*5.3. Mediation Analysis*

The analysis of the mediating effect of physical environmental factors on the relationship between the facets of new ways of working and work engagemen<sup>t</sup> was carried out following two recommendations. The first, by Hair et al. [58], consists of observing the total effect of the independent variable (in this case, physical environment factors), on the dependent variable (work engagement). The total effect corresponds to the sum of the direct and indirect effects. Table 8 shows the indices.



Note: PEF—Physical Environment Factors; NWW—New Ways of Working; EIN—Work Engagement.

Baron and Kenny's [67] second recommendation consists in observing four assumptions: (i) the independent variable should significantly affect the relationship with the mediating variable so that it is not null, (ii) the independent variable should significantly affect the dependent variable when removing the mediating variable, (iii) the mediating variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable and (iv) by adding the mediating variable to the model, the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable should become weaker.

Table 7 presents the results from the direct relationships of the structural model. The results indicate that 37.6% of the variance in the construct "Employee Engagement" can be explained by the proposed model. A value of less than 50% indicates that the relationship between physical environmental factors and NWW facets has a power that lies between the "small" and "moderate" rates of employee variance explanation [68]. By withdrawing the variable mediator (NWW), the strength of the path increases (β = 0.476). This finding obeys one of the assumptions fundamental to Baron and Kenny [67] to certify the occurrence of mediation.

From the results of the analysis, it is possible to verify that the facets of the new ways of working, jointly, act partially as a mediator of the relationship between the factors of the physical environment and employee engagement. Considering that the existence of mediation depends on the significance of the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator or between the mediator and the dependent variable [69], Table 9 shows the path coefficients, the standard deviations, the *t* values, and the *p* values relations.


**Table 9.** Pathway Significance Test.

Note: a *t*-value for a two-tailed test: \* 1.96 (significance level: 95%); **PEF**—Physical Environment Factors; **NWW**—New Ways of Working; **EIN**—Work Engagement.

In the following section, we present the analysis of the search model parameters between the groups in which the facilities were modified and what the facilities did not undergo modifications.

#### *5.4. Analysis between Groups*

The analysis of the proposed model considered the four categorical variables (gender, education, working time in the organization, and modifications in the facilities). The four control variables were tested to see if they influenced work engagement. Only the variable "Facility Modifications" showed a significant difference in multigroup analysis.

Initially, the two groups were analyzed separately. Then, the difference between the groups was analyzed using the PLS-MGA method. In the group of total respondents, the Physical Environmental Factors (PEF) have a path force of magnitude 0.223 (β) in work engagement. We compared if the result with the group mod (where facilities have changed) shows the weight change in the physical environment (PEF). In this group, the same path had a coefficient of 0.437 (β); therefore, the effect was almost twice as strong as that of the group of total respondents.

On the other hand, the parameters of the NMod group (in which the facilities did not undergo modifications) show the weight that these employees give to the new work practices (NWW) when the physical environment factors (PEF) are not ye<sup>t</sup> noticed as ideal for the execution of their functions, in the employee engagemen<sup>t</sup> (EIN). For this group, the structural coefficient of the PEF→EIN ratio was only 0.093. This index is put into perspective by comparing the same indices for the group of total respondents and the group in which the facilities were modified (respectively, β = 0.223 and β = 0.437).

Table 10 presents indexes to verify the significance of the paths. As a way of facilitating the interpretation of the results, the red indices indicate that the statistical significance of the structural coefficients (β) in the respective paths has not been proven. The green indices demonstrate the statistical significance of the paths.


**Table 10.** Analysis of model parameters by modifications in the physical environment.

Source: Research Data (2019). Note: PEF—Physical Environment Factors; NWW—New Ways of Working; EIN—Work Engagement. β—Standardized path coefficient; NMod—Group in which the facilities have not been modified; Mod—Group the facilities were modified.

Another conclusion that can be drawn from the individual analysis of the two groups is that the PEF→NWW path was significant in both groups. In the Mod group, the coefficient was 0.640 and in the NMod group, the coefficient was 0.475.

By analyzing the difference in path effects between the two groups (NMod and Mod) it is possible to make additional inferences. Observing Table 11, it can be observed that of the three structural relationships of the model, the only way that showed a difference statistically significant effects on the strength among groups was on the relationship between NWW and the work engagemen<sup>t</sup> (EIN). In this way, the difference of effects was 0.506 (β).

**Table 11.** Analysis of path effect differences between groups.


Figure 3 summarizes the relationships prevailing in both groups.

**Figure 3.** Group comparison summary.

#### **6. Discussion and Conclusions**

The implementations of the facets of New Ways of Working involve changes in the physical environment, in IT, in managemen<sup>t</sup> and culture organizations [8,47]. The purpose of the research was to achieve this. It has been shown empirically that changes in the physical environment directly and positively influence work engagement. However, this influence also occurs indirectly, using the adoption of practices of the facets of NWW.

By analyzing the NMod group separately, engagemen<sup>t</sup> is attributed to the facets of the NWW. On the other hand, in the Mod group, this relationship is reversed, work engagemen<sup>t</sup> is attributed to physical environment factors. When comparing the di fference of the e ffect of the structural coe fficients between the groups, there is a di fference of 0.506, a significant 95% (*p* < 0.05) for the path NWW →EIN.

This result indicates that, for the NMod group, the facets of NWW predict with greater force the work engagemen<sup>t</sup> (EIN) than the group Mod. The investigation of Meulensteen et al. [70] is placed in perspective. In a work that focused on public o ffice work facilities in the Netherlands, the authors concluded that the more employees realized that the work environment was comfortable, the greater the work engagement.

This interdependent relationship found in the results of the present study is in line with the opinions of Van Heck (2010) and corroborates the findings of Gerards et al. [3] that proper planning of both physical spaces and work forms is essential for increased work engagemen<sup>t</sup> and organizational performance.

The above observation aims to contextualize how the present investigation can help practice and academia. For practice, the results show that organizations that want to implement facets of New Ways of Work should assess the perception of its employees to identify the weight of the factors of the physical environment in the benefits that the NWW can provide. Moreover, when making changes to the physical workspace, they should consider how the implemented NWW practices will be influenced by such changes.

The role of New Ways of Working in employee engagemen<sup>t</sup> is still investigated by several scholars such as Gerards et al. [3] and Baudewijns et al. [71]. However, the investigation of the influence of physical environmental factors on this relationship still lacked studies of the research content presented in this document.

The empirical demonstration of the interrelationship between changes in the physical environment and the facets of the new ways of working (this partly mediates the relationship between NWW facets and work engagement) has the potential to extend the benefits of investments in the reformulation of physical workspaces and the managemen<sup>t</sup> of organizations themselves.

Our results present important findings for human resource managers. First of all, they realize that it is not necessary to implement the full range of NWW to increase engagement. Betting on these facets allhaveveryhighcosts,beingimportanttoselect onlyoneortwooptionstoobtaininterestingresults.

Another important issue is related to managemen<sup>t</sup> skills. The implementation of NWW requires new knowledge and skills from the managers. It will then be interesting to conduct a diagnosis that allows knowing the manager's level of knowledge and preparing the necessary training actions.

Thirdly, there is the aspect of physical working conditions that has a direct e ffect on engagement, which is enhanced by the mediating e ffect of the NWW facets. In this context, investments made in physical working conditions may bring better results if accompanied by the implementation of one of the facets of the NWW. In the current pandemic situation resulting from COVID-19, it will be interesting to implement changes in working conditions that favor distance working.

As a limitation of the research, it is possible to mention that even though the sample obtained was statistically valid to achieve the proposed research objectives, a larger number of respondents would allow for more in-depth testing of structural equation modeling analysis and proceed in one-step confirmatory research.

As a major suggestion for future research, it is recommended to test a structural equation model in which each of the five facets of the new ways of working is positioned as a mediator of the relationship between physical environment factors and work engagement.

Future investigation of the relationship between the physical environments, the facets of new ways of working, and work engagemen<sup>t</sup> can shed light on how technology and human capabilities can be combined with the physical environment in which work takes place. For this next step to be taken, further research is needed.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, L.D. and R.C.; Methodology, L.D. and R.C.; Validation, Á.D., L.P. and J.S.; Formal Analysis, L.D. and Á.D.; Investigation, X.X.; Resources, N.A.; Data Curation, Á.D.; Writing—Original Draft L.D., Á.D. and J.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
