Is Compassion Best Accomplished Face-to-Face? Compassion Recipients’ Channel Use,Preferences,and Impact in Hybrid and Remote Working Contexts

Abstract

How do we care for people during personal hardship at work? Research suggests that compassion helps individuals and organizations alike. But how do we effectively communicate compassion in mediated contexts, such as remote or hybrid workplaces? Compassion research emphasizes the importance of physical touch, presence, and close attention to nonverbal cues—all of which may be constrained in mediated channels. This exploratory mixed-methods study examines how recipients experience compassion in hybrid and remote working contexts. Our findings suggest that recipients in hybrid work arrangements overwhelmingly experience compassion face-to-face and espouse strong beliefs that face-to-face is the most appropriate channel for compassion, and yet, channel did not seem to impact evaluations of conversation quality and outcomes. We discuss theoretical implications for how people adapt to leaner media technologies, despite strong lay theories about the proper channels for compassion.

Keywords

compassion theory compassionate communication hybrid work remote work technologically-mediated communication

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen

M. S.

Iliescu

Greiff

(2022). Single item measures in psychological science: A call to action. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 38(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000699

Atkins

P. W.

Parker

S. K.

(2012). Understanding individual compassion in organizations: The role of appraisals and psychological flexibility. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 524–546. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0490

Begemann

Handke

Lehmann-Willenbrock

(2024). Enabling and constraining factors of remote informal communication: A socio-technical systems perspective. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 29(5), zmae008. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmae008

Bento

R. F.

(1994). When the show must go on: Disenfranchised grief in organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 9(6), 35−44. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683949410070197

Cassell

E. J.

(2002). Compassion. In Snyder

C. R.

Lopez

S. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 434–445). Oxford University Press.

Clark

S. C.

(2002). Communicating across the work/home border. Community, Work & Family, 5(1), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668800020006802

Creswell

J. W.

Clark

V. L. P.

(2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.

Cristea

I. C.

Leonardi

P. M.

(2019). Get noticed and die trying: Signals, sacrifice, and the production of face time in distributed work. Organization Science, 30(3), 552−572. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1265

Daft

R. L.

Lengel

R. H.

(1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554−571. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554

10.

DeSanctis

Poole

M. S.

(1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121−147. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.2.121

11.

Douglas

B. D.

Ewell

P. J.

Brauer

(2023). Data quality in online human-subjects research: Comparisons between MTurk, Prolific, CloudResearch, Qualtrics, and SONA. PLoS One, 18(3), Article e0279720. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279720

12.

Dutton

J. E.

Workman

K. M.

Hardin

A. E.

(2014). Compassion at work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 277−304. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091221

13.

Erhardt

Gibbs

J. L.

(2014). The dialectical nature of impression management in knowledge work: Unpacking tensions in media use between managers and subordinates. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(2), 155−186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318913520508

14.

Eyal

David

Andrew

Zak

Ekaterina

(2021). Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behavior Research Methods, 54, 1643–1662. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01694-3

15.

Gallup. (2025). Indicators: Hybrid work. https://www.gallup.com/401384/indicator-hybrid-work.aspx

16.

Gibson

C. B.

Gibbs

J. L.

(2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451−495. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.51.3.451

17.

Grant

A. M.

Dutton

J. E.

Rosso

B. D.

(2008). Giving commitment: Employee support programs and the prosocial sensemaking process. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5), 898−918. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.34789652

18.

Grondin

Lomanowska

A. M.

Jackson

P. L.

(2019). Empathy in computer-mediated interactions: A conceptual framework for research and clinical practice. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 26(4), Article e12298. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpsp.12298

19.

Hazen

M. A.

(2008). Grief and the workplace. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(3), 78−86. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2008.34587996

20.

Huffman

T. P.

(2017). Compassionate communication, embodied aboutness, and homeless young adults. Western Journal of Communication, 81(2), 149−167. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2016.1239272

21.

Jämsen

Sivunen

Blomqvist

(2022). Employees’ perceptions of relational communication in full-time remote work in the public sector. Computers in Human Behavior, 132, Article 107240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107240

22.

Jämsen

Sivunen

A. E.

(2025). (In)visibility during organizational entry: Newcomer perceptions of visibility in remote work. Communication Monographs, 92(2), 383−406. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2024.2395819

23.

Kanov

J. M.

Maitlis

Worline

M. C.

Dutton

J. E.

Frost

P. J.

Lilius

J. M.

(2004). Compassion in organizational life. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6): 808−827. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764203260211

24.

Kanov

J. M.

Powley

E. H.

Walshe

N. D.

(2017). Is it ok to care? How compassion falters and is courageously accomplished in the midst of uncertainty. Human Relations, 70(6), 751−777. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726716673144

25.

Keppler

S. M.

Leonardi

P. M.

(2023). Building relational confidence in remote and hybrid work arrangements: Novel ways to use digital technologies to foster knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 28(4), zmad020. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmad020

26.

Korzenny

(1978). A theory of electronic propinquity: Mediated communication in organizations. Communication Research, 5(1), 3−24. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365027800500101

27.

Leonardi

P. M.

Parker

S. H.

Shen

(2024). How remote work changes the world of work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 11(1), 193−219. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-091922-015852

28.

Lilius

J. M.

Worline

M. C.

Maitlis

Kanov

J. M.

Dutton

J. E.

Frost

(2008). The contours and consequences of compassion at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 193−218. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.508

29.

Livne-Tarandach

Jazaieri

Rabelo

V. C.

(2024). Previously endured distress reduces the quality of the compassion extended toward sufferers of workplace distress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 45(7), 935−959. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2799

30.

Miller

K. I.

(2007). Compassionate communication in the workplace: Exploring processes of noticing, connecting, and responding. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35(3), 223−245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880701434208

31.

Morse

J. M.

(2016). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Routledge.

32.

Myers

K. K.

Endacott

C. G.

Snyder

(2025). “Your connection is unstable”: Remote socialization and effects on organizational assimilation. Management Communication Quarterly, 39(2), 199−229. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189241259163

33.

O’Connor

Joffe

(2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220

34.

Orlikowski

W. J.

Gash

D. C.

(1994). Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12(2), 174−207. https://doi.org/10.1145/196734.196745

35.

Parke

Marsden

Connolly

(2017). Lay theories regarding computer-mediated communication in remote collaboration. Open Praxis, 9(1), 17−30. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.9.1.502

36.

Powley

E. H.

(2009). Reclaiming resilience and safety: Resilience activation in the critical period of crisis. Human Relations, 62(9), 1289−1326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709334881

37.

Prasad

(1993). Symbolic processes in the implementation of technological change: A symbolic interactionist study of work computerization. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1400−1429. https://doi.org/10.2307/256817

38.

Saldaña

(2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

39.

Shin

Riforgiate

S. E.

Godager

E. A.

Coker

M. C.

(2025). Remote worker communication technology use related to role clarity, coworker support, and work overload. Sustainability, 17(7), Article 2830. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17072830

40.

Suortti

Sivunen

(2024). Communicative tensions in remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Management Communication Quarterly, 38(2), 386−412. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189231199052

41.

Tracy

S. J.

(2024). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. John Wiley & Sons.

42.

Treem

J. W.

Leonardi

P. M.

(2013). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 143−189. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203113653-11

43.

Trevino

L. K.

Lengel

R. H.

Daft

R. L.

(1987). Media symbolism, media richness, and media choice in organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Communication Research, 14(5), 553−574. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365087014005006

44.

Van Zoonen

Sivunen

A. E.

(2022). The impact of remote work and mediated communication frequency on isolation and psychological distress. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31(4), 610–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2021.2002299

45.

Walther

J. B.

(1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3−43. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001

46.

Walther

J. B.

(2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2538−2557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.05.002

47.

Way

Tracy

S. J.

(2012). Conceptualizing compassion as recognizing, relating and (re)acting: A qualitative study of compassionate communication at hospice. Communication Monographs, 79(3), 292−315. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2012.697630

48.

Woo

Endacott

C. G.

Myers

K. K.

(2023). Navigating water cooler talks without the water cooler: Uncertainty and information seeking during remote socialization. Management Communication Quarterly, 37(2), 251−280. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189221105916