Table 1 Summary of hypotheses,... | Emerald Publishing

Table 1

Summary of hypotheses, supporting literature, and rationale

Hypothesis	Supporting Literature	Theoretical Logic / Rationale	Link to Current Study
H1: Organisational trust → WFH experience	Shockley-Zalabak (2000); Ellonen et al. (2008); Offstein et al. (2010); Eddleston and Mulki (2017)	Trust reduces uncertainty in remote work, enabling autonomy, smoother communication, and better WFH experiences.	Explains why institutional and supervisor trust influence job effectiveness and well-being.
H1a: Institutional trust → job effectiveness	Ellonen et al. (2008); Morganson et al. (2010); Dutcher (2012)	Institutional trust signals reliable systems and policies, enabling employees to perform effectively from home.
H1b: Institutional trust → well-being	Crisp (2017); Kelliher and Anderson (2010)	Trust in organisational systems reduces stress and supports work–life integration.
H1c: Supervisor trust → job effectiveness	Skogstad et al. (2014); Offstein et al. (2010)	Supervisory trust empowers employees, increasing autonomy and productivity in remote settings.
H1d: Supervisor trust → well-being	Bernstrøm and Svare (2017); Maitland and Thomson (2014)	Supportive supervisors reduce anxiety and guilt associated with WFH, improving well-being.
H2: WFH experience → engagement	Kahn (1990); Kelliher and Anderson (2010)	Positive WFH experiences enhance psychological availability, a precursor to engagement.	Justifies the link between WFH experience and engagement.
H2a: Job effectiveness → engagement	Morganson et al. (2010); Dutcher (2012)	Feeling effective reinforces motivation and encourages greater engagement.
H2b: Well-being → engagement	Schaufeli et al. (2002); Harter et al. (2002)	Well-being increases vigour, dedication, and absorption — core dimensions of engagement.
H3: Organisational trust → engagement	Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005)	Trust fosters reciprocity, commitment, and engagement under Social Exchange Theory.	Supports the direct effect of trust on engagement.
H3a: Institutional trust → engagement	Ellonen et al. (2008); Fay and Kline (2011)	Transparent, fair organisational systems enhance employees’ willingness to invest effort.
H3b: Supervisor trust → engagement	Bernstrøm and Svare (2017); Offstein et al. (2010)	Trusting supervisors create psychological safety, increasing engagement.
H4: Engagement → job satisfaction	Wheatley (2012); Petcu et al. (2021)	Engaged employees experience higher satisfaction due to autonomy, motivation, and positive affect.	Explains why engagement predicts job satisfaction.

Hypothesis	Supporting Literature	Theoretical Logic / Rationale	Link to Current Study
H1: Organisational trust → WFH experience	Shockley-Zalabak (2000); Ellonen et al. (2008); Offstein et al. (2010); Eddleston and Mulki (2017)	Trust reduces uncertainty in remote work, enabling autonomy, smoother communication, and better WFH experiences.	Explains why institutional and supervisor trust influence job effectiveness and well-being.
H1a: Institutional trust → job effectiveness	Ellonen et al. (2008); Morganson et al. (2010); Dutcher (2012)	Institutional trust signals reliable systems and policies, enabling employees to perform effectively from home.
H1b: Institutional trust → well-being	Crisp (2017); Kelliher and Anderson (2010)	Trust in organisational systems reduces stress and supports work–life integration.
H1c: Supervisor trust → job effectiveness	Skogstad et al. (2014); Offstein et al. (2010)	Supervisory trust empowers employees, increasing autonomy and productivity in remote settings.
H1d: Supervisor trust → well-being	Bernstrøm and Svare (2017); Maitland and Thomson (2014)	Supportive supervisors reduce anxiety and guilt associated with WFH, improving well-being.
H2: WFH experience → engagement	Kahn (1990); Kelliher and Anderson (2010)	Positive WFH experiences enhance psychological availability, a precursor to engagement.	Justifies the link between WFH experience and engagement.
H2a: Job effectiveness → engagement	Morganson et al. (2010); Dutcher (2012)	Feeling effective reinforces motivation and encourages greater engagement.
H2b: Well-being → engagement	Schaufeli et al. (2002); Harter et al. (2002)	Well-being increases vigour, dedication, and absorption — core dimensions of engagement.
H3: Organisational trust → engagement	Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005)	Trust fosters reciprocity, commitment, and engagement under Social Exchange Theory.	Supports the direct effect of trust on engagement.
H3a: Institutional trust → engagement	Ellonen et al. (2008); Fay and Kline (2011)	Transparent, fair organisational systems enhance employees’ willingness to invest effort.
H3b: Supervisor trust → engagement	Bernstrøm and Svare (2017); Offstein et al. (2010)	Trusting supervisors create psychological safety, increasing engagement.
H4: Engagement → job satisfaction	Wheatley (2012); Petcu et al. (2021)	Engaged employees experience higher satisfaction due to autonomy, motivation, and positive affect.	Explains why engagement predicts job satisfaction.

Source: By author