Volume 6, Issue 3 (SEPTEMBER ISSUE 2025)                   johepal 2025, 6(3): 156-166 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Winkler-Titus N, Claes M T, Hermann A. (2025). Remote Work in Higher Education: Operationalizing Self-Determination Theory. johepal. 6(3), 156-166. doi:10.61882/johepal.6.3.156
URL: http://johepal.com/article-1-1433-en.html
Remote Work in Higher Education: Operationalizing Self-Determination Theory
Natasha Winkler-Titus * , Marie Therese Claes , Anett Hermann
Abstract:   (664 Views)
We reflect on the complex dynamics of remote working as a form of work flexibility within the higher education (HE) sector. Guided by Self-Determination Theory (SDT), the reflection builds on research into the experiences of administrative and support staff in two HE institutions during and after periods of enforced remote work. The reflection moves beyond summary to offer deeper insight into the evolving world of work in academia. The impetus was the sudden shift to remote work following the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. For workers in support functions, this transition sparked debate within HE, with limited prior research to inform leadership responses. Independent studies at universities in South Africa and Austria explored staff experiences, and the consistent emergence of autonomy as a key theme led to collaboration and the application of SDT as a robust explanatory framework for optimal remote working conditions. Findings revealed that the three core psychological needs identified in SDT—autonomy, relatedness, and competence—were evident in remote work experiences. These were operationalized as self-regulation, connectivity, and flexibility as a way of working.
Keywords: Higher Education, Leadership, Remote Working, Self-Determination Theory, Flexible Work Models
Full-Text [PDF 1258 kb]   (887 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2024/12/13 | Accepted: 2025/09/10 | Published: 2025/09/30
References
1. Adisa, T. A., Ogbonnaya, C., & Adekoya, O. D. (2023). Remote-working and employee engagement: A qualitative study of Brittish workers during the pandemic. Information Technology & People, 36(5), 1835-1850. [DOI]
2. Ajzen, M., & Taskin, L. (2021).The re-regulation of working communities and relationships in the context of flexwork: A spacing identity approach. Information and Organization, 31(4), 100364. [DOI]
3. Al-Dmour, H., Al Hasan, R., Thneibat, M., Masa’deh, R., Alkhadra, W., Al-Dmour, R., & Alalwan, A. (2023). Integrated model for the factors determining the academic’s remote working productivity and engagement: Empirical study. SAGE Open, 13(3), 1-20. [DOI]
4. Alam, M., Mahalle, S., & Suwarto, D. H. (2023). Mental distress among Indonesian academic mothers during enforced remote working. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 47(7), 941-953. [DOI]
5. Begum, V., Arshi, T. A., Arman, A. S., Butt, A. S., & Latheef, S. (2024). A study on work-family life imbalance among women administrators in UAE higher education institutions. Heliyon, 10(6), e28286. [DOI]
6. Bess, J. L., & Dee, J. R. (2014). Bridging the divide between faculty and administration: A guide to understanding conflict in the academy. Routlegde.
7. Bess, J. L., & Dee, J. R. (2012). Understanding college and university organization: Theories for effective policy and practice. Volumne II – Dynamics of the system. Stylus Publishing.
8. Chew, Y. C., & Zainal, S. R. M. (2022). Building a resilient change-oriented virtual leadership framework for the higher education sector: A narrative review. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Leadership Studies, 3(4), 135-141. [DOI]
9. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Emerald Publishing Group Limited.
10. Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. University of California Press.
11. Chinembiri, T. (2020, June 25). Despite reduction in mobile data tariffs, data still expensive in South Africa. Research ICT Africa. [Article]
12. Czerniewicz, L., Agherdien, N., Badenhorst, J., Belluigi, D., Chambers, T., Chili, M., de Villiers, M., Felix, A., Gachago, D., Gokhale, C., Ivala, E., Kramm, N., Madiba, M., Mistri, G., Mgqwashu, E., Pallitt, N., Prinsloo, P., Solomon, K., Strydom, S., Swanepoel, M., Waghid, F., & Wissing, G. (2020). A wake-up call: Equity, inequality and Covid-19 emergency remote teaching and learning. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 946-967. [DOI]
13. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512. [DOI]
14. Frank, D. J., & Meyer, J. (2006). Worldwide expansion and change in the university. In G. Krücken, A. Kosmützky, & M. Torka (Eds.), Towards a multiversity? Universities between global trends and national traditions (pp. 19-44). transcript Verlag.
15. Gagné, M., Parker, S. K., Griffin, M. A., Dunlop, P. D., Knight, C., Klonek, F. E., & Parent-Rocheleau, X. (2022). Understanding and shaping the future of work with self-determination theory. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(7), 378-392. [DOI]
16. Golden, T. D., & Gajenddran, R. S. (2019). Unpacking the role of a telecommuter's job in their performance: Examining job complexity, problem solving, interdependence, and social support. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(1), 55-69. [DOI]
17. Harunavamwe, M., & Kanengoni, H. (2023). Hybrid and virtual work settings; the interaction between technostress, perceived organisational support, work-family conflict and the impact on work engagement. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, 14(2), 252-270. [DOI]
18. Feiten Haubrich, G., & Hafermalz, E. (2022). Working hybrid at universities: Old, yet new practice? ICIS 2022 Proceedings, 7. [DOI]
19. Henke, J. (2019). Third mission as an opportunity for professionalization in science management. Publications, 7(4), 62. [DOI]
20. Hüther, O., & Krücken, G. (2013). Hierarchy and power: A conceptual analysis with particular reference to new public management reforms in German universities. European Journal of Higher Education, 3(4), 307-323. [DOI]
21. Kagan, M., & Hanney, S. (2000). Reforming higher education. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
22. Leonardi, P. M., Parker, S. H., & Shen, R. (2024). How remote work changes the world of work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 11, 193-219. [DOI]
23. Lueg, K., & Graf, A. (2022). The organization of higher education: An overview of sociological research into universities as organizations. In M. Godwyn (Ed.), Research handbook on the sociology of organizations (pp. 13-29). Edward Elgar Publishing. [DOI]
24. Lueg, K., Graf, A., & Powell, J. J. W. (2020). Hegemonic university tales: Discussing narrative positioning within the academic field between Humboldtian and managerial governance. In K. Lueg, & M. W. Lundholt (Eds.), Routledge handbook of counter-narratives (pp. 269-281). Routledge. [DOI]
25. Mouzughi Y. (2022). Reflection on female leadership experience in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Leadership Studies, 3(3), 126-131. [DOI]
26. Musselin, C. (2006). Are universities specific organisations? In G. Krücken, A. Kosmützky, & M. Torka (Eds.), Towards a multiversity? Universities between global trends and national traditions (pp. 63-86). transcript Verlag.
27. Nash, M., & Churchill, B. (2020). Caring during COVID-19: A gendered analysis of Australian university responses to managing remote working and caring responsibilities. Gender, Work & Organization, 27(5), 833-846. [DOI]
28. Okeke-Uzodike, O. E., & Gamede, V. (2021). The dilemma of unrelenting workload amidst Covid-19 pandemic: An agenda for university female academics. Journal of Research in Higher Education, 5(1), 12-46. [DOI]
29. Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2016). Digital work: A research agenda. In B. Czarniawska (Ed.), A research agenda for management and organization studies (pp. 88-95). Edward Elgar Publishing. [DOI]
30. Pinochet, L. H. C., Onusic, L. M., Costa, J. C. Z., Santos, M., Gomes, C. F. S., & Moreiras, M. A. L. (2023). Design a FUZZY-TOPSIS (FTOPSIS) model in decision-making with multiple criteria for the implementation of telecommuting in a public higher education institute. Procedia Computer Science, 221, 426-433. [DOI]
31. Remesal, A., & Villarroel, V. (2023). Challenges for post-pandemic virtual education in Latin America: A comparative analysis of the emergency remote higher education process in Chile, Mexico, and Ecuador. Sustainability, 15(19), 14199. [DOI]
32. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). SelCarducci, Bernardo J. Carducci Nave, Christopher S. f-determination theory. The Wiley encyclopedia of personality and individual differences, models and theories (pp. 1-7).
33. Soga, L. R., Bolade-Ogunfodun, Y., Mariani, M., Nasr, R., & Laker, B. (2022). Unmasking the other face of flexible working practices: A systematic literature review. Journal of Business Research, 142, 648-662. [DOI]
34. Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J., & Parker, S. K. (2021). Achieving effective remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic: A work design perspective. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 16-59. [DOI]
35. Zapata, L., Ibarra, G., & Blancher, P. H. (2024). Engaging new ways of work: The relevance of flexibility and digital tools in a post-COVID-19 era. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 11(1), 1-17. [DOI]
36. Zimmermann, J., & Degenhardt, B. (2014). Flexible Arbeit im Hochschulbereich – Eine explorative Studie zum Pausenverhalten und Erholungserleben während Arbeitspausen im HO. Wirtschaftspsychologie, 4(1), 60-72. [Article]
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2025 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Higher Education Policy And Leadership Studies

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb