Skip to main content Skip to journal navigation menu Skip to site footer
contact@ukscip.com
Article

Measuring Digital-Nomad-Oriented Management Practices: Scale Development and Cross-Cultural Validation of DRISA

Weibo Zhou ORCID ,  Irena Kokina ORCID ,  Wei Su ORCID
    Received: 4 March 2026; Revised: 19 March 2026; Accepted: 30 March 2026; Published: 3 August 2026

    Abstract

    Digital nomadism extends remote work by combining geographic mobility, digital dependence, and cross-boundary coordination, yet research still lacks a validated measure of the management practices that make work-from-anywhere arrangements organizationally viable in practice. This study develops and validates DRISA, a five-dimensional measure of digital-nomad-oriented management practices comprising Digital Integration, Remote Collaboration, Individual Autonomy, Spatial Freedom, and Agile Management. Using an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design, we first conducted 42 semi-structured interviews to generate and refine items and then reduced an initial item pool through a pilot survey (N = 80). We subsequently validated the scale across samples from China, the United States, and Europe (main validation N = 372; pooled N = 452 including the pilot sample). Results supported a correlated five-factor structure, strong reliability and convergent validity, discriminant validity, and configural, metric, and scalar invariance across regions. In the nomological network, DRISA positively predicted psychological empowerment, perceived organizational performance, and retention intention, with empowerment providing additional explanatory value. The study contributes by operationalizing a management architecture for highly mobile knowledge work, advancing cross-cultural measurement in digital nomad research, and providing a diagnostic instrument that researchers and practitioners can use to evaluate how organizations support digital nomads while balancing autonomy, coordination, organizational control, and contextual constraints across sampled settings.

    Keywords

    References

    1. 1. Thompson, B.Y. Digital nomadism: Mobility, millennials and the future of work in the online gig economy. In The Future of Creative Work; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2020; pp. 156–171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839101106.00019
    2. 2. Başaran, A. Digital nomads, the new frontier of work in the digital age: A bibliometric analysis. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1906. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su17051906
    3. 3. Barrero, J.M.; Bloom, N.; Davis, S.J. The evolution of work from home. J. Econ. Perspect. 2023, 37, 23–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.37.4.23
    4. 4. Woldoff, R.A.; Litchfield, R.C. Digital Nomads: In Search of Meaningful Work in the New Economy; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2021.
    5. 5. Tiberius, V.; Chen, N.; Bartels, M.; et al. Breaking out! A netnography study on motives of a digital nomad lifestyle. Technol. Soc. 2024, 78, 102678. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102678
    6. 6. Gomes, D.; Kastenholz, E.; Ferreira, A.G.; et al. The role of host-guest interactions in remote work-driven tourism development. In Transforming Remote Work and Tourism in the Digital Nomad Era; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2025; pp. 239–278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3373-0076-4.ch009
    7. 7. Chevtaeva, E.; Denizci-Guillet, B. Digital nomads’ lifestyles and coworkation. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2021, 21, 100633. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100633
    8. 8. Bednorz, J. Working from anywhere? Work from here! Approaches to attract digital nomads. Ann. Tour. Res. 2024, 105, 103715. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2023.103715
    9. 9. Cook, D. Breaking the contract: Digital nomads and the state. Crit. Anthropol. 2022, 42, 304–323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X221120172
    10. 10. Nichols, A. Digital nomads: A savvy enterprise’s newest HR frontier. Strateg. HR Rev. 2022, 21, 185–190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-08-2022-0049
    11. 11. Yang, C.; Shao, J.; Zhao, Y. Post-COVID-19 sojourn choices: Exploring the distribution and preferences of Chinese digital nomads based on the lifestyle migration theory. Sustainability 2025, 17, 130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su17010130
    12. 12. Hinkin, T.R. A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organ. Res. Methods 1998, 1, 104–121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106
    13. 13. Anubha, A.; Hussain, S.; Mohanty, P.; et al. Digital nomads: Redefining tourism success or complicating destination challenges. In Handbook of Tourism and Consumer Behavior; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2024; pp. 12–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035309801.00009
    14. 14. Polson, E. The aspirational class “mobility” of digital nomads. In The Routledge Companion to Media and Class; Polson, E., Schofield Clark, L., Gajjala, R., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; pp. 168–179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351027342-15
    15. 15. Reichenberger, I. Digital nomads—A quest for holistic freedom in work and leisure. Ann. Leis. Res. 2017, 21, 364–380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2017.1358098
    16. 16. Lescarret, C.; Lemercier, C.; Le Floch, V. Coworking spaces vs. home: Does employees’ experience of the negative aspects of working from home predict their intention to telework in a coworking space? Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 1079691. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1079691
    17. 17. Dell’Aversana, G.; Miglioretti, M. Coworking spaces for remote workers: An inclusive solution? Advantages and challenges from affiliated workers’ perspectives. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2025, 19, 1131–1160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00787-5
    18. 18. Jarrahi, M.H.; Philips, G.; Sutherland, W.; et al. Personalization of knowledge, personal knowledge ecology, and digital nomadism. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2019, 70, 313–324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24134
    19. 19. Capone, V.; Schettino, G.; Marino, L.; et al. The new normal of remote work: Exploring individual and organizational factors affecting work-related outcomes and well-being in academia. Front. Psychol. 2024, 15, 1340094. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1340094
    20. 20. Al Mohamed, A.A.; Al Mohamed, S.; Alebrahem, M. The remote revolution: Assessing the impact of working from home on finance professionals. Future Bus. J. 2024, 10, 94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-024-00345-1
    21. 21. de Carvalho, A.F.P.; Saeed, S.; Reuter, C.; et al. Understanding nomadic practices of social activist networks through the lens of infrastructuring: The case of the European Social Forum. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 2022, 31, 731–769. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-022-09442-7
    22. 22. Prester, J.; Cecez-Kecmanovic, D.; Cahalane, M.; et al. Emerging leaders in digital work: Toward a theory of attentional leadership. In Proceedings of the Forty-First International Conference on Information Systems, Hyderabad, India, 13–16 December 2020.
    23. 23. Qi, L.; Xu, Y.; Liu, B. Work out of office: How and when does employees’ self-control influence their remote work effectiveness? Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1265593. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1265593
    24. 24. Caniëls, M.C.J. How remote working increases the importance of positive leadership for employee vigor. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1089557. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1089557
    25. 25. Estagnasié, C.; Bianco, A. Understanding the fundamental psychological needs of digital nomads in order to (re)design the work experience. @GRH 2023, 49, 17–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/GRH.049.0017
    26. 26. Maden-Eyiusta, C.; Alparslan, S.E. Captain or deckhand? The impact of self-leadership on employees’ work role performance under remote work. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 988105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.988105
    27. 27. Tóth, R.; Dunavölgyi, M.; Mitev, A.Z.; et al. Exploring the psychological impact of choice in telework: Enhancing employee performance and life satisfaction. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2025, 12, 1330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05449-9
    28. 28. Akgiş İlhan, Ö.; Günay, S.; Ateş, D.; et al. An assessment of the role of safety in digital nomads’ destination selections. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2024, 16, 355–364. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-03-2024-0043
    29. 29. Garcez, A.; Correia, R.; Carvalho, A. Digital nomads: Who they are and what they want from the destinations? In Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies; Springer: Singapore, 2024; 344, pp. 483–495. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-0333-7_35
    30. 30. Christiansen, R.A.; Ihalauw, J.; Kriestian, A.; et al. Developing digital nomads as a new market segment and their role in the local digital ecosystem. J. Syst. Manag. Sci. 2023, 13, 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33168/jsms.2023.0201
    31. 31. Creswell, J.W.; Plano Clark, V.L. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2011.
    32. 32. Edmondson, A.C.; McManus, S.E. Methodological fit in management field research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 1246–1264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586086
    33. 33. Churchill Jr., G.A. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J. Mark. Res. 1979, 16, 64–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377901600110
    34. 34. Gioia, D.A.; Corley, K.G.; Hamilton, A.L. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organ. Res. Methods 2013, 16, 15–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
    35. 35. Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Modeling 1999, 6, 1–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
    36. 36. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
    37. 37. Steenkamp, J.B.E.M.; Baumgartner, H. Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 1998, 25, 78–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/209528
    38. 38. Lorenzo-Seva, U.; ten Berge, J.M.F. Tucker’s congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology 2006, 2, 57–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.2.2.57
    39. 39. Vandenberg, R.J.; Lance, C.E. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ. Res. Methods 2000, 3, 4–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
    40. 40. Cheung, G.W.; Rensvold, R.B. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Modeling 2002, 9, 233–255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
    41. 41. Chen, F.F. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Modeling 2007, 14, 464–504. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
    42. 42. Zhang, L.; Kim, D.; Ding, S. Cultivating organizational performance through the performance measurement systems: Role of psychological empowerment and creativity. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1116617. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1116617
    43. 43. Liao, D.; Batool, H. Influence of distributed leadership on employee innovative behaviour: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. J. Innov. Entrep. 2024, 13, 82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-024-00448-7
    44. 44. Puhakka, I.J.A.; Nokelainen, P.; Lehtonen, E. Remote work intensity in knowledge work: Associations with informal workplace learning, basic psychological needs satisfaction, job satisfaction, and turnover intention. Vocat. Learn. 2025, 18, 23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-025-09377-2
    45. 45. Koll, E.; Wang, X.; Lin, M.S. Digital nomadism as a form of travel: A phenomenological study of going on a workation. Tour. Manag. 2025, 110, 105185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2025.105185
    46. 46. Zhou, L.; Buhalis, D.; Fan, D.X.F.; et al. Attracting digital nomads: Smart destination strategies, innovation and competitiveness. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2024, 31, 100850. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2023.100850
    47. 47. Miocevic, D.; Kock, F. Socio-cultural adaptation in cross-cultural transitions of digital nomads: A self-discrepancy view. Tour. Manag. 2025, 109, 105153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2025.105153
    48. 48. Rainoldi, M.; Ladkin, A.; Buhalis, D. Digital nomads’ work-leisure management practices. Ann. Tour. Res. 2025, 111, 103904. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2025.103904
    49. 49. Kim, S.S.; Yoon, D.Y. Impact of empowering leadership on adaptive performance in hybrid work: A serial mediation effect of knowledge sharing and employee agility. Front. Psychol. 2025, 16, 1448820. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1448820
    50. 50. Bozzi, A. Digital nomadism from the perspective of places and mobilities: A literature review. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2024, 16, 50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-024-00663-z
    51. 51. Chompukum, P.; Vanichbuncha, T. Building a positive work environment: The role of psychological empowerment in engagement and intention to leave. Behav. Sci. 2025, 15, 131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15020131
    ×