Pokaż uproszczony rekord

dc.contributor.authorKról, Małgorzata
dc.contributor.authorTrzęsiok, Joanna
dc.date.accessioned2026-06-25T10:25:19Z
dc.date.available2026-06-25T10:25:19Z
dc.date.issued2026-06-24
dc.identifier.issn1508-2008
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/58643
dc.description.abstractThe article examines the similarities and differences in how employees across four Central European countries evaluate the consequences of remote work. The primary objective is to cluster these consequences into closely interrelated advantages and disadvantages that form directly unobservable factors. The research was carried out using a diagnostic survey method that comprised 1,022 respondents from four countries: Czechia, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. The respondents evaluated the positive and negative outcomes of remote work. To achieve the research objective, principal component analysis was used. Six factors common to all the studied countries were identified. Two of these factors are positive, and four are negative, with respondents placing greater weight on the advantages than the disadvantages. Factors such as cost savings and the positive impact on work life, non-work life, and health were indicated as primary advantages. However, perceptions of some advantages varied across the four countries. The issue of exclusion was the most frequently cited disadvantage. The research provides reliable information concerning the comparative assessments of the consequences of remote work. Its significance lies in demonstrating that a broad spectrum of individual outcomes can be distilled into six underlying factors. They contribute to the existing literature on remote work and offer practical insights for both management and remote workers.en
dc.description.abstractCelem poznawczym artykułu jest identyfikacja podobieństw i różnic w ocenie konsekwencji pracy zdalnej z perspektywy pracobiorców w czterech krajach Europy Środkowej, a celem metodycznym – podział konsekwencji pracy zdalnej na takie grupy zalet i wad, które w ocenie respondentów są ze sobą ściśle powiązane i tworzą nieobserwowalne bezpośrednio czynniki. Badanie zrealizowano metodą sondażu diagnostycznego, którym objęto respondentów z czterech państw: Czech, Polski, Słowacji i Słowenii. Próba badawcza liczyła 1022 osoby, które zapytano o pozytywne i negatywne skutki pracy zdalnej. Do zrealizowania postawionych celów zastosowano analizę głównych składowych. Wśród konsekwencji pracy zdalnej wyodrębniono sześć czynników wspólnych dla wszystkich badanych krajów. Dwa z nich mają charakter pozytywny, a cztery negatywny, przy czym dla respondentów ważniejsze były zalety niż wady. Najczęściej wskazywane były oszczędności z tytułu pracy zdalnej oraz pozytywny wpływ na życie zawodowe, pozazawodowe i zdrowie. Jednak część zalet pracy zdalnej była odmiennie rozumiana przez respondentów z różnych krajów. Wśród wad najczęściej wskazywany był problem wyłączenia z organizacji. Badanie dostarczyło wiarygodnych informacji na temat podobieństw i różnic w ocenie konsekwencji pracy zdalnej przez pracowników z czterech krajów. Jego wartość polega też na wskazaniu możliwości zastąpienia licznej puli konsekwencji pracy zdalnej sześcioma czynnikami ukrytymi. Uzyskane wyniki wnoszą wkład do literatury na temat pracy zdalnej. Mogą być wartościowe zarówno dla kadry kierowniczej, jak i pracowników zdalnych.pl
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl
dc.relation.ispartofseriesComparative Economic Research. Central and Eastern Europe;2en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
dc.subjectremote worken
dc.subjecthybrid worken
dc.subjectCentral Europeen
dc.subjectpraca zdalnapl
dc.subjectpraca hybrydowapl
dc.subjectpozytywne i negatywne konsekwencje pracy zdalnejpl
dc.subjectEuropa Centralnapl
dc.subjectanaliza głównych składowychpl
dc.titleThe Consequences of Remote Work – a Comparison of Four Central European Countriesen
dc.title.alternativeAnaliza konsekwencji pracy zdalnej – porównanie czterech krajów Europy Środkowejpl
dc.typeArticle
dc.page.number87-103
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationKról, Małgorzata - University of Economics in Katowice, Katowice, Polanden
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationTrzęsiok, Joanna - University of Economics in Katowice, Katowiceen
dc.identifier.eissn2082-6737
dc.referencesAtobishi, T., Nosratabadi, S. (2023), Drivers and Constraints of Employee Satisfaction with Remote Work: An Empirical Analysis, “Organizacija”, 56 (2), pp. 93–105, https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2023-0007en
dc.referencesAwada, M., Lucas, G., Becerik-Gerber, B., Roll, S. (2021), Working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic: Impact on office worker productivity and work experience, “Work”, 69 (4), pp. 1171–1189, https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-210301en
dc.referencesBailey, D., Kurland, N. (2002), A review of telework research: findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work, “Journal of Organizational Behavior”, 23 (4), pp. 383–400, https://doi.org/10.1002/job.144en
dc.referencesBamieh, O., Ziegler, L. (2022), Are remote work options the new standard? Evidence from vacancy postings during the COVID-19 crisis, “Labour Economics”, 76, 102179, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2022.102179en
dc.referencesCaraiani, C., Lungu, C.I., Dascalu, C., Stoian, C.A. (2022), The impact of telework on organisational performance, behaviour, and culture: evidence from business services industry based on employees’ perceptions, “Economic Research – Ekonomska Istraživanja”, 36 (2), 214815, https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2142815en
dc.referencesChen, N. (2024), The impact of workplace ostracism on employee well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: A study of mediation effects of remote work challenges, “Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives”, 26, 101174, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2024.101174en
dc.referencesDatta, P., Balasundaram, S., Elangovan, N., Sridevi, N. (2025), Measuring autonomy in hybrid work: scale development, “Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica”, 38, 8, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-025-00338-1en
dc.referencesDunn, O.J. (1961), Multiple Comparisons among Means, “Journal of the American Statistical Association”, 56 (293), pp. 52–64, https://doi.org/10.2307/2282330en
dc.referencesEnaifoghe, A., Zenzile, N. (2023), The rapidly evolving situation of employee work-from-home productivity and the integration of ICT in Post-COVID-19 pandemic, “Scientific African”, 20, e01709, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2023.e01709en
dc.referencesEurostat (2023), Individuals’ level of digital skills (from 2021 onwards), https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/isoc_sk_dskl_i21/default/table?lang=en&category=isoc.isoc_sk.isoc_sku (accessed: 20.04.2025).en
dc.referencesEurostat (2024), Employed persons working from home by professional status – % of total employment, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/lfsa_ehomp__custom_16848614/default/table?lang=en (accessed: 20.04.2025).en
dc.referencesGarcía-Salirrosas, E.E., Rondon-Eusebio, R.F., Geraldo-Campos, L.A., Acevedo-Duque, Á. (2023), Job Satisfaction in Remote Work: The Role of Positive Spillover from Work to Family and Work–Life Balance, “Behavioral Sciences”, 13 (11), 916, https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13110916en
dc.referencesGlavin, P., Schieman, S. (2024), The Job Satisfaction Paradox: Pluralistic Ignorance and the Myth of the “Unhappy Worker”, “Social Psychology Quarterly”, 88 (1), pp. 22–44, https://doi.org/10.1177/01902725241253252en
dc.referencesGorshkova, M.O., Lebedeva, P.S. (2023), The impact of transition to a remote work format on the mental health of employees, “Population and Economics”, 7 (1), pp. 54–76, https://doi.org/10.3897/popecon.7.e90505en
dc.referencesGraham, M., Hjorth, I., Lehdonvirta, V. (2017), Digital labor and development: Impacts of global digital labor platforms and the gig economy on worker livelihoods, “Transfer”, 23 (2), pp. 135–162, https://doi.org/10.1177/1024258916687250en
dc.referencesHair Jr., J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B., Anderson, R.E. (2018), Multivariate data analysis, Cengage, Andover.en
dc.referencesHarman, H.H. (1976), Modern factor analysis, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.en
dc.referencesHuňady, J., Pisár, P., Khawaja, S., Qureshi, F.H. (2024), The Digital Transformation of European Union Countries before and during COVID-19, “Business Systems Research Journal”, 15 (1), pp. 22–45, https://doi.org/10.2478/bsrj-2024-0002en
dc.referencesKaiser, H. (1970), A Second Generation Little Jiffy, “Psychometrika”, 35 (4), pp. 401–415, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291817en
dc.referencesKaiser, H., Rice, J. (1974), Little Jiffy, Mark IV, “Educational and Psychological Measurement”, 34 (1), pp. 111–117, https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447403400115en
dc.referencesKapitsinis, N. (2025), Spatialities of remote work across the EU regions in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic: Regional change, factors, interlinkages, “Applied Geography”, 176, 103531, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2025.103531en
dc.referencesKim, J.O., Mueller, C.W. (1978), Factor analysis: statistical methods and practical issues, Sage, Beverly Hills.en
dc.referencesKline, P. (2014), An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis, Routledge, London.en
dc.referencesKorkeakunnas, T., Lohela-Karlsson, M., Heiden, M., Rambaree, K. (2025), Telework Uncovered: Employees’ Perceptions Across Various Occupations in an Industrial Company, “Administrative Sciences”, 15 (2), 56, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15020056en
dc.referencesKról, M. (2023), Rynek pracy zdalnej w Polsce w latach 2020–2022, “Rynek Pracy”, 186 (3), pp. 52–68.en
dc.referencesKruskal, W.H. (1952), A Nonparametric test for the Several Sample Problem, “The Annals of Mathematical Statistics”, 23 (4), pp. 525–540, https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177729332en
dc.referencesKruskal, W.H., Wallis, W.A. (1952), Use of Ranks in One-Criterion Variance Analysis, “Journal of the American Statistical Association”, 47 (260), pp. 583–621, https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1952.10483441en
dc.referencesLaat, K. de (2023), Living to Work (from Home): Overwork, Remote Work, and Gendered Dual Devotion to Work and Family, “Work and Occupations”, 52 (1), pp. 130–165, https://doi.org/10.1177/07308884231207772en
dc.referencesLauring, J., Jonasson, C. (2025), What is hybrid work? Towards greater conceptual clarity of a common term and understanding its consequences, “Human Resource Management Review”, 35 (1), 101044, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2024.101044en
dc.referencesLim, B.S.W., Ainin, S., Zakaria, N., Foo, S.M. (2025), Assessing the causal relationship of remote work and employee productivity – a study of corporate Malaysia, “Cogent Social Sciences”, 11 (1), 2481194, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2025.2481194en
dc.referencesMacias, L.H., Ravalet, E., Rérat, P. (2025), How does telework impact daily and residential mobilities: New geographies of working and living in Switzerland, “Applied Geography”, 178, 103591, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2025.103591en
dc.referencesMarstand, A.F., Epitropaki, O., Kapoutsis, I. (2025), ‘Distant but close’: Leadership behaviours, psychological distance, employee coping and effectiveness in remote work contexts, “Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology”, 98 (1), e12544, https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12544en
dc.referencesMergener, A., Stawarz, N., Rüger, H., Laß, I. (2025), Working from home and health complaints: on the difference between telework and informal overtime at home, “Frontiers Public Health”, 13, e1465617, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1465617en
dc.referencesMieriņa, I., Šūpule, I. (2024), Rise of remote work across borders: opportunities and implications for migrant-sending countries, “Frontiers in Sociology”, 9, e1290629, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2024.1290629en
dc.referencesMulaik, S.A. (2009), Foundations of Factor Analysis, Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York, https://doi.org/10.1201/b15851en
dc.referencesNg, P.M.L., Lit, K.K., Cheung, C.T.Y. (2022), Remote work as a new normal? The technology-organization-environment (TOE) context, “Technology in Society”, 70, 102022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102022en
dc.referencesNilles, J.M. (1998), Managing Telework: Strategies for Managing the Virtual Workforce, John Wiley & Sons, New York.en
dc.referencesNowrouzi-Kia, B., Haritos, A.M., Long, B.-Z.S., Atikian, C., Fiorini, L.A., Gohar, B., Howe, A., Li, N., Bani-Fatemi, A. (2024), Remote work transition amidst COVID-19: Impacts on presenteeism, absenteeism, and worker well-being – A scoping review, “PLoS ONE”, 19 (7), e0307087, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307087en
dc.referencesOrlandi, L.B., Veglianti, E., Zardini, A., Rossignoli, C. (2024), Enhancing employees’ remote work experience: Exploring the role of organizational job resources, “Technological Forecasting & Social Change”, 199, 123075, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123075en
dc.referencesØvretveit, J. (2019), Impact of digitalization on employment and working conditions, [in:] A. Larsson, R. Teigland (eds.), The Digital Transformation of Labor. Automation, the Gig Economy and Welfare, Taylor and Francis, London–New York, pp. 334–336, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429317866en
dc.referencesRodriguez-Lluesma, C., García-Ruiz, P., Pinto-Garay, J. (2021), The digital transformation of work: A relational view, “Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility”, 30 (1), pp. 157–167, https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12323en
dc.referencesRopponen, A. (2025), Remote work – the new normal needs more research, “Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health”, 51 (2), pp. 53–57, https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4213en
dc.referencesRymaniak, J., Lis, K., Davidavičienė, V., Pérez-Pérez, M., Martínez-Sánchez, Á. (2021), From Stationary to Remote: Employee Risks at Pandemic Migration of Workplaces, “Sustainability”, 13 (13), 7180, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137180en
dc.referencesSchmitz, H., Bauer, J.F., Niehaus, M. (2023), Working Anytime and Anywhere – Even When Feeling Ill? A Cross-sectional Study on Presenteeism in Remote Work, “Safety and Health at Work”, 14 (4), pp. 375–383, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2023.11.001en
dc.referencesShirmohammadi, M., Au, W.C., Beigi, M. (2022), Remote work and work-life balance: Lessons learned from the covid-19 pandemic and suggestions for HRD practitioners, “Human Resource Development International”, 25 (2), pp. 163–181, https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2022.2047380en
dc.referencesSpilker, M.A., Breaugh, J.A. (2021), Potential ways to predict and manage telecommuters’ feelings of professional isolation, “Journal of Vocational Behavior”, 131, 103646, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103646en
dc.referencesŠafránková, J.M., Šikyř, M. (2024), Working from home during and beyond the coronavirus pandemic: Employee reflections from the Czech Republic, “Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy”, 19 (1), pp. 337–362, https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.3021en
dc.referencesTahlyan, D., Mahmassani, H., Stathopoulos, A., Said, M., Shaheen, S., Walker, J., Johnson, B. (2024), In-person, hybrid or remote? Employers’ perspectives on the future of work post-pandemic, “Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice”, 190, 104273, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2024.104273en
dc.referencesTsapenko, I.P., Grishin, I.V. (2022), Virtualization of Cross-Border Labor Migration, “Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences”, 92, pp. 580–589, https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331622050069en
dc.referencesTürkeş, M.C., Stăncioiu, A.F., Orzan, M.C., Jugănaru, M., Marinescu, R.C., Jugănaru, I.D. (2024), Changes in the labour market: the perceptions of Romanian employees regarding the use of telework in the post-pandemic period, “Employee Relations: The International Journal”, 46 (3), pp. 585–621, https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-06-2023-0317en
dc.referencesVayre, É., Morin-Messabel, C., Cros, F., Maillot, A.-S., Odin, N. (2022), Benefits and Risks of Teleworking from Home: The Teleworkers’ Point of View, “Information”, 13 (11), 545, https://doi.org/10.3390/info13110545en
dc.referencesVizcaíno, A., Suárez, J., Šmite, D., García, F.O. (2025), Understanding Remote Work Experience: Insights Into Well-Being, “Journal of Software: Evolution and Process”, 37 (1), e2757, https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.2757en
dc.referencesWang, B., Saeed, S., Zhang, Y., Fang, X., Yu, X. (2025), Does remote work adoption boost firm innovation? A cross-cultural study, “The International Journal of Human Resource Management’, 36 (6), pp. 895–924, https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2025.2484382en
dc.referencesXavier, H.B., Barros Sampaio, S.C. de, Falcão Sobral, M.F., Cormican, K. (2024), From the table to the sofa: The remote work revolution in a context of crises and its consequences on work attitudes and behaviors, “Education and Information Technologies”, 29, pp. 22085–22124, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12684-1en
dc.referencesZiomek, A. (2023), Motivation to work remotely in the face of organizational and cost conditions, “Economics and Law”, 22 (2), pp. 399–418, https://doi.org/10.12775/EiP.2023.023en
dc.referencesŻołnierczyk-Zreda, D., Kapica, Ł., Najmiec, A., Kamińska, J., Mazur-Różycka, J., Bugajska, J. (2025), Psychosocial working conditions and mental well-being of remote and stationary employees: a longitudinal study, “International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health”, 38 (2), pp. 135–150, https://doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.02526en
dc.contributor.authorEmailKról, Małgorzata - malgorzata.krol@ue.katowice.pl
dc.contributor.authorEmailTrzęsiok, Joanna - joanna.trzesiok@ue.katowice.pl
dc.identifier.doi10.18778/1508-2008.29.12
dc.relation.volume29


Pliki tej pozycji

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

Pozycja umieszczona jest w następujących kolekcjach

Pokaż uproszczony rekord

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Poza zaznaczonymi wyjątkami, licencja tej pozycji opisana jest jako https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0