Enforced but not Enacted: How Return‐to‐Office Policies Reshape Boundary Enactment, Work‐Location Volition, and Eudaimonic Wellbeing
研究通过调查和访谈发现，强制重返办公室政策会降低员工的工作地点自主性和控制感，从而损害工作活力和意义感，且办公室时间与幸福感无关。
ABSTRACT HR faces a conundrum over how to organize hybrid working patterns given the pros and cons associated with conducting work across multiple domains. Many organizations are currently seeking to clarify and often increase the requirements for employee presence at employer premises, meaning studies are needed to better understand how HR should look to influence decision‐making regarding office attendance practices. We draw on theories of boundary control to examine the relationship between return‐to‐office (RTO) policy enforcement, office time, and eudaimonic worker wellbeing; specifically work‐related vitality and work meaningfulness. We propose that enforced RTO policies serve to lower eudaimonic wellbeing via reducing both the psychological experiences of volition (working from one's preferred location) and control (being able to choose where one works). Across two time‐lagged survey studies, including a field study in an organization implementing a new RTO policy (Study 1), we find broad support for our propositions. We further find higher office time does not automatically follow RTO policy implementation and that office time is unrelated to eudaimonic worker wellbeing. In our third study, interview data collected over 2 years from key stakeholders of the RTO implementation allows us to explore unresolved and new questions prompted by the two survey studies. We discuss these findings in relation to building theory‐informed insights into office attendance policies and the importance of worker volition and control over hybrid working patterns.