Workplace Contexts and Stress: A Comparative Review of Social and Psychological Mechanisms in Remote, Hybrid, and In-Person Work
This systematic review examines differences across remote, hybrid, and in-person working environments that shape the social and psychological dimensions of employee stress and well-being. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) standard, we systematically searched PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar, and supplemented this with a targeted search of grey literature and peer-reviewed conference proceedings (e.g., the European Conference on Knowledge Management, ResearchGate, and SSRN) to reduce publication bias, identifying peer-reviewed investigations published from 2015 through 2025. Eligible studies examined the interpersonal and cognitive aspects of stress—social identity, autonomy, trust, and social support—rather than physiological end points alone. Following an expanded search strategy incorporating broader monitoring- and control-related terms (e.g., “algorithmic control,” “workplace digital tracking,” “electronic performance monitoring”) alongside the original keyword set, the final synthesis includes fourteen studies, an increase from the twelve identified in the original search, allowing a more robust evidentiary base while retaining PRISMA-guided rigour. Thematic synthesis identified five primary mechanisms: (1) diminished social connection and weakened identity in remote work; (2) increased belonging but reduced autonomy in in-person arrangements; (3) equilibrium between flexibility and accountability in hybrid approaches; (4) trust and psychological safety—including reactions to digital monitoring and algorithmic control—as stress moderators; and (5) social support as a protective process across modalities. Taken together, these results indicate that workplace stress is a socially embedded phenomenon driven by social identity, perceived control, and relational trust. Through synthesis of the Job Demands–Resources (JD–R) model as an integrative anchor, complemented by Social Identity Theory, Self-Determination Theory, and Conservation of Resources theory, the review develops a context-specific framework for understanding post-pandemic workplace stress. Methodological quality was appraised using CASP and AMSTAR 2 checklists, and appraisal scores were compared across study designs rather than treated only as an inclusion threshold. Practical implications highlight the need for trust, autonomy, and belonging and for transparent, non-punitive approaches to performance monitoring to promote well-being across different modes of working.