17 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Research Background The COVID-19 pandemic is a vast historic humanitarian event that will be always remembered (Rajan Menon, 2021). COVID-19 has unleashed many aspects of human life and habits by 180 degrees in countries worldwide (Bueechl et al., 2023). During that agitated period, the virus spread massively, causing people to isolate themselves from many face-to-face routines in their daily lives (Greaves et al., 2024). People in the pandemic era are forced to stay at home and implement social distancing to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus. This critical atmosphere undoubtedly has altered how humanity engages in various activities (Xiao et al., 2021). At that time, it was unsurprising that the government had various policies and interventions in many countries that focused on the common good, such as lockdown restrictions to prevent its spread. The government released concrete restrictions in Indonesia, such as PSBB (Pembatasan Sosial Berskala Besar or Large-Scale Social Restriction). The period of PSBB was from March 2, 2020, until December 31, 2021 (BKN, 2020). PSBB in Indonesia is the regulation to restrict all certain activities of the population within a region to prevent the spread of COVID-19, including schools, offices, shopping centers, places of worship, and other public spaces (Peraturan Pemerintah (PP) Nomor 21 Tahun 2020 or Indonesia Government Policy 21 period 2020). Specifically, the Indonesian Government also restricted the working patterns for onsite (WFO) to work-from-home (WFH), both in government institutions and private sectors (Chiba, 2021). With the many changes, willingly or unwillingly, the COVID-19 pandemic has directly compelled organizations in the workplace to adapt toward unprecedented realities (Loh et al., 2023). At that time, all organizations were forced to completely rethink their business models and working patterns to confront that urgent situation (Carroll & Conboy, 2020). Most likely, organizations had to swiftly change their work routines, leading to a significant portion of employees primarily remotely from the office, called remote working (Bueechl et al., 2023), 18 also known as telework/telecommuting (Haque et al., 2024). Moreover, some institutions have adapted to implement a combination of WFH and WFO for some departments and divisions, known as flexible working (Bal & Izak, 2021). Many studies explain that remote working arrangements increase the opportunities and challenges within organizations (Aczel et al., 2021). On the one hand, remote working offers opportunities for employees by providing a more flexible, efficient, and sustainable way of working (Mandal et al., 2023). This fact also aligns with the updated data in America. The updated data was collected by McKinsey & Company (2022) regarding 11,958 American job seekers in a post-pandemic study. It was found that mixed-work arrangements between remote and onsite are one of the prevalent factors to be chosen by many Americans. Figure 1.1 Job Street Survey: Preferred-Working Arrangement Before, During and After Covid-19 in Indonesia This work preference was also found in Indonesia based on Figure 1.1 above. In 2021, Job Street conducted the general survey to more than 33,000 employees in Indonesia without showing the industry of the employee. 4% of workers worked remotely before the pandemic. When pandemics happen, remote workers become increasingly active. They then increased to 13%. While the number of people combining office and remote work (WFH) also increased, 19 from 28% to 41%. On the other hand, the number of respondents working exclusively in the office dropped from 68% to 46% during the pandemic. Interestingly, 23% of respondents wished they could work from home after the pandemic. A similar trend was seen among those wanting a mixture of office and remote work. Only 9% of respondents preferred to continue working only in the office during the pandemic. With all the opportunities and benefits, remote working has become a trend from the employees' perspective. Tavares (2017) presents that remote working can reduce daily commuting time and office costs. Remote work also allows employees to have a flexible schedule that supports a work-life balance and enhanced flexibility in attending to familial responsibilities (Bouziri et al., 2020). In addition, the Ruang Guru Survey (2021) also wrote that 68.7% of representative employees in Indonesia prefer working from home due to the freedom to communicate anytime and anywhere flexibly using technology (Zoom, Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, Slack). However, adopting remote working also generates predominantly negative responses, marking the first instance for many organizations to implement this arrangement (Galanti et al., 2021). Remote working describes that working from home was far from ideal (Costin et al., 2023). Likewise, the significant challenge faced by many employees during the pandemic-induced remote working was the sudden merging of work and personal life boundaries, which potentially triggered stress in managing employees' responsibilities (Alipour et al., 2021) with all negative probabilities, particularly those with dependents requiring care, aid, and supervision from their leaders more than on-site work (Jenkins & Smith, 2021). Flassak et al. (2017) in his study states that leaders will find difficulties in seeing, monitoring, and following up digitally on employee actions when they work remotely from the office. The employees also increase the likelihood of mistakes and shirking because they are limited to being contacted directly by their supervisors (Dhar & Bose, 2022a). Additionally, remote work can also result in adverse career outcomes due to its substantial impact on social interactions because of indirect communication and connection (Kasperska et al., 2024).