Study	Methodology	Research topics	Findings
	Literature review	Stress, absenteeism, cost	Stress contributes to 19% of absenteeism costs, 30% of disability costs, at least 60% of workplace accidents and 40% of staff turnover costs Positive impact of healthy workplaces on staff turnover and sick leave, resulting in cost reduction Cost–benefit ratio may range from €1.25 to €5 for every Euro invested. Great cost savings can be gained, when health promotion programs are implemented in a supportive work environment
	Employee surveys, interviews with managers and data about sickness absence in a multi-site organization in the logistics sector	Absenteeism	Good consultation and communication at the local level, and absence management that emphasizes employee well-being, is associated with lower absenteeism In a case study, absence rates fell from 6.5%–7% to 4%–5%
	Qualitative sorting task of employees’ preferences and ratings; in-depth interviews with 98 office employees; evaluation of physical office conditions, lighting qualities and quantities by 175 employees; questionnaire survey and physical health screening forms of employees’ health conditions	Biophilic relationship between views on nature and daylighting in the workplace and impacts on sick leave	Workers in offices with poor ratings of light quality and poorer views used significantly more sick leave hours. Taken together, the two variables explained 6.5% of the variation in sick leave use, which was statistically significant The combination of view quality, lighting quality and glazing area explained 10% of the variation in sick leave days
	Analysis of small investments involving very low or no up-front cost, such as providing employees access to plants, natural views, daylight and other biophilic design elements	Costs and benefit of biophilic design	Integrating quality daylighting schemes can save over €1.65 per employee per year in office costs; over €76m could be saved annually in health-care costs as a result of providing patients with views to nature. Biophilic changes can reduce absenteeism over a long period of time, reduce complaints that drain human resource productivity and help retain employees
	Literature study	Costs of stress and psychosocial risks at work, on national level and per sector	Stress and psychological risks result in increased medical and insurance costs, higher sickness absence, higher staff turnover, early retirement, more accidents and errors, loss of productivity and lower quality of life. It is estimated that 30% of sickness absence is directly caused by stress. Every €1 of expenditure in promotion and prevention programs generates net economic benefits over a one-year period of up to €13.62
(2014)	Data from 1,852 employees working in Sweden in different office types	Sick leave	Significant higher short sick leave among women in small, medium-sized and large open-plan offices and among men in flex-offices A significantly higher risk on long sick leave was found among women in large open-plan and for the total number of sick days among men in flex offices
	Analysis of 11 cases	Impact of green features, location and amenities, IAQ, acoustics, look-and-feel on health and well-being benefits, occupant satisfaction and economic benefits	Because of the variety in projects regarding its size, type of organization and interventions, calculated economic benefits showed a wide range with drops in employee sick days of 25%–58%, reductions in staff turnover of 27% and annual savings up to €85,000 per year
(2017)	Study of 16,926 employees who participated in a worksite wellness program	Workplace safety, employees’ health conditions and absenteeism	Poor workplace safety and employees’ chronic health conditions contributed to absenteeism and job performance. Their impact was influenced by the physical and cognitive difficulty of the job
(2017/ )	Property Health and Wellness ROI (Return of Investment)	Financial and health impact of investments in a hypothetical investment in the WELL Building Standard for a 18,500 m office building	Over a period of five years, the Internal Rate of Return from WELL investments is estimated to be almost 300%. Sensitivity analysis around a range of potential cost estimates (e.g. more or less than 0.5% productivity growth, taking into account initial investments to learn new rating systems) results in other figures
	Analysis of cost data from Investopedia and the International Well Building Institute	Productivity loss and absenteeism	In the USA, the total annual costs of lost productivity because of employee absenteeism counts €69bn. Creating and implementing well-being programs can reduce employee “sick days” by 26%. A real estate agency that achieved a WELL Gold certification mentioned a reduction of four sick days per year per employee and a 27% reduction in staff turnover
Measurement (no year)	Literature review and data from internet	Stress, engagement and productivity	57% of employees with high amounts of stress are disengaged in the workplace. Organizations with engaged employees experience increase profitability by more than 20%. Healthy workers are 11% more productive

Al Horr , Y. , Arif , M. , Kaushik , A. , Mazroei , A. , Katafygiotou , M. and Elsarrag , E. ( 2016 ), “ Occupant productivity and office indoor environment quality: a review of the literature ”, Building and Environment , Vol. 105 , pp. 369 - 389 , doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.06.001 .

Appel-Meulenbroek , R. , Van der Voordt , T. , Le Blanc , P. , Aussems , R. and Arentze , T. ( 2020 ), “ Impact of activity-based workplaces on burnout and engagement ”, Journal of Corporate Real Estate , Vol. 22 No. 4 , pp. 279 - 296 , doi: 10.1108/JCRE-09-2019-0041 .

Bauer , A. ( 2020 ), “ Pride and productivity: post occupancy evaluation of the healing office design concept ”, Journal of Corporate Real Estate , Vol. 22 No. 4 , pp. 313 - 340 , doi: 10.1108/JCRE-02-2019-0012 .

Bodin Danielsson , C. and Bodin , L. ( 2008 ), “ Office-type in relation to health, well-being and job satisfaction among employees ”, Environment and Behavior , Vol. 40 No. 5 , pp. 636 - 668 , doi: 10.1177/0013916507307459\

Bodin Danielsson , C.B. , Chungkham , H.S. , Wulff , C. and Westerlund , H. ( 2014 ), “ Office design’s impact on sick leave rates ”, Ergonomics , Vol. 57 No. 2 , pp. 139 - 147 , doi: 10.1080/00140139.2013.871064 .

British Council for Offices ( 2018 ), “ Wellness matters ”, Report , available at: www.bco.org.uk/HealthWellbeing/WellnessMatters.aspx

Burton , J. ( 2008 ), The Business Case for a Healthy Workplace , Toronto , Industrial Accident Prevention Association IAPA .

Candido , C. , Marzban , S. , Haddad , S. , Mackey , M. and Loder , A. ( 2021 ), “ Designing healthy workspaces: results from Australian certified open-plan offices ”, Facilities , Vol. 39 Nos 5/6 , pp. 411 - 433 , doi: 10.1108/F-02-2020-0018 .

Candido , C. , Thomas , L. , Haddad , S. , Zhang , F. , Mackey , M. and Ye , W. ( 2019 ), “ Designing activity-based workspaces: satisfaction, productivity and physical activity ”, Building Research and Information , Vol. 47 No. 3 , pp. 275 - 289 , doi: 10.1080/09613218.2018.1476372 .

Candido , C. , Zhang , J. , Kim , J. , De Dear , R. , Thomas , L. , Strapasson , P. and Joo , C. ( 2016 ), “ Impact of workspace layout on occupant satisfaction, perceived health and productivity ”, Proceedings of 9th Windsor Conference: Making Comfort Relevant , Windsor , available at: http://nceub.org.uk/

Chambers , A.J. , Robertson , M.M. and Baker , N.A. ( 2019 ), “ The effect of sit-stand desks on office worker behavioral and health outcomes: a scoping review ”, Applied Ergonomics , Vol. 78 , pp. 37 - 53 , doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2019.01.015 .

Clements-Croome , D. ( 2018 ), “ Effects of the built environment on health and well-being ”, in Clements-Croome , D. (Ed.), Creating the Productive Workplace: Places to Work Creatively , 3rd ed ., London , Routledge , pp. 3 - 40 .

Colenberg , S. , Jylhä , T. and Arkesteijn , M. ( 2020 ), “ The relationship between interior office space and employee health and well-being ”, Building Research and Information , Vol. 49 No. 3 , doi: 10.1080/09613218.2019.1710098 .

Cordero , A.B. , Babapour , M. and Karlsson , M. ( 2020 ), “ Feel well and do well at work: a post-relocation study on the relationships between employee wellbeing and office landscape ”, Journal of Corporate Real Estate , Vol. 22 No. 2 , pp. 113 - 137 , doi: 10.1108/JCRE-01-2019-0002 .

Davis , M.C. , Leach , D.J. and Clegg , D.J. ( 2020 ), “ Breaking out of open-plan: extending social interference theory through an evaluation of contemporary offices ”, Environment and Behavior , Vol. 52 No. 9 , pp. 945 - 978 , doi: 10.1177/0013916519878211 .

Eichholtz , P. , Kok , N. and Palacios , P. ( 2019 ), “ Moving to productivity: the benefits of healthy buildings ”, Preliminary Working Paper , Maastricht University , doi: 10.7910/DVN/ALUUEC .

Elnaklah , R. , Walker , I. and Natarajan , S. ( 2021 ), “ Moving to a green building: indoor environment quality, thermal comfort and health ”, Building and Environment , Vol. 191 , pp. 1 - 19 , doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107592 .

Elzeyadi , I. ( 2011 ), “ Daylighting-Bias and biophilia: quantifying the impacts of daylight on occupants health ”, Thought and Leadership in Green Buildings Research. Greenbuild Proceedings , Washington, DC , USGBC Press .

Engelen , L. , Chau , J. , Young , S. , Mackey , M. , Jeyapalan , D. and Bauman , A. ( 2019 ), “ Is activity-based working impacting health, work performance and perceptions? A systematic review ”, Building Research and Information , Vol. 47 No. 4 , pp. 468 - 479 , doi: 10.1080/09613218.2018.1440958 .

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work ( 2014 ), Calculating the Cost of Work-Related Stress and Psychosocial Risks , Luxembourg , Publications Office of the European Union . 10.2802/20493

Ferrari , R. ( 2015 ), “ Writing narrative style literature reviews ”, The European Medical Writers Association , doi: 10.1179/2047480615Z.000000000329 .

Forooraghi , M. , Miedema , E. , Ryd , N. and Wallbaum , H. ( 2020 ), “ Scoping review of health in office design approaches ”, Journal of Corporate Real Estate , Vol. 22 No. 2 , pp. 155 - 180 , doi: 10.1108/JCRE-08-2019-0036 .

Franke , M. and Nadler , C. ( 2020 ), “ Towards a holistic approach for assessing the impact of IEQ on satisfaction, health, and productivity ”, Building Research and Information , Vol. 49 No. 4 , pp. 417 - 444 , doi: 10.1080/09613218.2020.1788917 .

Garland , E. , Watts , A. , Doucette , J. , Foley , M. , Senerat , A. and Sanchez , S. ( 2018 ), “ Stand up to work: assessing the health impact of adjustable workstations ”, International Journal of Workplace Health Management , Vol. 11 No. 2 , pp. 85 - 95 , doi: 10.1108/IJWHM-10-2017-0078 .

Green , B.N. , Johnson , C.D. and Adams , A. ( 2006 ), “ Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade ”, Journal of Chiropractic Medicine , Vol. 5 No. 3 , pp. 101 - 117 , doi: 10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60142-6 .

Groen , B. , van der Voordt , T. , Hoekstra , B. and van Sprang , H. ( 2019 ), “ Impact of employee satisfaction with facilities on self-assessed productivity support ”, Journal of Facilities Management , Vol. 17 No. 5 , pp. 442 - 462 , doi: 10.1108/JFM-12-2018-0069 .

Haapakangas , A. , Hallman , D.M. , Mathiassen , S.E. and Jahncke , H. ( 2018b ), “ Self-rated productivity and employee well-being in activity-based offices: the role of environmental perceptions and workspace use ”, Building and Environment , Vol. 145 , pp. 115 - 124 .

Haapakangas , A. , Hongisto , V. , Varjo , J. and Lahtinen , M. ( 2018a ), “ Benefits of quiet workspaces in open-plan offices: evidence from two office relocations ”, Journal of Environmental Psychology , Vol. 56 , pp. 63 - 75 , doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.03.003 .

Hähn , N. , Essah , E. and Blanusa , T. ( 2020 ), “ Biophilic design and office planting: a case study of effects on perceived health, well-being and performance metrics ”, Intelligent Buildings International , doi: 10.1080/17508975.2020.1732859 .

Herbig , B. , Schneider , A. and Nowak , D. ( 2016 ), “ Does office space occupation matter? The role of the number of persons per enclosed office space, psychosocial work characteristics, and environmental satisfaction in the physical and mental health of employees ”, Indoor Air 2016 , Vol. 26 No. 5 , pp. 755 - 767 , doi: 10.1111/ina.12263 .

Hodzic , S. , Kubicek , B. , Uhlig , L. and Korunka , C. ( 2021 ), “ Activity-based flexible offices: effects on work-related outcomes in a longitudinal study ”, Ergonomics , Vol. 64 No. 4 , pp. 455 - 473 , doi: 10.1080/00140139.2020.1850882 .

Isham , A. , Mair , S. and Jackson , T. ( 2019 ), Wellbeing and Productivity: A Review of the Literature , Report for the Economic and Social Research Council , December 2019 .

Jamrozik , A. , Clements , N. , Hasana , S.S. , Zhaoa , J. , Zhanga , R. , Campanellaa , C. , Loftness , V. , Portera , P. , Lya , S. , Wanga , S. and Bauera , B. ( 2019 ), “ Access to daylight and view in an office improves cognitive performance and satisfaction and reduces eyestrain: a controlled crossover study ”, Building and Environment , Vol. 165 , p. 106379 , doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106379 .

Jensen , P.A. and Van der Voordt , T. (Eds) ( 2017 ), Facilities Management and Corporate Real Estate Management as Value Drivers: How to Manage and Measure Adding Value , London/New York, NY , Routledge

Jensen , P.A. and Van der Voordt , T. ( 2020 ), “ Healthy workplaces: what we know and what we should know ”, Journal of Corporate Real Estate , Vol. 22 No. 2 , pp. 95 - 112 , doi: 10.1108/JCRE-11-2018-0045 .

Jinnett , K. , Schwatka , N. , Tenney , L. , Brockbank , C.V.S. and Newman , L. ( 2017 ), “ Chronic conditions, workplace safety, and job demands contribute to absenteeism and job performance ”, Health Affairs , Vol. 36 No. 2 , pp. 237 - 244 , doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1151 .

Kar , G. and Hedge , A. ( 2021 ), “ Effect of workstation configuration on musculoskeletal discomfort, productivity, postural risks, and perceived fatigue in a sit-stand-walk intervention for computer-based work ”, Applied Ergonomics , Vol. 90 , pp. 1 - 11 , doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103211 .

Karakolis , T. and Callaghan , J.P. ( 2014 ), “ The impact of sit-stand office workstations on worker discomfort and productivity: a review ”, Applied Ergonomics , Vol. 45 No. 3 , pp. 799 - 806 , doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2013.10.001 .

Kaushik , A. , Arif , M. , Tumula , P. and Ebohon , O.J. ( 2020 ), “ Effect of thermal comfort on occupant productivity in office buildings: response surface analysis ”, Building and Environment , Vol. 180 , pp. 1 - 9 , doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107021 .

Kim , J. , Candido , C. , Thomas , L. and De Dear , R. ( 2016 ), “ Desk ownership in the workplace: the effect of non-territorial working on employee workplace satisfaction, perceived productivity and health ”, Building and Environment , Vol. 103 , pp. 203 - 214 , doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.04.015 .

Ko , W.H. , Schiavon , S. , Zhang , Z. , Graham , L.T. , Brager , G. , Mauss , I. and Lin , Y.-W. ( 2020 ), “ The impact of a view from a window on thermal comfort, emotion, and cognitive performance ”, Building and Environment , Vol. 175 , pp. 1 - 15 , doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106779 .

Lamb , S. and Kwok , K.C.S. ( 2016 ), “ A longitudinal investigation of work environment stressors on the performance and wellbeing of office workers ”, Applied Ergonomics , Vol. 52 , pp. 104 - 111 , doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2015.07.010 .

Lamb , S. and Kwok , K.C.S. ( 2017 ), “ Sopite syndrome in wind-excited buildings: productivity and wellbeing impacts ”, Building Research and Information , Vol. 45 No. 3 , pp. 347 - 358 , doi: 10.1080/09613218.2016.1190140 .

Laski , J. ( 2016 ), “ Doing right by planet and people ”, The Business Case for Health and Wellbeing in Green Building , London/Toronto , World Green Building Council .

Licina , D. and Yildirim , S. ( 2021 ), “ Occupant satisfaction with indoor environmental quality, sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms and self-reported productivity before and after relocation into WELL-certified office buildings ”, Building and Environment , Vol. 204 , pp. 1 - 12 , doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108183 .

Lu , M. , Hu , S. , Mao , Z. , Liang , P. , Xin , S. and Guan , H. ( 2020 ), “ Research on work efficiency and light comfort based on EEG evaluation method ”, Building and Environment , Vol. 183 , pp. 1 - 11 , doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107122 .

MacNaughton , P. , Satish , U. , Laurent , J.G.C. , Flanigan , S. , Vallarino , J. , Coull , B. , Spengler , J.D. and Allen , J.G. ( 2017 ), “ The impact of working in a green certified building on cognitive function and health ”, Building and Environment , Vol. 114 , pp. 178 - 186 , doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.11.041 .

Marsden , D. and Moriconi , S. ( 2009 ), “ 'The value of rude health’: employees’ well being, absence and workplace performance ”, CEP Discussion Paper No 919 . London , The London School of Economics, Centre for Economic Performance .

Marsh , P. and French , S. ( 2020 ), “ The GSK workspace performance hub: promoting productivity and wellbeing through office design ”, Corporate Real Estate Journal , Vol. 9 No. 4 , pp. 345 - 360 .

Marson , M. ( 2018 ), “ The business value of an innovative building ”, Corporate Real Estate Journal , Vol. 8 No. 2 , pp. 154 - 164 .

Morrison , R.L. and Smollan , R.K. ( 2020 ), “ Open plan office space? If you're going to do it, do it right: a fourteen-month longitudinal case study ”, Applied Ergonomics , Vol. 82 , pp. 1 - 18 , doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2019.102933 .

Muldavin , S. , Miers , C.R. and McMackin , K. ( 2017 /2018), “ Buildings emerge as drivers of health and profits ”, Corporate Real Estate Journal , Vol. 7 No. 2 , pp. 177 - 193 .

Nappi , I. , De Campos Ribeiro , G. and Cochard , N. ( 2020 ), “ The interplay of stress and workspace attachment on user satisfaction and workspace support to labour productivity ”, Journal of Corporate Real Estate , Vol. 22 No. 3 , pp. 215 - 237 , doi: 10.1108/JCRE-05-2019-0026 .

Nelson , E. and Holzer , D. ( 2017 ), The Healthy Office Revolution , Amstelveen , Learn Adapt Build Publishing .

Rasheed , E.O. , Khoshbakht , M. and Baird , G. ( 2021 ), “ Time spent in the office and workers’ productivity, comfort and health: a perception study ”, Building and Environment , Vol. 195 , pp. 1 - 9 , doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107747 .

Roskams , M. and Haynes , B. ( 2019 ), “ An experience sampling approach to the workplace environment survey ”, Facilities , Vol. 38 Nos 1/2 , pp. 72 - 85 , doi: 10.1108/F-04-2019-0050 .

Seddigh , A. , Berntson , E. , Bodin Danielson , C. and Westerlund , H. ( 2014 ), “ Concentration requirements modify the effect of office type on indicators of health and performance ”, Journal of Environmental Psychology , Vol. 38 , pp. 167 - 174 , doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.01.009 .

Soriano , A. , Kozusnik , M.W. and Peiró , J.M. ( 2020 ), “ The role of employees’ work patterns and office type fit (and misfit) in the relationships between employee Well-Being and performance ”, Environment and Behavior , Vol. 52 No. 2 , pp. 111 - 138 , doi: 10.1177/0013916518794260 .

Tan , Z. , Roberts , A.C. , Lee , E.L. , Kwok , K.-W. , Car , J. , Soh , C.K. and Christopoulos , G. ( 2020 ), “ Transitional areas affect perception of workspaces and employee well-being: a study of underground and above-ground workspaces ”, Building and Environment , Vol. 179 , pp. 1 - 10 , doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106840 .

Terrapin Bright Green ( 2012 ), “ The economics of biophilia ”, Why Designing with Nature in Mind Makes Financial Sense , New York, NY and Washington, DC .

Thatcher , A. , Adamson , K. , Bloch , L. and Kalantzis , A. ( 2020 ), “ Do indoor plants improve performance and well-being in offices? Divergent results from laboratory and field studies ”, Journal of Environmental Psychology , Vol. 71 No. 1.11 , p. 101487 , doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101487 .

Van der Voordt , T. ( 2021 ), “ Designing for health and wellbeing: various concepts, similar goals ”, Gestão and Tecnologia de Projetos , Vol. 16 No. 4 , pp. 13 - 31 , doi: 10.11606/gtp.v16i4.178190 .

Van der Voordt , T. and Jensen , P.A. ( 2014 ), “ Adding value by FM: exploration of management practice in The Netherlands and Denmark ”, EFMC 2014 , Berlin , 4-6 June 2014 .

Wargocki , P. ( 2019 ), “ Productivity and health effects of high indoor air quality ”, Encyclopedia of Environmental Health , 2nd edition , Vol. 5 , pp. 382 - 388 , doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.01993-X .

Wijk , K. , Bergsten , E.L. and Hallman , D.M. ( 2020 ), “ Sense of coherence, health, Well-Being, and work satisfaction before and after implementing activity-based workplaces ”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , Vol. 17 No. 14 , p. 5250 , doi: 10.3390/ijerph17145250 .

Wolkoff , P. ( 2020 ), “ Dry eye symptoms in offices and deteriorated work performance. A perspective ”, Building and Environment , Vol. 172 , p. 106704 , doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106704 .

Zerguine , H. , Johnston , V. , Healy , G.N. , Abbott , A. and Goode , A.D. ( 2021 ), “ Usage of sit-stand workstations: benefits and barriers from decision makers’ perspective in Australia ”, Applied Ergonomics , Vol. 94 , pp. 1 - 11 , doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103426 .

Further reading

Jensen , P.A. and Van der Voordt , T. ( 2021 ), “ Productivity as a value parameter for FM and CREM ”, Facilities , Vol. 39 Nos 5/6 , pp. 305 - 320 , doi: 10.1108/F-04-2020-0038 .

Measuremen consultancy (no year ), “ Why should you incorporate a healthy workplace strategy? ”, available at: www.measuremen.io/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Measuremen-Whitepaper-Why-should-you-incorporate-a-healthy-workplace-strategy.pdf

Pejtersen , J.H. , Feveile , H. , Christensen , K.B. and Burr , H. ( 2011 ), “ Sickness absence associated with shared and open-plan offices – a national cross sectional questionnaire survey ”, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health , Vol. 37 No. 5 , pp. 376 - 382 , doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3167 .

Platts , L.G. , Seddigh , A. , Berntson , E. and Westerlund , H. ( 2020 ), “ Sickness absence and sickness presence in relation to office type: an observational study of employer-recorded and self-reported data from Sweden ”, Plos One , Vol. 15 No. 4 , p. e0231934 , doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231934 .

Roskams , M. and Haynes , B. ( 2020 ), “ Salutogenic design in the workplace: Supporting sense of coherence through resources in the workplace environment ”, Journal of Corporate Real Estate , Vol. 22 No. 2 , pp. 193 - 153 , doi: 10.1108/JCRE-01-2019-0001 .

WHO ( 2021 ), “ Constitution of the world health organization ”, available at: www.who.int/about/governance/constitution . ( accessed August 30, 2021 ).

World Green Building Council ( 2014 ), “ Health, wellbeing and productivity in offices: the next chapter for green building ”, available at: www.worldgbc.org/sites/default/files/compressed_

Corresponding author

Related articles, all feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Research: How Employee Experience Impacts Your Bottom Line

• Kate Gautier,
• Tiffani Bova,
• Kexin Chen,
• Lalith Munasinghe

An examination of several years of employee and financial data from a global retailer found a substantial impact.

Executives might be more accustomed to seeing business cases and ROI calculations from marketing and sales teams, but they should start empowering talent departments to make their own case. Why? Because customer-facing employees and revenue are strongly linked, the authors find. In their research, stores whose customer-facing employee base was more tenured, had more experience in prior rotations, was higher skilled, and was more skewed towards full time, generated a 50% increase in revenue.

Most people believe — and research backs them up — that great customer experience drives revenue growth. But who claims credit for these successes? Marketing departments will point to advertising campaigns and brand awareness efforts that coincide with above-normal sales growth. Product teams can quantify the impact of specific features on customer satisfaction or increased revenue. Sales teams of course view themselves as the go-to group for bringing revenue in the door. But what about Human Resource departments?

• KG Kate Gautier studied mathematics at Barnard College of Columbia University and is a graduate student at Stanford Graduate School of Business. She is the co-founder of Talenteck, a human capital analytics company and research lab.
• Tiffani Bova  is the global growth evangelist at Salesforce, a member of the 2021 Thinkers50 global ranking of management thinkers, a former research fellow at Gartner, and the Wall Street Journal bestselling author of the  Growth IQ and The Experience Mindset: Changing the Way You Think About Growth .
• KC Kexin Chen is the Senior Director of Integrated Marketing at Salesforce. She leverages the latest advancements in media, brand partnerships, and storytelling to spark engagement with CEOs and their leadership teams.
• LM Lalith Munasinghe , Ph.D. is a Professor of Economics at Barnard College of Columbia University and the founder of Talenteck, a human capital analytics company and research lab.

Partner Center

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

How Americans View Their Jobs

Most are highly satisfied with their relationship with their co-workers and manager, but relatively few feel the same about their pay, opportunities for promotion, table of contents.

• How workers see their job
• How workers are experiencing the workplace
• Access to and importance of employer-sponsored benefits
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Pew Research Center conducted this study to better understand the experiences of U.S. adults in the workplace. This analysis is based on 5,188 U.S. adults who are working part time or full time, who are not self-employed, and who have only one job or have more than one but consider one to be their primary job.

The data was collected as part of a larger survey of workers conducted Feb. 6-12, 2023. Everyone who took part is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. Address-based sampling ensures nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Read more about the questions used for this report and the report’s methodology .

References to workers or employed adults include those who are employed part time or full time, who are not self-employed, and who have only one job or have more than one but consider one of them to be their primary job.

References to White, Black and Asian adults include only those who are not Hispanic and identify as only one race. Hispanics are of any race.

References to college graduates or people with a college degree comprise those with a bachelor’s degree or more. “Some college” includes those with an associate degree and those who attended college but did not obtain a degree.

“Middle income” is defined here as two-thirds to double the median annual family income for panelists on the American Trends Panel. “Lower income” falls below that range; “upper income” falls above it. Read the methodology for more details.

In the wake of the Great Resignation and amid reports of “ quiet quitting ,” only about half of U.S. workers say they are extremely or very satisfied with their job overall, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. Even smaller shares express high levels of satisfaction with their opportunities for training and skills development, how much they are paid and their opportunities for promotion. 

At the same time, most workers say they are extremely or very satisfied with their relationship with their co-workers (67%) and with their manager or supervisor (62%). About seven-in-ten or more say they’re treated with respect (78%) and can be themselves at work (72%) all or most of the time, and majorities also say they have at least one close friend at work (65%) and that they feel their contributions at work are valued a great deal or a fair amount (62%).

The nationally representative survey of 5,902 U.S. workers, including 5,188 who are not self-employed, was conducted Feb. 6-12, 2023, using the Center’s  American Trends Panel . 1 In addition to exploring how workers feel about their current job and their experiences in the workplace, the survey also asked about workplace benefits, including whether employed adults use all of their paid time off, if available.

Related: About a third of U.S. workers who can work from home now do so all the time

Some key findings from the survey:

• Older workers offer the most positive assessments of their job. Two-thirds of workers ages 65 and older say they are extremely or very satisfied with their job overall, compared with 55% of those 50 to 64, 51% of those 30 to 49, and 44% of those 18 to 29. Older workers are the most likely to say they are extremely or very satisfied with their relationship with their manager or supervisor, their day-to-day tasks, and their opportunities for promotion at work. They also are more likely to say they find their job to be enjoyable and fulfilling all or most of the time. 
• On many measures of workplace satisfaction, views differ widely by income. Workers with higher incomes are more likely than those with lower and middle incomes to say they are extremely or very satisfied with their job overall and to say the same about the benefits their employer provides, their opportunities for training and to develop new skills, how much they are paid, and their opportunities for promotion. Larger shares of upper-income workers also say the contributions they make at work are valued a great deal or fair amount, that their employer cares about their well-being at least a fair amount, and that the safety and health conditions at their workplace are excellent or very good (among those who do not work fully remotely).
• About four-in-ten workers (39%) say their job or career is extremely or very important to their overall identity. Roughly a third (34%) say it is somewhat important and 27% say it’s not too or not at all important. Workers with a postgraduate degree are the most likely to see their job or career as central to their overall identity – 53% say it is.
• Black workers are the most likely to say they’ve been discriminated against in the workplace because of their race or ethnicity. Some 41% of Black workers say that at some point they have experienced discrimination or been treated unfairly by an employer in hiring, pay or promotions because of their race or ethnicity (though not necessarily by their current employer). This compares with 8% of White workers, 20% of Hispanic workers and 25% of Asian workers. And while about a quarter of employed women (23%) say they have experienced discrimination because of their gender, only one-in-ten employed men say the same.
• Lower-income workers are less likely to have access to key employer-sponsored benefits. Large majorities of upper- and middle-income workers (80% or more) say their employer offers paid time off for vacations, doctor’s appointments and minor illnesses, health insurance, and retirement programs such as 401(k)s. Significantly smaller shares of lower-income workers (about two-thirds or fewer) say they have access to these benefits through their employer.
• Most workers place a high priority on paid time off. About six-in-ten workers (62%) say it’s extremely important to them personally to have a job that offers paid time off for vacations, routine doctor’s visits or to deal with minor illnesses, larger than the shares who say the same about having employer-paid health insurance (51%), an employer-sponsored 401(k) or other retirement program (44%) or paid parental, family or medical leave separate from their other paid time off (43%). But when those who place a high priority on more than one of these are asked which one would be the most important to them – and taking into account those who only prioritize one of these benefits – health insurance stands out as the most important benefit for workers.
• Nearly half of workers who have paid time off say they typically take less time off than their employer offers. About half of these workers say they don’t feel they need to take more time off (52%) or worry they might fall behind at work if they took more time off (49%). Some 43% say they feel badly about their co-workers taking on additional work, while smaller shares cite concerns that taking more time off might hurt their chances for job advancement (19%) or that they might risk losing their job (16%) or say their manager or supervisor discourages them from taking time off (12%).

About four-in-ten workers who are not self-employed (39%) say their job or career is extremely or very important to their overall identity; 34% say it’s somewhat important and 27% say it’s not too or not at all important.

Workers with higher family incomes and those with a postgraduate degree are the most likely to say their job or career is central to their identity. Some 47% of workers with higher family incomes say this, compared with 37% of those with middle incomes and 36% of workers with lower family incomes. And while 53% of workers with a postgraduate degree say their job or career is extremely or very important to their identity, smaller shares of those with a bachelor’s degree (39%) or with some college or less education (34%) say the same.

The shares of workers who see their job or career as central to their overall identity don’t vary significantly by gender, race or ethnicity, or age.

When it comes to assessments of job satisfaction, about half of U.S. workers who are not self-employed (51%) report being extremely or very satisfied with their job overall; 37% say they are somewhat satisfied, while 12% are not too or not at all satisfied with their job.

Views vary considerably when workers are asked about specific aspects of their job. Two-thirds say they are extremely or very satisfied with their relationship with their co-workers, and 62% say the same about their relationship with their manager or supervisor. About six-in-ten workers who commute to work (59%) are also highly satisfied with their commute.

About half of workers say they are extremely or very satisfied with their day-to-day tasks (51%), the amount of feedback they receive from their manager or supervisor on how they’re doing their job (49%), and the benefits their employer provides, such as health insurance and paid time off (49%).

Some 44% are extremely or very satisfied with their opportunities for training and ways to develop new skills, while only about a third say the same about how much they are paid (34%) and their opportunities for promotion (33%).

Similar to the share who say they are extremely or very satisfied with their job overall, half of workers say they find their job to be enjoyable all or most of the time, and 47% say it is fulfilling. Smaller but substantial shares say their job is stressful (29%) and overwhelming (19%) all or most of the time.

Older workers and those with higher family incomes have more positive views of their job

Workers ages 65 and older are the most likely to say they are extremely or very satisfied with their job overall (67%) – and adults younger than 30 are the least likely to say this (44%). A narrow majority of workers 50 to 64 (55%) and about half of those 30 to 49 (51%) say they are extremely or very satisfied with their job.

Older workers are also the most likely to say they are extremely or very satisfied with their relationship with their manager or supervisor (73% of workers 65 and older say this), their day-to-day tasks (70%), and their opportunities for promotion (43%).

About two-thirds of workers ages 65 and older say their job is fulfilling (68%) and enjoyable (65%) all or most of the time, larger than the shares of workers in each of the three younger age groups who say the same. In turn, workers younger than 50 are more likely than their older counterparts to say their job is stressful and overwhelming all or most of the time.

Workers 65 and older make up a relatively small share of the labor force – 7% in 2022, according to Pew Research Center analysis of Current Population Survey data.

Job satisfaction also differs by income. A majority (57%) of those with higher family incomes say they are extremely or very satisfied with their job overall, compared with 51% of those with middle incomes and 45% of those with lower incomes. And those with higher incomes are also more likely than middle- and lower-income workers to express high levels of satisfaction with the benefits their employer provides; their opportunities for training or ways to develop new skills; how much they are paid; and their opportunities for promotion at work. In the case of employer benefits and pay, middle -income workers are also significantly more likely than lower -income ones to say they are extremely or very satisfied.

Workers’ views of whether their job is enjoyable, stressful or overwhelming all or most of the time vary little across income levels. But those with higher incomes are the most likely to say they find their job to be fulfilling all or most of the time: 53% say this, compared with 47% of those with middle incomes and a smaller share (40%) of those with lower incomes. Workers with a postgraduate degree (56%) are also more likely than those with a bachelor’s degree (47%) and with some college or less education (44%) to say they find their job to be fulfilling all or most of the time.

For the most part, men and women express similar levels of satisfaction with their job overall and with specific aspects of their job, but there are two exceptions. Men are more likely than women to say they are extremely or very satisfied with the benefits their employer provides (52% of men vs. 46% of women) and with how much they’re paid (39% vs. 30%). And while men and women are about equally likely to say their job is enjoyable and fulfilling all or most of the time, women are more likely to say it’s stressful (31% vs. 26%) and overwhelming (24% vs. 15%) all or most of the time.

For the most part, satisfaction with various aspects of work don’t vary widely by race and ethnicity, but there are some differences. A larger share of White workers (37%) than Black (29%), Hispanic (29%) or Asian (28%) workers say they are extremely or very satisfied with how much they are paid. White workers are more likely than Black and Asian workers to be highly satisfied with their relationship with their co-workers (69% vs. 58% and 60%, respectively) and with their manager or supervisor (64% vs. 56% and 54%). 

Workers largely report positive experiences in the workplace, with at least six-in-ten of those who are not self-employed saying they are treated with respect at work all or most of the time (78%), can be themselves at work all or most of the time (72%), have at least one close friend at work (65%) and feel that the contributions they make at work are valued a great deal or a fair amount (62%).

About half (52%) say their employer cares about their well-being a great deal or a fair amount; 28% say their employer cares some and one-in-five workers say their employer doesn’t care much or at all. A majority of workers (55%) say they don’t have someone at work who they consider a mentor. 

These experiences vary in some ways by gender, race and ethnicity, age, and income. For example, 70% of upper-income workers say the contributions they make are valued a great deal or a fair amount, compared with 62% of those with middle incomes and a smaller share (56%) of those with lower incomes. And while 66% of White workers say their contributions are valued a great deal or fair amount, smaller shares of Hispanic (57%), Black (55%) and Asian (54%) workers say the same.

White workers (75%) are also more likely than Hispanic (69%), Black (69%) and Asian (60%) workers to say they can be themselves at work all or most of the time, although majorities across groups say this (the difference between Asian workers and Black and Hispanic workers is not statistically significant). There are also differences by age on this question, although majorities of 68% or more across age groups say they can be themselves at work all or most of the time. Workers 65 and older are the most likely to say this; 88% in this age group say they can be themselves at work at least most of the time.

More than half of workers ages 18 to 29 (56%) say they have a mentor at work, compared with 46% of those 30 to 49 and only about a third of workers 50 to 64 (34%) and 65 and older (33%). Meanwhile, those in the oldest group are the most likely to say their employer cares about their well-being a great deal or a fair amount (61% of those 65 and older say this vs. about half in each of the three younger groups). 

Women (68%) are more likely than men (62%) to say they have at least one close friend at work, although majorities of both groups say this. Women are also more likely to say they have a mentor at work (48% of women vs. 41% of men).

Workers who receive regular feedback are more satisfied with the amount of feedback they receive and their relationship with their boss

About a third of workers (34%) say they receive feedback on how they’re doing their job from their manager or supervisor extremely often or often; 39% say they sometimes receive feedback and 27% say they rarely or never do. These answers don’t vary significantly by gender, race or ethnicity, age, or income.

The survey suggests that workers embrace feedback: 80% of those who say they receive feedback extremely often or often also say they are extremely or very satisfied with the amount of feedback they receive from their manager or supervisor, compared with 45% of those who sometimes receive feedback and just 16% of those who rarely or never do. And while 84% of workers who regularly get feedback say they are extremely or very satisfied with their relationship with their manager or supervisor, 62% of those who sometimes get feedback and just 36% of those who rarely or never receive it say the same.

About three-in-ten workers say they respond to work emails and messages outside of work hours extremely often or often

More than half of workers (55%) say they respond to work emails or other messages from work outside of their normal hours at least sometimes, with 28% saying they do so extremely often or often; 33% say they rarely or never respond to work emails or messages outside of their work hours.

Workers with higher incomes (39%) are more likely than those with middle (26%) or lower (20%) incomes to say they respond to work emails or other messages from work outside of their normal hours extremely often or often. Similarly, 41% of workers with a postgraduate degree say they do this, compared with 31% of those with a bachelor’s degree and 23% of those with some college or less education.

Lower-income workers and those without a four-year college degree are more likely than those with middle and upper incomes and those with at least a bachelor’s degree to say they don’t receive emails or other messages from work outside of their work hours.

Lower-income and Black and Hispanic workers are among the most likely to say safety conditions where they work are fair or poor

Among workers who are not self-employed and who do not have fully remote jobs, about six-in-ten (59%) say the safety and health conditions at the place where they work are excellent or very good; 26% say these conditions are good and 15% say they are fair or poor.

Seven-in-ten upper-income workers rate the conditions at their workplace as excellent or very good, compared with 59% of those with middle incomes and just about half (49%) of workers with lower incomes. Roughly one-in-five lower-income workers (22%) describe the safety and health conditions at their workplace as fair or poor; 15% of those with middle incomes and an even smaller share of higher-income workers (8%) do so.

These assessments also vary by race and ethnicity. Black (22%) and Hispanic (21%) workers are more likely than White (12%) and Asian (13%) workers to say the safety and health conditions at their workplace are fair or poor.

About four-in-ten Black workers say they have experienced discrimination or been treated unfairly by an employer because of their race or ethnicity

While most questions in this survey asked workers about their current job, the survey also asked respondents if they have experienced discrimination or been treated unfairly by any employer in hiring, pay or promotions because of their race or ethnicity or because of their gender.

Black workers are the most likely to report that they’ve experienced discrimination or have been treated unfairly by an employer because of their race or ethnicity: 41% of Black workers say this has happened to them, compared with 25% of Asian workers, 20% of Hispanic workers and just 8% of White workers.

Among Black workers, men (48%) are more likely than women (36%) to say they’ve experienced this type of discrimination. There are no gender differences among White and Hispanic workers (the number of Asian workers in the sample is too small to analyze men and women separately).

When asked if they have been discriminated against or been treated unfairly by an employer in hiring, pay or promotions because of their gender, about a quarter of women (23%) – compared with 10% of men – say this has happened to them. White, Black and Hispanic women are about equally likely to say they’ve experienced this type of treatment because of their gender. However, Black men (25%) are far more likely than White and Hispanic men (8% each) – and as likely as Black women – to say they’ve had these experiences because of their gender.

About eight-in-ten workers who are not self-employed (82%) say their employer offers paid time off for vacations, routine doctor’s appointments or to deal with minor illnesses. A similar share (79%) say they are offered health insurance through their employer, and 77% say they have access to an employer-sponsored 401(k) or other retirement savings program. Fewer workers (57%) say they have access to paid parental, family or medical leave, beyond what they are given for vacation or sick leave.

Access to these benefits differs widely by income. Large majorities of upper- and middle-income workers (91% and 86%) say their employer offers paid time off for vacations, doctor’s appointments and minor illnesses. About two-thirds of lower-income workers say the same.

When it comes to employer-sponsored health insurance and retirement programs, about nine-in-ten upper-income workers say their employer offers these benefits (92% have health insurance and 88% have a retirement plan). By comparison, about eight-in-ten middle-income workers have health insurance (82%) or a retirement plan (80%). Smaller shares of lower-income workers have these benefits: 60% have health insurance and 59% have a 401(k)-type plan.

This pattern persists for paid family and medical leave. While 66% of upper-income workers say their employer offers paid parental, family or medical leave (beyond basic vacation and sick leave), fewer middle- and lower-income workers say they have the same benefit (59% and 46%, respectively).

Regardless of whether their employer provides it, a majority of workers (62%) say it’s extremely important to them to have a job that offers paid time off for vacations, routine doctor’s appointments or to deal with minor illnesses. An additional 27% say this is very important to them.

About half of workers (51%) say it’s extremely important to them to have a job that offers employer-sponsored health insurance; 28% say this is very important. Some 44% of workers say it’s extremely important to them to have a job that offers an employer-sponsored retirement program, such as a 401(k), with 32% saying this is very important to them. Similarly, 43% say it’s extremely important to them to have paid parental, family or medical leave (31% say this is very important).

Workers with a four-year college degree or more education place more importance on having paid time off, employer-sponsored health insurance and a 401(k) or other retirement program than do workers with less education. The same is true of upper-income workers – they place more importance on these benefits than middle- and lower-income workers. When it comes to paid parental, family and medical leave, the differences by income are smaller and there are no significant differences by education.

In general, workers who have these benefits tend to place more importance on them, and the gaps in views between those who do and don’t receive these benefits are quite large in some instances. For example, 58% of workers who say their employer offers health insurance say it’s extremely important for them to have a job with this benefit. By contrast, 27% of those who don’t have a job that offers health insurance say this is equally important to them. Similarly, while 50% of workers who have access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan say it’s extremely important to them to have a job that offers this benefit, 25% of those who don’t have this benefit say the same. It may be that some workers place less importance on these benefits because they don’t currently have them. In the case of health insurance, it is possible that some don’t rely on their jobs for it.

Workers who place a high priority on more than one of these benefits were asked which one would be the most important to them. Taking into account their responses and those of workers who only prioritize one benefit, health insurance tops this list. Some 43% rank health insurance as the most important benefit to have. Smaller shares prioritize paid time off for vacations and routine doctor’s appointments or minor illnesses (29%), an employer-sponsored retirement plan (13%) or paid family or medial leave (8%) over other benefits.

Nearly half of workers don’t take all the paid time off their employer offers

Among workers who say their employer offers them paid time off for vacation, doctors’ appointments or to deal with minor illnesses, 48% say they typically take all the time off they are offered, while 46% say they take less time off than they are allowed. There are modest differences by income and education in how much time off workers take. Upper-income workers and those with a bachelor’s degree or more education are more likely to say they take less time off than their employer offers. About half (51%) of four-year college graduates say this compared with 41% of those with less education.

When workers who don’t take all of the paid time off they are offered are asked why they don’t, some reasons resonate much more than others. About half (52%) say they don’t feel they need to take more time off. A similar share (49%) say they worry about falling behind at work if they were to take more time off. Some 43% say they would feel badly about their co-workers having to take on additional work.

Fewer say they think taking more time off might hurt their chances for advancement at work (19%) or think they might risk losing their job (16%). About one-in-ten (12%) say their manager or supervisor discourages them from taking time off.

Most workers say they are satisfied with the number of hours they work in a typical week. About two-thirds (66%) say they feel they work about the right number of hours each week, 24% say they work too many hours and 10% say they work too few.

There are differences by income. While majorities from each income group say they work about the right number of hours in a typical week, lower-income workers (23%) are more likely than middle- (7%) and upper-income (4%) workers to say they work too few hours in a typical week. Upper- and middle-income workers are more likely to say they work too many hours (30% and 26%, respectively, vs. 12% of lower-income workers).

• For details, see the Methodology section of the report. The analysis in this report is based on U.S. workers who are employed full time or part time, who are not self-employed, and who have only one job or who have multiple jobs but consider one to be their primary job (99% of workers who are not self-employed have one job or a primary job). ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Business & Workplace
• Economy & Work
• Happiness & Life Satisfaction
• Personal Finances

A look at small businesses in the U.S.

A look at black-owned businesses in the u.s., 2023 saw some of the biggest, hardest-fought labor disputes in recent decades, do you tip more or less often than the average american, diversity, equity and inclusion in the workplace, most popular, report materials.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

© 2024 Pew Research Center

More From Forbes

Job satisfaction is rising: what’s behind the surprising tend.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Job satisfaction is on the rise, and it can be for you as well.

Well here’s some good news: Job satisfaction is increasing. In fact, it’s at a peak in 36 years, and almost 20 points higher than its lowest levels in 2010. Amidst all the bad news about work—from layoffs and downsizing to plummeting motivation levels—this data suggests reasons for optimism (and who couldn’t use some of that?).

Job satisfaction drives all kinds of positive results for people and companies, so it’s worth tracking the metric. And perhaps more importantly, it’s a good source of insights about what kinds of factors create the conditions for engagement, motivation, happiness, effort, outcomes and great work experience.

Why Job Satisfaction is So Important

The data comes from a poll by The Conference Board which reported 62% of people are satisfied with their jobs. The study has been repeated regularly since 1987, and these are the highest levels of satisfaction since then. The Great Recession saw only 43% satisfaction, so today’s rates are especially impressive in light of that low.

When employees are satisfied, it’s not just a nice-to-have feature of work. In fact, when job satisfaction is higher, it predicts employee retention, customer loyalty and financial outcomes for companies, according to a study published in the journal, Perspectives on Psychological Science Another study published in Procedia Economics and Finance found when people have greater levels of job satisfaction, they have better loyalty, ownership, commitment, effectiveness, efficiency and productivity.

But job satisfaction is also good for people in terms of motivation and energy. In addition, a study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology found when people have greater job satisfaction, they have more positive moods and this spills over into their life at home as well.

Organizational culture and leadership are primary drivers of job satisfaction.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024, create job satisfaction with culture and leadership.

Perhaps the biggest lessons from the data have to do with implications for increasing job satisfaction. Organizational culture was one of the top drivers of job satisfaction, and it was one of the elements which had the greatest impact on employee retention. Specifically, when employees were satisfied with organizational culture, 77% of them were likely to stay with their employer, versus 24% with lower satisfaction.

The implication: Be intentional about culture and ensure you’re communicating a compelling vision, mission, purpose and direction. Provide opportunities for people to participate, get involved and have a voice—demonstrating respect for people in all ways and developing them. Create strong systems for all kinds of organizational processes including the management of conflict. And be sure the organization is adaptable to customers, competitors and the market and can learn and act with agility.

Another primary driver of job satisfaction is leadership, and 80% of those satisfied with leadership were likely to stay, compared with 27% who weren’t. Leadership today has become more challenging, and leaders must develop their skills to meet the new demands —embracing ambiguity, inspiring people, communicating with authenticity and clarity, acting with empathy and building rapport and relationships—all while driving results.

Create Job Satisfaction with Work-Life

A third primary driver of job satisfaction is work-life balance. In addition, work-life was one of the areas of greatest improvement year-over-year—as companies have sought to apply lessons from the pandemic. Retention was also affected by this metric with 76% of people saying they were likely to stay with an employer when they were satisfied with work-life, and only 25% planning to stay when they lacked satisfaction with work-life.

Companies can support this component by paying attention to both work and life—providing for meaningful work and plenty of learning and growth, and by creating great work experiences with tools, technology and spaces.

Leaders and companies are also wise to provide for as much flexibility and choice as possible . When people have more control over their work, they perform better, experience more happiness and tend to stay at their jobs longer—and choice and flexibility contribute to the ability to manage all the demands of work and life.

Interestingly, people who were most satisfied were also most likely to have found a new job since the pandemic began, compared to those who have not. This likely speaks to the importance of control. Changing jobs is typically an outcome of pursuing something different, taking action for change and making a new choice—all of which are examples of empowerment and effort—and these contribute to happiness.

Create Job Satisfaction for Women

Women have suffered disproportionately over the last few years, taking on more tasks at home, and pausing, stalling or plateauing their careers. And this reality appears in the data as well. Despite improvements compared to last year, women experience less satisfaction than men especially in the areas of job security, promotion, bonus plans, compensation and benefits. They also experience less satisfaction in terms of recognition, growth, performance reviews and communication on the job. They are also more likely to quit based on job fatigue.

A study featured in IZA World of Labor found when women (and especially mothers) work from home sometimes, they experience much greater job satisfaction. This is not true for men whose satisfaction was consistent even when working from home. Researchers hypothesize work from home is especially helpful for women who are juggling family and life commitments. Men have demands too, but statistically, women are more likely to face these responsibilities.

To address the data, organizations can ensure they are hiring, developing and providing pay and promotions for women in equal measure to men, and again, providing for flexibility and choice wherever it is possible.

Happy work is possible.

Create Job Satisfaction with Hybrid Work

In terms of job satisfaction, hybrid also has a significantly positive effect. Overall, those who worked both at the office and at home were most satisfied. They provided the highest ratings on 17 of the 26 factors in the poll. The exception was related to job security for which in-office workers reported higher ratings.

When it’s implemented effectively, hybrid is a terrific both-and solution, offering the opportunity for people to work where they work best whether they are focusing, collaborating, learning, socializing or rejuvenating during their workday. And done well, hybrid allows for plenty of connection to colleagues and the broader purpose of the organization.

With hybrid, best practice is to provide clear expectations and guardrails for why and when people should be in the office, combined with appropriate autonomy. Encourage awareness and planning so teams can coordinate when they’re in the office to collaborate. Emphasize intentionality about the types of work which will optimize the office or home.

Be creative about providing flexibility. And since not all work lends itself to working remotely, ensure equity in how you’re applying policies and practices for where and when people work.

Focus Makes Perfect

Job satisfaction is worth the effort, and companies will benefit most when they focus on it and take steps to improve it over time. With all the variables in the work experience, job satisfaction will never be something organizations can complete and check off the list. It will be something to continually hone, refine and extend.

• Editorial Standards
• Forbes Accolades

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Correlation between Employee Performance, Well-Being, Job Satisfaction, and Life Satisfaction in Sedentary Jobs in Slovenian Enterprises

Zinka kosec.

1 Faculty of Sport, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

Stella Sekulic

2 Dental Division, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

3 National Institute for Public Health, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

Susan Wilson-Gahan

4 Faculty of Business, Education, Law and Arts, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield Central 4300, Australia

Katja Rostohar

Matej tusak, associated data.

The data reported in this study are available on request from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. The data are not publicly available due to its proprietary nature.

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between employees’ work performance and their well-being, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction in sedentary jobs in Slovenian enterprises using a mixed-methods research design. The quantitative component of the research included the responses to four selected questionnaires of 120 employees in 22 identified enterprises (out of 81), with more than 20 employees, having more than 85 percent sedentary jobs. Each of four questionnaires was chosen to cover one area of enquiry under the research foci of work performance, job satisfaction, life satisfaction and well-being. The statistical program STATA was used for data analyses. The analysis shows statistically significant positive correlations between employee performance and job satisfaction (r = 0.35), employee performance and life satisfaction (r = 0.28), life satisfaction and well-being (r = 0.33), and job satisfaction and well-being, whereas the correlation between well-being and work performance did not prove to be statistically significant. The qualitative component of the mixed-methods research design included systematic observation combined with one-to-one discussions. The results indicated that job satisfaction and life satisfaction are more significant in determining work performance in sedentary jobs than employee well-being and that being unwell is still considered a sign of weakness; therefore, employees who are unwell do not want to expose themselves and refuse to cooperate in activities and studies about well-being. Further research examining the impact on work performance of organizational climate measurements in sedentary jobs is recommended.

1. Introduction

A person’s patterns of thinking and feelings are affected by internal and external environments in their life, including their profession and work conditions as some of the most important factors [ 1 ], which in turn have a negative impact on their lifestyle and work performance. Employers should be aware of the many factors that influence work environment, job and life satisfaction, well-being, and mental health, especially in sedentary jobs, since sedentary behavior has become a significant health issue in a post-industrialized world [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] and part of the dissatisfying lifestyle of many employees. Workplace environments are target settings for introducing processes of intervention to reduce sedentary behavior [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Different approaches designed to implement employees’ greater range of motion and standing during work hours have come to the fore [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. Standing desks or desks that can accommodate standing or sitting have been introduced into work environments. Many companies provide different programs and equipment for their employees, active breaks during work hours, and policies about taking a break from the screen [ 3 ], which is especially recommended for older employees [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. There is a lot of evidence that sedentary behavior influences the quality of life [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ] and productivity [ 11 ]. Several studies have found that prolonged sitting time leads to cognitive impairment [ 10 ], mobility limitation [ 8 ], increased risk of mortality [ 12 ], and reduced quality of life in general [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ].

Many companies have been trying to gain a sustainable competitive advantage by improving the effectiveness of work engagement interventions [ 13 ]. Work engagement, i.e., work performance, refers to a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption [ 14 ]. Work performance is defined as the total expected value to the organization of discrete behavioral episodes that an individual carries out over a standard period [ 15 ].

Organizations that focus on their employees’ welfare believe that employees’ attitudes and behaviors play a key role in improving the performance of an organization [ 13 , 16 ]. The organizational climate reflects employees’ perceptions of the policies, practices, and procedures that are expected, supported, and rewarded through the human resources department of the organization [ 17 ]. The organizational climate is a meaningful component with significant implications in human resource management and organizational behavior [ 16 ]. A complete reference guide, interventions, and policies to enhance employees’ well-being exist [ 17 , 18 ]. Environmentally sound behavior can be recognized through employees’ well-being and satisfaction, which are fundamental to employees’ quality work performance within organizations, particularly for employees in sedentary jobs, who often perform cognitive tasks that need a clear mind [ 19 , 20 , 21 ]. The effectiveness of physical activity interventions in improving well-being across office-based workplace settings [ 22 ], the association of sedentary behavior with metabolic syndrome [ 23 ], as well as the relation between financial incentives, motivation, and performance [ 24 ], are issues that fueled a great deal of research in the fields of management, occupational health, work and organizational psychology [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ].

Although there is no consensus about a single definition of well-being, there is a general agreement that well-being includes the presence of positive emotions and moods (e.g., contentment), the absence of negative emotions (e.g., depression and anxiety), satisfaction with life, fulfillment, and positive functioning [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ]. Well-being has been defined as the combination of feeling good and functioning well; the experience of positive emotions such as happiness and contentment as well as the development of one’s potential, having some control over one’s life, having a sense of purpose, and experiencing positive relationships [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]. Researchers from several areas have examined diverse aspects of well-being [ 17 ], i.e., physical, economic, social, emotional, and psychological well-being, development and activity, life satisfaction, domain-specific satisfaction, engaging activities, and work [ 17 , 18 ].

Empirical studies report strong correlations between social contact as well as health and subjective well-being [ 19 ]. Research on employees’ well-being operating in organizations was only developed a few decades ago. The examination of the relationship between employees’ well-being and the cardiovascular system, for example, revealed that physical and psychological well-being should be understood as a source of effectiveness [ 12 , 19 ]. In the past two decades, considerable development in the economics of subjective well-being is reflected in the great number of research studies published reporting the quality of life and its determinants [ 14 , 15 , 18 , 21 , 22 , 24 ].

Subjective well-being is a concept generally operationalized as multifaceted in nature, with both affective and cognitive components [ 17 , 18 , 25 ].

Among the constituent components of subjective well-being, life satisfaction was identified as a distinct construct representing a cognitive and global evaluation of the quality of one’s life as a whole [ 17 ]. Although life satisfaction is correlated with affective components of subjective well-being, it forms a separate factor from the other types of well-being [ 18 , 25 ]. Comprehensive assessment of subjective well-being requires separate measures of both life satisfaction and affective components of subjective well-being [ 21 ].

Life satisfaction is a cognitive evaluation of the overall quality of one’s life [ 21 ] and is one of the many overlapping facets of subjective well-being [ 25 ]. Life satisfaction is related to self-perception [ 26 ] and is a significant predictor of employees’ productivity in sedentary jobs [ 11 ], specifically in older adults [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ].

Various studies [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ] analyzed factors associated with life satisfaction and well-being and investigated what makes people happy [ 31 ]. The effect of age and body composition of office employees was examined [ 32 ], as well as stress and resilience potential [ 33 ] in different professions [ 34 ]. In such studies, the authors mentioned methodological limitations relevant to measurement scales [ 35 ], empirical models’ validations [ 36 ], statistical power analyses in behavioral science [ 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 ], and other principles and applications of qualitative research [ 41 ].

Life satisfaction judgments are mostly based on a person’s subjective criteria rather than necessarily reflecting outward conditions [ 25 , 26 , 29 ]. However, the assessment of life satisfaction can be only marginally influenced by mood and context since life satisfaction is a temporally stable construct [ 26 ]. Life satisfaction evaluations are broadly associated with other stable traits. The empirical relationships are consistent with the theory regarding core self-evaluations, which suggests that dispositions are important explanatory variables for predicting various forms of subjective well-being [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 27 , 28 ].

Job satisfaction is the result of a person’s attitude towards work and the factors associated with their work and life in general [ 15 , 16 , 21 , 22 ] and is closely related to work performance [ 15 , 16 , 21 , 22 , 31 ]. Several studies found a positive correlation between job satisfaction, the organizational climate [ 16 ], and overall performance [ 21 , 22 ].

Many authors mentioned other methodological dilemmas, i.e., different measurement scales [ 35 ] and empirical validations [ 36 , 40 ], i.e., also the calculation of posterior distributions by data augmentation [ 41 ], and different variations of satisfaction surveys [ 42 ]. Unfortunately, many studies on workplace characteristics, well-being, and life and job satisfaction rely primarily on cross-sectional self-reported surveys [ 8 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 43 ], making it difficult to disentangle the relationship between constructs. It has been a trend lately to develop work environment by various systematic approaches, e.g., the Human Resources Index [HRI] measurement [ 43 ]. In addition, motivation, and more specifically intrinsic motivation, was an important determinant of psychological well-being, gaining greater influence among male participants who had a higher level of physical activity, highlighting the need to increase one’s intrinsic motivation [ 44 ]. There are also always questions connected to lifestyle, in modern society especially related to eating habits [ 45 ]. The dynamic, adaptable complex approaches are especially important in recent years in response to COVID-19, connected with changes in general lifestyle, physical activity patterns, and sedentary behavior and associations with mental health [ 44 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ], especially in computer workers, as one of the most typical sedentary works. In recent years, authors have suggested different models for the balance between work and life for subjective well-being, e.g., the moderated mediation model [ 50 ], or they have written about exploring the nature and antecedents of employee energetic well-being at work and job performance [ 51 ]. A special case is also well-being at work after a return to work [ 52 ]. This was considered as not under the special focus of our research; however, it was recognized as part of the organizational culture in the enterprises.

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between employees’ work performance and their well-being, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction in sedentary jobs in Slovenian enterprises with more than 80% sedentary workplaces, using a mixed-methods research design. This is the first time that research has been conducted into the correlation between employee performance, well-being, job satisfaction and life satisfaction in Slovenian enterprises, making the research a unique contribution to the field. The main gaps, which are supplemented by our studies, encourage similar further studies in sedentary jobs in Slovenia with the final goal to improve not only work performance but also the organizational culture in enterprises with sedentary jobs in Slovenia.

2. Materials and Methods

Both quantitative and qualitative methods were applied. All authors collaborated to design the procedure, while the first author carried out data collection. The possibility of a face-to-face or telephone conversation to explain further details of this study was offered to all participants and eleven of them used the opportunity to be provided with further information, while the remaining participants provided their consent to participate without asking for further explanation.

The methodological tool of this study was questionnaires, which have been used and proven in similar studies [ 15 , 25 , 36 , 38 , 42 ]. In addition, selected human resource management (HRM) professionals reviewed the questions to test the acceptance and feasibility of the questionnaire for our sample. To pilot test the questionnaire prior to the beginning of the trial, HRM professionals were approached that had been identified as being willing to volunteer to use the questionnaire. The data sets were analyzed quantitatively using descriptive statistics and analysis of reliability (STATA).

2.1. Quantitative Methodology

The first part consisted of a set of broad, self-report, psychometrically valid questionnaires conducted by the first author in the 22 organizations that have mostly (more than 90%) sedentary workplaces in Slovenia. A short explanation of the basic terminology used was added as an introduction to the questionnaires relating to work performance, well-being, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction.

2.2. Study Participants and Data Collection

The research team initially sent invitations with an explanation of the purpose of this study to the 81 identified enterprises, spending more than 85% of working time in sedentary positions. After detailed explanations, 22 of the invitees agreed to cooperate. Permissions and guidelines for the testing protocols and the design of this study, as well as any additional information required, were established through several face-to-face meetings and telephone conversations with executive managements and HRM specialists of the selected enterprises participating. In the pre-phase, the participant–employees were also offered the possibility of a face-to-face or telephone conversation about any details or additional information they required about this study. Eleven employees asked for additional information. Data collection was carried out from September 2018 to April 2019, with one day spent in each enterprise. Completion of all measurements for this study took approximately two hours per participant, between 9:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. To ensure standardized conditions, data collection took place in a designated meeting room which was intimate while also being large enough for completing all required measurements. Employees were from different levels of the organizational hierarchies and were categorized according to their role, gender, age, and education level ( Table 1 ). Each employee was required to work an eight-hour day, starting between 6:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. and finishing between 2:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. ( Table 1 ).

General characterization of the participants.

Participants (N = 120)	N (%) or Mean (SD)
	35.1 (12.9)
	64 (53.3)
	1.7 (0.1)
	74.3 (16.9)
	24.4 (3.9)
	47 (39.1)
	25 (20.8) 35 (29.1)
	13 (10.8)
	7.65 (6.2)
	50 (41.6)
	50 (41.6)
	20 (16.6)
	4.2 (0.3)
	1.3 (0.4)
	3.8 (0.6)
	4.8 (1.1)

Note: N (number of participants); SD (standard deviation). Body mass index classification: underweight <18.4; normal weight 18.5–24.9; overweight 25.0–29.9; obesity ≥30.0.

2.3. Procedure

All authors collaborated to develop the design of the procedure, while data collection was carried out by the first author.

Study participants were informed in advance of the purpose of this study, guaranteed anonymity and that the data analysis would be based on the responses of all organizations as a whole and not at the individual company level.

In the first phase of the procedure, conversations with employees who wanted further explanation were carried out. The questions referred to the aims of this study, the topics, the hypothesis, if any, as well as the conducted research and their results. The remaining participants provided consent to cooperate without asking for further explanation. After a positive response from all the participants, the testing procedure was carried out in the participants’ workplace. A short explanation of basic terminology used was also added as an introduction to the questionnaire.

The aim of this study was to collect information about four components of work: (i) employee performance; (ii) well-being; (iii) job satisfaction; and (iv) life satisfaction. The first part consisted of a set of broad, self-report, psychometrically valid questionnaires. The adapted self-assessment questionnaires were validated and translated into Slovenian.

The following self-reported questionnaires were used; one for each of the four components of work being researched. That is, employee performance, well-being, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction.

• Employee performance: The Employee Performance Questionnaire (EPQ) [ 38 ] (Capital Associated Industries, Inc. (Raleigh, NC, USA), 2011) is a valid [ 36 ] measure that assesses individuals on different parameters related to a wide range of working skills (e.g., working at full potential, quality of work, consistency of work, communication, independence, taking initiative, teamwork, productivity, creativity, honesty, integrity, relationships with colleagues, relationships with customers, technical knowledge, reliability, accuracy, and presence). It consists of 23 items with one reverse question and five response options: One participant indicated that the suggested questions did not apply to them, while five participants indicated aptitude. The EPQ is characterized by a total score with a possible range of scores from 23 to 115.
• Well-being: The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) [ 42 ] is a consistent, reliable self-report questionnaire designed for use in a variety of settings and cultures in general population samples. There are several versions of the GHQ [ 42 ]. In this study, we used the GHQ-12 due to the simplicity of application in practice and research. The selected version consists of 12 items that examine the mental health of individuals by rating a specific symptom experience or current behavior on a 4-point scale (less than usual, no more than usual, rather more than usual, or much more than usual). It is characterized by a total score of 12–36.
• Job satisfaction: The Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (JSQ) [ 42 ] is a psychometrically valid self-report questionnaire that measures an individual’s job satisfaction [ 42 ]. It consists of 13 questions and five response options, with 1 indicating strong disagreement and 5 indicating strong agreement with the suggested statements. It is characterized by a total score in the range of 13–65.
• Life satisfaction: The Life Satisfaction Questionnaire (LSQ) [ 15 , 25 ] is a brief psychometrically based 5-item instrument designed to measure global cognitive assessments of life satisfaction. It consists of five items and seven response options, from 1 indicating strong disagreement to 7 indicating strong agreement. The LSQ has excellent psychometric properties, including high internal consistency and test–retest reliability. It is characterized by a total score in the range of 7–35.

The data collected from the questionnaires were accompanied by systematic observation, which was introduced as an objective, well-ordered method for close examination of the selected aspects of this study. Systematic observation involved questions about the participants’ opinions on concrete activities to promote health and well-being in the organizations, on life and job satisfaction in sedentary jobs, and on why some employees decided to cooperate and some not. Systematic observation and a number of in-person, one-to-one discussions were undertaken in the same session of the preparation phase, especially with people who supported the authors in organizing data collection in the company (mostly HR specialists or directors), and later with the respondents while conducting the survey.

The Ethical Committee at the Faculty of Sports, the University of Ljubljana (No. 5) approved this study in March 2018.

2.4. Data Analyses

The statistical software STATA (Stata Statistical Software: Release 14.2, rev.19; 2016, StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA) was used to analyze sample data.

Using descriptive methods, the sample was analyzed by taking measurements of the frequency and percentages of responses to all questions. The statistical analysis was blinded to the researchers and conducted independently. Descriptive statistics, such as proportions for categorical variables and mean values and standard deviations for numeric variables, were used to summarize respondents’ characteristics.

Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances ( p = 0.05) was used to calculate the differences between groups according to:

• Age (range 19–35; age range 36–70),
• Gender (man/woman),
• BMI (normal weight = 18.5–24.9; pre-obesity = 25.0–29.9), and
• Education level (high school degree = 2; college and university degree = 3).

Respondents’ self-report EPQ, GHQ, JSQ, and LSQ scores were summarized with an average score for each question (for each individual). The correlation between the results of the self-assessed variables from the questionnaires (the EPQ, the GHQ, the JSQ and the LSQ) was applied, where the magnitude of correlation coefficients was explained according to Hemphill [ 39 ]. The effect size was considered as low when the value ranged from 0.1 to 0.3, moderate when it ranged from 0.3 to 0.5, and large when it ranged from 0.5 to 1.0 [ 41 ]. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between one dependent variable calculation (the EPQ, which consisted of 23 variables), and three independent variables (the GHQ consisting of 12 items, the JSQ of 13, and the LSQ of five items). R-squared (R 2 ) was used to measure a proportion of explained variance represents the fit of the data to the model. The effect size was considered low when R 2 was <0.3, no effect or very weak when R 2 was 0.3, medium when R 2 was 0.5, and large when R 2 was 0.7 [ 41 ].

Adjusted R-squared measures were used to test the fit of the model.

2.5. Qualitative Methods

The qualitative research methodology was mostly followed according to Evans et al. [ 41 ].

Question-focused analysis was used as a starting point when organizing the raw data, and the responses that had similar themes and that represented the same points were grouped together. All the information was transcribed verbatim and read through several times by the authors. The first-named author then conducted a thematic analysis according to Braun and Clark and Evans et al. [ 41 ], whereby initial comments, codes and memos were categorized systematically into broader themes and concise phases as evident in Table 2 . The six phases identified were (i) becoming familiar with the data, (ii) generating initial codes, (iii) identifying potential themes, (iv) reviewing themes, (v) defining and naming the themes and (vi) producing the report.

Estimated correlation matrix and the significance of self-report instruments.

Variables	Employee Performance	General Health	Job Satisfaction	Satisfaction with Life
	1.0000
	−0.0886	1.0000
	0.3557 *	−0.2863 *	1.0000
	0.2898 *	−0.3277 *	0.3135 *	1.0000

Note: * Significance p < 0.05.

The qualitative method involved information about specification of the exact actions, attributes, and other variables that were systematically written in the preparation phase and after each data collection, through administration of questionnaires in all organizations. With this observation, the authors aimed to explore how decisions were made and provided the researchers with detailed insight. The data analysis followed the principles of qualitative methodologies [ 41 ].

The main questions in the one-to-one discussion were:

• What is the reason that you agree to participate in actives connected with work performance, job satisfaction and life satisfaction measurements (also in this study)?
• What is your opinion about the significance of job satisfaction, life satisfaction and well-being measurements for work performance?
• What is your opinion about employees’ willingness/unwillingness to participate in actives connected with work performance and your opinion about the general organizational climate in the enterprises?
• Should companies in Slovenia invest more in employees’ work performance (in their well-being, job, and life satisfaction)? If yes/no, what are your reasons?

3.1. Demographic Data of the Participants

A convenience sample of 120 employees from 22 organizations—65 of whom were female, with an age range from 25 to 69 years, and 55 of whom were male, with and age range from 22 to 70—participated in this study. The main criterion was having a sedentary job. Employees were of different levels of the organizational hierarchies: operational workers (57%), management (9.8%), division management (9.1%), directors and owners (3.3%), and sole traders (14.0%). The study participants were also categorized according to their education level ( Table 1 ).

A total of 120 respondents from 22 organizations completed the EPQ, the GHQ, the JSQ, and the LSQ ( Table 1 ).

The mean age of the participants (SD) was 35.1 (±12.9) years and more than half of them were female (53.3%). The mean height and weight of the participants were 1.7 m and 74.3 kg, respectively, which was considered ‘normal weight’ when assessing the body mass index (BMI) of the participants according to the World Health Organization BMI classification [ 45 ].

Among the organizations, 39.3% of all employees worked in a small organization with the working group of less than 10 employees, which is the highest proportion in the sample; 20.5% worked in a group of 11–50 employees; 28.7% in a group of 51–250 employees; only 11.5% of all employees worked in a group with more than 250 employees.

The majority of study participants (41.0%) had a secondary school diploma or bachelor’s degree prior to the Bologna Process, while 38.5% had completed secondary schooling and 16.4% a master’s or specialization or Ph.D.

EPQ: The EPQ was measured on a on a scale of 1–5. Employees assessed their own work performance as high; the mean score of the EPQ reached 4.2 (SD = 0.04), which is a high score. Accordingly, the differences between the respondents were minor. The lowest value was 3.1, and approximately 80% of the estimates were higher than 4.0.

GHQ: The mean value of the GHQ on a scale of 0–3 was 1.38 (SD = 0.04). The scores were almost symmetrically distributed. The differences between respondents were typical of normal distribution.

JSQ: The JSQ was measured on a scale of 1–5. The mean value of the JSQ was 3.84 (SD = 0.06). Similarly to the EPQ, the JSQ scores showed progress in a positive direction and little difference between respondents. The lowest score was 0.17, while the highest score was 2.75.

LSQ: The LSQ scores were measured on a scale of 1–7, where the mean value was 4.86 (SD = 0.11). The differences between respondents were significant. The lowest mean value was 1.67, and the highest was 7.0. Nearly ten percent (9.8%) of the respondents reported dissatisfaction with work, with a mean value of <3. More than 80% of respondents reported their satisfaction with work, with a score of four or more.

3.2. Employee Work Performance and the Selected Variables (Well-Being, Job and Life Satisfaction)

The correlations between the Employee Performance Questionnaire (EPQ) and the selected factors from the GHQ (well-being), by the JSQ (job satisfaction) and by the LSQ (life satisfaction) were measured with correlation and regression analysis.

The analyses of the results showed statistically significant positive correlations between estimates of the EPQ and the JSQ (r = 0.36) and between estimates of employee performance and life satisfaction (r = 0.29). Cohen’s effect size was medium, showing no correlation between employee performance and general health (r = −0.08), possibly a negative correlation between the two measures although not statistically significant ( p = 0.33) ( Table 3 ).

Regression analysis between one dependent (EPQ) and three independent variables results (GHQ, JSQ, and LSQ).

	Regression Model
Variable	Coeff. (t)
Job Satisfaction	0.181 (3.38)
Satisfaction With Life	0.076 (2.34)
General Health	0.066 (0.77)
Constant	3.109 (10.54)
R-Squared (N)	0.166 (120)
Adj. R-Squared	0.144

Note: Coeff. (coefficient); t (t-statistic); N (number of participants). The standardized coefficient estimates the mean change in the dependent variable for a 1 standard deviation (SD) increase in the independent variable.

Multiple linear regression was calculated to predict work performance based on the GHQ, JSQ and LSQ results. A significant regression equation was identified, F (3, 116) = 7.70, p = 0.0001, with an R 2 of 0.166.

Participants’ EPQ result was equal to 3.109 ± 0.066; GHQ 3.109 ± 0.181; JSQ 3.109 ± 0.076; LSQ (with GHQ, JSQ, and LSQ scores measured as means).

Both the JSQ ( p = 0.001) and LSQ results (0.021) significantly affected the EPQ values, while the GHQ results (0.444) did not. A graphical representation of the correlation from the regression model is shown in detail in Figure 1 .

Scatter plots of the EPQ associated with the GHQ, JSQ, and satisfaction with life scale (SWLS = LSQ) means in the regression model. Coeff. (coefficient), SE (standard error), and t (t-statistic).

3.3. Qualitative Method Results

Thematic analysis was used as a starting point after organizing the raw data, and the responses that had similar themes and that represented the same points were grouped together.

More than expected results and themes were found for the final report from thematic analysis:

Systematic observation

• Employees who explain their overall status as ‘healthy and wealthy’ and themselves as ‘a productive employee’ are ready to cooperate in research.
• Employees who are not in good health try to hide their condition and are not ready to speak about it in a company setting.
• Employees who are not in good health feel vulnerable and deny all sorts of activities in the enterprises.
• In the testing process, the study participants insisted that the data only be analyzed as part of the whole sample and not on an individual basis or within one company.
• Employees who were not ready to cooperate are also not ready to take part in other healthy lifestyle activities being organized in the frame of company.
• Employees who are not ready to take part in this research also in general refuse nearly all ‘well-being and social lifestyle’ activities in the enterprise and in their leisure time.

One-to-one discussions:

• The respondents (employees in the enterprises who were ready to take part in this research) reported that employees from all companies in general are divided into two groups concerning work performance topics—those willing to participate and those who would absolutely not. They were always on the opposite ends of the spectrum, which could mean that cohesion in not high and that the organizational climate is not optimal.
• Employees who were ready to participate reported their opinion that they represented the better part of employees in the organizations, that they always cooperate, that they are more motivated for better work performance and that they are more productive. They call themselves cooperative employees.
• The cooperative employees reported that there are some employees in the enterprises who are not cooperative, because they try to hide their level of well-being, their health and lifestyle status.
• According to management representatives, employees who are not in good health feel vulnerable and refuse to participate in all sorts of activities organized in their company.
• Respondents reported that employees who were not ready to take part in this research (called ‘those others’) also in general refuse to participate in nearly all well–being and social activities in their company and in their leisure time.
• Respondents reported that “those others” are not motivated and are not concerned with creating a good organizational climate.
• Although anonymity in the testing process was provided to all, the participants reported concerns and doubts, insisting that the data should only be analyzed as part of the whole sample and not on an individual basis or within one company.

Thematic analysis (coding and iterative comparison) gave some interesting conclusions ( Table 4 ).

Results of systematic observations and one-to-one dissuasions.

	Who	Life Satisfaction	Work Performance	Job Satisfaction	Final Themes
A	participants in this study	high	high	high	we ‘healthy and wealthy’
B	NOT READY TO COOPERATE
C	executive management and HRM specialists	high	high	high	employees A are good; B have lower work performance
A about B	those others	not satisfied at all	low work performance	low	not in good health
					try to hide their level of well-being
					they are not productive
					bad work performance
					not good lifestyle
C about B		low	low	low	not in good health, they feel vulnerable; refuse to participate in all sorts of activities
C about A		high	high	high	they are our best employees; positive org. climate

4. Discussion

The labor market is constantly changing, and sedentary work behavior is nowadays, due to technological advancement and new lifestyles, becoming even more pervasive worldwide. One of the questions is how the new conditions influence work performance, responsibilities, and ability to do the job well. This motivated our research on sedentary jobs for the first time in Slovenia together with well-being and other characteristics. The primary purpose of this study was to determine the correlation between work performance and different factors (well-being, job, and life satisfaction) in sedentary jobs. The results show statistically significant correlations between work performance and two measured factors—job satisfaction and life satisfaction. On the other hand, the correlation between well-being and work performance surprisingly did not prove to be statistically significant. Nevertheless, our results showed that well-being is significantly correlated with job and life satisfaction, which are correlated with work performance. On that basis, it can be concluded that there is some indirect relationship between work performance and well-being, which was also established in some earlier studies [ 19 , 23 , 26 ].

The correlations between job satisfaction [ 14 , 15 ], life satisfaction [ 5 , 6 ], and work performance have already been proven in many countries. It has also been found that sedentary behavior negatively correlates with an active lifestyle [ 4 , 6 ] and with less effective work performance [ 14 , 35 ], which also supports our conclusions. Furthermore, our systematic observation findings indicate specific problems in the organizational climate among employees and point to a significant division between the groups and consequential low team cohesiveness, which is essential for team or group effectiveness and work performance [ 50 ]. In our study, the group of employees who were willing to participate called themselves ‘cooperative employees’, whereas employees who were not ready to take part in this study were referred to as ‘those others’, those who never cooperate and always complain. We regret that we were not able to conduct one-to-one discussions with the ‘those others’ group and determine the reasons for their refusal to participate. Many respondents reported their opinion that those who refused to participate in this study in general create a negative working atmosphere in the studied companies. Such opinions were also confirmed by the opinion of management representatives. This calls for new approaches for improving the general organizational climate in Slovenian enterprises, as a base for other necessary improvements. Our findings could, therefore, also serve as an incentive to develop new practical interventions and approaches to improving the organizational climate, as the main goal is to improve work performance and thus all factors that might affect it.

Job satisfaction can be improved in practice by encouraging employees and making them encourage other employees [ 14 , 15 , 20 , 21 , 30 ], which also improves team cohesion [ 37 ], by giving them access to information and all necessary resources to perform their job efficiently, giving them real-time feedback on their job performance [ 43 ] and by providing them with opportunities to explore and show their skills and talents. Furthers studies are needed to confirm whether the employer’s trust and faith in their employees are crucial, a subject studied by others [ 21 , 30 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 48 ]. The participants, however, believe that the biggest hindrance to achieving such improvement are employees who are not ready to cooperate.

The findings from this study also led to the conclusion that sedentary jobs in the studied companies require complex human resource management. Therefore, more complex studies are needed in this field, with special monitoring and maybe even with human resource index (HRI) measurements, e.g., [ 43 ], which is the current trend in economics, as well as the new reality in economics [ 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ] and in society.

5. Conclusions

As in most of Europe, Slovenia is also facing the challenge of sedentary behavior as part of modern work conditions. This is the first time that Slovenian enterprises were researched in terms of sedentary work conditions, concerning job satisfaction, life satisfaction and well-being on work performance, which is the main novelty of the work and presents the possibility of comparing findings with other studies [ 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ], such as the effect of COVID-19 [ 5 , 47 ], remote job options and cross-country differences [ 53 ] or socio-economics status in the relationship between leadership and well-being [ 54 ]. The main gaps, which are supplemented by our studies, are, in addition to finding the correlations between some factors and work performance in sedentary jobs, encouraging similar further studies with the final goal of determine the factors that correlate most with job performance in sedentary work conditions. The aim was to highlight that the study found many employees do not cooperate. In general, our study confirms that for employees in sedentary jobs in Slovenia, work performance is correlated with life and job satisfaction. Nevertheless, it is not directly correlated with well-being as this may have been predicted based on the findings of previously published studies. This can be explained by the small sample size and data collection limitations due to distrusting the research, discomfort, or poor well-being in the work environment. This may suggest that the enterprises involved in our study are confident about their organizational climate. Our practical recommendation is to expand the focus from work performance to improving cohesion and the organizational climate in enterprises in order to create the optimal work environment in sedentary workplaces in Slovenia. The results indicate important conclusion as well as making clear the significant need for further research on the impact of well-being on employees’ productivity in sedentary jobs, in order to face the new reality requiring the need to organize sedentary jobs in different forms, e.g., providing remote job options which might be critical economically in this new decade.

Funding Statement

The research was partly conducted as part of the research program, Bio-psycho-social context of kinesiology, code P5-0142, funded by the Slovenian Research Agency.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.T., M.B. and Z.K.; methodology, S.S. and K.R.; software, S.S.; validation, M.T. and S.S.; formal analysis, Z.K. and S.W.-G.; investigation, Z.K. and S.S.; resources, Z.K. and M.B.; data curation, Z.K.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.K., M.B. and S.W.-G.; writing—review and editing, S.S. and S.W.-G.; visualization; supervision, M.T.; project administration, M.T. and M.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The Ethical Committee at the Faculty of Sports, the University of Ljubljana (No. 5) approved this study in March 2018.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Liberty University
• Jerry Falwell Library
• Special Collections
• < Previous

Home > ETD > Doctoral > 6039

Doctoral Dissertations and Projects

Job satisfaction among generation z and millennials in the mental health field.

Terence Fleeton , Liberty University Follow

School of Behavioral Sciences

Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology (PhD)

Gilbert Franco

Job satisfaction, Millennials, Gen Z, organizations, generations, mental health, therapist, work-life balance, Leadership, supervisors

Disciplines

Recommended citation.

Fleeton, Terence, "Job Satisfaction among Generation Z and Millennials in the Mental Health Field" (2024). Doctoral Dissertations and Projects . 6039. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/6039

Millennials and Generation Z perceive job satisfaction in different ways. The mental health profession requires a lot of time and sacrifice to meet the needs of clients, and the organization served. The diverse beliefs, ambitions, and work-related attitudes of these younger generations are critical in shaping the dynamics of the mental health profession for employers seeking to hire younger talent as the workforce increased. The problem in this study is that some employers don't understand how supervisory support affects job satisfaction in millennial and Generation Z mental health employees. Managers struggle to maintain an environment where work-life balance provides job satisfaction to the younger generations, and, in the end, this can result in reduced retention rates with employees. The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological research study was to explore how managers could provide an environment where job satisfaction was maintained through two factors: work-life balance and supervisory support. A phenomenological approach was used, with interviews as the data collection method. Interviews allowed for an in-depth investigation of what influenced job satisfaction for Generation Z and millennial workers in the mental health field. Through the interviews, both Generation Z and Millennial participants expressed a clear preference for a mentorship/transformational style of leadership. They believed that having a supportive mentor who guides them in the right direction, rather than micromanaging, was effective in their job satisfaction. Findings also found that the notion that work-life balance is an important part for job satisfaction among Generation Z and Millennials. Participants emphasized the need for flexible work arrangements and the importance of relationships. This study examines millennials and Generation Z mental health professionals' work-life balance and the supervisory support within of job satisfaction.

Included in

Psychology Commons

• Collections
• Faculty Expert Gallery
• Theses and Dissertations
• Conferences and Events
• Open Educational Resources (OER)
• Explore Disciplines

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS .

Faculty Authors

• Submit Research
• Expert Gallery Login

Student Authors

• Undergraduate Submissions
• Graduate Submissions
• Honors Submissions

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Job Satisfaction as a Correlate of Job Performance of Library Staff in Federal University Libraries in South-East, Nigeria

African Journal of Educational Management, Teaching and Entrepreneurship Studies, Vol. 12(1) May-August, 2024

Posted: 19 Sep 2024

Obiora Kingsley Udem

Department of Library and Information Science, Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka, Nigeria

Mary George Bassey

Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka Nigeria

Date Written: June 12, 2024

The study examined job satisfaction as correlate of job performance of library staff in Federal University libraries in South-East, Nigeria. Three research questions guided the study, and three hypotheses were tested at a 0.05 level of significance. A correlational research design was adopted for the study. The population comprised 299 library staff, which included academic librarians and library officers from the five federal university libraries in the South-East, Nigeria. Two validated instruments titled Library’s staff Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (LSJSQ), and Library’s staffs Job Performance Questionnaire (LSJPQ) were used for data collection. The instruments were tested for reliability using Cronbach's alpha. Using Cronbach's alpha, a reliability coefficients of 0.89 and 0.86 were obtained for LSJSDQ and LSJPQ respectively. Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) was used to answer research questions and test hypotheses. The findings of the study showed that there was a moderate positive relationship between job satisfaction and the job performance of library staff. There was moderate positive relationship between job satisfaction and job performance of male library staff, but a weak positive relationship among the female library staff. Moderate positive relationship between job satisfaction and the job performance of academic librarians, and a weak positive relationship between job satisfaction and the job performance of library officers’ was also observed. Based on the findings, the implications of the study were pointed out, among them is that it was recommended that the library management should develop policy that will increase and sustain the job satisfaction of the personnel by providing conducive work environment and recognition of inputs of the workforce.

Keywords: University Libraries, Library Staff, Job Performance, Job Satisfaction, Academic Librarians, Library Officers

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Obiora Kingsley Udem (Contact Author)

Department of library and information science, nnamdi azikiwe university awka, nigeria ( email ).

Awka Nigeria +2348038650447 (Phone)

Mary Bassey

Nnamdi azikiwe university, awka nigeria ( email ).

Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka Nigeria Nigeria

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, library management & operations ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

• Organizational Science
• Business Administration
• Organizational Culture

THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND JOB SATISFACTION ON EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE

• February 2024
• International Journal Multidisciplinary Science 3(1):65-73
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

No full-text available

To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

• Ken Satrio Utomo
• Harif Amali Rivai
• Laura Syahrul
• I Gusti Ngurah Raditya PUTRA
• I Made SARA
• Ni Wayan SITIARI

• Dwi Lestari
• Rofiatun Nasihah
• Shanty Komalasari

• Jasuha Saufa
• Tri Maryati
• Muhammad Busro
• A P Mangkunegara
• A Suharsimi
• H Sulaksono
• Mulyadi Wicaksono
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up