**1. Introduction**

In a rapidly changing society, where growth in information volume has generated profound social changes, the discussion about the future of the physical work environment gains important contours [1,2]. In parallel to these changes, there is a growing need to improve working conditions so that the reduction of the managemen<sup>t</sup> structure can maintain or even exceed its performance [1,3]. This concern has given rise to what the scientific literature indicates as *New Ways of Working* (NWW) [4–7]. An increasing number of organizations have been looking to implement NWWs in search of a readjustment of their managemen<sup>t</sup> practices to stay competitive in the market, reduce operating costs and increase productivity [8].

NWW encompasses five facets, which are: (i) managemen<sup>t</sup> of output, (ii) access to organizational knowledge, (iii) flexibility in working relations, (iv) a freely accessible open workplace and (v) timeand location-independent work [1–3,6,9].

However, to encourage the adoption of NWW, organizations must also adjust their physical facilities where employees perform their activities [4,10,11]. As such, there is an increasing process of transformation in traditional environments of work. The spaces designed for individual employees have been changing in favor of large collective spaces [10,12]. At the same time, technology assumes

roles that were previously performed exclusively by individuals streamlining process execution and becoming obsolete various organizational functions [13].

In the context of the drastic changes that the world is passing through due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the relationship between the work environment's physical aspects and the NWW is even more relevant. Around the world, organizations' higher managemen<sup>t</sup> is adapting all their structure to this new paradigm. At the same time, NWW's facets as access to organizational knowledge, flexibility in working relations, and time- and location-independent work are being heavily used in this new perspective. Even though these research findings could not be generalized, we believe that due to the exceptionality of this moment, our research may contribute to understanding the interrelationship of these two essential factors for the work environment in the XXI century. The theme of employee engagemen<sup>t</sup> has been an object of extensive investigation (c.f. [14]). However, the analysis of the NWW as an antecedent of employee engagemen<sup>t</sup> needs further research [15]. Previous research investigated only direct effects [16] or specific indirect effects considering social interaction and transformational leadership as mediators [3]. However, the direct and indirect effect of physical environment factors on employee engagemen<sup>t</sup> and the effect of NWW on employee engagemen<sup>t</sup> are still under explored. As such, the objectives of this research are (i) to investigate the relationships between physical environmental factors and NWW and employee engagement, and (ii) to assess the relationship between NWW and employee engagement.

Based on survey data analyzed using structural equation modeling, this study presents three main contributions. First, by identifying the essential role of Physical Environment Factors (PEF) in employee engagement, recognizing the direct and indirect influence through the mediating role of several facets of NWW. Secondly, the direct influence of NWW on employee engagemen<sup>t</sup> is also recognized. Third, the study also identifies the direct influence of PEF on the NWW, extending the existing knowledge on the antecedents of employee engagement.

This article is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the literature review and the research hypothesis. Section 4 details the methodology. The next section presents the analysis procedures, and the results are described in Section 5. Section 6 discusses the results, presents the conclusions, implications and limitations, and future research suggestions.

#### **2. Literature Review**

#### *2.1. The New Ways of Working (NWW)*

The New Ways of Working (NWW) come from the areas of human resources administration and managemen<sup>t</sup> [4]. During the period when the subject still lacked more concrete definitions, many scholars referenced it interchangeably by terms such as telework, flexible work, and mobile work [17].

As far as IT evolved, the so-called "virtual world" and digital tools have reduced the need for synchronous communication and mobilization office employees to perform tasks [6,10]. At that time, it has become clear that the New Ways of Working involved aspects that went beyond the limits of technology [8,18] and the work environment and relationships between employees began to ge<sup>t</sup> more attention.

Several studies seek to reflect on NWW [19,20]. According to De Leede and Kraijenbrink [21], there are three main aspects: flexibility, work at home and work together at a distance.

Slagter [22] argues that NWWs consists of four facets, namely: time- and location-independent work; independent production management; access to organizational knowledge and flexibility in work relationships. Although Slagter's [22] classification is the most widely used, it does not address aspects related to the physical and mental interaction between work environments, which, even at a distance, is an indispensable facet of the definition of the NWW [23]. The first three facets have related to aspects that encourage the so-called teleworking. The fourth and fifth facets have related to aspects that are internal to the physical work environment. Regarding the fourth facet of NWW—Flexibility in working relationships—both Branine [24] and Kossek and Lee [25] reflect that employees who share

workplaces cite as advantages of this provision the transfer of experience, as well as the mutual support and help they receive from each other with their colleagues.

Regarding the fifth facet of NWW, a freely accessible workplace, it has a purpose to minimize the physical and mental distance in the workplace, stimulating meetings, and cooperation between colleagues. Table 1 contains the five facets of NWW, their respective concepts, and references.


#### **Table 1.** Facets of *New Ways of Working* (NWW) and their definitions.

Source: prepared by the authors (2019).

The following section presents the relationship between employee engagemen<sup>t</sup> and work performance with new ways of working.

#### *2.2. The Relationship between Employee Engagement and Performance at Work in the Context of New Ways of Working*

The relationship between employee engagemen<sup>t</sup> and work performance is widely studied in the literature [29,30]. However, most of the empirical evidence that presents performance indicators in the study of this relationship is still incipient [31]. As stated by Demerouti et al. [31], the literature on work engagemen<sup>t</sup> is based on pre-existing constructs. In this context, are inserted the facets of New Ways of Working, like practices to reduce stress, and at the same time promote work engagement. Ultimately, the adoption of NWW facets acts on two fronts, promoting increased work performance [27,31,32].

The studies about NWW must contemplate the interrelationship between facets and the physical environment [6,10,12]. Therefore, the following section presents the Physical Environment Factors (PEF) to be analyzed in this investigation.

#### *2.3. The Influence of Physical Environment Factors on Work Performance*

The importance of the quality of the physical environment can be measured by its most direct consequences for organizations. Becker and Sims [33] sought to measure the cost of so-called turnover (variation between input and output of employees), which usually has a direct link to poor physical working environments, concluding that a reduction from 30% to 15% would represent savings of USD 60,000 per employee in the USA. Similarly, Duffy and Powell [34], measuring the reduction *turnover* of a financial services firm in Australia, observed a reduction of 11% after refurbishment was carried out in its physical facilities. Table 2 presents the physical environment factors that influence employees in the workplace, their implications, and references.


**Table 2.** Physical environment factors and their implications for employees.

The physical environment factors presented can be directly influenced by the density in the workspace, affecting the comfort and the health quality in the environment [41,42]. Therefore, a constant senior managemen<sup>t</sup> assessment is required for workspace readjustment [39]. The following sectionpresentsthehypothesestobetestedandthemodelproposedinthisinvestigation.

#### *2.4. Hypothesis Development and Conceptual Model*

In the study by Ten Brummelhuis et al. [43], the authors found that the implementation of the facets of new ways of working is positively related to employee engagement. At the same time in the study by Van Steenbergen et al. [11], the authors concluded that reducing the workload and the task ambiguity and increasing autonomy of employees were related positively to reducing *burnout* and fostered work engagement.

Gerards et al. [3], in a study about the facets of new ways of working, concluded that three of them are positively related to employee engagement. They are (i) access to organizational knowledge, (ii) free access to the work environment, and (iii) independent production management. According to Vischer and Wifi [44], the constant monitoring of workers' perceptions of their working conditions is an essential tool for continuously improving their working environment. In this regard, it is necessary to periodically evaluate the physical work environment to adapt it to technological and organizational evolution [45]. Among the facets of the new ways of working, (i) time- and location-independent work, (ii) flexibility in working relationships and (iii) a freely accessible workplace, require not only changes in the managemen<sup>t</sup> of organizations but also in the adequacy from physical installations to this new reality [10,28,46,47].

However, success in designing virtual environments to promote flexibility in time and workspace, or even implementing physical environments that adapt to more flexible forms of working relationships, depends on top managemen<sup>t</sup> support to achieve alignment with the strategy and culture of the organization [27].

Furthermore, Ten Brummelhuis et al. [43] found NWW to play a crucial role in work engagement, with the mediate role of social interaction. In the same vein, Gerards et al. [3] also highlighted the relationship between one or more individual facets of NWW and employee behavior. As such, according to the literature review, we realize that physical working conditions play an essential role in employee satisfaction and especially in employee engagement. It was found that this factor is

also strongly linked to NWW, suggesting not only a direct relationship as a mediator in employee engagement. Therefore, we consider the following hypotheses:

**Hypothesis 1 (H1):** *Physical work factors have a positive relationship with employee engagement.*

**Hypothesis 2 (H2):** *Physical work factors environment has a positive relationship with new ways of working.*

**Hypothesis 3 (H3):** *New Ways of Working has a positive relationship with Employee Engagement.*

**Hypothesis 4 (H4):** *The relationship between the facets of new ways of working and employee engagement is mediated by the perception of physical environment factors.*

**Hypothesis 5 (H5):** *The relationship between the facets of the new ways of working and employee engagement is moderated by physical environment factors.*

Figure 1 shows the research model, the structural relationships between the constructs and the hypotheses to be tested.

**Figure 1.** Conceptual Model. Source: the authors. Note: the intermittent line represents the mediate relation.

The next chapter presents the methodological path that was followed for the execution of the research.
