling of satisfaction is crucial for individual well-being and organizational efficiency since satisfied workers tend to show greater commitment and loyalty to the company.

Several factors contribute to job satisfaction, both intrinsic and extrinsic. According to Aziri (2011), elements such as pay, working conditions, relationships with colleagues and superiors, and opportunities for professional development are crucial to increasing job satisfaction. In addition, intrinsic factors, such as personal fulfilment and task autonomy, also play an important role.

Nguyen (2020) highlights the importance of investing in training and development programs as an effective strategy for increasing satisfaction and retaining young talent. By providing opportunities for growth and continuous learning, companies can improve employee motivation and strengthen their attachment to the organization.

Job satisfaction is a significant determinant of productivity. Studies indicate that satisfied employees are more likely to invest additional effort in their jobs to achieve organizational goals (Basalamah, 2021). Bowling et al. (2021) argue that satisfaction is associated with several positive behaviors, including increased performance, reduced absenteeism and an improved work environment. These factors become even more relevant in contexts where remote working is a reality, requiring companies to adopt strategies to maintain high levels of satisfaction among their employees.

Furthermore, Mishra (2013) emphasizes that job satisfaction is not limited to ensuring a good organizational environment but also contributes to the general well-being of employees. Satisfied employees tend to have better mental health indices and are less prone to burnout, which, in turn, benefits the organization through a healthier and more motivated workforce.

In short, job satisfaction is an essential element for the success of contemporary organizations. Research has shown that investing in employee satisfaction promotes a more positive working environment and results in significant gains in productivity and retention. Managers must, therefore, be attentive to the factors that influence job satisfaction, implementing policies and practices that reinforce the well-being and motivation of their employees, thus guaranteeing a sustainable competitive advantage.

2.2. Work Performance

Professional performance is a central element in the functioning of organizations and is a direct reflection of employees’ ability to achieve established objectives and exceed organizational expectations. However, performance should not be analyzed in isolation; rather, it should be a dynamic and multifaceted construct influenced by individual variables, such as motivation and job satisfaction, and organizational variables, such as leadership practices and corporate culture.

According to Nguyen (2020), employee training and development significantly impact performance, especially in the context of young workers. These factors play a crucial role in talent retention, showing that investing in training and professional development programs not only improves employees’ technical skills but also increases their involvement and commitment to organizational goals. This study suggests that companies strengthen the bond with their professionals by providing continuous learning opportunities, creating conditions for superior performance.

In addition, Inceoglu et al. (2018) point out that performance can be divided into two main dimensions: task performance and contextual performance. Task performance refers to the efficient execution of functions directly related to job responsibilities, while contextual performance includes behaviors that, although not formally described in the employee’s duties, contribute to organizational effectiveness, such as cooperation, initiative and adaptation. Both types of performance are essential for organizational success and are intrinsically linked to employee well-being, influenced by leadership practices that promote support, trust and fairness.

However, performance is also shaped by the conditions of the work environment and the perception of organizational support. Liu et al. (2018) point out that factors, such as burnout and workplace violence, directly impact employees’ performance and intention to stay. In contrast, when organizations implement policies that foster well-being, such as creating a supportive climate and recognizing employees’ individual needs, they can mitigate these effects and stimulate high-performance behaviors.

Another critical factor for performance is ethical and values-driven leadership. Neves et al. (2018) point out that leaders who promote practices based on commitment and transparency can reduce resistance to organizational change, creating an environment where employees feel motivated and committed. In addition to increasing performance, these practices promote a culture of trust and cooperation, which are indispensable factors for organizational sustainability.

Kara et al. (2018) further reinforces the link between job satisfaction and performance, emphasizing the importance of quality of work life (QWL) as a mediator in the relationship between leadership and performance. Santos et al. (2023) corroborates this perspective, showing that employee satisfaction improves productivity and efficiency in the workplace. Satisfied employees tend to be more committed to their tasks and have higher performance levels, ultimately benefiting the professionals and the organization.

Finally, Gaio Santos and Cabral-Cardoso (2008) highlight the need for a balanced organizational culture that integrates employees’ personal and professional spheres. Conflict between work and family life can harm performance, while organizational strategies that promote balance between these dimensions can significantly improve individual and collective results.

In summary, organizational performance is a complex phenomenon that requires an integrated approach, considering not only individual factors such as motivation and satisfaction but also organizational practices and leadership. Organizations that invest in the development of their employees promote ethical leadership and create work environments that prioritize well-being to achieve higher levels of performance, ensuring their competitiveness in a constantly changing market.

Job Satisfaction and Work Performance

The relationship between job satisfaction and performance has been widely studied and recognized as essential to organizational success. Job satisfaction reflects the degree to which employees are happy with their jobs and the working environment, while performance reflects the ability to achieve organizational objectives efficiently. When interconnected, these concepts become determining factors for productivity and organizational well-being.

According to Pushpakumari (2008), job satisfaction is directly related to performance. Satisfied employees show greater commitment and loyalty to the organization, significantly improving task performance and overall results. On the other hand, low satisfaction levels can lead to turnover and absenteeism, compromising organizational efficiency.

Job satisfaction affects individual performance and has a knock-on impact on organizational performance (Capone et al., 2024). Policies that promote work–life balance, continuous development and performance recognition help build an organizational culture that fosters both satisfaction and productivity. According to Katebi et al. (2022), job satisfaction is positively associated with performance, making it essential for human resource managers to focus on developing practices that enhance employee job satisfaction to improve their performance.

In short, the relationship between job satisfaction and performance is clear and multifaceted. Satisfied employees work more efficiently and demonstrate greater commitment to the organization’s objectives. Investing in practices that promote satisfaction, such as recognition policies, ethical leadership, and organizational support, is not only a strategy for improving performance but also a way of ensuring long-term organizational sustainability and success.

This is how the hypothesis is formulated:

Hypothesis 1.

Job satisfaction has a positive and significant effect on performance.

2.3. Work Regimes: Remote, Hybrid and Face-to-Face—Impacts and Perspectives

The transformation of working arrangements has become a central issue for contemporary organizations, particularly due to the changes imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Models, such as remote, hybrid and face-to-face work, have profoundly shaped how companies operate and employees interact with their jobs. These arrangements offer unique benefits, but present challenges affect worker productivity, well-being and engagement. This text explores in depth the impacts and perspectives of these models based on recent scientific literature.

2.3.1. Remote Working

Remote working has been widely adopted in recent years, driven by the need to maintain operational continuity during the pandemic. This model is characterized by performing tasks away from the organization’s physical location, usually with the support of digital technologies. According to Allen et al. (2024), remote working promotes greater flexibility and autonomy, allowing employees to adjust their schedules and achieve a healthier work–life balance. However, the authors warn of the challenges related to the lack of face-to-face interaction, which can weaken the sense of belonging and hinder team cohesion.

Mabaso and Manuel (2024) point out that performance management in remote work requires a results-focused approach and constant feedback. Technological collaboration tools are essential to ensure effective communication and minimize the impact of social isolation.

In addition, Mustajab (2024) explores the effectiveness of remote working policies in different organizational contexts, highlighting that their successful implementation depends on adapting to the specificities of each organization. Vartiainen and Vanharanta (2023) state that the successful implementation of remote work depends on a robust technological infrastructure and the leadership’s ability to manage geographically dispersed teams. However, despite its advantages, remote working has significant limitations, such as the difficulty separating professional and personal life, especially when the workspace is the same as the home environment. Clear policies and emotional support from organizations can help mitigate these issues and promote a healthier working environment.

2.3.2. Hybrid Working

The hybrid model combines the best of remote working with the benefits of face-to-face work, allowing employees to switch between different locations and working hours. This scheme stands out to offer a balanced approach to the needs of employees and organizations. According to Allen et al. (2024), hybrid work is a sustainable solution that allows for flexibility and social interaction and increases productivity.

Vartiainen and Vanharanta (2024) argue that hybrid work responds to the demands of a more dynamic labor market focused on employees’ needs. This model allows for greater personalization and autonomy but requires effective leadership to manage the complexity of dispersed teams. Hanzis and Hallo (2024) point out that the success of hybrid work depends on inclusive practices and transparent policies that promote fairness between remote and face-to-face employees.

Rupcic (2024) warns of the importance of reinforcing the organizational culture in the hybrid model through regular face-to-face meetings and digital tools to foster team cohesion. When managed well, hybrid work can offer the ideal balance between flexibility and interaction, adapting to individual preferences and organizational requirements.

2.3.3. Face-to-Face Work

Despite the innovations by remote and hybrid models, face-to-face work remains indispensable in many sectors, especially those that require constant supervision, intense interactions and teamwork. Lauring and Jonasson (2025) argue that the face-to-face model promotes a more collaborative working environment, creating strong interpersonal relationships and team cohesion.

However, face-to-face work faces criticism about the lack of flexibility and the impact on work–life balance. According to Rupcic (2024), organizations must invest in practices that make the working environment more welcoming and promote policies that support employee well-being.

In addition, the face-to-face model stands out for its ability to offer direct supervision and an immediate response to operational challenges. In sectors such as health and education, this is still the most effective way of guaranteeing quality performance.

2.3.4. Model Comparison

The three working models have distinct advantages and challenges that suit different organizational contexts. Remote working is ideal for tasks that require concentration and autonomy but can compromise the sense of community and team cohesion. The hybrid model offers the best of both worlds but requires efficient management to maintain cohesion and avoid inequalities. Face-to-face work strengthens interpersonal relationships and facilitates supervision but may be less adaptable to contemporary needs.

According to Vartiainen and Vanharanta (2024), organizational success depends on organizations’ ability to align their working models with their strategies and the goals of their employees. Strategies that promote inclusion, flexibility, and work–life balance will be decisive for the future of work.

Remote, hybrid and face-to-face working arrangements reflect the evolution of organizational practices in response to changes in the market and employee expectations. Choosing the most suitable model depends on factors such as the nature of the job, the workers’ preferences and the organization’s strategic objectives. Investing in technology, adaptive leadership practices and well-being policies is essential to maximize the benefits and mitigate the challenges of each scheme. The future of work will be defined by the ability of organizations to create flexible, inclusive environments geared towards balance and productivity.

2.4. Work Regime and Job Satisfaction

The transformation of working arrangements—remote, hybrid and face-to-face—has profoundly impacted on modern working dynamics. These models, driven by social changes and the COVID-19 pandemic, directly influence job satisfaction, affecting employee motivation, performance and well-being.

Remote work has stood out for its flexibility, allowing for greater autonomy and work–life balance. According to Bellmann and Hübler (2020), it eliminates commuting, promotes greater control over the working environment and contributes to work–life balance. However, the lack of face-to-face interaction can lead to social isolation and difficulties in organizational cohesion. Mustajab (2024) emphasizes that transformational leadership is essential to promote trust and clear communication, mitigating the challenges of this regime. Additionally, Santillan et al. (2023) argue that perceived autonomy in remote work is an important mediator for job satisfaction, mainly when supported by an efficient technological infrastructure. In a study by Orešković et al. (2023), these authors concluded that remote employees reported high levels of satisfaction and work–life balance and expressed a desire to continue working in this arrangement.

However, as Corral (2024) points out, remote working challenges include managing the boundaries between professional and personal life. The absence of clear physical separation can lead to conflicts between personal responsibilities and work demands, reducing satisfaction and increasing stress levels among employees. This factor reinforces the need for clear policies to help balance these boundaries and offer support to remote workers.

The hybrid regime combines the benefits of remote and face-to-face work, providing flexibility and opportunities for social interaction. According to Santillan et al. (2023), 84.4% of hybrid workers reported greater satisfaction due to flexibility and the possibility of balancing work and personal life. This model also allows for greater personalization of working conditions, increasing motivation and well-being.

Jaß et al. (2024) add that the perception of organizational support and adequate resources in the hybrid regime determines job satisfaction. The study points out that factors, such as privacy, ergonomics and technological support, at home and in the office are essential for increasing the productivity and satisfaction of hybrid workers. In addition, Bergefurt et al. (2024) point out that the quality of the physical work environment, whether remote or face-to-face, directly impacts employee well-being, reinforcing the need for well-structured environments to promote comfort and efficiency.

Although remote and hybrid models have grown significantly, the face-to-face regime remains relevant in sectors that require constant supervision and intensive interaction. Mustajab (2024) points out that face-to-face work favors the creation of stronger interpersonal relationships and facilitates team communication. However, Waldrep et al. (2024) warn that the lack of flexibility in face-to-face work can reduce job satisfaction, especially when compared to the benefits provided by the other models. Organizational policies that promote work–life balance and create welcoming work environments are crucial to maintaining motivation and satisfaction levels in this context.

Regardless of the scheme, transversal factors influence job satisfaction. According to Jaß et al. (2024), flexibility, autonomy and organizational support are key elements in ensuring employees feel valued and motivated. In addition, Santillan et al. (2023) and Bergefurt et al. (2024) point out that personalizing working conditions and investing in technological and physical infrastructure are essential for promoting employee satisfaction and commitment.

In short, the working arrangements—remote, hybrid and face-to-face—have characteristics that influence job satisfaction in different ways. While remote work offers autonomy and flexibility, the hybrid regime combines these benefits with the social interaction of face-to-face work. However, each model has challenges, such as isolation in remote work, lack of structure in hybrid schemes and less flexibility in face-to-face work. Organizations that invest in effective leadership, inclusive policies and suitable working environments can align workers’ needs with organizational objectives, promoting motivation, well-being and productivity. This balance benefits employees and positions organizations competitively in the modern job market. The following hypothesis is therefore formulated:

Hypothesis 2.

Working arrangements have a significant effect on job satisfaction.

2.5. Working Regime and Job Performance

Working arrangements have been widely studied due to their direct impact on employee performance and organizational dynamics. Models, such as remote, hybrid, and face-to-face work, have gained relevance in recent years, standing out for their implications for productivity and efficiency. Although each model has specific characteristics, they share the need for organizations to adapt to guarantee high levels of performance.

Remote working, adopted on a large scale during the COVID-19 pandemic, has proven effective in promoting greater concentration and reducing distractions. According to Ramos and Tri Prasetyo (2020), this model has allowed many employees to maintain high productivity levels due to the flexibility and autonomy provided. However, the authors warn of communication and team collaboration challenges, which the lack of face-to-face interaction can hamper. Kurdy et al. (2023) reinforce that while remote working provides greater efficiency in individual tasks, it can limit performance in activities that rely on collective work or creativity. Mustajab (2024) adds that remote working can exacerbate social isolation, especially when employees do not receive adequate support in terms of communication and technology. However, the author also recognizes that, when well implemented, this model can increase efficiency and productivity, especially for tasks that require concentration. In a study by Saleem and Khan (2024) with information technology workers, these authors concluded that remote work positively influences performance.

On the other hand, the hybrid regime appears as an intermediate solution, combining the benefits of remote and face-to-face working. Vartiainen and Vanharanta (2024) point out that hybrid work, by balancing flexibility and social interaction, improves employee performance, especially in organizations that value both autonomy and team cohesion. Toscano et al. (2024) add that the hybrid regime is especially effective for tasks that require alternation between concentration and collaboration and is the preferred model for dynamic sectors. Jamaludin and Kamal (2023) emphasize that the success of hybrid work depends on implementing appropriate digital tools and organizational support, which are essential for maintaining connectivity and productivity. Mustajab (2024) also points out that the hybrid regime reduces the risks of isolation associated with remote work while preserving the flexibility employees value.

Although face-to-face work is considered less flexible, it remains indispensable in sectors that require constant supervision, handling of equipment, or direct interaction with clients. Buła et al. (2024) argue that this model is ideal for promoting a strong organizational culture, facilitating the building of interpersonal relationships, and improving internal communication. However, the lack of flexibility can limit some employees’ performance, especially compared to the advantages of remote or hybrid working.

In addition, technology plays a key role in facilitating performance in all working models. Keppler and Leonardi (2023) point out that the use of digital platforms promotes greater connectivity, relational trust and knowledge exchange between distributed teams. These tools are especially important for overcoming the challenges associated with physical distance in remote and hybrid work, ensuring continuity of operations, and achieving organizational goals.

In conclusion, working arrangements significantly affect employee performance, with each model offering distinct advantages and challenges. Remote work stands out for its flexibility and efficiency in individual tasks. In contrast, hybrid work balances collaboration and autonomy, and face-to-face work maintains relevance in activities requiring direct supervision and physical interaction. To maximize performance, organizations must align their work regimes with employees’ specific needs, invest in robust technologies, and promote leadership that encourages commitment and productivity. This integrated approach will allow companies to make the most of each model, adapting to the demands of the modern market. According to Selvanayagam et al. (2025), workers with greater flexibility in remote work have higher productivity levels. Also, for Chmeis and Zeine (2024), when telework increases, performance also increases.

The following hypothesis is formulated:

Hypothesis 3.

The work regime significantly affects perceived performance.

2.6. Job Satisfaction, Job Performance and Working Regime

Job satisfaction, often defined as the degree to which employees are happy with their work, is crucial in determining organizational performance. Satisfied employees are more committed and motivated, resulting in higher performance. However, the influence of the work regime—remote, hybrid or face-to-face—on this relationship has been widely debated, given that the work context shapes employees’ perceptions, expectations and interactions.

According to Ramos and Tri Prasetyo (2020), remote work offers significant advantages, such as flexibility and autonomy, which can increase levels of job satisfaction. However, challenges, such as social isolation and limited communication, can weaken this relationship, negatively affecting performance. Kurdy et al. (2023) reinforce that remote working can be beneficial for individual tasks that require concentration, but the absence of face-to-face interaction reduces efficiency in collaborative activities. Mustajab (2024) adds that although remote work improves autonomy and efficiency in specific tasks, it depends heavily on organizational support and technological adequacy, which are essential for maintaining high levels of satisfaction and performance.

The hybrid system is an alternative that combines the advantages of remote and face-to-face work. Vartiainen and Vanharanta (2024) argue that the hybrid model, by balancing flexibility with opportunities for social interaction, promotes higher levels of job satisfaction. This arrangement allows employees to customize their routines, adjusting the workplace to their preferences and needs, which, according to Toscano et al. (2024), improves both performance and motivation. Jamaludin and Kamal (2023) point out that hybrid work is especially effective for tasks that require creativity and collaboration while preserving the benefits of concentration provided by remote work.

On the other hand, face-to-face work remains essential in sectors that require direct supervision, equipment handling or constant interaction with customers. Buła et al. (2024) emphasize that the face-to-face environment facilitates the building of interpersonal relationships and strengthens team cohesion, which can improve communication and performance. However, the lack of flexibility is often pointed out as a disadvantage of this regime, especially compared to the benefits of remote and hybrid work. Even so, face-to-face work plays an irreplaceable role in sectors that depend on direct collaboration and quick decisions.

The work regime also acts as a moderator in the relationship between job satisfaction and perceived performance. Employees who work in a hybrid system tend to show a stronger relationship between satisfaction and performance, as they enjoy a balance between flexibility and face-to-face interaction. Santillan et al. (2023) point out that hybrid employees perceive their performance more positively, especially when they receive adequate organizational and technological support. On the other hand, remote employees depend more on their autonomy and the quality of digital tools to sustain this relationship, as Keppler and Leonardi (2023) point out.

Technology plays a cross-cutting role in all working arrangements and is crucial to promoting job satisfaction and performance. Effective digital tools facilitate communication and collaboration in distributed teams and help mitigate the challenges of isolation in remote working. Jamaludin and Kamal (2023) reinforce that using technologies adapted to workers’ needs is essential to ensure the hybrid regime maintains its benefits without compromising productivity.

In short, the relationship between job satisfaction and performance is strongly influenced by the work regime. Remote work stands out for its flexibility and autonomy but depends on organizational support to mitigate challenges, such as isolation. The hybrid regime effectively balances the advantages of remote and face-to-face work, while face-to-face work remains relevant in specific sectors. Regardless of the regime, organizations that invest in effective technologies, adaptive leadership and inclusive policies manage to align employee expectations with organizational objectives, maximizing satisfaction and performance in the workplace.

According to Selvanayagam et al. (2025), hybrid work positively influences job satisfaction and performance. This is why we intend to study whether the relationship between job satisfaction and performance can be altered by the work regime in which the employee finds themselves, formulating the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4.

The work regime moderates the relationship between job satisfaction and perceived performance.

2.7. Mediating Effect

The hybrid work regime combines the advantages of the remote model with face-to-face work, offering greater flexibility and opportunities for social interaction. According to Santillan et al. (2023), 84.4% of hybrid workers reported higher satisfaction levels attributed to flexibility and the possibility of maintaining a healthier work–life balance. This format also allows for greater adaptation to employees’ individual preferences, contributing to increased workplace motivation and well-being.

Pushpakumari (2008) argues that there is a direct link between job satisfaction and employee performance. Satisfied workers tend to show greater commitment and loyalty to the organization, which translates into a significant improvement in their duties’ performance and the results achieved. On the other hand, low levels of job satisfaction can lead to increased absenteeism and turnover, damaging the organization’s effectiveness and productivity.

In turn, Inayat and Khan (2021) point out that job satisfaction reduces employees’ turnover intentions and boosts their intrinsic motivation, an essential factor in ensuring consistent, high-quality performance. It has been concluded that working arrangements significantly affect job satisfaction (Santillan et al., 2023) and that job satisfaction significantly affects perceived performance (Inayat & Khan, 2021). Since different work arrangements significantly influence employees’ job satisfaction levels, they may feel fulfilled and improve their performance (Rachman, 2021). This reasoning leads us to deduce that job satisfaction is the mechanism that explains the relationship between work regime and perceived performance.

We therefore formulate the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5.

Job satisfaction has a mediating effect on the relationship between work regime and perceived performance.

The model shown in Figure 1 summarizes the hypotheses formulated in this study.

3. Methods

3.1. Design and Research Flowchart

The present research is quantitative, correlational and cross-sectional. Figure 2 summarizes the flowchart of our research methodology.

3.2. Data Collection Procedure

The sample for this study consists of 332 employees from organizations located in Portugal, selected by non-probabilistic convenience sampling combined with the snowball technique (Trochim, 2000). This is an exploratory, cross-sectional study, with data collected at a single time point.

Data were collected using an online questionnaire on the Google Forms platform, the link to which was shared via LinkedIn, WhatsApp, Facebook and Instagram. Before answering, the participants were given access to the Informed Consent Form, which guaranteed the confidentiality and anonymity of the answers.

The questionnaire included sociodemographic questions and two validated scales: the Job Satisfaction Scale and the Perceived Performance Scale. Data collection took place between January and February 2025, making it possible to analyze the relationships between work regime, job satisfaction and performance in the context of organizations in Portugal.

3.3. Participants

This study’s sample consisted of 332 participants who collaborated voluntarily and were aged between 18 and 62, with an average of 33.01 years and a standard deviation of 9.037 (

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the sample.

		Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Female	209	63.0%
	Male	123	37.0%
Educational qualifications	12th-grade education or less	91	27.4%
	Bachelor’s degree	146	44.0%
	Master’s degree or higher	95	28.6%
Marital Status	Single	195	58.7%
	Married/Facto Union	120	36.1%
	Divorced/Separated	13	3.9%
	Widowed	4	1.2%
Seniority	Less than 1 year	59	17.8%
	Between 1 and 3 years	130	39.2%
	Between 4 and 6 years	62	18.7%
	Between 7 and 10 years	28	8.4%
	Between 10 and 15 years	20	6.0%
	More than 15 years	33	9.9%
Type of Contract	Uncertain term	44	13.3%
	Fixed-term	70	21.1%
	Open-ended	198	59.6%
	Other	20	6.0%
Sector of Activity	Public	46	13.9%
	Private	277	83.4%
	Public/Private	9	2.7%
Work Regime	Face-to-face	214	64.5%
	Hybrid	97	29.2%
	Remote	21	6.3%
Days in Hybrid Regime	1 day	12	12.4%
	2 days	34	35.1%
	3 days	24	24.7%
	4 days	4	4.1%
	Variable	23	23.7%

). As for gender, 63% of the participants were female (n = 209) and 37% male (n = 123) (Table 1). Regarding educational qualifications, 27.4% of the sample had a 12th-grade education or less (n = 91), 44% had a bachelor’s degree (n = 146), and 28.6% had a master’s degree or higher (n = 95) (Table 1). Concerning marital status, 58.7% were single (n = 195), 36.1% were married or in a de facto union (n = 120), 3.9% were divorced/de facto separated (n = 13), and 1.2% were widowed (n = 4) (Table 1). Regarding seniority in the job, most of the samples (39.2%, n = 130) had between 1 and 3 years of experience. 17.8% had less than 1 year (n = 59), 18.7% had between 4 and 6 years (n = 62), 8.4% had between 7 and 10 years (n = 28), 6% had between 10 and 15 years (n = 20), and 9.9% had more than 15 years (n = 33) (Table 1). About the type of contract, 59.6% had an open-ended contract (n = 198), 21.1% had a fixed-term contract (n = 70), 13.3% had an uncertain term contract (n = 44), and 6% indicated another type of contract (n = 20) (Table 1). Regarding the activity sector, 83.4% worked in the private sector (n = 277), 13.9% in the public sector (n = 46) and 2.7% in both sectors (public/private, n = 9) (Table 1). As far as work regime is concerned, most participants (64.5%, n = 214) worked on-site, 29.2% in a hybrid arrangement (n = 97) and 6.3% remotely (n = 21) (Table 1). Among the participants who worked on a hybrid basis, the distribution of the number of days is shown in Table 1.

Table 2. Distribution of the sample according to work regime.

		Face-to Face	Hybrid	Remote
Gender	Female	130 (62.2%)	67 (32.1%)	12 (5.7%)
	Male	84 (68.3%)	30 (24.4%)	9 (7.3%)
Educational qualifications	12th-grade education or less	76 (83.5%)	12 (13.2%)	3 (3.3%)
	Bachelor’s degree	86 (58.9%)	50 (34.2%)	10 (6.8%)
	Master’s degree or higher	52 (54.7%)	35 (36.8%)	8 (8.4%)
Marital Status	Single	128 (65.6%)	55 (28.2%)	12 (6.2%)
	Married/Facto Union	74 (61.7%)	38 (31.7%)	8 (6.7%)
	Divorced/Separated	9 (69.2%)	3 (23.1%)	1 (7.7%)
	Widowed	3 (75%)	1 (25%)	0 (0%)
Seniority	Less than 1 year	35 (59.3%)	22 (37.3%)	2 (3.4%)
	Between 1 and 3 years	84 (64.6%)	36 (27.7%)	10 (7.7%)
	Between 4 and 6 years	35 (56.5%)	20 (32.3%)	7 (11.3%)
	Between 7 and 10 years	19 (67.9%)	8 (28.6%)	1 (3.6%)
	Between 10 and 15 years	17 (85%)	3 (15%)	0 (0%)
	More than 15 years	24 (72.7%)	8 (24.2%)	1 (3%)
Type of Contract	Uncertain term	34 (73.3%)	8 (18.2%)	2 (4.5%)
	Fixed-term	50 (71.4%)	17 (24.3%)	3 (4.3%)
	Open-ended	117 (59.1%)	65 (32.8%)	16 (8.1%)
	Other	13 (65%)	7 (35%)	0 (0%)
Sector of Activity	Public	36 (78.3%)	9 (19.6%)	1 (2.2%)
	Private	170 (61.4%)	88 (31.8%)	19 (6.9%)
	Public/Private	8 (88.9%)	0 (0%)	1 (11.1%)

shows the distribution of some sociodemographic variables according to the work regime (face-to-face, hybrid, remote). Concerning hybrid work, the participants with the highest percentages were female, with a degree, married or in a civil partnership, with less than a year’s seniority, with an open-ended employment contract and those working in the private sector.

3.4. Data Analysis Procedure

After collecting the data, it was imported into SPSS Statistics 30 software for further analysis. The first step was to assess the metric properties of the instruments used in this study. Confirmatory factor analyses were carried out using AMOS Graphics 30 software to check the validity of the instruments. Confirmatory factor analyses were carried out using AMOS Graphics 30 software to check the validity of the instruments. The procedure was according to a “model generation” logic (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993), considering in the analysis of their adjustment, interactively the results obtained: for the chi-square (χ²) ≤ 5; for the Tucker Lew-is index (NFI) > 0.90; for the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) > 0.90; for the comparative fit index (CFI) > 0.90; for root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) ≤ 0.08 (McCallum et al., 1996); and for the root mean square residual (RMSR), a smaller value corresponds to a better adjustment (Hu & Bentler, 1999). We then tested the construct reliability for each scale’s dimensions, whose value should be higher than 0.70. Convergent validity was tested by calculating the average variance extracted (AVE), which should be greater than 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Reliability was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, which varies between 0 and 1, excluding negative values (Hu & Bentler, 1999). A value higher than 0.70 is considered the minimum acceptable in organizational studies (Bryman & Cramer, 2003). As for the sensitivity study, various measures of central tendency, dispersion and distribution were calculated for the different items of the scales used. This approach enabled normality to be analyzed for all the items and scales in question. After completing these steps, the results were interpreted, thus contributing to a more in-depth understanding of the data collected.

The items showed responses distributed throughout the scale, preventing responses from being extremely close to the limits. In addition, the absolute values of asymmetry and kurtosis should be less than 3 and 7, respectively, as recommended by Finney and DiStefano (2013).

We then analyzed the descriptive statistics of the sample and the variables under study. The descriptive statistics of the variables under study were tested using one-sample Student’s t-tests. Since one of the variables was not quantitative, Spearman’s correlations were used to determine the association between the variables under study.

Hypothesis 1 was tested using a simple linear regression. Hypotheses 2 and 3 were tested using the one-way ANOVA parametric test after checking the respective assumptions. Hypothesis 4 was tested using a two-step multiple linear regression. Hypotheses 4 and 5, since they have moderating and mediating effects, were tested using Macro Process 4.2, developed by Hayes (2022). For hypothesis 4, which assumes a moderating effect, we used Model 1, and for hypothesis 5 (mediating effect), we used Model 4. A significant level of 0.05 was considered.

3.5. Instruments

The questionnaire consisted of several sociodemographic questions and two instruments. One of the various sociodemographic questions we asked was about work regimes (remote, hybrid, face-to-face) since this question was used as a moderating variable.

Job satisfaction was measured using the questionnaire developed by Brayfield and Rothe (1951) and translated and adapted to the Portuguese population by Sinval and Marôco (2020). This instrument consists of 5 items, classified on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 “Strongly Disagree” to 5 “Strongly Agree”). A one-factor confirmatory factor analysis was carried out to test the validity of this instrument. The fit indices obtained are adequate (χ²/gl = 1.31; GFI = 0.99; CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.031; SRMR = 0.013). All items have factor weights greater than 0.60, which is considered good (Hair et al., 2017). The construct reliability was 0.87. Convergent validity has an AVE value of 0.58, above the reference value for good convergent validity, according to Fornell and Larcker (1981). As for internal consistency, this instrument has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87, above 0.70, the minimum value considered acceptable in organizational studies (Bryman & Cramer, 2003).

We used the task performance dimension of the instrument developed by Williams and Anderson (1991), which comprises seven items to measure performance. The items are classified on a five-point Likert-type scale (from 1 “Strongly Disagree” to 5 “Strongly Agree”). A one-factor confirmatory factor analysis was carried out to test the validity of this instrument. The adjustment indices obtained were adequate (χ²/gl = 2.23; GFI = 0.99; CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.061; SRMR = 0.003). Items 6 and 7 had to be removed due to their low factor weight. The construct reliability was 0.86. Convergent validity has an AVE value of 0.56, above the reference value for good convergent validity, according to Fornell and Larcker (1981). As for internal consistency, this instrument has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.85, above 0.70, the minimum value considered acceptable in organizational studies (Bryman & Cramer, 2003).

As for the sensitivity of the items, only items 3 and 4 of the perceived performance scale do not have responses at all points. None of the items has a median close to one of the extremes, and their absolute asymmetry and kurtosis values are below 2 and 7, respectively, which indicates that they do not grossly violate normality (Finney & DiStefano, 2013).

4. Results

Two models were tested, one and two factors. The one-factor model’s fit indices were inadequate (χ²/gl = 21.51; GFI = 0.61; CFI = 0.56; TLI = 0.44; RMSEA = 0.249; RMSR = 0.082). The fit indices of the two-factor model were all adequate (χ²/gl = 2.72; GFI = 0.95; CFI = 0.96; TLI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.072; RMSR = 0.043). These results indicate that theoretical conceptualization, which determined two variables, adequately represents the observed data. The correlations are consistent with the pattern of relationships theorized.

4.1. Descriptive Statistics of the Variables Under Study

The descriptive statistics of the variables under study were tested using one-sample Student’s t-tests.

The answers given by the participants in this study were significantly above the central point (3) for both job satisfaction and perceived performance, which indicates that they have a high perception of job satisfaction and performance (

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the variables under study.

Variable	t	df	p	d	Mean	SD
Job satisfaction	13.42 ***	331	<0.001	0.74	3.59	0.04
Perceived Performance	46.78 ***	331	<0.001	2.57	4.23	0.03

Note. *** p < 0.001.

).

4.2. Association Between the Variables Under Study

The association between the variables under study was tested using Spearman’s correlations.

The results showed that all the variables were positively and significantly associated. Participants working on-site were the least satisfied and had the lowest perception of performance. In turn, the more satisfied the participants were, the higher their perceived performance (

Table 4. Association between the variables under study.

	1	2	3
Work Regime	-
2. Job Satisfaction	0.19 ***	-
3. Perceived Performance	0.18 ***	0.28 ***	-

Note. *** p < 0.001; Legend: Working regime—(1) face-to-face; (2) hybrid; (3) remote.

).

4.3. Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1 was tested using a simple linear regression.

The results showed that job satisfaction had a positive and significant effect on perceived performance (β = 0.29, p < 0.001), i.e., the higher the levels of job satisfaction, the higher the perception of performance, which indicates that we are dealing with a low coefficient of determination (

Table 5. Simple linear regression results (H1).

Independent Variable	Dependent Variable	F	p	R2	β	p
Job Satisfaction	Perceived Performance	29.93 ***	<0.001	0.08	0.29 ***	<0.001

Note. *** p < 0.001.

).

The model explained 8% of the variability in perceived performance (Table 5). The model was statistically significant (F (1, 330) = 29.93, p < 0.001) (Table 5). The results confirmed this hypothesis.

To test hypothesis 2, a one-way ANOVA test was carried out after checking the respective assumptions. An analysis of the results showed that there was a main effect of work regime on job satisfaction (F (2, 329) = 7.40; η2p = 0.14; p = < 0.005) (

Table 6. Effect of work regime on job satisfaction (H2).

Variável	ANOVA One Way		Work Regime. A	Work Regime. B	TuKey HSD
	F	p			Dif. In Means (A–B)	p
Job Satisfaction	7.40 ***	<0.001	Face-to-face	Hybrid	−0.30 **	0.005
				Remote	−0.48 *	0.019

Note. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

). Participants who worked on-site (M = 3.47; SD = 0.84) had significantly lower levels of job satisfaction than participants who worked hybrid (M = 3.78; SD = 0.71) or remote (M = 3.95; SD = 0.42). The results confirmed this hypothesis (Table 6).

In addition to this hypothesis, we tried to find out whether, for participants in hybrid work, the number of days they work remotely significantly affects their perception of job satisfaction.

The results showed statistically significant differences in perceived performance levels depending on the number of days spent working remotely (F (4, 92) = 2.60; η2p = 0.10; p = 0.041). Among the participants in the hybrid work regime, levels of job satisfaction differed significantly between those who work remotely one day a week (M = 3.20; SD = 1.08) and those who work a variable number of days a week (M = 3.95; SD = 0.51) (Figure 3). However, we should point out that, about participants who worked four days a week remotely, the levels of job satisfaction were very similar to those whose number of days of remote work varied, suggesting that the greater frequency of days away from the face-to-face environment may be associated with a greater balance between personal and professional life and, consequently, a perception of greater job satisfaction.

On the other hand, the data suggest that participants who worked two or three days a week remotely also benefited from this type of work, showing higher satisfaction levels than those who work mostly face-to-face, although slightly lower than the groups mentioned above (Figure 3).

To test hypothesis 3, a one-way ANOVA test was carried out to assess the effect of the work regime on perceived performance.

The results showed a significant effect of the work regime on perceived performance (F (2, 329) = 6.80; η2p = 0.13; p = < 0.001) (

Table 7. Effect of work regime on perceived performance.

Variable	ANOVA One Way		Work Regime. A	Work Regime. B	TuKey HSD
	F	p			Dif. In Means (A–B)	p
Perceived Performance	6.80 **	0.001	Face-to-face	Hybrid	−0.22 **	<0.001
				Remote	−0.12	0.562

Note. ** p < 0.01.

). Face-to-face participants (M = 4.22; SD = 0.48) showed significantly lower levels of perceived performance than hybrid workers (M = 4.44; SD = 0.51), with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) (Table 7). However, face-to-face and remote workers had no statistically significant differences (M = 4.33; SD = 0.52), with p = 0.562 (Table 7).

Thus, the results indicate that hybrid workers report a higher perception of performance than those who work exclusively face-to-face. The results support this hypothesis.

In addition to this hypothesis, we tried to find out whether, for participants in hybrid work arrangements, the number of days they work remotely significantly affects their perceived performance.

The results showed no statistically significant differences in perceived performance levels depending on the number of days spent working remotely (F (4, 92) = 1.99, η2p = 0.03; p = 0.102) (Figure 3). However, it should be noted that, although the differences were not statistically significant, the participants who reported higher levels of perceived performance were those who worked remotely three days a week (Figure 4).

Conversely, employees who worked remotely only one day a week had the lowest performance levels perceived.

These results suggest that a balance between remote work and face-to-face work, namely the distribution of three remote days, could lead to a greater perception of effectiveness and productivity, probably due to the combination of flexibility and face-to-face interaction. Even so, it should be noted that participants whose number of days working remotely varied also had high perceived performance levels, like those who worked remotely three days a week (Figure 4).

To test hypothesis 4, as it is a moderating effect, Macro Process 4.2 (Model 1), developed by Hayes (2022), was used.

The moderating effect of work regime on the relationship between job satisfaction and perceived performance was not proven (B = 0.04, p = 0.514) (

Table 8. Results of the moderate effect.

Variable	B	SE	t	p	95% IC
	Job Satisfaction → Perceived Performance (R2 = 0.10; p < 0.001)
Constant	4.29 ***	0.03	157.46 ***	<0.001	[4.23; 4.34]
Job Satisfaction	0.17 ***	0.04	4.95 ***	<0.001	[0.11; 0.24]
Work Regime	0.08	0.05	1.68	0.093	[−0.01; 0.17]
JS*WR	0.04	0.07	0.65	0.514	[−0.09; 0.18]

Note. *** p < 0.001.

).

Hypothesis 4 was not supported. Possible explanations for this null effect will be discussed in the discussion section.

To test this hypothesis, as it is a mediating effect, Macro Process 4.2 (Model 4), developed by Hayes (2022), was used. As seen in

Table 9. Indirect effects.

	Indirect Effects
	Estimates	95% Confidence Interval with Bootstrap Correction
Model
Total	0.13 (0.04)	[0.4; 0.21]
WR → JS→ PP	0.04 (0.01)	0.02; 0.07]

Note. Work Regime → Job Satisfaction = 0.09 (0.04). The standard error is in brackets; WR = Work regime; JS = Job satisfaction; PP = Perceived performance.

, to test hypothesis 5, there was a significant total indirect effect since the confidence interval did not contain zero. The indirect effect of job satisfaction mediated the relationship between work regime and performance, which proved significant as the confidence interval did not contain zero. When the mediating variable was introduced into the regression equation, the direct effect of the work regime on performance continued to be significant. However, it decreased in intensity, which leads us to state that we are dealing with a partial mediation effect and that this hypothesis was confirmed, although this effect was weak, as the decrease in intensity was only 0.06 (Figure 5).

5. Discussion

The objectives of this study were to study the effect of job satisfaction on performance and whether this relationship is moderated by work regime (face-to-face, hybrid and remote) and to study the effect of work regime on performance and whether this relationship is mediated by job satisfaction.

As expected, hypothesis 1 was confirmed: job satisfaction has a positive and significant effect on perceived performance. This indicates that the higher the levels of job satisfaction, the higher the levels of performance perceived. These results align with the literature, which shows that more satisfied employees tend to demonstrate greater organizational commitment, which results in increased performance and productivity (Pushpakumari, 2008). The results are also consistent with those obtained in the study by Katebi et al. (2022). According to these authors, job satisfaction is positively associated with performance, and human resource managers should, therefore, develop practices that enhance employee job satisfaction to improve their performance.

Hypothesis 2 confirmed that the work regime significantly affects job satisfaction, demonstrating that how workers perform their duties directly influences their perception of well-being in the professional context. The results show that remote workers have the highest levels of job satisfaction, followed by hybrid workers, while face-to-face workers have the lowest levels. These findings align with the literature, which shows a positive relationship between job flexibility and satisfaction. Studies such as those by Bellmann and Hübler (2020) show that the flexibility provided by remote working allows for a better work–life balance, which translates into higher satisfaction levels.

Regarding Hypothesis 3, it was confirmed that working arrangements significantly affect perceived performance, indicating that the way in which employees carry out their duties directly influences their perception of performance. The results show that hybrid employees have the highest perceived performance levels, followed by remote workers, while face-to-face employees have lower values. These findings are in line with the literature, which suggests that flexible working arrangements can boost performance by providing greater autonomy and better time management (Santillan et al., 2023). However, according to Tapasco-Alzate et al. (2024), although teleworking significantly impacts productivity, these effects vary according to intensity, the nature of the tasks performed, and individual, social, and situational factors.

Concerning hypothesis 4, the moderating effect of the work regime on the relationship between job satisfaction and perceived performance was not confirmed. Although job satisfaction has shown a positive and significant impact on performance, the work regime (face-to-face, hybrid or remote) has not been shown to intensify or weaken this relationship, contrary to what would be expected in the light of some previous studies.

The literature has shown that more flexible working arrangements, such as hybrid and remote working, can provide a more favorable environment for employee well-being, promoting a balance between personal and professional life, which, theoretically, could be reflected in an enhancing effect on this relationship (Bellmann & Hübler, 2020; Santillan et al., 2023). Several authors argue that the flexibility and autonomy provided by these working models contribute to higher satisfaction levels, which translates into better performance (Pushpakumari, 2008; Inayat & Khan, 2021).

However, in this study, the work regime did not emerge as a differentiating element in this dynamic. A possible explanation for this result may lie in contextual variables not included in the model, such as the type of tasks performed, leadership support or organizational culture, aspects which, according to Liu et al. (2018) and Bowling et al. (2021), play a decisive role in employee well-being and performance. In addition, Basalamah (2021) points out that although the work regime influences the employee experience, factors, such as recognition and opportunities for professional development, are crucial to maximizing the perception of performance.

Thus, despite the evidence that the work regime influences employee satisfaction and overall experience (Ahmad et al., 2010), there was no moderating role in the relationship between job satisfaction and perceived performance, highlighting the need to explore other variables that may have this effect in future research. In this study, the fact that no moderating effect was found may also be related to the minimal number of participants working remotely, only 21 participants.

Finally, Hypothesis 5 confirmed that job satisfaction mediates the relationship between work regime and perceived performance, although with a weak indirect effect. In other words, the results indicate that the type of work system adopted by organizations indirectly influences employee performance through its impact on job satisfaction. As Pushpakumari (2008) argues, satisfied employees show greater commitment and effectiveness in carrying out their tasks, resulting in higher performance.

This mediating effect of job satisfaction is consistent with the results obtained by Liu et al. (2018), which show that organizational support and the creation of favorable working conditions contribute to increasing workers’ satisfaction and boosting their performance. This study found that more flexible working arrangements, such as hybrid or remote working, promote higher levels of satisfaction, which in turn translates into a positive impact on perceived performance, as also suggested by Bellmann and Hübler (2020).

In addition, Santillan et al. (2023) point out that the autonomy provided by more flexible working arrangements allows employees to manage their time more effectively and to balance their personal and professional lives more effectively. This autonomy and capacity for self-management contributes to higher levels of well-being, translating into greater job satisfaction and more consistent and effective performance, which reinforces the conclusions of this study.

5.1. Limitations

The first limitation of this study is related to the data collection procedure, which was non-probabilistic, intentional, and snowball-type. In this regard, we should also mention the small number of participants who are working remotely (21 participants) as a limitation, which may have contributed to skewing the results.

The second limitation is that this is a cross-sectional study, which does not allow us to test causal relationships, which does not allow us to generalize the results.

The third limitation is related to the use of self-report questionnaires. To reduce the impact of common method variance, the methodological recommendations proposed by Podsakoff et al. (2003) were followed.

5.2. Theoretical Implications

This study advances scientific knowledge in Human Resources Management, particularly in understanding the relationship between job satisfaction, perceived performance and different working arrangements. From a theoretical point of view, this research validates and extends existing models that explain the relationship between job satisfaction and employee performance by considering the specific role that the work regime (face-to-face, hybrid or remote) plays in this dynamic (Nguyen, 2020; Bowling et al., 2021).

In addition, the fact that a mediating relationship has been identified between job satisfaction and work regime and perceived performance confirms the importance of this variable for the literature on motivation and productivity in the current organizational context. As Ahmad et al. (2010) argued, more satisfied employees show greater involvement and commitment to the organization, which results in better performance levels. Thus, this study contributes to filling a gap identified in the literature, namely the scarcity of empirical studies that simultaneously explore the mediating and moderating effect of the work regime in different work contexts, such as Portuguese organizations (Carnevale & Hatak, 2020; Wang et al., 2021).

In addition, the conclusions drawn provide new theoretical perspectives on the differences in perceived performance and satisfaction between working arrangements, highlighting the differentiating role of hybrid work. The evidence that the hybrid regime provides, on average, higher levels of performance and job satisfaction than the face-to-face regime reinforces the need to include this model as a variable of analysis in future studies on organizational well-being and performance (Choudhury et al., 2021; Bloom et al., 2015).

5.3. Practical Implications

As far as practical implications are concerned, the results of this study provide important clues for organizations that want to develop more effective work policies tailored to their employees’ needs. The evidence indicates that implementing hybrid or remote working arrangements can promote higher levels of job satisfaction and perceived performance if the necessary conditions are ensured, particularly regarding autonomy, available technological resources and work–life balance. This study also suggests that hybrid working models should be managed strategically, considering the number of remote working days as a relevant factor in optimizing employee satisfaction and performance. For example, it was found that workers who enjoy greater flexibility in the number of days they work remotely tend to have more positive perceptions regarding job satisfaction, which could have direct implications for productivity and commitment to the organization.

Thus, human resources professionals and decision-makers can use the data obtained to support people management strategies, promote more flexible working arrangements, and foster a more positive and productive organizational climate. Policies that encourage a balance between face-to-face and remote work, combined with investment in technology and training, could be decisive in guaranteeing not only the well-being of employees but also the competitiveness and sustainability of organizations in the long term. In professions where employees can only work in a face-to-face setting, human resource managers should focus on developing practices that enhance job satisfaction, as this is the only way to improve employee performance (Katebi et al., 2022).

In short, this research not only deepens existing theoretical knowledge but also offers concrete, practical guidelines that companies interested in improving their working models and boosting the performance of their human resources can apply.

6. Conclusions

The main aim of this study was to analyze the impact of the work regime on job satisfaction and the perceived performance of employees. Based on the data collected, it was possible to verify that job satisfaction positively and significantly affects perceived performance. In other words, the more satisfied employees feel with their work, the greater their perception of their performance. This result is in line with what is mentioned in the literature, in which different authors emphasize the importance of fostering job satisfaction to boost higher levels of employee performance.

In addition, it was possible to conclude that the work regime significantly affects both job satisfaction and perceived performance. The results show that employees working in a hybrid system tend to feel more satisfied and perceive better performance than those working exclusively face-to-face. Remote work also positively impacts job satisfaction, showing that employees value the flexibility and autonomy that this type of working arrangement provides.

Another important aspect to highlight is the mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between working arrangements and perceived performance. In other words, the type of work regime influences employee performance, but it does so largely through its impact on job satisfaction. This conclusion underlines the importance of organizations investing in practices that promote employee satisfaction, namely by encouraging work–life balance and guaranteeing adequate working conditions, regardless of whether it is face-to-face, hybrid or remote.

On the other hand, the hypothesis that working arrangements moderate the relationship between job satisfaction and performance was not confirmed. This means that the positive relationship between these two variables remains consistent regardless of the regime in which employees work.

In summary, this study confirms the importance of job satisfaction as a key factor in employee performance while highlighting the growing importance of flexible working arrangements in creating more balanced and productive organizational environments. Organizations wishing to retain and motivate their employees should consider these findings when defining their people management policies.