Beyond the Tarmac: Assessing the Impact of Remote Work Policieson Administrative Staff Productivity in Aviation Organisations in Nigeria
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.68050/JAMS.2026.322Keywords:
Remote Work, Aviation Administration, Hybrid work, Productivity, operational continuityAbstract
The post-pandemic normalization of remote work has fundamentally altered organizational structures globally. However, empirical research regarding its impact on productivity remains heavily skewed toward generic knowledge sectors, leaving high-reliability industries like aviation underexplored. Specifically, the administrative and support staff who manage the complex logistical, financial, and regulatory back-office functions of aviation organisations face unique operational constraints that challenge standard remote work paradigms. This study assesses the impact of remote work policies on the productivity of non-operational aviation personnel, examining how sector-specific factors moderate this relationship across different administrative sub-functions. Employing a mixed-methods explanatory sequential design, Phase 1 collected quantitative survey data from 467 administrative staff across airlines, airport authorities, and aviation service providers. Phase 2 conducted semi-structured interviews with 28 participants to contextualize statistical patterns. Data were analysed using hierarchical multiple regression and thematic analysis, framed by the Job Demands-Resources model, Media Richness Theory, and Institutional Theory. Findings reveal a significant inverted-U relationship between remote work intensity and productivity, peaking at three to four days per week before declining due to coordination latency. Crucially, outcomes varied starkly by function: analytical roles (e.g., Revenue Management) experienced robust productivity gains, while highly interdependent roles (e.g., Crew Scheduling) suffered significant deterioration due to "operational blind spots." Furthermore, legacy IT infrastructure imposed a pervasive "friction tax," and rigid regulatory compliance mandates severely constrained remote effectiveness for safety administration staff. The relationship between remote work and productivity in aviation is deeply contingent upon task equivocality, technological adequacy, and institutional pressures. Blanket remote work policies are empirically flawed for this sector. Aviation organisations must adopt differentiated, function-specific hybrid models, prioritize cloud migration of legacy systems, and advocate for digital regulatory modernization to optimize administrative productivity without compromising operational continuity or safety compliance.
References
Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(2), 40–68.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285.
Belobaba, P., Morrison, S. A., & Winston, C. (2023). The evolution of the commercial flying experience. Routledge.
Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J., & Ying, Z. J. (2015). Does working from homework? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(1), 165–218.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Buhalis, D., & Leung, X. Y. (2023). Digital transformation in aviation: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Air Transport Management, 109, 102401.
Carlson, P. J., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 153–170.
Charalampous, M., Grant, C. A., & Rodriguez, J. M. (2022). Systematically reviewing remote e-workers’ well-being at work: A multidimensional approach. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31(1), 51–73.
Choudhury, P., Foroughi, C., & Larson, B. (2021). Our work-from-anywhere future. Harvard Business Review, 99(3), 58–67.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6pt2), 2134–2156.
Fowler, F. J. (2014). Survey research methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524–1541.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.
Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2021). Pandemics, tourism and global change: A rapid assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(1), 1–20.
International Civil Aviation Organization. (2023). Global outlook for air transport: Workforce development and retention. ICAO Publications.
Kapsalis, A., Pyrgioti, N., & Stathopoulos, A. (2022). Human resource challenges in European aviation post-COVID. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 162, 1–18.
Larson, B. Z., Vroman, S. R., & Makarius, E. E. (2020). A guide to managing your newly remote workers. Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, 1–12.
Martin, B. H., & MacDonnell, R. (2012). Is telework effective for organizations? A meta-analysis of empirical research on perceptions of telework and organizational outcomes. Management Research Review, 35(7), 602–616.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 400–410.
Oakman, J., Kinsman, N., Stuckey, R., Graham, M., & Weale, V. (2020). A rapid review of mental and physical health effects of working at home: How do we optimise health? BMC Public Health, 20, 1827.
Pinkstaff, C. B., Rosekind, M. R., & Mallis, M. M. (2022). Fatigue risk management in aviation: Current state and future directions. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors, 12(1), 1–15.
Reason, J. (2016). Managing the risks of organizational accidents (2nd ed.). CRC Press.
Reilly, M. C., Zbrozek, A. S., & Dukes, E. M. (1993). The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. PharmacoEconomics, 4(5), 353–365.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.
Sobieralski, J. M., Tuzunkan, D., & Altuntas, F. (2023). Airline recovery strategies post-COVID-19: A systematic review. Journal of Air Transport Management, 108, 102374.
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.
Yang, L., Holtz, D., Jaffe, S., Suri, S., Sinha, S., Weston, J., ... & Teevan, J. (2022). The effects of remote work on collaboration among information workers. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(1), 43–54.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles published in the Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Studies (JAMS) are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), unless otherwise stated. Authors retain copyright of their work and grant JAMS the right of first publication.
