Hybrid Work Models in Higher Education: Implications for Faculty Well-being and Productivity
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1956/jge.v22i3.889Keywords:
Work–Life Balance, Faculty Well-being, Higher Education, Faculty Productivity, Hybrid WorkAbstract
Hybrid work models have gained prominence in Indian higher education institutions as digital technologies enable flexible work arrangements. In the context of India’s vision for Viksit Bharat 2047, higher education institutions play a critical role in fostering human capital and institutional effectiveness. This study examines the impact of hybrid work models on faculty well-being, with a particular focus on work–life balance, and explores its implications for productivity in academic settings.
A quantitative research design was adopted using primary data collected from 55 faculty members in higher education institutions. A structured questionnaire based on a five-point Likert scale was used, and data were analysed using reliability analysis, descriptive statistics, correlation, and regression techniques. The findings reveal a significant positive relationship between hybrid work models and faculty work–life balance, indicating that flexibility and autonomy enhance the ability to manage professional and personal responsibilities.
Drawing on the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) framework, the study conceptualizes hybrid work as a job resource that supports faculty well-being. While productivity was not directly measured as a separate construct, the findings suggest that improved work–life balance may create favourable conditions for enhanced productivity. The study highlights the importance of institutional support and structured policies for the effective implementation of hybrid work models.
The study offers important implications for higher education institutions in designing flexible and sustainable work practices aligned with the goals of Viksit Bharat 2047.
References
Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(2), 40–68.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands–resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Hill, E. J., Erickson, J. J., Holmes, E. K., & Ferris, M. (2010). Workplace flexibility, work hours, and work–life conflict. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 349–358.
Kossek, E. E., & Lautsch, B. A. (2018). Work–life flexibility for whom? Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 5–36.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands–resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Global Economy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
