SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Çalışma ve Toplum / 2026 / Cilt: 3 Sayı: 90

Organizational Engagement in the Hybrid Working Model: An Evaluation of Generational and Gender-Based Differences within the Framework of Role Theory

Hibrit Çalışma Modelinde Örgütsel Adanmışlık: Kuşaklar Arası ve Cinsiyet Temelli Farklılıkların Rol Kuramı Çerçevesinde Değerlendirilmesi

Çiğdem Gökçe(Türkiye İstatistikKurumu)0000-0002-6308-8551
Oya İnci Bolat(BALIKESİR ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3009-9094
Pages
1547–1590
Publication Date
2026-07-28
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings reveal that organizational engagement differs significantly across generational cohorts.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines how organizational engagement levels of individuals employed under the hybrid work model differ across generational and gender variables within the theoretical framework of Role Theory.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Data were collected from 400 employees working under hybrid work arrangements in Türkiye and analyzed using Two-Way Analysis of Variance, Tukey HSD post-hoc tests, and hierarchical regression analysis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal that organizational engagement differs significantly across generational cohorts.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Hibrit çalışma modeli · örgütsel adanmışlık · kuşaklar

Abstract

This study examines how organizational engagement levels of individuals employed under the hybrid work model differ across generational and gender variables within the theoretical framework of Role Theory. Data were collected from 400 employees working under hybrid work arrangements in Türkiye and analyzed using Two-Way Analysis of Variance, Tukey HSD post-hoc tests, and hierarchical regression analysis. The findings reveal that organizational engagement differs significantly across generational cohorts. Post-hoc comparisons indicate that all three generational pairs are significantly distinct from one another, with Generation Z exhibiting the highest engagement, Generation Y a moderate level, and Generation X the lowest. Gender does not produce a statistically significant main effect on its own; however, the interaction between generation and gender is found to be statistically significant. Hierarchical regression analysis demonstrates that the effect of gender on organizational engagement does not manifest as a straightforward between-group difference but rather as a conditional effect that emerges within the generational structure of the sample. Simple effects analyses reveal that gender differences reach statistical significance only within Generation Y, whereas in Generation Z the pattern reverses, with female employees exhibiting higher engagement than their male counterparts. Interpreted through Role Theory, these findings indicate that organizational engagement is shaped not by isolated demographic variables but by their intersectional configuration, underscoring the need for holistic and inclusive approaches to demographic diversity management in hybrid work contexts.

Özet

Bu araştırma, hibrit çalışma modelinde istihdam edilen bireylerin örgütsel adanmışlık düzeylerinin kuşak ve cinsiyet değişkenleri bağlamında nasıl farklılaştığını Rol Kuramı çerçevesinde incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Türkiye'de hibrit çalışma modeliyle çalışan 400 katılımcıdan elde edilen veriler; İki Yönlü Varyans Analizi, Tukey HSD post-hoc testi ve hiyerarşik regresyon analizi ile incelenmiştir. Bulgular, örgütsel adanmışlık düzeyinin kuşaklar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı biçimde farklılaştığını ortaya koymuştur. Post-hoc karşılaştırmalar, üç kuşak çiftinin de birbirinden anlamlı biçimde ayrıştığını göstermiş; Z Kuşağı en yüksek, Y Kuşağı orta düzey ve X Kuşağı en düşük adanmışlık ortalamasına sahip olmuştur. Cinsiyetin tek başına anlamlı bir ana etki oluşturmadığı belirlenmiş; ancak kuşak ve cinsiyet değişkenlerinin etkileşim etkisinin istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olduğu saptanmıştır. Ayrıva hiyerarşik regresyon analizi, cinsiyetin örgütsel adanmışlık üzerindeki etkisinin bağımsız bir grup farklılığı biçiminde değil, kuşak yapısıyla birlikte işleyen koşullu bir etki olarak ortaya çıktığını göstermiştir. Basit etkiler analizi, cinsiyet farkının yalnızca Y Kuşağında istatistiksel anlamlılığa ulaştığını; Z Kuşağında ise örüntünün tersine döndüğünü ve kadın çalışanların erkek çalışanlardan daha yüksek örgütsel adanmışlık sergilediğini ortaya koymuştur. Rol Kuramı çerçevesinde değerlendirilen bu bulgular, örgütsel adanmışlığın tekil demografik değişkenlerle değil, bu değişkenlerin kesişimsel yapısıyla şekillendiğini göstermekte; hibrit çalışma bağlamında demografik çeşitliliğin bütüncül ve kapsayıcı bir çerçeveden ele alınması gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Gökçe, Ç., Bolat, O. İ. (2026). Organizational Engagement in the Hybrid Working Model: An Evaluation of Generational and Gender-Based Differences within the Framework of Role Theory. Çalışma ve Toplum, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 90, 1547–1590. https://doi.org/10.54752/ct.1849661

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (146)

  1. Abdulwasiu, A. A. (2024). Managıng diversity, equity and inclusion through human resources management to enhance organizational profitability. Fuoye Journal of Management Sciences, 1(1), 1-20.
  2. Adamchik, V., & Sedlak, P. (2024). Gender and organizational commitment: Evidence from a nationwide survey in Poland. Central European Management Journal, 32(4), 515-533. https://doi.org/10.1108/CEMJ-05-2023-0201
  3. Al, B. (2025). Hybrid work and sustainable employment: A study on female employees in Türkiye. Romaya Journal, 5 (Special Issue), 177-200.
  4. Alarebi, A., Vetbuje, B., Alzubi, A. B., & Iyiola, K. (2025). Using family work balance to reduce unsafe behavior among new-generation construction workers from the Turkish context. Buildings, 16(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16010031
  5. Albrecht, S., Breidahl, E., & Marty, A. (2018). Organizational resources, organizational engagement climate, and employee engagement. Career Development International, 23(1), 67-85. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-04-2017-0064
  6. Anglin, A. H., Kincaid, P. A., Short, J. C., & Allen, D. G. (2022). Role theory perspectives: past, present, and future applications of role theories in management research. Journal of Management, 48(6), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221081442
  7. Aprilina, R., & Martdianty, F. (2023). The role of hybrid-working in ımproving employees’ satisfaction, perceived productivity, and organizations’ capabilities. Journal of Theory and Applied Management, 16(2), 206-222. https://doi.org/10.20473/jmtt.v16i2.45632
  8. Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: boundaries and micro role transitions. The Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 471-491. https://doi.org/10.2307/259305
  9. Asılkazancı, E., & Özbağ, G. K. (2025). Liman İşletmelerinde X ve Z Kuşağı Çalışanların Kurumsal Aidiyet Algılarının Kültürel Boyutlar Teorisi Temelinde Karşılaştırılması Pearson Journal, 8(33), 323-340. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.17058190
  10. Ayhün, S. E. (2013). Kuşaklar arasındaki farklılıklar ve örgütsel yansımaları. Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(1), 93-112.
  11. Bacarra, R., & Decenorio, N. (2022). The hybrid work model: benefits, challenges & strategies for companies. Res Militaris Social Science Journal, 12(6), 2426-2433.
  12. Baker, D. (2021). The future of work could covid be the catalyst for organizations to ımplement a hybrid workplace model? Master Thesis, KTH Royal Institute Technology, Stockholm.
  13. Banerjee, R., Bharati, T., Fakir, A. M. S., Qian, Y., & Sunder, N. (2024). Gender differences in preferences for flexible work hours: experimental evidence from an online freelancing platform. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics. 17434, 1-54. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics. https://docs.iza.org/dp17434.pdf
  14. Barrero, J. M., Bloom, W., & Davis, S. J. (2021). Why working from home will stick. Becker Fridman Institute, Working paper, 1-68.
  15. Beauregard, T. A., Basile, K. A., & Canonico, E. (2019). Telework: outcomes and facilitators for employees. R. N. Landers (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Technology and Employee Behavior içinde (ss. 511-543). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108649636.020
  16. Bennett, J., Pitt, M., & Price, S. (2012). Understanding the impact of generational issues in the workplace. Facilities, 30(7/8), 278-288. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632771211220086
  17. Beno, M. (2022). Differences between managing face-to-display workers and in-house workers (hybrid work model): A qualitative study from Austria. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 11(2), 30-40. https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2022-0033
  18. Bıyıklı, F. (2025). Kriz, esneklik ve yeni normal: pandemi sonrası türkiye’de aile-iş dengesi ve örgütsel uyum süreçleri. Diyanet İlmi Dergisi, 61(4), 1761-1792. https://doi.org/10.61304/did.1767642
  19. Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in Role Theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12(1), 67-92. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.000435
  20. Boell, S. K., Campbell, J., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., & Cheng, J. E. (2013). "Advantages, challenges and contradictions of the transformative nature of telework: a review of the literature", Proceedings of the 19. Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois, August 15-17.
  21. Bonin, H., Eichhorst, W., Kaczynska, J., Kümmerling, A., Rinne, U., Scholten, A., & Steffes, S. (2020). Verbreitung und Auswirkungen von mobiler Arbeit und Homeoffice (Research Report No. 99). IZA Institute of Labor Economics. https://www.iza.org/publications/r/216/verbreitung-und-auswirkungen-von-mobiler-arbeit-und-homeoffice
  22. Brewer, A. M. (2000). work design for flexible work scheduling: barriers and gender ımplications. Gender, Work & Organization, 7(1), 33-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0432.00091
  23. Carr, J. C., Marshall, D. R., Michaelis, T. L., Pollack, J. M., & Sheats, L. (2023). The role of work-to-venture role conflict on hybrid entrepreneurs’ transition into entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 61(5), 2302-2325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2022.2082455
  24. Catana, Ş.-A., Toma, S.-G., Imbrişcă, C., & Burcea, M. (2022). Teleworking ımpact on wellbeing and productivity: a cluster analysis of the romanian graduate employees. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(856196), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.856196
  25. Chung, H. (2024). Flexible working arrangements and gender equality in Europe. European Commission, (ss. 1-112). (Publications Office of the European Union). https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/42fd7201-e68c-11ee-8b2b-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
  26. Chung, H., Birkett, H., Forbes, S., & Seo, H. (2021). Covid-19, flexible working, and ımplications for gender equality in the United Kingdom. Gender & Society, 35(2), 218-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912432211001304
  27. Chung, H., & Van Der Lippe, T. (2020). Flexible working, work–life balance, and gender equality: ıntroduction. Social Indicators Research, 151(2), 365-381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-2025-x
  28. Cisco. (2025). Navigating Hybrid Work Strategies in the Evolving Workplaces. Cisco Global Hybrid Work Study 2025, (ss. 1-34). https://newsroom.cisco.com/c/dam/r/newsroom/pdfs/Cisco-Hybrid-Work-Study.pdf
  29. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Newyork: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  30. Costanza, D. P., Badger, J. M., Fraser, R. L., Severt, J. B., & Gade, P. A. (2012). Generational differences in work-related attitudes: a meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(4), 375-394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-012-9259-4
  31. Costanza, D. P., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2015). Generationally based differences in the workplace: ıs there a there there? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(3), 308-323. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.15
  32. Curzi, Y., Fabbri, T., & Pistoresi, B. (2020). The stressful implications of remote e-working: evidence from Europe. International Journal of Business and Management, 15(7), 108-119. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v15n7p108
  33. Czerwińska-Lubszczyk, A., & Jankowiak, N. (2025). Motivation in the workplace – a generational perspective. Management Systems in Production Engineering, 33(1), 100-114. https://doi.org/10.2478/mspe-2025-0011
  34. Çiftçi, D. Ö. (2022). The new way of working: hybrid work model. Ofluoğlu, G. (Ed.), Current Approaches in Management and Organization in the Process of Globalization içinde (ss. 131-146). Ankara: İksad Publishing House.
  35. Demirel, Z. H. (2021). Çalışma hayatında geleceğin insan kaynağı: alfa kuşağı. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 18(Yönetim ve Organizasyon Özel Sayısı), 1798-1827. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.895924
  36. Diaz, A. M., Salas, L. M., Piras, C., & Suaya, A. (2024). Gender disparities in valuing remote and hybrid work in Latin America [Working Paper]. Inter-American Development Bank Gender and Diversity Division. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/299417/1/1888967870.pdf
  37. Dutahatmaja, A. (2025). The influence of hybrid working model on employee engagement through work-life balance on millennial generation employees. Management Studies and Entrepreneurship Journal (MSEJ), 6(4), 5757-5768. https://doi.org/10.37385/msej.v6i4.7961
  38. Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233-256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.233
  39. Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.3
  40. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 735-754. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735
  41. Eisenberger, R., & Stinglhamber, F. (2011). Perceived organizational support: Fostering enthusiastic and productive employees. America: American Psychological Association, https://doi.org/10.1037/12318-000
  42. Eurofound. (2022). The rise in telework: Impact on working conditions and regulations. Eurofound Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2806/069206
  43. Eurofound. (2023). The Future of Telework and Hybrid Work (European foundation for the ımprovement of living and working conditions). Eurofound Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2806/234429
  44. Eurofound & ILO. (2017). Working anytime, anywhere: The effects on the world of work. Eurofound Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2806/372726
  45. Eurostat. (2020). EU labour force survey ad hoc module 2019 on work organisation and working time arrangements: Quality assessment report: 2020 edition. Eurostat Publications Office. https://doi.org/10.2785/71618
  46. Farndale, E., E. Beijer, S., J.P.M. Van Veldhoven, M., Kelliher, C., & Hope-Hailey, V. (2014). Work and Organisation engagement: aligning research and practice. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 1(2), 157-176. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-03-2014-0015
  47. Fayard, A.-L., Weeks, J., & Khan, M. (2021). Designing the Hybrid Office. Harward Business Review, https://hbr.org/2021/03/designing-the-hybrid-office, Erişim Tarihi: 12.05.2026.
  48. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. England: Sage.
  49. Fleychuk, M., Moyseyenko, I., & Khudyakova, T. (2019). The phenomenon of leadership in the modern world. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Social, Economic, and Academic Leadership (ICSEAL 2019), Prague, Czech Republic, March 23–24. https://doi.org/10.2991/icseal-19.2019.12
  50. Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524-1541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524
  51. Getzels, J. W., & Guba, E. G. (1954). Role, role conflict, and effectiveness: an empirical study. American Sociological Review, 19(2), 164-175. https://doi.org/10.2307/2088398
  52. Gökçe, Ç., & Bolat, O. İ. (2025). Örgütlerde hibrit çalışma modeli üzerine kavramsal bir değerlendirme. Balıkesir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 58-80.
  53. Gökçe, Ç., & Seymen, O. (2025). Çok kültürlü örgütlerde kültürel çeşitlilik yönetimi ve kolektif yeterlik ilişkisi: çok kültürlü takımlar bağlamında sosyal bilişsel kuramdan hareketle bir model önerisi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 26(1), 154-183. https://doi.org/10.24889/ifede.1567651
  54. Göksel, A., & Güneş, G. (2017). Kuşaklar arası farklılaşma: x ve y kuşaklarının örgütsel sessizlik davranışı bağlamında analizi. Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(3), 807-828.
  55. Grönlund, A., & Öun, I. (2022). A more equal deal? Employer-employee flexibility, gender and parents’ work-family tensions in Sweden. Work, 73(3), 843-856. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-210668
  56. Grzegorczyk, M., Mariniello, M., Nurski, L., & Schraepen, T. (2021). Blending the physical and virtual: a hybrid model for the future of work. Bruegel Policy Contribution, 14(21), 1-22.
  57. Guadagno, R. E., & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Gender differences in ımpression management in organizations: a qualitative review. Sex Roles, 56(7-8), 483-494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9187-3
  58. Guadagno, R. E., Muscanell, N. L., Rice, L. M., & Roberts, N. (2013). Social influence online: The impact of social validation and likability on compliance. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2(1), 51-60. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030592
  59. Gürbüz, S. (2015). Kuşak Farklılıkları: Mit mi, Gerçek mi? İş ve İnsan Dergisi, 2(1), 39-57. https://doi.org/10.18394/iid.80342
  60. Haggard, D. L., Dougherty, T. W., Turban, D. B., & Wilbanks, J. E. (2011). Who Is a mentor? a review of evolving definitions and ımplications for research. Journal of Management, 37(1), 280-304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310386227
  61. Halford, S. (2005). Hybrid workspace: Re-spatialisations of work, organisation and management. New Technology, Work and Employment, 20(1), 19-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2005.00141.x
  62. Harley, J. N. (2024). Fostering a culture of belonging within women working in a hybrid environment. Doctorate Thesis, Pepperdine University, Malibu.
  63. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268
  64. Hasgül, F., & Çağatay, A. (2026). Örgütsel sağlık politikası algısı ve işten ayrılma niyeti: cinsiyetin etkileşimsel rolü. İşletme Bilimi Dergisi, 14(1), 99-117. https://doi.org/10.22139/jobs.1699035
  65. Heilman, M. E., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Gender stereotypes are alive, well, and busy producing workplace discrimination. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(4), 393-398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00072.x
  66. Hernandez, J. G. (2025). A Comparative Analysis of Remote and Hybrid Work: The Experiences of Generation X and Generation Z in the Public Sector. Masters Degree, California State University, California.
  67. Hilbrecht, M., Shaw, S. M., Johnson, L. C., & Andrey, J. (2008). ‘I’m home for the kids’: contradictory ımplications for work–life balance of teleworking mothers. Gender, Work & Organization, 15(5), 454-476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00413.x
  68. Hoole, C., & Bonnema, J. (2015). Work engagement and meaningful work across generational cohorts. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v13i1.681
  69. Hüseyi̇nli̇, N., & Hüseyi̇nli̇, T. (2016). Çocuk bakımının kadın işgücü üzerinde etkileri ve hukuki düzenlemeler. Akdeniz Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(34), 108-108. https://doi.org/10.25294/auiibfd.308032
  70. ILO. (2021). Working from home From invisibility to decent work. International Labour Office. (ss. 1-276), https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/%40ed_protect/%40protrav/%40travail/documents/publication/wcms_765806.pdf
  71. Iqbal, K. M. J., Khalid, F., & Barykin, S. Y. (2021). Hybrid workplace: the future of work. B. A. Khan, M. H. S. Kuofie, & S. Suman (Eds.), Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design içinde (ss. 28-48). Hershey: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8327-2.ch003
  72. Islam, M. N., Furuoka, F., & Idris, A. (2022). Influence of gender diversity on employee work engagement in the context of organizational change: evidence from bangladeshi employees. International Journal of Asian Business and Information Management, 12(3), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJABIM.294099
  73. Jung, H.-S., & Yoon, H.-H. (2021). Generational effects of workplace flexibility on work engagement, satisfaction, and commitment in south korean deluxe hotels. Sustainability, 13(16), 9143. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169143
  74. Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Brown, R. G. (1998). Generational comparisons of public employee motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18(4), 18-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X9801800403
  75. Kaushik, M., & Guleria, N. (2020). The ımpact of pandemic COVID -19 in workplace. European Journal of Business and Management, 12(15), 9-18. https://doi.org/10.7176/EJBM/12-15-02
  76. Kayabaşı, C. (2025). Kuşaklararası iletişimde farklılıklar ve uyum stratejileri: derleme. International Journal of Social Sciences, 9(40), 27-42. https://doi.org/10.52096/usbd.9.40.03
  77. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287
  78. Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45(4), 321-349. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679204500402
  79. Khan, I. A., & John, C. (2025). Unveiling the Workforce Renaissance: How Hybrid Work Models, Employee Engagement, and Technology 4.0 Shape Employee Performance. Management Studies, 13(4), 186-201. https://doi.org/doi:%2010.17265/2328-2185/2025.04.005
  80. Khatun, N. (2021). Applications of normality test in statistical analysis. Open Journal of Statistics, 11(01), 113-122. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2021.111006
  81. Kim, H.-Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, 38(1), 52-54. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52
  82. Koksal, M. H. (2019). Differences among baby boomers, Generation X, millennials, and Generation Z wine consumers in Lebanon. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 31(3), 456-472. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWBR-09-2018-0047
  83. Kumar, A. S., & Das, J. B. (2022). The Impact of “Hybrid-Work Model” on Job Satisfaction. International Journal of Business Management & Research (IJBMR), 12(1), 71-82.
  84. Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multigeneration employees: strategies for effective management. The Health Care Manager, 19(1), 65-76. https://doi.org/10.1097/00126450-200019010-00011
  85. Lee, S. H., Chong, C. W., & Ojo, A. O. (2024). Influence of workplace flexibility on employee engagement among young generation. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2309705
  86. Lenka, R. (2021). Unique hybrid work model- the future of remote work. Palarch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt, 18(7), 2687-2697.
  87. Low, M. P., & Memon, M. A. (2023). The interrelations between micro-level CSR, job engagement and organizational engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic: A PLSpredict model assessment. Human Systems Management, 42(4), 369-390. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-220086
  88. Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future research: Generational Differences In The Workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(1), 139-157. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1913
  89. Makwana, D., Engineer, P., Dabhi, A., & Chudasama, H. (2023). Sampling methods in research: a review. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, 7(3), 762-768.
  90. Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. Paul Kecskemeti (Ed.), Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge içinde, (ss. 276-322). London: Routledge & K. Paul.
  91. Marcinkus Murphy, W. (2012). Reverse mentoring at work: Fostering cross‐generational learning and developing millennial leaders. Human Resource Management, 51(4), 549-573. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21489
  92. Marcus, J., Aksoy, E., Bolat, O. I., & Bolat, T. (2023). Null effects of age and gender on worker well-being, work-family conflict and performance while working remotely during the Covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 38(8), 671-686. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-03-2023-0158
  93. Martin, B. H., & MacDonnell, R. (2012). Is telework effective for organizations?: A meta‐analysis of empirical research on perceptions of telework and organizational outcomes. Management Research Review, 35(7), 602-616. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171211238820
  94. Mascarenhas, C., Galvão, A. R., & Marques, C. S. (2022). How perceived organizational support, ıdentification with organization and work engagement ınfluence job satisfaction: a gender-based perspective. Administrative Sciences, 12(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12020066
  95. Mellor, J. A. (2025). Gender, Generational Cohort, and Work Location as Predictors of Employee Engagement. Doctorate Thesis, Minneapolis, Capella University.
  96. Microsoft. (2021). Work Trend Index: 2021 Annual Report: The Next Great Disruption is Hybrid Work – Are We Ready? Erişim Tarihi: 12.05.2026. https://assets-c4akfrf5b4d3f4b7.z01.azurefd.net/assets/2023/09/f53eb991-1e21-4e5b-87de-cd70b9b660b4-WTIVisualGuide.pdf
  97. Moore, J. (2006). Homeworking and work-life balance: Does it add to quality of life? European Review of Applied Psychology, 56(1), 5-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2005.02.013
  98. Mullally, J. (2022). Are there generational differences in employee engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing blended working environment in the Irish Civil Service as assessed through communication and job satisfaction? Master Thesis, Dublin: National College of Ireland.
  99. Naderifar, M., Goli, H., & Ghaljaie, F. (2017). Snowball sampling: a purposeful method of sampling in qualitative research. Strides in Development of Medical Education, 14(3), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.5812/sdme.67670
  100. Nagori, R., & Lawton, N. R. (2024). The design of hybrid work for improved employee engagement and well-being: Perspectives for HRD practice. International Journal of Human Resource Development: Practice, Policy and Research, 8(2), 83-99. https://doi.org/10.2478/ijhrd-2024-0010
  101. Nikiforova, E. G., Safina, A. A., Vakhitova, R. I., & Ponamareva, D. R. (2025). The role of theory of generations in the organization’s personnel management system. Mantulenko, V. (Ed.) Proceedings of the 4th International Conference Engineering Innovations and Sustainable Development içinde, (ss. 458-465). Switzerland: Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-92520-7_62
  102. Novel, N. J. A., & Tresna, P. W. (2025). The Perspectives of generation z on the future work and workplace. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 14(2), 539-554.
  103. Oktar, Ö. F., & Doğan, B. (2021). Yeni kurumsal kuram bağlamında hibrit örgütlerde işe alım ve sosyalizasyon politikaları. Bucak İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(1), 7-29. https://doi.org/10.38057/bifd.851128
  104. Pagnozzi, F., Pescatore, I., Cartone, A., & Antonelli, G. (2026). Future work now: Organizational culture in hybrid work modes. Management Decision, 64(13), 506-534. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-01-2025-0164
  105. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method ımplementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533-544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
  106. Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117452
  107. Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work values: a review of theory and evidence: generational differences in work values. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 79-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00285.x
  108. Pichler, S., Kohli, C., & Granitz, N. (2021). DITTO for Gen Z: A framework for leveraging the uniqueness of the new generation. Business Horizons, 64(5), 599-610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2021.02.021
  109. Poma, E., & Pistoresi, B. (2024). Do women on boards break the glass ceiling or face the glass cliff? Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 24(8), 22-45. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-12-2022-0504
  110. Prawitasari, G. (2018). The influence of generations on career choice (social cognitive career theory perspective). Konselor, 7(1), 15-20. https://doi.org/10.24036/02018718464-0-00
  111. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
  112. Radonic, M., Valentina, V., & Milosavljevic, M. (2021). The impact of hybrid workplace models on intangible assets: the case of an emerging country. Amfiteatru Economic, 1(58), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2021/58/770
  113. Rohmawan Rohmawan, Suharto Suharto, & Mochamad Syafii. (2025). The hybrid work model and ıts ımpact on employee engagement: a literature review study on the millennial generation. Brilliant International Journal Of Management And Tourism, 5(2), 106-114. https://doi.org/10.55606/bijmt.v5i2.4454
  114. Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-619. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169
  115. Saks, A. M. (2019). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement revisited. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 6(1), 19-38. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-06-2018-0034
  116. Saks, A. M., Gruman, J. A., & Zhang, Q. (2021). Organization Engagement: A Review and Comparison to Job Engagement. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 9(1), 20-49. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-12-2020-0253
  117. Sanamthong, E., & Prabyai, S. (2023). A causal model of relationship between organizational climate ınfluencing happiness at work and organization engagement. Emerging Science Journal, 7(2), 558-568. https://doi.org/10.28991/ESJ-2023-07-02-018
  118. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Defining and measuring work engagement: bringing clarity to the concept. A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research içinde, (ss. 10-24), Newyork: Psychology Press (Taylor & Francis Group).
  119. Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2017). Generation Z: Educating and engaging the next generation of students. About Campus: Enriching the Student Learning Experience, 22(3), 21-26. https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.21293
  120. Shanker, A. (2022). Flexible work arrangements and its impact on Work-Life Balance. Management Insight, 18(2), 17-20. https://doi.org/10.21844/mijia.18.2.3
  121. Sharma, L. (2012). Generation Y at workplace. Human Resource Management, (5), 74-78.
  122. Siddika, B. A. (2023). Hybrid working, well-being and gender: a study on a public sectororganization during the covıd-19 pandemic. Asian Journal of Social Science Studies, 8(2), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.20849/ajsss.v8i2.1345
  123. Sluss, D. M., Van Dick, R., & Thompson, B. S. (2011). Role theory in organizations: A relational perspective. S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Building and developing the organization içinde, (ss. 505-534), Washington: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12169-016
  124. Sokolic, D. (2022). Remote Work and Hybrid Work Organizations. 78th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development, Aveiro, Portugal, February 24–25
  125. Söner, O. (2024). Kuşaklar arası anlayış: X, Y ve Z’nin kariyer değişimleri üzerine bir inceleme. Çekmece Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(25), 169-189. https://doi.org/10.55483/cekmece.1587041
  126. Sönmez, A. R., & Üngüren, E. (2026). Kuşak farklılıkları bağlamında iş tatmini ve işe adanmışlık ilişkisi: otel çalışanları üzerine ampirik bir araştırma. Alanya Akademik Bakış, 10(1), 196-216. https://doi.org/10.29023/alanyaakademik.1684747
  127. Srinivasan, V. (2012). Multi generations in the workforce: Building collaboration. IIMB Management Review, 24(1), 48-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2012.01.004
  128. Steude, D. H. (2017). Change and innovation leadership in an industrial digital environment. Management of Organizations: Systematic Research, 78(1), 95-107. https://doi.org/10.1515/mosr-2017-0018
  129. Steude, D. H. (2021). Challenges of remote leadership in a digitalized working world 4.0. Management of Organizations: Systematic Research, 85(1), 65-86. https://doi.org/10.1515/mosr-2021-0005
  130. Sureiman, O., & Mangera, C. M. (2020). Conceptual framework on conducting two-way analysis of variance. Journal of the Practice of Cardiovascular Sciences, 6(3), 207-215. https://doi.org/10.4103/jpcs.jpcs_75_20
  131. Taibah, D., & Ho, T. C. F. (2023). The moderating effect of flexible work option on structural empowerment and generation Z contextual performance. Behavioral Sciences, 13(3), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13030266
  132. Thomas, C. H., & Lankau, M. J. (2009). Preventing burnout: The effects of LMX and mentoring on socialization, role stress, and burnout. Human Resource Management, 48(3), 417-432. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20288
  133. Tian, G., Pu, L., & Ren, H. (2021). Gender differences in the effect of workplace loneliness on organizational citizenship behaviors mediated by work engagement. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 14, 1389-1398. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S329959
  134. Tran, L. (2022). the ımpact of hybrid work on productivity: understanding the future of work a case study in agile software development teams. Master Thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology: Stockholm. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1696127/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  135. Turner, R. H. (2001). Role Theory. Turner, J. H. (Ed.), Handbook of Sociological Theory içinde, (ss. 233-254). USA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-36274-6_12
  136. Ulufer Kansoy, S. (2025). İş-aile yaşam çatışması. M. C. Yaralı, S. Köse, H. Değirmenci Tarakcı, H. Süklün, S. Ulufer Kansoy, & B. Berberoğlugil (Eds.), Örgütsel Davranışın Karanlık Yüzü içinde. Ankara: Özgür Yayınları. https://doi.org/10.58830/ozgur.pub816.c3439
  137. Ünal, Z. M., & Turgut, T. (2015). The buzzword: employee engagement. does person-organization fit have contribution on employee engagement? Iranian Journal of Management Studies, 8(2), 157-179. Valikhani Dehaghani, M., Cholmaghani, G., & Goli, M. (2013). Factors causing the glass ceiling in public organizations. International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge, 1(5), 106-115. https://doi.org/10.12983/ijsrk-2013-p106-115
  138. Vidhyaa, B., & Ravichandran, M. (2022). A literature review on hybrid work model. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 3(7), 292-295.
  139. Wasilczuk, J. E., & Richert-Kaźmierska, A. (2020). What potential entrepreneurs from generation Y and Z Lack-IEO and the Role of EE. Education Sciences, 10(11), 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10110331
  140. Westerman, J. W., & Yamamura, J. H. (2007). Generational preferences for work environment fit: Effects on employee outcomes. Career Development International, 12(2), 150-161. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430710733631
  141. Wey Smola, K., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 363-382. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.147
  142. Wheatley, D. (2012). Good to be home? Time‐use and satisfaction levels among home‐based teleworkers. New Technology, Work and Employment, 27(3), 224-241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2012.00289.x
  143. Wontorczyk, A., & Rożnowski, B. (2022). Remote, hybrid, and on-site work during the sars-cov-2 pandemic and the consequences for stress and work engagement. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(4), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042400
  144. Xu, J., Cedeño Laurent, J. G., Chan, V., Khiewpun, D., Purcell, W. M., Spengler, J. D., & Tomasso, L. P. (2024). Individual differences in perceived changes and impacts on well-being of working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic. Building and Environment, 265, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111984
  145. Zhang, Y. (2024). Discrimination against women in the workplace. Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, 27, 135-140. https://doi.org/10.54097/bg2b5g02
  146. Eurostat. (2020). EU labour force survey ad hoc module 2019 on work organisation and working time arrangements: Quality assessment report: 2020 edition. Eurostat Publications Office. https://doi.org/10.2785/71618