This study examines whether digital-nomad-oriented management practices are associated with perceived organizational performance through employee psychological and motivational states. Drawing on socio-technical systems theory and motivational work-design research, we conceptualize DRISA as a multidimensional composite management capability system comprising Digital Integration, Remote Collaboration, Individual Autonomy, Spatial Freedom, and Agile Management. The study used an exploratory sequential mixed-method design: 42 semi-structured interviews informed the construct and item pool, a pilot survey refined the measure (N = 80), and the main cross-regional survey covered China (N = 127), the United States (N = 125), and Europe (N = 120). Cross-sectional serial indirect-association analyses showed that DRISA was positively associated with psychological empowerment (β = 0.408, p < 0.001) and work-life balance (β = 0.371, p < 0.001), which were in turn associated with employee engagement. Employee engagement was positively associated with perceived organizational performance (β = 0.284, p < 0.001). Bootstrapped indirect associations were consistent with the proposed model: the pathway through psychological empowerment and engagement was stronger (β = 0.22, 95 % BCa CI [0.15, 0.30]) than the pathway through work-life balance and engagement (β = 0.15, 95 % BCa CI [0.08, 0.24]). Because the quantitative data are cross-sectional and self-reported, the findings should be interpreted as theoretically guided indirect associations rather than causal evidence. The study contributes to digital-nomad and work-from-anywhere research by clarifying how management practices may be linked to performance-related perceptions through empowerment, balance, and engagement.

1.          Allen TD, Golden TD, Shockley KM. How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2015; 16(2): 40–68. doi: 10.1177/1529100615593273

2.          Bloom N, Liang J, Roberts J, et al. Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2015; 130(1): 165–218. doi: 10.1093/qje/qju032

3.          Gajendran RS, Harrison DA. The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007; 92(6): 1524–1541. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524

4.          Choudhury P, Foroughi C, Larson B. Work-from-anywhere: The productivity effects of geographic flexibility. Strategic Management Journal. 2021; 42(4): 655–683. doi: 10.1002/smj.3251

5.          Wang B, Liu Y, Qian J, et al. Achieving effective remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic: A work design perspective. Applied Psychology. 2021; 70(1): 16–59. doi: 10.1111/apps.12290

6.          Ipsen C, van Veldhoven M, Kirchner K, et al. Six key advantages and disadvantages of working from home in Europe during COVID-19. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(4): 1826. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18041826

7.          Cook D. The freedom trap: Digital nomads and the use of disciplining practices to manage work-leisure boundaries. Information Technology & Tourism. 2020; 22: 355–390. doi: 10.1007/s40558-020-00172-4

8.          Hannonen O. In search of a digital nomad: Defining the phenomenon. Information Technology & Tourism. 2020; 22: 335–353. doi: 10.1007/s40558-020-00177-z

9.          Mancinelli F. Digital nomads: Freedom, responsibility and the neoliberal order. Information Technology & Tourism. 2020; 22: 417–437. doi: 10.1007/s40558-020-00174-2

10.       Reichenberger I. Digital nomads-A quest for holistic freedom in work and leisure. Annals of Leisure Research. 2018; 21(3): 364–380. doi: 10.1080/11745398.2017.1358098

11.       Frick N, Marx J. Integrating digital nomads in corporate structures: Managerial contemplations. In: Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; 2021. pp. 2111–2120. doi: 10.24251/HICSS.2021.260.

12.       Marx J, Stieglitz S, Brünker F, et al. Home (Office) is where your Heart is: Exploring the identity of the corporate nomad knowledge worker archetype. Business & Information Systems Engineering. 2023; 65: 293–308. doi: 10.1007/s12599-023-00807-w

13.       Nichols A. Digital nomads: A savvy enterprise’s newest HR frontier. Strategic HR Review. 2022; 21(6): 185–190. doi: 10.1108/SHR-08-2022-0049

14.       Mourato I, Dias A, Pereira L. Estimating the impact of digital nomads’ sustainable responsibility on entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Social Sciences. 2023; 12(2): 97. doi: 10.3390/socsci12020097

15.       Šímová T. A research framework for digital nomadism: A bibliometric study. World Leisure Journal. 2023; 65(2): 175–191. doi: 10.1080/16078055.2022.2134200

16.       Trist EL, Bamforth KW. Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal getting. Human Relations. 1951; 4(1): 3–38. doi: 10.1177/001872675100400101

17.       Orlikowski WJ. The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science. 1992; 3(3): 398–427. doi: 10.1287/orsc.3.3.398

18.       Leonardi PM. When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly. 2011; 35(1): 147–167. doi: 10.2307/23043493

19.       Deci EL, Ryan RM. The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry. 2000; 11(4): 227–268. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

20.       Gagné M, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2005; 26(4): 331–362. doi: 10.1002/job.322

21.       Spreitzer GM. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal. 1995; 38(5): 1442–1465. doi: 10.2307/256865

22.       Seibert SE, Wang G, Courtright SH. Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2011; 96(5): 981–1003. doi: 10.1037/a0022676

23.       Bozzi A. Digital nomadism from the perspective of places and mobilities: A literature review. European Transport Research Review. 2024; 16: 50. doi: 10.1186/s12544-024-00663-z

24.       Bednorz J. Working from anywhere? Work from here! Approaches to attract digital nomads. Annals of Tourism Research. 2024; 105: 103715. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2023.103715

25.       Rainoldi M, Ladkin A, Buhalis D. Digital nomads’ work-leisure management practices. Annals of Tourism Research. 2025; 111: 103904. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2025.103904

26.       Choi J. One policy fits all? A Bayesian network analysis of digital nomad decision-making among Korean Millennials and Gen Z. Information Technology & Tourism. 2026; 28: 25. doi: 10.1007/s40558-026-00367-1

27.       Llorente-Alonso M, García-Ael C, Topa G. A meta-analysis of psychological empowerment: Antecedents, organizational outcomes, and moderating variables. Current Psychology. 2024; 43: 1759–1784. doi: 10.1007/s12144-023-04369-8

28.       Kim SS, Yoon DY. Impact of empowering leadership on adaptive performance in hybrid work: A serial mediation effect of knowledge sharing and employee agility. Frontiers in Psychology. 2025; 16: 1448820. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1448820

29.       Chevtaeva E, Denizci-Guillet B. Digital nomads’ lifestyles and coworkation. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management. 2021; 21: 100633. doi: 10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100633

30.       Hardwig T, Boos M. Hybrid work: A challenge for change management. Gruppe Interaktion Organisation. 2023; 54: 187–197. doi: 10.1007/s11612-023-00686-5

31.       Jaß L, Klußmann A, Harth V, et al. Job demands and resources perceived by hybrid working employees in German public administration: A qualitative study. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology. 2024; 19(1): 28. doi: 10.1186/s12995-024-00426-5

32.       Chu CC, Chou CY. Hybrid work stressors and psychological withdrawal behavior: A moderated mediation model of emotional exhaustion and proactive personality. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2024; 155: 104053. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2024.104053

33.       Rieder K. Effects of hybrid work on psychological detachment. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft. 2025; 79: 64–73. doi: 10.1007/s41449-024-00445-2

34.       Bath J, Brauchle S. Effectiveness of mandatory return-to-office policies in hybrid work environments. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft. 2025; 79: 234–249. doi: 10.1007/s41449-025-00459-4

35.       Trevino Garcia LE, Christensen JO. Hybrid work and mental distress: A cross-sectional study of 24,763 office workers in the Norwegian public sector. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2025; 98(4): 399–407. doi: 10.1007/s00420-025-02136-9

36.       Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, González-Romá V, et al. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two-sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2002; 3: 71–92. doi: 10.1023/A: 1015630930326

37.       Christian MS, Garza AS, Slaughter JE. Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology. 2011; 64(1): 89–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x

38.       Naqshbandi MM, Kabir I, Ishak NA, et al. The future of work: Work engagement and job performance in the hybrid workplace. The Learning Organization. 2024; 31(1): 5–26. doi: 10.1108/TLO-08-2022-0097

39.       Apenbrink KS, Kuhlmann R. Daily gain cycles in hybrid work environments: A multilevel study on the reciprocal interplay of job crafting, psychological capital, and work engagement. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2025: 1–23. doi: 10.1007/s10869-025-10070-3.

40.       Sahadev S, Chang K, Malhotra N, et al. Psychological empowerment and creative performance: Mediating role of thriving and moderating role of competitive psychological climate. Journal of Business Research. 2024; 170: 114310. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114310

41.       Dongxian L, Batool H. Influence of distributed leadership on employee innovative behaviour: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 2024; 13: 82. doi: 10.1186/s13731-024-00448-7

42.       Hashemi R, Sadeghi A, Roshanaei G, et al. The relationship between the leader empowering behaviors and work engagement: The role of psychological empowerment as a mediating variable. BMC Nursing. 2025; 24: 652. doi: 10.1186/s12912-025-03321-4

43.       Huang Q, Wang L, Huang H, et al. Transformational leadership, psychological empowerment, work engagement and intensive care nurses’ job performance: A cross-sectional study using structural equation modeling. BMC Nursing. 2025; 24: 1025. doi: 10.1186/s12912-025-03685-7

44.       Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2007; 22(3): 309–328. doi: 10.1108/02683940710733115

45.       Zhang H, Sun W, Tang G. Relational leadership and work-life balance: The moderated mediating role of relational energy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 2025; 42(4): 2379–2400. doi: 10.1007/s10490-024-09995-9

46.       Tackett T, Lemon LL. A balanced approach: Remote employees’ experiences with employee engagement and well-being. Corporate Communications. 2025; 31(1): 4–20. doi: 10.1108/CCIJ-08-2024-0154

47.       Meynhardt T, Hermann C, Bardeli J. Connecting value creation for society with work engagement: The relevance of an organization’s public value as an extension of the job characteristics model. Current Psychology. 2024; 43: 23260–23277. doi: 10.1007/s12144-024-05922-9

48.       Datta P, Balasundaram S, Elangovan N, et al. Measuring autonomy in hybrid work: Scale development. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica. 2025; 38(1): 8. doi: 10.1186/s41155-025-00338-1

49.       Gioia DA, Corley KG, Hamilton AL. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research. Organizational Research Methods. 2013; 16(1): 15–31. doi: 10.1177/1094428112452151

50.       Hinkin TR. A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods. 1998; 1(1): 104–121. doi: 10.1177/109442819800100106

51.       Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, et al. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003; 88(5): 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879