What happens when workers experience abrupt transitions to virtual working? Drawing on interviews with employees who were unexpectedly shifted to virtual work overnight, we show that people carry legacy imprints: expectations from face-to-face settings that shape how they initially classify job features as demands or resources. When lived experience in the virtual context contradicts these expectations (e.g. online social gatherings feel exhausting; proximity to family while working proves energising), workers reclassify job characteristics. We show that expectation–experience mismatch explains this categorisation shift at the individual level. On the contrary, when expectations are confirmed (or cognitive overload crowds out reflection) reclassification does not occur. We recast demands/resources as interpretive and dynamic during abrupt transitions rather than fixed attributes, offering an extension to Job Demands-Resources theory. We discuss implications for supporting employee well-being through sudden change and turbulent contexts, including designing short feedback loops for reflection and avoiding static assumptions about what counts as a demand or a resource.
AcemogluDRestrepoP (2020) Robots and jobs: Evidence from US labor markets. Journal of Political Economy128(6): 2188–2244.
2.
AdamovicM (2018) An employee-focused human resource management perspective for the management of global virtual teams. The International Journal of Human Resource Management29(14): 2159–2187.
3.
AdisaTAAntonacopoulouEBeauregardTA, et al. (2022) Exploring the impact of COVID-19 on employees’ boundary management and work–life balance. British Journal of Management33(4): 1694–1709.
4.
AdlerABCastroCA (2019) Transitions: A theoretical model for occupational health and wellbeing. Occupational Health Science3(2): 105–123.
5.
AjzenI (2005) Laws of human behavior: Symmetry, compatibility, and attitude- behavior correspondence. In: BeauducelABiehlBBosniakM, et al. (eds) Multivariate Research Strategies. Aachen: Shaker, 3–19.
6.
AlfesKAvgoustakiABeauregardTA, et al. (2022) New ways of working and the implications for employees: A systematic framework and suggestions for future research. The International Journal of Human Resource Management33(22): 4361–4385.
7.
AmeenNPapagiannidisSHosanyARS, et al. (2023) It’s part of the ‘new normal’: Does a global pandemic change employees’ perception of teleworking?Journal of Business Research164: 113956.
8.
BaiJBrynjolfssonEJinW, et al. (2023) Your company will need remote work as extreme weather gets worse. Harvard Business Review Digital Articles.
9.
BakkerABDemeroutiE (2007) The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology22(3): 309–328.
10.
BakkerABDemeroutiE (2017) Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology22(3): 273–285.
11.
BakkerABDemeroutiESanz-VergelA (2023) Job demands–resources theory: Ten years later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior10(1): 25–53.
12.
BarclayLJKieferTEl MansouriM (2022) Navigating the era of disruption: How emotions can prompt job crafting behaviors. Human Resource Management61(3): 335–353.
13.
BathiniDRKandathilGM (2019) An orchestrated negotiated exchange: Trading home-based telework for intensified work. Journal of Business Ethics154(2): 411–423.
14.
BeckerWJBelkinLYTuskeySE, et al. (2022) Surviving remotely: How job control and loneliness during a forced shift to remote work impacted employee work behaviors and well-being. Human Resource Management61(4): 449–464.
15.
BennettAACampionEDKeelerKR, et al. (2021) Videoconference fatigue? Exploring changes in fatigue after videoconference meetings during COVID-19. Journal of Applied Psychology106(3): 330–344.
16.
BilottaIChengSDavenportMK, et al. (2021) Using the job demands-resources model to understand and address employee well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Industrial and Organizational Psychology14(1–2): 267–273.
17.
BloomNHanRLiangJ (2024) Hybrid working from home improves retention without damaging performance. Nature630(8018): 920–925.
18.
BraaKVidgenR (1999) Interpretation, intervention, and reduction in the organizational laboratory: A framework for in-context information system research. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies9(1): 25–47.
19.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
20.
BraunVClarkeV (2019) To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health13(2): 201–216.
21.
BraunVClarkeV (2021) One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?Qualitative Research in Psychology18(3): 328–352.
22.
CassellC (2009) Interviews in organisational research. In: BuchananDABrymanA (eds) The Sage Handbook of Organisational Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 500–515.
23.
ChamakiotisPPanteliNPérez-ArechaederraD (2025) Practices for effective onboarding in dynamic Global Virtual Teams. Organizational Dynamics54(1): 101076.
24.
DemeroutiEBakkerAB (2023) Job demands-resources theory in times of crises: New propositions. Organizational Psychology Review13(3): 209–236.
25.
EckhardtAEndterFGiordanoA, et al. (2019) Three stages to a virtual workforce. MIS Quarterly Executive18(1): Article 5.
26.
FrankenEBentleyTShafaeiA, et al. (2021) Forced flexibility and remote working: Opportunities and challenges in the new normal. Journal of Management & Organization27(6): 1131–1149.
27.
FuchsCReichelA (2023) Effective communication for relational coordination in remote work: How job characteristics and HR practices shape user–technology interactions. Human Resource Management62(4): 511–528.
28.
GajendranRSPonnapalliARWangC, et al. (2024) A dual pathway model of remote work intensity: A meta-analysis of its simultaneous positive and negative effects. Personnel Psychology77(4): 1351–1386.
29.
GigantT (2022) Insider to the team, outsider to the organisation: Freelancers’ perceived insider status. In: Symposium ‘reinventing work: The implications of modern work arrangements for individuals and teams’, Academy of Management Proceedings, vol. 2022. DOI: 10.5465/AMBPP.2022.14195symposium.
30.
GillMJ (2014) The Possibilities of Phenomenology for Organizational Research. Organizational Research Methods17(2): 118–137.
31.
GlaserBGStraussAL (2017) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. London, UK: Routledge.
32.
GoldenL (2001) Flexible work schedules: Which workers get them?American Behavioral Scientist44(7): 1157–1178.
33.
GoldkuhlG (2012) Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems21(2): 135–146.
34.
GrintK (2022) Critical essay: Wicked problems in the age of uncertainty. Human Relations75(8): 1518–1532.
35.
GrodalSAntebyMHolmAL (2021) Achieving rigor in qualitative analysis: The role of active categorization in theory building. Academy of Management Review46(3): 591–612.
36.
GuestDKnoxAWarhurstC (2022) Humanizing work in the digital age: Lessons from socio-technical systems and quality of working life initiatives. Human Relations75(8): 1461–1482.
37.
HackmanJRPearceJLWolfeJC (1978) Effects of changes in job characteristics on work attitudes and behaviors: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance21(3): 289–304.
38.
HandkeLAldanaACostaPL, et al. (2024) Hybrid teamwork: What we know and where we can go from here. Small Group Research55(5): 805–835.
39.
IkramMKenayathullaHB (2022) Out of touch: Comparing and contrasting positivism and interpretivism in social science. Asian Journal of Research in Education and Social Sciences4(2): 39–49. DOI: 10.55057/ajress.2022.4.2.4.
40.
JimenezABoeheDMTarasV, et al. (2017) Working across boundaries: Current and future perspectives on global virtual teams. Journal of International Management23(4): 341–349.
41.
JoossSConroyKMMcDonnellA (2022) From travel to virtual work: The transitional experiences of global workers during Covid-19. International Business Review31(6): 102052.
42.
KaratunaIJönssonSMuhonenT (2022) Job demands, resources, and future considerations: Academics’ experiences of working from home during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology13: 908640.
43.
KerberKWBuonoAF (2004) Leadership challenges in global virtual teams: Lessons from the field. SAM Advanced Management Journal69(4): 4–11.
44.
KossekEEKelliherC (2023) Making flexibility more I-deal: Advancing work-life equality collectively. Group & Organization Management48(1): 317–349.
45.
KühnerCRudolphCWDerksD, et al. (2023) Technology-assisted supplemental work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior142: 103861.
46.
LevittHMBambergMCreswellJW, et al. (2018) Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist73(1): 26–46.
47.
LevittHMMotulskySLWertzFJ, et al. (2017) Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology: Promoting methodological integrity. Qualitative Psychology4(1): 2–22.
48.
LouisMR (1980) Career transitions: Varieties and commonalities. Academy of Management Review5(3): 329–340.
49.
LüscherLSLewisMW (2008) Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal51(2): 221–240.
50.
MaitlisSChristiansonM (2014) Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals8(1): 57–125.
51.
MantereSSchildtHASillinceJAA (2012) Reversal of strategic change. Academy of Management Journal55(1): 172–196.
52.
MatternJLansmannSHüllmannJ (2021) It’s not that bad! Perceived stress of knowledge workers during enforced working from home due to COVID-19. In: AhlemannFSchütteRStieglitzS (eds) Innovation Through Information Systems. Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 263–279. Available at: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-86790-4_19 (accessed 9 April 2024).
53.
MaxwellJA (2021) Why qualitative methods are necessary for generalization. Qualitative Psychology8(1): 111–118.
54.
MazmanianM (2013) Avoiding the trap of constant connectivity: When congruent frames allow for heterogeneous practices. Academy of Management Journal56(5): 1225–1250.
55.
MinbaevaDBNavrbjergSE (2023) Strategic human resource management in the context of environmental crises: A COVID-19 test. Human Resource Management62(6): 811–832.
56.
ParkYFritzCJexSM (2018) Daily cyber incivility and distress: The moderating roles of resources at work and home. Journal of Management44(7): 2535–2557.
ProuskaRChatrakulNaAyudhyaUBeauregardA, et al. (2024) Conceptualising the nexus between macro-level ‘turbulence’ and the worker experience. Human Resource Management Journal34(3): 781–791.
59.
PsychogiosAProuskaR (2019) Managing People in Small and Medium Enterprises in Turbulent Contexts, 1st edn. New York, NY: Routledge, 2019. | Series: Routledge Studies in Small Business: Routledge. Available at: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781351592611 (accessed 9 April 2024).
60.
RussellEO’ReillyJBlomeC, et al. (2024) Moving away from, moving towards and moving against others: An adaptive multi-strategy approach to defend and build resources in self-protection mode. Journal of Vocational Behavior155: 104052.
61.
SaldañaJ (2015) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
62.
SchlossbergNKWatersEBGoodmanJ (1995) Counseling Adults in Transition: Linking Practice with Theory, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Springer.
63.
ShifrinNVMichelJS (2022) Flexible work arrangements and employee health: A meta-analytic review. Work & Stress36(1): 60–85.
64.
Ten BrummelhuisLLTer HoevenCLToniolo-BarriosM (2021) Staying in the loop: Is constant connectivity to work good or bad for work performance?Journal of Vocational Behavior128: 103589.
65.
ThielschMTRöselerSKirschJ, et al. (2021) Managing pandemics – Demands, resources, and effective behaviors within crisis management teams. Applied Psychology70(1): 150–187.
66.
TownsendAMDeMarieSMHendricksonAR (1998) Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. The Academy of Management Executive (1993)12(3): 17–29.
Van SteenbergenEFVan Der VenCPeetersMCW, et al. (2018) Transitioning towards new ways of working: Do job demands, job resources, burnout, and engagement change?Psychological Reports121(4): 736–766.
69.
VoughHCCazaBB (2017) Where do I go from here? Sensemaking and the construction of growth-based stories in the wake of denied promotions. Academy of Management Review42(1): 103–128.
70.
WeickKE (1993) The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly38(4): 628–652.
71.
WilkinsonKCollinsAMAntoniadouM (2023) Family status and changing demands/resources: The overlooked experience of solo-living employees transitioning to homeworking during the Covid-19 pandemic. The International Journal of Human Resource Management34(18): 3585–3611.
72.
ZanderLZettinigPMäkeläK (2013) Leading global virtual teams to success. Organizational Dynamics42(3): 228–237.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
